The value of the classic English fast medium bowler

RH

unread,

May 18, 2013, 12:55:31 PM5/18/13

to

Three RFM bowlers in their thirties - Richardson, Murtagh and Masters
- give the lie to the modern heresy that bowlers of their pace
(around 80 MPH) are not dangerous enough to play Test cricket. All
have the old fashioned virtues of bowling a consistent line and
length, pitching it up and moving the ball both off the seam and in
the air. None would disgrace themselves if they played for England in
England.

Four of England's most successful bowlers have been of their general
type: Lohman, Barnes, Tate and Bedser. RH

g.ca...@uea.ac.uk

unread,

May 18, 2013, 1:20:48 PM5/18/13

to

Performing well in the FC game does not mean they will be successful at test cricket, at least not in the modern era, with covered pitches. In the FC game there are likely to be bowlers who are almost guaranteed to send down a bad ball per over, so there is no need for the batsman to take risks against an accurate but otherwise innocuous bowler, so the RFM bowler can be highly successful in FC cricket. However in test cricket, all four bowlers are likely to be accurate (by FC standards) in which case the easier to score off is the slow but accurate bowler rather than the fast but accurate bowler, and they will fare poorly. If the pitch were bad, then the more accurate you are, the more dangerous as you can let the pitch do all the work for you, so uncovered pitches favour the RFM bowler.

Believe it or not, the selectors are not buffoons, and know a thing or two about cricket; if these bowlers were likely to be successful at test cricket, they would have got a chance.

I'm sure none of them would have disgraced themselves at test level, but that is a pretty weak argument for their selection!

RH

unread,

May 18, 2013, 1:30:18 PM5/18/13

to

RFM bowlers have been consistently successful in Australia as well as
at home. Covering is not the prime determinant of success or failure
of such bowlers. RH

Mike Holmans

unread,

May 18, 2013, 1:30:08 PM5/18/13

to

On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:20:48 -0700 (PDT), g.ca...@uea.ac.uk tapped
the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Saturday, 18 May 2013 17:55:31 UTC+1, RH wrote:
>> Three RFM bowlers in their thirties - Richardson, Murtagh and Masters
>>
>> - give the lie to the modern heresy that bowlers of their pace
>>
>> (around 80 MPH) are not dangerous enough to play Test cricket. All
>>
>> have the old fashioned virtues of bowling a consistent line and
>>
>> length, pitching it up and moving the ball both off the seam and in
>>
>> the air. None would disgrace themselves if they played for England in
>>
>> England.
>>
>>
>>
>> Four of England's most successful bowlers have been of their general
>>
>> type: Lohman, Barnes, Tate and Bedser. RH

>I'm sure none of them would have disgraced themselves at test level, but that is a pretty weak argument for their selection!

Indeed. Isn't it odd that the selectors think more of picking the best
bowlers available than of consulting history books to see what was
successful and picking people who fit that mould?

Characteristically, the Halfwit hasn't even noticed that Murtagh isn't
eligible, since he's now an Irish international and would have to
serve a qualifying period.

Cheers,

Mike
--

g.ca...@uea.ac.uk

unread,

May 18, 2013, 1:37:55 PM5/18/13

to

As usual, you have missed the point. I suspect there are plenty of bowlers in Australian FC cricket that send down a bad ball an over, so again there is little incentive to attack an accurate RFM when you can exploit the low hanging fruit provided by the bowler at the other end. Uncovered pitches are a leveller that reduces the difference in the risk of attacking a slowish accurate bowler and a fast accurate bowler, but this only matters if the bowling at both ends is sufficiently tight to maintain some pressure.

Andrew Dunford

unread,

May 19, 2013, 8:52:04 PM5/19/13

to

"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tbefp8h6ufs3cd9t1...@4ax.com...

There's no qualifying period required when shifting allegiance from an ICC
Associate to Full Member, even if there probably should be.

There is the small matter of signing the ECB availability declaration at the
start of each season, but now that RH has spoken I'm sure the ECB
registrations department would be only too happy to have Murtagh sign a
fresh declaration by return post.

Andrew

RH

unread,

May 20, 2013, 2:51:30 AM5/20/13

to

On May 18, 6:30 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:20:48 -0700 (PDT), g.caw...@uea.ac.uk tapped

Two of England most successful bowlers in the 1990s were RFM, Cork
and Fraser. Both ended with lower Test averages than Flintoff,
Harmison, Broad, Anderson .... RH

Offramp

unread,

May 20, 2013, 5:59:45 AM5/20/13

to

Two bowlers spring from my memory.
Ken Higgs, who could move the ball ALL OVER THE PLACE on a cloudy day. He was never above RM. But he had the nous of not overdoing it; he could control the swing. Mind you, he did bowl about a million overs.

Gary "Tuck your fucking shirt in" Gilmour. Deadly at Headingley but not used much elsewhere, like Massie at Lord's. Huge movement.

What baffles me is when scientists say - and I've read these reports roughly quinquennially - that atmosphere can have little or no effect on the movement of a cricket ball through the air!

Stupid Cox sackers.

Richard Dixon

unread,

May 20, 2013, 6:20:52 AM5/20/13

to

On Monday, 20 May 2013 10:59:45 UTC+1, Offramp wrote:

> What baffles me is when scientists say - and I've read these reports roughly quinquennially - that atmosphere can have little or no effect on the movement of a cricket ball through the air!

Has anyone done any proper lab tests under different humidity/temperature/wind conditions. I can't imagine a humidity controlled wind tunnel/cricket net likely exists. I guess you could test all year round in the Ken Barrington centre. I seem to recall it getting quite sweaty in there at certain times of year...!

Richard

g.ca...@uea.ac.uk

unread,

May 20, 2013, 7:07:41 AM5/20/13

to

yes, there has been work on this:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=cricket+swing

E.g.

Factors affecting cricket ball swing

R. D. Mehta*, K. Bentley, M. Proudlove & P. Varty

Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College, London University, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2BY, UK
*Present address: Mail Stop 227/8, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California 94035, USA.

The basic principles behind cricket ball swing have been understood by scientists for years1-3; however, there has been only one published account of experiments on cricket ball swing4. Through a combination of flow visualization and measurements of surface pressures on a cricket ball, the individual parameters responsible for producing swing have been investigated. An accurate correlation between swing, seam angle, spin rate and flow speed was obtained in the more realistic projection tests where spinning cricket balls were projected into a wind tunnel5. For a ball to swing well, it should be released at a speed of between 15 and 30 m s-1 with the seam inclined at about 20° incidence and the ball spinning steadily along the seam at about 11 rev s-1. The present experiments do not support the popular view that swing increases in damp or humid conditions. In particular, measurements show that the cricket ball seam does not swell in such conditions.

g.ca...@uea.ac.uk

unread,

May 20, 2013, 7:09:37 AM5/20/13

to

On Monday, 20 May 2013 07:51:30 UTC+1, RH wrote:

>
> Two of England most successful bowlers in the 1990s were RFM, Cork
>
> and Fraser. Both ended with lower Test averages than Flintoff,
>
> Harmison, Broad, Anderson .... RH

So who were the other test RFMs of the 1990s, and how did they fare?

Graham P Davis

unread,

May 20, 2013, 11:24:17 AM5/20/13

to

On Mon, 20 May 2013 02:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Offramp <alane...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What baffles me is when scientists say - and I've read these reports
> roughly quinquennially - that atmosphere can have little or no effect
> on the movement of a cricket ball through the air!

The last report I heard about suggested that there could be a link
between swing and cloudiness: On a sunny day, the heating of the ground
and consequent convection currents leads to turbulence which reduces
the chance of smooth airflow over the surface of the ball; on a cloudy
day, there are no such convection currents to disturb the flow.

I don't know how much scientists understand about the swing of a
cricket ball but, on the evidence of comments they have made, I'm
fairly sure that commentators don't have a clue and haven't done for a
long time.

When I was about 12 years old, back in the 1950s, I was listening to a
commentary on the radio and the commentators agreed that, as the old
ball was swinging prodigiously, they should take the new ball as soon
as it was available. I shouted back at the radio that they should do no
such thing as the new ball wouldn't swing at all. The new ball was
taken once the 90 overs were up and, of course, it went gun-barrel
straight. What they didn't realise was that it was the roughness of the
ball that was causing it to swing; I'd only just seen evidence for this
when throwing a table-tennis ball that had become cracked.

The latest nonsense I keep hearing from commentators is that Malinga
gets reverse swing in the later overs of a T20 match. If they actually
bothered to look at how he delivers the ball in the early overs and
the different action in the latter overs they'd see that the swing is
not due to the ball 'reversing.' It's not just me that says that
Malinga doesn't bowl reverse swing, he says it as well.

As commentators are mostly retired cricketers, it's probably fair to
say that most cricketers don't have a clue about what causes normal
swing and so-called reverse swing.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
Free office software: http://www.libreoffice.org/
Carlos Seixas, Sonata nº 1 - best version of this I've found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXox7vonfEg

g.ca...@uea.ac.uk

unread,

May 20, 2013, 11:35:48 AM5/20/13

to

I've noticed however that sometimes what the commentators refer to as "late swing" is actually clearly movement off the pitch on replay.

> Carlos Seixas, Sonata nº 1 - best version of this I've found:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXox7vonfEg

more a Bach fan myself...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4j3aIe3-qU

RH

unread,

May 20, 2013, 4:21:03 PM5/20/13

to

On May 20, 10:59 am, Offramp <alaneobr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Two bowlers spring from my memory.
> Ken Higgs, who could move the ball ALL OVER THE PLACE on a cloudy day. He was never above RM.

Utter nonsense,. He was a healthy RFM. Watch England v Windies 1966
clips. RH

RH

unread,

May 20, 2013, 4:24:14 PM5/20/13

to

The English RFM Text bowlers in the 1990s were Martin, Foster,
Mallender, Bicknell, Botham, Munton, .... RH

Andrew Dunford

unread,

May 20, 2013, 8:21:23 PM5/20/13

to

"Graham P Davis" <new...@scarlet-jade.com> wrote in message
news:20130520162...@home-1.scarlet-jade...

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 02:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
> Offramp <alane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What baffles me is when scientists say - and I've read these reports
>> roughly quinquennially - that atmosphere can have little or no effect
>> on the movement of a cricket ball through the air!
>
> The last report I heard about suggested that there could be a link
> between swing and cloudiness: On a sunny day, the heating of the ground
> and consequent convection currents leads to turbulence which reduces
> the chance of smooth airflow over the surface of the ball; on a cloudy
> day, there are no such convection currents to disturb the flow.

This is very much what Brian Wilkins discovered in his work at Victoria
University of Wellington, published in the book 'Cricket: The Bowler's Art'.
But most particularly, he found there was absolutely no link between high
levels of humidity and swing. Wilkins made extensive use of wind tunnels
in his work.

> I don't know how much scientists understand about the swing of a
> cricket ball but, on the evidence of comments they have made, I'm
> fairly sure that commentators don't have a clue and haven't done for a
> long time.

I purchased Dr Wilkins's book by visiting his house. Whilst exchanging
pleasantries I happened to mention that some TV commentators appeared to
misunderstand the mechanics of swing bowling. This set him off, and I
eventually had to curtail the conversation because I was due somewhere else.

<snip>

Andrew

D Ramapriya

unread,

May 21, 2013, 12:12:06 AM5/21/13

to

On May 21, 4:21 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
>
> This is very much what Brian Wilkins discovered in his work at Victoria
> University of Wellington, published in the book 'Cricket: The Bowler's Art'.
> But most particularly, he found there was absolutely no link between high
> levels of humidity and swing. Wilkins made extensive use of wind tunnels
> in his work.

There should be, though. Humid conditions should theoretically afford
less possibilities for swing, just as very hot conditions should. If
there's a combination of heat and humidity, even lesser! Most regular
Test grounds around the world, bar Jo'burg and B'lore (discounting the
two Zim venues), are not much higher than sea level. And that makes
those two venues especially more interesting. On a day with
temperatures in the high 30s and high humidity, even normally RFMs
would seem like RFs - and it's known that unless you scuff up one
hemisphere of a cricket ball, swing is usually inversely proportional
to pace.

Dense air is sine qua non to swing. A cold day on a low-altitude
ground, especially where there can be a cross-wind, is perfect for
swing.

Ramapriya

unread,

May 21, 2013, 11:51:41 AM5/21/13

to

On Tue, 21 May 2013 16:22:05 +0100, David W Noon
<dwn...@spamtrap.ntlworld.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Tue, 21 May 2013 13:59:52 +0100, David North wrote about Re: The
>value of the classic English fast medium bowler:
>
>>"RH" <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:afe7c7c8-b534-4462...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>On May 20, 12:09 pm, g.caw...@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>>> On Monday, 20 May 2013 07:51:30 UTC+1, RH wrote:
>>>
>>> > Two of England most successful bowlers in the 1990s were RFM, Cork
>>>
>>> > and Fraser. Both ended with lower Test averages than Flintoff,
>>>
>>> > Harmison, Broad, Anderson .... RH
>>>
>>> So who were the other test RFMs of the 1990s, and how did they fare?
>>
>>"The English RFM Text bowlers in the 1990s were Martin, Foster,
>>Mallender, Bicknell, Botham, Munton, .... RH"
>>
>>In the 1990s, they played 8, 1 (largely owing to being banned), 2, 2,
>>5 and 2 Tests respectively, and, apart from Mallender at Headingley,
>>didn't do much to write home about.
>
>I was at The Oval in 1997 and saw Peter "Digger" Martin play. His
>bowling was only so-so, but he batted well. Perhaps FM bowling should
>be like keeping wickets: one's batting average is considered most
>important. [Although Martin's lifetime batting average in Tests is
>nothing flash at 8.84.] Curiously enough, that match at The Oval was
>his last ever Test.

He played too many as it was. I remember contemplating giving up on
cricket when Peter Martin was selected in 1996. If he was the best we
could come up with, then we had no chance of being a serious Test
nation for the foreseeable future.

There is very little which is more pointless than a classical English
RFM unless he's very good indeed. He may be of marginal value in
England or NZ if the conditions are favourable, but in dry conditions
here or anywhere abroad, the best he can do is not give away too many
runs before a good bowler can be brought back on.

Cheers,

Mike
--

g.ca...@uea.ac.uk

unread,

May 21, 2013, 11:59:38 AM5/21/13

to

On Monday, 20 May 2013 21:24:14 UTC+1, RH wrote:

Mallender only got two tests, so by definition he didn't fare well in test cricket (and to a large extent he was picked for Headingley as much as he was picked for England).

Martin averaged 34.11, which isn't particularly good for that era, so he didn't fare very well either.

Tim Munton got two tests and averaged 50, so he didn't fare too well either

Martin Bicknell got four tests and averages 38.78, so he fared badly

I recall Foster as being rather quicker than merely RFM, he averaged 32.85, which by the standards of the day was O.K.

Botham played all of four games in the 90s and once he was down to RFM pace he was no where near as effective as a bowler. From 1985 onwards, he averaged 37.84, so he fared badly.

I can see why you only listed the bowlers and didn't comment as requested on how they fared!

Steve Hague

unread,

May 21, 2013, 12:08:24 PM5/21/13

to

>
> I recall Foster as being rather quicker than merely RFM, he averaged
> 32.85, which by the standards of the day was O.K.

Foster was a good bowler, but I don't recall him being any more than RFM.

>
> Botham played all of four games in the 90s and once he was down to
> RFM pace he was no where near as effective as a bowler. From 1985
> onwards, he averaged 37.84, so he fared badly.

Botham came down from RFM to RM in the mid 80s. His pace was never very
great, his main virtue was his swing, and that too went as his pace fell.
Steve Hague

Andrew B

unread,

May 21, 2013, 4:46:12 PM5/21/13

to

It would have been a more convincing defence of RFM bowlers if he could
have brought himself to mention DeFreitas, Caddick and Headley.

Who decides whether a bowler is RF/RFM/RMF/RM, anyway? Checking
Cricinfo's list of England right-arm pace bowlers in the 90s (and
ignoring part-timers), nearly all of them seem to be described as "right
fast-medium". Malcolm, Lawrence, Tudor, Flintoff & McCague are the only
ones I noticed being described as "fast".

Fraser, Gough, DeFreitas, Caddick, Cork, Lewis, Headley, Small, Martin,
Botham, Jarvis, Silverwood, Bicknell, Giddins, Hollioake (B), Igglesden,
Williams, Newport and Foster were all RFM in Cricinfo's opinion. Ealham,
Watkin, Capel, Benjamin and Munton were "medium-fast", and the rest were
medium.

David North

unread,

May 21, 2013, 7:30:27 PM5/21/13

to

"RH" <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:5db0a313-4b33-4204...@m2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

"The did not play often because Fraser and Cork were the go to RFMs....
RH"

When Cork made his Test debut, Mallender was nearly 34 and 6 FC matches from
retirement, and it had been two years since Botham and Foster played their
last FC matches, so he had zero effect on their Test careers.
--
David North

David North

unread,

May 21, 2013, 7:57:31 PM5/21/13

to

<g.ca...@uea.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:6cfd24aa-d979-4570...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, 20 May 2013 21:24:14 UTC+1, RH wrote:
> On May 20, 12:09 pm, g.caw...@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 20 May 2013 07:51:30 UTC+1, RH wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Two of England most successful bowlers in the 1990s were RFM, Cork
>
> >
>
> > > and Fraser. Both ended with lower Test averages than Flintoff,
>
> >
>
> > > Harmison, Broad, Anderson .... RH
>
> >
>
> > So who were the other test RFMs of the 1990s, and how did they fare?
>
>
>
> The English RFM Text bowlers in the 1990s were Martin, Foster,
>
> Mallender, Bicknell, Botham, Munton, .... RH

"Mallender only got two tests, so by definition he didn't fare well in test
cricket (and to a large extent he was picked for Headingley as much as he
was picked for England)."

Indeed he was. Having picked him successfully for Headingley on a "horses
for courses" basis, the selectors then made the mistake of deciding that he
had to play at The Oval, which didn't suit him.
--
David North