Talk:Left-arm unorthodox spin

Questions

I'm a fan of cricket, especially spin bowling. I wondered how the likes of Shane Warne can give such a delivery, to Andrew Strauss as we saw in the second test 1st innings at Edgbaston (Ashes series 2005). I would like some enlightenment on spin bowling, I will welcome any answers, views and opinions. Shane Warne is right arm unorthodox, not left. He bowled Strauss by putting an absurd amount of sidespin on the ball. The ball travels forwards relatively slowly, but is spinning counter-clockwise at a high rate. The ball hits the surface, the seam grips the surface and because of the direction of the spin, its movement after pitching makes it travel from right to left (the direction of the balls sidespin) and took it from the legside to the offside where it beat the bat and hit the off stump. The trick is the generate a huge amount of sidespin and to get the seam position right so that it grips the ground on impact, and changes the direction of travel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.173 (talk • contribs)

As the ball moved from right to left, like a classical leg break, given Strauss is a left-hander, the ball moved from the offside to leg. The ball pitched about 2 yards outside Strauss's off stump and hit the top of leg. How he did it, God alone knows. As we sung to Warney at the Oval that year on the final afternoon with the Ashes regained "We only wish you were English." Ganpati23 (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Maurice Leyland/ Chinaman

I addded the bit about Maurice Leylands naming as I am a relation and this story has long been in the family. Thought I would add it. (RuSTy1989 22:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

We need a authentic source, but I think the Leyland entry in Who's who of first class cricketers by Bailey, Thorn and Wynne-Thomas (1985 & 1995) mentions this. Someone will need to look it up. Tintin (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinaman - a style or type of delivery

I may well be wrong but I had always understood 'a chinaman' to refer specifically to the left arm wrist spin delivery bowled with a 'googly' action causing the ball to spin from leg to off to the right handed batsman. It appears that the common usage of the term has changed to become descriptive of the entire style of left arm wrist spin regardless of the type of delivery. Whilst this is clearly a fairly obscure point, I feel that any clarification would be welcome.

Colin Rickard172.188.130.230 10:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is an obscure point at all. As I recall it the distinction has been the subject of regular discussion in clubs, bars and on BBC's Test Match Special over my lifetime.

In my view your observations agree with the traditional consensus English establishment definition of the Chinaman, i.e. that it is the left-arm wrist-spinner's 'back of the hand,' hence 'googly' delivery, not the stock wrist spin ball. However having now researched the point I would have to concede that both interpretations are in widespread use, and have been so over an extended period, although interestingly my 1960 16-volume Oxford English Dictionary defines neither 'chinaman' in this context nor even 'googly.'

If anyone is reading this and thinks it's worth citing some references on this, make a note here!

One way of reconciling the usage is as Mr Spode suggests. The left-arm wrist spinner *style* of bowling is colloquially called the 'Chinaman' in reference to the exponent's lethal non-stock ball, the 'Chinaman' variation. So a Chinaman bowler bowls left-arm wrist spinners and Chinaman balls, 'Chinamen.' Let's be clear on one thing here: if the bowler doesn't have the Chinaman variation he isn't often going to be much use when an off-spinner can do the same job more reliably.

As a further finesse in support of Mr Spode, it is also debatable in the case of the Chinaman style which is the stock ball and which is the variation, rather as is the case when a right-handed leg spinner bowls to a left-handed batsman: i.e. conventionally leg spinners who have the ability to do so will bowl the googly as the stock ball to the left-hander, and use the wrist spinner as the variant.

Atconsul (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Colin Rickard - the term "chinamen" does not refer to left-arm wrist-spin in general, but only to the left-arm wrist-spinner's "wrong un" - ie their equivalent of the (right arm) leg spinners' googly. But because the ball moving away from a batsman (ie from leg to off) is generally more dangerous than the ball moving into him and because most batsmen are right-handed, the left-arm wrist-spinner tends to bowl a lot more chinamen than the (right-arm) leg-spinner tends to bowl googlies.

Howard Spode — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.69.31 (talk • contribs)

(That's an England versus Australia thing. In England we talk of "chinamen and googlies", in Australia "offies and chinamen". On the one hand more Aussies have used it at Test level (Chuck Fleetwood-Smith, Lindsay Kline, and others), on the other hand we're the parent country and get to make the rules for "universal" English. ;) ) Captain Pedant (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

(Further evidence: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/1041689.html In the Quotes section, Rangana Herath (himself a Test spin bowler) clearly refers to "chinamen and googlies" as distinct deliveries.) Captain Pedant (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Notable left-arm unorthodox spinners

If we are to have this list, please cite sources that demonstrate that they are not only left-arm orthodox spinners but also notable ones. SamLin (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Slow left-arm wrist spin

I've replaced most of the references to "Chinaman" given Wisden's change last year. We were generally over-using it anyway. It's still there, but much less prominent. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

We need to be careful. Wisden is not the world's cricket authority and we're meant to reflect all the sources, not just one. The term "chinaman" is clearly not "historical" nor was it only used "sometimes": in addition to Wisden including it as a prominent category until 3 years ago, numerous writers used it and continue to use the term in the 21st century right up to the present including, most recently, Gupta (2018), Ahlawat (2020) and Henderson (2020). So it is still alive and well. There are some who may wish it to be historical, but Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the sources not take sides in debates. So I recommend we remove the term "historical" for now as it is clearly incorrect, except in regard to the allegation about its usage in a different context to refer to Chinese people contemptuously. And we shouldn't mass delete the term because Wisden and one journalist say so. That's not reflective of the sources. Bermicourt (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, the term chinaman hasn't always been used to describe a LWS bowler's googly, so to say that it has always been used just to describe that is misleading. As of now, it is clearly still in use at times, but also not always and is, rather like batsman seems to be, clearly falling out of use, although much further along the line. It is becoming historical and was used historically to describe a bunch of different stuff - anything weird essentially. There probably needs to be more of a middle ground - but to say "it is used to", for example, would seem to be not really reflecting the case here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I must say that, even as left-arm off spinner myself, who occasionally bowled chinamen, I hadn't heard it being used in other senses so that's interesting and I've learnt something. In terms of usage, I agree we can probably find a balanced way to explain its usage over time leading up to the present situation. It was a difficult ball to control and I also heard that you could risk tearing a muscle if you weren't careful, so I didn't overdo it. Bermicourt (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

"Chinaman"'s origins are somewhat obscure but the famous example of it being used about Puss Achong was _certainly_ an intentional racist insult and its continued use is indefensible.

Perhaps you might adjust your choice of language given it was a racist insult 100 years ago and is certainly not more acceptable now. 51.148.162.19 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Chinaman - sometimes or usually, historically or mainly historically?

@Blue Square Thing: I see you've reverted most of my edits, so I thought I'd pick it up here. My understanding is that the left-arm 'googly' was nearly always called a 'chinaman' until a non-cricket playing Australian journalist took offence and sent Wisden and many, but not all, others scurrying for cover. So I don't think it's correct to say it was only sometimes called a chinaman. You know, we don't need to be apologetic here, we're simply trying to tell it as it was and is; not as we'd like it to be. Also it's not yet purely an historical usage - some writers and cricketers continue to use it. We may wish to consign it to the dustbin and pretend that it was never really used much and is never used today, but that's not quite what the evidence seems to be saying. And if we're going to have a section called "Historical use of the name Chinaman" we ought to have one called "Present-day use of the name Chinaman", but I'd just go for a section called "Chinaman" and explain its usage over time in the text. Bermicourt (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem is, as shown above, that chinaman was used for all sorts of stuff - much of it bowled by righties. It's historically not as clear cut as far as I can tell.

In terms of modern day usage, it still seems to be used in India, sure. I can't really find any usage of it in print outside there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is actually that it was a racist term, at least by the time it was hurled at Achong as a racist insult. Arguing for it is an odd and indefensible thing to do. 51.148.162.19 (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Please keep this article free of nonsense about Ellis Achong

There is absolute no doubt that the story about Walter Robins calling Achong's bowling 'chinaman' is simply false. It was a racist remark about Achong himself, not a comment on the bowling. It has been whitewashed over the years, with the wrong story widely repeated, but there is conclusive evidence that Achong bowled conventionally and that Robins was talking about Achong's origins rather than his cricket.

https://oldebor.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/fancy-being-bowled-by-a-bloody-chinaman/

NB: While Wikipedia normally prefers not to use self-published sources, Old Ebor is a source so impeccable that he can credibly correct Wisden (and has!) on occasion. In any case the above reference contains is itself referenced to primary sources, and so the facts are indisputable. 2A00:23C5:CF37:4001:27D7:78DD:6C68:D12A (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)