The Top-spinner (wrist Spin Bowling)

Top Contributors
someblokecalleddave

someblokecalleddave

Well-Known Member
I've just done a search to see if there was already a thread dedicated to the Top-Spinner, as it's something I'm looking at, at the moment and there isn't, so here it is.

We don't here about anyone bowling Top-Spinners that much and they rarely get mentioned it seems. Usually they get mentioned in the context of a Leggie looking to progress to bowling the wrong un and having problems getting there and I say "Learn the Top-Spinner first as a half ways stage and then look to go to the Wrong Un as the next stage", which kind of writes it off as being not that exciting. Whereas I'm going to suggest here, that it's potentially a very useful ball and here's the justification...

We all know that the Leg Break is a very difficult delivery to master from the point of view that accuracy follows the mantra of 'Spin it hard first', just the action of spinning the ball hard means that it takes a lot of time to combine the 'Spin hard' aspect with the accuracy. I find that with the Top Spinner because you're bowling with over-spin it's far more conducive with getting accuracy, so you're still spinning hard, but because you're not trying to present the seam at any acute angle, it's easier.

I've seen a number of matches recently where slow bowlers have had a massive positive impact on the games and in most of these incidences, they've been Dibbly Dobbly seam up bowlers not bowling with spin. Yet despite this because of the accuracy they've bowler 10 or more overs in 50 over matches, come away with several maidens and one or two have claimed wickets as well. Fom my initial experiments with my neglected Top-Spinner I've found that it's far more accurate than my Leg Breaks and with the over-spin and combination of dip which that produces it looks to be very troublesome in comparison with my Leg Breaks?

The other observation is that I only have to angle my wrist very slightly to produce a small to medium leg break/Wrong Un, so logically it then follows that if I was to nail the Top-Spinner with regards to the line and length factor and use it as my stock ball, I would be getting the batsman to play straight bat defensive shots which would then be setting him up for the killer ball in the form of the small leggie/Wrong Un. All that with the chances that the over-spin and variation in speed always has the chance of producing a wicket off of the handle or gloves?

Sounds like plan doesn't it?

http://www.mpafirsteleven.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/wrist-spin-bowling-top-spinner.html

Just added this to my main blog.
 
Last edited:
Hey, it works for Saeed Ajmal. I'm amazed more leggies don't use the topspinner as their stock ball, it makes the googly far harder to pick as well.

You don't have to bowl it slow either to make the most of the dip. A quick topspinner can really jump off a length and be a horrible ball to deal with.
 
Anil kumble's stock ball was a top spinner. And for a long time I couldn't bowl the legbreak (best I could do was top spin) and from time to time, I go through phases when that happens.
The biggest issue with a spinner who bowls primarily topspin is that - if a batsman steps down the wicket, even if you beat him in flight, he can basically play straight through the line without worrying about being stumped or edging the ball. IF you rely on topspinners, you need hte batsman to play cross batted shots (sweep, cut, pull, slog) to get wickets
 
The topspinner was the last of the 'round the loop' deliveries I felt I was comfortable with and because of that it has never featured prominently in my bowling...much to my bowling's detriment. The lack of a topspinner makes a bowler more vulnerable on spinning and/or bouncy tracks as the batsman only has to be worried about extreme variations of spin (leg break and googly). I remember when I was younger that I had a batsman pinned down with leg beaks and googlies but for the life of me I couldn't get him out, if I had a decent topspinner then all I would've needed to do is toss one up and watch him glove the ball to a player in close.

I believe that as a bare minimum you need a leg break topspinner combo.
 
leftie600 said:
The topspinner was the last of the 'round the loop' deliveries I felt I was comfortable with and because of that it has never featured prominently in my bowling...much to my bowling's detriment. The lack of a topspinner makes a bowler more vulnerable on spinning and/or bouncy tracks as the batsman only has to be worried about extreme variations of spin (leg break and googly). I remember when I was younger that I had a batsman pinned down with leg beaks and googlies but for the life of me I couldn't get him out, if I had a decent topspinner then all I would've needed to do is toss one up and watch him glove the ball to a player in close.

I believe that as a bare minimum you need a leg break topspinner combo.
Click to expand...

When we're asked on here and over on my Youtube channel about where to go from the Leg Break, I generally say learn the Top Spinner next and not to go straight into learning the Wrong Un which most people seem to want to do.
 
Last edited:
someblokecalleddave said:
When we're asked on here and over on my Youtube channel about where to go from the Leg Break, I generally say learn the Top Spinner next and not to go straight into learning the Wrong Un which most people seem to want to do.
Click to expand...
Amen to that! That is what I coach as well.

Due to my grip, which has more in common with Iverson than Warne, I learnt the googly first, leg break second, OBS third and the topspinner fourth...unfortunately there was no one to learn from when I was developing my game hence the bizarre order.
 
I think some people's actions make them natural topspinners like Mushtaq, and they find it easy to get dip and bounce and bowl a well disguised googly but rarely get huge amounts of turn either way, and some people are more natural big square leg spinners like Warne whose natural variation is a slider and struggle to bowl a googly without it being really obvious.

Both are perfectly acceptable, you're better off just figuring out which one your action makes you and embracing it.

Same applies to finger spin btw: the more jerky modern subcontinental actions lead to more topspin (and the outside possibility of bowling a genuine doosra), whereas the traditional, smooth fingerspinner's action makes that impossible, but does lean more torwards to generating backspinning variations like undercutters and armballs. Compare and contrast Murali/Ajmal with Rehman/Swann.
 
the reason the topspinner in my opinion has fallen by the way side is due to covered wickets, and slower wickets. covered wickets cause less natural variation off the wicket, and slower wickets tend not to bounce as much, or 'bite' at the gloves, therefore spin becomes more important.
 
i have a question, and i couldn't figure out how to start a thread so i'll just ask it here. Will a top spinner dip to the same extent when bowled with a scrambled seam? People often talk about how a scrambled seem inhibits drift so i thought perhaps the same went for topspin. I prefer to bowl mine with a scrambled seem so that they're not so easily picked but if it means I'm sacrificing dip then i might have to mix them up a bit. cheers in advance for your answers guys!
 
Ben Baker said:
i have a question, and i couldn't figure out how to start a thread so i'll just ask it here. Will a top spinner dip to the same extent when bowled with a scrambled seam? People often talk about how a scrambled seem inhibits drift so i thought perhaps the same went for topspin. I prefer to bowl mine with a scrambled seem so that they're not so easily picked but if it means I'm sacrificing dip then i might have to mix them up a bit. cheers in advance for your answers guys!
Click to expand...

Yeah definitely, Murali always bowled with a scrambled seam and got a lot of both dip and drift. I don't think there is any evidence that a scrambled seam inhibits the magnus force, I've certainly never read that in any of my books on the subject, and the evidence provided from watching professional bowlers suggests the opposite.
 
Ben Baker said:
i have a question, and i couldn't figure out how to start a thread so i'll just ask it here. Will a top spinner dip to the same extent when bowled with a scrambled seam? People often talk about how a scrambled seem inhibits drift so i thought perhaps the same went for topspin. I prefer to bowl mine with a scrambled seem so that they're not so easily picked but if it means I'm sacrificing dip then i might have to mix them up a bit. cheers in advance for your answers guys!
Click to expand...
That was probably me that stuffed you up as I got a bit mixed up in another forum, SLA is right and I found this great quote re the magnus effect which is what causes drift:

"Because the Magnus effect is caused by friction drag, surface preparations that cause more friction drag on the balls surface cause more Magnus effect."

So basically the more 'rough stuff' (including the seam) that hits the air while the ball is spinning the more the ball will drift. Bowl a scrambled seam and get more dip and drift...or use some sandpaper on the ball.
 
leftie600 said:
That was probably me that stuffed you up as I got a bit mixed up in another forum, SLA is right and I found this great quote re the magnus effect which is what causes drift:

"Because the Magnus effect is caused by friction drag, surface preparations that cause more friction drag on the balls surface cause more Magnus effect."

So basically the more 'rough stuff' (including the seam) that hits the air while the ball is spinning the more the ball will drift. Bowl a scrambled seam and get more dip and drift...or use some sandpaper on the ball.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people get confused because of two things:

firstly, lots of professional commentators and even authors, talk about seam position as a shorthand for axis direction because for many years that was the prevailing orthodoxy of spin bowling, whereas in fact the two things are completely separate. People would say things like "to get topspin get the seam pointing towards the batsman", whereas what they mean is simply get the ball spinning towards the batsman, and that could be along the seam or with a scrambled seam.

secondly, if you are intending to bowl the ball with it spinning along the seam because that is how you have been taught, then saying "it came out with a scrambled seam" is synonymous with saying "it didn't come out right".

What I am interested in, but do not know the answer to, is what effect a scrambled seam has on the amount of turn. The orthodox argument says that landing the ball on the seam "provides more grip", but I'm unconvinced that this is definitely the case. Surely if a ball is bowled with a scrambled seam with sufficient revs, the rotating seam would come into contact with the pitch some point during the brief period of impact? Or does it make the turn more erratic (in which case surely this is a desirable outcome?).
 
Yep and unfortunately the commentators are all a lot of people have to go on, what annoyed me learning spin bowling was the general avoidance of defining in simple terms what is going on. I'm pretty sure I've got the magnus effect and the seam effect (for traditional and reverse swing) clear enough in my head now that I can easily explain it but only because of the links and discussion that's occurred here.

For spin we are talking about friction and the effect on the ball of the impact with the pitch. What we can state straight away is that for a cricket ball that still has the seam intact the axis along the seam is the strongest part of the ball and so if a ball lands on the seam it gives less and will bounces more. You can make a similar statement regarding spin, if the ball lands on the seam it will give less and spin more.
A ball spun and bowled cross seam has no guarantee that the seam will touch the surface when it lands but if the seam does hit the surface square on there is no reason why it shouldn't achieve the same turn as a 'regulation' delivery. In answer to the question, it should make the amount of turn erratic.
 
When I try and bowl a topspinner, it comes out really slow and loopy. Is there a particular reason for this? Am I doing something wrong? This happens to some of my friends as well, so it must be a common problem.
 
leftie600 said:
That was probably me that stuffed you up as I got a bit mixed up in another forum, SLA is right and I found this great quote re the magnus effect which is what causes drift:

"Because the Magnus effect is caused by friction drag, surface preparations that cause more friction drag on the balls surface cause more Magnus effect."

So basically the more 'rough stuff' (including the seam) that hits the air while the ball is spinning the more the ball will drift. Bowl a scrambled seam and get more dip and drift...or use some sandpaper on the ball.
Click to expand...


I agree with most of your post, but not the conclusion. When you are bowling with orthodox rotations (spinning perpendicular to seam, seam not scrambled) is when you have maximum rough surface contacting with the air. When you scramble the seam, the rough(er) surface of the ball (or the seam stitches) come into contact with the air only twice every rotation. So, lets say a seam occupies about 5 degrees on the ball (the total rotation is obviously 360 degree). So, scrambled seam gives magnus effect only 1/36th of the total time the ball is in flight. Whereas when you bowl with the ball spinning along the seam, it gives magnus effect for the entire time of flight.
Here I am assuming that rest of the ball surface is very smooth compared to the rough stitches of seam.
 
shrek said:
I agree with most of your post, but not the conclusion. When you are bowling with orthodox rotations (spinning perpendicular to seam, seam not scrambled) is when you have maximum rough surface contacting with the air. When you scramble the seam, the rough(er) surface of the ball (or the seam stitches) come into contact with the air only twice every rotation. So, lets say a seam occupies about 5 degrees on the ball (the total rotation is obviously 360 degree). So, scrambled seam gives magnus effect only 1/36th of the total time the ball is in flight. Whereas when you bowl with the ball spinning along the seam, it gives magnus effect for the entire time of flight.
Here I am assuming that rest of the ball surface is very smooth compared to the rough stitches of seam.
Click to expand...
That's very interesting. Even though more and more people seem to be converting to the scrambled seam way of thinking, i can't help but notice that the orthodox rotation does cause considerable drift.
 
shrek said:
I agree with most of your post, but not the conclusion. When you are bowling with orthodox rotations (spinning perpendicular to seam, seam not scrambled) is when you have maximum rough surface contacting with the air. When you scramble the seam, the rough(er) surface of the ball (or the seam stitches) come into contact with the air only twice every rotation. So, lets say a seam occupies about 5 degrees on the ball (the total rotation is obviously 360 degree). So, scrambled seam gives magnus effect only 1/36th of the total time the ball is in flight. Whereas when you bowl with the ball spinning along the seam, it gives magnus effect for the entire time of flight.
Here I am assuming that rest of the ball surface is very smooth compared to the rough stitches of seam.
Click to expand...
I would argue that the effect of the ridge of the scrambled seam for a topspinner is more effective at emphasising the effect than having the seam pointing straight down the wicket despite the fact the ridge will only interact with the air flow twice every rotation. A matter of conjecture I guess, personally I obtain enough drift using both.

Mind you, I'm definitely not claiming to be that knowledgable on the subject as I'm just a club hack like most people on here.
 
leftie600 said:
I would argue that the effect of the ridge of the scrambled seam for a topspinner is more effective at emphasising the effect than having the seam pointing straight down the wicket despite the fact the ridge will only interact with the air flow twice every rotation. A matter of conjecture I guess, personally I obtain enough drift using both.

Mind you, I'm definitely not claiming to be that knowledgable on the subject as I'm just a club hack like most people on here.
Click to expand...


In my own experience a top spinner will dip even if it is bowled with a scrambled seam. The reason why many people think the upright seam top spinner dips more is because they put more revs on the ball with the conventional grip ( that's my theory ) In the conventional grip you hold the ball with your spinning finger on the seam so naturally you put a lot of revs on the ball since you finger is touching a rough, rigid part of the ball which allows better grip and reduces slipping. If you want to bowl with a scrambled seam you finger is touching the glance of the ball which may cause slipping, or some part of you finger does touch the seam but not as much as in the conventional grip. If you bowl the top spinner with the seam upright or scrambled and each of them has the same amount of revs, I don't think there would be much difference.

The top spinner is probably the most underrated variation in the history of cricket. There was an interesting part in Bob Woolmers' book about the percentage of batsmen that pick certain variations. I don't remember the exact percentages but I believe these are accurate enough: Leg spinner: 90% Wrong 'un: 50% Flipper: 27% Orthodox backspinner: 17% Top spinner: 10%

Only 10% of batsmen could pick it! Those statistics also show that the googly is indeed the most overrated variation there is. Everyone makes a big fuss about it but lets be honest with ourselves, 50% of batsmen pick it, and how many of them are actually trying to pick it / know what a googly is? The top spinner also has the potential to be an incredibly devastating delivery if you get a very small amount of side spin on it. The more top spin there is on a ball, the later it will start to drift. We all are supposed to be able to put more revs on a top spinner than a leg break (the wrist which is the spring and vessel of the finger moves in the same direction as the arm - more momentum = more revs) so if we get just a millimeter of side spin on the ball it will drift alarmingly late! It also helps disguise your googly better ( so only 45% of batsmen can pick it:p) and there is a chance that it could swing a bit given the right seam presentation and rough / smooth sides on the right side of the ball.

One disturbing thing that I've noticed is that most batsmen aren't bothered by dip!!! They don't try to expect the flight path of the ball etc. they just play the ball off the pitch, and couldn't care less about what it does through the air. I call these batsmen "safe players" since they are completely safe against my most dangerous weapons, dip and drift:confused:... Most of the time they are tail enders, but on the odd occasion opening batsmen too. The other batsmen all try to judge the length of the deliveries and fail miserably because of the dip. A top spinner is a great variation to bowl to them. But let me tell you, a top spinner to a safe player is so worthless, you'd do better trying to get them out with a long hop nothing ball. At least that has a chance to go into the throat of an outfielder...
 
someblokecalleddave said:
Just updated my blog with some images and illustrations and ideas about using the Top-Spinner, feed back would be good if I've missed something or got it completely wrong....
http://www.mpafirsteleven.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/wrist-spin-bowling-top-spinner.html
Click to expand...
well from my rough estimate last night I think that the dip effect is rather more subtle. I can't believe it's anything like that.

Happy Xmas!!

getsmiley.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top