Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    31d 16h 9m 53s

Posts posted by MultiB48

  1. 1 minute ago, express bowling said:


    The article states this 


      " On that one day in Perth, Jeff Thomson had recorded release speeds on 200/400 frames per second photosonic cameras " 




    It means the distance used for calculation of release speeds maybe a bit more than nowadays, lets say double .... and would cause a difference of 0.3 kph or thereabouts from what we get nowadays using high-speed cameras of 1000 fps.


    you dont need such high fps ,you might get precision in meters but we dont calculate bowling speeds to that extent

  2. 14 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

    That flight can be 15cm or even 1.5cm but that depends on the fps of the camera.What is the fps of the hawk eye camera and what is the fps of cameras used in 1975?

    Hawk Eye uses 1000fps cameras yet separate speed gun radar is used to get ball speed.

    I am not even going into the cutting edge software and computing technology used by hawk eye.And still radars are used to get the speed of the ball.

    to measure speed 200 fps is enough you dont need 1000 fps ,1000 fps is for slow motion and also they are not used all the time as it is too expensive.


    hawkeye cameras use different angles to determine the speed and trajectory of the ball,its a different technology compared to fps .

  3. 21 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

    He is coming back after long and wasnt very exp in 1st place only. 

    Rhythem, control everything needs time to get back in line. If u ball 140k or 120k on leg it ll be dispatched to boundaries

    i hope he hasnt lost pace ,he wasnt that fast if he loses any more it would be pretty bad,he should take his time hopefully no more injuries.

  4. 35 minutes ago, Khota said:

    All I am saying is there is no need to spend so much energy for something elusive. If you get a allrounder once in 50 years the odds are low to find one. Moreover cricket is a speciality sport and there is no room for part timers.

    ind has produced only 1 genuine wrist spinner in all it's history ,maybe we shouldnt look for that either ,in any case we have more pacers now than ever in our history so it shows that things are not that elusive after all.

  5. 8 minutes ago, express bowling said:


    Yes, lost speed varies from pitch to pitch but rarely more than 30 kph on a slow pitch.


    Even if you take it to be 40 kph and equally spaced reduction ( which is not the case as most speed is lost after pitching ) ... reduction in speed over the first 5 cm would be 0.10 kph


    And radar guns have a similar issue

    yes 1/2kmph or max 1kmph could be lost if done properly ,ofcourse errors can happen as we see even in hawkeye

  6. 15 minutes ago, express bowling said:


    1 )  It is average speed over the first 10 cm or 15 cm .... so speed after 5 cm or 7.5 cm  perhaps.


    Speed reduces by about 20 kph after 20 yards or 1829 cm


    Speed reduction after 5 cm would be 0.05 kph if linear reduction ... so, insignificant reduction.


    2 )  Radar guns use Doppler effect ... and a little traveled distance is required too after ball release to detect the change in frequency of the returned radar signal ..... hence comparable with high-speed camera release speeds.

    i think they lose more speed , close to 30-40 ks over the distance on a slow pitch  but most of it is lost after the ball pitches,they lose little pace due to friction in the air,5kph is a lot to be lost at the release due to the blindspot of the camera.

  7. 3 minutes ago, express bowling said:


    If you study the modern " hawk-eye technology "  .... 6 high speed cameras are used,  placed in different positions.  They track the ball right from the time it leaves  the bowler's hand to the time it goes dead. 


    Speeds of the ball starts to be  calculated along the trajectory of the delivery after a few frames are recorded.  You get release speeds, speed on pitching, speed at the batsman's end, speed where the keeper is ....  all the data are available.


    Basically, the release speeds are calculated using high speed cameras after the ball travels a very short distance after leaving the hand ....  and the distance and time are both recorded.


    Till about 8 to 10 years back, they used to occasionally show hawk-eye calculated speeds at every point, from release to the keeper.


    If you note the ball-by-ball radar gun speeds shown instantaneously on TV and compare them with the ball-by-ball  hawk-eye high-speed-camera speeds available in the BCCI and ICC websites , you will see that they are very similar ..... proving that the hawk-eye speeds are release speeds too.


    In the 1975 competition, the same thing was done. There was a video available on  youtube where the scientist explained the process. I can't find it now but will post it if I find it.

    even if we check the blindspot of the 200/400 frames camera, for sake of argument that the exact release speed is not measured, it will be somewhere around the 15cm range ,now how much pace can be lost in 15cms ? if you say 5 ks then over the next distances as well you will keep losing pace and will be down to nearly 0 kmph over 500 odd cms which clearly isnt the case.

  8. 15 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

    How can cameras record release speeds?The frame rates are mentioned because thats how they calculated speed.

    Using the frames to calculate the time taken to cover distance from hand release to pitch point.Then calculating speed.

    Only speed guns measure release speed.

    these days they use hawkeye cameras not speedguns,even  guns vary in pace they are not not all the same, remember in nz the speeds used to be quite slow till they got an uniform setting

  9. 8 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:



    Roberts was recorded at 150ks and Holding at 148ks in 1975.Considering these are speeds over the length of flight, the release speed can be 5kmh extra. So no doubt that Holding and Roberts bowled 150ks.



     i saw somewhere roberts had clocked 159k.... whatever these recorded speeds tells us there is no doubt they were quick, as quick as modern day pacers ,the debate is whether they were super human and bowled a lot quicker than anyone we have seen over the last 25 years.i can tell you one thing we wll never see a bowler who bowls over 150ks all the time as long as we live

  10. 26 minutes ago, express bowling said:

    Yes .... and make the batsmen,  who can bowl a bit, send down a few overs.


    We used to have Sachin, Sourav, Yuvi, Sehwag, Raina .... batsmen who could bowl somewhat and be the 6th bowler ... but now there is only Kedar

    i think kohli could look to bowl some rollers like chris harris used to, may be the ball will grip a bit more off the surface ,his little floaters are useless

  11. 4 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

    Ofcourse a bowler of Akram's calibre, bowling at 145 could wreak havoc. Which, the likes of Shaun Tait bowling at 157 couldnt think of! And that's wherein lies the difference.

    yes ,its like claiming pollock was quicker than hayward or mcgrath was quicker than lee,or philander is quicker than aaron

  12. 2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

    How does that prove that he was a trundler, or medium pace. You guys needs to stop reacting to few videos on youtube and make an assessment on greatest left armer fast bowler who has ever played this game.


    lol ,where has he said akram was medium pace or a trundler ,he categorically said he was fast-fastmedium,

  13. 8 minutes ago, putrevus said:


    Lakmal to Fakhar Zaman, 1 run, 136kph, ploughing it around fifth stump channel, Zaman wanted to go hard at it, the ball seamed back in and ruins his timing. He skews it off the inner half to point and earns himself a single


    If Lakmal is capable of hitting 136k Akram surely hit more than 145. and also operated at much higher average speed. 

    ppl like anderson have maxed out at 145 147 ks ,there isn't  a lot of difference among int bowlers in terms of speed ,it's down to skill, vaas was a better bowler than fernando , doesnt mean he was quicker,  you are putting the cart before the horse if you claim better pacer means quicker ,and no one here is saying bowlers of the past didnt have pace but that doesnt mean they bowled 153 ks all day or we cant judge pace by watching people on tv,

  14. 8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

    Rough, as in you can tell apart, empirically speaking, Shane Warne vs Alan Donald. Beyond that, you are not seeing anything worth deducing with your eyes, you are simply applying prior knowledge. hence, flawed. 


    so now you have discarded your garbage theory and acknowledge we can judge speed from a 2d image projection of a 3d object , now its just down to a certain range lol 

  15. 2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

    yeah we cannot tell by watching from TV whether Praveen Kumar is slower than Aaron, Umesh Yadav and Mohammad Shami.  For that, we will have to be present on the field just behind the bowlers. :phehe:

    yes like if you watch me and holding bowling on tv you wont be able to tell who is quicker :yahoo:

  16. 14 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

    So a 2-d representation of 3-d motion from an angle you can't tell depth from, is right. But what professionals say, who've actually faced Clarke (and you haven't), don't matter. Where do you come up with such nonsense ??


    no batsman can tell the speed of the bowler he is facing

Guest, sign in to access all features.