[Ques] How did cricket bowling originate ?
Ajay Shekhar
friends. One of the questions they asked was, why "chucking" the ball
wasn't allowed in cricket.
I came up with a couple of answers -
(i) Chucking a ball and also allowing it to bounce of the pitch (as
opposed to baseball where only "full tosses" are allowed) would be
very dangerous for the batsman.
(ii) Tradition ...
Anyone knows exactly why the over arm bowling action (let's forget Trevor
Chappel's under arm ball for the moment) was adopted ?
Thanks ...
PS : My friends did agree that the bowling action was and I quote
"poetry in motion" which warmed my heart tremendously :-)
--
Ajay Shekhar
Disclaimer : Nothing I ever say reflects Encore's opinions ...
Larry Strickland
wrote:
> I was trying to explain cricket to some of my American, baseball loving
> friends. One of the questions they asked was, why "chucking" the ball
> wasn't allowed in cricket.
> I came up with a couple of answers -
>
> (i) Chucking a ball and also allowing it to bounce of the pitch (as
> opposed to baseball where only "full tosses" are allowed) would be
> very dangerous for the batsman.
> (ii) Tradition ...
>
> Anyone knows exactly why the over arm bowling action (let's forget Trevor
> Chappel's under arm ball for the moment) was adopted ?
This originated after the game itself, when it was descovered bowling
overarm was more effective than bowling under! (I think). I might add that
this resulted in rule changes to swing the advantage back to the batsman.
Maybe the bowling action was originally to give the batsman an advantage.
The big difference between baseball and cricket is that in baseball the
batsman is at a disadvantage!
Cheers Larry
John Hall
> I was trying to explain cricket to some of my American, baseball loving
> friends. One of the questions they asked was, why "chucking" the ball
> wasn't allowed in cricket.
> I came up with a couple of answers -
>
> (i) Chucking a ball and also allowing it to bounce of the pitch (as
> opposed to baseball where only "full tosses" are allowed) would be
> very dangerous for the batsman.
> (ii) Tradition ...
>
> Anyone knows exactly why the over arm bowling action (let's forget Trevor
> Chappel's under arm ball for the moment) was adopted ?
>
Well, I think there were probably 4 stages (the first stage is my
hypothesis, but possibly not proven fact):
1. Underarm bowling all along the ground (hence the term "bowling" as
in the game of bowls). Because of this, the earliest bats had
something of a curve at the bottom end. (Because pitches were very
uneven, the ball may have sometimes bounced into the air en route,
which may have inspired some bright fellow to try his hand at stage
2.)
2. Underarm bowling, not all along the ground but attempting to pitch
on a good length. Should be considerably harder for the batsman to
play than was the previous style.
3. Round-arm bowling. One of the leading players of the time was
bowled to in practice in the garden by his sister (Christina Wilkes,
from memory). Because in those days the fashion for women was for
crinoline skirts, she had no option but to bowl round-arm. Her brother
realised how much more effective this was than underarm bowling, and
introduced it into "big" cricket.
4. Overarm bowling. Once you had round-arm bowling, this was a natural
further development and, with the extra bounce obtainable from the
higher arm, more effective again.
--
John Hall, Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk | I always mean what I say,
Cranleigh, | but unfortunately don't always
Surrey, England | manage to say what I meant.
Ron Knight
|I was trying to explain cricket to some of my American, baseball loving
|friends. One of the questions they asked was, why "chucking" the ball
|wasn't allowed in cricket.
|Anyone knows exactly why the over arm bowling action (let's forget Trevor
|Chappel's under arm ball for the moment) was adopted ?
I don't think we can discuss this and forget underarm bowling. That
is, after all, how the game started. Bowlers trying to knock down
two or three stumps just like trying to knock down pins in bowling/
tenpins, but with the added spice of guys with sticks trying to
stop them. In order to get speed, they took a runup. Then someone
discovered that a sidearm delivery could be more effective, and
everybody started screaming that that wasn't cricket, and umpires
no-balled the offenders mercilessly. Eventually it was decided that
sidearm deliveries weren't terribly unsportsmanlike as long as
everybody was allowed to do it, the hand with the ball didn't
rise above shoulder height, and there was no throwing action with
the elbow (i.e., no straightening of the elbow just before delivery).
Of course guys kept pushing the envelope of the allowable, and
soon everybody was bowling right at shoulder height, and it was
becoming more and more difficult to distinguish fair deliveries
from foul ones, so it was decided to legalize overarm bowling
as long as there was no throwing.
A better cricket historian than I can supply names and dates, but
this is essentially how the modern bowling motion developed and
why throwing is not allowed.
Take it easy,
--
Ron Knight (r...@med.unc.edu)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
I can't speak for UNC-CH, and UNC-CH can't speak for me.
It's better for both of us.
Balaji Thirumalaikumara
Overarm bowling was first adopted to help women bowl. They had
these rather huge skirts that made it difficult for them to
bowl under arm.
---
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Balaji ThirumalaiKumara
Intergraph ELectronics Tel: Off: (415) 691-6497
381 E.Evelyn Ave. Res: (415) 965-2316
Mountain View, CA 94041. Fax: Off: (415) 691-0350
Email: bthi...@crescent.edaca.ingr.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stephen Devaux
writes:
>
>In article <D6zDH...@encore.com> ashe...@encore.com "Ajay Shekhar"
writes:
>
>> I was trying to explain cricket to some of my American, baseball
loving
>> friends. One of the questions they asked was, why "chucking" the ball
>> wasn't allowed in cricket.
>> I came up with a couple of answers -
>>
>> (i) Chucking a ball and also allowing it to bounce of the pitch (as
>> opposed to baseball where only "full tosses" are allowed) would be
>> very dangerous for the batsman.
>> (ii) Tradition ...
>>
>> Anyone knows exactly why the over arm bowling action (let's forget
Trevor
>> Chappel's under arm ball for the moment) was adopted ?
>>
>Well, I think there were probably 4 stages (the first stage is my
>hypothesis, but possibly not proven fact):
>
>1. Underarm bowling all along the ground (hence the term "bowling" as
>in the game of bowls). Because of this, the earliest bats had
>something of a curve at the bottom end. (Because pitches were very
>uneven, the ball may have sometimes bounced into the air en route,
>which may have inspired some bright fellow to try his hand at stage
>2.)
>
>2. Underarm bowling, not all along the ground but attempting to pitch
>on a good length. Should be considerably harder for the batsman to
>play than was the previous style.
>
>3. Round-arm bowling. One of the leading players of the time was
>bowled to in practice in the garden by his sister (Christina Wilkes,
>from memory). Because in those days the fashion for women was for
>crinoline skirts, she had no option but to bowl round-arm. Her brother
>realised how much more effective this was than underarm bowling, and
>introduced it into "big" cricket.
What a great story! What a font of wonderful information you are! What
a man! What a guy! What a human being!!
Sycophantically in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
P.S. Remember, John, Collis King for the '80s World XI. Thank you,
thank you.
John Hall
sde...@ix.netcom.com "Stephen Devaux" writes:
>
> What a great story! What a font of wonderful information you are! What
> a man! What a guy! What a human being!!
Well, thank you, Steve :-)
>
> Sycophantically in cricket,
>
> Steve the Bajan
>
> P.S. Remember, John, Collis King for the '80s World XI. Thank you,
> thank you.
Much as I would like to oblige, I'm afraid that I don't think King's
chances are very good, when alternative all-rounders include Botham,
Hadlee, Imran and Kapil Dev.
Moogali Aravind
knows that Cricket started off with underarm bowling and gradually
evolved into overarm bowling thanks to women with tight fitting clothes
in the olden days in England who opted to bowl overarm instead of
underarm as it was easier.Needless to say the men found it more appealing
and adopted it as standard and along with it came the modification of the
cricket bat which originally looked like a hockey stick!
Stephen Devaux
writes:
>
>In article <3mmhf8$3...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
> sde...@ix.netcom.com "Stephen Devaux" writes:
>
>>
>> What a great story! What a font of wonderful information you are!
What
>> a man! What a guy! What a human being!!
>
>Well, thank you, Steve :-)
>>
>> Sycophantically in cricket,
>>
>> Steve the Bajan
>>
>> P.S. Remember, John, Collis King for the '80s World XI. Thank you,
>> thank you.
>
>Much as I would like to oblige, I'm afraid that I don't think King's
>chances are very good, when alternative all-rounders include Botham,
>Hadlee, Imran and Kapil Dev.
What can I say? How can you even SAY those names in the same breath
as mighty Collis! You English are just plain prejudiced against the
Kings of other countries!! I take it all back!!! Ptooey! I spit your
boot polish on the ground!
>--
>
> John Hall, Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk | I always mean what I say,
> Cranleigh, | but unfortunately don't always
> Surrey, England | manage to say what I meant.
>
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
Dkdas
described by Justin of Exeter in 1138 AD. Cricket bowling reverted to
underarm in the 16th and 17th centuries, but even at that time many
near-throwing actions were allowed (not unlike fastpitch softball). When
bowlers started experimenting with round-arm or overarm bowling in the
early 1800s, this was fiercely resisted because throwing the ball overhand
would be dangerous. To make a long story short, throwing was outlawed more
or less to allow round- and overarm bowling to take place, probably by
the 1840s. So the rule against throwing is very recent in cricket's long
history! The full story is more complicated, but that's the simple
version. Deb K. Das, Managing Editor, CRICKETER North American Edition.
John Hall
> Throwing the ball WAS allowed in early cricket, certainly in the forms
> described by Justin of Exeter in 1138 AD.
I hadn't heard of this description. Do you have any more details? The
earliest possible reference to cricket that I was aware of was in the
year 1300, in the wardrobe accounts of King Edward I.
Rama...@vos.stratus.com
> In article <3mq4rm$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> dk...@aol.com "Dkdas" writes:
>
>> Throwing the ball WAS allowed in early cricket, certainly in the forms
>> described by Justin of Exeter in 1138 AD.
Phew! For a moment I thought cricket pre-dated the Norman Conquest!
(Let me catch my breath...) That was 1066, I think.
> I hadn't heard of this description. Do you have any more details? The
> earliest possible reference to cricket that I was aware of was in the
> year 1300, in the wardrobe accounts of King Edward I.
Whoa! A keen sense of fashion too? When were pantaloons 'invented?'
You're a veritable fountain of knowledge, information, wisden.
Don't worry, I won't go Ptooey if I don't agree...
Sorry, but this is a golden day at my site. Never in living memory
(10 months) have I seen posts the same day they were posted, not
on a consistent basis. And since I still haven't seen your 1920's
XII (from yesterday), I know it is a miraculous day, probably never
to repeat. So forgive me, as I get carried away!
> John Hall, Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk | I always mean what I say,
> Cranleigh, | but unfortunately don't always
> Surrey, England | manage to say what I meant.
Cheers!
-- Ramaswamy
Rama...@vos.stratus.com
> In article <798029...@jhall.demon.co.uk> Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk (John Hall) wrote:
>> In article <3mq4rm$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> dk...@aol.com "Dkdas" writes:
>>
>>> Throwing the ball WAS allowed in early cricket, certainly in the forms
>>> described by Justin of Exeter in 1138 AD.
>
> Phew! For a moment I thought cricket pre-dated the Norman Conquest!
> (Let me catch my breath...) That was 1066, I think.
>
>> I hadn't heard of this description. Do you have any more details? The
>> earliest possible reference to cricket that I was aware of was in the
>> year 1300, in the wardrobe accounts of King Edward I.
>
> Whoa! A keen sense of fashion too? When were pantaloons 'invented?'
> You're a veritable fountain of knowledge, information, wisden.
> Don't worry, I won't go Ptooey if I don't agree...
>
>> Cranleigh, | but unfortunately don't always
>> Surrey, England | manage to say what I meant.
>
I usually don't make a habit of following up my own post, but I got
an interesting email response to my flippant comments above and with
his permission and one edit, here's the (rest of the?) story:
From: da...@scl.ci.seattle.wa.us
The earliest references to cricket-like games are from the 8th and 9th
centuries: Cardonius of Florence, and another from Portugal. It seems
the original forms of cricket did not develop in England at all, but in
Europe, associated with the 8th to 9th century monasteries, as a Church
sponsored recreation (explaining why would be too complicated here;
check my articles on early cricket history in CRICKETER North American
Edition; e-mail d...@cricketusa.com if interested), and seems to have
arrived in England in the 9th or 10th centuries in its rudimentary forms
along with the Christian gospel. The 1138 description by Joseph of Exeter
(not Justin, sorry, that was a misprint) is one of the first complete
accounts of the ENGLISH version of the sport. Before King Edward II's
wardrobe business, cricket is mentioned several times in Chaucer's
Canterbury Tales. If you want to go back further, the early European
forms of cricket are remotely traceable from an old Persian game called
"kuitskaukaan", which was still being played as observed by James Cobb
(I think that's the name) in the 1600s; "kuitskaukaan", in turn, is
an adaptation of an earlier form of a game called "gilly-danda" in India
and Pakistan. So the person who posted recently that he thought India
should play "gilly-danda" rather than cricket may have been more prescient
than he thought!
D. K. Das, Managing Editor, CRICKETER North American Edition.
John Hall
> I usually don't make a habit of following up my own post, but I got
> an interesting email response to my flippant comments above and with
> his permission and one edit, here's the (rest of the?) story:
>
> From: da...@scl.ci.seattle.wa.us
<Fascinated stuff snipped>
>
> D. K. Das, Managing Editor, CRICKETER North American Edition.
>
>
This should be archived on cricinfo, I think.
--
John Hall, | When I was younger I thought
Cranleigh, | I knew all the answers.
Surrey, England | Now I realise I don't even
| understand most of the questions.
Amitabha Lahiri
(Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > From: da...@scl.ci.seattle.wa.us
> <Fascinated stuff snipped>
> >
> > D. K. Das, Managing Editor, CRICKETER North American Edition.
> >
> >
> This should be archived on cricinfo, I think.
I second that motion!
Amitabha
--
Amitabha Lahiri MAPS University of Sussex A.La...@central.susx.ac.uk
No one else is responsible for what I say and vice versa.