191

Flow visualization experiments demonstrating

the reverse swing of a cricket ballg
G D Lock* , S Edwards, and D P Almond
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, UK

The manuscript was received on 2 March 2010 and was accepted after revision for publication on 26 May 2010.

DOI: 10.1243/17543371JSET73

Abstract: Swing, the sideways deviation of the cricket ball in flight, is a phenomenon which can
be explained in terms of fluid dynamics. Conventional swing has been used since the beginning
of the twentieth century and is effective with a new or well-preserved ball. A controversial form
of swing emerged in Pakistan in the 1980s, featuring an older worn ball which, at a high speed,
swung in the reverse direction. A cricket ball is asymmetric because of the presence of a seam,
which is made up of rows of prominent encircling stitches. For conventional swing, this seam
trips into turbulence the boundary layer adjacent to one hemisphere of the ball which remains
attached to a greater angle (about 120◦ ) than does that on the other side (about 80◦ ) where no
seam is present to trip the laminar boundary layer. The result is asymmetrical separation, leading
to a skewed wake and a net pressure force on the ball perpendicular to the flight trajectory.
Reverse swing is thought to be a consequence of the fact that asymmetry inverts at a high
speed if the seam thickens the turbulent boundary layer on one side of the ball. Although
the fluid dynamics causes of both conventional and reverse swing are well known, this paper
demonstrates clearly, by means of flow visualization and pressure measurements, the inversion
of this pressure asymmetry at Reynolds numbers greater than 170 × 103 .

Keywords: cricket ball, reverse swing, boundary layer

1 INTRODUCTION a vital blow for his side.’ Australia batted Bradman

At the Oval in 1948 Don Bradman (Fig. 1) required
just four runs in his final innings to retire with a Test
batting average of 100, but was bowled, second ball,
for nought. His final average of 99.94, with its tinc-
ture of human fallibility, could not have been more
exquisitely contrived [1]. The fatal ball, from Eric
Hollies, was a googly, one which spins in the reverse
direction to that expected. The modern googly has
been reverse swing, a phenomenon which Bradman
never had the opportunity to confront. He would,
however, have been very familiar with the conven-
tional variety about which the 1952 MCC coaching
book [2] provides a clear warning: ‘Nearly all great
batsmen are agreed that it is the ball which swings
away from them late in its flight which is the most
dangerous, and the bowler who can command it,
even if only in his opening overs, may well strike
*Corresponding author: Department of Mechanical Engineer-
ing, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.
email: ensgdl@bath.ac.uk
at number three to protect him from the shiny new
ball in these treacherous opening overs. Conven-
tional swing bowling and why it is that the new or
well-preserved ball is most likely to swing was first
explained in 1957, and the fluid dynamics causes
are well understood (see, for example, references [3]
to [6]). Reverse swing, which emerged controver-
sially in Pakistan in the 1980s, features an older worn
ball which, at a high speed, swings in the reverse
direction. It was a decided advantage to Pakistan’s
quicker bowlers in the late 1980s and early 1990s
but increasingly exoteric since then. It was a skill
mastered by England, and not by Australia, in 2005
and proved the greatest factor in why England won
the Ashes that year. In contrast with conventional
swing, the reverse form remained a mystery to both
cricketers and fluid dynamicists until quite recently
(see, for example, references [7] to [9]). This paper
will demonstrate, with reference to the fluid dynamic
boundary layer and by means of flow visualization
experiments, how reverse swing arises and why it
occurs at a high speed.

JSET73 Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part P: J. Sports Engineering and Technology
192 G D Lock, S Edwards, and D P Almond
Fig. 1 D. G. Bradman in full flow
2 CONVENTIONAL AND REVERSE SWING
Swing is the sideways deviation of the cricket ball
during its trajectory towards the batsman. The swing
or swerve in flight of symmetric spheres, such as
the tennis and golf balls studied by Newton [10],
Rayleigh [11], and Thomson [12], is achieved by
imparting significant spin, giving rise to the Magnus
effect. A cricket ball, in contrast, is asymmetric owing
to the presence of a seam, which is made up of
six rows of 80–90 prominent stitches which encircle
the ball, protruding about 1 mm above the surface.
This seam can be exploited to create a net transverse
pressure force resulting from the asymmetric sepa-
ration of boundary layers on the lateral hemispheres
of the ball. The boundary layer, first proposed by
Prandtl [13], is one of the most important concepts
in fluid mechanics. The theory is based on the obser-
vation that at the surface of a body (such as a cricket
ball) the air is at rest relative to the wall, and in a
thin region near the body (i.e. the boundary layer)
the relative air velocity increases from zero at the
surface to the undisturbed mainstream velocity with
distance normal to the surface.
The aerodynamics of conventional swing are illus-
trated in Fig. 2(a), which is a polar view, i.e. a view
looking in the direction of gravity. The bowling tech-
nique is to incline the seam at a slight angle to the air
flow, here shown as 15◦ . By imparting a small back
spin, the bowler can create enough gyroscopic iner-
tia to stabilize this seam position during the trajectory
to the batsman. At the stagnation point the flow is
brought to rest and there is a point of maximum pres-
sure. As the flow accelerates around the ball, there
is a corresponding reduction in pressure, creating
a thin boundary layer characterized by a favourable
pressure gradient. The flow eventually encounters a
Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part P: J. Sports Engineering and Technology
pressure distribution which increases with the direc-
tion of flow, and the boundary layer is subjected to an
aerodynamically adverse condition. Here, the relative
decrease in the velocity in the strata near the surface
is more marked than for the outer surface, and with a
large enough pressure rise the flow close to the surface
may reverse in direction and move upstream. Such a
development is illustrated in Fig. 2(a), where it can
be seen that the boundary layer (greatly exaggerated
in thickness for clarity) separates from the surface.
However, the angles of separation are asymmetric as
the prominent seam trips into turbulence the bound-
ary layer, which would otherwise remain laminar,
adjacent to one hemisphere of the ball. Mixing and
turbulence cause the characteristics of a turbulent
boundary layer to differ profoundly from that of a
laminar boundary layer. A turbulent boundary layer
is more robust and consequently it can better resist
an adverse pressure gradient. On the seam side then,
the turbulent boundary layer sticks to a greater angle
from stagnation (about 120◦ ) than does that on the
other side (about 80◦ ) where no seam is present
to trip the laminar boundary layer. The result is
asymmetrical separation, leading to a skewed wake
and a net pressure force on the ball perpendicular
to the flight trajectory. A new ball with a smooth
surface will help to maintain laminar flow on the
side opposite the seam and the effect is augmented
during the course of play if this side of the ball
is polished vigorously. Once the surface is slightly
worn, natural transition to turbulent flow on this
side of the ball will occur and the conventional swing
is lost.
In Fig. 2(b), the polar view of a cricket ball coated
in surface-shear flow visualization paint (discussed
in section 4) is superimposed on to the image,
demonstrating conventional swing. Reverse swing is
illustrated in Fig. 2(c). This occurs when the ball
is bowled at a high speed (typically greater than
80 mile/h). Here, there is natural turbulent flow on
both sides of the ball but the seam thickens the tur-
bulent boundary layer on one hemisphere, causing
the separation angle to move upstream relative to
the side with the undisturbed boundary layer. The
corresponding pressure asymmetry (and wake orien-
tation) will reverse and a net side force will be created
in the opposite direction to that for conventional
swing.
3 BOUNDARY-LAYER SEPARATION AROUND
SPHERES
Achenbach [14] conducted a series of seminal experi-
ments to investigate how the boundary layer governed
the drag coefficient of a polished, hydraulically
smooth metal sphere. These experimental results
JSET73
 Flow visualization experiments demonstrating the reverse swing of a cricket ball 193

Fig. 2 (a) Conventional swing; (b) conventional swing with superimposed flow visualization; (c) reverse swing

JSET73 Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part P: J. Sports Engineering and Technology
194 G D Lock, S Edwards, and D P Almond
Fig. 3 (a) Variation in the drag coefficient with the Reynolds number for a smooth sphere; (b) sepa-
ration and transition angles (with respect to the stagnation point) for smooth and roughened
spheres [14, 16]
are reproduced as curves in Fig. 3 and an excellent
summary of this research has been provided by Haake
et al. [15]. Achenbach showed that, for Reynolds num-
bers Re < 2 × 105 , the flow in the boundary layer is
laminar and the boundary layer separates at θ ≈ 80◦
in this subcritical region. As the Reynolds number
increases, the boundary layer enters the critical region
and the drag coefficient suddenly decreases dramat-
ically at Re ≈ 4 × 105 . Here, the attached boundary
layer is turbulent and the separation points move
downstream so that the boundary layer leaves the
surface of the sphere at θ ≈ 120◦ . With a further
increase in the Reynolds number, the boundary layer
is supercritical and eventually enters a transcritical
region in which the majority of the attached bound-
ary layer is turbulent. Here, the angle of transi-
tion from laminar to turbulent flow moves upstream
towards the stagnation point and the turbulent flow
over the surface of the sphere thickens the bound-
ary layer, which causes a marginally earlier separation
(θ < 120◦ ). Achenbach [16] extended the work to
investigate the effect of surface roughness, showing
that only a small amount of roughness (k/d ≈ 0.0025,
where k/d is the ratio of the typical roughness size
to the sphere diameter) reduces the critical Reynolds
number appreciably. An increase in the roughness
causes the transition to turbulence to occur at a
lower Reynolds number because of the chaotic dis-
turbances introduced in the boundary layer by the
roughness elements. The angle of boundary layer
Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part P: J. Sports Engineering and Technology
separation reaches a peak at the critical Reynolds
number and then decreases significantly in the tran-
scritical region. The rate of decrease increases with
increasing roughness. The diameter of a cricket ball
is between 71 mm and 72.5 mm, and in air the
critical speed for a smooth ball would be approx-
imately 75 m/s. However, in practice, it is found
that transition to turbulence for the seam-free side
occurs at speeds of about 30–35 m/s, because of
inaccuracies in the spherical shape and minor surface
irregularities [4].
4 EXPERIMENTS
In the experiments reported here, the University of
Bath wind tunnel was used to test a range of cricket
balls supplied by Warwickshire County Cricket Club.
Balls used for 15–80 overs under first-class match
conditions were available but the fluid dynamics data
presented here are for new balls only. However,
the cricket balls were used to assess typical surface
roughness, and measurements obtaining using an
optical scanner revealed that the surface roughness
increased linearly with increasing number of overs
(hence deliveries) bowled. A double-sized cricket ball
(diameter, 142 mm) with appropriately scaled seam
was manufactured from rapid-prototype nylon. The
surface was varnished so that the roughness, rela-
tive to the diameter, was equal to that of a new
JSET73
 Flow visualization experiments demonstrating the reverse swing of a cricket ball
Fig. 4 (a) Scaled cricket ball with pressure tappings; (b) cantilevered beam in the ball wake for side-force
measurements
leather ball (i.e. that of one with zero overs bowled).
The scaled ball was hollow with 44 pressure tappings
around the circumference to record the static pressure
distribution, as shown in Fig. 4(a).
The side force (i.e. the force perpendicular to the
flow) was measured simultaneously using a strain
gauge on a cantilevered beam, as illustrated in
Fig. 4(b). The side force S was made non-dimensional
by the dynamic head of the fluid and projected
area of the ball to give Cs (see the Appendix), and
in this form the actual force is proportional to the
square of the air speed. Previous studies by Sayers
and Hill [17] showed the maximum side force to be
only 1 N at a wind speed of 34 m/s. The force mea-
surement system used in this work was designed
to have a sensitivity of 0.01 N. The double-sized ball
was attached to a sting, whose length was five times
the ball diameter, and this was held by a verti-
cal post that passed through the upper and lower
walls of the wind tunnel to a pair of aluminium
cantilever beams, one of which was used for the side-
force measurement. The dimensions of the cantilever
beams (50 mm × 15 mm × 1 mm) were obtained by an
optimization of the conflicting requirements of low
stiffness, to provide sensitivity to very low forces,
and the need to maximize the beam resonant fre-
quency to minimize the amplitudes of vibrations.
A strain gauge was used to monitor the deflec-
tion of the beam caused by the lateral forces on
the ball. For each force measurement, the strain
gauge was monitored for 1 min using a 10 Hz sam-
pling frequency, providing 600 readings. The vibra-
tions of the ball in the wind tunnel air stream
were dampened by a foam pad pressed up against
the end of the stain-gauged cantilever beam. The
measurements of side force obtained by this sys-
tem were estimated to have a typical uncertainty of
0.004 N.
Surface-shear oil-flow visualization was also used
to help to identify the separation angles. The
JSET73
195
critical Reynolds numbers for the two sides of the
cricket ball are expected to be less than those
measured on the smooth sphere by Achenbach,
Re ≈ (150–175) × 103 according to reference [4]. As
discussed above, this is partly due to the inher-
ent surface roughness and seam but also because
of inaccuracies in the general spherical shape of a
manufactured cricket ball.
Figure 5(a) illustrates the variation in the pres-
sure coefficient Cp (see the Appendix), with the
angle from the stagnation point for the scaled cricket
ball with seam positioned at 15◦ to the air. In
Fig. 5(b) the data for the seam side (open symbols)
and the non-seam side (full symbols) are superim-
posed on to one side of the graph for comparison
purposes. Note that there is a region on the seam
side where no data could be recorded (because of
the seam itself). Two Reynolds numbers are shown:
Re = 92 × 103 and Re = 215 × 103 , which correspond
to full-sized cricket ball velocities of about 18 m/s and
42 m/s (i.e. about 41 mile/h and 94 mile/h) respec-
tively. At Re = 92 × 103 there is a relatively lower
pressure on the hemisphere with the seam which
creates a net side force, or the conventional swing
illustrated in Fig. 2(a). As discussed below, the sep-
aration angle on the non-seam side of the ball is
about 80◦ but this angle has been delayed to about
120◦ on the seam side. At Re = 215 × 103 there has
been an inversion of the pressure asymmetry, with
relatively lower pressure on the hemisphere with-
out the seam; this again creates a net side force,
but now this is the reverse swing illustrated in
Fig. 2(c).
Figure 6 shows an equatorial view of typical surface-
shear flow visualization results on the seam side
and the non-seam side of a new cricket ball. The
seam was angled at 15◦ to the airflow at Re = 70 × 103 ,
corresponding to a flight velocity of about 31 mile/h,
i.e. within the range of conventional swing. Prior
to the experiment the ball was covered in paint and
Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part P: J. Sports Engineering and Technology
196 G D Lock, S Edwards, and D P Almond

Fig. 5 (a) Variation in the pressure coefficient with the angle from the stagnation point for Re = 28 × 103 ,
92 × 103 , and 215 × 103 ; (b) data repeated with the seam side and the non-seam side superimposed

Fig. 6 Typical surface-shear flow visualization results on (a) the non-seam side and (b) the seam side
of a new cricket ball

the separation points are identified by the regions of
low shear where the paint remains. In Fig. 2(b), a
polar view is superimposed on to the image demon-
strating conventional swing. The seam-side (turbu-
lent) and non-seam-side (laminar) separation points
are seen to be close to the 120◦ and 80◦ angles
expected from the work of Achenbach. Figure 7
shows the seam-side separation angle θS and non-
seam side separation angle θNS measured from a
combination of flow visualization and pressure mea-
surements using both full-size and double-scaled
cricket balls. Also shown is the difference between
these two angles, θS − θNS , and the measured non-
dimensional side force (right abscissa). The data
are plotted against the Reynolds number, with the
corresponding velocity shown in miles per hour.
The data follow the trends predicted by Achenbach
[14, 16]. At low Reynolds numbers (flight veloc-
ity, less than 20 mile/h), laminar separation occurs
before transition, even on the seam side. Here,
the pressure distribution is symmetric and the side
force is measured to be zero. As the Reynolds
number increases, the seam trips the boundary
layer to turbulent flow (critical Reynolds number,
about 70 × 103 ) while the boundary layer on the
non-seam side remains laminar. The correspond-
ing angles of separation are 120◦ and 80◦ , leading
to a skewed wake and a net transverse pressure

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part P: J. Sports Engineering and Technology JSET73
 Flow visualization experiments demonstrating the reverse swing of a cricket ball 197

Fig. 7 The seam-side separation angle θS , the non-seam side separation angle θNS , and the difference
θS − θNS against the Reynolds number (or the flight speed). The non-dimensional side force
(right abscissa) is also shown

force on the ball. This is conventional swing, with
θS − θNS ≈ 40◦ . The critical Reynolds number for the
non-seam side is Re ≈ 170 × 103 (about 75 mile/h)
where there is natural turbulent flow on both sides of
the ball, with θNS ≈ 120◦ and the conventional swing
is lost.
Reverse swing occurs at Re > 170 × 103 . The
boundary layer on the seam side enters the tran-
scritical regime at Re > 120 × 103 and the separa-
tion angle is observed to move upstream to 100◦
at Re ≈ 220 × 103 . For 170 × 103 < Re < 220 × 103
(approximately 75–95 mile/h), the separation points
on the two sides of the ball have reversed
(θS − θNS ≈ −18◦ ) to those encountered in conven-
tional swing. This is illustrated in Fig. 2(c). Here, the
corresponding pressure asymmetry (and wake ori-
entation) will also reverse and a net side force is
measured in the opposite direction. Note that Fig. 7
shows the non-dimensional side force Cs . The mag-
nitude of the actual side force is proportional to the
square of the velocity, and so the reverse swing is
significant.

JSET73 Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part P: J. Sports Engineering and Technology
198 G D Lock, S Edwards, and D P Almond
Thus the range of flight speeds over which con-
ventional swing occurs corresponds to those of the
medium-pace to medium–fast-pace bowler using
a new or well-preserved polished ball. It is only
the quicker bowlers who achieve reverse swing.
Although the experiments conducted here used
balls with a smooth surface, a ball which is scuffed, or
worn (or illegally tampered with), during the course
of play on the seam side will exacerbate the effect of
reverse swing.
As a final note, the MCC coaching book has warned
of the perils of late swing in particular. The speed
of a cricket ball over the course of its trajectory to
the batsman is only marginally reduced by drag. The
lateness of any lateral movement is a natural conse-
quence of the fact that the displacement, for constant
acceleration, is proportional to the square of the
time in flight. Thus, the deviation takes a greater pro-
portion of the total sideways movement as the ball
approaches the batsman.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This paper demonstrates clearly, by means of flow
visualization and pressure measurements, the fluid
dynamics causes of conventional and reverse swing.
A cricket ball is asymmetric because of the pres-
ence of a seam, which is made up of rows of pro-
minent encircling stitches. For conventional swing,
this seam trips into turbulence the boundary layer
adjacent to one hemisphere of the ball which
remains attached to a greater angle (about 120◦ )
than does that on the other side (about 80◦ ) where
no seam is present to trip the laminar boundary
layer. The result is asymmetrical separation, lead-
ing to a skewed wake and a net pressure force
on the ball perpendicular to the flight trajectory.
Such circumstances occur for Reynolds numbers
in the range (70–170) × 103 (about 35–75 mile/h).
Flow visualization and pressure measurements have
shown that reverse swing is a consequence of the
fact that the asymmetry inverts at Reynolds num-
bers greater than 170 × 103 . Here, there is natural
turbulent flow on both sides of the ball but the
seam thickens the turbulent boundary layer on one
hemisphere, causing the separation angle to move
upstream relative to the side with the undisturbed
boundary layer.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was funded by the Royal Academy of
Engineering and Exxon-Mobil Prize for Teaching
Excellence (Dr G. D. Lock). The authors are grate-
ful to G. Green for helping with the figures and
Mr D. Brown of Warwickshire County Cricket Club
Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part P: J. Sports Engineering and Technology
for supplying a range of worn cricket balls at known
match conditions.
© Authors 2010
REFERENCES
1 Haigh, G. Inside out: writings on cricket culture, 2009
(Aurum, London).
2 Anon. The MCC cricket coaching book, 1952 (Naldrett
Press, London).
3 Lyttelton, R. A. The swing of a cricket ball. Discovery,
1957, 18, 186–191.
4 Barton, N. G. On the swing of a cricket ball in flight.
Proc. R. Soc. A, 1982, 379, 109–131.
5 Mehta, R. D., Bentley, K., Proudlove, M., and Varty, P.
Factors affecting cricket ball swing. Nature, 1983, 303,
787–788.
6 Mehta, R. D. Aerodynamics of sports balls. A. Rev.
Fluid Mech., 1985, 17, 151–189.
7 Barrett, R. S. and Wood, D. H. The theory and practice
of reverse swing. Sports Coach, 1996, 18, 28–30.
8 Sawyers, A. T. On the reverse swing of a cricket ball –
modelling and measurements. Proc. IMechE, Part C:
J. Mechanical Engineering Science, 2001, 215(1), 45–55.
DOI: 10.1243/0954406011520508.
9 Methra, R. D. An overview of cricket ball swing. Sports
Engng, 2005, 8, 181–192.
10 Newton, I. New theory of light and colours. Phil. Trans.
R. Soc., 1672, 1, 678–688.
11 Rayleigh, Lord On the irregular flight of a tennis ball.
Mess. Math., 1899, 7, 14–16.
12 Thompson, J. J. The dynamics of a golf ball. Nature,
1910, 85, 2151–2157.
13 Prandtl, L. Über Flüssigkeitsbewegung bei sehr kleiner
reibung. In Verhandlungen des III internationalen
Mathematiker-Kongresses (Ed. A. Krazer), Heidelberg,
Germany, 8–13 August 1904, pp. 484–491 (Teubner,
Leipzig).
14 Achenbach, E. Experiments on the flow past spheres
at high Reynolds numbers. J. Fluid. Mech., 1972, 54(3),
565–575.
15 Haake, S. J., Goodwill, S. R., and Carre, M. J.
A new measure of roughness for defining the aero-
dynamic performance of sports balls. Proc. IMechE,
Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science, 2007, 221(7),
789–806. DOI: 10.1243/0954406JMES414.
16 Achenbach, E. The effects of surface roughness and
tunnel blockage on the flow past spheres. J. Fluid. Mech.,
1974, 65(1), 113–125.
17 Sayers, A. T. and Hill, A. Aerodynamics of a cricket ball.
J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodynamics, 1999, 79, 169–182.
APPENDIX
Notation
A projected area of sphere = πd 2 /4 (m2 )
Cd drag coefficient = 2D/(ρv∞2 A)
Cp pressure coefficient = (pθ − p∞ )/(ρv∞ 2 )
JSET73
 Flow visualization experiments demonstrating the reverse swing of a cricket ball 199

Cs non-dimensional side-force = 2S/(ρv∞ 2 A) θ angle from the stagnation point (deg)

d diameter (m) θNS angle from the stagnation point on the
D drag force (N) non-seam side (deg)
k size of roughness element (m) θS angle from the stagnation point on the
pθ static pressure at angle θ (Pa) seam side (deg)
p∞ static pressure in the free-stream (Pa) µ dynamic viscosity (kg/m s)
Re Reynolds number = ρv∞ d/µ ρ density (kg/m3 )
S side force (N)
v∞ free-stream velocity (m/s)

JSET73 Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part P: J. Sports Engineering and Technology