Thread View: uk.sport.cricket
37 messages
37 total messages
Started by "Marc"
Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:13
Giles in
Author: "Marc"
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:13
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:13
27 lines
742 bytes
742 bytes
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C70E8A.800B2C00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Monty on drinks! ------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C70E8A.800B2C00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2995" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Monty on drinks!</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C70E8A.800B2C00--
Re: Giles in
Author: "Richard Dixon"
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:07
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:07
10 lines
202 bytes
202 bytes
Marc wrote: > Monty on drinks! We've bottled it. Monty should be playing. What a farce. I hope to be proven wrong, but what a fucking farce. The Aussies must be killing themselves laughing. Richard
Re: Giles in
Author: "David Wilcox"
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:07
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:07
10 lines
274 bytes
274 bytes
"Marc" <marcymarc24NOSPAM@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:yQ49h.21888$bC3.19914@newsfe7-win.ntli.net... Monty on drinks! This stinks of defensive to me, what is Fletcher doing? The Aussies will be laughing their cocks off. I hope they know what they're doing.....!
Re: Giles in
Author: "Marc"
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:16
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:16
30 lines
963 bytes
963 bytes
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C70E8A.D7E05EF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Full team.....Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Jones, Giles, Harmison, Anderson, Hoggard. ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C70E8A.D7E05EF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2995" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman">Full team.....Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Collingwood, Flintoff, Jones, Giles, Harmison, Anderson, Hoggard.</FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C70E8A.D7E05EF0--
Re: Giles in
Author: Andy Guthrie
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:45
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:45
9 lines
262 bytes
262 bytes
Richard Dixon wrote: > Marc wrote: >> Monty on drinks! > > We've bottled it. Monty should be playing. What a farce. I hope to be > proven wrong, but what a fucking farce. The Aussies must be killing > themselves laughing. > After one ball I believe they were.
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 03:06
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 03:06
26 lines
1003 bytes
1003 bytes
Richard Dixon wrote: > > We've bottled it. Monty should be playing. What a farce. I hope to be > proven wrong, but what a fucking farce. The Aussies must be killing > themselves laughing. > > Richard Sorry to digress Richard but an off-spinner is flighting it correctly *only* if there's an outward trajectory before pitching. If Giles was bowling an orthodox off-spinner to Martyn, it should if correctly bowled curl like an inswinger in the air, pitch and move away. Having watched nearly all of today's play, I couldn't help feeling that Giles' tutoring might be a touch awry. Merely giving it a loop by throwing it in the air isn't flighting. That's where he erred today. There was no whiplash to the delivery at all and the release of the ball was too - what shall I term it - plain. Btw, this was drilled into my head very early on in my youth during a two-day spin workshop conducted by EAS Prasanna (you likely wouldn't have heard of him), who was himself a rather good spinner. Ramapriya
Re: Giles in
Author: Luke Curtis
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 04:53
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 04:53
20 lines
646 bytes
646 bytes
On 22 Nov 2006 15:07:20 -0800, "Richard Dixon" <rdngemail@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >Marc wrote: >> Monty on drinks! > >We've bottled it. Monty should be playing. What a farce. I hope to be >proven wrong, but what a fucking farce. The Aussies must be killing >themselves laughing. > >Richard Even though he has got a wicket I will be thinking if Giles can get a wicket how much more threatening would Monty have been, huge mistake. At least since I have been watching from 172/2 England seemed to have slowed the rate down and get a little control from the apparently abysmal first hour, Giles' wicket was a bonus but it was a bad shot by Martyn.
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:48
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:48
44 lines
1916 bytes
1916 bytes
David North wrote: > "Ramapriya D" <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1164279966.269613.127250@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Richard Dixon wrote: > >> > >> We've bottled it. Monty should be playing. What a farce. I hope to be > >> proven wrong, but what a fucking farce. The Aussies must be killing > >> themselves laughing. > > > > Sorry to digress Richard but an off-spinner is flighting it correctly > > *only* if there's an outward trajectory before pitching. If Giles was > > bowling an orthodox off-spinner to Martyn, > > or even a leg-spinner > > > it should if correctly > > bowled curl like an inswinger in the air, pitch and move away. > > > > Having watched nearly all of today's play, I couldn't help feeling that > > Giles' tutoring might be a touch awry. Merely giving it a loop by > > throwing it in the air isn't flighting. That's where he erred today. > > There was no whiplash to the delivery at all and the release of the > > ball was too - what shall I term it - plain. > > So what you're saying, in a round-about fashion, is that he wasn't spinning > it very much. You can impart spin even when bowling the way Giles was doing today but it'd be too plain and ineffectual. Without a whiplash, spin would leave little to the imagination and be easy to handle unless you're the sort who uses the pitch and its uncertainties including foot marks. If you're fielding at silly mid-off to a spinner who bowls the way I'm talking of, you'd actually be hearing the ball whirring through the air. I've met at least a dozen folk who've fielded thereabouts to Prasanna and Venkat, and each of them have said the same thing. I'm sure it'd be very similar to someone who fielded close-in to people like Laker, Bedi, Saqlain and Harbhajan as well. Although Murali spins it tremendously, I've noticed that his flight trajectory isn't quite classical - but no less effective :) Ramapriya
Re: Giles in
Author: "Colin Reed"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:17
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:17
18 lines
545 bytes
545 bytes
"David Wilcox" <davethemanc@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:4sk3gnF1021bkU1@mid.individual.net... > > "Marc" <marcymarc24NOSPAM@ntlworld.com> wrote in message > news:yQ49h.21888$bC3.19914@newsfe7-win.ntli.net... > Monty on drinks! > > > This stinks of defensive to me, what is Fletcher doing? The Aussies will > be laughing their cocks off. I hope they know what they're doing.....! > > Probably realised that if he played Panesar it would highlight all the missed stumping chances by his insisting on playing Jones behind the stumps!
Re: Giles in
Author: John Hall
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:16
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:16
11 lines
377 bytes
377 bytes
In article <yQ49h.21888$bC3.19914@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>,
Marc <marcymarc24NOSPAM@ntlworld.com> writes:
>Monty on drinks!
>
Looks like Panesar should have played instead of Harmison rather than
instead of Giles. :(
--
John Hall
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde
Re: Giles in
Author: "David North"
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:37
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:37
29 lines
1060 bytes
1060 bytes
"Ramapriya D" <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164279966.269613.127250@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Richard Dixon wrote: >> >> We've bottled it. Monty should be playing. What a farce. I hope to be >> proven wrong, but what a fucking farce. The Aussies must be killing >> themselves laughing. > > Sorry to digress Richard but an off-spinner is flighting it correctly > *only* if there's an outward trajectory before pitching. If Giles was > bowling an orthodox off-spinner to Martyn, or even a leg-spinner > it should if correctly > bowled curl like an inswinger in the air, pitch and move away. > > Having watched nearly all of today's play, I couldn't help feeling that > Giles' tutoring might be a touch awry. Merely giving it a loop by > throwing it in the air isn't flighting. That's where he erred today. > There was no whiplash to the delivery at all and the release of the > ball was too - what shall I term it - plain. So what you're saying, in a round-about fashion, is that he wasn't spinning it very much. -- David North
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:25
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:25
19 lines
552 bytes
552 bytes
Robert Henderson wrote: > In message <1164279966.269613.127250@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> writes > > > > > >Sorry to digress Richard but an off-spinner is flighting it correctly > >*only* if there's an outward trajectory before pitching. If Giles was > >bowling an orthodox off-spinner to Martyn, > > Bloody clever as he is a SLA. RH Showing your depth and class, I see. Giles' orthodox delivery to Martyn is an off-spinner. That it turns away from a right-hander doesn't make it a leg-spinner. Ramapriya
Re: Giles in
Author: Robert Henderson
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:17
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:17
13 lines
472 bytes
472 bytes
In message <1164279966.269613.127250@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> writes > > >Sorry to digress Richard but an off-spinner is flighting it correctly >*only* if there's an outward trajectory before pitching. If Giles was >bowling an orthodox off-spinner to Martyn, Bloody clever as he is a SLA. RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Re: Giles in
Author: Robert Henderson
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:23
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:23
27 lines
905 bytes
905 bytes
In message <1164435947.902450.253230@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> writes >Robert Henderson wrote: >> In message <1164279966.269613.127250@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >> Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> writes >> > >> > >> >Sorry to digress Richard but an off-spinner is flighting it correctly >> >*only* if there's an outward trajectory before pitching. If Giles was >> >bowling an orthodox off-spinner to Martyn, >> >> Bloody clever as he is a SLA. RH > > >Showing your depth and class, I see. > >Giles' orthodox delivery to Martyn is an off-spinner. That it turns >away from a right-hander doesn't make it a leg-spinner. > >Ramapriya > More moronic ignorance. A ball turning from leg is by definition not an off spinner. RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Re: Giles in
Author: "David North"
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:03
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:03
25 lines
804 bytes
804 bytes
"Ramapriya D" <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164435947.902450.253230@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com... > Robert Henderson wrote: >> In message <1164279966.269613.127250@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >> Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> writes >> > >> > >> >Sorry to digress Richard but an off-spinner is flighting it correctly >> >*only* if there's an outward trajectory before pitching. If Giles was >> >bowling an orthodox off-spinner to Martyn, >> >> Bloody clever as he is a SLA. RH > > > Showing your depth and class, I see. > > Giles' orthodox delivery to Martyn is an off-spinner. That it turns > away from a right-hander doesn't make it a leg-spinner. What is your definition of an off-spinner then? It seems to be different from the generally-accepted one. -- David North
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:43
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:43
9 lines
193 bytes
193 bytes
Robert Henderson wrote: > A ball turning from leg is by definition not an off spinner. RH So Warne is either an off-break or leg-break bowler depending on who he's bowling to eh? Ramapriya
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:47
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:47
20 lines
809 bytes
809 bytes
David North wrote: > > What is your definition of an off-spinner then? It seems to be different > from the generally-accepted one. When you describe someone as an off-spinner and he's right-handed, it means that his stock ball is the one turning in to a right-handed batsman. Ditto for a left-arm bowler, but 'off-spinner' is generally replaced by SLA because a majority of batters are right-handed. Ergo, a right-armer's off-spinner is intended to pitch on the same side of the stumps when bowling from over the wicket and turn into the wicket. From a left-handed batter's perspective, it's a leg-break. This is why you hear commentators frequently mention stuff like, "That's a huge inswinger... which is an outswinger to the batsman" when you have a bowler and batter of opposite dexterity. Ramapriya
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:46
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:46
14 lines
355 bytes
355 bytes
David North wrote: > > > > So Warne is either an off-break or leg-break bowler depending on who > > he's bowling to eh? > > Technically, yes (when he bowls his stock delivery). Which probably may be why bowlers' stock deliveries are what are labeled in their description. Note that no left-arm orthodox spinner is termed a leg-break bowler. Ramapriya
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:35
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:35
62 lines
2828 bytes
2828 bytes
David North wrote: > > > > Which probably may be why bowlers' stock deliveries are what are > > labeled in their description. Note that no left-arm orthodox spinner is > > termed a leg-break bowler. > > They are certainly not described as off-break bowlers or off-spinners by > anyone apart from you, as far as I am aware, as their stock delivery is a > leg-break to a RHB. The reason that they are not generally described as > leg-break bowlers is to differentiate them from right-arm leg-spinners. The following from Wikipedia on what an off-break is might not settle this matter but offers another perspective nonetheless, two sentences, especially: "A left-handed batsman has more difficulty facing off break bowling, because the ball moves away from his body" and "A ball bowled by a left-arm orthodox spin bowler with an off break action spins in the opposite direction. Such a ball is not normally called an off break, but a left-arm orthodox spinner" [Cite] An off break is a type of delivery in the sport of cricket. It is the stock delivery of an off spin bowler. Off breaks are also colloquially known as offies. An off break is bowled by holding the cricket ball in the palm of the hand with the seam running across under all the fingers. As the ball is released, the fingers roll down the right side of the ball (for a right-handed bowler), giving the ball a clockwise spin as seen from behind. When the ball bounces on the pitch, the spin causes it to deviate towards the right from the bowler's perspective; this is to the left from the batsman's point of view, or towards the leg side of a right-handed batsman. The ball spins away from the off side, and this is where it gets the name off break, meaning it breaks away from the off. An off spin bowler will bowl mostly off breaks, varying them by adjusting the line and length of the deliveries. Off breaks are considered to be one of the easier spin deliveries for a right-handed batsman to play. This is because the ball moves in towards the batsman's body, meaning the batsman's legs are usually in the path of the ball if it misses the bat or takes an edge. This makes it difficult for the bowler to get the batsman out bowled or caught from an off break, but it does mean there is a chance of leg before wicket, assuming the ball has not turned enough to miss the leg stump. A left-handed batsman has more difficulty facing off break bowling, because the ball moves away from his body. This means that any miscalculation can more easily result in an outside edge off the bat and a catch going to the wicket-keeper or slips fielders. A ball bowled by a left-arm orthodox spin bowler with an off break action spins in the opposite direction. Such a ball is not normally called an off break, but a left-arm orthodox spinner. [End cite] Ramapriya
Re: Giles in
Author: Robert Henderson
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:30
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:30
16 lines
484 bytes
484 bytes
In message <1164534200.723113.199860@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> writes >Robert Henderson wrote: > >> A ball turning from leg is by definition not an off spinner. RH > >So Warne is either an off-break or leg-break bowler depending on who >he's bowling to eh? > >Ramapriya > No, he is a LBG. Talk about dim. RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Re: Giles in
Author: "David North"
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:22
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:22
14 lines
381 bytes
381 bytes
"Ramapriya D" <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164534200.723113.199860@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Robert Henderson wrote: > >> A ball turning from leg is by definition not an off spinner. RH > > So Warne is either an off-break or leg-break bowler depending on who > he's bowling to eh? Technically, yes (when he bowls his stock delivery). -- David North
Re: Giles in
Author: "David North"
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:49
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:49
35 lines
1250 bytes
1250 bytes
"Ramapriya D" <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164538030.055929.20460@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > David North wrote: >> >> What is your definition of an off-spinner then? It seems to be different >> from the generally-accepted one. > > When you describe someone as an off-spinner and he's right-handed, it > means that his stock ball is the one turning in to a right-handed > batsman. Ditto for a left-arm bowler, Agreed > but 'off-spinner' is generally > replaced by SLA because a majority of batters are right-handed. ... except that a left-armer whose stock delivery to a RHB turns in (i.e. an off-break) is normally a chinaman bowler and is not usually described as SLA. > Ergo, a > right-armer's off-spinner is intended to pitch on the same side of the > stumps when bowling from over the wicket and turn into the wicket. From > a left-handed batter's perspective, it's a leg-break. > > This is why you hear commentators frequently mention stuff like, > "That's a huge inswinger... which is an outswinger to the batsman" when > you have a bowler and batter of opposite dexterity. Only with a right-arm bowler and a LHB. I doubt that you would ever hear that when a left-armer is bowling to a RHB. -- David North
Re: Giles in
Author: "David North"
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:04
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:04
22 lines
791 bytes
791 bytes
"Ramapriya D" <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1164559618.872264.171340@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > David North wrote: >> > >> > So Warne is either an off-break or leg-break bowler depending on who >> > he's bowling to eh? >> >> Technically, yes (when he bowls his stock delivery). > > > Which probably may be why bowlers' stock deliveries are what are > labeled in their description. Note that no left-arm orthodox spinner is > termed a leg-break bowler. They are certainly not described as off-break bowlers or off-spinners by anyone apart from you, as far as I am aware, as their stock delivery is a leg-break to a RHB. The reason that they are not generally described as leg-break bowlers is to differentiate them from right-arm leg-spinners. -- David North.
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:14
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:14
14 lines
232 bytes
232 bytes
Robert Henderson wrote: > > > >So Warne is either an off-break or leg-break bowler depending on who > >he's bowling to eh? > > > >Ramapriya > > > No, he is a LBG. Talk about dim. RH Of course. We all know about you :) Ramapriya
Re: Giles in
Author: "Gavin Cawley"
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:53
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:53
97 lines
4755 bytes
4755 bytes
Ramapriya D wrote: > David North wrote: > > > > > > Which probably may be why bowlers' stock deliveries are what are > > > labeled in their description. Note that no left-arm orthodox spinner is > > > termed a leg-break bowler. > > > > They are certainly not described as off-break bowlers or off-spinners by > > anyone apart from you, as far as I am aware, as their stock delivery is a > > leg-break to a RHB. The reason that they are not generally described as > > leg-break bowlers is to differentiate them from right-arm leg-spinners. > > > The following from Wikipedia on what an off-break is might not settle > this matter but offers another perspective nonetheless, two sentences, > especially: "A left-handed batsman has more difficulty facing off break > bowling, because the ball moves away from his body" and "A ball bowled > by a left-arm orthodox spin bowler with an off break action spins in > the opposite direction. Such a ball is not normally called an off > break, but a left-arm orthodox spinner" > > > [Cite] > > An off break is a type of delivery in the sport of cricket. It is the > stock delivery of an off spin bowler. Off breaks are also colloquially > known as offies. > > An off break is bowled by holding the cricket ball in the palm of the > hand with the seam running across under all the fingers. As the ball is > released, the fingers roll down the right side of the ball (for a > right-handed bowler), giving the ball a clockwise spin as seen from > behind. When the ball bounces on the pitch, the spin causes it to > deviate towards the right from the bowler's perspective; this is to the > left from the batsman's point of view, or towards the leg side of a > right-handed batsman. The ball spins away from the off side, and this > is where it gets the name off break, meaning it breaks away from the > off. > > An off spin bowler will bowl mostly off breaks, varying them by > adjusting the line and length of the deliveries. > > Off breaks are considered to be one of the easier spin deliveries for a > right-handed batsman to play. This is because the ball moves in towards > the batsman's body, meaning the batsman's legs are usually in the path > of the ball if it misses the bat or takes an edge. This makes it > difficult for the bowler to get the batsman out bowled or caught from > an off break, but it does mean there is a chance of leg before wicket, > assuming the ball has not turned enough to miss the leg stump. > > A left-handed batsman has more difficulty facing off break bowling, > because the ball moves away from his body. This means that any > miscalculation can more easily result in an outside edge off the bat > and a catch going to the wicket-keeper or slips fielders. > > A ball bowled by a left-arm orthodox spin bowler with an off break > action spins in the opposite direction. Such a ball is not normally > called an off break, but a left-arm orthodox spinner. > > [End cite] > > Ramapriya The problem is that the usual terminology is not consistent. It would be better to describe the action used (and by extension the bowler) as finger (orthodox) spin or wrist spin and describe the delivery as an off- or a leg-break depending on whether it comes into the batsmen or is leaving him off the pitch. Historically the reason a right arm finger spin bowler is called an off-spinner is because the majority of deliveries will be an off-break as more batsmen are right-handed than left-handed. A left arm orthodox bowler will bowl mostly leg-breaks, so it would make little sense to call him an off-spinner [and indeed nobody does, hence "left-arm orthodox" or "SLA"].. The use of the term "leg-spinner" when applied to a delivery rather than a bowler is also awkward as it refers to a leg-break bowled using wrist spin rather than a doosra or a ball from a left-arm orthodox bowler. Note that the defining factor (i.e. wrist spin) is not immediately apparent from the term used. Basically the problem stems from the use of a description of the movement of the ball from the perspective of a right-handed batsman to describe the action of the bowler, which is not particularly sensible as it leads to ambiguous terminology, but has become fixed by tradition. A more rational systems would just use "leg-break" and "off-break" to describe deliveries and "left/right arm" and "wrist spin" or "finger spin" to describe bowlers, however history prevails and we have to become accustomed to the irregularities. So Ramapiriya is incorrect, but not nearly as incorrect as RH was in using Hume to support the inference of a causal link from an observed correllation ;-) If Ramapiriya is open to the possibility that he may be mistaken, he has demonstrated his intellectual superiority ;-)
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:04
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:04
62 lines
2336 bytes
2336 bytes
Gavin Cawley wrote: > > The problem is that the usual terminology is not consistent. And there are no standard definitions as such either. The interpretations of a back cut / late cut, hook / pull, etc. are examples. > Historically the reason a right arm finger spin bowler is called an > off-spinner is because the majority of deliveries will be an off-break > as more batsmen are right-handed than left-handed. A left arm orthodox > bowler will bowl mostly leg-breaks, so it would make little sense to > call him an off-spinner [and indeed nobody does, hence "left-arm orthodox" or "SLA"].. If you observe the technique of bowling an off-break, it's identical for both hands. My original post was on that technique of Giles, until Shifty customarily diverted to the trivial. > The use of the term "leg-spinner" when applied to a delivery rather > than a bowler is also awkward as it refers to a leg-break bowled using > wrist spin rather than a doosra or a ball from a left-arm orthodox > bowler. Note that the defining factor (i.e. wrist spin) is not > immediately apparent from the term used. Although I was always taught off- and leg-breaks from the wrist and flip of fingers (either towards the body or away from it), identically for right-arm and left-arm bowlers. > Basically the problem stems from the use of a description of the > movement of the ball from the perspective of a right-handed batsman to > describe the action of the bowler, which is not particularly sensible > as it leads to ambiguous terminology, Spot on. but has become fixed by > tradition. A more rational systems would just use "leg-break" and > "off-break" to describe deliveries and "left/right arm" and "wrist > spin" or "finger spin" to describe bowlers, however history prevails > and we have to become accustomed to the irregularities. > > So Ramapiriya is incorrect, but not nearly as incorrect as RH was in > using Hume to support the inference of a causal link from an observed > correllation ;-) If Ramapiriya is open to the possibility that he may > be mistaken, he has demonstrated his intellectual superiority ;-) Never known to have claimed infallibility, so no worries. And no 'intellectual superiority' tags either, tyvm. There is at least one other who needs it more :) Ramapriya [you could do with one i less ;)]
Re: Giles in
Author: Robert Henderson
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:50
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:50
11 lines
343 bytes
343 bytes
In message <1164562553.160681.190280@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> writes > >The following from Wikipedia on what an off-break is might not settle >this matter ROTFL! RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Re: Giles in
Author: Robert Henderson
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:32
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:32
21 lines
611 bytes
611 bytes
In message <1164632648.626059.312190@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> writes >Gavin Cawley wrote: >> >> The problem is that the usual terminology is not consistent. > > >And there are no standard definitions as such either. The >interpretations of a back cut / late cut, hook / pull, etc. are >examples. The standard designations for slow bowlers are: ROB Right Off Break SLA Slow left arm SLC Slow left chinaman LBG Leg break googly. RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Re: Giles in
Author: Robert Henderson
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:33
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:33
19 lines
698 bytes
698 bytes
In message <1164624951.412200.148160@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Gavin Cawley <gcc@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes >So Ramapiriya is incorrect, but not nearly as incorrect as RH was in >using Hume to support the inference of a causal link from an observed >correllation Which I explicitly said I was not doing. Another absurdly long post by you. Prolixity is the sign of dullness. Learn to express yourself succinctly if you can. RH >;-) If Ramapiriya is open to the possibility that he may be mistaken, >he has demonstrated his intellectual superiority ;-) > -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:16
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:16
9 lines
185 bytes
185 bytes
Robert Henderson wrote: > > Prolixity is the sign of dullness. Learn to express yourself succinctly if you can. RH Like you do in those periodic 300,000-word articles eh? Ramapriya
Re: Giles in
Author: "Gavin Cawley"
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:59
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:59
42 lines
1633 bytes
1633 bytes
Robert Henderson wrote: > In message <1164624951.412200.148160@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > Gavin Cawley <gcc@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes > >So Ramapiriya is incorrect, but not nearly as incorrect as RH was in > >using Hume to support the inference of a causal link from an observed > >correllation > > Which I explicitly said I was not doing. In reply to Dr Walker's observation "The rest of us point out from time to time that correlation is not causation" you wrote "Only good as a philosophical principle,. Utterly useless in the real world. As Hume pointed out causation cannot be demonstrated. Consequently men have to go on the basis of that which happened before will happen again. RH" Robert Henderson, uk.sport.cricket - Re: Some quotes for RH, 9/11/2006. you clearly indicate that one can infer causation from a correlation as a consequence of Hume's philosophy [despite the fact that Hume also said there is no rational reason to assume the future resembles the past]. >Another absurdly long post by > you. Prolixity is the sign of dullness. Learn to express yourself > succinctly if you can. RH .. Yawn. This is a thread containing proper discussion of cricket matters, so I will leave it at that. If you (RH) have any "witty" reply, post it on "Some Quotes for RH" where it can be more easily ignored, I won't reply any further here. > >;-) If Ramapiriya is open to the possibility that he may be mistaken, > >he has demonstrated his intellectual superiority ;-) > > > > -- > Robert Henderson > Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ > Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:45
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:45
19 lines
529 bytes
529 bytes
Robert Henderson wrote: > > > Sigh. You need to distinguish between work which is designed as an > extended treatise and newsgroups. Moreover, even within long pieces the > question of lucidity and brevity still exists, ie, are points made > concisely enough. The answer to which is of course a No. Now, what do Lynn and Vanhana have as the average IQ > of the Subcontinent in their IQ and the Wealth of Nations? Ah yes, 81. > RH I'll gladly settle for even < 81 if the alternative is to be shifty and dishonest. Ramapriya
Re: Giles in
Author: Robert Henderson
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:23
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:23
52 lines
1950 bytes
1950 bytes
In message <1164707995.615403.286530@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, Gavin Cawley <gcc@cmp.uea.ac.uk> writes >> >> Which I explicitly said I was not doing. > >In reply to Dr Walker's observation "The rest of us point out from time >to time that correlation is not causation" you wrote > >"Only good as a philosophical principle,. Utterly useless in the real >world. As Hume pointed out causation cannot be demonstrated. >Consequently men have to go on the basis of that which happened before >will happen again. RH" Robert Henderson, uk.sport.cricket - Re: Some >quotes for RH, 9/11/2006. Which clearly supports what I said. I have given you Hume's exact position in that passage. . RH > >you clearly indicate that one can infer causation from a correlation as >a consequence of Hume's philosophy [despite the fact that Hume also >said there is no rational reason to assume the future resembles the >past]. Which is what I have said. At the philosophical level that is true: as a matter of observed fact, going on what has previously occurred is a good guide to the future. RH > >>Another absurdly long post by >> you. Prolixity is the sign of dullness. Learn to express yourself >> succinctly if you can. RH >. >Yawn. This is a thread containing proper discussion of cricket >matters, so I will leave it at that. If you (RH) have any "witty" >reply, post it on "Some Quotes for RH" where it can be more easily >ignored, I won't reply any further here. > Translation: unable to express himself concisely. RH >> >;-) If Ramapiriya is open to the possibility that he may be mistaken, >> >he has demonstrated his intellectual superiority ;-) >> > >> >> -- >> Robert Henderson >> Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ >> Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk > -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Re: Giles in
Author: Robert Henderson
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:40
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:40
22 lines
799 bytes
799 bytes
In message <1164694618.305442.123470@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> writes >Robert Henderson wrote: >> >> Prolixity is the sign of dullness. Learn to express yourself >>succinctly if you can. RH > > >Like you do in those periodic 300,000-word articles eh? > >Ramapriya > Sigh. You need to distinguish between work which is designed as an extended treatise and newsgroups. Moreover, even within long pieces the question of lucidity and brevity still exists, ie, are points made concisely enough. Now, what do Lynn and Vanhana have as the average IQ of the Subcontinent in their IQ and the Wealth of Nations? Ah yes, 81. RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Re: Giles in
Author: "Ramapriya D"
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:40
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:40
12 lines
283 bytes
283 bytes
Robert Henderson wrote: > > > >I'll gladly settle for even < 81 if the alternative is to be shifty and dishonest. > > The two conditions are not mutually exclusive as your own case shows. RH See? You're proof that the national IQ has zilch to do with the individual :) Ramapriya
Re: Giles in
Author: Robert Henderson
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:07
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:07
30 lines
872 bytes
872 bytes
In message <1164782729.174194.266790@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> writes >Robert Henderson wrote: >> > >> Sigh. You need to distinguish between work which is designed as an >> extended treatise and newsgroups. Moreover, even within long pieces the >> question of lucidity and brevity still exists, ie, are points made >> concisely enough. > >The answer to which is of course a No. > > >Now, what do Lynn and Vanhana have as the average IQ >> of the Subcontinent in their IQ and the Wealth of Nations? Ah yes, 81. >> RH > >I'll gladly settle for even < 81 > if the alternative is to be shifty and >dishonest. The two conditions are not mutually exclusive as your own case shows. RH > >Ramapriya > -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Re: Giles in
Author: Robert Henderson
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:46
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:46
22 lines
721 bytes
721 bytes
In message <1164868843.687846.315160@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ramapriya D <ramapriya.d@gmail.com> writes >Robert Henderson wrote: >> > >> >I'll gladly settle for even < 81 if the alternative is to be shifty >> >and dishonest. >> >> The two conditions are not mutually exclusive as your own case shows. RH > > >See? You're proof that the national IQ has zilch to do with the >individual :) > >Ramapriya > Low IQ answer. An average IQ is just that, an average. What it says about the individual is that the individual has this or that probability of having any particular IQ. RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads