Richard,

I'm not quite sure of the exact history of the subject, but when the game started the bowlers bowled underarm, with a straight arm, hence "bowling" like the two or three other sports that use that particular action.

I can't remember which century it all changed, but overarm bowling was invented by women, though I believe what they actually did was "round" arm. For God's sake! But they couldn't bowl underarm as their skirts got in the way, apparently.

Bowling is called eerrmm: "bowling" BECAUSE it is done with a straight arm.

Part of the skill of the batsman is being able to tell from the hand what the bowler is going to do with the ball.

By and large the general arc and trajectory of the ball (do I mean parabola? Possibly not) as propelled by a "bowler" using a straight arm is reasonably easy to predict. Nevertheless one would not want to have to concentrate on both the bowler's wrist and his elbow...knowing some of the speeds currently in use today.

When you throw, you give the ball an extra snap of forward motion caused by the straightening of your elbow. Throwing is significantly faster than bowling.

That is why outfielders return the ball with a throw rather than a bowl - unless their shoulders are knackered (like mine) from too much improper technique. Yes there is proper technique for throwing too.

So when you throw, if you are trying to spin the ball, presumably the extra speed allows the ball to grip better on the pitch and turn more - I guess.

So there you have the entire World of cricket used to watching bowlers' wrist position as they prepare to let go of each delivery and suddenly you have a bowler (and he's not the only one) who can add a little something by adding an extra motion to his elbow. That's not really cricket. Everybody watches the wrists and he's doing something with his elbow.

Slightly unfair advantage there. And a probable reason for chaps with dodgy actions occasionally running through sides all but completely.

MecKiff is about the only one anyone is allowed to name, because his career was finished by the scandal. But recently, Jermaine Lawson's sevenfer against the Aussies was not well received and 513 wickets (how many by the dreaded "doosra"?) seems a bit much too.

Admin - Link to original thread in the England forum: Ten Degrees of Flexibility