Journal of Sports Sciences

ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

The influence of upper-body mechanics,

anthropometry and isokinetic strength on
performance in wrist-spin cricket bowling

Wayne Spratford, Bruce Elliott, Marc Portus, Nicholas Brown & Jacqueline
Alderson

To cite this article: Wayne Spratford, Bruce Elliott, Marc Portus, Nicholas Brown & Jacqueline
Alderson (2019): The influence of upper-body mechanics, anthropometry and isokinetic
strength on performance in wrist-spin cricket bowling, Journal of Sports Sciences, DOI:
10.1080/02640414.2019.1696265

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1696265

Published online: 25 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1696265

SPORTS MEDICINE AND BIOMECHANICS

The influence of upper-body mechanics, anthropometry and isokinetic strength on

performance in wrist-spin cricket bowling
a,b
Wayne Spratford , Bruce Elliottc, Marc Portusd, Nicholas Browne and Jacqueline Alderson c,f

a
University of Canberra Research Institute for Sport and Exercise (UCRISE), University of Canberra, ACT, Canberra, Australia; bDiscipline of Sport and
Exercise Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, ACT, Canberra, Australia; cSchool of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, The University of
Western Australia, Perth, Australia; dPraxis Performance Group, Canberra, Australia; eAustralian Institute of Sport, University of Canberra Research
Institute for Sport and Exercise (UCRISE) Movement Science, Canberra, Australia; fSports Performance Research Institute, Auckland University of
Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Delivering a cricket ball with a wrist-spin (WS) bowling technique is considered one of the game’s most Accepted 16 August 2019
difficult skills. Limited biomechanical information exists for WS bowlers across skill levels. The purpose of
KEYWORDS
this study was to compare biomechanical, isokinetic strength and anthropometric measures between Spin bowling; revolutions;
elite (12) and pathway bowlers (eight). Data were collected using a motion analysis system, dynamometer strength; wrist spin;
and a level-two anthropometrist. A regression analysis identified that performance was best explained by biomechanics
increased wrist radial deviation torque and longitudinal axis rotational moments at the shoulder and
wrist. From back foot impact (BFI) to ball release (BR), elite bowlers rotated their trunks less, experienced
less trunk deceleration resulting in a more front-on position and increased pelvis rotation angular
velocity. They also displayed an increased shoulder internal rotation moment as the upper arm moved
from external into internal rotation and was a major contributor in the subsequent differences observed
in the distal segments of the bowling limb. Anthropometric differences were observed at the wrist and
finger joints and may be used to form the basis for talent identification programmes. This study highlights
the important contribution to bowling performance of the musculature responsible for producing long
axis rotations of the bowling limb.

Introduction handed WS bowler causes the ball to “drift into” the right
handed batsman during flight after reaching its zenith height
Delivering a cricket ball with a wrist-spin (WS) bowling techni-
(Justham, Cork, & West, 2010; Robinson & Robinson, 2013) and
que has long been considered one of the most difficult arts to
deviate away to the off-side of the batsman, in the direction of
master in the game of cricket (Bradman, 1969; Philpott, 1995;
the revolutions after bounce (Beach et al., 2014; Bradman, 1969;
Tyson, 1994; Wilkins, 1991; Woolmer, Noakes, & Moffett, 2008).
Philpott, 1995; Wilkins, 1991; Woolmer et al., 2008). A ball
A bowler must release the ball out of the ulnar or the fifth
deviating, or in this case “spinning”, away from a batsman has
phalangeal side of the hand while coordinating internal rota-
been shown to be a more difficult task for a batsman to
tion of the humerus, pronation of the radioulnar joint, and
perceive and then intercept and subsequently control their
extension and radial deviation of the wrist (Philpott, 1995;
shot (Diaz, Cooper, Rothkopf, & Hayhoe, 2013; Sarpeshkar,
Spratford, Portus, Wixted, Leadbetter, & James, 2014;
Mann, Spratford, & Abernethy, 2017; Welchman, Tuck, &
Woolmer et al., 2008) but without the control of the second
Harris, 2004). For this reason, coaching based literature has
phalangeal which remains in ball contact at BR in finger-spin
stated that if a bowler can master this technique and bowl
(FS) (Beach, Ferdinands, & Sinclair, 2016; Spratford & Davison,
with control, they have long been considered a match winner
2010). An example of the release profile is shown in Figure 1.
(Woolmer et al., 2008).
This type of technique enables the bowler to deliver the ball
To date very little research has focussed on WS bowlers, with
with considerably more revolutions in comparison with the
a single study focusing on the kinematic differences between
more common FS bowler (Beach, Ferdinands, & Sinclair, 2014;
FS and WS bowlers, showing large differences in techniques
Beach et al., 2016; Cork, Justham, & West, 2012; Spratford et al.,
throughout the delivery cycle as well as in ball kinematics
2017). Greater revolutions also allow the bowler to take advan-
(Beach et al., 2016). Researchers have also identified that ball
tage of the increase in the Magnus force arising from ball spin
kinematic differences exist between elite level WS bowlers and
and the subsequent increases in lateral and vertical deviation
lower level pathway bowlers. With ball velocity, revolutions and
during flight (Robinson & Robinson, 2013), and the potential
a velocity/revolution index all capable of distinguishing perfor-
increase of lateral deviation (side-spin) after the ball bounces
mance between groups and therefore used as outcome mea-
(Beach et al., 2014; Woolmer et al., 2008). The anti-clockwise
sures (Spratford et al., 2017). The majority of literature that
horizontal axis revolutions placed on the ball by the right
explores WS bowling exists within the subjectively based

CONTACT Wayne Spratford Wayne.spratford@canberra.edu.au University of Canberra Research Institute for Sport and Exercise (UCRISE), University of
Canberra, ACT, Canberra, 2601 Australia
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 W. SPRATFORD ET AL.

Therefore, the aims of this study were to examine upper-

body bowling mechanics, anthropometry and isokinetic
strength across skill levels in WS bowlers. How these variables
influence performance will be assessed and performance will
be measured by a ball velocity/revolution index, shown to
differentiate skill level (Spratford et al., 2017). It is hypothesised
that elite bowlers will display higher joint moments, segment
angular velocities and greater isokinetic strength of the bowl-
ing limb compared to pathway WS bowlers. It is also hypothe-
sised that the mechanics of the distal arm will predict bowling
performance across all elite and pathway bowlers examined in
this study.

Methods
Twenty male WS bowlers were invited by the national spin
bowling coach to participate in this study. Participants were
assigned to one of two groups based on the level of cricket
previously played, (1) pathway (up to 1st Class) or (2) elite (1st
class and above). This cohort represented the entire population
within Australia for this level of spin bowler and included three
Figure 1. The point of ball release for a right handed WS bowler. Note the ball
leaving the ulnar side of the hand. players who had played Test cricket and one that had played
International 1-day cricket. The physical characteristics of the
participants are outlined in Table 1.
Ethics approval was granted and written informed consent
coaching literature (Bradman, 1969; Philpott, 1995; Woolmer
was obtained for each participant before the commencement
et al., 2008). This has focussed on the need for the body (trunk)
of the study, in accordance with the requirements of the
to be rotating forward at ball release (BR) and for the “wrist to
Human Research Ethics Committees of the Australian Institute
be turned on release”, which is a combination of radioulnar
of Sport (AIS) and The University of Western Australia.
pronation, radial deviation and wrist extension. This late move-
Bowling data collection took place in an indoor motion
ment at the wrist also forms the basis for the bowling action’s
capture laboratory that was purpose built for cricket analysis
naming convention; however, there is limited evidence as to
and contained a permanent artificial pitch.
what role, if any, these biomechanical movements play in
Retro-reflective markers were affixed to each participant’s
bowling performance. Without this knowledge, it is difficult to
head, torso, upper-limbs and ball according to a customised
understand the differences that may occur between bowlers as
marker set and model. The set consisted of numerous single
they progress through the development pathway. It is assumed
and three marker clusters attached to either semi-rigid plastic
that segmental rotations of the arm around the long axis of the
or lightweight aluminium bases. Participant specific static trials
bowling limb will be important within the kinetic chain, similar
were collected to define joint centres. The shoulder joint centre
to that observed in racquet based sports such as tennis and
was calculated using a regression equation based on anatomi-
squash (Marshall & Elliott, 2000; Martin, Kulpa, Delamarche, &
cal landmarks as well as height and weight (Campbell, Lloyd,
Bideau, 2013; Reid, Giblin, & Whiteside, 2015).
Alderson, & Elliott, 2009). The elbow joint centre was estimated
It is also not understood if upper-limb isokinetic strength or
using a pointer method based on the location of the lateral and
anthropometric differences exist between bowlers of different
medial aspects of the humeral epicondyles (Chin, Lloyd,
skill levels or if these factors are linked to performance. In both
Alderson, Elliott, & Mills, 2010) and the wrist joint centre as
FS and fast bowling, the bowler takes advantage of the elbow
the midpoint of markers placed on the styloid processes of
extension that naturally occurs late within the kinetic chain
the radius and ulna (Lloyd, Alderson, & Elliott, 2000). Three
(Marshall & Elliott, 2000; Marshall & Ferdinands, 2003;
hemispherical markers comprised of ultralight foam (<0.1g)
Spratford, Elliott, Portus, Brown, & Alderson, 2018; Wixted,
affixed in locations that did not impede the bowler’s preferred
Portus, Spratford, & James, 2011). However, given that a WS
grip on the ball were used to calculate ball velocities and
bowler is internally rotating at the shoulder and pronating at
revolutions after BR (Spratford et al., 2017; Whiteside, Chin, &
the elbow through BR, the passive extension of the forearm
Middleton, 2012). Marker trajectories were tracked using a 22
relative to the upper-arm does not occur and as such may
camera (MX 13 and 40) Vicon MX motion analysis system
require more strength to deliver the ball, although no evidence
of this exists. Quantifying the role of upper-limb isokinetic
strength and anthropometric variables will facilitate a better Table 1. Mean (± standard deviations) age and physical characteristics of
understanding of WS technique and functional muscle strength participants.
differences between skill levels, as well as identifying anthro- Group N Age (yrs) Height (cm) Mass (kg)
pometric variables that may be used in talent identification Pathway WS 12 19.6 ± 3.6 179.6 ± 6.9 71.0 ± 8.0
programmes. Elite WS 8 29.6 ± 7.8 180.2 ± 4.2 71.8 ± 8.0

(Oxford Metrics, Oxford, UK) operating at 250 Hz for two full
strides before the delivery phase and 3 m of ball flight post-
release.
Participants warmed up as per their normal pre-game rou-
tine and then bowled six overs with a timed two-minute break
between each to replicate match conditions. Participants were
asked to nominate where their usual deliveries would pass
a right-handed batsman based on a clear target placed where
the batsman would normally stand that consisted of a series of
20 cm x 20 cm grids. A valid delivery was one that struck the
target on the nominated grid, the one directly above, under-
neath or immediately next to the nominated grid to the off-side
(to the batsman’s right).
Two-dimensional (2D) data from each of the 22 cameras
were captured for each marker and reconstructed into three-
dimensional (3D) marker trajectories and labelled using Vicon
Nexus software (Oxford Metrics, Oxford, UK). Trajectories were
filtered using a quintic spline Woltring filter at a mean square
error (MSE) of 20 after a residual analysis and visual inspection
of the data (Winter, 2005). Data were then modelled using the
University of Western Australia’s (UWA) upper-body and ball
model (Campbell et al., 2009; Chin, Elliott, Alderson, Lloyd, &
Foster, 2009; Chin et al., 2010; Whiteside et al., 2012). Joint
moments were determined using standard inverse dynamic
analysis starting from the hand and ball segment (treated as
a single segment) and flowing to the shoulder joint of the
bowling arm with all segment inertial characteristics taken
from de Leva (1996) and the weight of the cricket ball assumed
to be 156g. Moments were expressed in a non-orthogonal joint
coordinate system to allow functional meaning and reduce
potential cross talk introduced from kinematic measures
(Middleton, 2011; Schache & Baker, 2007). The ball was
assumed to have minimal inertia but with a point mass, and
force applied by a simple F = ma calculation. The ball created
a reaction force only when it was in contact with the hand. Ball-
hand contact was determined when the ball’s origin was less
than a distance calculated between it and a marker placed on
the distal intermediate carpal as calculated by the length the
fourth phalangeal and radius of the ball. Longer distances
indicated the ball had been released.
Selected biomechanical data for the pelvis, thorax, shoulder,
elbow and wrist considered critical to bowling performance
were included. Joint angles were determined relative to their
adjoining segments, with 0° indicating alignment between
segment coordinate systems. Segment angles (pelvis and
thorax) were measured relative to the global coordinate system
with 0° indicating a pelvis or thorax orthogonal with its defin-
ing vector. Therefore, a pelvic and thorax rotation angle of 90°
indicated the bowler was standing front-on or orthogonal with
the pitch. Data were reported at BR and the peaks between
back foot impact (BFI)-BR for the pelvis and thorax and upper
arm horizontal (UAH)-BR for the bowling limb. All variables
were normalised to 101 points using a cubic spline approach
in a custom MATLAB program (Mathworks Inc; Natick, MA) with
representative mean data being calculated from the first six
valid WS trials based on the accuracy target information.
Selected anthropometric lengths, breadths and girths were
taken from the bowling limb as well as sitting height by an
accredited ISAK Level 2 anthropometrist (Marfell-Jones, Olds,
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 3
Stewart, & Lindsay Carter, 2006). All variables were measured in
triplicate with the criterion being the median (Pyne, Duthie,
Saunders, Petersen, & Portus, 2006). A combination of equip-
ment was used that included a large sliding calliper (British
Indicators Ltd), vernier callipers (Holtain, Cresswell, Dyfed, UK)
and a flexible steel tape (Lufkin Executive, Thinline W 606 PM,
Cooper Industries, Lexington, SC, USA). Lengths were measured
for the arm (acromiale-radiale), forearm (radiale–stylion) and
hand (midstylion–dactylion). Breadths were measured for the
wrist (biacromial), distal humerus, transverse chest, and ante-
rior posterior chest depth (Marfell-Jones et al., 2006). Girths
were measured for the upper arm, forearm and wrist. An
assessment of the test-retest reliability was established with
a mean technical error of measurement (TEM) being 1.4% (ran-
ging from 1.2–1.7%).
Active range of motion of the bowling limb was assessed by
the same experienced clinicians using a bi-level inclinometer
and goniometer (US Neurologicals, Poulsbo, Washington,
United States) using previously validated methods (Gerhardt,
Cocchiarella, & Lea, 2002). Measures consisted of: flexion, exten-
sion, abduction, internal and external rotation of the shoulder
with the shoulder at 90° of abduction and elbow flexed at 90°,
extension and “carry angle” of the elbow, flexion, extension,
radial and ulnar deviation of the wrist and flexion and extension
of the metacarpophalangeal joint (MCP4). All variables were
measured in triplicate with the mean value used as the criter-
ion. An assessment of the test-retest reliability was established
with a mean TEM being 1.0%.
Bowlers undertook five isokinetic strength tests on their
bowling arm using a HUMAC NORM (CSMI2009, version 9.5.2)
dynamometer at angular velocities of 60°.s−1 and 180°.s−1. To
reduce the likelihood of fatigue one minutes rest was provided
between each test. Prior to testing, participants warmed-up
using a rowing ergometer for a period of 5 minutes at sub
maximal intensity (Claiborne, Armstrong, Gandhi, & Pincivero,
2006) and were allowed to perform personally selected
stretches if desired. Measures of the shoulder consisted of;
flexion/abduction-extension/adduction in the prone position,
internal and external rotation in the prone position with the
shoulder at 90° of abduction and elbow flexed at 90° and
normalised to gravity. At the radioulnar joint, pronation and
supination and at the wrist, flexion, extension, radial and ulnar
deviation were taken in the sitting position and not corrected
for gravity. All measures were normalised to body weight.
The relationship (x) between ball velocity (V) (m.s−1) and
revolutions or angular velocity (rev.s−1) around the horizontal
axis of the global coordinate system (ω) was calculated using
the following equation to produce a velocity/revolution index
score. This allowed for a single measure of performance, that
had the ability to include variables that have been shown to be
important for spin bowlers and differentiate bowling perfor-
mance levels (Spratford et al., 2018, 2017).
V2
x ¼ ðV þ ω Þ þ
ω
A Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to ensure data was normally
distributed prior to independent group t-tests being performed
to establish differences between elite and pathway bowlers for
measured variables. A partial Bonferroni correction was
4 W. SPRATFORD ET AL.

adopted due to the multiple comparisons being made with an
amended alpha level set at α ≤ 0.01. Effect sizes (ES) were
calculated to functionally differentiate between groups, with
levels of, 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 representing small, moderate and
large effect sizes respectively (Cohen, 1992). A multiple step-
wise regression analysis was then performed, collapsed across
elite and pathway groups using variables that were shown to
be significant (p < 0.01) and/or had large effect sizes (ES ≥0.8)
using the velocity/revolution index identified as the dependant
variable. This enabled the measure or combination of measures
that best predicted performance to be identified.
Results
Elite bowlers displayed lower peak pelvic forward rotation
(p = 0.007), while not significantly different, pelvic forward rota-
tion at BR displayed a large effect size (ES = 1.22) with elite
bowlers again exhibiting a more front-on pelvis at BR. Thorax
forward rotation followed a similar pattern with elite bowlers
having a lower peak forward rotation (p = 0.001) indicating
a more front-on position. Elite bowlers showed significantly
greater amounts of radioulnar pronation at BR (p = <0.001),
peak radioulnar pronation (p = 0.003) and while not statistically
significant, a greater level of peak wrist radial deviation as
evidenced by a large ES (ES = 0.80). Wrist extension values at
BR were significantly higher for elite bowlers (p = 0.009) and
a large ES was recorded when comparing between group peak
wrist extension values (ES = 1.29) (Table 2).
Elite bowlers displayed increased levels of radioulnar prona-
tion angular velocity at BR (p = 0.007), peak radioulnar pronation
angular velocity (p = 0.004), wrist radial deviation angular velo-
city at BR, peak wrist radial deviation angular velocity (p = 0.010
and p = 0.010), wrist extension angular velocity at BR (p = 0.004)
and peak wrist extension angular velocity (p = 0.005). At BR large
ESs were also observed with elite bowlers displaying increased
pelvic forward rotation (ES = 1.27) and increased shoulder inter-
nal rotation (ES = 1.78) (Table 2).
Elite bowlers displayed increased shoulder extension (p
= 0.007) and internal rotation moments at BR (p = 0.010), with
a large ES returned for peak shoulder internal rotation
(ES = 0.80) when compared with pathway bowlers. At the
elbow joint large ESs were reported with elite bowlers
experiencing increased flexion moment (ES = 1.50) and radio-
ulnar pronation moment at BR (p = 0.82), as well as peak
radioulnar pronation moment (p = 1.03). Large ESs were also
observed at the wrist joint with elite bowlers also displaying
increased peak wrist extension (ES = 0.85) and peak wrist radial
deviation (ES = 1.10) moments (Table 3).
Elite bowlers had increased hand length when compared to
pathway bowlers (midstylion-dactylion) (ES = 1.00). At the wrist
and finger joints, compared to pathway bowlers, elite bowlers
had larger range of motion for absolute radial deviation
(ES = 1.19), radial deviation full range (ES = 1.02), as well MCP4
absolute flexion (ES = 1.18), MCP4 absolute extension (ES = 1.48)
and MCP4 total range of motion (ES = 1. 46) (Table 3).
Elite bowlers produced greater isokinetic torque at the
shoulder, elbow and wrist joints in comparison with pathway
bowlers. Significant differences were seen for peak wrist exten-
sion torque at 60°.s−1 (p = 0.001) and peak wrist ulnar deviation
torque at 60°.s−1 (p = 0.001), while large ESs were returned for
peak shoulder extension/adduction torque at 60°.s−1
(ES = 1.13), peak wrist radial deviation torque at 60°.s−1
(ES = 1.33) and 180 °.s−1 (ES = 1.32) and peak wrist ulnar
deviation torque at 180°.s−1 (ES = 1.26) (Table 4).
The stepwise multiple regression analysis in which the velo-
city (elite 19.5 ± 0.7 and pathway 18.6 ± 0.7 m.s−1) and revolu-
tions (elite 38.7 ± 4.9 and pathway 34.3 ± 4.0 rev.s−1) were
collapsed to form the overall index all participants (65.1 ± 4.3)
and used as the criterion variable revealed that peak isokinetic
radial deviation torque, peak shoulder internal rotation
moment, shoulder extension moment at BR and peak prona-
tion moment were the best predictors of WS performance,
explaining 82% of variance when treating the data as a single
cohort (r = 0.90; r2 = 0.82; f = 15.63, p = < 0.001).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in
upper-body bowling mechanics, anthropometry and isokinetic
strength across skill levels in WS bowlers and to assess the
influence these variables have on bowling performance, as
measured by a velocity/revolution index.
For the WS bowler to deliver the ball with the desired
amount of revolutions and velocity, the upper-body

Table 2. Means (± standard deviations) for selected angular displacement and velocity parameters for elite and pathway WS bowlers.
Variable Pathway Elite p-value Effect size (ES)
Pelvis forward rotation (°) (BR) 114.2 (6.1) 105.9 (7.4) 0.042 1.22#
Pelvis forward rotation peak (°) (UAH-BR) 176.5 (8.3) 157.6 (11.4) 0.007* 1.90#
Thorax forward rotation peak (°) (UAH-BR) 170.0 (9.4) 157.6 (8.7) 0.001* 1.37#
Radioulnar pronation (°) (BR) 62.1 (18.0) 89.2 (9.9) <0.001* 1.87#
Radioulnar pronation peak (°) (UAH-BR) 67.7 (28.4) 101.3 (14.9) 0.003* 1.48#
Radial deviation peak (°) (UAH-BR) 20.6 (9.9) 28.5 (9.8) 0.123 0.80#
Wrist extension (°) (BR) −22.5 (15.2) −37.9 (7.8) 0.009* 1.27#
Wrist extension peak (°) (UAH-BR) −29.7 (6.3) −37.9 (6.4) 0.026 1.29#
Pelvis forward rotation (°.s−1) (BR) 111.5 (33.0) 162.7 (28.9) 0.026 1.27#
Shoulder internal rotation (°.s−1) (BR) 499.1 (147.7) 655.8 (116.5) 0.041 1.78#
Radioulnar pronation (°.s−1) (BR) −368.9 (126.5) −490.4 (35.7) 0.007* 1.31#
Radioulnar pronation peak (°.s−1) (UAH-BR) −509.6 (112.3) −645.3 (63.9) 0.004* 1.49#
Radial deviation (°.s−1) (BR) −415.7 (142.9) −608.4 (119.5) 0.010* 1.46#
Radial deviation peak (°.s−1) (UAH-BR) −549.4 (198.8) −746.3 (132.0) 0.010* 1.46#
Wrist extension (°.s−1) (BR) −201.0 (131.2) −396.1 (85.5) 0.004* 1.76#
Wrist extension peak (°.s−1) (UAH-BR) −819.2 (150.2) −1056.7 (146.0) 0.005* 1.60#
*Significant ≤0.010 and #Large ES ≥0.80
 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 5

Table 3. Group means (± standard deviations) and comparison for selected joint moments, anthropometry and ranges of motion for elite and pathway WS bowlers.
Variable Pathway Elite p-value Effect size (ES)
Shoulder extension moment (Nm/kg) (BR) −0.334 (0.139) −0.531 (0.120) 0.007* 1.53#
Shoulder internal rot moment (Nm/kg) (BR) 0.018 (0.076) 0.109 (0.047) 0.010* 1.44#
Shoulder internal rot peak moment (Nm/kg) (UAH-BR) 0.555 (0.177) 0.694 (0.170) 0.129 0.80#
Elbow flexion moment (Nm/kg) (BR) 0.028 (0.063) 0.134 (0.078) 0.020 1.50#
Pronation moment (Nm/kg) (BR) −0.030 (0.048) 0.004 (0.033) 0.097 0.82#
Pronation peak moment (Nm/kg) (UAH-BR) 0.411 (0.186) 0.621 (0.221) 0.090 1.03#
Wrist extension peak moment (Nm/kg) (UAH-BR) −0.634 (0.192) −0.925 (0.442) 0.102 0.85#
Radial deviation peak moment (Nm/kg) (UAH-BR) −0.989 (0.297) −1.323 (0.308) 0.031 1.10#
Midstylion–dactylion length (cm) (hand) 19.4 (0.9) 20.3 (0.9) 0.044 1.00#
Radial deviation maximum (°) 27.8 (11.2) 42.3 (13.1) 0.057 1.19#
Ulnar/radial deviation range (°) 76.3 (9.0) 86.0 (10.0) 0.117 1.02#
MCP4 flexion maximum (°) 94.5 (9.2) 105.1 (9.7) 0.036 1.18#
MCP4 extension maximum (°) 16.8 (5.5) 26.1 (7.0) 0.029 1.48#
MCP4 flexion/extension range (°) 111.2 (11.1) 131.2 (15.8) 0.029 1.46#
*Significant ≤0.010 and #Large ES ≥0.80

Table 4. Group means (± standard deviations) for selected peak isokinetic parameters for elite and pathway wrist-spin bowlers.
Variable Pathway Elite p-value Effect size
Shoulder 60°.s-1 180°.s-1 60°.s-1 180°.s-1 60°.s-1 180°.s-1 60°.s-1 180°.s-1
Ext/adduction (Nm/kg) 1.15 (0.08) 1.01 (0.10) 1.33 (0.21) 1.00 (0.35) 0.078 0.951 1.13# 0.03
Wrist
Extension (Nm/kg) 0.11 (0.04) 0.10 (0.03) 0.18 (0.05) 0.16 (0.05) 0.001* 0.031 1.55# 0.73
Radial deviation (Nm/kg) 0.20 (0.04) 0.16 (0.04) 0.26 (0.05) 0.22 (0.05) 0.048 0.050 1.33# 1.32#
Ulnar deviation (Nm/kg) 0.18 (0.07) 0.16 (0.03) 0.31 (0.09) 0.23 (0.06) 0.010* 0.034 1.61# 1.26#
*Significant ≤0.010 and #Large ES ≥0.8

undergoes a series of complex and rapid movements
between BFI and BR. Collapsing data across both groups
allowed variables to be identified that are critical to the
performance of high level WS bowling. Our results indicated
that performance is best explained by peak isokinetic wrist
radial deviation torque, peak shoulder internal rotation
moment, shoulder extension moment at BR and the peak
pronation moment.
At BR the pelvis and thorax segments are also rotating
forward, and the shoulder is internally rotating and extending,
the elbow and radioulnar joints flexing and pronating, the wrist
extending and moving into ulnar deviation. At this point sev-
eral kinematic and kinetic differences were observed between
elite and pathway bowlers. Elite bowlers exhibited lower pelvis
and thorax forward rotation displacements at BR, peak forward
thorax rotation and increased pelvis forward rotation angular
velocity at BR. The coaching literature makes mention of the
need to be side-on at BFI and for the shoulders to turn towards
the batsman but is vague on the specific body position at BR
(Philpott, 1995; Tyson, 1994; Woolmer et al., 2008). Results show
that elite bowlers deliver the ball with a pelvis 21° more front-
on, rotate both their thorax and pelvis forward to a lesser
degree between BFI and BR and have an increased pelvis rota-
tion angular velocity at BR, indicating that elite bowlers decele-
rate the pelvis more slowly in the BFI-BR phase. Increases in
trunk rotational angular velocity have also been reported
within the baseball literature when comparing professional
with non-professional players, and has been shown to be
responsible for velocity dependant moments in the distal seg-
ments of the upper-limb, although it must be noted that this
was only observed at the pelvis, and not the thorax for elite WS
bowlers (Aguinaldo, Buttermore, & Chambers, 2007; Hirashima,
Yamane, Nakamura, & Ohtsuki, 2008).
Elite bowlers also exhibited a higher peak shoulder internal
rotation moment and shoulder internal rotation and extension
moments at BR. As mentioned above, trunk angular velocities
have been linked to velocity dependant torques in the distal
segments of the limb. Although the timing of the peak internal
rotation moment suggests that elite bowlers may rely more on
this in driving the subsequent differences observed in the distal
segments of the kinetic chain rather than increases seen at the
pelvis. This is due mainly to the peak internal rotation moment
occurring early within the UAH-BR phase, as the humerus
moves from peak external rotation into internal rotation, as
reported in baseball throwing (Chu, Fleisig, Simpson, &
Andrews, 2009; Fleisig, Barrentine, Escamilla, & Andrews, 1996;
Fleisig, Chu, Webber, & Andrews, 2008; Vogelpohl & Kollock,
2015). The importance of shoulder internal rotation has been
regularly cited in the literature as critical to maximising the
resultant distal segment velocity in other throwing and hitting
activities (Marshall & Elliott, 2000; Martin et al., 2013; Naito &
Maruyama, 2008; Naito, Takagi, Norimasa, Hashimoto, &
Maruyama, 2014; Reid et al., 2015).
Elite bowlers displayed a similar pattern to throwing and
hitting in the distal bowling limb, with a greater pronation
moment and angular velocity at BR. They also recorded
increased wrist ulnar deviation and extension moments at the
wrist, along with the corresponding angular velocities and
increased displacements of the wrist joint. The general biome-
chanical movements at the distal limb indicate that the WS
bowler must forcefully flex and pronate at the elbow and radio-
ulnar as well as extend and then deviate at the wrist joint up to
and through the point of BR. This supports the theory that elite
bowlers make better use of the degrees of freedom (DoF)
within the proximal to distal linkage system, which is heavily
influenced by the longitudinal rotations of the upper arm and
6 W. SPRATFORD ET AL.

forearm, similar to that reported for other overhead striking

activities such as the tennis serve and squash forehand
(Marshall & Elliott, 2000; Martin et al., 2013; Reid et al., 2015).
While injury surveillance data over a 10 year period in
Australia reveals that injury prevalence in spin bowlers is at
4%, a level described within the research as “acceptable”, it fails
to differentiate between bowler type (FS or WS) (Orchard,
James, Alcott, Carter, & Farhart, 2002; Orchard, James, &
Portus, 2006). It does however report that the greatest propor-
tion of injuries to spin bowlers were to the shoulder tendon
(non-defined). The biomechanical results highlight the impor-
tance of the musculature responsible for developing shoulder
internal rotation as well as flexion and pronation at the radio-
ulnar joint, it also highlights the potential loading placed on the
shoulder joint during WS bowling. Coupled without taking
advantage of the centrifugal force to extend the forearm seg- Figure 2. An elite WS bowlers using their fourth phalange through the point of BR.
ment (Wixted et al., 2011), as well as less assistance from the
forward rotating trunk, WS bowlers in comparison with FS and
fast bowlers must rely heavily on manipulating the shoulder in
well as radial and ulnar deviation torque. There are examples
order to get the body to the appropriate BR position. Research
within the literature of increases in torque production at the
has also linked decreased range of motion of the bowling arm
shoulder (adduction and extension) and wrist (extension) being
in comparison with the non-bowling arm in WS bowlers which
positively correlated to throwing speed, however this is the first
has been shown to increase the chances of subsequent injuries
to show that elite WS bowlers exhibit such strength profiles
(Chauhan & Gregory, 2003). During throwing type activities, the
(Bartlett, Mitchell, Storey, & Simons, 1989; Pedegana, Elsner,
glenohumeral joint must resist large distraction and translation
Roberts, Lang, & Farewell, 1982). It also highlights the potential
forces using the rotator cuff muscles (teres minor, infraspinatus,
benefit in strength interventions targeting the musculature
supraspinatus and subscapularis) and the internal rotators (pec-
responsible for these movements for WS bowlers.
toralis major, lattisimus dorsi, anterior deltoid and teres major)
and as such can be prone to injury (Fleisig, Andrews, Dilman, &
Escamilla, 1995; Fleisig et al., 1996; Polster et al., 2013). As
Conclusion
previously highlighted, there are major biomechanical differ-
ences between over-head throwing activities, such as baseball The results of this study suggest that elite bowlers rotate their
and WS bowling, however, as previously recommended, the pelvis and thorax to a lesser degree and exhibit less decelera-
factors that relate to shoulder injuries in WS bowlers warrants tion between BFI-BR resulting in a more front-on position and
further investigation (Gregory, Batt, & Angus Wallace, 2002). increased pelvis rotation angular velocity at BR when com-
The anthropometry screen revealed that large ES differences pared with pathway bowlers. Importantly, elite bowlers dis-
were reported for elite compared with pathway WS bowlers. play higher peak shoulder internal rotation moments as the
Hand length, radial deviation full range and total frontal plane upper arm moves from external rotation into internal rotation,
wrist range of motion (radial and ulnar deviation), as well as which is thought to be responsible for driving subsequent
MCP4 flexion, extension and range of motion all differentiated differences in the distal segments of the kinetic chain
WS bowling level. This provides valuable information that the between bowling groups. The anthropometry screen high-
size of the hand and increased range of motion in the frontal lighted variances at the wrist, hand and the fourth phalange,
plane (radial and ulnar deviation) of the wrist may be of impor- which may be used to form the basis for talent identification
tance and used to form the basis of talent identification mea- programmes. The regression analysis for performance further
sures. From an applied coaching perspective, a larger hand reinforced that the WS bowling technique relies heavily on
makes the ball easier to hold and ulnar deviation during bowl- the bowling limb strength and peak isokinetic strength at the
ing has been shown from this research to be important in shoulder, elbow and wrist. While it is recommended that
discriminating skill level. Functional measurements of the pha- strength interventions aimed at improving the musculature
langeal joints were outside the scope of this current research, responsible for the movement at the shoulder (internal rota-
however, high-speed footage taken during testing revealed tion and extension), radioulnar joint (pronation) and wrist
that some elite players used their fourth phalange in a similar joints (radial deviation) be implemented, it should not come
way to a FS bowler in an endeavour to control the ball at BR, at a cost to the young bowler learning the correct technique
a point briefly mentioned in the coaching text (Bradman, 1969). for this complex skill.
It is possible that this has been reflected in the anthropometry The data from this study were collected within a laboratory
screen, and as such warrant’s further investigation. An example environment, allowing for sophisticated methodologies to be
of this technique is shown in Figure 2. implemented. This, however, came at the detriment to task
Isokinetic strength differences were reported at the shoulder representation due to the absence of a batsman and the clinical
and wrist joints, with elite bowlers having greater shoulder environment. There was also no attempt to quantify the small
extension and adduction torque, wrist extension torque as amount of pelvis and thorax counter-rotation that occurred

between BFI and BR, a movement that has been linked to
injuries in fast bowlers. It is recommended that future research
investigate this area.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Cricket Australia for support in providing
participants for this project.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Wayne Spratford http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6207-8829
Jacqueline Alderson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8866-0913
References
Aguinaldo, A., Buttermore, J., & Chambers, H. (2007). Effects of upper trunk
rotation on shoulder joint torque among baseball pitchers of various
levels. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 23, 42–51.
Bartlett, R., Mitchell, D., Storey, D., & Simons, B. (1989). Measurement of
upper extremity torque production and its relationship to throwing
speed in the competitive athlete. American Journal of Sports Medicine,
17(1), 89–91.
Beach, A., Ferdinands, R., & Sinclair, P. (2014). Three-dimensional linear and
angular kinematics of a spinning cricket ball. Sports Technology, 7(1/2),
12–25.
Beach, A., Ferdinands, R., & Sinclair, P. (2016). The kinematic differences
between off-spin and leg-spin bowling in cricket. Sports Biomechanics,
15(3), 295–313.
Bradman, D. (1969). The art of cricket (5th ed.). London, England: Hodder
and Stoughton.
Campbell, A., Lloyd, A., Alderson, J., & Elliott, B. (2009). MRI development
and validation of two new predictive methods of glenohumeral joint
centre location identification and comparison with established
techniques. Journal of Biomechanics, 42, 1527–1532.
Chauhan, R., & Gregory, P. L. (2003). Difference in range of shoulder rotation
in wrist spin and finger spin bowlers. Paper presented at the BASEM.
Sheffield, UK.
Chin, A., Elliott, B., Alderson, J., Lloyd, D., & Foster, D. (2009). The off-break
and “doosra”. Kinematic variations of elite and sub-elte bowlers in
creating ball spin in cricket bowling. Sports Biomechanics, 8(3), 187–198.
Chin, A., Lloyd, A., Alderson, J., Elliott, B., & Mills, P. (2010). A marker-based
mean finite helical axis model to determine elbow rotation axes and
kinematics in vivo. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 26, 16.
Chu, Y., Fleisig, G., Simpson, K., & Andrews, J. (2009). Biomechanical com-
parison between elite female and male baseball pitchers. Journal of
Applied Biomechanics, 25, 22–31.
Claiborne, T., Armstrong, C., Gandhi, V., & Pincivero, D. (2006). Relationship
between hip and knee strength and knee valgus during a single leg
squat. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 20, 41–50.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
Cork, A., Justham, L., & West, A. (2012). Three-dimensional vision analysis to
measure the release characteristics of elite bowlers in cricket. Journal of
Sports Engineering and Technology, Part P, 227, 1–12.
de Leva, P. (1996). Adjustments to Zatsiorsky-Seluyanov's segment inertia
parameters. Journal of Biomechanics, 29(9), 1223-1230. doi:10.1016/
0021-9290(95)00178-6
Diaz, G., Cooper, J., Rothkopf, C., & Hayhoe, M. (2013). Saccades to future
ball location reveal memory-based prediction in virtual-reality intercep-
tion task. Journal of Vision, 3(1), 1–14.
Fleisig, G., Andrews, J., Dilman, C., & Escamilla, R. (1995). Kinetics of baseball
pitching with implications about injury mechanisms. The American
Journal of Sports Medicine, 23(2), 233–239.
JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 7
Fleisig, G., Barrentine, S., Escamilla, R., & Andrews, J. (1996). Biomechanics of
overhand throwing with implications for injuries. Sports Medicine, 21,
421–437.
Fleisig, G., Chu, Y., Webber, A., & Andrews, J. (2008). Variability in baseball
pitching biomechanics among various levels of competition. Sports
Biomechanics, 8(1), 10–21.
Gerhardt, J., Cocchiarella, L., & Lea, R. (2002). The practical guide to range of
motion assessment (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: American Medical
Association.
Gregory, P., Batt, M., & Angus Wallace, W. (2002). Comparing injuries of spin
bowling with fast bowling in young cricketers. Clinical Journal of Sports
Medicine, 12, 107–112.
Hirashima, M., Yamane, K., Nakamura, Y., & Ohtsuki, T. (2008). Kinetic chain
of overarm throwing in terms of joint rotations revealed by induced
acceleration analysis. Journal of Biomechanics, 41(18), 2874–2883.
Justham, L., Cork, A., & West, A. (2010). Comparative study of the perfor-
mances during match play of an elite-level spin bowler and an elite-level
pace bowler in cricket. Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, Part
P, 224, 237–247.
Lloyd, D., Alderson, J., & Elliott, B. (2000). An upper limb kinematic model for
the examination of cricket bowling: A case study of Muttiah
Muralitharan. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 975–982.
Marfell-Jones, M., Olds, T., Stewart, A., & Lindsay Carter, J. (2006).
International standards for anthropmetric assesment. International
Society for the Advancenet of Kinanthropometry.
Marshall, R., & Elliott, B. (2000). Long-axis rotation: The missing link in
proximal-to- distal segmental sequencing. Journal of Sport Sciences, 18,
247–254.
Marshall, R., & Ferdinands, R. (2003). The effect of a flexed elbow on bowling
speed in cricket. Sports Biomechanics, 2(1), 65–72.
Martin, C., Kulpa, R., Delamarche, P., & Bideau, B. (2013). Professional tennis
players’ serve: Correlation between segmental angular momentums and
ball velocity. Sports Biomechanics, 12(1), 2–14.
Middleton, K. (2011). Mechanical strategies for the devlopment of ball release velocity
in cricket fast bowling: The interaction, variation and simulation of execution and
outcome parameters (Doctor of Philosophy). University of Western Australia,
Naito, K., & Maruyama, T. (2008). Contributions of the muscular torques and
motion-dependant torques to generate rapid elbow extension during
overhand baseball pitching. Sports Engineering, 11, 47–56.
Naito, K., Takagi, H., Norimasa, Y., Hashimoto, S., & Maruyama, T. (2014).
Intersegmental dynamics of 3D upper arm and forearm longitudinal axis
rotations during baseball pitching. Human Movement Science, 38, 116–132.
Orchard, J., James, T., Alcott, E., Carter, S., & Farhart, P. (2002). Injuries in
Australian cricket at first class level 1995/96 to 2000/2001. British Journal
of Sports Medicine, 36, 270–275.
Orchard, J., James, T., & Portus, M. (2006). Injuries to elite male cricketers in
Australia over a 10 year period. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,
9, 459–468.
Pedegana, L., Elsner, R., Roberts, D., Lang, J., & Farewell, V. (1982).
Relationship of upper extremity strength to throwing speed. American
Journal of Sports Medicine, 10(6), 352–354.
Philpott, P. (1995). The art of wrist-spin bowling. Ramsbury, Marlborough:
Crowood Press.
Polster, J., Bullen, J., Obuchowski, N., Bryan, J., Soloff, L., & Schickendantz, M.
(2013). Relationship between humeral torsion and injury in professional
baseball pitchers. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 41(9),
2015–2021.
Pyne, D., Duthie, G., Saunders, P., Petersen, C., & Portus, M. (2006).
Anthropometric and strength correlates of fast bowling speed in junior
and senior cricketers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20
(3), 620–626.
Reid, M., Giblin, G., & Whiteside, D. (2015). A kinematic comparison of the
overhand throw and tennis serve in tennis players: How similar are they
really? Journal of Sport Sciences, 33(7), 713–723.
Robinson, G., & Robinson, I. (2013). The motion of an arbitrarily rotating
spherical projectile and its application to ball games. Physica Scripta, 88
(1), 018101–018117.
Sarpeshkar, V., Mann, D., Spratford, W., & Abernethy, B. (2017). The influence
of ball-swing on the timing and coordination of a natural interceptive
task. Human Movement Science, 54, 82–90.
8 W. SPRATFORD ET AL.
Schache, A., & Baker, R. (2007). On the expression of joint moments during
gait. Gait and Posture, 25, 440–452.
Spratford, W., & Davison, J. (2010). Measurement of ball flight characteristics
in finger-spin bowling. Paper presented at the Conference of Science,
Medicine and Coaching in Cricket. Gold Coast, Australia.
Spratford, W., Elliott, B., Portus, M., Brown, N., & Alderson, J. (2018). Illegal bowling
actions contribute to performance in cricket finger-spin bowlers.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 28, 1–9.
Spratford, W., Portus, M., Wixted, A., Leadbetter, R., & James, D. (2014). Peak
outward acceleration and ball release in cricket. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 33(7), 754–760.
Spratford, W., Whiteside, D., Elliott, B., Portus, M., Brown, N., & Alderson, J. (2017).
Does performance level affect initial ball flight kinematics in finger and
wrist-spin cricket bowlers? Journal of Sports Sciences. doi:10.1080/
02640414.2017.1329547
Tyson, F. (1994). The cricket coaching manual (2nd ed.). Melboune, Australia:
Nelson in association with the Victorian Cricket Association.
Vogelpohl, R., & Kollock, R. (2015). Isokinetic rotator cuff functional
ratios and the development of shoulder injury in collegiate baseball
pitchers. International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training, 20(3),
46–52.
Welchman, A., Tuck, V., & Harris, J. (2004). Human observers are biased in
judging the angular approach of a projectile. Vision Research, 44(17),
2027–2042.
Whiteside, D., Chin, A., & Middleton, K. (2012). The validation of a
three-dimensional ball rotation model. Journal of Sports Engineering
and Technology, 227, 8.
Wilkins, B. (1991). The bowler’s art. London, England: A & C Black Ltd.
Winter, D. (2005). Biomechanics and motor control of human movement (3rd
ed.). New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Wixted, A., Portus, M., Spratford, W., & James, D. (2011). Detection of throwing
in cricket using wearable sensors. Sports Technology, 4, 134–140.
Woolmer, B., Noakes, T., & Moffett, H. (2008). Bob Woolmer’s art and science
of cricket (1st ed.). Sydney: New Holland Publishers Ltd.