Talk:Spin bowling

According to the Magnus Effect article: "Contrary to what some think, the Magnus effect is not responsible for the movement of a cricket ball seen in swing bowling." Does that mean this article is incorrect? 192.203.136.254 13:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it's correct. The Magnus effect does not cause swing, but it does cause a spinning cricket ball to drift as explained in this article on spin bowling. Spin, drift, and swing are all very different motions of a cricket ball, with different causes. -dmmaus 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I came to find something of the history of spin bowling and found ... nothing. If anyone knows anything about this subject, I believe this would be the place to share. 80.171.114.122 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

{{editsemiprotected}}

Two Zimbabwean bowlers are included in the list, but no one from a notable test country, Bangladesh is included in the list.

Ray Price from Zimbabwe is included in the list of spinners, but two spinners, with more wickets and better averages from Bangladesh is not on the list.

Mohammad Rafique http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/55973.html

Shakib Al Hasan http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/56143.html

Another notable spinner from India is not included in this list.

Harbhajan Singh http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/29264.html

these spinners should be included in this list for this list to be plausible.

64.53.191.107 (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Done CTJF83 pride 19:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC).Reply

Roughly how many revolutions per second does a good wrist spinner impart? and a good finger spinnner? 86.53.69.150 (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to revert the revert of the previous change. It's clearly not OR as it simply compiles information already on this page and the pages on wrist spin and finger spin into a table. 188.221.246.173 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please do not introduce information which has no verifiable source until this matter is discussed further. For now it falls into the WP:OR. Andrei S (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

No it doesn't. It's a perfectly valid change, simply compiling data already present, so none of it comes under WP:OR. For example, could you give me an example of a claim that isn't already present on the wikipedia pages on wrist spin bowling or finger spin bowling? Do you even know anything about cricket? Kindly revert it back, and go and find another page to vandalise 188.221.246.173 (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the link, its says: "The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission". So it appears to be you who are breaking the rules by deleting my previous comment without my permission. I'm simply trying to improve this article by adding good, verifiable material. If you are an expert on spin bowling and have a specific issue you wish to raise, then please bring it up and we can discuss it. For some reason known only to yourself, you don't wish to debate this but simply appear to be resolute on constantly vandalising this page. 188.221.246.173 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do NOT delete anything that is being discussed here or you are violating a Wikipedia rule as can be seen here: WP:TALKO. Your concerns are going to be dealt with as long as you keep a decent vocabulary and be patient. Thank you for your cooperation. Andrei S (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm still befuddled by your previous comment. Were you addressing yourself? You know it was you that deleted the comments, right? Did you simultaneously delete comments and then warn yourself for deleting comments? It really isn't good practice to edit wikipedia when you're quite so high you know. 188.221.246.173 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

This entire page is very poorly written, and seems largely to be a unnecessarily long list of spin bowling practitioners. As a qualified coach, I will happily bring it up to a good standard, because frankly its a intresting topic that deserves a well written page and its embarassing as it is and gives a poor impression of cricket. However it would be useful if certain self-important individuals would not hit revert every improvement simply to show how all powerful they are. 188.221.246.173 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

As pointed out by more than one contributor, the table might improve the quality of this article. Is it relevant or is it considered WP:OR? Andrei S (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

-

If you look through the talk:history you will see that at no point did I delete any of your comments, so I don't know what you've been smoking. However you DID delete two of mine. This is a clear contravention of WP:TALKO. I will ask you to read the full wikipedia guidelines before editing anything else on the site.

Yes, I did. I do apologise for my mistake. I will reintroduce your comments right back into the discussion page. Please keep your vocabulary decent. I have added this page on a discussion board so your contributions can be evaluated appropriately. I do apologise again for my mistake. Andrei S (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

- - In answer to you question, as I have already stated on several occasions the material can be verified on wrist spin and finger spin.

I think its clearly relevant, as it clears up a lot of confusion between terms that people may not otherwise realise were referring to the same concept.

- 188.221.246.173 (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

This page is being slowly turned into a list of people's favourite bowlers. Most of the bowlers mentioned could hardly be described as particularly notable. Tony Greig? Are you having a laugh?

Could we perhaps try to reduce the competitive jingoism and just limit it to a sentence or two about each genuinely notable bowler: those rare world class bowlers who actually broke records or were innovative or unusual enough to take the art of spin bowling forwards? 213.70.98.66 (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the list of bowlers should be split into List of spin bowlers; the list of names on this article certainly seems excessive and adds little to its encyclopaedic value. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Giftiger: would you consider accepting my last change that was just rejected with no reason given? I'm trying to tidy this page up, as its such a mess at the moment it is something of an embarassment, but its like banging my head against a brick wall. Py0alb (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Besides, there is already a perfectly adequate list of spin bowlers on bowler_(cricket) There is simply no reason to have one here as well. Py0alb (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The user who declined the change should have indicated why in an edit summary, but you selectively removed a large number of names without explaining your reasoning; could you explain why you chose to remove these names here? Personally I think it's likely to be more productive to simply move the list to its own page and add it to see also in this article, so that we can maintain a list which more specifically indicates its criteria for listing; at the moment it's a list with no description, nothing written to indicate why each entry is worth mention, and no references. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

My reasoning was explained above, and in the edit summary: I only left in those "rare world class bowlers who actually broke records or were innovative or unusual enough to take the art of spin bowling forwards". Each one of the bowlers I left in fulfilled that criteria. The ones I removed did not.

Obviously, it would be a further improvement to write a couple of sentences next to each one explaining what they have done to deserve selection. But I only have one pair of hands. It's an awful lot easier to make a series of small improvements than one huge improvement. The first step to improving this section would be to remove the extraneous material, and then we can go from there, thinking about what we want to write for those that remain and finding some good references. However if I'm not going to be allowed even to make this small change, then this page is simply never going to get tidied up. It really shouldn't be this difficult to make a couple of minor improvements. Py0alb (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have done some research and used the cricinfo "all-time XI feature" http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/magazine/alltime_composite.html to justify my choices. Unsuprisingly, they pretty much agree with the edit I had already attempted. Py0alb (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

A month ago I added an equivalency table to this page, which simply pulled together some of the information from finger spin and wrist spin. Cricket can be a confusing sport and often uses several different words to describe the same thing, and I thought a simple table would simplify understanding. I notice now that in making the table, I missed out the word "real" from one column, forgot to add "wrong'un" as another name for a doosra (a wrong'un literally means "one that turned the wrong way"), and I added a link to teesra after some good work by another editor. It seems bizarre that every different mention of the same word should require a separate reference. It frustrates me that it should be such hard work to make a few simple changes to a page I am trying desperately to improve. How long will it take if I want to write a whole new section? I can see now why wikipedia has gone backwards over the last few years. I think that there is a culture of superiority by some editors who simply reject every change they come across. 188.221.246.173 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The definition of Arm ball was wrong, it has been updated with reference from cricinfo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafaet (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

This edit adds a couple of terms to the table of equivalencies. The edit doesn't cite any sources, but then again, neither does anything else in the table. I know nothing about cricket; can you guys, who hopefully know more about the game than I do, try to figure out whether these edits are correct or not? In any case, we really ought to find a reliable source that talks about these terms. --Tanner Swett (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Without proper sourcing the list of notable spin bowlers cannot stay. We need to clarify who is a notable bowler and from a reliable source, not just editor opinions. Any inclusion of details about a living person must be sourced GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are two 'videos' which show types of spin bowling. The second one has a description of "A leg spin delivery by (left arm over the wicket)", but clearly it is not over the wicket if the bowler is left handed and the delivery is coming from the left side of the pitch. I don't know how to modify the text though! Can someone fix this please? FillsHerTease (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply