From: shamim@bellcore.com (Shamim Naqvi,MRE-2E342,829-4711,,21273)
Subject: Re: Chinese bowling: THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER
Reply-To: shamim@bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown, NJ
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 16:04:05 GMT

>In article 722278538@pico,  karnik@pico.cs.umn.edu (Neeran M. Karnik) writes:
>In <1992Nov20.085627@is.morgan.com> andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad) writes:
[I took the liberty of deleting both these articles
Essentially Neeran agrees with my interpretation of the Chinaman and Andrew disagrees]

There is an easy way to describe everything and be factual also (this may be 
dangerous on RSC) and here it is. First let me set the stage and then I will present the evidence. 

Consider Sobers bowling to Dexter with Sobers bowling wrist spin. He bowls three kinds of 
deliveries all with the action of a WRIST SPINNER:
(1) pitches on off and spins into Dexter
(2) pitches on off and spins towards slips (leaves Dexter)
(3) pitches on off and comes straight through. 

Question: What is the name of these three deliveries. My answer is 
that the first is a Chinaman, second is a googly and the last is a top spinner. 
Neeran agrees with this whereas Andrew disagrees and  maintains that 
the second delivery is called a Chinaman. I do not know what name he would 
give to the first delivery (I take it that everybody agrees that no. 3 is a top spinner). 

LET US NOW LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. 

For those who disagree with this interpretation, I suggest that
they go out and buy a video tape called "Cricket the West Indian Way".
It is widely available in NY.  It is an instructional video featuring
Kanhai, Holding, Gibbs and of course Sobers.  Among other things Sobers
shows the grip and style for wrist spin. He shows the grip for type (2)
ball above and calls it a GOOGLY. The video then shows a clip of an
actual test match in which Sobers is shown bowling the same delivery
and some RH English batsman getting a snick to slip. The ball pitches
on the middle and off for this RH batsman and turns sharply towards the
slips. The commentators call it a googly. Sobers calls it a googly.
Hence I call it a googly.

Now, before talking about the Googly, Sobers talks about the Chinaman
and describes how that is to be bowled. He describes the action (wrist
should remain cocked, etc) and then demonstrates it.  It breaks from
off to leg for a RH bat as in (1) above.  Sobers calls it a Chinaman. 
Hence I call it a Chinaman. 

Finally, if all this is unconvincing (or one is unable to find the videotape) I recommend 
that one look up the Oxford English Dictionary in one's local library. This is what it 
says about "Chinaman" as pertaining to cricket:

Cricket. A left-handed bowler's offbreak to a right-
     handed batsman (see
        also quots.).
 
     1937  Daily Herald  3 Feb. 14/1
 
     The Yorkshire lefthander..has frequently broken up a big
     partnership with his `chinamen'.
 
     1955  MILLER  & WHITINGTON  Cricket Typhoon  I. ii. 32
 
     In..Yorkshire, the `Chinaman' is regarded as the lefthand
     bowler's off-break.. In Australia..the `Chinaman' is..the left-hander's googly.
 
     1963  Times  11 May 9/7,
 
     I understand the `Chinaman' to be simply an off break bowled out
     of the back or side of the hand by a left-handed bowler-that is,
     the ball comes in to a right-handed batsman from the off and the
     left-handed bowler's action in bowling is equivalent to that of
     the right-hander in bowling a leg break.  I believe the term was
     first used in referring to this style of bowling practised before
     the last War by Ellis Achong, who, although he played for the
     West Indies, was in fact a Chinese.

So to be fair there is a minor interpretation of a Chinaman that
supports Andrew's interpretation because of 1955 Miller (see above).
But it is clear from the OED that it is a minor interpretation (only Aus) and 
because as you will notice the OED accepts and states  "A left-handed
bowler's offbreak to a right-handed batsman".  Because of the eminence,
standardization and thorough research of the OED staff, I am inclined
to believe my version. I am also inclined to believe Woodcock writing
for The Times. Frankly, Neeran,  I must confess that I do not have the
guts to disagree with Garfield Sobers. What do you think? 
Should I don my asbestos suit?  In any case, six
months from now, someone will surely raise this topic again. Sigh.

	--SAN