But why does not the same delivery, as it gives the same kind of spin, always produce the same vertical or lateral effect on a ball? In other words, how do you account for the fact that (apart from roughness of ground) the same delivery produces sometimes a contrary twist? “Because the ball may turn in the air, and the vertical spin become lateral. The side which on delivery was under, may, at the pitch, be the upper side, or the upper side may become under, or any modification of either may be produced in conjunction with inequality in the ground.” With throwing bowling, the ball comes from the ends of the fingers; why, then, does it not spin? Because, unlike Cobbett’s delivery, as explained, wherein the ball left the fingers by degrees, and was sent spinning forth, the ball, in a throw, is held between fingers and thumb, which leave their hold at the same instant, without any tendency to rotate the ball. The fairer and more horizontal the delivery the more the fingers act, the more spin, and the more variety, after the pitch. A high and unfair delivery, it is true, is difficult from the height of the rise; otherwise it is too regular and too easy to calculate, to make first-rate bowling. A LITTLE LEARNING IS A DANGEROUS THING--and not least at cricket. The only piece of science I ever hear on a cricket field is this: “Sir, how can that be? The angle of reflection must always be equal to the angle of incidence.” That a cricketer should have only one bit of science, and that, as he applies it, a blunder, is indeed a pity. I have already shown that, in bowling, the _apparent_ angle of reflection is rendered unequal to the angle of incidence by the rotatory motion or spin of the ball, and also by the roughness of the ground. I have now to explain that this law is equally disturbed in batting also; and by attention to the following observations, many a forward player may learn so to adapt his force to the inclination of his bat as not to be caught out, even although (as often happens to a man’s great surprise) he plays over the ball! The effect of a moving body meeting another body moving, and that same body quiescent, is very different. To prove this, Fix a bat _immoveably_ perpendicular in the ground, and suppose a ball rises to it from the ground in an angle of 45° as the angle of incidence; then supposing the ball to have no rotatory motion, it will be reflected at an equal angle, and fall nearly under the bat. But supposing the bat is not fixed, but brought forcibly forward to meet that ball, then, according to the weight and force of the bat, the natural direction of the ball will be annihilated, and the ball will be returned, perhaps nearly point blank, not in the line of reflection, but in some other line more nearly resembling the line in which the bat is moved.