Plastic Balls For Practice

Top Contributors
MagicDave said:
Playing devils advocate for the argument about big turn (and because I'm still learning planning), how might you plan to set up a batsman to get his wicket?

I remember Warne bowling Strauss behind his legs as he attempts to pad the ball away but it doesn't seem like a strategy you could repeat every time. I know Warne does try it regularly (bowling Gooch in a similar way but with less turn) but surely you would need to set a batter up first beforehand?

Its easier to see a plan using a ball that is intended to only just beat the bat (looking for an edge) or one using variations in speed/flight (looking for the catch from the false shot) but aside from putting a bit of doubt in the batters mind to try and get him to rush out to the pitch of the ball, I'm not sure how I might get a wicket with a square turner?
Click to expand...

You're spot on. The answer is, you can't really. A canny batsman will just be sure to position his pads so as to cut off the line of the stumps, and then use the angle you have given him to get the ball away into the gaps.

I coach batsmen on how to play spin, and one of the first lessons is how to use big turn against the bowler.

First thing we teach young spinners is the concept of the dual threat - that is, the importance of attacking both edges of the bat at once. If you're turning the ball two foot, you simply can't do that. One ball is wide outside off, the other is harmlessly down the legside.
 
SLA said:
First thing we teach young spinners is the concept of the dual threat - that is, the importance of attacking both edges of the bat at once. If you're turning the ball two foot, you simply can't do that. One ball is wide outside off, the other is harmlessly down the legside.
Click to expand...

SLA, I would like your opinion on my analysis of what it means to threaten both sides of the bat.
I mentioned in my post that you have to turn the ball at least 6 inches to beat the bat or get a nick, assuming that the batsman played straight down the line of the ball, which he will NOT do unless he is totally incompetent. It is also rather easy to position the bat diagonally and make late adjustments to cover that insignificant amount of turn that you are advocating.
In my opinion and experience, you need at least 12 inches or more of turn, COMBINED with lots of dip, drift and pace in order to cause a competent batsman to miss the ball or get a nick. How do you propose one does this without getting lots of spin on the ball?
How?
It is physically impossible.
Two feet of spin is not a good idea to be using as a stock ball, but I just stated in my previous posts that it is not the sideways length of turn that matters, but the sharpness of angle.
Anyway, I personally have seen many, many bowlers capable of bowling
1) accurate
2) fast
3) dipping
4) drifting
5) 12 inch+ turning
deliveries. Please explain to me how that is in any way inferior to the deliveries that you are advocating?
Also, 12 inches of turn isn't even close to two feet, but I would call it sufficient turn, so you are exaggerating what I consider to be big turn. Anything more than 12 inches would simply be an added benefit to be used sparingly when necessary, as a useful weapon.
It is not a curse to have an ability to turn the ball big, it's just stupid if you try to mindlessly turn every ball square when you could instead turn it functionally and use bigger turn when needed.
 
Chino#21 said:
SLA, I would like your opinion on my analysis of what it means to threaten both sides of the bat.
I mentioned in my post that you have to turn the ball at least 6 inches to beat the bat or get a nick, assuming that the batsman played straight down the line of the ball, which he will NOT do unless he is totally incompetent. It is also rather easy to position the bat diagonally and make late adjustments to cover that insignificant amount of turn that you are advocating.
In my opinion and experience, you need at least 12 inches or more of turn, COMBINED with lots of dip, drift and pace in order to cause a competent batsman to miss the ball or get a nick. How do you propose one does this without getting lots of spin on the ball?
How?
It is physically impossible.
Two feet of spin is not a good idea to be using as a stock ball, but I just stated in my previous posts that it is not the sideways length of turn that matters, but the sharpness of angle.
Anyway, I personally have seen many, many bowlers capable of bowling
1) accurate
2) fast
3) dipping
4) drifting
5) 12 inch+ turning
deliveries. Please explain to me how that is in any way inferior to the deliveries that you are advocating?
Also, 12 inches of turn isn't even close to two feet, but I would call it sufficient turn, so you are exaggerating what I consider to be big turn. Anything more than 12 inches would simply be an added benefit to be used sparingly when necessary, as a useful weapon.
It is not a curse to have an ability to turn the ball big, it's just stupid if you try to mindlessly turn every ball square when you could instead turn it functionally and use bigger turn when needed.
Click to expand...

Position the bat diagonally? Is that a new technique you have invented?

How wide is a cricket bat? Divide that number by two. That's how much you have to turn the ball to find the edge.

You may argue that a good batsman will simply play for the turn. But think about it. That just leaves him vulnerable to the straight ball. So he is in trouble no matter what he does. Keep it simple. Pitch on the stumps, hit the stumps, and you've got him. Turn it too much and it will miss the stumps and miss the edge, too
 
SLA said:
First thing we teach young spinners is the concept of the dual threat - that is, the importance of attacking both edges of the bat at once. If you're turning the ball two foot, you simply can't do that. One ball is wide outside off, the other is harmlessly down the legside.
Click to expand...
We have already discussed that distance is not a useful measure of turn. The sharper you can turn it, the further up you can pitch it without the batsman being able to play you safely.

Chino#21 this is not going to get anywhere. You know as well as I do that actually spinning the ball is the very idea of spin bowling and it is no concidence that the best spin bowlers consistently put 2000+ revolutions per minute on the ball and the greatest 2400+. SLA clearly quit trying to do this, understandably because it is exceptionally hard to do and have the necessary accuracy, fair enough, and I don't doubt his success at amateur level, but he tries to argue in various convoluted ways that it's not even a desirable aspiration.
 
boogiespinner said:
We have already discussed that distance is not a useful measure of turn. The sharper you can turn it, the further up you can pitch it without the batsman being able to play you safely.

Chino#21 this is not going to get anywhere. You know as well as I do that actually spinning the ball is the very idea of spin bowling and it is no concidence that the best spin bowlers consistently put 2000+ revolutions per minute on the ball and the greatest 2400+. SLA clearly quit trying to do this, understandably because it is exceptionally hard to do and have the necessary accuracy, fair enough, and I don't doubt his success at amateur level, but he tries to argue in various convoluted ways that it's not even a desirable aspiration.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, when have I ever said that it isn't a fundamental part of spin bowling to generate plenty of revs on the ball?
 
boogiespinner said:
We have already discussed that distance is not a useful measure of turn. The sharper you can turn it, the further up you can pitch it without the batsman being able to play you safely.
.
Click to expand...

A simplistic and naive theory, because of course if you pitch the ball too close to the batsmen, he won't simply wait conveniently for it to drop, pitch, and take his edge, he will simply reach forward and wallop it on the full toss. You need to keep the landing point at least a bats length from the front foot stride, if not more.

It's good that you think about the things, but your lack of either bowling experience or coaching education shows. This is stuff that any reasonably regular spin bowler would know.
 
SLA said:
Position the bat diagonally? Is that a new technique you have invented?

How wide is a cricket bat? Divide that number by two. That's how much you have to turn the ball to find the edge.

You may argue that a good batsman will simply play for the turn. But think about it. That just leaves him vulnerable to the straight ball. So he is in trouble no matter what he does. Keep it simple. Pitch on the stumps, hit the stumps, and you've got him. Turn it too much and it will miss the stumps and miss the edge, too
Click to expand...
By diagonally I meant angling the bat downwards so that the ball won't jump up in the air off the bat if it bounces extra, as well as slightly opening the face which would enable you to avoid nicks.

International batsmen play for turn. If you've ever watched cricket in your life you would know this. Perhaps you should become an international coach and teach these fools how to really bat against spin.

SLA said:
Just out of interest, when have I ever said that it isn't a fundamental part of spin bowling to generate plenty of revs on the ball?
Click to expand...
You ignore my logical statement that if you are able to get lots of turn while still getting dip, drift and pace, then you must automatically be putting lots of revs on the ball. So we are actually in agreement. Lots of revs on the ball is one of the most important aspects of spin bowling.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that the application if these revs should be to put mostly overspin or backspin on the ball to minimize lateral movement off the pitch, and maximize movement through the air?
If this is true, then I agree with you, that is a valid tactic. However, nothing stops you from varying that tactic and using pure side spin to generate big turn on occasion, as every international spin bowler has done on occasion to great effect. I mean, just because you actually turn one ball a bit more won't cause you to get hit for six, will it? No, it might even take a wicket, as we have seen happening countless times in the past and present.
 
Chino#21 said:
By diagonally I meant angling the bat downwards so that the ball won't jump up in the air off the bat if it bounces extra, as well as slightly opening the face which would enable you to avoid nicks.

International batsmen play for turn. If you've ever watched cricket in your life you would know this. Perhaps you should become an international coach and teach these fools how to really bat against spin.


You ignore my logical statement that if you are able to get lots of turn while still getting dip, drift and pace, then you must automatically be putting lots of revs on the ball. So we are actually in agreement. Lots of revs on the ball is one of the most important aspects of spin bowling.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that the application if these revs should be to put mostly overspin or backspin on the ball to minimize lateral movement off the pitch, and maximize movement through the air?
If this is true, then I agree with you, that is a valid tactic. However, nothing stops you from varying that tactic and using pure side spin to generate big turn on occasion, as every international spin bowler has done on occasion to great effect. I mean, just because you actually turn one ball a bit more won't cause you to get hit for six, will it? No, it might even take a wicket, as we have seen happening countless times in the past and present.
Click to expand...

Slightly opening the face makes a nick more likely, not less.
 
SLA said:
A simplistic and naive theory, because of course if you pitch the ball too close to the batsmen, he won't simply wait conveniently for it to drop, pitch, and take his edge, he will simply reach forward and wallop it on the full toss. You need to keep the landing point at least a bats length from the front foot stride, if not more.

It's good that you think about the things, but your lack of either bowling experience or coaching education shows. This is stuff that any reasonably regular spin bowler would know.
Click to expand...
You are missing your own point that a batsman can (and should) play forward with his stride and bat to shorten the length of a ball pitched around or behind the landing point you mention, thus smothering turn. He can thus cover a range of turn values.

He can also come out of his crease to hit on the half volley. Against a weakly turning ball this strategy is sound because the ball doesn't get to move far sideways. Against a sharply turning ball it is a very risky proposition.
 
Last edited:
boogiespinner said:
You are missing your own point that a batsman can (and should) play forward with his stride and bat to shorten the length of a ball pitched around or behind the landing point you mention, thus smothering turn. He can thus cover a range of turn values.

He can also come out of his crease to hit on the half volley. Against a weakly turning ball this strategy is sound because the ball doesn't get to move far sideways. Against a sharply turning ball it is a very risky proposition.
Click to expand...


Maybe I didn't explain simply enough. A batsman can reach out further with his bat - to play a horizontal bat shot - a good 3 feet further than he can stride. You know, that, right?

This is just basic stuff. As is the fact that if a batsman leaves his crease, you don't try to beat him off the pitch, you try to beat him in the flight.

Again, basic stuff, the kind of thing we teach to 12 year olds just starting to learn to bowl spin. and yet, you don't understand it.
 
SLA said:
Maybe I didn't explain simply enough. A batsman can reach out further with his bat - to play a horizontal bat shot - a good 3 feet further than he can stride. You know, that, right?
Click to expand...
If you are forcing the batsman to play horizontal bat shots, sweeps, slog sweeps, you are doing well. This is the then the time for topspinners / sliders / flippers, variations of bounce height

This is just basic stuff. As is the fact that if a batsman leaves his crease, you don't try to beat him off the pitch, you try to beat him in the flight.
Click to expand...
Of course if you see the batsman leaving the crease you drop it shorter or fire it wide for the stumping. I am referring to the batsman's strategy of not giving his intention away in time.

Again, basic stuff, the kind of thing we teach to 12 year olds just starting to learn to bowl spin. and yet, you don't understand it.
Click to expand...
I feel not only for your 12 year olds but just about the coaching of any young legspinner. No wonder we have so few of them. If I was coaching a youngster I would have them practice from nowhere near 22 yards and let them bowl seam up in matches.
 
boogiespinner said:
If you are forcing the batsman to play horizontal bat shots, sweeps, slog sweeps, you are doing well. This is the then the time for topspinners / sliders / flippers, variations of bounce height


Of course if you see the batsman leaving the crease you drop it shorter or fire it wide for the stumping. I am referring to the batsman's strategy of not giving his intention away in time.

I feel not only for your 12 year olds but just about the coaching of any young legspinner. No wonder we have so few of them. If I was coaching a youngster I would have them practice from nowhere near 22 yards and let them bowl seam up in matches.
Click to expand...


Why don't you try to become a coach?
 
SLA said:
Do try to control your temper Chino. You were incredibly rude to magic Dave, and you're really not contributing constructively to this website.
Click to expand...

Every attempt at being constructive on this website is undermined by your superiority complex. Also you are a hypocrite, I would call the veiled profanity you used against members on this forum rude. Dare you now accuse myself of being rude and having a temper, when you are the first to absolutely lose your mind and wits every single time someone dares to say something remotely opposed to your opinion? I guess I'll be making use of the "ignore" option from now on.
 
Chino#21 said:
Every attempt at being constructive on this website is undermined by your superiority complex. Also you are a hypocrite, I would call the veiled profanity you used against members on this forum rude. Dare you now accuse myself of being rude and having a temper, when you are the first to absolutely lose your mind and wits every single time someone dares to say something remotely opposed to your opinion? I guess I'll be making use of the "ignore" option from now on.
Click to expand...

Easiest way to ignore the discussion is to simply stop visiting the website. Try it.
 
boogiespinner said:
Admittedly not. But how could it be necessary to read your entire back catalogue to identify something fundamental to your philosophy?
Click to expand...

It isn't. I say it quite often. I perhaps just say it in a more considered and nuanced manner than some others here, emphasising the different uses of spin rather than just generating turn, the necessity to get a balance between spin, pace and accuracy, and the importance of tactical and strategic considerations in different situations.

And of course, spin is a ultimately just a means of taking wickets and winning cricket games, not an end in itself. After all, this is a cricket forum, not circus tricks forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top