Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content count

    6,204
  • Runs

    79,780 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Time Online

    50d 16h 19m 1s

Posts posted by Muloghonto


  1. 51 minutes ago, surajmal said:

    Pathetic display by dilli jans in face of SC's gundagardi is another proof that Delhi is not fit to be the capital of new India. 

    Move it back to the city that has been the 'historic capital' of Indian mega-empires and is the 'historic capital' of North India under our golden age....aka Patna ? 

    :p::p:


  2. 17 minutes ago, MechEng said:

    Lol!, that's *ed up! I'm pretty sure this was fictional poetry and not an actual event. No king in the right sense of mind would come up with something like this.

    I don't see why not. Hindus have also had genocidal maniacs amongst them- rarer, sure but they are there. Ofcourse, the king is not in their right mind to do it, but i see no reason to think why this didn't happen, yet the Tamils will continue to glorify these gory details in their Sangam literature for 1000+ years later......

    Jagannath temple in Orissa for eg, was originally a Buddhist temple. 


  3. Federer has finally figured out Nadal.

    It has fundamentally changed Federer's game from his peak years (which i think is from 04-07) and though i think peak Federer is still the better Federer, THIS Federer, is a better Nadal killer.


    His movement has diminished noticeably from the past, but his unbelievable ability to take a ball anywhere on the court on the half-volley has covered the expected huge drop-off in tennis performance when a player's movement becomes slower.

    His first serve is more potent, as he can 'aim' more, due to the 'easier power' of the bigger racket. 

    This has also completely changed his backhand, where he can now blow holes on the court, with regularity, with the backhand.

    The bigger racket has caused one noted drop in his game: his forehand is no longer the unbeatable weapon it was once before. His forehand is now significantly weaker but he still retains his amazing accuracy with it, so he can still paint lines with it. 

    However, the new Federer is more vulnerable to someone who can play a consistent game and can dominate his forehand. Aka Del Potro. But it matters not, because there are no good players who have a truly great forehand currently-except the unluckiest tennis player who's ever lived, DelPo.  Djokovic is a pusher, so is Murray and Nadal and Nadal's forehand is no longer the iron-precise and fails often. Rest who have good forehands (Raonic for e.g.) have other holes in their games that Federer pounces on and exposes them.

     


  4. 4 hours ago, MechEng said:

    One big difference is that the Indian Kings never attacked for religious reasons but for wealth and power. Ashoka never invaded lands because they worshipped a different God. It's relatively better to invade for power/wealth than for religion, because an invasion for religious reasons is seen as a morally right thing to do (doing it for god) and you never care about being  mindful of your actions due to moral superiority.

    Indian kings, like European kings (towards Europeans) were civilized. They, as you say, conquered for power & money. Sometimes, for geo-strategy. Which is why you NEVER hear about how Ashoka demolished a city or Vikramaditya destroyed a city, etc.

    Same reason, why when you read about the 100 years war between England and France or Napoleon conquering almost all of Europe, there is nearly zero stories of demolishing a town or city. Because why the heck would you kill people & destroy their city, if the same people pay taxes and enrich you ? Only if you are a bigot, thats why. 

     

     

    Sure, it did happen, every once in a while (The Rashtrakutas utterly destroyed Kannauj for e.g., Cholas utterly destroyed Dharanikota). 

     

    And yes, Indian kings did sometimes fight for religion. We have poems in Tamil, celebrating the Pallava attacks on Dharanikota, forcing Buddhist monks to have sex with each other and replacing all Buddha statues with the Shivalinga. 
    But these instances in Indian history for 2000 year period of pre-Islam, is comparable to 20 years of Islamic genocide & destruction. 

     


  5.  I will clarify what i mean, when in earlier posts, i called Rajputs to be brave and now i call them cowards.

     

    Rajputs were extremely brave and resolute people, militaristically. If we consider the Pratiharas as Rajputs, we can see, that from early on, the Pratiharas are quite organized on the battlefield, with excellent military discipline and were one of the very, very few medieval cultures, that knew the art of orderly retreats. Countless examples exist, from Rashtrakuta records for e.g., which show,that the Rajputs were known to not just tuck tail and run away, when the battle got hard.

     

    Most medeival armies suffered catastrophic losses, usually when the presiding king/general gets slain. To fight orderly battles, even if your supreme commander takes a stray arrow in the face and dies in front of you, is a trait we only see amongst the Romans of the ancient world, in a consistent basis. In medieval times, i can't be sure, but i rate the Rajput ability to fight the odds on the battlefield, as well as the propensity to withdraw in good order when all is lost, to be remarkable by world standards. 

     

    Even our most hated oppressors have mentioned this. Babur for e.g., flat out dismisses the Rajput battle tactics, as out-dated and moronic, but was more impressed with the Rajput than his own troops, for discipline. Rajputs breaking and running away on the battlefield is one of the rarest occurrences. Yes, they did Fack-up orderly retreats, but orderly retreats when your commander is dead, is not a perfect science in the first place. No society over long period does it well and usually the 'remarkable slaughter' is after the army breaks, tries to run away and fails in the chaos.

     

    However, a society can be both cowardly in its ethos and brave at the same time - medeival Rajputs are a testament to this. On one hand, fighting them was like fighting the Honey Badger (for those who don't know this creature- look it up, even Lions know better than fight a honey badger usually). On the other, their practices like Jauhar are as abhorrable as Sati. People killing their own children so their way of thinking does not change. 

     

    It is a heinous crime against humanity, against your own kin, to kill them- when they themselves pose no threat to other people individually and directly,because their thinking or status changed. They are gonna get raped, enslaved, fed 2 rotis a day and beaten ? well, thats horrible. Obviously no one should condone this and prepare to fight for this. But killing ones own child, one's own kin - i am sorry, but if there is any fundamental directive of species homo sapiens, its the fundamental objective of all noted species : to survive. To kill your child, is to fundamentally fail as a human being, as a parent, for a fate no-matter how bad, i would want people to survive it at the very least and live. If they wish to end their own lives to end the misery, that is completely their own right ( i support euthenesia) but they should make that right. You don't get to kill a child (unless a child has done something so horrible that the threat to society from said child is unjustified). That is the main objection i have to the Rajput culture : its a death cult, that fundamentally has failed to achieve its objectives historically and on top, glorifies killing babies and immolating the old and the sick, so they don't 'lose honour'. 

     

    I will also point out, that Rajputs are not the big-daddies of 'honour based death-cult behaviour, for warrior or warrior caste' . They are a heavyweight in this whole 'honour' business,no doubt. But there is only one, ultimate, all-time champion on honour based culture, where every single concept of honour is held to very high standards of cultural requirement.

    That honour would go to pre 1945 Japan & Bushido culture. People killed themselves due to stupidly high 'honour infringement' - i killed your boss, aka you failed to protect your liege lord - too bad, you were taking a dump at that moment/busy fighting off 4 other guys trying to kill him-he died. On your watch. If you want honour and not be branded a POS brigand outlaw, go to the courtyard and open your stomach with your own sword and not make a sound please. This was so commonplace that Bushido tradition even had a system for WHERE you should go execute yourself the most painful way imaginable ( cutting through your belly and entrails, spleen to liver). Welcome to Samurai culture. The 'Rajput-fans' amongst us, if they really care so much about honor, should pick up a book on medical Japanese culture an give it a read. They would love it, if they actually value honour above everything else. 

     


  6. 24 minutes ago, TM Riddle said:

    Thats a load of BS in one single post.Probably the most I have ever seen in my entire forum life.

    Ok. So point out the BS. 

    Quote

    Re people surviving and living to tell the tale , well its a bit hard after you are converted and all the stories you know are from arabia.Oh but I m sure those muslims from UP and Bihar who converted to save themselves and whose descendents later played a crucial role in creation of pakistan would agree with you.I mean they survived right just like 50% bengalis who were too meek and small to fight and resist and thus chose to abandon their centuries old dharma for a new barbarian religion.I would rather have "coward' rajputs protecting the dharma rather than a bunch of good for nothing dwarves from Bengal who have allowed their state to turn into **** where even durga puja is banned.No wonder you have so much hatred in you.

    Subcontinental muslim converts kept their caste system, kept their ancestral tales, kept their social structure. This is self-evident. 

    And yes, i consider it much braver, to survive under a system that oppresses you, than seeking a quick and easy death. 


    But then again, you said you'd prefer your wife died/killed herself when dishonoured, so i don't expect much from people who value honour over people's lives. They are the definition of cowards and sociopathic cultural values. Especially when these are sociopathic values that involve murdering your own child.

     

    Quote

    LOOL there you go my hindu friends this pseudo intellectual here has busted the whole hindu myth of dharmic warfare.Such a shame.Yes of course Rajputs spread these notions of dharma to hide their ineptness.Makes perfect sense lol

    It does.Which is why there is zero evidence of this so-called dharmic Rajput warfare and so much evidence of 'kill your enemies on the battlefield any which way you can'. We have plenty of evidence of night raids, ambushes, switching sides in middle of battle, from the Pratiharas. Against their own Indian kin. And you wish us to believe these nonsensical stories of Rajput honour when it came to foreign muslims. Laughable nonsense.

     

    Quote

    Edit : Did you just claim there are no inscriptions of Bappa Rawal? Shows your knowledge of Indian history.And here I thought I was debating with a guy with some legs to stand on when it comes to subcontinental history.You just wasted my whole time.

    There are a couple of  'inscriptions' that mentions Bappa-Rawal,  from 1400s, written by an unrelated Rajputs, saying he was the father of Khumana. 

    Again, zero inscriptions from his time or from his dynasty, zero coins bearing his name or seal. Zero mention in any history- Rajput or otherwise, till hundreds of years later, when the folklore around him got strong. Identical to Robin hood. Nothing exists to even hint Bappa-Rawal existed for a 500 year period spanning his existence. 

    This is true for a lot of mythological characters of folklore, spanning many cultures. Robin Hood is the most common example of it. 

     


  7. 3 minutes ago, Shaz1 said:

    Arjun Tendulkar

    Saeed Anwar

    Sachin Tendulkar

    Inzimam Ul Haq

    Virat Kohli

    MS Dhoni

    Abdul Razzaq

    Shahid Afridi

    Wasim Akram

    Waqar Younis

    Saqlain Mushtaq

     

     

    Anyone who puts Inzy in an all-time ODI anything - including Pakistan team, does not know a thing about ODI cricket. Inzy was not good enough batsman to make up for routinely running himself and his partners out and costing the team 15-20 runs in the field due to his glacial fielding. 

    Inzy was shielded a lot in his ODI career, because he has safe hands and manned the slips in the 90s, as in the 90s, you could get away with a permanent 1st slip in ODIs. If it were modern ODIs/teams with lesser bowlers (thus making 1st slip redundant), Inzy might've been dropped at his prime in ODIs.

     

    Also, Afridi has no business being in an alltime ODI and Razzaq over Kapil show just one thing - you don't understand ODI cricket/never saw Kapil in the format. Kapil is one of the strongest contenders for #7 slot in ALLTIME WORLD ODI XI. Why ? because was the perfect #7 - capable of playing responsible knocks but good for a run-a-ball 20-25 runs, extremely economical fast-medium bowler ( ideal ODI candidate for 1st change bowler) and an exemplary ground-fielder.

    #7 in ODI is a spot that you want a bowling all-rounder to fill, preferably one who can bash quick runs. Nobody fits the template from the subcontinent better than Kapil.

    Add to the fact that he was a good tactician in ODIs, an easy-going leader to follow and exemplary ground-fielder, it makes Kapil a lock for the ODI team.

     


  8. 2 hours ago, maniac said:

    Miandad over Inzi?

    And Azhar over both of them. Scored at a faster rate, was one of the best and earliest subcontinental guy to be good at 'rotating strikes and stealing singles' and still one of the best all-round fielders from the Indian subcontinent ( i rate Azhar's fielding higher than Virat's - not as flashy with ground fielding, but an amazing chaser of the ball and way, way safer hands than Virat anywhere in the field). 

     


  9. 27 minutes ago, TM Riddle said:

    @Muloghonto First Sikhs in the other thread and now Rajputs.You sure do have a lot of hate brimming inside you.If only you spent half the time thinking about ways to save your state from collapsing and falling to muslim terror again .....

    I can see another partition coming :)

    Hate ? You really think i 'hate' long dead people who have 0% influence on my life ? Thats laughable.

     

    Quote

    Yes I would she rather die than fall in hands of those barbarians.

    Again different cultures , different people.Not sure whether you are capable of understanding that.

    To wish death before dishonour, means you love honour more than the person. Simple logic. Yes, i know its a different culture, but such cowardliness needs to be called out for what it is.

     

    Quote

    There were Guhils/Gehlots in that era.Bappa Rawal was a vessel to Pratiharas.

    There are zero coins, inscriptions, etc. of Bappa Rawal. Bappa-Rawal is not history, its mythology & folklore. Like Robin hood. 

     

    Quote

     

    Thats a nice convenient excuse but the things you have mentioned have been part of Indian history in every era.Deceptions and treachery have been a common theme across indian history ,  nothing new there.

    Yes, but there is also a religious component to this. Pratiharas were Hindus. Pals were Buddhists. Rashtrakutas were Jains. You really want to focus on how these religions backstabbed each other, in India, to hand over India on a plate, to the outsider, in a country with so low literacy ? Bad idea.

    But as i said, the MAIN reason, why that period of history is consigned to university level and not high school is because its quite complicated and too vast, with also a lot of unanswered questions in it.

     

    Quote

    Labelling a whole community as ''cowards'' just because they chose to die then face the humiliation of defeat shows your class and upbringing.On one hand we have people appreciating and celebrating the distinct hindu traits of chivalry , protectors of asylum seekers and following rules of dharma in the battles and otoh we have the modern intellectuals like yourself shamelessly painting a whole community with the same brush just because it doesnt fit with your narrative. I m done arguing with you.Have a good day sir.

    They are dead people. With 0% influence on our current lives. If we can't talk honestly about that kind of a topic, then we can't expect honesty in ANY topic. 

    Thats the whole point - i don't consider Rajputs chivalrous. Those who commit suicide, are not chivalrous, they are cowards. Infact, suicide in modern medicine is most commonly linked to depression, not valour.

     

    Quote

     

    PS: Oh and for all our faults the parts around Rajputana still retained the hindu majority while look what happened to your beloved Bengal.Got divided once due to muslims almost forming around the same numbers as Hindus and on its path again to get divided furthermore if the  bengali hindus dont wake up this time around too

    Nobody denied that after the Pals, Bengal is a big fat zero in anything political or military, until the arrival of the British. But hey, give me Bengalis or Biharis or UP-ites who converted and lived to tell the tale, than cowards who killed themselves and burnt their women and children for some fanciful notion of honour over survival. 

    Those who value murder and suicide over survival, simply have no place in being glorified for their struggle.

     

    I consider Rajputs as murderer of children - their own. I am sorry, but you don't get to glorify child murder. Just as you don't get to glorify genocide, rape, loot, etc. I can clearly tell, you are not a parent. Because if you were a parent who loves their kid no matter what, you'd wish your child to be a sex slave over being dead. These kind of harmful and lowly values need to be weeded out of Indian cultures -including the Rajputs- than glorified.

     

    PS: following rules of dharma in battle is a common myth propagated by Rajput communities to explain their laughable failures. There is plenty of evidence that Rajputs conducted night warfare, conducted raids, etc. As they should. A Warrior's job is to win a war by killing his enemy combatants. I don't care if he does it via poison, at night, by flooding the camp, by trampling them under elephants.Get. the. job. done. Rajputs failed and then invented ludicrous stories of 'dharmic warfare'. Nobody practiced 'dharmic warfare' because Dharmic warfare is an oxymoron. 


  10. 5 minutes ago, TM Riddle said:

    Listen you are comparing people across the cultures , too many differences.

    Alright lets agree to disagree but I think we , sitting comfy inside our bedrooms with laptops in place of Khandas , are in no position to judge women who had an army of savages in front of them ready to rape and kill and sell their children to slave markets.

    And gee whats with the attacking tones , relax.

    Sure we are. Army of savages went a lot other places too, in the same timeframe. The spaniards, the Georgians, the Byzantine women - they are all more respectable than the Rajput woman. because they chose to live and struggle, than a quick death. I am also not judging modern Rajputs. Just their cowardly ancestors. There is no honour, no glory, in suicide. None. zero. 

     

    If your wife was in the same position as the Rajput women, i HOPE you wish her to live through the rape, abuse and slavery- in the faint hope that ONE DAY she can be free, instead of killing herself to preserve her purity. 

    I know I do !

     


  11. 20 minutes ago, TM Riddle said:

    Guys I know Rajputs are a favorite bashing topic for the hindus but calling their achievements null and void and labelling them all as morons with a death wish is pretty ignorant IMO.Sure we failed to unite for the most part of Indian history and were really poor strategists when it came to the battles but one thing is for certain and that is Rajputs played a huge role in preventing complete North Indian population from becoming Muslims.

    Many dont know this but after the first attack in Sindh in 712 CE , Arabs couldnt get a much headway inside the north India when at the same time the caliphate reached as far back as France.A series of battles were fought known as Battles of Rajasthan during this 300 year period which resulted in Arabs getting their rear handed to them by a rajput confederecy formed by Pratihars , Guhilots and Palas.Sure the term Rajput wasnt in the use at that time but Pratihars were as much Rajputs as the Rathores , Chauhans and Parmars , all their contemporary (All 3 were their vessels).

    I have always wondered why this 300 year period between 712 to 1017 CE is never discussed much in our textbooks when in fact it was the time when Hindus were able to resist and beat the shyte of an army that had conquered almost the half known world of that time.It was only after the disintegration of Pratihara empire that their vessels (Chahamanas or Chauhans , Rathores , Kachwahas , Parmars etc) declared themselves independent and the north India got once again divided among many feudetories who kept fighting amongst themselves and which was taken as an advantage by the recently converted fierce Turkic tribes who wanted a more name for themselves just like Persians and Arabs.

    I would disagree with @rahulrulezz when he says we didnt win any battles.Oh we won loads of them , we just lost the WARS.

    Battle of Khanwa was definitely a watershed movement in the history of subcontinent.You have to remember that Rana Sanga wasnt some chota mota king of Mewar.He had his empire encompassing most of the Rajasthan, Gujarat , MP and considerable parts of UP.Lodhis of Delhis were extremely fearful of him and were Sultans only in the name.I mean the guy was able to do what no king ever managed to in the history of India , he united almost all rajput clans in a confederecy and IMO was the perfect candidate to rule Delhi had the result been opposite.But Babar was clearly the better thinker , realizing that it would be really hard to fare against such an equipped army , he pulled the classic islamic card of jehad and exhorted his soldiers to fight under the banner of Islam and of course the newly introduced artillary (In truth he was a regular drinker who liked his whores but hey everythings fair in...).

    People often credit Marathas and their incessant guirella warfare to be one of the chief reasons behind the fall of the mughal empire but at the same time fail to appreciate the role of Rathores of Marwar in taking Aurangzeb down.After the sudden death of Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur in an expedition to Kabul (he was sent there to quell a rebellion of afridis and boy did he do his job) , Aurangzeb tried to usurp the kingdom and kidnapped his two pregnant wives.It was the bravery of Rathores and esp their leader Durgadas that they managed to rescue them from the red fort and then began the series of guirella warfare between Rathores and Mughals which led the emperor pretty shaken (Marathas were kicking some serious ass down south).

    Similarly there are many stories exemplifying rajput bravery but my point was bashing the whole community without any basis is something only we Hindus are capable of.Sure Rajputs didnt believe in expanding their empires , sure they were a bit too lenient with their POWs (sometimes bordering on idiocy which led to pretty dire consequences) but they were true Sanatanis and sons of this soil who like many different qaums of India laid their lives to preserve the Sanatana dharma.

    Oh and people always forget but Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was a Sisodia too ( the same house as great Maharana Pratap) ;)

     

     

    1. Palas were not Rajputs. There were also no Guhilots in the 8th century. There were Pratiharas. 

     

    2. Nobody takes about the 700 AD -1100 AD period in Indian history because : a) Its the period of Kannauj triangle and is extremely complicated. and 2) It becomes crystal clear that those years are the reason Turkic-Afghans broke through in the first place, because Indians were way too busy killing each other and destroying each other in a 400 year near-continuous war.  c) it also brings up a lot of inconvenient truths about Indians collaborating with the Arabs and the turks, against their own, for power. Rashtrakutas supported the Arabs in Sindh vs Rajputs. Why ? because the Pratiharas, who were originally vassals of the Chalukyas that Rashtrakutas displaced, struggled against them. Rajputs were A-ok with Bin Qasim, so long as he made sure Paramaras were also destroyed (which he couldn't). 

     

    3. It is very offensive to 'respect' cowards who chose death over 'live and fight another day'. I'd rather live with my beliefs being oppressed, than die for them. Because if i die, my beliefs die with me, automatically.If i live, i get to propagate my beliefs- even if its under-cover. This is how the Jews survived the Roman empire ban on Judaism, also Seleucid ban on Judaism. The problem i have, is with depicting Rajputs as brave. They were anything but brave. If Rajputs are brave, so is a suicide bomber. Because those who chose a quick death, especially over belief systems, than survival and struggling to preserve their heritage, are not brave. They are the definition of haughty cowards who throw away their lives in a meaningless manner. That is the problem i have with Rajput depiction in history and media : cowardly, abhorrable behaviour being glorified as bravery.

     


  12. 5 minutes ago, TM Riddle said:

    Thats how we roll brah ;)

    Joking aside , you will have to understand the society of that era before reaching to conclusions.By the time first jauahr occured the Muslim invaders were already in India for around 3 centuries.There were tales widespread of their raping , brutalizing and selling women as sex slaves.This had a huge impact in the mindset of indian people and systems like Pardah etc gradually emerged.Indian women take a great pride in being pativrata and the above mentioned acts were worse than death like scenario for them.Hence to preserve their satitva they chose to self immolate themselves.Cant really judge that era with the moral standards of 21st century.

    There is nothing to understand. Muslims invaded and raped and pillaged elsewhere too. Did the Byzantine women immolate themselves ? Did the Spaniards immolate themselves ? What about the African slave trade- both by the muslims and the Europeans- did the African women immolate themselves ?

    No. 

    Because they were stronger women and stronger people than the Rajputs. 

    Indian women do take great pride in being pure- so do women from most other cultures. But those who take purity over survival, are cowards, who lack the wherewithal to survive. 

    I am not judging them by the modern standards, i am judging them by their own. People who go for a sure-fire suicide mission and their women/children immolate themselves, they are not brave - because they lack the bravery to survive in face of tremendous odds, odds others have beaten. 

    They are an example of 'what NOT to do'.

     


  13. 13 minutes ago, TM Riddle said:

    Necrophilia was a pretty common practice by the invading muslim armies .

    Hence the occurence of multiple jauhars in Rajputana.They could have simply poisoned themselves to keep off from getting raped but that wouldnt have stopped the savages from mutilating and fornicating with their dead bodies hence the reason to self immolate.

    Thats not a reason to kill one self. 

    and those who kill themselves in face of adversity are not brave, they are haughty. 

     


  14. 52 minutes ago, express bowling said:

     

    You are being too theoretical as usual and arguing for the sake of it.

     

    Have I talked about gauging delivery speeds without any batsmen or wickets for reference  ?  In telecasted content and videos, both are available for reference.

     

    In fact, 

    • different reactions of batsmen to different pacers on the same pitch ..... like  whether they are getting hurried or not, especially to full deliveries.
    • whether they are playing more on the front-foot or back foot to good length balls, 
    • how the pitched up balls are carrying to the keeper for different bowlers on the same pitch,
    • whether the keeper is very close to the 30-yard circle or logo on that 30-yard circle etc. 

     

    .... all these factors are important pointers for ROUGHLY ESTIMATING or guessing bowlers' speeds while watching on TV.

    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. 

     

    52 minutes ago, express bowling said:

     

     

    Huh .... like not noticing a single 147 k+ ball by an Indian pacer except Aaron ..... when dozens of them have been bowled by 8 different pacers .... while saying that Holding bowled 153 k+ throughout the day     :phehe:

    We were speaking of STOCK DELIVERY. The post i quoted, specifically talked about stock delivery. And no, i have never seen an Indian bowler- Srinath or otherwise, have a 147kph STOCK DELIVERY except Aaron

     


  15. 3 hours ago, express bowling said:

     

    I  have actually said that it is NOT possible to gauge exact bowling speeds by human beings.... and you need speed-guns or high-speed cameras.

     

    But you can say that Starc is quicker than Bhuvi by watching on TV too, as the difference in speed is huge .... although you CANNOT state the exact speeds that they are bowling at.

     

    I agree that it is not possible to demarcate relative speeds by watching on TV when it is quite close ..... like say Shami vs Bumrah

     

    Your deep bias against Indian pacers is very apparent though.

    IF there were no batsmen or wickets and their whole bodies were blotted out, you are just seeing a ball being bowled front on the pitch, you won't be able to tell whether Starc is quicker than Bhuvi , via tv. And that proves, you cannot tell the speeds.

     

     

    PS: What you call bias, i call not getting carried away for my favourite team. 


  16. 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:

    Correct. 

    And even if you can, its completely egotistic to say YOU can from 100 feet away via tv but people who actually face those bowlers and see 1000x more balls than you, cannot. Do you see the illogic of that ?

     


  17. 8 minutes ago, express bowling said:

     

     

    .... and proves the kind of bias against Indian fast bowlers

     

     

    None of that changes the fact that you are talking out of your rear end when you say you can tell who is faster and who is slower from TV. 

    Like i said, don't make me get out my formulas for you, because then the embarrassment would be total. This is not just physics, this is simple image mapping that is used ALL THE TIME by video softwares. 


    Your and Rkt's egotistic BS will not go unchallenged.

     


  18. 15 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

    Thanks for confirming you know nothing about cricket and fast bowling. You havent been an astute observer, and I dare say like us @rkt.india@express bowling@Vilander@MCcricket , we have observed players for years. And anyone who has watched cricket knows even Munaf patel crossed 147, even Zaheer and Agarkar and Nehra,RP Singh, Sreesanth. I am not even mentioning Srinath, Ishant, Umesh Shami .

     

    You know nothing about fast bowlers and bowling speeds if you didnt have this elementary knowledge

    But a guy who thinks he can predict speed from watching a front-on view from tv, knows more than professional experts, does.

    There is a difference between you and me. I know i know nothing. You don't know you know nothing and instead are misleading others.

     

    PS: We are talking about stock ball/stock ball over a spell here. Not one-offs. That was the whole context of Vilander's post. 


  19. 15 minutes ago, Vilander said:

    So he hit 152 - 153 twice..how does this make him 150 stock bowler. Even our current crop did this on numerous occasions. 

    I've never seen anyone from our bowlers, except Aaron, cross 147. 

    Note, these two are after Waqar's stress fractures and everyone who's faced him says he was at his fastest prior to 1996. So that makes it highly likely that he was stock-balling somewhere in the 150kph range.

     

    42 minutes ago, Vilander said:

    Yeah and while all other athletic divisions improved cricketers regressed in their skills and physical ability, eventually in 30 years every one will be able to bowl only underarm and bat with an oar :biggrin:

    Not true. We are talking about the top 1% here, not the 'average cricketer'. Top 1% may also be subject to 'golden generation' effect.

    Nobody scores as much points in hockey as Gretzky does. Or come up with save % as Dominic Hasek. Nobody in tennis today has the 115mph second serve, except for John Isner. 

     

    Cricketing fast bowlers, went through a golden generation period from 1975-1995. Just like how spinners went through a golden generation from 1965-80 and 95-2010. 

     


  20. 12 minutes ago, MCcricket said:

    See the very point is visual memory n cues, we r comparing most of the time, n referencing based on things, when we have the same angle to view from then that becomes a good reference point, when for example we have the camera at normal angle when a bowler starts his runup, n delivers the ball, we have that view always as reference , that angle and it is not acute but pretty good, now when one is constantly watching different bowlers bowling and noticing thier speeds n taking those clues one becomes a decent judge of pace from that angle , n that is based on those factors, the pitch length is standard and the length ball delivered has an average distance to cover, one can certainly judge the pace, n that for me can have a accuracy to a degree based on abi!ity, RKT or someone involved with the sports n bowling in general certainly makes him a better judge, yes one cannot tell excatly if one is bowling 143 or 146 k but can tell if one is fast, fast medium or medium.Anyone can tell that Kumble was a fast leggie, Kuldeep a slower one.

    PK a medium pacer n Aaron a fast bowler, one can certainly observe Thommo was quick n if someone is bowling in 140s or 130, n that's a huge difference, now u gotta be kidding if u r telling me when u watch a game on telly you cannot visually see the difference when PK or Akhtar or evenZak was bowling, n that is exactly what RKT is saying that you can observe if someone is fast , express or fast medium or medium, n that's why the speeds are categorized as such, those r not arbitary numbers but can be visually interpreted, by most viewers a medium pacer, a fast medium, a fast n express bowler.

    ^^
    The point you are missing, is that only reason you can tell height of the ball,is because you have a reference (wickets & batsmen). There is no reference for the depth perception, so you cannot tell from head-on how fast the ball is going. Sure, you can tell apart a Kumble from a Kuldeep, but thats like saying you can tell apart two bowlers who are nearly 15-20 mph speed difference. 

    Which, in effective cricketing terms, means nothing. 

    And no, you actually cannot tell apart  80mph from 95mph from head-on view. This is why people ask, 'how fast is this new guy bowling' when bowling speeds are not shown. Because not having a reference point to how fast they are, means you actually can't tell. 

     

    RKT is saying he can tell if a bowler is 135kph or 145 kph from a head-on view. That is categoric, 100%, false.

     


  21. 6 minutes ago, MCcricket said:

    Education menas nothing if one lacks common sense or logic, n you r not the only one here, if u do have. PHD or Masters in Physics, sports is about visual response more then anything else, a goalie responding to a kick n estimating the speed, swerve, angle, flight, everything in a split second.

    A trained eye as article above states can estimate speed pretty well, now what is a trained eye, n athlete, a goalie, a batsmen, a keeper, an avid sports watcher can also be an expert coz of his memory n experience, referencing the pace n comparing visually when observing a medium, medium fast n fast bowler becomes an inbuilt thing, many factors come into play to estimate the speed, but human body n mind is far intelligent n complex to interpret these from clues.

    Now a camera showing a bowler bowling from behind the runup to the keeper from. Above does give a good view n idea of the ball path, if u r saying that one cannot fathom what is quick or slow that's an oxymoron, why would one notice how quick Dhoni ran between the wkts, or stumped then?

    Sports itself mostly is about speed, accuracy or strength, we have been observing and applauding speed in most sports, yes naked eye cannot tell exact speed on a grand prize race but one can estimate the speed of the ball, also the modern camera n frame rates exceed what we are capable of noticing so that is ruled out.

    What ur talking is nonsense n illogical almost laughable that one cannot discern or compare speeds with the naked eye n that is the most basic requirements n inbuilt ability of the human body n allows us to play, Basketball, football, soccer, cricket, n most sports, it's responding to visual signal physically , a batter doesn't listen to the ball or smells the ball, but looks at the ball, he gauges the speed ,trajectory, angle,line n sesponds to it in a physical way n that is the basic essence of sports.

    Now from the viewers angle, the reason we watch n enjoy sports is ability to notice the same on TV , the swing, bounce, pace, the timing, the batsmens interpretation of pace can be affected by making y things , the height from which the ball is released, the wicket, the dynamics of the action, bowlers natural length, n psychology.

    Bolded part, is 100% wrong. Because you cannot tell depth from that angle. Point is easily proven, when you look where the wicketkeeper is standing,in relation to the batsman from that angle, versus side-on view. 

    In a side-on view, the true length of the pitch is preserved in the 2d, hence side-on views are ok to tell who is faster/who is slower.

    head-on view, the image is approximating length AND depth, that is how you can tell whether a person is standing on another's head or directly behind them. But you CANNOT tell, from that angle, how much behind them, the wicketkeeper is standing. 

     

    What i am saying, is when you are seeing a ball bowled AT YOU or side-on, with a trained eye, you can tell if ball A is faster or slower than ball B. For skilled pros, they can tell them apart with great accuracy. For amateurs like us, we are not as accurate, but we still can tell them apart. But from head-on view, nobody can tell how fast the ball is, or which ball is faster than the other, with something like +/- 50kph range. 

    You can't for e.g., tell from the head-on view, how far the ball is bouncing, if you have no reference point (wickets, batsmen etc) to compare. This should tell you, how all you are doing, is repeating an optical illusion as a fact. 

     

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×