Richards The Perfectionist - A Genius of His Generation - Imran Khan

[Tusker]

@Junaids ... No response to this ?

You probably missed my post in a different thread ... here is the clip that gives a fair indication of how far back the slips were when Thommo was bowling full speed (pre-injury) .

https://youtu.be/kF14-_npFVw?t=21s


It is very clear from that footage that the 1st slip is standing at about 10-12 steps from the stumps. Reduce the playback speed on Youtube to 0.25 and you can easily count the steps as the 1st Slip fielder jogs towards Thommo.

Footage is from the 2nd inngs of the 1974 Gabba Test match : http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63136.html






Sorry but there is no evidence to back this up.

[pacesensation]

Personally, I look at the records of cricket before 70s, just as part of history; don't think it was a serious professional sports then.

Regarding bowling speed, I don't think before Dennis Lillee & Andy Roberts, world had ever seen 140KM speed. One of our olden days cricketer played club cricket in 50s & he was a coach till his later days. I think, he reckoned Fazal Mahmood a bit faster than Afridi - that's 110-115KM with his effort ball. Sobers wasn't faster than Fazal - they had skills, but not the pace. I have seen enough clips & WK position - based on that I don't think Larwood's fastest was more than 125KM, Tyson may be in 130s. Also, those days, over rate was 2.5-3 minutes, therefore Test matches were played for 125-150 overs per day & these bowlers used to bowl 35-38 overs/day - unless they are Cyborgs, don't think, their pace after tea was more than Anil Kumble. And, in those time less Tests where Bradman & co piled large scores over 6/7 days, it's not humanly possible to maintain average peak speed through out the match. Therefore, my hunch is by 3rd day, bowlers with 125km top speed would struggle to match Ganguly or Soumya in Day 3 on wards, bowling 135 overs/day. I never argue on players of different era - Hobbs was by far best in his era, so was Bradman & Syd Barnes. I rate cricketers from 70s to 90s highest because of the quality & competitiveness of the game.

In terms of pace, Thommo was exceptionally quick - 175KM is a bit ... you know, but i do think, at his fastest, he was very close to Sohaib & Lee, probably at per with Waquar at his fastest. Holding was slightly slower than Thommo. I think, Imran felt Mike & Thommo faster because he faced them as a No. 9 without much protective gears - at Waquar's fastest, Imarn was an accomplished batman. Mike's action was so smooth that he could maintain top speed for long, long spells, but his peak wasn't faster than even Donald.

I am the biggest fan of Imran - but don't think, he ever reached 147.3KM (Srinath's fastest, Razzak was even faster), he had other bowling skills, which is diminishing from the game, but average speed in world cricket was fastest in 90s & early 2000s.

Fastest 5 bowlers in my judgment in history (last 3 not in order)

Sohaib, Lee, Zahid, Waquar, Thompson.

You made very reasonable points

And you do believe that thommo was probably as fast as akhtar. Thats what i wanted to know

[pacesensation]

@Junaids ... No response to this ?

he did not respond because your post does not merits any attention. Your arguments are not conclusive.
So its not worth his time.

bottom line, sachin's and sehwag are inferior to king viv

viv la king richards!

[Tusker]

he did not respond because your post does not merits any attention. Your arguments are not conclusive.
So its not worth his time.

What is not conclusive about a video that anyone can see and verify what Iam saying ? Do you even know what is being discussed ?

@Junaids is adamant that the slip fielders stood the farthest when Thommo was bowling and I just refuted that, do you have anything to add to that other than make onesided statements ?

bottom line, sachin's and sehwag are inferior to king viv

viv la king richards!

nobody is talking about those 2 in this thread (atleast not me)... but the fact that you decided to bring them in tells us all there is to know about how these 2 make you insecure. Thanks!

[Junaids]

You probably missed my post in a different thread ... here is the clip that gives a fair indication of how far back the slips were when Thommo was bowling full speed (pre-injury) .

https://youtu.be/kF14-_npFVw?t=21s


It is very clear from that footage that the 1st slip is standing at about 10-12 steps from the stumps. Reduce the playback speed on Youtube to 0.25 and you can easily count the steps as the 1st Slip fielder jogs towards Thommo.

Footage is from the 2nd inngs of the 1974 Gabba Test match : http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63136.html






Sorry but there is no evidence to back this up.

I do fully agree that Thommo is not at full throttle on a second innings wicket bowling at the seventh wicket partnership.

But many of your arguments betray the same generational biases that you accuse me of.

You disregard as inadequate the ways we used to consume cricket: in person, home internationals on TV, radio, newspapers, and effectively say that only modern TV coverage can provide evidence of quality, speed or anything else.

But as I keep saying, on that basis a 900 km/h Boeing 737-800 is quicker than Concorde which cruised at 2140 km/h.

I don't know what you think 1970's and 1980's cricketers did when they weren't playing. They were full-time professionals, and I've given you the example many times before that Fred Trueman was a far better Test bowler than Mitchell Starc because he had bowled far more First Class overs to a slip cordon.

Modern methods are clearly worse in terms of Test preparation in every domain except for fielding and lower-order batting. Not only can Australia not get Cummins and Pattinson on the pitch because of the dreadful dogma around physical preparation, but a hugely talented bowler like Mitchell Starc has still not learned how to bowl in Tests, relying on his ODI methods and ball tampering for reverse swing instead.

Cummins, Hazelwood, Pattinson and Starc have the potential to be as good - or better - than the Windies pace quartets of 1976-1986. But between inferior physical preparation regimes and not bowling enough First Class overs nobody in their right minds makes that comparison - and I've been laughed out of the pub for even suggesting it.

I learned in 1987 with Craig McDermott that "innovations" in physical preparation are far more likely to ruin a fast bowler than help him. If he had just done bowling and running like Imran Khan or Mikey Holding he would have taken 600 Test wickets.

[Junaids]

Just to further refute the idea that only modern players are professionals.......

Fred Trueman bowled 99,701 First Class balls, taking 2304 wickets.

At the age of 27, Mitchell Starc has only bowled 12,000 First Class deliveries, and taken 257 wickets.

No wonder then that in Tests he is still Wahab Starc. He is a rank amateur compared with his predecessors. He has the height, the pace, the bounce and the action. But he doesn't know how to bowl, because in every form of cricket combined he has only bowled 19,000 balls, and a third of them were in lower forms of the game where you can't have a slip cordon.

[Tusker]

I do fully agree that Thommo is not at full throttle on a second innings wicket bowling at the seventh wicket partnership.

Knew you would say that !!

So watch the 2 clips below (at 0.25 speed). Clips are from that same match involving the same bowler same slip fielder about same time in the day except its his first spell in the 1st Eng inngs of that same Test match

https://youtu.be/3SzyNWT5yJ0?t=18m20s

https://youtu.be/3SzyNWT5yJ0?t=18m38s

What do we have ? Same result. But somehow this still might not be enough to convince you that the slip fielders stood at normal distances ... time will tell.

But many of your arguments betray the same generational biases that you accuse me of.

Iam biased against illogical and unsubstantiated stories ... it just so happens that the older generations produced a lot more of those. If you believe otherwise thats fine. Just don't expect me to believe it. A good reason is right here in this thread (above).

You disregard as inadequate the ways we used to consume cricket: in person, home internationals on TV, radio, newspapers, and effectively say that only modern TV coverage can provide evidence of quality, speed or anything else.

Wooah ... where did I say all that ? I only said Radio and written accounts don't really count as proper evidence to prove your point. There will be exceptions but you cant possibly argue against the value of watching footage. Surely you would understand now (after watching the above clips) the value of actual footage instead of going by notoriously embellished accounts

But as I keep saying, on that basis a 900 km/h Boeing 737-800 is quicker than Concorde which cruised at 2140 km/h.

Ehh? Not sure I understand this. explain.

I don't know what you think 1970's and 1980's cricketers did when they weren't playing. They were full-time professionals, and I've given you the example many times before that Fred Trueman was a far better Test bowler than Mitchell Starc because he had bowled far more First Class overs to a slip cordon.

This is not true. Maybe for a select few but the West Indian team that you soo idolize ... they only got paid if they played which meant they would try to play even if not fully fit !! There was no contract.

Will get to the rest of your post later.

[Junaids]

@Tusker
No international cricketers had central contracts in the period 1976-1986.

Most top players earned most of their income in county cricket, where the West Indians tended to be the best paid players.

And it would have been very hard for a West Indies fast bowler to play injured. Consider at random the year 1981: the West Indies attack was

Andy Roberts
Joel Garner
Michael Holding
Colin Croft

But the reserves were:

5. Sylvester Clarke
6. Malcolm Marshall
7. Franklyn Stephenson
8. Ezra Moseley
9. Hartley Alleyne

.... each of whom down as far as Moseley would be by far the best bowler in the world now.

[Napa]

@Tusker
No international cricketers had central contracts in the period 1976-1986.

Most top players earned most of their income in county cricket, where the West Indians tended to be the best paid players.

And it would have been very hard for a West Indies fast bowler to play injured. Consider at random the year 1981: the West Indies attack was

Andy Roberts
Joel Garner
Michael Holding
Colin Croft

But the reserves were:

5. Sylvester Clarke
6. Malcolm Marshall
7. Franklyn Stephenson
8. Ezra Moseley
9. Hartley Alleyne

.... each of whom down as far as Moseley would be by far the best bowler in the world now.

You have no clue about the improvement in athletic standards that have occurred in the vast majority of sports over the past few decades.

[Junaids]

You have no clue about the improvement in athletic standards that have occurred in the vast majority of sports over the past few decades.

No, with respect, you have no clue as to the limitations of the significance of that improvement in terms of ball sports.

If you consider football, Lionel Messi can run twice as far in a match as the players of the 1980's did. But the referees protect him from being kicked the way that Maradona and Platini and Laudrup were thirty years ago. Almost certainly this means that they would excel now with appropriate conditioning, but his game would almost certainly have suffered under the old rules.

The same is true with batting. The effect of gym work, huge bats, short boundaries and grassless wickets is that the likes of Warner or Smith can score at a rapid rate in such conditions. But we saw in England 20 months ago that when confronted with traditional conditions - they were certainly not greentops because the movement was mainly in the air not off the seam - they wet their pants and failed like primary school boys.

Bowling, unfortunately, has been even more damaged by "progress".

Do you not wonder why men like Cummins and Pattinson and De Lange who respectively in all forms of cricket have so far bowled 5,300, 10,600 and 9,700 balls in their lives cannot get fit enough to play? Whereas Fred Trueman bowled 99,701 balls at a rapid pace.

And indeed why modern bowlers can't sustain the side-on action which produces away-swing when bowlers in earlier generations managed careers of 61,000 balls (Bob Willis), 69,900 balls (John Snow) and 44,000 balls (Malcolm Marshall).

The bottom line is that in cricket, modern physical conditioning doesn't help fast bowlers, it damages them.

[Napa]

If you consider football, Lionel Messi can run twice as far in a match as the players of the 1980's did. But the referees protect him from being kicked the way that Maradona and Platini and Laudrup were thirty years ago. Almost certainly this means that they would excel now with appropriate conditioning, but his game would almost certainly have suffered under the old rules.

Your logical abilities leave much to be desired. Comparing Messi's performance to himself (without protection) is a comparison that proves zilch.

The same is true with batting. The effect of gym work, huge bats, short boundaries and grassless wickets is that the likes of Warner or Smith can score at a rapid rate in such conditions. But we saw in England 20 months ago that when confronted with traditional conditions - they were certainly not greentops because the movement was mainly in the air not off the seam - they wet their pants and failed like primary school boys.

You do understand that the improvement in standards also applies to bowlers. The implicit assumption in your argument is that Warner and Smith were facing bowlers from earlier decades on English greentops.

Bowling, unfortunately, has been even more damaged by "progress".

Do you not wonder why men like Cummins and Pattinson and De Lange who respectively in all forms of cricket have so far bowled 5,300, 10,600 and 9,700 balls in their lives cannot get fit enough to play? Whereas Fred Trueman bowled 99,701 balls at a rapid pace.

Here is a clue: Cummins and Pattinson and De Lange bowl at a greater pace than Trueman.

And indeed why modern bowlers can't sustain the side-on action which produces away-swing when bowlers in earlier generations managed careers of 61,000 balls (Bob Willis), 69,900 balls (John Snow) and 44,000 balls (Malcolm Marshall).

The bottom line is that in cricket, modern physical conditioning doesn't help fast bowlers, it damages them.

If modern physical conditioning actually damaged bowlers then they would forgo it. Bowlers without that conditioning would be more successful.

[rollingstoned]

No, with respect, you have no clue as to the limitations of the significance of that improvement in terms of ball sports.

If you consider football, Lionel Messi can run twice as far in a match as the players of the 1980's did. But the referees protect him from being kicked the way that Maradona and Platini and Laudrup were thirty years ago. Almost certainly this means that they would excel now with appropriate conditioning, but his game would almost certainly have suffered under the old rules.

The same is true with batting. The effect of gym work, huge bats, short boundaries and grassless wickets is that the likes of Warner or Smith can score at a rapid rate in such conditions. But we saw in England 20 months ago that when confronted with traditional conditions - they were certainly not greentops because the movement was mainly in the air not off the seam - they wet their pants and failed like primary school boys.

Bowling, unfortunately, has been even more damaged by "progress".

Do you not wonder why men like Cummins and Pattinson and De Lange who respectively in all forms of cricket have so far bowled 5,300, 10,600 and 9,700 balls in their lives cannot get fit enough to play? Whereas Fred Trueman bowled 99,701 balls at a rapid pace.

And indeed why modern bowlers can't sustain the side-on action which produces away-swing when bowlers in earlier generations managed careers of 61,000 balls (Bob Willis), 69,900 balls (John Snow) and 44,000 balls (Malcolm Marshall).

The bottom line is that in cricket, modern physical conditioning doesn't help fast bowlers, it damages them.

To what would you attribute many Olympic records being broken then? Im asking just out of curiosity, I do believe a lot of athletes are doping even if there is no evidence to prove it. Not unlike how Lance Armstrong got caught and said that everyone does it.

[Junaids]

Here is a clue: Cummins and Pattinson and De Lange bowl at a greater pace than Trueman.

Except they don't. They are all slower than Trueman was in his twenties. And none of them can swing it like him either.

[Junaids]

To what would you attribute many Olympic records being broken then? Im asking just out of curiosity, I do believe a lot of athletes are doping even if there is no evidence to prove it. Not unlike how Lance Armstrong got caught and said that everyone does it.

Primarily doping.

Even "clean" athletes tend to use absurd amounts of supplements and peptides, and I suspect that most of them don't really understand which things are legal and illegal as opposed to what you can get caught for.

The West Indies cricketers from early 1978 played year round and had a superb full-time fitness coach in Dennis Waight. They were genuine professionals.

The thing about ball sports is that fitness only gets you so far. The fittest Pakistani cricketer is Amad Butt, but how far has that taken him? Not very!

Imran Khan bowled 42,000 balls if you include WSC, and his fitness methods kept him fit - apart from 1 year of stress fractures - and fast.

Shoaib Akhtar followed an Australian-style fitness program like McDermott and Pattinson which resulted in him having an upper body too bulky and heavy for his legs. His career didn't even last 22,000 balls.

I am all for the integration of science into sport - I am a doctor! But I would counsel anyone against the blind application of fitness science to sports it was not designed for. And in the case of cricket, Australia's fast bowling stocks have been decimated by the employment of sports scientists who trained in courses more suited to keeping 110kg rugby league players fit to play rather than allowing 72 kg bowlers to do their job.

Far too many 72 kg bowlers end up weighing 87 kg of solid muscle, but unable to stay fit or bowl away swing.

[CricketAnalyst]

You sound like the people who think fast bowling began with modern technology.

By the same logic, a Boeing 787 is faster than Concorde, because Concorde was measured using old technology.

In literally every single sport, physical athleticism and related standards have improved drastically in the last 30/40 years with professionalization.

Additionally, in an issue that's just a question of hurling something very fast, it's literally impossible that one guy has 10% higher speed than anyone else in the history of the game.

175kmph bowling is literally not possible. It's almost as fast as the baseball records. Both common-sense statistics and logic as well as biology tell you that baseball pitching is much faster.

The fact that you think 175kph is a realistic assessment of his bowling speed brings anything you say on the topic into question.

[Junaids]

In literally every single sport, physical athleticism and related standards have improved drastically in the last 30/40 years with professionalization.

Additionally, in an issue that's just a question of hurling something very fast, it's literally impossible that one guy has 10% higher speed than anyone else in the history of the game.

175kmph bowling is literally not possible. It's almost as fast as the baseball records. Both common-sense statistics and logic as well as biology tell you that baseball pitching is much faster.

The fact that you think 175kph is a realistic assessment of his bowling speed brings anything you say on the topic into question.

Actually, I've never accepted that baseball pitching has to be faster.

A fast bowler has momentum from the run-up, the leap and the full rotation of his arm. A baseball pitcher just stands still and chucks.

[CricketAnalyst]

No, with respect, you have no clue as to the limitations of the significance of that improvement in terms of ball sports.

If you consider football, Lionel Messi can run twice as far in a match as the players of the 1980's did. But the referees protect him from being kicked the way that Maradona and Platini and Laudrup were thirty years ago. Almost certainly this means that they would excel now with appropriate conditioning, but his game would almost certainly have suffered under the old rules.

The same is true with batting. The effect of gym work, huge bats, short boundaries and grassless wickets is that the likes of Warner or Smith can score at a rapid rate in such conditions. But we saw in England 20 months ago that when confronted with traditional conditions - they were certainly not greentops because the movement was mainly in the air not off the seam - they wet their pants and failed like primary school boys.

Bowling, unfortunately, has been even more damaged by "progress".

Do you not wonder why men like Cummins and Pattinson and De Lange who respectively in all forms of cricket have so far bowled 5,300, 10,600 and 9,700 balls in their lives cannot get fit enough to play? Whereas Fred Trueman bowled 99,701 balls at a rapid pace.

And indeed why modern bowlers can't sustain the side-on action which produces away-swing when bowlers in earlier generations managed careers of 61,000 balls (Bob Willis), 69,900 balls (John Snow) and 44,000 balls (Malcolm Marshall).

The bottom line is that in cricket, modern physical conditioning doesn't help fast bowlers, it damages them.

Agreed about modern bowlers and training regimens.

You are wrong about Smith, Warner etc though. They aren't worse in unusual conditions, they just have an attacking skill-set and are absolutely terrible when their outdated tactical approach says they need to play defensively. They wouldn't have been bundled like that if they attacked.

[CricketAnalyst]

Actually, I've never accepted that baseball pitching has to be faster.

A fast bowler has momentum from the run-up, the leap and the full rotation of his arm. A baseball pitcher just stands still and chucks.

Why then has nobody in cricket except Akhtar (and allegedly Thompson) ever been at the pace that is considered a baseline requirement to be the top-choice pitcher for an MLB side?

[Junaids]

In literally every single sport, physical athleticism and related standards have improved drastically in the last 30/40 years with professionalization.

Improved physical output does not always lend itself to improvements in skill or performance.

Everton's creative midfielder is now Ross Barkley. Fifteen years ago it was Paul Gascoigne.

Barkley runs further and faster. But he can't dribble past defenders, has an inferior range of short and long passing and is even inferior defensively. Nobody in their right mind would prefer the physically-superior Barkley to the late-career Gascoigne.

Fitness is great. But it does not necessarily mean that each generation of players is better than the last.

[CricketAnalyst]

Improved physical output does not always lend itself to improvements in skill or performance.

Everton's creative midfielder is now Ross Barkley. Fifteen years ago it was Paul Gascoigne.

Barkley runs further and faster. But he can't dribble past defenders, has an inferior range of short and long passing and is even inferior defensively. Nobody in their right mind would prefer the physically-superior Barkley to the late-career Gascoigne.

Fitness is great. But it does not necessarily mean that each generation of players is better than the last.

In this case I was referring solely to physical ability because that's all that's involved in bowling at 175kmph if that's even possible (which it probably isn't).

[CricketAnalyst]

And as an Everton supporter, I can assure you that our fortunes have followed the same path as those of Gazza. It's unrealistic to expect us to have (and keep) players of that calibre anymore.

[Junaids]

In this case I was referring solely to physical ability because that's all that's involved in bowling at 175kmph if that's even possible (which it probably isn't).

Part of the irony of where this thread has led is that I don't even respect express pace as a weapon.

Jeff Thomson was a shadow of the bowler that Dennis Lillee was, just as Shoaib Akhtar was very much the Poor Man's Waqar Younis.

Thommo's express pace came from a unique action and his history as a javelin thrower.

But the greatness of Viv Richards was his ability to perform well against not just the express pace of Thommo but the guile of Hadlee and Lillee, the spin of Abdul Qadir and also the unusual angle and swing of Wasim Akram in that earth-shattering greatest series of all in the West Indies in 1987-88.

[Napa]

Except they don't. They are all slower than Trueman was in his twenties. And none of them can swing it like him either.

My apologies, I forgot that you got into your time machine with your speed gun and went back to the 1950s.

[Junaids]

My apologies, I forgot that you got into your time machine with your speed gun and went back to the 1950s.

Yes, the same time machine which tells me that Concorde was faster than a Boeing 787.

Have you ever watched Trueman bowl? You do understand that he retired as the world record Test wicket taker?

He was undoubtedly the greatest ever English fast bowler. And in the 1950's he was also almost certainly the fastest ever English Test bowler.

Most of the footage that survives is from the 1960's, but he was still pretty nippy even then.



And I'm a Lancastrian saying this. And we don't like Yorkshire at all.

[Napa]

Yes, the same time machine which tells me that Concorde was faster than a Boeing 787.

Have you ever watched Trueman bowl? You do understand that he retired as the world record Test wicket taker?

He was undoubtedly the greatest ever English fast bowler. And in the 1950's he was also almost certainly the fastest ever English Test bowler.

Most of the footage that survives is from the 1960's, but he was still pretty nippy even then.



And I'm a Lancastrian saying this. And we don't like Yorkshire at all.

By modern standards, the speed at which he runs in to bowl is rather slow. He almost seems to stop before rotation of the arm begins. My guess would be the actual ball was delivered at a speed somewhere between 115 to 125.

[Junaids]

By modern standards, the speed at which he runs in to bowl is rather slow. He almost seems to stop before rotation of the arm begins. My guess would be the actual ball was delivered at a speed somewhere between 115 to 125.

Ha ha.

Well he was around 5-10K quicker than Brian Statham and around 25K quicker than Alec Bedser and 35K quicker than Trevor Bailey.

So Bailey and Bedser must have been bowling backwards!

You do understand that Trueman is almost certainly the second greatest fast bowler of all time, behind only Malcolm Marshall?

[CricketAnalyst]

By modern standards, the speed at which he runs in to bowl is rather slow. He almost seems to stop before rotation of the arm begins. My guess would be the actual ball was delivered at a speed somewhere between 115 to 125.

Not exaggerating when I say I can't think of a single medium pacer in today's cricket who bowls slower than this.

I can't even imagine what would happen to these batsmen had they faced Starc or Mitch without helmets.

[CricketAnalyst]

Ha ha.

Well he was around 5-10K quicker than Brian Statham and around 25K quicker than Alec Bedser and 35K quicker than Trevor Bailey.

So Bailey and Bedser must have been bowling backwards!

You do understand that Trueman is almost certainly the second greatest fast bowler of all time, behind only Malcolm Marshall?

He isn't bowling fast in that video. This is a fact. You can measure the time it takes to reach the stumps in that video and then compare that with Starc. It might take some technology but it can be done.

You're asking people to ignore the evidence of their eyes because someone was considered great, in a bygone era when people just weren't that good.

Also, having seen a video of Bedser bowling, he isn't much faster than Ravi Jadeja and certainly slower than spinners like Afridi

[Junaids]

Not exaggerating when I say I can't think of a single medium pacer in today's cricket who bowls slower than this.

I can't even imagine what would happen to these batsmen had they faced Starc or Mitch without helmets.

And yet Fred had a brilliant record against Sobers, Weekes, Walcott, Worrell, Neil Harvey, Bob Simpson, Bill Lawry and Ken Mackay!

[Junaids]

He isn't bowling fast in that video. This is a fact. You can measure the time it takes to reach the stumps in that video and then compare that with Starc. It might take some technology but it can be done.

You're asking people to ignore the evidence of their eyes because someone was considered great, in a bygone era when people just weren't that good.

Also, having seen a video of Bedser bowling, he isn't much faster than Ravi Jadeja and certainly slower than spinners like Afridi

I think he's in the 130's in that video, and as I wrote, very little footage survives of Trueman bowling before his thirties.

But in Tests, very few fast bowlers operate above 140 much of the time. Glenn McGrath bowled mainly in the upper 120's, yet in T20 would reach the 140s.

[CricketAnalyst]

And yet Fred had a brilliant record against Sobers, Weekes, Walcott, Worrell, Neil Harvey, Bob Simpson, Bill Lawry and Ken Mackay!

A) I'm not necessarily asserting he's bad. Just that he's not as fast as you claim.

B) The logical thesis is that everyone now, batsman and bowlers are better than the guys in the past. That is at least plausible if videos of bowling from the past demonstrate mediocre standards compared to now, but players bat better.

The fact that this isn't considered is because this is an ego issue for old-timers who control too much in cricket.

[CricketAnalyst]

I think he's in the 130's in that video, and as I wrote, very little footage survives of Trueman bowling before his thirties.

But in Tests, very few fast bowlers operate above 140 much of the time. Glenn McGrath bowled mainly in the upper 120's, yet in T20 would reach the 140s.

Did you see Starc in the last Test? He was consistently bowling over 150. That's just so much faster it's not funny. Even Mitch Marsh hits 140s.

Just imagine what those guys in that video would be like facing Starc's 150km yorkers and bouncers..

[CricketAnalyst]

And I do think that's the valid comparison, because this isn't run of the mill Trueman. It's fired-up Trueman in the middle of taking 5 wickets for no runs. Starc in that mode is ever ball over 150.

[Tusker]

@Junaids

Are we done discussing Thommo or you still want to stick to your opinion that he was the fastest you saw based on slip fielders position ? If by anychance you still want to stand by your opinion let me know.

@Tusker
No international cricketers had central contracts in the period 1976-1986.

Which is one of the main reason why standards are better now ! Today domestic cricketers in India (and Eng/Aus) are contracted. They also get paid a decent amount and are guaranteed a pension by BCCI. This places Cricket as a profession on the same level playing field as any other profession which helps attract more talent. And the group of cricketers covered by this is far more than what the county system of 70s and 80s could cover.

Most top players earned most of their income in county cricket, where the West Indians tended to be the best paid players.

And it would have been very hard for a West Indies fast bowler to play injured. Consider at random the year 1981: the West Indies attack was

Andy Roberts
Joel Garner
Michael Holding
Colin Croft

But the reserves were:

5. Sylvester Clarke
6. Malcolm Marshall
7. Franklyn Stephenson
8. Ezra Moseley
9. Hartley Alleyne

Why would it be very hard for a WI fast bowler to play when injured because of the reserves? It would actually be the other way round given the fact that they got paid only if they played !

.... each of whom down as far as Moseley would be by far the best bowler in the world now.

And I have previously proved you how Colin Croft (and others) could not be bowling anywhere remotely close to the speed of 140Ks. The problem here is you would rather believe in unsubstantiated stories than what you see with your own eyes right now ! While you may have witnessed some of these players playing in the 80s ... it was soo long ago that you cannot possibly recall all the action and make a side-by-side mental comparison with the present. If you can then I need that NZT too (google it).

The only way to explain the situation you find yourselves in is that you are far too invested in the stocks of that ERA. You will find it hard to sell these theories to anyone who is practical , logical and facts bound as you will find it very very hard to substantiate your claims through any authentic means.

To see what I mean by that go through this article : http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/sto...e-longest-shot it shows you the amount of research and analysis the author has put into that article to come up with the answers for who has the biggest hit. Thats the sort of rigorous analysis that I love rather than the opinionated baseless claptrap that some past era famous cricketers dish out regularly quite often driven purely by nostalgia and rose tinted glasses.

[Napa]

And yet Fred had a brilliant record against Sobers, Weekes, Walcott, Worrell, Neil Harvey, Bob Simpson, Bill Lawry and Ken Mackay!

I suppose you still don't get it and probably never will, but you just made a case for modern batsmen being much better than the ancient ones you hero-worship.

[Junaids]

Did you see Starc in the last Test? He was consistently bowling over 150. That's just so much faster it's not funny. Even Mitch Marsh hits 140s.

Just imagine what those guys in that video would be like facing Starc's 150km yorkers and bouncers..

Remember, I'm the guy that doesn't thing that pace alone is anything to worship.

And I have to say, Starc was bowling absolute garbage at Bangalore - I think he lost Australia the Test with his short legside pies. How many runs did Rahane and Pujara just clip off their hips down to long leg?

Starc's left-arm angle makes him a handful even when he is bowling rubbish. But Sunil Gavaskar or Geoff Boycott or Ken Barrington wouldn't have got out to him in a 120 over innings.

[Junaids]

@Tusker
Being centrally contracted is almost irrelevant. How much money does Lionel Messi earn from the Argentine Football Association, or Luis Suarez from the Uruguayan one?

Cricketers in the 1980s made a handsome income from county contracts. For the West Indies, the situation was the opposite of what you describe. Malcolm Marshall was not going to risk playing a home Test in April 1985 against New Zealand when half-fit if it risked his Hampshire contract. He'd have been delighted to let Courtney Walsh play instead.

[Tusker]

@Tusker
Being centrally contracted is almost irrelevant. How much money does Lionel Messi earn from the Argentine Football Association, or Luis Suarez from the Uruguayan one?

Cricketers in the 1980s made a handsome income from county contracts. For the West Indies, the situation was the opposite of what you describe. Malcolm Marshall was not going to risk playing a home Test in April 1985 against New Zealand when half-fit if it risked his Hampshire contract. He'd have been delighted to let Courtney Walsh play instead.

You are talking about the topmost Cricketers that were fortunate enough to get lucrative county contracts ... whereas Iam talking about Domestic cricketers many of whom will never get to play for their country. Without that layer being competitive you will never have a strong test teams

I take it from your silence that you are happy with the evidence I presented for Thommo.

[Tusker]

I suppose you still don't get it and probably never will, but you just made a case for modern batsmen being much better than the ancient ones you hero-worship.

Spot on as always. The thing that @Junaids just simply refuses to accept is that in cricket a Bowler gets to dictates the terms to batsmen. He is the one that fires the shots. So the better the bowler the harder it is for the batsman to deal with his salvos. For a fast bowler speed is the basic ingredient. Without a minimum speed you ain't going to trouble most top class batsmen no matter how accurate you are. This is why the dibbly-dobbly medium pacer is a species that is extinct.

So anyone that knows the basics of fast bowling will pick Starc 100 out of 100 times in comparison to Trueman just on the basis of footage. (Its another story if you want go by fairy tales .... but lets not go there )

In anycase before you joined this forum about a year or so ago I had analysed the speeds of Frank Tyson a bowler from the same era as Trueman who is considered to be the fastest English bowler ( atleast as per @Junaids ). Yep faster than Trueman. Needless to say he barely touched 120-125K's. I will try and find those posts.

[Napa]

Spot on as always. The thing that @Junaids just simply refuses to accept is that in cricket a Bowler gets to dictates the terms to batsmen. He is the one that fires the shots. So the better the bowler the harder it is for the batsman to deal with his salvos. For a fast bowler speed is the basic ingredient. Without a minimum speed you ain't going to trouble most top class batsmen no matter how accurate you are. This is why the dibbly-dobbly medium pacer is a species that is extinct.

So anyone that knows the basics of fast bowling will pick Starc 100 out of 100 times in comparison to Trueman just on the basis of footage. (Its another story if you want go by fairy tales .... but lets not go there )

In anycase before you joined this forum about a year or so ago I had analysed the speeds of Frank Tyson a bowler from the same era as Trueman who is considered to be the fastest English bowler ( atleast as per @Junaids ). Yep faster than Trueman. Needless to say he barely touched 120-125K's. I will try and find those posts.

Interesting comparison between Tyson and Trueman. You should check out this playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...mn6iREi9ZnyNho

[Junaids]

Interesting comparison between Tyson and Trueman. You should check out this playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...mn6iREi9ZnyNho

If you look at what Trueman does to the bails, you'll see that he is bowling pretty quickly. While the final clip shows Tyson on a soggy, slow May wicket.

I have heard Peter Lever talk about Brian Statham and I am the first to say that he couldn't swing the ball but I'd also add that he was quicker in his late 30's than Lever in his early 20's - and Lever nearly killed Ewan Chatfield.

Lever operated in the 135 range, which we know because he was measured at 84 mph in the mid-1970's at Belle Vue. This shows that Statham was operating in the range of 140+K.

But Trueman was unquestionably faster than Statham. Most who watched them said that he was around 3-5 mph faster than Statham, which would mean a minimum of around 145K.

All I will say is this - I don't know a single English cricket lover who wouldn't give anything to have a new Fred Trueman!

[Tusker]

If you look at what Trueman does to the bails, you'll see that he is bowling pretty quickly.

Seriously ? How far the bail travels after the ball hits the stumps is your way of finding out how fast the bowler is bowling ? Well then in that case you must rate Jadeja to be as fast as Trueman based on this footage :
https://youtu.be/x8YWW1fYj_s?t=2m41s that leg bail has certainly gone as far (if not further) as the one in the Richie Benaud wkt in the Trueman video.


More stumps and bails flying here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8D9EP54FTw

And watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffwJ3cAfvs4
That bail landed close to the keeper and went further.

While the final clip shows Tyson on a soggy, slow May wicket.

Previously I had analyzed Tyosns speed based on the footage from Tysons best performance ever which made him famous and the English media called him Typhon Tyson ... what was your response to all of that evidence I had posted ?

I have heard Peter Lever talk about Brian Statham and I am the first to say that he couldn't swing the ball but I'd also add that he was quicker in his late 30's than Lever in his early 20's - and Lever nearly killed Ewan Chatfield.

That right there is the biggest problem as to why you have all these very high opinions about past cricketers and their achievements that cannot even stand basic scrutiny today courtesy technology (just here above we have Trueman vs Jadeja in flying bails contest lol ). You believe everything that is said by every past cricketer and his dog.

Why should you NOT believe you ask ? I will use your own example from this thread. You somehow were convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever that the slip fielders stood a long way away when Thommo was bowling (due to his speed). You tried to convince anyone else your chances of success would be extremely high if you told that to impressionable or like minded individuals. Even for the discerning skeptical types there would be no option but to believe you in the absence of video footage that is free and easily accessible. This is how it was just 10-12 yrs ago before youtube. This is how half truths got converted to facts and entrenched in peoples mind and propagated over many generations. Often the fish got bigger at each narration . This is a very natural human tendency.

But what is surprising to me is how someone like you does not realize that human beings are notoriously unreliable (to put it mildly) when it comes to facts , accuracy, bias , truth and such things. Anyone who has clocked a reasonable no of yrs on this planet would instantly see red flags upon hearing such stories but not you !

Lever operated in the 135 range, which we know because he was measured at 84 mph in the mid-1970's at Belle Vue. This shows that Statham was operating in the range of 140+K.

But Trueman was unquestionably faster than Statham. Most who watched them said that he was around 3-5 mph faster than Statham, which would mean a minimum of around 145K.

All I will say is this - I don't know a single English cricket lover who wouldn't give anything to have a new Fred Trueman!

If you still don't believe my explanation above let me know I will do a analysis of Statham pretty sure he is another bowler who has exaggerated status.

All our violent disagreements aside credit to you for some fascinating cricket discussions. I apologize if i come across as a heartless killjoy hardass but thats not my intention. Cheers

[Junaids]

Seriously ? How far the bail travels after the ball hits the stumps is your way of finding out how fast the bowler is bowling ? Well then in that case you must rate Jadeja to be as fast as Trueman based on this footage :
https://youtu.be/x8YWW1fYj_s?t=2m41s that leg bail has certainly gone as far (if not further) as the one in the Richie Benaud wkt in the Trueman video.


More stumps and bails flying here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8D9EP54FTw

And watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffwJ3cAfvs4
That bail landed close to the keeper and went further.



Previously I had analyzed Tyosns speed based on the footage from Tysons best performance ever which made him famous and the English media called him Typhon Tyson ... what was your response to all of that evidence I had posted ?



That right there is the biggest problem as to why you have all these very high opinions about past cricketers and their achievements that cannot even stand basic scrutiny today courtesy technology (just here above we have Trueman vs Jadeja in flying bails contest lol ). You believe everything that is said by every past cricketer and his dog.

Why should you NOT believe you ask ? I will use your own example from this thread. You somehow were convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever that the slip fielders stood a long way away when Thommo was bowling (due to his speed). You tried to convince anyone else your chances of success would be extremely high if you told that to impressionable or like minded individuals. Even for the discerning skeptical types there would be no option but to believe you in the absence of video footage that is free and easily accessible. This is how it was just 10-12 yrs ago before youtube. This is how half truths got converted to facts and entrenched in peoples mind and propagated over many generations. Often the fish got bigger at each narration . This is a very natural human tendency.

But what is surprising to me is how someone like you does not realize that human beings are notoriously unreliable (to put it mildly) when it comes to facts , accuracy, bias , truth and such things. Anyone who has clocked a reasonable no of yrs on this planet would instantly see red flags upon hearing such stories but not you !



If you still don't believe my explanation above let me know I will do a analysis of Statham pretty sure he is another bowler who has exaggerated status.

All our violent disagreements aside credit to you for some fascinating cricket discussions. I apologize if i come across as a heartless killjoy hardass but thats not my intention. Cheers

@Tusker
We may disagree, but I love debating with you and I consider you to be an Internet friend! And you regularly influence my opinions.

Dan Brettig has published a fascinating article today about fast bowling injuries being linked to the front foot no ball rule in place since 1963. I know that Bob Woolmer shared that view.

I certainly do think that the actions of Trueman, Tyson and Statham need to be viewed through the lens of a different no ball rule.

[Tusker]

Interesting comparison between Tyson and Trueman. You should check out this playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...mn6iREi9ZnyNho

Thanks for making the custom playlist !

Here is that original discussion on Tyson that I was talking about earlier where I did a rough calculation --> http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...y-at-age-of-85

[Napa]

Thanks for making the custom playlist !

Here is that original discussion on Tyson that I was talking about earlier where I did a rough calculation --> http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...y-at-age-of-85

Most welcome, let me know if you would like something else

[Tusker]

Lets see some score cards then .... should be easy

Why only scorecard, here is the statistics for his county career...

http://www.cricketcountry.com/articl...-quicks-203715

Sometimes you should actually read the contents of the links you post ... But thanks for making my job easier as it proves my point

BUMP for @shaz619

BTW @badsha001 never showed up on this thread after that

[AnOrdinaryPakistani]

Vivian Richards was a killer batsmen. Its sad that kids of these days are unaware of his caliber.
Vivian richards faced legendary bowlers and he batted at times when they didnt had any ridiculous rules like powerplay to favor the batsmen and didnt had trend of flat batting pitches either.
And he also muster up 8500+ runs at that time when they also didnt had that much of cricketing tours as of what teams of today has luxury of. Other wise he may have end up getting 20k runs also given if he had played in this era

[Bewal Express]

@Junaids

Are we done discussing Thommo or you still want to stick to your opinion that he was the fastest you saw based on slip fielders position ? If by anychance you still want to stand by your opinion let me know.




Which is one of the main reason why standards are better now ! Today domestic cricketers in India (and Eng/Aus) are contracted. They also get paid a decent amount and are guaranteed a pension by BCCI. This places Cricket as a profession on the same level playing field as any other profession which helps attract more talent. And the group of cricketers covered by this is far more than what the county system of 70s and 80s could cover.




Why would it be very hard for a WI fast bowler to play when injured because of the reserves? It would actually be the other way round given the fact that they got paid only if they played !




And I have previously proved you how Colin Croft (and others) could not be bowling anywhere remotely close to the speed of 140Ks. The problem here is you would rather believe in unsubstantiated stories than what you see with your own eyes right now ! While you may have witnessed some of these players playing in the 80s ... it was soo long ago that you cannot possibly recall all the action and make a side-by-side mental comparison with the present. If you can then I need that NZT too (google it).

The only way to explain the situation you find yourselves in is that you are far too invested in the stocks of that ERA. You will find it hard to sell these theories to anyone who is practical , logical and facts bound as you will find it very very hard to substantiate your claims through any authentic means.

To see what I mean by that go through this article : http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/sto...e-longest-shot it shows you the amount of research and analysis the author has put into that article to come up with the answers for who has the biggest hit. Thats the sort of rigorous analysis that I love rather than the opinionated baseless claptrap that some past era famous cricketers dish out regularly quite often driven purely by nostalgia and rose tinted glasses.

Hardik Pandaya, Ben Stokes Hasan Ali have been clocked at 140 but Colin Croft was no where near that pace. So Pandaya is quicker than Croft, whatever you are smoking must be some powerful stuff.

[shaz619]

Hardik Pandaya, Ben Stokes Hasan Ali have been clocked at 140 but Colin Croft was no where near that pace. So Pandaya is quicker than Croft, whatever you are smoking must be some powerful stuff.

Indeed. Or maybe he is still reeling from being out classed by @Junaids

[Chief Destroyer]

Vivian Richards was a killer batsmen. Its sad that kids of these days are unaware of his caliber.
Vivian richards faced legendary bowlers and he batted at times when they didnt had any ridiculous rules like powerplay to favor the batsmen and didnt had trend of flat batting pitches either.
And he also muster up 8500+ runs at that time when they also didnt had that much of cricketing tours as of what teams of today has luxury of. Other wise he may have end up getting 20k runs also given if he had played in this era

There's no doubt Viv's prowess against genuine fast bowlers and that is confirmed by the bowlers that bowled to him including his own teammates. Some irrelevant wannabe analyst with his head buried in cricinfo statsguru is not going to change that.

[Tusker]

Vivian Richards was a killer batsmen. Its sad that kids of these days are unaware of his caliber.
Vivian richards faced legendary bowlers and he batted at times when they didnt had any ridiculous rules like powerplay to favor the batsmen and didnt had trend of flat batting pitches either.
And he also muster up 8500+ runs at that time when they also didnt had that much of cricketing tours as of what teams of today has luxury of. Other wise he may have end up getting 20k runs also given if he had played in this era

by beating up hopeless bowlers like those you can see on this video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CWOzoqxTC0 why don't you tel us how this makes him a killer batsman ? Just because some unable to come to terms with reality on this forum keep telling you cock and bull stories doesn't mean we have to believe them.

[Ellipsism]

Hardik Pandaya, Ben Stokes Hasan Ali have been clocked at 140 but Colin Croft was no where near that pace. So Pandaya is quicker than Croft, whatever you are smoking must be some powerful stuff.

I thought it was common knowledge that Croft was nothing more than a medium pacer. If he generated speeds of 140 km/h+ with the amount of momentum he loses by falling to the left, boy was he a freak of nature- even generating a speed of 135 would be difficult for Croft considering the aforementioned fault in his action.

[Bewal Express]

I thought it was common knowledge that Croft was nothing more than a medium pacer. If he generated speeds of 140 km/h+ with the amount of momentum he loses by falling to the left, boy was he a freak of nature- even generating a speed of 135 would be difficult for Croft considering the aforementioned fault in his action.

Last yr the Aussie wk Wade was clocked at 82mph, so Croft was only a mile or 2 quicker. I wished you told all those batsman in the late 70's and early 80's he wasnt very quick. This is revisionism of the silly kind.

[Ellipsism]

Last yr the Aussie wk Wade was clocked at 82mph, so Croft was only a mile or 2 quicker. I wished you told all those batsman in the late 70's and early 80's he wasnt very quick. This is revisionism of the silly kind.

Croft's fastest measured delivery is 139 km/h...

It can be seen here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YGcZRxE3kQA

[PakLFC]

Viv would still walk in to many international sides. Give him a few overs in the nets and he is ready to go, he was that good.

[Bewal Express]

Croft's fastest measured delivery is 139 km/h...

It can be seen here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YGcZRxE3kQA

The way they measured in those days is not the same as today. Just read up on it.

[Ellipsism]

The way they measured in those days is not the same as today. Just read up on it.

I'll calculate a couple of speeds from a few different videos and get back to you.

[Bewal Express]

I'll calculate a couple of speeds from a few different videos and get back to you.

They had an interview with Mikey Holding and he explained the difference in how they are measured in those days.

[Junaids]

Croft's fastest measured delivery is 139 km/h...

It can be seen here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YGcZRxE3kQA

I probably agree with @Tusker here.

Colin Croft played for my county, Lancashire, and I spent my summer holidays watching him one year.

He wasn't one of the quicker West Indians. He was like Courtney Walsh: he bowled from a very wide angle and aimed at the batsman's body.

But he kept Sylvester Clarke out of the team, and Clarke remains the fastest bowler ever speed-tested, after his spell at the Wanderers with a slowest ball of 98 mph and a fastest ball of 101 mph.

[kaifmazhar]

Viv was a rich man's Sehwag. He was as brutal as Sehwag and had superior skills and technique. What Sehwag could do in Asia, Viv could do anywhere, even on hostile tracks.

He played in an era of uncovered pitches and some really strong fast bowlers. Why would anyone compare him with an immovable feet and a flat track bully?Add to that, Viv is widely regarded as the best ODI batsman of all time and this Sehwag guy a pretty ordinary ODI batsman. Why and why a comparison was necessary? After all the thread was for the best of his generation, The King. Isn't it?

[Robert]

I probably agree with @Tusker here.

Colin Croft played for my county, Lancashire, and I spent my summer holidays watching him one year.

He wasn't one of the quicker West Indians. He was like Courtney Walsh: he bowled from a very wide angle and aimed at the batsman's body.

But he kept Sylvester Clarke out of the team, and Clarke remains the fastest bowler ever speed-tested, after his spell at the Wanderers with a slowest ball of 98 mph and a fastest ball of 101 mph.

I remember Aggers from his playing days: "You can forget your Marshall and your Imrans. Sylvester Clarke is the fastest man on the circuit and the Surrey boys know it. Appareently off the field he is pleasant company - I would not know - on the pitch, he is a complete madman."

[Robert]

He played in an era of uncovered pitches and some really strong fast bowlers. Why would anyone compare him with an immovable feet and a flat track bully?Add to that, Viv is widely regarded as the best ODI batsman of all time and this Sehwag guy a pretty ordinary ODI batsman. Why and why a comparison was necessary? After all the thread was for the best of his generation, The King. Isn't it?

The pitches were covered in Sir Viv's day. What you had is a much wider array of surfaces, especially in England. Lord's was usually a good track but had that ridge. The Oval was usually a flier but could take spin later on in a test match, and became a bunsen by September. Trent Bridge was a green mamba. Headingley was another mamba with the added problem of variable bounce and usually swing too under Yorkshire skies.

These days the pitches are truer and more predictable and batters more aggressive, leaving big gates that would have invited getting cleaned up a lot in the seventies and eighties. Sir Viv had a tight defence - they all had to have to succeed.

[Tusker]

I remember Aggers from his playing days: "You can forget your Marshall and your Imrans. Sylvester Clarke is the fastest man on the circuit and the Surrey boys know it. Appareently off the field he is pleasant company - I would not know - on the pitch, he is a complete madman."

gotta love the unshakeable trust in 2nd hand opinions ...

here is why you should never trust anyone on these matters :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA1L_cDJEEI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmvhWcBb1MM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xriSFRgXbIo

What is so "fast" about this guy ?

I have been asking for many months now but NOT ONE Single 80s ******'s of cricket have been able to provide proper technical explanation. Invariably they all resort to the tired old tactic of name dropping and producing certificates of achievements from ex-players (like Aggers here )

[Tusker]

The pitches were covered in Sir Viv's day. What you had is a much wider array of surfaces, especially in England. Lord's was usually a good track but had that ridge. The Oval was usually a flier but could take spin later on in a test match, and became a bunsen by September. Trent Bridge was a green mamba. Headingley was another mamba with the added problem of variable bounce and usually swing too under Yorkshire skies.

yet another myth ... lets settle this using some clear facts :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S4AI_LHcng

Thats from 1981 Ashes test match at Headingley .... I dont see any grass on that pitch ... it looks like any pitch these days. Also the usually lush green outfields you see these days is missing.

[Tusker]

They had an interview with Mikey Holding and he explained the difference in how they are measured in those days.

can you pls post a link ?

I'll calculate a couple of speeds from a few different videos and get back to you.

that will be awesome ... also curious to know how you did it. thx

[Junaids]

@Tusker
@Robert

The thing about Sylvester Clarke is that the Transvaal Police measured his speed using state of the art radar during a match.

And five separate deliveries recorded 101 mph.

So video is irrelevant - especially in a player notorious for ambling in gently much of the time.

It's an indisputable fact that no bowler has ever been measured faster than Sylvester Clarke.

[Bewal Express]

can you pls post a link ?



that will be awesome ... also curious to know how you did it. thx

It was Sky on and Mikey was asked about the speed competition and he replied that they measured speed differently. I maybe mistaken but from what he said they measure speed out of hand today compared to average speed of the ball back then.

[Tusker]

@Tusker
@Robert

The thing about Sylvester Clarke is that the Transvaal Police measured his speed using state of the art radar during a match.

And five separate deliveries recorded 101 mph.

So video is irrelevant - especially in a player notorious for ambling in gently much of the time.

It's an indisputable fact that no bowler has ever been measured faster than Sylvester Clarke.

We have discussed this before ... there is absolutely no mention of this event on any reputable sources nor are there any details as to the accuracy and how they were able to measure speeds of a cricket ball using a technology that is meant for cars. Once we have that information from reputable sources we can consider it as a fact. Or atleast thats how the real world works. Me and you making statements on an anonymous forum doesnt make it a fact.

Once you have answers in the form of reputable sources we can take this further. But the evidence as it stands right in front of our eyes in that youtube video very clearly tells us that this guy is nowhere close to being 100mph. Shoaib Akhtar is the **ONLY** bowler who has officially crossed 100mph. Rest all is old farts doing what they are best known for - Khayali Pulaav (losely translates to wishful thinking).

[Junaids]

@Tusker
Feel free to dispute the accuracy of radar measurements of the Apartheid-era Transvaal Police.

I wouldn't dare, but feel free!

[Tusker]

@Tusker
Feel free to dispute the accuracy of radar measurements of the Apartheid-era Transvaal Police.

I wouldn't dare, but feel free!

Are you trolling now ?

[Tusker]

from your posts on the other thread ...

No, he is not.

His fastest ball was 100.23 mph.

Sylvester Clarke bowled a spell at The Wanderers in which every ball registered 98, 99, 100 or 101 mph, and five separate deliveries were measured at 101 mph.

And Jeff Thomson was only ever measured once, at a time when he was unexpectedly called out of the bar while drunk and unfit in the middle of a six month ban. This is a man who once hit the sight screen on the full with a bouncer!

Shoaib was possibly the third quickest bowler of all time though.

There has never been any such thing as an "official" speed.

We can only go by speeds measured by reputable technology in a match.

Sylvester Clarke was measured using the same speed radar technology which even today keeps the world 200 metre world record at 21.34 seconds for the late Florence Griffith Joyner.

Flojo almost certainly doped - that's why she was dead and buried by the age of just 38. By her time is not disputed, only the legitimacy of it.
@Tusker adopts the position that if it doesn't use "today's technology" it did not happen. But if you do that, in just a few years people will also discount Shoaib Akhtar's speeds for using "old technology".

In reality, there is no reason to doubt speeds of the 1980's. The technology was accurate. There is no chemical or biological reason why a bowler in 2003 would be faster than one in 1988, and both were full-time professionals.

I suppose you get to decide which technology is reputable ? Iam sorry but it doesn't work that way. And neither is associating South African Police to this tale gives it any validity. They are not an authority on measuring speeds of Cricket balls.

Unless and until you come up with some credible evidence to back up all the stories and speeds you associate with Sylvester Clarke this is just another baloney speed claptrap like that of Frank Tyson who claimed that he was measured at 100mph bowling with 5 sweaters and from 5 paces .... In short just another case of "In me days things were just better" kind of talk that is ooh so familiar with people who swear by old era's.

Just ask yourselves why does the video footage look sooo ordinary ? How can you NOT realize that there must be an issue with the tech ?


BTW any comments on Post#144 ( Headingley Green Pitch) ?

[Junaids]

@Tusker
Hello my friend. I'm enjoying your posts. You're actually very perceptive about Headingley, but your Headingley'81 questions make me wonder whether you have ever visited northern England.

My mother grew up around ten miles from Headingley, whereas I grew up thirty miles away on the other side of the Pennines.

Not many balls seamed, unless like my hero Brian Statham you had a dodgy action. First class and Test pitches weren't green unless you went fifty miles to Trent Bridge in Nottingham.

But the issue was swing - which is why England fielded the ancient Neil Mallender at Headingley in 1992 v Pakistan.

The trick is to see whether there are any shadows. If not, it means the cloud cover is low and the ball is going to swing conventionally. If there are shadows, you bat first and rely on uneven bounce in the fourth innings.

The England attack consisted of Botham, who got devastating late swing and Willis and Dilley who were both very tall and very quick. They were well suited to bowling Fourth.

But Chris Old of Yorkshire was the other quick, and went wicketless in a first innings of 401-9 declared which equates to around 600-4 declared nowadays. That means no seam or swing in the first innings. Botham got wickets because until 1982 he was a genius who could swing a snooker ball, but nobody else did.

Bob Willis owed his 8-43 in the fourth innings to three things:

1. Trevor Chappell and Graham Yallop were not Test Class.

2. The tail was much weaker than most modern ones.

3. He just had to bowl straight at 135-140K - he had lost a yard of pace since 1971-72 - and rely upon a dodgy batting order and blind panic to finish the job.

Great posts @Tusker.

Not all that was old was gold.

[Tusker]

@Tusker
Hello my friend. I'm enjoying your posts. You're actually very perceptive about Headingley, but your Headingley'81 questions make me wonder whether you have ever visited northern England.

My mother grew up around ten miles from Headingley, whereas I grew up thirty miles away on the other side of the Pennines.

Not many balls seamed, unless like my hero Brian Statham you had a dodgy action. First class and Test pitches weren't green unless you went fifty miles to Trent Bridge in Nottingham.

But the issue was swing - which is why England fielded the ancient Neil Mallender at Headingley in 1992 v Pakistan.

The trick is to see whether there are any shadows. If not, it means the cloud cover is low and the ball is going to swing conventionally. If there are shadows, you bat first and rely on uneven bounce in the fourth innings.

The England attack consisted of Botham, who got devastating late swing and Willis and Dilley who were both very tall and very quick. They were well suited to bowling Fourth.

But Chris Old of Yorkshire was the other quick, and went wicketless in a first innings of 401-9 declared which equates to around 600-4 declared nowadays. That means no seam or swing in the first innings. Botham got wickets because until 1982 he was a genius who could swing a snooker ball, but nobody else did.

Bob Willis owed his 8-43 in the fourth innings to three things:

1. Trevor Chappell and Graham Yallop were not Test Class.

2. The tail was much weaker than most modern ones.

3. He just had to bowl straight at 135-140K - he had lost a yard of pace since 1971-72 - and rely upon a dodgy batting order and blind panic to finish the job.

Great posts @Tusker.

Not all that was old was gold.

Thanks for the kind words ... my main concern is people going overboard when talking about past ERA's. The usual three card trick used is - Green Pitches + Uncovered Pitches + No Protection .... this usual works on the casual cricket follower not on people who like to go to the bottom of things to understand any topic.

So in this case it is quite clear that there is not much difference between the Headingley of the 80s to that of today unless someone can come up with evidence that the cloud cover has disappeared from Headingley over the years lol

Yes not everything new is best either. It all depends on case by case.

[Junaids]

Thanks for the kind words ... my main concern is people going overboard when talking about past ERA's. The usual three card trick used is - Green Pitches + Uncovered Pitches + No Protection .... this usual works on the casual cricket follower not on people who like to go to the bottom of things to understand any topic.

So in this case it is quite clear that there is not much difference between the Headingley of the 80s to that of today unless someone can come up with evidence that the cloud cover has disappeared from Headingley over the years lol

Yes not everything new is best either. It all depends on case by case.

Exactly!

I don't think that English Test pitches have changed much outside London, but Lords and The Oval are nowadays like modern grassless ODI pitches to ensure that the Test lasts long enough not to have to reimburse millions of pounds to hospitality purchasers for Days 4 and 5.

The Dukes ball is still great too, unlike the pathetic Kookaburra.

ODI pitches have changed a lot: no grass is left on at all any more.

[Tusker]

Exactly!

I don't think that English Test pitches have changed much outside London, but Lords and The Oval are nowadays like modern grassless ODI pitches to ensure that the Test lasts long enough not to have to reimburse millions of pounds to hospitality purchasers for Days 4 and 5.

The Dukes ball is still great too, unlike the pathetic Kookaburra.

ODI pitches have changed a lot: no grass is left on at all any more.

Its not always the case that Lords is flat plenty of times teams have been bundled out for low scores there ... and I can certainly find big scores made there in the past just as they can be found today. This is why I don't buy the difficult pitch argument for older ERA's. The evidence is just not there.

[Tusker]

Why only scorecard, here is the statistics for his county career...

http://www.cricketcountry.com/articl...-quicks-203715

Have you read the article you linked? It just supports what @Tusker is saying.

Sometimes you should actually read the contents of the links you post ... But thanks for making my job easier as it proves my point



Hilarious isn't it ? This is a classic example of how the older ERA players enjoy huge un-conditional support from fans. No need for scrutiny or anything just blind worship. They believe in everything that is written and in this case he thinks everything that was written is in praise of Viv. He probably went with the notion that how can anyone print anything critical about Viv

BUMP for those singing praises of Viv on the other thread. @badsha001 never showed up on this thread after that epic own goal.