Ajaml is definatly a chucker theres no way the doosra can be bowled legally etc

http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan-v-england-2012/content/current/story/552579.html

•Ajmal's action is well within the ICC range of tolerance. While he does bowl with a bend in his arm, it does not straighten more, on average, than about eight degrees.


•His arm does come through at a bent angle but that is allowed so long as it doesn't straighten beyond the tolerance level.


•The figure of 23.5 degrees mentioned by Ajmal is the average angle of his arm at the beginning of delivery.


•The ICC put Ajmal, along with other bowlers, under constant scrutiny and evidence suggests that there has been no significant deterioration in Ajmal's action since he was tested in 2009.


•Contrary to widespread belief, Ajmal's off-break and quicker ball actually cause his arm to straighten more - though only a fraction more - than his much-debated doosra.



The main issue seems to be a misunderstanding of the rules. The arm does not have to be remotely straight, its the amount of angle change during the bowling action thats the issue. Like Murali Ajmal starts with a bent arm, and only flexes this well within the limits of toleration when bowling. It would be very hard to bowl any ball without a slight flexation of the arm or with it held dead straight ( something many people, including Ajmal and myself are physicaly incapable of doing)

Ajmal cannot straighten his arm more than within 8 degrees, hence his action has been proved legal by the ICC

Cant we just accept that he is quality?

If Johan botha is chucking his, then most of them are, Botha has also proved that medcally his arm can't straighten, and yet he is not allowed to bowl it.

Biltong,

Clealry in his case he must be flewing his arm to do it. Its not whether you can or cant get your arm straight thats the issue, its how much you change that angle during bowling. If hes been banned then clealry he is moving it beyond the tolerated limits, and throwing the ball.

In teh case of Ajmal its quite evident form the above that the ICC have been regulalry monitoring his action and that it is legal.

Just because one guy chucks doesnt mean everyone else does.

8 degrees is a tiny amount, why does he look like his arm bends more than Muralis did, afterall Murali really does have deformed arms?

Ajmal does have a lot of talent though, I wish I had 10% of his skills.

ReallyReal wrote:8 degrees is a tiny amount, why does he look like his arm bends more than Muralis did, afterall Murali really does have deformed arms?

Ajmal does have a lot of talent though, I wish I had 10% of his skills.

As above his arm starts bent at around 23.5 degrees but changes little from that. Its not the bend that the issue, its the amount of flex from that. The shoulder and wrist can do what they want, and some of these guys have freaky joints.

Pete, I don't really care about it, as I don't understand it to be honest.

Just thought I would get it out there.

Pete, I don't really care about it, as I don't understand it to be honest.

-------------------

Me neither.

Bores me to tears tbh.

Whaddup stella, haven't seen you around for a while.

biltongbek wrote:Whaddup stella, haven't seen you around for a while.

------------------------

I do work.................sometimes

I try to work sometimes.

Haha well Biltong thats covered by the final point in the cricinfo summary:

"•The ICC is reluctant to discuss bowling actions in detail because officials fear the subject is too complicated to explain. "

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Haha well Biltong thats covered by the final point in the cricinfo summary:

"•The ICC is reluctant to discuss bowling actions in detail because officials fear the subject is too complicated to explain. "

It reminds me of actuaries, they believe the costings calcualtion for investment products are too complicated for mere mortals. I often wonder if the problem isn't that it is too complicated for them. You know the saying of BS baffles brains.

Actuaries are weird. The 3-year post-graduate training program is so brutal it gets to them.

Kiwireddevil wrote:Actuaries are weird. The 3-year post-graduate training program is so brutal it gets to them.

It must be where most of them get those nervous twitches.

I read somewhere that Caucasian bowlers tend to have a difficulty bowling the doosra within legal limits but several bowlers from the subcontinent can do so. Can anyone confirm/refute this?

ShahenshahG wrote:I read somewhere that Caucasian bowlers tend to have a difficulty bowling the doosra within legal limits but several bowlers from the subcontinent can do so. Can anyone confirm/refute this?

Racist BS if you ask me, we do have serious problems in Britain with overcoaching natural talent out of youngsters though, so I guess this is why we hardly ever produce any kind of mystery spinners

Bruce Elliott, the UWA professor who is also the ICC biomechanist, had made an interesting discovery in his dealings with finger spinners. "He said he had found that a lot of bowlers from the subcontinent could bowl the doosra legally, but not Caucasian bowlers," Barnes said. "Actually a lot of guys bowl the doosra in the nets, but they won't risk it in a match."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/404772.html

Found it - i read it a few weeks back

Gregers wrote:Ajmal cannot straighten his arm more than within 8 degrees, hence his action has been proved legal by the ICC

Cant we just accept that he is quality?

gregers, ajmal is quality you are right, however it is the most obvious and blatant chuck i have seen for a long time....the 'teesra' made a right mockery of the rules as well.

Perhaps we should not call it the doosra, but rather the Chuckra

Ajmal maybe a chucker but he is a legal chucker.

Unlike Glen Mcgrath....

And so it goes.

Fact is he doesnt bend his arm as much as many bowlers do, and less in his controversial delivery than his stock ball. If youre going to define it as chucking and ban him then kiss goodbye to spin bowling and a good number of seamers.

The ICC have got themselves into a right mess on this, by trying to allow an objective tolerance (that is, measured within a certain number of degrees) on elbow flex. This is contrary to the Laws of cricket

Law 24.3:
Definition of fair delivery - the arm
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler’s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

I'm quite certain Ajmal's action, and that of a lot of other spinners including Murali, is legal within the ICC guidelines, but is clearly in contravention of the MCC Law. I know that with cameras, and particularly high speed cameras, watching the bowling action, a small degree of elbow flex will happen in for many bowlers, so perhaps the Law should include the word 'visibly' or 'perceptively' meaning that it is a movement visible to the naked eye in real time.

I have to say that watching some of the IPL last year, I was amazed how many of the spinners had bent elbows that clearly flexed during delivery.

dummy_half wrote:The ICC have got themselves into a right mess on this, by trying to allow an objective tolerance (that is, measured within a certain number of degrees) on elbow flex. This is contrary to the Laws of cricket

Law 24.3:
Definition of fair delivery - the arm
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler’s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

I'm quite certain Ajmal's action, and that of a lot of other spinners including Murali, is legal within the ICC guidelines, but is clearly in contravention of the MCC Law. I know that with cameras, and particularly high speed cameras, watching the bowling action, a small degree of elbow flex will happen in for many bowlers, so perhaps the Law should include the word 'visibly' or 'perceptively' meaning that it is a movement visible to the naked eye in real time.

I have to say that watching some of the IPL last year, I was amazed how many of the spinners had bent elbows that clearly flexed during delivery.

It used to be 10 degrees allowed for fast bowlers and 5 for spinners. This was contested by a few who pointed out that there was no reason for fast bowlers to be allowed greater flex than spinners.

The ICC carried out an extensive research during the Murali saga which showed that a lot of bowlers (including for example Glen McGrath) flex their elbows upto 11 or 12 degrees. Thus the ICC realised they had to change their guidelines to incorporate the new science findings (which as far as I can tell are sound): they chose the rather arbitrary 15 degree mark (some have since said this corresponds to what you can detect with the naked eye, which I don't believe was ever part of the original research), which happily meant Murali's doosra (measured in test conditions at 14.5 degrees) was legal.

The point about the naked eye is that it is deceptive. Someone who starts with a big flex in their elbow will always look to us like they are chucking it, even if their elbow barely straightens. So when you say "clearly flexed" I'm afraid you're saying "to my eye which is fatally flawed there appears to be a clear flex".

I think the point is we have to trust the science here. Otherwise we join "flat earthers" and others.

My point with the doosra is that I don't believe you can bowl it without knowingly flexing your elbow. I don't believe McGrath ever knew he was flexing. I believe Ajmal knows and knows he can't bowl without it. Whether and how that could be taken into consideration is another matter.

im sorry but a doosra is illegal, it can only be bowled by flexing your elbow.

But any ball can only be bowled by flexing the elbow unless its Sarwan - he is the only legal bowler in the world?

Mike Selig wrote:

dummy_half wrote:The ICC have got themselves into a right mess on this, by trying to allow an objective tolerance (that is, measured within a certain number of degrees) on elbow flex. This is contrary to the Laws of cricket

Law 24.3:
Definition of fair delivery - the arm
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler’s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

I'm quite certain Ajmal's action, and that of a lot of other spinners including Murali, is legal within the ICC guidelines, but is clearly in contravention of the MCC Law. I know that with cameras, and particularly high speed cameras, watching the bowling action, a small degree of elbow flex will happen in for many bowlers, so perhaps the Law should include the word 'visibly' or 'perceptively' meaning that it is a movement visible to the naked eye in real time.

I have to say that watching some of the IPL last year, I was amazed how many of the spinners had bent elbows that clearly flexed during delivery.

It used to be 10 degrees allowed for fast bowlers and 5 for spinners. This was contested by a few who pointed out that there was no reason for fast bowlers to be allowed greater flex than spinners.

The ICC carried out an extensive research during the Murali saga which showed that a lot of bowlers (including for example Glen McGrath) flex their elbows upto 11 or 12 degrees. Thus the ICC realised they had to change their guidelines to incorporate the new science findings (which as far as I can tell are sound): they chose the rather arbitrary 15 degree mark (some have since said this corresponds to what you can detect with the naked eye, which I don't believe was ever part of the original research), which happily meant Murali's doosra (measured in test conditions at 14.5 degrees) was legal.

The point about the naked eye is that it is deceptive. Someone who starts with a big flex in their elbow will always look to us like they are chucking it, even if their elbow barely straightens. So when you say "clearly flexed" I'm afraid you're saying "to my eye which is fatally flawed there appears to be a clear flex".

I think the point is we have to trust the science here. Otherwise we join "flat earthers" and others.

My point with the doosra is that I don't believe you can bowl it without knowingly flexing your elbow. I don't believe McGrath ever knew he was flexing. I believe Ajmal knows and knows he can't bowl without it. Whether and how that could be taken into consideration is another matter.

Quite Mike. The decision to set at 15 degrees does smell a little dubious with how well it fitted for Murali but in the case of Ajmal even when presented with scientific evidence and a full explanation people still revert back to "yeah but he still chucks".
Even someone with their elbow joint fused with titanium rods would still have some nanometers of flexation in the arm. Under the ludicrously literal reading of the law noone can bowl and cricket is dead.

Mike

"It used to be 10 degrees allowed for fast bowlers and 5 for spinners. This was contested by a few who pointed out that there was no reason for fast bowlers to be allowed greater flex than spinners."

Wasn't the 10 degrees because of Shoaib Akthar's weirdly flexible arm?

I'm not an expert on biomechanics, but I can see a logic in quick bowlers being allowed a bit more 'play' because the speed of rotation of the arm is going to produce a bit of a 'whip' effect (similar to how a golf club flexes during a swing - the quicker you bring it through, the further the shaft flexes and the head gets left behind).

The old Channel 9 fast bowler contest is interesting viewing in light of these regulations - guys trying to bowl as quick as possible and this being judged, at least in part, by the use of high speed cameras looking side on at the point of release.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPDW7hj1yfs

Roberts looks to have the least amount of movement in his arm, but several of the other guys, including Lillee and Hadlee (two of the best 'classical' fast bowlers) definitely have a bit of movement as the elbow comes up, although most have the arm straight a bit before release. Viewed at full speed though, I don't think you'd question any of their actions, in the same way that McGrath's looks perfectly OK in real time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GrOLdi5s0M

if you had never watched him before, and saw him bowl for the first time, you would turn round and say 'oi he's chucking that'!

cricketfan90 wrote:if you had never watched him before, and saw him bowl for the first time, you would turn round and say 'oi he's chucking that'!

So? My point is appearances are deceptive, and science tells us he doesn't chuck more than Glen McGrath did. If you didn't know better you'd think the earth was flat, it certainly seems so.

Saying "I don't care what science says, my eyes say he chucks it" is just deluted, I'm sorry.

Are we talking about Ajmal? The first time I did see him the initial reaction was what a weird action. Then watched the replay and was quite happy. Then he got reported and I wondered and once they cleared him there was no doubt.

Those poor guys from the 60s must be wondering what on earth's going on. Guys with even the slightest dodgy actions were booted out of the game, or forced to remodel their actions.
Now, with the whole world "lawyered up", almost anything is seen as legit. Yet some old cricketers, who ought to know better, reckon it's OK as "so-and-so is not fast, so there's no problem"
I CAN TELL YOU THERE IS A PROBLEM. IT'S CALLED CHEATING. I would say that anyone who has ever done chuck downs to give an incoming batsman some practice would tell you that you can impart far more spin from a bent arm than a straight one.

sirfredperry wrote:Those poor guys from the 60s must be wondering what on earth's going on. Guys with even the slightest dodgy actions were booted out of the game, or forced to remodel their actions.
Now, with the whole world "lawyered up", almost anything is seen as legit. Yet some old cricketers, who ought to know better, reckon it's OK as "so-and-so is not fast, so there's no problem"
I CAN TELL YOU THERE IS A PROBLEM. IT'S CALLED CHEATING. I would say that anyone who has ever done chuck downs to give an incoming batsman some practice would tell you that you can impart far more spin from a bent arm than a straight one.

I'm not sure what the problem is?
The scientific evidence tells us all bowlers "chuck" (that is to say, straighten their arm during the process of delivering the ball) to some extent. The law as it is currently (which, AFAIK, is how it's always been) doesn't prohibit bowling with a bent arm, provided it stays bent.
Guys from the 60s were hard done by: because nobody knew better, people relied on impressions to judge whether a delivery was legitimate. We now rely on facts which is surely better.
Just because we did the wrong thing in the past doesn't mean we should carry on doing it in the face of evidence to the contrary, surely (unless of course it is a matter of a government policy which we all know is wrong but which they won't change as it would upset the daily mail)?

I'm not sure what you're saying: are you saying anyone who chucks it to any degree should be banned? Because if that's so we shall have to accept we should have banned Glenn McGrath, whose arm frequently bent between 11 and 12 degrees. Or are you suggesting there should be a tolerance level as there is now, but it should be lower (how much lower?)?

Anyway, this "I'm sorry but he chucks, you can just tell" is entirely wrong and meaningless.

The term "throw-downs" gives the game away: you straighten your arm during the throw, which is what actually makes it easier to spin the ball: not the fact that your arm is bent (try bowling spin with an arm bent 90 degrees without straightening...).

The tests on Ajmal were dont 3/4 years ago, and so are not likley to be relevant to the current status of his bowling action.

By his own admission and the Team management he has re-modelled his action SINCE he was tested, and so it cannot be considered the same.

I would also add that tests under lab conditions are not the same as live istuation where there is more temptation to flex the arm more as you know you're not being watched and if you are called you sulk and say the ICC cleared you.

At the moment his carry angle is arounf 20-23 degrees (apparently) and with the 8 degrees of natural elbow bend thats really hitting the MAX of what is allowed in terms of extension.

As for the McGrath 11-12 degres that is pretty much disputed, and has been discredited, as studies have found that that in live field tests (where McGrath and others fast bowlers were tested) there is an average 3 degree error degree variance when using best practices, when not using best practices that error margin goes up.

It's a rather precarious situation isn't it, offstump?

I'm loathe to call Ajmal a chucker, it is almost sour grapes after the carnage he has wrought on England of late, but at the same time his action doesn't quite sit easy with me when I see it. There is definitely a great degree of straightening, and I would wager that he is right on the limit if he isn't already past it.

You make a good point about lab conditions and match conditions. When the will to win is there, people will push things a little further. In a lab, he could just turn it that little bit less to ensure he is within the guidelines.

I think it is very debateable, and if only there was some way of measuring his degree of straightening during a match situation, as opposed to outside of one, that'd put the issue to bed once and for all, and be a heck of a lot more accurate.

My personal opinion is that the doosra cannot be bowled legally, but I'm not going to start calling anyone bowling it a chucker as the ICC obviously know more about such things than I.

There is a way to do it in a match situation but there is a degree of time needed to analyse the images, and that doesnt help when you lose 3-4 wickets to illegal, do you recall the batsmen, what happens in the event that a change of innings has taken place.

Its a can of worms, and until umpires are prepared to call a bowler (most wont becuase of what happend to Hair), and his subsequent hounding out of cricket by some nations, simply because he applied the rules.

As for the Doosra, I think it can be bowled legitimately, after all its nothing more than a Chinamans wrong-un but you are required to bowl with a wrist spinners action rather than a fingerspinners action.

That's it. Someone like Ajantha Mendis mixes it up well, but then the doosra becomes a heck of a lot more pickable, if you bowl it with a wrist-spin action.

Excellent point about Hair, I think his experience and victimisation by certain nations means others will be very retiscent to follow in his footsteps.

The problem with mendis 'carrom' ball is that he used it far too often and so batsmen are able to pick it very easily.

as a sidenote Mendis didnt even invent the Carrom ball, it was frst recorded being used by the Aussie Jack Iverson in the 50's, and later by a fellow countryman John Gleeson, though it fell out of favour in the 70's.

Interesting bit of info.

I think Mendis' problem in general is that he uses too much variation. Often the key to successful spin bowling is having a very good stock ball which has the batsman worrying enough in its own right, but then choosing a moment to cunningly throw in the variations just as he looks to be in a rhythm. Bowling too many variations never allows the bowler to set up a batsman for the 'other one', and Mendis incredible early success was curtailed pretty quickly for that very reason, I'd say.

Fists of Fury wrote:Interesting bit of info.

I think Mendis' problem in general is that he uses too much variation. Often the key to successful spin bowling is having a very good stock ball which has the batsman worrying enough in its own right, but then choosing a moment to cunningly throw in the variations just as he looks to be in a rhythm. Bowling too many variations never allows the bowler to set up a batsman for the 'other one', and Mendis incredible early success was curtailed pretty quickly for that very reason, I'd say.

Not only spin bowling.Fast Bowlers as well.Look at how Dernbach has struggled due to the lack of a stock ball.

Offstumpyorker wrote:
As for the Doosra, I think it can be bowled legitimately, after all its nothing more than a Chinamans wrong-un but you are required to bowl with a wrist spinners action rather than a fingerspinners action.

No it isn't. Although both are bowled from the back of the hand, the googly is "start straight, turn towards leg-break and keep going until bowling from back of the hand" and the doosra is "start straight, turn towards off-break and keep going". One is a lot easier to do (but also to pick as a batsman) than the other.

The point about test conditions vs match conditions is well-made, but I don't know what the answer is.

Certainly I disagree that the answer is for umpires to call no-balls: at that level too much is at stake to be put on perception which the science has shown to be bunkum.

From a Left arm Chinaman (left arm Leggy) the to a Left hand batsman its start Straight, and turn to wards the off-side.

A Right arm Doosra to a Left hand batsman is start striaght and turn to the off-side.

In the case of a right hander, the doosra bowled by a Right arm ob, Breaks to the Leg side rather than spinning onto the offside the same as the left arm wrong un.

As for your other comment, about umpires not calling no balls doesnt that discriminates against the team batting, as they could lose several wickets to the bowling side and illegal deliveries.

I think I'm getting my left an tight mixed up here, I need to sit down and think about this.

Offstumpyorker wrote:From a Left arm Chinaman (left arm Leggy) the to a Left hand batsman its start Straight, and turn to wards the off-side.

A Right arm Doosra to a Left hand batsman is start striaght and turn to the off-side.

In the case of a right hander, the doosra bowled by a Right arm ob, Breaks to the Leg side rather than spinning onto the offside the same as the left arm wrong un.

I'm sorry, I wasn't commenting on the way the ball turned, but on the way it was bowled. The wrist position for a googly and a doosra are 360 degrees opposite (approx). And as I said, a googly is a lot easier to pick than a doosra.

Offstumpyorker wrote:
As for your other comment, about umpires not calling no balls doesnt that discriminates against the team batting, as they could lose several wickets to the bowling side and illegal deliveries.

The point is the evidence shows that in the case of chucking, what the human eye perceives to be illegal is very different from what actually is (which is why we all think Ajmal, Botha, Murali, etc. chuck, except they don't more than McGrath, Flintoff, etc.), so we probably shouldn't leave such judgements open to the human eye.

Checked my PM,Mike?

Fists of Fury wrote:Interesting bit of info.

I think Mendis' problem in general is that he uses too much variation. Often the key to successful spin bowling is having a very good stock ball which has the batsman worrying enough in its own right, but then choosing a moment to cunningly throw in the variations just as he looks to be in a rhythm. Bowling too many variations never allows the bowler to set up a batsman for the 'other one', and Mendis incredible early success was curtailed pretty quickly for that very reason, I'd say.

So mendis is the 'anti-Warne' - Shane always had an excellent stock ball, and although he always tallked about the variations (googlies, sliders, flippers, top spinners), he'd usually bowl about one every five overs, and even then only if it was Robin Smith batting.

Murali used his Doosra a bit more, although there was an interesting comment on TMS the other day that you could usually pick his ball just from the line - both the off break and the doosra turned so much that he had to pitch one well outside off stump and the other on middle and leg. Ajmal is more difficult because he only turns the ball a little, so can pitch both around off stump and have the batsman guessing if they don't pick it from the hand.

I do think it is bordering on impossible to bowl the doosra with a straight arm - you just can't get sufficient rotation of the wrist and forearm to let you rotate the ball on delivery. However, as Mike has pointed out, the rule is not that the elbow has to be straight, merely that it has to remain bent to the same angle (give or take the now-allowed 15 degrees) through the delivery (from the arm passing shoulder height through to release. Anyone remembe Paul Adams' 'frog in a blender' action?

As an aside, I had a further look at the old Channel 9 fast bowling competition - I already commented that Andy Roberts had very little flex in his arm while even DKL and Hadlee (two of the best 'classical' actions of recent history) had a visible flex in the elbow when viewed from the side under high speed cameras. Having looked at the others, Imran stands out for the consistent straightness of his arm, while Jeff Thompson had an interesting action - a less extreme version of Shoaib Akhtar, in that his elbow hyper-extended slightly in the wind-up. THe only conclusion I can make from that is that it is practically impossible to bowl with no elbow flex, and that the perception of 'chucking' normally relates to bowlers whose arms are significantly not straight at the point of release (so noone really questioned McGrath or Warne's actions, but always did Murali's).