Muloghonto

Members
  • Content count

    4,525
  • Runs

    33,590 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
  • Time Online

    6d 3h 1m 20s

About Muloghonto

  • Birthday 11/03/1971

Recent Profile Visitors

882 profile views
  1. Because there is also a section of people in our country, who will hate you no matter what you do- either coz you are not a muslim/christian or because of caste. The main reason why most of us chose to leave, is for work & education. The main reason why many of us chose to settle overseas and not come back, is because in places like Canada, western-Europe, USA (USA is the bottom of this pile btw), there is rule of law. You can do whatever you want within the realms of the law. Nobody can come here and assault me for wearing the wrong thing or disrespecting their culture, etc and get away with it. Even if it is a racist mob, they'd get shafted by the law if i wanted to pursue a case. In India, nobody cares about rule of law. Nobody sees assaulting people as a criminal offence and even if you get beat up in front of a policeman, the police will look frustrated and dismissive if you wanted to register a case. And there is no freedom, if you don't have the right to express yourself in new, unique ways without getting assaulted. Atleast that is why i decided not to come back to India. That and i wanted better education for my kids than what i had in India. Indian schools are brutal for children and while they learn a lot of things and become better at math & sciences at an earlier age, they lack social skills and schools in INida are nothing more than a grinder, which will grind you to dust. Not the life i wanted for my kids, who i wanted to grow up enjoying education, music, sports, etc. And thankfully, they are !
  2. My point is, spending money on Law & Order is far bigger necessity for a nation than spending on big weapons, given that we hardly ever use them. This is the day and age of posturing, asymmetrical warfare and as long as you have nukes, nobody is going to invade you and put you in existential crisis. That doesn't mean we don't need more planes, tanks and other toys- just that we need it LESS than we need a fully functioning country.
  3. This is nonsense. You will ALWAYS find a group of people who you find more abhorrable than a said group being criticized. "Why punish this guy when there are bigger A-holes out there?' is not how one reforms society. We didnt get rid of Sati by arguing 'what about Aghoris ? They eat dead people!cannibals! deal with them first'. And i got to LOL about RSS not being a religious society. If they were non-religious, they would not have a problem with liberal nationalists. Or the idea that Hinduism, like every other religion, has no place in government.
  4. LOL. Brian Lara's 153* says 'hello, nice try but try it against two ATG bowlers and an ATG attack on a 5th day pitch"
  5. I don't see why measuring speeds in a handful of occasions is irrelevant. No one has exact ideas of the speed of most pacers, but we do have an exact idea of what Mikey Holding or Denis Lillee or Imran Khan could bowl at. And every other pacer, can be extrapolated to be faster/slower based on consensus of batsmen. The process is not precise, but it is accurate. Hence we go with what people like Gavaskar, Boycott, Majid Khan, Vengsarkar, etc. say and not what Collis King or Andy Ganteaume said. If you take the opinion of batsmen who have faced many of these bowlers on a vast variety of pitches, especially those who played county cricket and could face a bowler 8-9 matches every 2 years (i.e., county fixtures + test fixtures), they have an accurate, but imprecise read on who is faster than whom.
  6. Most probably Bhuvi. I'd rather have a tertiary pacer who can keep things tight, than a tertiary pacer who sprays it around and doesn't do jack in terms of picking up wickets.
  7. Indeed. and several of the bowlers in the 70s got tested by radar. So we can compare X to Y and if we know how fast X is, we can figure out what speed Y was, approximately. Irrelevant. If i clock at 90mph via radar gun and i bowl at a batsman, then you bowl at a batsman, if the batsman says you are slower than me, it is not an invalid observation, neither is then calling you >90mph. WSC matches were also 5 day matches.
  8. Keep your fantasy to yourself. I never said anyone bowled consistently 95mph stock balls-maybe Michael holding did, but beyond him, nobody bowls at that speed day in day out.
  9. Most of the ones i named, were tested in the WSC. Besides, as i said, i will go by what batsmen say, over what you say, in the era where bowling speeds were not documented. It is common knowledge, for example,for those who played in the mid 70s to mid 80s period, that Michael Holding had the fastest stock ball of them all. Given that the company we talk about were tested in WSC to bowl 140Kph+, it'd mean Mikey Holding's stock ball was easily 145Kph, aka 90mph range : which makes sense, since Michael Holding had *THE* smoothest bowling action and he was 2 cuts from being in the Jamaican 400m olympics team as a youth-meaning he could gather pace with his run-up better than any bowler who existed.
  10. All bowlers ? No, i said genuinely fast bowlers (who had stock ball at 144kph or so) are Andy Roberts, Mikey Holding, Colin Croft, Curtly Ambrose, Malcolm Marshall, Denis Lillee,Imran Khan, Ian Bishop, Courtney Walsh etc. from the 80s. Bowlers like Kapil, Hadlee, Botham, Willis, Garner - they were in the 130-135 kph range for most of their careers. yes, at their peaks they all bowled 135-140ish range, but most of their wickets came after this peak and were picked in the 130-135 kph range. Same with McGrath- he was capable of bowling at 140-ish if he chose and the 99 series in West Indies, he consistently bowled 140 kph. But since then, every single series McGrath bowled consistently in the low 130s zone and he still picked up 300 wickets or so after the West indies series, so my point is - he picked most of his wickets while being a medium pacer- like Kapil, Botham, Hadlee, Garner, etc. did. So to say you need pace to succeed, is false.
  11. Its total BS to say 'you need to start out at a quick pace to be able to bowl at a slower pace'. All the bowlers named, were good bowlers with or without pace and when they lost their pace, they compensated, showing pace is not required to be a good bowler- which is what you claimed. And if McGrath bowled with as much accuracy at the end as in the start (which he didnt), he'd be just as effective at 125kph. Same goes for Ambrose, who at 125kph (and at that time we had speed guns), he ended up averaging <20. And none of those bowlers, in the last phase of their careers 'needed to crank the pace up when nothing happens'. Infact they are on RECORD saying that when nothing happened, they kept things tight and built pressure. You want me to show you bowler after bowler saying that when pitch is not responsive, they keep it tight and hope things work, not bowl even faster ? Siddle, Willis, etc. all got most of their wickets at the slower side of things.
  12. Doesn't matter what you reject. What matters is, in the era before comprehensive speed gun testing, what the batsmen say.
  13. They were not in the 90mph club according to most who faced them. They definitely were not in the 135K+ club in the 80s.
  14. Umesh is 29, at his peak, played 27 tests, the last 10 at a horrible average, wicket-taking etc. So what he was in the past, how hard it was for him, how little he played- all of them do not matter. What matters, is he is at his peak and sucks. And i am talking about him being removed NOW, not 2 years ago. So the players available NOW matter.
  15. actually no, quite a few bowlers bowled most of their careers under 135k and did just fine. McGrath, Pollock, Philander, Botham, Willis, Hadlee, Kapil- these were all GREAT bowlers. You want people who bowled 135K or less but were merely adequate- we have the likes of Caddick, Hoggard, Streak, Chris Martin, Siddle, McDermott, Zaheer, Vaas- the list is endless for people who did adequate job and still bowled at 135Ks or less for all/most of their careers. It is a misconception that you need pace to be an adequate test bowler- which Umesh is not. And Umesh, is a colossal failure at this point at being adequate, never mind great.