someblokecalleddave
Well-Known Member
There's a bloke in this years IPL that had an action like Adams don't recall his name though.
Videos and Links
- Thread starter someblokecalleddave
- Start date
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20628966/evolving-nathan-lyon-clears-all-doubts
Nice article on Lyon - particularly some of the quotes from Smith about how he is able to vary his bowling in different pitch conditions, using some of the basic spinners' variations, mixing topspin, sidespin and backspin, different grips, different arm angles and crease positions, variations in pace, variations in line, all to generate a wide variety of drift, dip, turn, bounce and skid.
Absolutely nothing better in the world than watching a spin bowler at the height of his mastery - its not about macho bullshit like "big turn", its about having that ball on the string, keeping the batsman constantly guessing, never bowling the same ball twice.
Nice article on Lyon - particularly some of the quotes from Smith about how he is able to vary his bowling in different pitch conditions, using some of the basic spinners' variations, mixing topspin, sidespin and backspin, different grips, different arm angles and crease positions, variations in pace, variations in line, all to generate a wide variety of drift, dip, turn, bounce and skid.
Absolutely nothing better in the world than watching a spin bowler at the height of his mastery - its not about macho bullshit like "big turn", its about having that ball on the string, keeping the batsman constantly guessing, never bowling the same ball twice.
Thivagar
Member
Nathan Lyon still gets "big turns". When you get "big turns" it means you are giving more revs, which means any adjustment you make to the seam position and angle will result in exaggerated behaviour by the ball. If you can get big turns, you can spin the ball in any condition. Two of the best spinners in the history of cricketers are big spinners.
And two weren't - Underwood and Kumble - but still got incredible amounts of wickets.
Most batsmen find that the more the ball turns, the easier it is to play, because lbw is no longer a threat. The perfect spinners delivery turns 6 inches.
Thivagar
Member
Underwood and Kumble are hardly brought up in discussions when it is about "best spinners". Underewood played in an era where there wasn't any sweep shots or attacking cricker.Murali and Warne picked up most of their wickets by catches and they also at times didn't turn much and made lbw very possible. Kumble struggled outside India. Kumble had variety of subtle variations, an SLA or an Offie can't arm himself with variations of that sort, bigger turns at least allows him to decieve batsment using variois amounts of dip and drip. Big turners still have to work on their "mastery" like any spinners. I dont think small turners have a chance in modern day cricket, even Lyon is limited to just Test Matches.
That seems the opposite to the view of most professional commentators, who have pointed out how effective bowlers like Narine, Ashwin, Jadeja, Badree, Shakib, Santner etc are in T20 cricket, despite not really turning the ball a huge amount. Good control, good pace, and mastery of subtle variations are the key to effective modern day spin bowling.
boogiespinner
Active Member
Some amazing historic footage on this youtube video!
Billywhizz
Member
Wow! some great footage and slomo's of the legends. Top find!!
boogiespinner
Active Member
thank you!! glad you enjoyed
Neville Young
Active Member
Thanks for that Boogiespinner. At 16.29 is my old coach George Tribe. A wonderful person who performed the "double" seven times for Northamptonshire. He once told me that word had got around in county cricket that you could pick his wrongun by sound. Apparently it was said that his fingers snapped together making a loud noise when he bowled his wrongun. He didn't believe it but quickly adjusted his practice sessions so that he could snap the fingers of his right hand at the moment of delivery. Once he mastered it in practice he used it in a game to great effect and he said it got him wickets for a couple of seasons. When batsmen had become somewhat used to his deception he began to use it when he did bowl the wrongun. He was a wonderful little bloke and what he knew about cricket was amazing.
Last edited:
boogiespinner
Active Member
Batsmen! :-D
Max Andrews
Member
Just wrote an article on coaching competence using two different views of learning. What are your thoughts on this? It's slightly different to my original essay but still gets my main point across. Do you guys agree or disagree with it or parts of it, and why?
http://www.pitchvision.com/coaching-competence#/
http://www.pitchvision.com/coaching-competence#/
Neville Young
Active Member
Hi Max,
It would help to clarify your article by identifying which of the two approaches (LAIP or LAMM) each of the following fall into:
This would make it more understandable immediately without reading through the article to sift through the information to find out.
In my coaching experience (for both cricket and table tennis) performance based players seem to suffer more from anxiety and loss of confidence than mastery oriented players.
I have noticed that this happens to a much greater extent in my table tennis players compared to cricketers and being an individual sport with an emphasis on player rankings and points is probably the reason why. "I've lost to a person ranked below me or I’ve won less games than people I know that I am better than". In most cases unless you can move them on to focus on mastery of skills they will continue to yoyo in confidence and application due to anxiety issues.
I believe that the exactly same things happen in cricket but it can be more difficult to detect due in part to it being a team sport, where lots of things can mask what is happening in the mind of a player from the coach. It also can be something that a player will try to hide from the coach or team captain if they are involved with the selection process.
Ego driven players stress out when things don’t go their way and tend to worry more about what their playing ability looks like to others rather than looking at what has to be done to fix the problem. They also tend to look for excuses to explain their failures.
Mastery oriented players look at what has happened and try to dissect the reasons for their failure and if they conclude that it is a skill or concentration issue they will work harder to improve the issue.
It’s a little like watching junior cricketers develop, the more advanced players can very often be a lot bigger and more physically advanced than their team mates. When they progress to senior level and they no longer have the physical advantages they used to enjoy, they can very easily fall by the wayside. Unlike their smaller team mates who have worked very hard to improve, they haven’t, as they have always enjoyed their physical advantages.
Lots of them simply don’t have the attitude and work ethics needed to progress in their improvement and when it gets harder they give up.
PS. You could also correct your spelling of the word “achieved”
It would help to clarify your article by identifying which of the two approaches (LAIP or LAMM) each of the following fall into:
- Mastery-oriented players tend to be motivated by enhancing their performance by learning and developing new skills.
- Contrast this to performance-oriented players who are ego driven; their notion of success is defined by them outperforming others, specifically when exerting less effort than their opponents.
This would make it more understandable immediately without reading through the article to sift through the information to find out.
In my coaching experience (for both cricket and table tennis) performance based players seem to suffer more from anxiety and loss of confidence than mastery oriented players.
I have noticed that this happens to a much greater extent in my table tennis players compared to cricketers and being an individual sport with an emphasis on player rankings and points is probably the reason why. "I've lost to a person ranked below me or I’ve won less games than people I know that I am better than". In most cases unless you can move them on to focus on mastery of skills they will continue to yoyo in confidence and application due to anxiety issues.
I believe that the exactly same things happen in cricket but it can be more difficult to detect due in part to it being a team sport, where lots of things can mask what is happening in the mind of a player from the coach. It also can be something that a player will try to hide from the coach or team captain if they are involved with the selection process.
Ego driven players stress out when things don’t go their way and tend to worry more about what their playing ability looks like to others rather than looking at what has to be done to fix the problem. They also tend to look for excuses to explain their failures.
Mastery oriented players look at what has happened and try to dissect the reasons for their failure and if they conclude that it is a skill or concentration issue they will work harder to improve the issue.
It’s a little like watching junior cricketers develop, the more advanced players can very often be a lot bigger and more physically advanced than their team mates. When they progress to senior level and they no longer have the physical advantages they used to enjoy, they can very easily fall by the wayside. Unlike their smaller team mates who have worked very hard to improve, they haven’t, as they have always enjoyed their physical advantages.
Lots of them simply don’t have the attitude and work ethics needed to progress in their improvement and when it gets harder they give up.
PS. You could also correct your spelling of the word “achieved”
Max Andrews
Member
Hi Neville
Thank you for your response. Learning as internal processes and learning as meaning-making can promote both mastery and ego climates. I have found that a mastery climate is fostered more easily with a meaning-making approach, but an internal processes approach will also encourage a mastery environment.
It's great to see that you have had similar experiences. I would agree that it is more obvious in an individual sport because of the comparative nature of the sport. But I think it is just as evident in team sports or school PE environments because you train with others; players are constantly comparing themselves to others and getting feedback on their competence relative to others in their team.
I love that you mentioned the junior development and that is absolutely correct. I have seen that so often in my own development and when watching others develop. As you said, the bigger players have a physical advantage and thus don't have to work as hard but then as soon as the smaller kids catch up then they often fall behind. But on junior development, I have also noticed that the bigger players tend to get picked earlier for rep teams or training squads and so they get this special training from coaches and the smaller kids fall behind even more (that is especially true in big city areas). Would you agree with that?
But you seem to really understand it well and this is great because I'd imagine you would be able to educate your sporting communities and promote appropriate behaviours.
Just quickly, because I didn't upload the article and it was slightly changed that would be why there was a spelling error, sorry about that.
Neville Young
Active Member
In discussions with a number of little aths officals quite a few years ago, they were well aware of kids who were more physically developed and their results. Their records showed that the bigger kids participation rates dropped off markedly when their results plateaued and they dropped out of the sport.
When kids were targeted for further development it wasn't just on results that kids were selected for coaching or in rep teams until they displayed the necessary attitude and application. In many cases bigger kids were ignored because they thought that they were going to drop out of the sport once they reached the maximum age for little aths.
You are right about junior cricket rep team selections. I guess that results are all that count for some coaches and managers and to be honest some of them probably aren't even aware of the problem.
I always looked at the kids work habits, their hunger to improve as well as their skill levels. If someone was younger than the kid they were competing against for a spot in the side I usually tended to go for the younger player to give them that extra experience and development time. You always need to think about the team you will get next year when you select rep teams.
It may well happen more in big city areas but that may simply be because kids from smaller towns may not experience the same access to coaching as their big city counterparts.
When kids were targeted for further development it wasn't just on results that kids were selected for coaching or in rep teams until they displayed the necessary attitude and application. In many cases bigger kids were ignored because they thought that they were going to drop out of the sport once they reached the maximum age for little aths.
You are right about junior cricket rep team selections. I guess that results are all that count for some coaches and managers and to be honest some of them probably aren't even aware of the problem.
I always looked at the kids work habits, their hunger to improve as well as their skill levels. If someone was younger than the kid they were competing against for a spot in the side I usually tended to go for the younger player to give them that extra experience and development time. You always need to think about the team you will get next year when you select rep teams.
It may well happen more in big city areas but that may simply be because kids from smaller towns may not experience the same access to coaching as their big city counterparts.
boogiespinner
Active Member
I think it's unfortunate that we bracket school children by strict age group not only for sport but in general. I found it such a worthwhile experience playing table tennis amongst adults while I was a teenager. I don't doubt it's pretty useful experience for teenagers to play with teams including adults if they are competent. But for school purposes why not mix the guys up according to ability rather than age?
I was rather small as a youngster, this placed me at a disadvantage for cricket (not so much table tennis) - I could have happily played with guys from the year below.
Most schools already do between 15 and 18. You have colts(u14) then 3rd, 2nd 1st xi etc
Neville Young
Active Member
Not the case here in Australia SLA. All teams are either age category eg.U15 etc. or in a Year level. At my school these are Year 7, Year 8, Year 9&10 and Year 11&12. At junior level there are more kids interested in playing so Year 7 and Year 8 have their own teams. As students get older and fewer students participate, the Year levels are combined.
If you have a junior student who is good enough to compete at senior level they can eg. a Year 8 wicket keeper might play in the Senior team. However, if they do then they are banned from competing in the same sport at junior level for the rest of the year.
boogiespinner
Active Member
why have I only just discovered this one?
Roald Bradstock (javelin thrower) shoulder stretch video
Roald Bradstock (javelin thrower) shoulder stretch video