Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm Merlyn

Thommo - how quick was he?'

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

Dude, what does that even mean???

" a 2d image projection of a 3d object to gauge distance." You seem to be obsessed with this point. Did you just learn it?

I can accept that its tough to gauge the speed of ball merely by looking at a video, but your logic about us judging the distance of the keeper is hilarious. That can be gauged very easily. You can also just try to judge the boundary behind the wicketkeeper, as a matter of fact. Which gives indication of the distance and speed.

you have no idea of what you are talking of and its complete nonsense. You cannot gauge how far the wicketkeeper is from a batsman  compared to the length of the pitch, just from tv. Nobody can. Its called an optical illusion, because you are trying to gauge depth from a mode that has no depth.

I've mentioned this many times in the past and i suppose if you knew basic science, you'd not make such absurd observations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, MultiB48 said:

there is no evidence of holding nearly qualifying for olympics nor of holding bowling exceptionally fast and how are you judging all this if we cant even judge the distance of the wk how can we judge the speed/bounce of a bowler .

Tony Cozier's book is the evidence. 

How do i know ? i trust the experts - people who've played with him, faced him, etc. Holding was the fast bowler who was freakishly good at maintaining his pace. Just like Walsh was the fast bowler who was freakishly durable. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Overrated....even the average IPL slogger would just move his back leg across and smack him.

 

even 125k without helmets etc can look super phaaast. Thompson at max was probably a 140k bowler...English and Aussies usually overrate their players. Hear Ian Chappell speak, mention any great player and he always has an equivalent player who played Sheffield shield in Australia who was that good lol.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, rkt.india said:

You think guys in the past were not doing that?

I dont know. Growing up there were no speed guns. To me he is 90 mph type bowler no more. Actually if I am not mistaken he used be a javelin throw player who was converted to fast bowling. Compared to current bowlers he just does not look that strong either.

Share this post


Link to post
[mention=6559]Malcolm Merlyn[/mention] 
Ofcourse one can- just ask all who faced him. Holding was a remarkable athlete- he came very close to making the cut for Jamaican 400m relay team. That automatically makes him one of the best runners in the world and easily, the Usain Bolt of cricket bowlers. Given how easy and pure his action was, its quite easy to see why Holding could maintain his effortless pace for so long. Not to mention, practically every batsman who's faced him, rate him as the consistently fastest guy, every spell of the way.Sure, Lillee, Thommo and maybe even Marshall at his peak were faster, in terms of their fastest balls/spells. Not by much, i may say. Holding was genuine fast. But if it was near tea on 2nd straight day of bowling and all bowlers are at 25+ overs bowled, your best bet, for the fastest spell out there, would be Holding. 
 
 Its precisely because holding was almost as much better than Lillee or Kapil or Imran at the running part, than Imran or Kapil are to us, in terms of running.
 
 
No bowler has bowled 95mph throughout the day, since speed guns have been in use regularly.There is no proof that while athletes in all other sports have got better the cricketers have gone worse.

Do you have any list of the other competitors of Holding in 1970s or 60s for that 400mt trial?You automatically make him the better runner.Lol.

No one is denying that Holding was likely a 90mph bowler.But that is not equal to bowling 95mph throughout the day.

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

you have no idea of what you are talking of and its complete nonsense. You cannot gauge how far the wicketkeeper is from a batsman  compared to the length of the pitch, just from tv. Nobody can. Its called an optical illusion, because you are trying to gauge depth from a mode that has no depth.

I've mentioned this many times in the past and i suppose if you knew basic science, you'd not make such absurd observations.

 

you can easily judge whether a wk is standing closer or not ,clearly you have no idea about the science of it.

57 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Tony Cozier's book is the evidence. 

How do i know ? i trust the experts - people who've played with him, faced him, etc. Holding was the fast bowler who was freakishly good at maintaining his pace. Just like Walsh was the fast bowler who was freakishly durable. 

 

provide evidence.

umesh ran 100 meters in 10.56sec 

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/625472.html

Have you always naturally been a strong athlete? 
My dad, Tilak Yadav, moved to Nagpur from his native village in Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh. As a youngster, he used to wrestle. He always followed a good training regime and put us through the same cycle. He would never allow us to sleep for too long. We would run 2-3km at 6am. My dad always believed in getting fresh air. I would run barefoot on the sand to improve my stamina. That helped me in my athletics from school to university level. I mainly competed in 100m, 200m, 400m hurdles, and long jump.

What is the fastest you have run 100m in?
10.56 seconds.

 

 

Edited by MultiB48

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Tony Cozier's book is the evidence. 

How do i know ? i trust the experts - people who've played with him, faced him, etc. Holding was the fast bowler who was freakishly good at maintaining his pace. Just like Walsh was the fast bowler who was freakishly durable. 

 

how did Cozier knew he was bowling 95 mph? 

Edited by rkt.india

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

No bowler has bowled 95mph throughout the day, since speed guns have been in use regularly.There is no proof that while athletes in all other sports have got better the cricketers have gone worse.


Do you have any list of the other competitors of Holding in 1970s or 60s for that 400mt trial?You automatically make him the better runner.Lol.

No one is denying that Holding was likely a 90mph bowler.But that is not equal to bowling 95mph throughout the day.

1. Saying 'no bowler has bowled 95mph through the day, since speed guns have been used regularly', is like saying 'no tennis player has served second serve aces every 2 months, since advent of hawk-eye'. So what ? We are not talking about the bell-curved player, we are talking about an unique, high end scenario.

 

2. Cricket has undergone one drastic change compared to virtually all other sport, in a very, very short period of time, i.e., 20 years or less: massive increase in travel, time zone skipping and the stress it puts on bodies. Yes, cricketers are playing about the same or even less amount of cricket days per calendar year compared to the 80s. Especially if you compare the 80s players who played County cricket, who actually played more than people do now, because county seasons were so bloody long back then.


It has also become far more coaching intense and the immediate by-product one sees, is linearity in bowling actions. An action exactly like Thommo does not exist, neither does one like Alderman or Colin Croft. While this may be statistically valid approach, in terms of 'best practices for the common bowler', it still ignores the fact that maybe in certain cases, a slightly flawed action IS the best course, because of slightly flawed physiology. 

For eg, Walsh probably had hips 10x stronger than the average man, because his entire action relied on a weird 'hip snap' to channel momentum. Sure, if you got hips like Walsh, its the most 'consistent' action to reproduce and relatively less effort but 99% people don't have such hips and you end up with piriformis or such other case.

 

3. No, i am not a cricket historian. But when people like Clyde Berry or Cozier write books, their claims on player backgrounds is usually on the money. 
Holding's 'dilemma' was whether to run 400m or to play cricket as a 17-18 year old. he chose cricket. We are talking about Jamaica here, which since the 60s has consistently produced short and mid ranged running stars, way above their puny demographic weight.

Jamaica has had probably 30 runners who'd run laps around Milkha Singh or any such desi sprinter. Thats how good they are.

Holding came very close to cracking their olympic relay team. That'd mean he is one of their top 10 runners and possibly for those couple of years, top 20/25 runner in the world. 
Translating to cricket, he is most likely the fastest/best runner to've ever stepped on a cricket field, by a country mile.

 

4. Everyone here, who thinks they are an expert from trying to extrapolate speeds by seeing how far a wicketkeeper is standing from tv, thinks its nonsense. Practically every batsman who's faced holding has said :a) he was genuinely fast   b) he was freakish, in the sense that his stock ball remained just as fast on 2nd over of 1st spell as 6th over of 4th spell of the day. 

 

Its pretty obvious, who i am going to give credibility to: armchair fans or the experts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

 

you can easily judge whether a wk is standing closer or not ,clearly you have no idea about the science of it.

Don't be an idiot. You cannot judge the distance of the wicktkeeper from the batsman, without atleast two point of reference. 
This is basic physics and easily demonstrable. 
What you are doing, is simply failing to realize your optical illusion. But its ok. lots of people think they can gauge depth in a 2d image. Its called an 'illusion' for a reason.

 

11 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

provide evidence.

umesh ran 100 meters in 10.56sec 

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/625472.html

Have you always naturally been a strong athlete? 
My dad, Tilak Yadav, moved to Nagpur from his native village in Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh. As a youngster, he used to wrestle. He always followed a good training regime and put us through the same cycle. He would never allow us to sleep for too long. We would run 2-3km at 6am. My dad always believed in getting fresh air. I would run barefoot on the sand to improve my stamina. That helped me in my athletics from school to university level. I mainly competed in 100m, 200m, 400m hurdles, and long jump.

What is the fastest you have run 100m in?
10.56 seconds.

 

 

Sure. Good for Umesh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Don't be an idiot. You cannot judge the distance of the wicktkeeper from the batsman, without atleast two point of reference. 
This is basic physics and easily demonstrable. 
What you are doing, is simply failing to realize your optical illusion. But its ok. lots of people think they can gauge depth in a 2d image. Its called an 'illusion' for a reason.

read up on it properly

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

read up on it properly

Er..ok.

Seems like you are yet another person who does not even realize the optical illusion of TVs...not uncommon. 


As i said, anyone who thinks they can tell how far a wicketkeeper is standing from the batsman, by seeing one and only vantage point from TV, is 100% wrong and under the influence of the optical illusion. 

This is not about how much cricket you've watched, how good your vision is, this is basic physics on how your eyes work to extrapolate 3d view from a 2d image. 

Share this post


Link to post

The greatest batsman of his era and many consider him one of the best ever Viv said he was as fast as it gets when he got his direction right.Viv certainly knows a thing or two about facing fast bowling.

 

Thompson didn't have any other major skill other than bowling fast.DK Lillee surely knows about fast bowling.

Share this post


Link to post

I was watching the old Dev Anand flick Jewel thief with my parents...there is an item song with Tanuja(Kajol's mom)...my mom said apparently back in the day it was considered very raunchy and vulgar for a heroine to do something like that and I thought to myself....compared to the things that we see now or have access to on the internet.

 

why is this relevant? Well a guy with no

proper protective equipment and a different mindset might have been shocked to see a ball delivered over 135 and in his mind and his peers mind  that was probably the most dangerous thing ever.

 

These days we have Starc bowling 140s throughout and cranking it up to 150s and still scaring batsmen-the same batsman who leave their crease or play a crazy scoop shot to a 140k delivery. Things have evolved. So yes I would take what people in the 70s felt about Thompson etc with a pinch of salt. Also we have technology to measure the speeds now, so what people said about Thompson remains an old wives tale pretty much.

 

Would Bjon Borg of the 80s be able to take on the 100th ranked tennis player today and match up to him power by power and to his stamina...no chance whatsoever 

Edited by maniac

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Er..ok.

Seems like you are yet another person who does not even realize the optical illusion of TVs...not uncommon. 


As i said, anyone who thinks they can tell how far a wicketkeeper is standing from the batsman, by seeing one and only vantage point from TV, is 100% wrong and under the influence of the optical illusion. 

This is not about how much cricket you've watched, how good your vision is, this is basic physics on how your eyes work to extrapolate 3d view from a 2d image. 

one can gauge the distance on tv ,if you mean by how far the keeper is standing as in metrics then one cant say that accurately but you wont be able to do that even  in the stadium .

pataudi batted in test matches with one eye  how did he manage it if you cant judge the position of the ball in 2d ?

even 3d images are illusions .

read up on it before sprouting nonsense.

Edited by MultiB48

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, MultiB48 said:

one can gauge the distance on tv ,if you mean by how far the keeper is standing as in metrics then one cant say that accurately but you wont be able to do that even  in the stadium .

pataudi batted in test matches with one eye  how did he manage it if you cant judge the position of the ball in 2d ?

even 3d images are illusions .

read up on it before sprouting nonsense.

1. Yes, you will be able to extrapolate in a stadium, very accurately, if you have trained to tell apart distances. For e.g., scouting. There are many, many people who can see any object in a 100-200m distance and be accurate, within centimetres, on how close/far they are. A common skill for e.g., amongst hunters. 

You physically cannot guess, whether the wicketkeeper is 10,15 or 20 meters behind the batsman , from just one camera angle from TV. 

 

2. Because having one eye does not make your vision 2d. Your vision in one eye is still 3d vision, it simply has problem triangulating a moving target,due to lack of primary triangulation method (2nd eye). But, as one-eyed people show, it is a relatively easy adaptation for the brain. 

 

The only ones spouting 100% nonsense,are people who are trying to judge how far a wicketkeeper is standing behind the batsman, from one camera angle. Classic case of optical illusion. 

Share this post


Link to post

^^ That is utter nonsense, speed is speed it doesn't matter what era it is,human reflexes have not changed that much batsmen judge speed based on time they get to play fast bowling rather than speed gun readings.

 

Every batsmen who faced either Thompson or Lillee or WI fast bowlers know what it felt like when facing real intimidating fast bowling.

 

That does not mean Starc , Akthar or Lee were/are that not as  fast as them. WI fast bowlers on 1980s had accuracy and bouncy to go with their speed that's why they were deadly .

 

Borg wouldn't drop a game against todays 100 if both were playing with wooden rackets.Borg was famous for his stamina and ability to sustain high speed for five sets. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

^^ That is utter nonsense, speed is speed it doesn't matter what era it is,human reflexes have not changed that much batsmen judge speed based on time they get to play fast bowling rather than speed gun readings.

 

Every batsmen who faced either Thompson or Lillee or WI fast bowlers know what it felt like when facing real intimidating fast bowling.

 

That does not mean Starc , Akthar or Lee were/are that not as  fast as them. WI fast bowlers on 1980s had accuracy and bouncy to go with their speed that's why they were deadly .

 

Borg wouldn't drop a game against todays 100 if both were playing with wooden rackets.Borg was famous for his stamina and ability to sustain high speed for five sets. 

Yeah but the game has moved on from a wooden racket..The modern players are freaks...wooden rackets did not require the same power game...power+ high endurance is what sets the modern players apart ..

 

similarly  if you ask modern players to play without security gear they will struggle and get hit because their technique did not evolve with it

 

purely in terms of strength+stamina etc the bygone era is no match. Thompson might have been faster than his peers and may be accurate that's about it...no way he can hold a candle to the modern bowler...hell even a Bumrah might blow him out of the water.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Yes, you will be able to extrapolate in a stadium, very accurately, if you have trained to tell apart distances. For e.g., scouting. There are many, many people who can see any object in a 100-200m distance and be accurate, within centimetres, on how close/far they are. A common skill for e.g., amongst hunters. 

You physically cannot guess, whether the wicketkeeper is 10,15 or 20 meters behind the batsman , from just one camera angle from TV. 

that simple guess work ,one can do that even on tv,2d images are used in target practice.

 

12 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Because having one eye does not make your vision 2d. Your vision in one eye is still 3d vision

 

:bow:

 

 

everything you see with your eyes is an optical illusion dumb fool

 

 

 

Edited by MultiB48

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, maniac said:

Yeah but the game has moved on from a wooden racket..The modern players are freaks...wooden rackets did not require the same power game...power+ high endurance is what sets the modern players apart ..

 

similarly  if you ask modern players to play without security gear they will struggle and get hit because their technique did not evolve with it

 

purely in terms of strength+stamina etc the bygone era is no match. Thompson might have been faster than his peers and may be accurate that's about it...no way he can hold a candle to the modern bowler...hell even a Bumrah might blow him out of the water.

Thommo was timed by speed guns at 99 mph, and I think the measurement was different. I don't remember all the details, but some ICFer can supply the rest. I'm pretty sure he was faster than the Indian pacers although possibly not Brett Lee/Akhtar/Tait.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

that simple guess work ,one can do that even on tv,2d images are used in target practice.

Sighting is not simple guesswork. Its a honed skill. I guess since you've never been hunting or in scouts,you have no idea what i speak of. 

 

6 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

 

:bow:

 

 

everything you see with your eyes is an optical illusion dumb fool

 

 

 

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word optical illusion. Its not the inverted image received by the cones and rods of your retina. 

If you think you can tell the distance a wicketkeeper is standing, from watching on tv, i really cannot emphasize how dumb you are. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, maniac said:

Yeah but the game has moved on from a wooden racket..The modern players are freaks...wooden rackets did not require the same power game...power+ high endurance is what sets the modern players apart ..

 

similarly  if you ask modern players to play without security gear they will struggle and get hit because their technique did not evolve with it

 

purely in terms of strength+stamina etc the bygone era is no match. Thompson might have been faster than his peers and may be accurate that's about it...no way he can hold a candle to the modern bowler...hell even a Bumrah might blow him out of the water.

Why do think Borg if he had been brought with regular rackets would not be great.Rackets don't make players great  and Borg's endurance is unmatched in tennis's history. He was famous for endurance and power.37 year old Federer is still dominating the scene that should say it all about the quality of tennis today.

 

Again nonsense there is no modern bowler who is faster than him.I am not saying he is fastest ever but I don't think anyone is faster than him when he was at his full tilt.There are no fast bowlers today who have ability to generate bounce which guys like Garner could produce. Try bowling from 22 yards and generate bounce which Garner could from good length into body.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Thommo was timed by speed guns at 99 mph, and I think the measurement was different. I don't remember all the details, but some ICFer can supply the rest. I'm pretty sure he was faster than the Indian pacers although possibly not Brett Lee/Akhtar/Tait.

Lol 99mph??? Measured on what? A typewriter?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Sighting is not simple guesswork. Its a honed skill. I guess since you've never been hunting or in scouts,you have no idea what i speak of. 

 

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word optical illusion. Its not the inverted image received by the cones and rods of your retina. 

If you think you can tell the distance a wicketkeeper is standing, from watching on tv, i really cannot emphasize how dumb you are. 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, maniac said:

 

why is this relevant? Well a guy with no

proper protective equipment and a different mindset might have been shocked to see a ball delivered over 135 and in his mind and his peers that was probably the most dangerous thing ever.

 

These days we have Starc bowling 140s throughout and cranking it up to 150s and still scaring batsmen-the same batsman who leave their crease or play a crazy scoop shot to a 140k delivery. Things have evolved. So yes I would take what people in the 70s felt about Thompson etc with a pinch of salt. Also we have technology to measure the speeds now, so what people said about Thompson remains an old wives tale pretty much.

 

Would Bjon Borg of the 80s be able to take on the 100th ranked tennis player today and match up to him power by power and to his stamina...no chance whatsoever 

 

Very well written post !

 

The top quicks of the '70s and early '80s  were most definitely bowlers of frightening pace for their era.

 

However, in an era of

  • No helmets / infrequently used helmets / early day helmets with no or poor visor
  • Low quality bats
  • Low quality protective gear
  • Batters not getting a chance to practice using bowling machines delivering at 150 k
  • Batters not getting a chance to practice against  artificial-hand-equipped throwers generating extra bounce
  • Lesser fit batters with slower reaction times on an average ( not talking about exceptions )

....  the pace which will frighten batsmen has to be much lower than the modern era with access to all the above listed benefits.

 

Also, we see in almost every sport that speed, power, time etc. have improved a lot in the 2000s and 2010s compared to the 1970s and '80s. No reason to think that cricket has moved in an opposite direction.

 

 

Edited by express bowling

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Very well written post !

 

The top quicks of the '70s and early '80s  were most definitely bowlers of frightening pace for their era.

 

However, in an era of

  • No helmets / infrequently used helmets / early day helmets with no or poor visor
  • Low quality bats
  • Low quality protective gear
  • Batters not getting a chance to practice using bowling machines delivering at 150 k
  • Batters not getting a chance to practice against  artificial-hand-equipped throwers generating extra bounce
  • Lesser fit batters with slower reaction times on an average

....  the pace which will frighten batsmen has to be much lower than the modern era with access to all the above listed benefits.

 

Also, we see in almost every sport that speed, power, time etc. have improved a lot in the 2000s and 2010s compared to the 1970s and '80s. No reason to think that cricket has moved in an opposite direction.

 

 

But your analysis does not account for freak occurrences. For instance, consider Sergey Bubka who held the world record for 20+ years in pole vaulting. I think it's reasonable to assume that there will be 1-2 freaks if one waits for a sufficiently long period of time, i.e. if one goes back to a long enough time interval.

 

Like Bradman. People will say he played against only 1 team effectively, and the competition was lower, etc. But, he still seems to be an anomaly according to me. In the modern era, even if he didn't average 100, he could have averaged 2/3rds that which would still be exceptional.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Vijy said:

But your analysis does not account for freak occurrences. For instance, consider Sergey Bubka who held the world record for 20+ years in pole vaulting. I think it's reasonable to assume that there will be 1-2 freaks if one waits for a sufficiently long period of time, i.e. if one goes back to a long enough time interval.

Which is why I have written about the top quicks of the '70s and '80s and not a single pacer.

 

Thomson was a freak .... but not the  top 10 bowlers of that era who all claim to bowl 150+ or even higher.

 

Quote

Like Bradman. People will say he played against only 1 team effectively, and the competition was lower, etc. But, he still seems to be an anomaly according to me. In the modern era, even if he didn't average 100, he could have averaged 2/3rds that which would still be exceptional.

Not talking about skills but speed, power, timing etc.

Edited by express bowling

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, express bowling said:

Which is why I have written about top quicks of the '70s and '80s and not a single pacer.

 

Thomson was a freak but not the  top 10 bowlers of that era who all claim to bowl 150+ or even higher.

 

Not talking about skills but speed, power, timing etc.

True. I always felt that the batsmen of the past can be compared more readily with the present than the pacers (or spinners). For instance, it's impossible to know if Barnes (from early 20th century) was a freak or a bully... I'd like to believe the former but I think he was the latter.

 

Returning to the post, I agree that Thommo was the fastest of his era, but that doesn't make him the fastest of the modern era. The same is even more valid for bowlers from past eras like Frank Typhoon Tyson.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Very well written post !

 

Thomson was most definitely a bowler of frightening pace for his era.

 

However, in an era of

  • No helmets / infrequently used helmets / early day helmets with no or poor visor
  • Low quality bats
  • Low quality protective gear
  • Batters not getting a chance to practice using bowling machines delivering at 150 k
  • Batters not getting a chance to practice against  artificial-hand-equipped throwers generating extra bounce
  • Lesser fit batters with slower reaction times on an average

....  the pace which will frighten batsmen has to be much lower than the modern era with access to all the above listed benefits.

 

Also, we see in almost every sport that speed, power, time etc. have improved a lot in the 2000s and 2010s compared to the 1970s and '80s. No reason to think that cricket has moved in an opposite direction.

 

 

You mean to say current generation players have better reaction than Sunny Gavaskar. Protective gear has helped but batsmen will continue to have fear of getting hit and hurt by cricket ball.

Thompson would be fast in any era.

Look what Broad has become after Varun Aaron's incident or look at Aussies reactions when Yadav was spitting fire in Dharmshala.No bowling machine can mimic the bounce and movement.

 

If your point about everything has improved is valid how come we have jason holders/sammy's bowling for West Indies.Indians have not produced another Milkha Singh or another PT Usha when facilities have improved , money has improved.

Edited by putrevus

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, putrevus said:

You mean to say current generation players have better reaction than Sunny Gavaskar. Protective gear has helped but batsmen will continue to have fear of getting hit and hurt by cricket ball.

Thompson would be fast in any era.

Look what Broad has become after Varun Aaron's incident or look at Aussies reactions when Yadav was spitting fire in Dharmshala.No bowling machine can mimic the bounce and movement.

 

If your point about everything has improved is valid how come we have jason holders/sammy's bowling for West Indies.Indians have not produced another Milkha Singh or another PT Usha when facilities have improved , money has improved.

actually, most of milkha's and usha's records have been broken by others. The pitches were very bowling conducive in that days. On flat and slow pattas, there is no reason to believe thommo would be equally fast. if I remember correctly, mitch johnson played in ODIs against Ind and got hammered in that year where he terrorized SA and Eng.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, putrevus said:

You mean to say current generation players have better reaction than Sunny Gavaskar.

Comparing average batters of today with average batters of that era.

 

Gavaskar, Richards etc. had exceptional reaction times ..... which is why they were not easy to terrorize by pace alone.

 

Quote

Protective gear has helped but batsmen will continue to have fear of getting hit and hurt by cricket ball.

Thompson would be fast in any era.

Look what Broad has become after Varun Aaron's incident or look at Aussies reactions when Yadav was spitting fire in Dharmshala.No bowling machine can mimic the bounce and movement.

 

Fear is still there but happens at a higher pace due to better protective, gears,  bats, bowling machines etc.

 

That is the point.

 

Quote

If your point about everything has improved is valid how come we have jason holders/sammy's bowling for West Indies.Indians have not produced another Milkha Singh or another PT Usha when facilities have improved , money has improved.

 

Because other countries have improved more than us.

 

You can see the improvement on a global basis.

Edited by express bowling

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, express bowling said:

Comparing average batters of today with average batters of that era.

 

Gavaskar, Richards etc. had exceptional reaction times ..... which is why they were not easy to terrorize by pace alone.

 

 

Fear is still there but happens at higher pace due to better protective, gear, bats, bowling machines etc.

 

That is the point.

 

 

Because other countries have improved more than us.

 

You can see the improvement on a global basis.

in fact, even indian sprinters have improved. none of milk's records stand and usha has only the 400m hurdles. it goes on to show that they were relatively big because the competition in the rest of the world was lower.

 

I think the classic example, as noted earlier, is tennis. The kind of records that Helen Wills or Maureen Connolly had will never be equaled since the competition was much lower back then (although I believe the former, if she was born in the modern era and coached accordingly, would still have been at ATG).

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Vijy said:

in fact, even indian sprinters have improved. none of milk's records stand and usha has only the 400m hurdles. it goes on to show that they were relatively big because the competition in the rest of the world was lower.

Yes .....everyone has improved but some countries have improved more than others.

 

Quote

I think the classic example, as noted earlier, is tennis. The kind of records that Helen Wills or Maureen Connolly had will never be equaled since the competition was much lower back then (although I believe the former, if she was born in the modern era and coached accordingly, would still have been at ATG).

 

As sports become more professional over time,  the quality of the average player improves due to sports research and improved coaching. 

 

Similarly, the natural flair of the super-talent is reduced due to analysis and planning by professional coaches.

 

The super-talent usually still stays at the top but the gap between him / her and the average guy, in terms of effectiveness, narrows somewhat.

Edited by express bowling

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Vijy said:

actually, most of milkha's and usha's records have been broken by others. The pitches were very bowling conducive in that days. On flat and slow pattas, there is no reason to believe thommo would be equally fast. if I remember correctly, mitch johnson played in ODIs against Ind and got hammered in that year where he terrorized SA and Eng.

It took 30 years for someone to break Milkha Singh record and PT usha still holds 400 m hurdles record.Point being there are some talents which are once in century talents.Thompson or WI fast bowlers were such talents.

 

Johnson was a freak who was either hot or cold.He got pummeled the next year by Indians on same pitches he terrorized Eng.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Comparing average batters of today with average batters of that era.

 

Gavaskar, Richards etc. had exceptional reaction times ..... which is why they were not easy to terrorize by pace alone.

 

 

Fear is still there but happens at a higher pace due to better protective, gears,  bats, bowling machines etc.

 

That is the point.

 

 

Because other countries have improved more than us.

 

You can see the improvement on a global basis.

"Fear is still there but happens at a higher pace due to better protective, gears,  bats, bowling machines etc."

 

How does that prove Thompson bowled at lower pace.Thompson also had exceptional pace that's why guys like Richards or Lloyd  told many times that he was truly the deciding factor in 1975 as he literally intimidated their team which included them also.They did not say Lillee or later Lenny Pascoe but only mentioned Thommo  because he was that fast.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, putrevus said:

It took 30 years for someone to break Milkha Singh record and PT usha still holds 400 m hurdles record.Point being there are some talents which are once in century talents.Thompson or WI fast bowlers were such talents.

 

Johnson was a freak who was either hot or cold.He got pummeled the next year by Indians on same pitches he terrorized Eng.

thommo was the fastest of the bunch, but he was not a once in a century talent. in 20th century cricket (excluding players who also were around in the 2000s), only bradman and sobers can be regarded as a once in a generation talents. many others come close, but these are the only ones who were considered "extreme". For instance, if you take King Viv, he never faced the best pace attack of his time (the WI) and yet Sunny and Greg Chappati did better than him.

 

Similarly, even in terms of pure pace, there is no guarantee that Thommo was once in a century player... at best, he was once in a generation (which is still outstanding). As for WI pacers, apart from Holding, the others were not genuine quicks over long spells. Garner and Croft were probably 135-140 who got steep bounce, had excellent accuracy, etc (more like Amby). Roberts and Marshall were both fast, but I think Holding was the one who could sustain a high pace.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, putrevus said:

"Fear is still there but happens at a higher pace due to better protective, gears,  bats, bowling machines etc."

 

How does that prove Thompson bowled at lower pace.Thompson also had exceptional pace that's why guys like Richards or Lloyd  told many times that he was truly the deciding factor in 1975 as he literally intimidated their team which included them also.They did not say Lillee or later Lenny Pascoe but only mentioned Thommo  because he was that fast.

No one is saying Thommo wasn't fast. He was almost definitely the fastest of his generation. But that does not necessarily make him the fastest of all time.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, putrevus said:

"Fear is still there but happens at a higher pace due to better protective, gears,  bats, bowling machines etc."

 

How does that prove Thompson bowled at lower pace.Thompson also had exceptional pace that's why guys like Richards or Lloyd  told many times that he was truly the deciding factor in 1975 as he literally intimidated their team which included them also.They did not say Lillee or later Lenny Pascoe but only mentioned Thommo  because he was that fast.

 

Thomson was the quickest and most frightening bowler of his era.... much quicker than Lillee and much, much quicker than Pascoe.

 

I don't doubt it at all.

 

But, he looks slower than Lee or Shoaib to me.

 

 

Edited by express bowling

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Thomson was the quickest and most frightening bowler of his era.... much quicker than Lillee and much, much quicker than Pascoe.

 

I don't doubt it at all.

 

 

Indeed, that's what I said above. Thommo was once in a generation bowler (i.e. his generation). But that doesn't make him the fastest ever in the history of the Universe over 13 billion years... I think his contemporaries have hyped him too much.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Vijy said:

thommo was the fastest of the bunch, but he was not a once in a century talent. in 20th century cricket (excluding players who also were around in the 2000s), only bradman and sobers can be regarded as a once in a generation talents. many others come close, but these are the only ones who were considered "extreme". For instance, if you take King Viv, he never faced the best pace attack of his time (the WI) and yet Sunny and Greg Chappati did better than him.

 

Similarly, even in terms of pure pace, there is no guarantee that Thommo was once in a century player... at best, he was once in a generation (which is still outstanding). As for WI pacers, apart from Holding, the others were not genuine quicks over long spells. Garner and Croft were probably 135-140 who got steep bounce, had excellent accuracy, etc (more like Amby). Roberts and Marshall were both fast, but I think Holding was the one who could sustain a high pace.

Thompson did not have any other major skill other than his ability to bowl fast .he was once in century bowler speed wise for sure.Viv faced plenty of Wi fast bowlers in domestic cricket and county cricket and dominated them also.You are not called ATG just like that.

 

Who has bowled faster than those WI bowlers on a consistent basis for longer time, in my view no one has done it  that's why they are best ever team in  the world.

 

Pure pace is such overrated what good is pure pace if it is wayward. Mitchell Johnson is prime example.He was pacy but wayward in 2009 Ashes so was belted all over the park.2013 He had both pace and accuracy that's why it was menacing.Just because Holding was fastest other bowlers in his team were cake walk.Pace wise they had plenty of pace.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Thomson was the quickest and most frightening bowler of his era.... much quicker than Lillee and much, much quicker than Pascoe.

 

I don't doubt it at all.

 

But, he looks slower than Lee or Shoaib to me.

 

 

You point of generation having better pace is correct  but some are freaks and Thomson was one of them. I am not saying he was faster than Lee or Akthar but he surely was not slower.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Indeed, that's what I said above. Thommo was once in a generation bowler (i.e. his generation). But that doesn't make him the fastest ever in the history of the Universe over 13 billion years... I think his contemporaries have hyped him too much.

 

Let's say you and I have to bat against Starc and Shami on a bouncy Dharamsala pitch .... without any helmet... using '70s  bats .... with no arm-chest-thigh guards .....no limit on bouncers .... after practicing against Joginder Sharma and Rishi Dhawan

 

We would come out with lots of stories and folklore-material too.      : )

Edited by express bowling

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, express bowling said:

 

Let's say you and I have to bat against Starc and Shami on a bouncy Dharamsala pitch .... without any helmet... using '70s  bats .... with no arm-chest-thigh guards ..... after practicing against Joginder Sharma and Rishi Dhawan

 

We would come out with lots of stories and folklore-material too.      : )

actually, facing dhawan would be fast enough for me to make up folklore material :)

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Let's say you and I have to bat against Starc and Shami on a bouncy Dharamsala pitch .... without any helmet... using '70s  bats .... with no arm-chest-thigh guards ..... after practicing against Joginder Sharma and Rishi Dhawan

 

We would come out with lots of stories and folklore-material too.      : )

before the 70s  bouncers were frowned upon ,many of the batsmen didnt have the technique to counter bouncers ,the bouncer barrage sort of came out of nowhere due to captains like chapple and llyod like reverse swing did later.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, MultiB48 said:

before the 70s  bouncers were frowned upon ,many of the batsmen didnt have the technique to counter bouncers ,the bouncer barrage sort of came out of nowhere due to captains like chapple and llyod like reverse swing did later.

a lot of this pace aspect of fast bowlers was hyped during the packer series for marketing purposes to make it look athletic and dangerous 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

before the 70s  bouncers were frowned upon ,many of the batsmen didnt have the technique to counter bouncers ,the bouncer barrage sort of came out of nowhere due to captains like chapple and llyod like reverse swing did later.

I have read that Hall and Gilchrist used to bowl beamers, which were not banned then

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×