Discussion:
Cricket
(too old to reply)
Sid Nuncius
2020-08-22 18:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Sorry about this but....

Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy Anderson

Thank you. That's better out than in.

And young Crawley did rather well, too.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Sam Plusnet
2020-08-22 19:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Sorry about this but....
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy Anderson
Thank you.  That's better out than in.
And young Crawley did rather well, too.
It can be difficult, defending such a small total.
--
Sam Plusnet
Sam Plusnet
2020-08-24 01:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Sid Nuncius
Sorry about this but....
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy Anderson
Thank you.  That's better out than in.
And young Crawley did rather well, too.
It can be difficult, defending such a small total.
P.S. I imagine people are all trying to keep out of Jimmy Anderson's
way tonight. He might be a tad upset.
--
Sam Plusnet
Steve Hague
2020-08-23 06:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Sorry about this but....
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy Anderson
Thank you.  That's better out than in.
And young Crawley did rather well, too.
His nickname just has to be Creepy, much like the previous Crawley.
the Omrud
2020-08-26 13:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Sorry about this but....
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy Anderson
Thank you.  That's better out than in.
Well, quite.

I thought I'd better pop in to mention that he lives around the corner
from us.
--
David
Peter
2020-08-26 14:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Sid Nuncius
Sorry about this but....
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy Anderson
Thank you.  That's better out than in.
Well, quite.
I thought I'd better pop in to mention that he lives around the corner
from us.
This thread has been a mystery to me. But on the news this morning I
learned that *fast* bowler Jimmy Anderson had taken (is that the right
word?) 600 test wickets. While a multiplicity (three?) of *spin*
bowlers had already taken that many wickets.

That puzzled me. I understand (not really, but never mind) that spin
can be applied to a ball, but I had supposed that bowlers sometimes made
the ball spin and sometimes did not, just to try to mislead the batsman.

So there are (are there?) fast bowler who always bowl fast, spin bowlers
who always bowl spinning balls, etc, etc. My guess is that there is no
such thing as a fast spin bowler because if there was there would be a
demarcation dispute (remember them?) and Frances O'Grady would be on the
news being interviewed about it.
the Omrud
2020-08-26 14:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Sid Nuncius
Sorry about this but....
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy Anderson
Thank you.  That's better out than in.
Well, quite.
I thought I'd better pop in to mention that he lives around the corner
from us.
This thread has been a mystery to me.  But on the news this morning I
learned that *fast* bowler Jimmy Anderson had taken (is that the right
word?) 600 test wickets.  While a multiplicity (three?) of *spin*
bowlers had already taken that many wickets.
That puzzled me.  I understand (not really, but never mind) that spin
can be applied to a ball, but I had supposed that bowlers sometimes made
the ball spin and sometimes did not, just to try to mislead the batsman.
Not common, particularly in elite bowlers.
So there are (are there?) fast bowler who always bowl fast, spin bowlers
who always bowl spinning balls, etc, etc.  My guess is that there is no
such thing as a fast spin bowler because if there was there would be a
demarcation dispute (remember them?) and Frances O'Grady would be on the
news being interviewed about it.
The reason that no other fast bowlers have been able to take more
wickets is that the action of fast bowling is very wearing on the body.
Spinners can keep going for longer, both in a match in and in their career.
--
David
Peter
2020-08-26 15:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by the Omrud
Post by Sid Nuncius
Sorry about this but....
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy Anderson
Thank you.  That's better out than in.
Well, quite.
I thought I'd better pop in to mention that he lives around the
corner from us.
This thread has been a mystery to me.  But on the news this morning I
learned that *fast* bowler Jimmy Anderson had taken (is that the right
word?) 600 test wickets.  While a multiplicity (three?) of *spin*
bowlers had already taken that many wickets.
That puzzled me.  I understand (not really, but never mind) that spin
can be applied to a ball, but I had supposed that bowlers sometimes
made the ball spin and sometimes did not, just to try to mislead the
batsman.
Not common, particularly in elite bowlers.
So there are (are there?) fast bowler who always bowl fast, spin
bowlers who always bowl spinning balls, etc, etc.  My guess is that
there is no such thing as a fast spin bowler because if there was
there would be a demarcation dispute (remember them?) and Frances
O'Grady would be on the news being interviewed about it.
The reason that no other fast bowlers have been able to take more
wickets is that the action of fast bowling is very wearing on the body.
Spinners can keep going for longer, both in a match in and in their career.
Thank you for the explanation!
Steve Hague
2020-08-26 15:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Sid Nuncius
Sorry about this but....
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy Anderson
Thank you.  That's better out than in.
Well, quite.
I thought I'd better pop in to mention that he lives around the corner
from us.
This thread has been a mystery to me.  But on the news this morning I
learned that *fast* bowler Jimmy Anderson had taken (is that the right
word?) 600 test wickets.  While a multiplicity (three?) of *spin*
bowlers had already taken that many wickets.
That puzzled me.  I understand (not really, but never mind) that spin
can be applied to a ball, but I had supposed that bowlers sometimes made
the ball spin and sometimes did not, just to try to mislead the batsman.
So there are (are there?) fast bowler who always bowl fast, spin bowlers
who always bowl spinning balls, etc, etc.  My guess is that there is no
such thing as a fast spin bowler because if there was there would be a
demarcation dispute (remember them?) and Frances O'Grady would be on the
news being interviewed about it.
Fast bowlers need to put in more effort than spin bowlers. Wrist
spinners tend to get more turn than finger spinners. Finger spinners
have three basic deliveries, wrist spinners up to five, depending on
their skill level. There was a fast- medium spin bowler, Sydney Francis
Barnes, who is commonly regarded as the best bowler there's been so far.
He had enourmous hands and was a seriously unpleasant man by all accounts.
Steve
Nick Odell
2020-08-26 18:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by the Omrud
Post by Sid Nuncius
Sorry about this but....
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy Anderson
Thank you.  That's better out than in.
Well, quite.
I thought I'd better pop in to mention that he lives around the corner
from us.
This thread has been a mystery to me. But on the news this morning I
learned that *fast* bowler Jimmy Anderson had taken (is that the right
word?) 600 test wickets. While a multiplicity (three?) of *spin*
bowlers had already taken that many wickets.
That puzzled me. I understand (not really, but never mind) that spin
can be applied to a ball, but I had supposed that bowlers sometimes made
the ball spin and sometimes did not, just to try to mislead the batsman.
So there are (are there?) fast bowler who always bowl fast, spin bowlers
who always bowl spinning balls, etc, etc. My guess is that there is no
such thing as a fast spin bowler because if there was there would be a
demarcation dispute (remember them?) and Frances O'Grady would be on the
news being interviewed about it.
<steps forward> In my last game of cricket(1) more wickets were taken
off my bowling than from any other bowler on either side.

That was because, as I ran up to the crease, I had no idea what sort
of a ball I was going to bowl. Leg spin, off spin, flat spin, tail
spin, I hadn't a clue what the ball was going to do until after it had
left my hand. Sometimes it just went straight ahead. So any attempt
by the batsman to read my eyes or body language was doomed to failure.
Nick

(1)By which I mean the last one I played, not my final, forever
game(2)
(2)Although, given that game was more than twenty-five years ago it
might be that as well
Steve Hague
2020-08-26 15:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
Post by Peter
Post by the Omrud
Post by Sid Nuncius
Sorry about this but....
Oh, Jimmy, Jimmy
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy Anderson
Thank you.  That's better out than in.
Well, quite.
I thought I'd better pop in to mention that he lives around the corner
from us.
This thread has been a mystery to me. But on the news this morning I
learned that *fast* bowler Jimmy Anderson had taken (is that the right
word?) 600 test wickets. While a multiplicity (three?) of *spin*
bowlers had already taken that many wickets.
That puzzled me. I understand (not really, but never mind) that spin
can be applied to a ball, but I had supposed that bowlers sometimes made
the ball spin and sometimes did not, just to try to mislead the batsman.
So there are (are there?) fast bowler who always bowl fast, spin bowlers
who always bowl spinning balls, etc, etc. My guess is that there is no
such thing as a fast spin bowler because if there was there would be a
demarcation dispute (remember them?) and Frances O'Grady would be on the
news being interviewed about it.
<steps forward> In my last game of cricket(1) more wickets were taken
off my bowling than from any other bowler on either side.
That was because, as I ran up to the crease, I had no idea what sort
of a ball I was going to bowl. Leg spin, off spin, flat spin, tail
spin, I hadn't a clue what the ball was going to do until after it had
left my hand. Sometimes it just went straight ahead. So any attempt
by the batsman to read my eyes or body language was doomed to failure.
Nick
(1)By which I mean the last one I played, not my final, forever
game(2)
(2)Although, given that game was more than twenty-five years ago it
might be that as well
I avoided all that nonsense by being wicket keeper and captain for my
last couple of years. Also about 25 years ago.
Sam Plusnet
2020-08-26 22:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
That was because, as I ran up to the crease, I had no idea what sort
of a ball I was going to bowl. Leg spin, off spin, flat spin, tail
spin,
Beware the delivery that gets caught in your sleeve and becomes a
clothes pin.
--
Sam Plusnet
Loading...