I remember as a kid in England watching the BBC TV coverage and they said that they used to get loads of letters from scientists saying that it was impossible for a cricket ball to swing and that it was just an optical illusion!
Usually they say that cloudy/humid conditions are good for swinging almost like the 2 are synonimous, but I guess from this research they're saying that the moisture content in the air is unimportant and it's the cloud that is the major factor.So although cloudy conditions create humidity that's not the crucial factor.
I don't think anybody can completely nail down exactly why a cricket ball swings, obviously they shine one side to create an aerodynamic differential and I'm sure that helps but I've seen the first ball of a match swing like a mother so it's clearly not critical.Derek Pringle (who was a decent enough swing bowler) once wrote an article saying that whilst the shine helped it was all down to the seam, he said it was like a rudder and the aim was to get it revolving perfectly back on its line & it would direct the ball if conditions allowed and that is why brand new balls swing.
Reverse swing is even more interesting when they were trying to dissect it back here years ago they were putting forward all kinds of hypothesise and a lot of players that had played in teams who faced it and then worked out how to do it themselves, such as Atherton, completely disagreed with the idea that it was a weight differential that caused it.They kept going on about everyone trying to keep the ball completely dry and fielders not being allowed to touch it with sweaty hands.
There was even a 3 page article in the Sunday Times that tried to definitively show what caused reverse swing, they actually said that it was little stucking out bits of leather on the rough side that caused small pockets of turbulence that made that side go faster through the air than the smooth side, they said like a shark's skin which is rough and moves better aerodynamically through the water than if it was smooth.I always thought this was a crock of shit because what they are asking you to beleive is that the smooth side of a cricket ball moves faster through the air than the none shiny side and then all of a sudden a point of critical mass is reached whereby the rough side is suddenly more aeordynamically efficent.
I've always thought that it was one side getting heavier that caused reverse, if you watch reverse swing it starts to go much sooner after leaving the hand than orthodox, and if you've played tennis ball cricket with one side of the ball taped it starts to go really early as well.
I turned the telly on once, didn't hear any commentary but England are bowling, I think it was Trent Bridge, it looked a shiity day and the ball swung and I thought to myself that looked like reverse the way the ball started to swing so early but I thought it couldn't be because of the waether and time of year, then the commentary comes on and they say 'England are gettinhg it to reverse' and that kind of proved to me that I was right in my view of how reverse just looks different to orthodox and just starts to go a lot closer to release and I think that only be do to a weight difference and not aerodynamics.
I've never really understand why some bowlers can reverse a cricket ball but not bowl orthodox, Flintoff was a perfect example, don't think I ever saw him swing a ball with orthodox but was a fine reverse swing bowler.
Simon Jones was the same, got a reputation as an old ball reverse swing specialist couldn't bowl orthodox swing and then in 2005 he came out for the 1st Test against Bangladesh, typical English May conditions and he's bowling with Hoggard who was a good swing bowler and he's swinging it miles further than him, admittedly bowling a fuller length, and obviously bowling quicker and I assumed that he'd worked with Troy Cooley that winter who'd probably said if you can bowl reverse you can bowl orthodox.