Spin bowling is divided into four different categories, depending on the particular physical technique used. There is virtually no overlap between the two basic biomechanical techniques of wrist spin and finger spin.[2]
Spin bowlers are generally given the task of bowling with an old, worn cricket ball. A new cricket ball better suits the techniques of fast bowling than spin bowling, while a worn one grips the pitch better and achieves greater spin.[1] Spin bowlers are also more effective later in a game, as the pitch dries up and begins to crack and crumble. This again provides more purchase for the spinning ball and produces greater deviation. Spin bowlers that open the bowling are rare, but became a more viable option with the introduction of Twenty20 cricket when pitch conditions are in their favour, and the ball also generally drifts more in the air. Spin bowlers can also be used tactically in shorter forms of the game, to 'take the pace off the ball'. This strategy is especially effective to slow down the scoring rates of batsmen who specialise in making use of the pace of faster bowlers to score runs quickly. The lower inherent momentum of a spin bowler necessitates more power exerted by the batsman to achieve the same results.
Cricket spin bowling tips pdf
Spin bowling has become a forte of bowlers from South Asia. The primary reason for this is that pitches in the sub-continent provide more help to spin bowlers. The faster the pitch degenerates, the earlier the spinners come into the picture. Australian and South African pitches are usually very hard and bouncy, helping the fast bowlers more. They do not break up very much during the match. In contrast, pitches in the sub-continent are not that hard. They are not usually held together by the grass as much; hence they break up more quickly and help spin bowlers.
In addition to this, spin bowling is considered to be less tiring than pace bowling as it generally does not employ a lengthy run up. Therefore, spin bowling is more prevalent in the hot and humid conditions of the sub-continent as a form of energy conservation, especially in multi-day competitions.
It is customary among cricket commentators to describe and judge the quality of spin bowling in terms of the characteristics flight, turn, bounce, drift, and dip. All these are arts to deceive the batsman and require much practice. The basic trajectory of spin bowling is two-lines-at-an-angle, but the above characteristics (described below) modify this 'normal' trajectory into more complex shapes.
Left-arm orthodox spin, Left-arm off spin also known as slow left-arm orthodox spin bowling, is a type of left-arm finger spin bowling in the sport of cricket.[1]Left-arm orthodox spin is bowled by a left-arm bowler using the fingers to spin the ball from right to left of the cricket pitch (from the bowler's perspective).
The major variations of a left-arm orthodox spin bowler are the topspinner (which turns less and bounces higher in the cricket pitch), the arm ball (which does not turn at all, drifts into a right-handed batsman in the direction of the bowler's arm movement; also called a 'floater') and the left-arm spinner's version of a doosra (which turns the other way).
Bowling in cricket is a complex sporting movement which, despite being well characterised, still produces a significant number of injuries each year. Fast bowlers are more likely to be injured than any other playing role. Frequency, duration, intensity and volume of bowling, which have been generalised as measurements of workload, are thought to be risk factors for injuries. Injury rates of fast bowlers have not reduced in recent years despite the implementation of various workload monitoring practices.
The use of mainly frequency and time-based measures to manage bowling programmes is common, with bowling guidelines established from grassroot to elite levels of cricket [61]. The strictest guidelines are applied to underage groups where research has demonstrated that players are at greatest risk of developing lumbar spine injuries mainly due to physiological immaturity [13, 25, 30, 32, 62]. However, the incidence and prevalence of lumbar spine injuries in bowlers, across all age groups, has not significantly improved since the implementation of these guidelines [4].
Neither risk of bias or quality of evidence assessment were conducted as the purpose of this review was not to summarize the findings of included studies or how bias may be introduced into the results of these studies. The purpose was to primarily summarize the methods used to quantify frequency, intensity, time and volume of bowling in cricket-based studies rather than critique the reported results.
It is well-established that cricket fast bowlers carry the largest physical demand in cricket and are subject to a greater injury risk than other players [4]. Considering this, we systematically searched the literature related to cricket bowling and synthesised information related to the variables of frequency, time, intensity and volume used to monitor bowling.
HR and BL were used to quantify physiological response to bowling [39, 47, 48, 56] or fatigue [31, 45, 46] and although it is common for these variables to be used as measures of exercise intensity, it is more accurate to classify them as physiological responses to effort [74, 75]. Further, HR and BL can be impacted by many varied factors, including: exercise training history [76], body mass [77], ambient temperature [78], stress [79], or composition of the playing surface [80]. Therefore, neither are generalisable between bowlers and so are less appropriate as a means of constructing volume-based bowling programmes. Volume, when derived using an appropriate measurement of force (i.e., product of force, frequency and duration), is likely to offer a suitable method to monitor and prescribe training with respect to injury management. However, the current methods used to measure external forces during cricket bowling are limited to laboratory settings [81], which makes it challenging to include force measurements to quantify the demands of training and matches.
The ACWR is used to monitor changes in demand over time using a dual-threshold approach where both too little, and too great, a demand can increase injury risk [93]. However, some conceptual and statistical concerns have been highlighted in a recent study [94] and contradictions exist in the literature as to the usefulness of the ACWR with respect to injury management. For example, Pote and Christie [13] could not identify a relationship between workload and injury risk whereas Warren et al. [18] concluded that large spikes in workload increased injury risk. Inconsistencies in these findings are likely to be partially explained by differences in how ACWR has been calculated in the studies included in this review, where some authors used variables of frequency and time only [18, 27], while others also used RPE or sRPE [13, 15, 23]) when estimating volumes. While it makes sense to customise the variables used to calculate ACWR between sports, such as triathlon and cricket, inconsistencies in variables within a single sport (e.g., cricket) become problematic when used to inform generalised injury management guidelines. While ACWR does provide knowledge of troughs and peaks in bowling volumes, both of which are believed to increase injury risk in fast bowlers [15, 95], the authors of a recent systematic review [95] concluded that despite some studies supporting its use [13, 15, 18], it is yet to be confirmed as useful in managing injury risk. The authors of a recent review propose that the exponentially-weighted moving average model (EWMA) might be more appropriate for determining overall training demands [96]. This model is weighted more heavily towards recent demands, rather than older demands [97], and could be more suitable for fast bowlers than using the rolling average method for determining ACWR as it accounts for the decreasing effects of fitness and fatigue over time.
Commonly used bowling management tools remain important to help understand the number of repetitions performed as well as some aspects of the physiological and psychological demands. In addition, we support the conclusions of other authors [18] who advocate the individualisation of training programmes to provide better outcomes with respect to performance and injury management. There is a need for the inclusion of valid and reliable methods to measure intensity during bowling to quantify training volume and to minimize the risk of injury. We suggest that objective measurements of external force, implementable during training and match play, offer the most promise. One method for deriving forces in this context might be through using inertial measurement units, as described in previous studies on cricket [52, 98]. Callaghan et al. [98] attempted to investigate the use of accelerometers to estimate bowling intensity but suggested that the relationship between segmental accelerometer-derived force curves and GRF experienced during front foot contact was more complex than hypothesised. Therefore, before such a method can be implemented, further validation research is required.
While elite cohorts have been most often studied, the potential exists to develop monitoring tools that can be used with non-elite bowlers. Currently, it is less likely that sub-elite and grassroot cohorts have access to the technical or other resources necessary to consistently and effectively measure and monitor bowling demands. Where these cohorts do monitor bowling demands they are limited to using the simple and mainly subjective methods we have identified in this review. There is an opportunity for future research to explore methods for measuring bowling demands that can benefit cricketers of all ages and abilities.
Although 48 studies were included in this systematic review, only thirteen linked FITT-VP variables to injury incidence. Further, the variables used in these studies have several limitations including impacts from environmental factors such as temperature and ground hardness, or hydration levels of participants. Thus, drawing conclusions from these studies is difficult and more research is needed linking bowling volumes to injury. Lastly, although the literature search strategy found significantly more articles than other recent similar systematic reviews in cricket [4, 99, 100] it is acknowledged that it is possible some relevant studies were missed (for example, those not available in English language or those in the grey literature). However, we feel confident that most relevant studies have been identified, and in the inferences drawn from the included studies. 2ff7e9595c
Comments