Thommo - how quick was he?'

[maniac]

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.

[Vijy]

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.

[Muloghonto]

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:

 

 

 

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. 

[putrevus]

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.

[maniac]

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?

[express bowling]

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 October 6, 2017 by express bowling

[Vijy]

23 minutes ago, maniac said:

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

It's called a speed gun.... allegedly.

[Vijy]

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.

[express bowling]

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 October 6, 2017 by express bowling

[Vijy]

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.

[putrevus]

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 October 6, 2017 by putrevus

[Vijy]

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.

[express bowling]

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 October 6, 2017 by express bowling

[Vijy]

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).

[express bowling]

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 October 6, 2017 by express bowling

[putrevus]

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.

[putrevus]

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.

[Vijy]

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.

[Vijy]

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.

[express bowling]

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 October 6, 2017 by express bowling