Looking for more variations

Peter Philpott, in his "The Art of Wrist-Spin Bowling", described the concept of a spinner going "around the loop" - keeping the finger movement constant, but rotating the wrist between successive deliveries, to change the direction of spin.

So, for a right-arm wrist spinner, you might start with a "big leggie", releasing the ball with the seam pointing at gully, or even cover; then a "little leggie", with the seam directed to first slip; the top spinner, with the seam straight down the wicket; the googly, with the wrist now turned even further round so that the seam is spun towards leg slip.

Shane Warne's "slider" might be the delivery at the opposite end of the loop to the googly - still with the same finger movement as a regular leggie, but now with palm of the hand towards gully and the seam pointing towards leg slip but with the fingers spinning the ball back towards the bowler.

And if that sounds like a convoluted description, just imagine how it must be to bowl the delivery!

For the finger spinner, perhaps the loop from doosra, through top-spinner and on to the regular off-break could be continued on to include the "flipper"...and back to Saqlain's teesra...perhaps.

What is the teesra?

When I started this blog, I struggled to come up with a name that evoked the fascination I feel for the game of cricket. I didn't want to write as the wrong'un, much as the googly would fit the bill - possibly the original mystery ball. Professor Bruce Charlton already has an excellent blog called the doosra.

So I went one further. After the doosra (the second, or "other" on), comes the third one, or "The Teesra". Saqlain Mushtaq was reputed to be developing a new mystery delivery, back in 2004. At the time, it wasn't really clear if this ball ever was ever bowled in anger, or even exactly what the delivery might be.

But a post on cricistan.com shows Saqlain bowling his "third one" (after the off break, and the doosra) in the 2008 ICL.

It looks like a flipper - palm of the hand facing away from the bowler at the point of release, the ball flipped out beneath the fore-finger. And the video clip shows the result as a seemingly short delivery pitches much further up than expected, and skids on to trap the batsman leg before.

So is this the new mystery ball? Or could it be Graeme Swann's "gyro" arm ball?

It doesn't really matter - so long as spin bowlers can keep coming up with new ways to take wickets, the game will stay as fascinating as ever.

twenty20 again - England win...

I have just listened to the ICC Twenty20 World Cup final on the radio. And England win!

I have been very impressed by the comments from the England team - they have a plan, and a very clear idea of how to play the game. No more experiments in mid-match (or worse, in mid-over).

Not that they are stereotyped - they give the impression that they have a whole play book of alternative strategies lined up. If plan A does not work, we'll try plan B, or C...

England are really doing nothing more than playing "good cricket". They are very aware of the game situations, and what they need to do. And now, because they don't have to make up tactics on the fly, they can rely on techniques that they have practised and know will work.


This follows on from the succes of essentially orthodox batting in the IPL, especially from Sachin Tendulkar and Jacques Kallis. Play the ball on its merits - it's just true that Sachin and Jacques both had such a range of strokes that far more deliveries deserve to be hit to the boundary!


How simple is that?

trials and examinations...

Several of our young colts have been at district and County trials recently. It's great to see them getting the recognition they deserve, but it does raise the question of whether we should be coaching for trials, not just for playing the game.

I have heard this a couple of times at Colts' practice - "we don't want a game, we won't learn anything"; and "I've got a trial later this week, I must have a net".

I guess I was never good enough to worry about trials - I played District cricket, because my school was much the strongest at cricket in the borough, and a couple of County schools games in the sixth form when a lot of the better players had left after O levels. But back in my day you were invited to play by (hopefully) knowledgeable coaches, taking advice from school masters.

The system is much fairer now, certainly, and works through the Clubs. But from the comments of some of our Colts, it does sound as if the trial has become part of the prevailing examination culture.

Which brings me back to the question - what do you have to do to "pass" a representative trial? And should we be coaching that knowledge, or trying to instill it through match play?

More t20 - still "good cricket"?

I have enjoyed watching the Indian Premier League, this spring. Some of the matches I have seen so far have been one-sided, but there is always something going on, and some of the techniques on display are spectacular.

Watching the master classes from the Little Master really demonstrates the benefits of a sound, bascially orthodox approach to batting, even in the shortest form of the game. With not a hint of a slog, Sachin scores as fast as most, and more reliably than almost anyone. A great example to young players.

I have been less convinced by some of the seam bowling I have seen. Slower balls, changes of line and length, variations a-plenty [including wides, full tosses...] - I wonder if the game-plan might benefit from a (slightly) more conservative approach?

Watching the slow bowlers, several of whom have been very successful in this year's IPL, you do get to appreciate the subtleties of the spinners art. Yes, they vary their pace and bowl their wrong-uns, top spinners, doosras and sliders, but all within a tightly controlled range.

Lots to enjoy, and lots of lessons to learn.

Ball tampering - is it really a crime?

The recent third test between South Africa and England ended in a thrilling draw (for England fans). Another last wicket stand saw England "win the draw", again.

But during the game, accusations of ball tampering were raised (through the media, not to the match authorities). As the Laws of the Game stand, ball tampering is just about the most serious crime a cricketer can commit on the field of the play.

It has to be stopped, but first it has to be proven.

Duncan Fletcher, in an article in the Guardian, has suggested employing the third umpire to look out for misdemeanours.

That makes a lot of sense.

But only if we continue to see ball doctoring as a crime. Is it really such a bad thing, if ball preparation allows great (and not so great) bowlers to redress the imbalance between bat and ball? To allow the bowlers to remain competitive for the duration of the match, not only when they have a shiny new ball in their hands?


In the same way that Murali was first condemned (still is, unfairly, in some quarters) for achieving something that no-one else could (i.e. for being too good), then ultimately accepted as the master bowler he is, should we encourage innovation in swing and seam bowling?

And if that needs some preparation of the ball, why not?

Why not allow the bowlers a better grip on the ball?

I have written previously about the possibilities of spin-swerve, at pace, as demonstrated by baseball pitchers. I wonder how batsmen would react to a Shane Warne-like ball-of-the-century delivered at brisk medium pace, and faster?

It's possible, as shown by baseball pitchers. But of course, they are allowed to use their resin bag, to improve their grip on the ball.

So why not allow bowlers to do the same?

OK - one reason why not - a really skillful spinner, with a resin-enhanced grip, might make batting a much harder proposition (not such a bad thing, from this bowler's perspective), and seriously cut short the time needed to complete a match.

But how often is the final day of a Test match as enthralling as in the current SA v England series? And if you could fit a full Test match into just 4 days, then why not? In most countries, Test match grounds are rarely full on the final (5th) day. So there would perhaps be no real loss of (gate) revenue involved, especially if the first four days of a game can guarantee more action, and bring in larger crowds.

Would the television channels still pay as much for a series of 4 day Tests? If the viewing figures were good (and the improved "product" should help to achieve that), then why not?


So - why not give bowlers the chance to work on the ball?

England Win the Draw!

Yet another last ditch stand sees England save the third Test at Newlands - "England wins the draw", as it says on the BBC ball-by-ball text commentary.

So is this "good cricket", or proof that 5-day cricket needs a major overhaul? How can you play for 5 whole days, then celebrate the fact that you haven't lost?

I guess this is something that you either get, or you don't. To me, this game highlights everything that makes the game worth watching (or playing).

Two teams going flat out to win, up to the point when that aim is unattainable for one of them, then doing everything within the Laws to save the game. The match has context within the series, the series context with the Test rankings. So it matters that Graham Onions played out the last over from Morne Morkel. To the players, to the fans.

(OK - in the wider scheme of things, does this really matter? Not when compared to famine, world peace, global warming. But a lot more than who wins this year's X Factor...IMO)

There's a place for twenty20, but the time game is still the real thing. The League I play in has just introduced limited over matches (50/50) for the 1st XI competitions. The lower XIs can't play overs, because the match rules are so complicated that you need independent umpires to work out the result! That says everything, I think.

Yes, for the time game (5 days, or Saturday afternoon) to work, you need the players and (especially) captains to adopt a positive approach to the game. If one (or both) sides set out with the idea of not losing, you'll get a waste of time.

But there's no need for that attitude. Except in a gross mis-match (which can happen, even in Test cricket), both teams should have a chance to win. A captain with a weaker team will have to work harder, and think harder, but that's the real joy of the game. It's not (shouldn't be) just a case of letting off the big guns, and counting the overs.

The best book on captaincy, and a title that really should be compulsory reading for all captains at Club level, is Eric Rose's "How to Win at Cricket". It's about being brave enough to risk losing a match. About not setting out to steamroll a weaker team (this is really for the Club game, especially in "friendly" matches) but still setting out to get a positive result.


Can legislators force sides to play positively? Possibly, in the professional game, where field placings are mandated and slow over rates penalised. How long until Test sides get fined for slow scoring?

In the Club game, it's going to be much harder. And I for one don't think that limited overs necessarily makes for good cricket.