Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 12:44 pm
Well not all advantage comes from obviously physical attributes as such so it depends what you mean by physiological. Do differences in brain processing count?
But that still doesn't answer the question of how much of an advantage it actually gave him or whether he would have been just as good anyway. It's not about belittling his achievements but about breaking down a player's skillset to examine it. I think it's just interesting to know how much difference it made.
Yes I was counting brain function as physiological although I realise that's more your area, Mr. Stuff and Consciousness, so if I'm wrong to do so then I'll gladly stand corrected.
True, I'm not arguing against analysing sporting advantages given by specific elements of physiology just stating that Murali's arm is merely a more noticeable example of the cause of all sporting disparity, and is not in a category of its own.
To combine those two things, I'd be fascinated to see some brain scans of high-performing sportspeople, in action if possible, compared to the brains of ordinary people, and to creative people like artists, and to problem-solving folk like mathematicians.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Well you could say that everything that goes on in your body is physiological so yes, but also some things are more trainable than others. So the guy's arm is more of a brute fact about his physiology than some other things.
Brain scans would be interesting but I wouldn't say mathematicians are any less creative than artists. Just creative in different ways perhaps.
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 12:00 pm
It's still legitimate to discuss how much of an advantage they think it gave him. If someone asked if height gave an advantage in basketball, you wouldn't say "Well it's legal to be tall."
I suppose you could say that all disparity in sporting ability or style is ultimately physiological though, couldn't you? Yes, this particular example of a "congenitally bent arm" seems to be a particularly noticeable difference but ultimately it will just boil down to 'person X performed differently to person Y because their physiology was different'.
Well not all advantage comes from obviously physical attributes as such so it depends what you mean by physiological. Do differences in brain processing count?
But that still doesn't answer the question of how much of an advantage it actually gave him or whether he would have been just as good anyway. It's not about belittling his achievements but about breaking down a player's skillset to examine it. I think it's just interesting to know how much difference it made.
I think Murali was one of the main drivers in the ICC properly codifying its rules related to bowling actions and the bend in the elbow. Previously it was simply done by eye; I've no doubt that others got away with it in pre-telly days. They ended up doing proper academic work across the board, as there was at least one quick bowler (was Malinga later?) with a suspect action too, possibly simply due to hyperextension.
In the end, if I remember right, they came down to a rule which did away with the previous requirement of a 'straight arm', and acknowledged that there was a physiological grey area.
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 9:50 pm
I do seem to remember there being some controversy about some guy's bowling style, which was likely him.
You might be thinking of Lasith Malinga "The Slinger" actually.
Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 1:02 am
And inside the world of cricket, everyone knows who they both are. ( 88 words and two nested brackets
)
I think it assumes knowledge that the layman wouldn't have. My understanding was that you were supposed to have a straight arm when bowling, which I would take to mean the same thing as a "straightened elbow". And yet:
Law 24.3 states:
"A ball is fairly delivered in respect to 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."
...
A straightened elbow can give the bowler the unfair advantage of generating extra speed than if the ball is delivered with a straight arm.
...
The ICC has now set a maximum limit of 15 degrees of flex, which means that no bowler can extend their elbow beyond that level.
Surely the less flex, the straighter the elbow? Well:
WHY IS 15 DEGREES THE MAXIMUM LEVEL?
"That is the number which biomechanics says that it (straightening) becomes visible," said panel member Fraser.
"It is difficult for the naked eye to see less than 15 degrees in a bowler's action.
"We found when the bicep reached the shoulder the amount of bend was around 165 degrees. Very few bowlers can get to 180 degrees because the joint doesn't allow that.
"It's difficult to prevent that happening, but once you go further than 15 degrees you get into an area which is starting to give you an unfair advantage and you are breaking the law."
I wonder if it means the process of straightening the elbow by more than 15 degrees rather than having a straight elbow. But this article is written for people who already know what's going on.
I think it assumes knowledge that the layman wouldn't have. My understanding was that you were supposed to have a straight arm when bowling, which I would take to mean the same thing as a "straightened elbow". And yet:
Law 24.3 states:
"A ball is fairly delivered in respect to 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."
...
A straightened elbow can give the bowler the unfair advantage of generating extra speed than if the ball is delivered with a straight arm.
...
The ICC has now set a maximum limit of 15 degrees of flex, which means that no bowler can extend their elbow beyond that level.
Surely the less flex, the straighter the elbow? Well:
WHY IS 15 DEGREES THE MAXIMUM LEVEL?
"That is the number which biomechanics says that it (straightening) becomes visible," said panel member Fraser.
"It is difficult for the naked eye to see less than 15 degrees in a bowler's action.
"We found when the bicep reached the shoulder the amount of bend was around 165 degrees. Very few bowlers can get to 180 degrees because the joint doesn't allow that.
"It's difficult to prevent that happening, but once you go further than 15 degrees you get into an area which is starting to give you an unfair advantage and you are breaking the law."
I wonder if it means the process of straightening the elbow by more than 15 degrees rather than having a straight elbow. But this article is written for people who already know what's going on.
To my mind, it clarifies that during the bowling action, the definition of a 'straight' (i.e. 180 degrees) arm was physiologically difficult, and often impossible to achieve. Therefore, a tolerance within the definition of straightness has been codified, as we now have the technology to actually check adherence to this.
But it also says a straightened elbow can give an unfair advantage. But I wondered if it meant the process of straightening the elbow rather than it being straight. It's poorly worded in any case.
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:55 pm
I was speaking to a friend, and apparently for an English cricket fan, winning the Ashes is a bigger deal than the World Cup. So you have this tournament that happens once every two years, against just one other team - an irrelevant grudge match in the general scheme of things rather than some sort of pinnacle of sporting excellence - and it's more important than this once-every-four-years tournament against all of the countries, which England has only ever won once. Was that not a bigger deal than winning the ashes for the 433rd time?
Part of the explanation is that the world cup is one-day cricket, which isn't the main thing, and the Ashes is test cricket (over multiple days and best of 5), which is the main thing. So I came up with this hypothetical long-drawn-out tournament of test cricket with all the countries that happens maybe once every 10 years and takes a whole year to complete (the test cricket world cup), but apparently that still wouldn't cut it.
On a related topic, England won the 20/20 World Cup but it was definitely not thrust down my throat like other sporting things, so it seems not be be at or near the top of the general pecking order.
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 9:33 am
On a related topic, England won the 20/20 World Cup but it was definitely not thrust down my throat like other sporting things, so it seems not be be at or near the top of the general pecking order.
Think you'll find it was the T20, rather than the one for those with excellent eyesight.
It did seem to get less prominence than the half dozen World Rugby Cups that seem to be going on at the moment. A week ago we were winning all of them and now we seem to have lost most of them. But the difference is that the cricket wasn't on terrestrial TV (until the final).
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 9:33 am
On a related topic, England won the 20/20 World Cup but it was definitely not thrust down my throat like other sporting things, so it seems not be be at or near the top of the general pecking order.
Think you'll find it was the T20, rather than the one for those with excellent eyesight.
It did seem to get less prominence than the half dozen World Rugby Cups that seem to be going on at the moment. A week ago we were winning all of them and now we seem to have lost most of them. But the difference is that the cricket wasn't on terrestrial TV (until the final).
It was also in Australia, so completely unsuited for the news/broadcast cycle here. Unlike the various rugby league events which are hosted by England this year, and therefore very much in the remit of the BBC.
Ben Stokes deserves a knighthood.
Great turnaround by England.
They lost to Ireland had a washout against the Aussies and struggled against Afghanistan but at the sharp end of the competition they were imperious
It seems that England are the elite team in the White ball versions of cricket.
Broad comes in as “the nighthawk” and immediately top edges a slog in the air. Blundell and Kuggeleijn look at each other and it lands between them. Then he wears one on the lid and takes 6 minutes to get another one.
