From the vault : South African Magazine on Indian fast bowlers bowling speed -2003

[express bowling]

51 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

Data is coming from speed gun with actual nos. Do you have eyes or you use your ass to look and read?

Mulo's posts are best examples of the perceptions and  biases in cricket  that I was talking about earlier in this thread.  

 

There are speed data available for almost every ball.  One has to just go to BCCI.tv , choose the match and check the ball by ball commentary where speeds are stated.  We also find highest and average speeds in the hawk-eye section.

 

Despite this, he is coming up with statements like  Hazlewood was quicker than our pacers      

 

No matter what he sees or what facts are given, he is going to think that Australians, South Africans and West Indians are faster.

Edited April 13, 2017 by express bowling

[express bowling]

If biases and perceptions come out despite having hard facts..... just imagine the kind of perceptions and  biases that existed without hard facts,  before 1999.

Edited April 13, 2017 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Rightarmfast said:

Data is coming from speed gun with actual nos. Do you have eyes or you use your ass to look and read?

Bhai nobody is questioning your data. What people are saying, is you can't say  'x was faster than y' when in vast majority of cases the data is coming partially through many people's careers and some greats are way older.

Obviously a 37 year old Walsh will be slower by 'actual speed-gun data' than a 31 year old Srinath. And i'd fully expect Srinath at last year to be slower than Zaheer at his physical peak. 
Why the heck can't we consider the expert opinion of people who've faced them or completely trash it, is beyond me. 

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Why the heck can't we consider the expert opinion of people who've faced them or completely trash it, is beyond me. 

The speed that batsmen " feel "  are also dependent on when they are able to spot the ball and what they are expecting.   Akram had the ability top bowl the quicker ball without any perceptible change in action and that hurried batsmen more than his actual speed as the batsmen were surprised.

 

Accurate bouncers and yorkers also make the batsmen " feel " the speed more.

 

A good example is to compare the same bowler's different spells in the same series. The Aussie batsmen said that Umesh bowled the quickest in the 2nd innings of the last test of the series.... as he bowled a lot of good,  accurate bouncers.  Speed guns show that he was bowling the slowest of the series.   Umesh made the batsmen " feel "  his pace in that innings by bowling lots of good accurate bouncers combined with pitched up deliveries and mixing up lengths.

 

Akram had the ability to make the batsmen " feel " whatever speed he had,   better than many other pacers.  This part is true.

Edited April 13, 2017 by express bowling

[Rightarmfast]

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

The speed that batsmen " feel "  are also dependent on when they are able to spot the ball and what they are expecting.   Akram had the ability top bowl the quicker ball without any perceptible change in action and that hurried batsmen more than his actual speed as the batsmen were surprised.

 

Accurate bouncers and yorkers also make the batsmen " feel " the speed more.

 

A good example is to compare the same bowler's different spells in the same series. The Aussie batsmen said that Umesh bowled the quickest in the 2nd innings of the last test of the series.... as he bowled a lot of good,  accurate bouncers.  Speed guns show that he was bowling the slowest of the series.   Umesh made the batsmen " feel "  his pace in that innings by bowling lots of accurate bouncers.

 

Akram had the ability to make the batsmen " feel " whatever speed he had,   better than many other pacers.  This part is true.

Beautifully and accurately put!

[Muloghonto]

43 minutes ago, express bowling said:

The speed that batsmen " feel "  are also dependent on when they are able to spot the ball and what they are expecting.   Akram had the ability top bowl the quicker ball without any perceptible change in action and that hurried batsmen more than his actual speed as the batsmen were surprised.

 

Accurate bouncers and yorkers also make the batsmen " feel " the speed more.

 

A good example is to compare the same bowler's different spells in the same series. The Aussie batsmen said that Umesh bowled the quickest in the 2nd innings of the last test of the series.... as he bowled a lot of good,  accurate bouncers.  Speed guns show that he was bowling the slowest of the series.   Umesh made the batsmen " feel "  his pace in that innings by bowling lots of accurate bouncers.

 

Akram had the ability to make the batsmen " feel " whatever speed he had,   better than many other pacers.  This part is true.

Bhai, picking or not picking a bowler doesnt make him faster. Plenty of batsmen couldn't pick Warne. Nobody would think he bowled as fast as Kumble for e.g - even the ones who could pick Kumble all day long on a particular day, didnt think Warne bowled quicker either. Same thing applies for fast bowlers as well.

 

I was watching a video the other day. I will post it below.

Actually what is a very under-appreciated factor in making the batsmen feel hurried for pace against reverse swing, is how well one hides the ball. ( i will point out that this is applicable only for reverse swing as we see Anderson not hiding the ball at all when its new. Because shiny or not shiny doesn't matter anymore.

What is pretty clear, is one thing about Waqar, was he was an absolute master of hiding the ball. Players who've played him, say that not only was he really quick in the early 90s, you only ever saw the ball at the top of the release point and have much less time to try and spot the shiny side or which way the seam was pointing at. Watch from 27 minutes onwards.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Muloghonto

[CG]

10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Bhai, picking or not picking a bowler doesnt make him faster. Plenty of batsmen couldn't pick Warne. Nobody would think he bowled as fast as Kumble for e.g - even the ones who could pick Kumble all day long on a particular day, didnt think Warne bowled quicker either. Same thing applies for fast bowlers as well.

 

I was watching a video the other day. I will post it below.

Actually what is a very under-appreciated factor in making the batsmen feel hurried for pace against reverse swing, is how well one hides the ball. ( i will point out that this is applicable only for reverse swing as we see Anderson not hiding the ball at all when its new. Because shiny or not shiny doesn't matter anymore.

What is pretty clear, is one thing about Waqar, was he was an absolute master of hiding the ball. Players who've played him, say that not only was he really quick in the early 90s, you only ever saw the ball at the top of the release point and have much less time to try and spot the shiny side or which way the seam was pointing at. Watch from 27 minutes onwards.

 

 

Sachin Once told in nz he could not pick chris cairns as he was hiding the ball well and told non striker to hold bat in the side the ball was going to swing.Speed in Air is also very important.Also nowadays batsman prepare against it.

[Rightarmfast]

33 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Bhai, picking or not picking a bowler doesnt make him faster. Plenty of batsmen couldn't pick Warne. Nobody would think he bowled as fast as Kumble for e.g - even the ones who could pick Kumble all day long on a particular day, didnt think Warne bowled quicker either. Same thing applies for fast bowlers as well.

 

I was watching a video the other day. I will post it below.

Actually what is a very under-appreciated factor in making the batsmen feel hurried for pace against reverse swing, is how well one hides the ball. ( i will point out that this is applicable only for reverse swing as we see Anderson not hiding the ball at all when its new. Because shiny or not shiny doesn't matter anymore.

What is pretty clear, is one thing about Waqar, was he was an absolute master of hiding the ball. Players who've played him, say that not only was he really quick in the early 90s, you only ever saw the ball at the top of the release point and have much less time to try and spot the shiny side or which way the seam was pointing at. Watch from 27 minutes onwards.

 

 

You really have no clue at all, do you? I really dont mean to be personal, but do you really think you can equate a spinners pace the same way you can do for a pace bowler?

[express bowling]

28 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Bhai, picking or not picking a bowler doesnt make him faster. Plenty of batsmen couldn't pick Warne. Nobody would think he bowled as fast as Kumble for e.g - even the ones who could pick Kumble all day long on a particular day, didnt think Warne bowled quicker either. Same thing applies for fast bowlers as well.

 

In case of Warne, what batsmen could not pick were , which way the ball would turn and where the ball would actually pitch.

 

In case of pacers like Akram and many others,  batsmen had difficulty in picking when the ball would reach their bat regarding some faster  deliveries.   He had the ability of bowling 2 medium fast deliveries followed by a sharp one, without any perceptible difference in action or  effort.  The ball came  to them quicker than expected and the batters felt the pace.

 

There is a basic and fundamental difference in the types of " not picking " .

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Rightarmfast said:

You really have no clue at all, do you? I really dont mean to be personal, but do you really think you can equate a spinners pace the same way you can do for a pace bowler?

Ok bhai, let me know of a batsman who thought a pacer was faster because he couldn't pick him. Spinners illustrate the point much better, because of a bigger variance in pace between spinners like Kumble and Warne or Jadeja and Mishra. 

Like i said, you are calling Akram medium fast. I am yet to hear anyone present any evidence of Akram being medium fast for most of his career. Infact, the opposite is true- practically everyone says he was pretty fast. So I am going to go with experts, rather than seeing 'data' of a guy with diabetes and multiple chronic injuries being compared with a bowler who had neither, that too on the wrong side of 30s. Different bowlers slow down at different rates when they get old. 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

In case of Warne, what batsmen could not pick were , which way the ball would turn and where the ball would actually pitch.

 

In case of pacers like Akram and many others,  batsmen had difficulty in picking when the ball would reach their bat regarding some faster  deliveries.   He had the ability of bowling 2 medium fast deliveries followed by a sharp one, without any perceptible difference in action or  effort.  The ball came  to them quicker than expected and the batters felt the pace.

 

There is a basic and fundamental difference in the types of " not picking " .

Way to miss the point. Warne, like Kumble and every successful top line Leggie bowled the top spinner very well and that one always hurries the batsman for pace if you don't spot it either. But as i said, feel free to point out a case where batsmen thought X was faster than Y and its based on batsman not being able to pick X.

 

[express bowling]

12 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Way to miss the point. Warne, like Kumble and every successful top line Leggie bowled the top spinner very well and that one always hurries the batsman for pace if you don't spot it either. But as i said, feel free to point out a case where batsmen thought X was faster than Y and its based on batsman not being able to pick X.

 

 

Actually, you are missing the point.  As all good leg spinners could bowl that deceptive top spinner, why would batsmen think that one of them is quicker based on the deception factor.   If Warne could deceive by his top spinners and Kumble could not, then the question of such a batsmen would arise.   You are totally missing the comparative part.

 

Don't underestimate the aspect of  the  inability of batsmen to  spot a pacer's delivery in time.  A good case in point is Peter Pollock of South Africa.  Whenever he was clocked in the '70s, he was 15 k slower than the WI quicks  but many batsmen would vouch that he was as quick. And the reason for that is he had a deceptive action and the batsmen spotted the ball later than normal.

 

Even in the case of Akram, when we saw that he was bowling 128 k to 138 k in his later years, some batters still referred to his pace and that was because of the deception factor.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Actually, you are missing the point.  As all good leg spinners could bowl that deceptive top spinner, why would batsmen think that one of them is quicker based on the deception factor.   If Warne could deceive by his top spinners and Kumble could not, then the question of such a batsmen would arise.   You are totally missing the comparative part.

 

Don't underestimate the aspect of  the  inability of batsmen to  spot a pacer's delivery in time.  A good case in point is Peter Pollock of South Africa.  Whenever he was clocked in the '70s, he was 15 k slower than the WI quicks  but many batsmen would vouch that he was as quick. And the reason for that is he had a deceptive action and the batsmen spotted the ball later than normal.

 

Even in the case of Akram, when we saw that he was bowling 128 k to 138 k in his later years, some batters still referred to his pace and that was because of the deception factor.

 

 

1. Batsmen never say 'he was fast but is slow now' about any active player, unless they are humongously slower (like Ambrose in his last year after his final shoulder problem). You ever seen that ? Reputation is reputation. Just like nobody went around going 'Ponting WAS a great batsman, now, he is average and barely averages 40 for the last 5 years' when Ponting was still active. 
Its called 'we know what they are capable of, best not provoke the beast'.

It is understood that when people talk about how great a pacer was, people mean about their peaks. Not when they are 36 or 37. Or insult the 36-37 who used to be super fast in public by calling them slow. 

 

2. The first time bowlers were measured in the 70s, was in the Packer series. By the time Peter Pollock played the packer series, he was 36. The west indies bowlers of that time were in the 21-26 age bracket. Um, yea, i'd not be surprised if a 36 year old is significantly slower than a 26 year old or even if a 36 year old who used to be fast slowed down considerably since he was 25.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Rightarmfast]

A very good example would also be Ajit Agarkar. When he had made debut, he took 50 wickets in shortest no of ODI's. That was because he was thin and not very tall. Batsmen used to think he would bowl medium pace at 115-120, however he used to bowl around 138-142 on an average.

Batsmen used to get beaten for pace. And for this too, I can give data. So although 138-142 is not express pace, however he would beat batsmen ' for pace' because the batters wouldnt expect that kind of pace.

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

A very good example would also be Ajit Agarkar. When he had made debut, he took 50 wickets in shortest no of ODI's. That was because he was thin and not very tall. Batsmen used to think he would bowl medium pace at 115-120, however he used to bowl around 138-142 on an average.

Batsmen used to get beaten for pace. And for this too, I can give data. So although 138-142 is not express pace, however he would beat batsmen ' for pace' because the batters wouldnt expect that kind of pace.

Beaten for pace is beaten for pace. Sometimes batsmen can be slower than normal to react and when that happens, they get beaten for pace. 
I doubt any batsman with a brain would be dumb enough to think 'Aggy is 115-120 coz he looks like he cant bowl faster' after facing an over or two at 135+. Even a kid would think '****, he is faster than he looks. oh well' after first ten minutes.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Muloghonto

[the don]

6 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

Interview with Alastair Campbell, April 1997

by John Ward

Alistair Campbell tells the story of the recent Zimbabwean tour of South Africa for the triangular series, in conversation with John Ward. He includes some interesting insights into the players and the play.

At the back of the England series we went to South Africa, knowing we had a point to prove, knowing that after that success we needed to capitalise on it. We knew there was an air of expectation about the tour and we wanted to live up to that.

Our first warm-up match started well and Dave Houghton batted particularly well. Some of our batsmen got out to half-decent bowling but overall it was a good warm-up.

Then came our first international game against South Africa at Centurion Park. We knew the South Africans had probably the best one-day side in the world so we went out there to prove a point. Grant Flower played magnificently for 90 but there was a bit of a stutter in the middle of the innings before we came good at the end, with Paul Strang, Heath Streak and Guy Whittall all chipping in with a few. But the real crux of that match was when we had them 7 for three, but failed to convert it into a win. That shows the depth of their batting and their cricketing prowess as a whole. We failed to convert it, but we did give them a run for their money and we had many people in South Africa saying they were surprised at our improvement and that we were now a very competitive side. I think we gave the South Africans a bit of a shake-up and they realised that playing against us wasn't like two years ago when they were in cruise control; they now had to play a good game of cricket in order to win. That's one of the goals that I set out when we went to South Africa: to be competitive, because once we are competitive then there is every chance of winning games.

Our fielding under the lights there wasn't our greatest display and we did drop a couple of catches that went up into the lights -- well, you couldn't call them dropped catches as we didn't get a hand on them! Playing under lights was another new situation that we had to contend with, so fielding second we soon found we hadn't had enough practice catching balls under lights. Also with the dew the ball comes to you quicker than it does on a normal day, so there were a lot of misfields, guys getting their hands down too late. So we had a few things to work on after that game, but all in all the guys felt quite happy.

John Rennie gets very excited when he takes a wicket, and it's not advisable to be in his path when he comes running down the pitch, because the adrenaline is pumping and when he slaps you on the back you tend to know all about it. When he gives you high-fives, you run the risk of having your fingers broken as he bends them all the way back. As he gets excited, his glasses start steaming up and he could probably do with some windscreen wipers when he bowls. Craig Evans calls him 'Beetle-Juice' after that famous character who kicks open the double doors when going into the saloon, bursts in and says, "Hi, I'm here!" That's a bit like Johnny when he takes a wicket, a very excitable person!

We then moved on to our second game against India, at Boland Bank Park. In all 236 was quite a decent score, as it wasn't the easiest of pitches to bat on, and Srinath I think bowled the quickest that any of our guys had ever seen. He bowled a really quick spell early on, even quicker than Allan Donald; he was timed at 157 km/h, a good 10 km/h faster than Donald was bowling throughout the tournament. Grant Flower was hit on the thigh pad, and when he came off he said he thought he had broken his leg!

There was a good contest between Craig Evans and Kumble, and a few words were exchanged. Kumble inquired as to whether Evans thought he was Sir Donald Bradman; then he missed a ball and Kumble inquired as to whether he had brought his bat out with him. Then Evans hit him into the stands and pointed after it, a la Babe Ruth, only he did so after he had hit it instead of before!

We knocked over three quick wickets, thanks to Eddo Brandes again, and it looked like we were in total control. They needed nine an over for the last five or six overs, and the Robin Singh came in to play a gem of an innings. He hit Streaky for six in the penultimate over -- it was a no-ball as well, which cost us -- but we were disappointed only to tie that game because we were in the driving seat and had played the better cricket all the way through. That was probably the game people look back on and say, "If we had won that, we would have got into the finals."

It was a bit disappointing in that regard, and I suppose you have to look at my captaincy there, because I brought in the third man on the penultimate ball of the game, when they needed five runs to win, and the batsman opened the face of the bat and hit it over the fielder for four. I wanted to put another man out on the leg side, so I brought in the third man to do so -- and that's one of the things that happens. Funnily enough, I also toyed with that idea the other night, when we were down in Port Elizabeth for the Mashonaland match against Eastern Province, and decided to leave him back there this time. The batsman nicked the ball straight to the fielder and they only got one; had it gone for four, the match would have been tied and we would have had to replay the game the following night. So you can say one learns by his mistakes!

Then to beautiful Newlands, where we won the toss and decided to bat, because we had been advised that about 85% of teams batting first on that Newlands pitch had won the game, so we decided to go with the statistics. It wasn't the easiest pitch to bat on, though, and South Africa were a really good bowling side; it was a seamer's wicket. We lost Grant Flower early on and never really got above three an over until Dave Houghton and Guy Whittall played magnificently to get us up to 226. The commentators thought it was a good score, but our bowlers didn't bowl well enough, giving them a four-ball an over. We weren't really able to put them under enough pressure, so we lost that game -- but we were competitive. In this tournament, in the early matches we never seemed to get everything together: we either batted well and bowled badly and fielded half-decently, or we bowled well and batted badly, and couldn't get all the departments together.

We then went on to the Wanderers, where we had our best match yet; the guys played really well, and we thought we were in there with a total of 256. But again our bowlers, after the initial early breakthroughs, didn't follow it through. When they were 102 for five, we thought, "The game is ours," but then Pollock and Cronje, who was our main tormentor in the series, were able to score seventies each and won the game. We were very disappointed after this game because, no matter who you make it against, 256 is a big score in a one-day game and we should have converted again. But the three scores we made against South Africa, had we made them against any other side, I think we would have had a good chance of winning. It's a more difficult proposition against South Africa in their own back yard.

At about this time we had a team meeting, and Guy Whittall had gone to watch his mate Ian Noble play rugby. He phoned me up and said, "I'm just watching a rugby game; I won't be there for the team meeting, but you don't mind, do you?" I replied, "Yes, Guy, you take your time -- but for every minute you're late I'll increase the fine!" He came in eventually, looking very beleaguered -- "Sorry, guys." I said, "Never mind, Guy, it's just 300 Rand this time!" For that kit we bought down south for the Zimbabwe cricket development programme, most of the money came courtesy of Guy Whittall. We raised the money through a system of fines, especially for being late, and I think Guy ended up paying about $1500 this season! Guy is always late; he hasn't any sense of time. It's just a matter of discipline; if you are late, there is no arguing about, "Sorry, I was caught in a traffic jam," and so on. There are no excuses accepted, unless there are special circumstances; for example, if a guy had to walk to the ground because he pranged his car into a lamp-post or something, we will be a bit more sympathetic.

There were two more games against India, and we knew we had to win them both. And then came the thriller. At Centurion we put on our best bowling and fielding display of the tournament, and restricted them to 216 on a good batting wicket. We thought we had the game in the bag, but then the rain came down and we needed 170 in 34 overs. The wicket had spiced up with a bit of rain on it, and dew on the outfield -- but that, I suppose, is in the batsman's favour because the ball gets a bit harder to hold. But then our batting collapsed dramatically, and it was left to Evans and Strang, with Streak at the end, to pull us through. It was a very, very exciting game.

We had Nick Price and Mark McNulty, our Zimbabwean golf stars, in the changing room; they were there to play in a golf tournament and they were egging us on. The next day, in the South African Open, they wore our Zimbabwe caps because they were playing together in the same three-ball, and Fulton Allem was wearing his South African cap. We went to watch that, and they were very happy with our performance.

We thought we had done enough to get into the final, but you know what happened in the Benoni game: Tendulkar played one of the finest innings we'll ever see in one-day cricket. Mark McNulty came to me after that game and said, "It's the same as if you were leading by four shots going into the final round at a major golf tournament and someone shoots 62. There's nothing you can do about that!" I took heart from that, because those guys have played in pressure situations and they know a bit about life. The guys were very disappointed, to tell the truth; we played some good cricket, and had the crowds on our side; Price and McNulty had been going to fly down and watch us in the final in Durban; there were about 400 people due to fly down from Zimbabwe to watch us. The support was magnificent, and every South African, it seemed, wanted us in the final; we really made a lot of friends down there, so it wasn't just a personal disappointment but also that of letting down a nation and those people who had supported us through the whole season, because not only was it for them but it was our first final ever. It would have been magnificent to have played in front of a packed house at Kingsmead against South Africa, with half the ground filled with people supporting Zimbabwe. But that wasn't to be -- that's cricket.

We came back to Zimbabwe, and we extracted our revenge very comfortably in Bulawayo. I haven't seen the Queens wicket go like that, but I've been told how it does play up. Eddo bowled really quick early on before Streaky came on; John Rennie bowled really well on a seamer's wicket and in fact everyone did well. We kept them well behind the clock and kept on taking wickets. They got 168, which was never going to be enough. Grant Flower batted well, as he has done all season, and then Guy Whittall came in and the two of them finished it off by eight wickets, very comfortably.

It was a very dark and dismal day, and I was surprised to see so many people there; it was probably double the crowd that was there for England on a sunny day, and that just shows you what success does. From the England tour until now, we have had a really successful season and the onus is on us to continue with that.

 

http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/NATIONAL/ZIM/NEWS/ARTICLES_OLD/CAMPBELL_INTERVIEW_APR1997.html

 

 

This is also called data which you Pakistani dont have enough intellect to collect and then put forth your reasons.

so now that nobody agrees with you you start questioning the intellect . Might as well question the intellect of everyone who faced them and saw them bowl who still to this day reckon wasim was quicker . 

Pardon us if we cant take you seriously with that screen name "right arm fast".

So this is what you are going to present as proof ?? 

There are about a dozen such "anecdotes" and articles about almost all pakistani fast bowlers bowling express in some obscure game . With wasim there musy be around 50 with a lot more validity than this one but i am not going to bother because wasim needs no introduction .

Good luck convincing the world that srinath was anything more than a medium pacer.

 

[the don]

3 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

What you also doing is comparing a razzak, who was probably at the peak of his career around 2000, to Srinath who was nearing the fag end of his career. And even then Srinath was registering quicker speeds on speed gun. but if you say Razzaq was quick, then Razzak would be quicker than Waqar and Wasim around that time. so you admit that Waqar and Wasim were slower than Razzaq? lolz!

Thats exactly what you are doing with wasim and waqar . 

The fact is you admitted srinath was fast around 99 and i remember razzaq being quicker at the time .

Those games are still available on youtube . Watch them if you want . Now that is proper proof . Unlike the geeky "data" you keep talking about .

Its easy to bowl fast on internet forums . Had heard similar things about umesh yadav (has potential) and he turned out to be a good 5-7 ks slower than wahab riaz . 

[express bowling]

22 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Batsmen never say 'he was fast but is slow now' about any active player, unless they are humongously slower (like Ambrose in his last year after his final shoulder problem). You ever seen that ? Reputation is reputation. Just like nobody went around going 'Ponting WAS a great batsman, now, he is average and barely averages 40 for the last 5 years' when Ponting was still active. 
Its called 'we know what they are capable of, best not provoke the beast'.

It is understood that when people talk about how great a pacer was, people mean about their peaks. Not when they are 36 or 37. Or insult the 36-37 who used to be super fast in public by calling them slow. 

 

 

Such statement pointing out the reduced ability of great players, is made all the time.

 

They are not derogatory comments all the time either....  but are made to point out the fact that the said players was much  better than what people are seeing them now.

 

I remember the SA tour 2013 when people were constantly pointing out how much pace Zaheer had lost and he was much quicker in his prime.

[CG]

10 minutes ago, the don said:

Thats exactly what you are doing with wasim and waqar . 

The fact is you admitted srinath was fast around 99 and i remember razzaq being quicker at the time .

Those games are still available on youtube . Watch them if you want . Now that is proper proof . Unlike the geeky "data" you keep talking about .

Its easy to bowl fast on internet forums . Had heard similar things about umesh yadav (has potential) and he turned out to be a good 5-7 ks slower than wahab riaz . 

You do know yadav has one of the fastest average speed in a test match currently.Wahab always struggles to maintain his speed in test matches.

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Such statement pointing out the reduced ability of great players, is made all the time.

 

They are not derogatory comments all the time either....  but are made to point out the fact that the said players was much  better than what people are seeing them now.

 

I remember the SA tour 2013 when people were constantly pointing out how much pace Zaheer had lost and he was much quicker in his prime.

Ok. Show me where a batsman has said about an active bowler that they are 'slow now, used to be fast'.

I've never heard anyone call an aging fast bowler who's lost his speed to be slow.

These 'people' talking about Zaheer was never opposition batsmen, but commentators. So you can't use it as 'batsmen said they are fast but are actually slower'- coz batsmen never say 'this guy used to be fast but is slow now' about an active player.