Thommo - how quick was he?'

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

why you bring this up when you clearly have no idea how it works.

....

Ok. 

Because how fast a ball is moving can be gauged by the human eye from seeing it on a tv, within +/-30kph variations near 100+ kph, (which is the context of the entire basis of telling a cricket ball's speed from tv)..because you know....

err...ok genius. Write a little physics paper on gauging speeds of ball from watching tv. This is so..so basic. 

 

And the irony is, people who bring it up, are the people who think they know better than elite career professionals,who've faced these bowlers themselves, on how fast a ball is coming at a human/is X faster/slower than Y. 

 

I love this comedy-show, honestly!

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

i dont have time to argue with an idiot like you

Ok. Go back to dreaming you can tell how fast a bowler is bowling from tv and batsmen who've faced them in real life, cannot. 

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

imran 1st identified waqar as quick after watching him on tv ,you claim holding bowled 95mph when no expert ever claimed it, so by your on logic you should reject it.

everything around us is optical illusion and you think everything we see around us is in 3d lol distant objects are in 2d , vertical componenets are 2d ,yet we can estimate it.otherwise we wont be able to even walk around or drive or catch or hit cricket balls.

Ball is moving in 3d, genius. Its not being hucked straight and of constant height. I highly doubt Imran could tell how fast Waqar was, from seeing him on TV. Unfortunately for you, Imran is no fool, so he could probably tell from tv what you CAN tell - that this young kid was a good bowler and had lot of potential. 

 

You can tell well, when an object is moving in 2d, when its MOVING IN 2D. A cricket ball, like a tennis serve, is impossible to tell from TV how fast it is, because it is a ball moving in 3d, which is singularly portrayed in 2d. 

 

You have zero idea of wtf you are talking about, which as i said, is quite easily demonstrable by just simple experiment. Nobody can tell a random, net bowler's speed from just seeing him bowl on tv. 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, MultiB48 said:

doesnt matter in which dimension it moves in , it could be 15d for all you know ,we see and estimate mostly in 2d and 3d ,our 3d capabilities are very limited as the displacement in vision is minimal.how we do this is not clearly understood.

 

whether our 3d view is limited or not (which it isn't), is irrelevant to the fact that your projection of an object moving in 3d being represented in 2d CANNOT be an indicator to speed in either of the 3 vectors. The simple fact that you cannot see this, only illustrates my point : anyone who thinks they can see a random cricket ball being bowled on tv and guess its speed, is only spewing the most basic illustration of being victim of a mirage. You are simply speaking out of your rear end, when you claim you can tell a ball is bowled at 140kph from watching it on tv.

 

And the greatest irony is, people who are claiming such nonsense, think pros don't know what they are talking about. Classic case of arm-chair critic taking themselves too seriously. 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, MultiB48 said:

no one calculates the speed of the ball directly from the screen dumbass ,ppl have memories of different balls /spells and their relatives speeds which gets shown and they make a judgement based on that .Speeds of many such bowlers have been guessed on this forum when speedometer weren't available and no one knew what pace they bowled but later on the speedometer showed speeds in that range ,this clearly shows that it works.

 

a simple example of this is any one can easily state that a pacer will bowl in 100-160 kph range ,now if you cant understand this simple method you are truly special.

 

lol ,anyone you wastes the most amount of time on this forum taking himself too seriously and sprouting nonsense is you ,just check this thread.

Learn to read, kiddo. There are people here who are literally posting videos on this very thread and going 'see that ball ? i think he is bowling 140kph+' and then another video going 'see Tony Gray ? he wasn't 140kph' .

ON THIS VERY THREAD.

 

[rkt.india]

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Learn to read, kiddo. There are people here who are literally posting videos on this very thread and going 'see that ball ? i think he is bowling 140kph+' and then another video going 'see Tony Gray ? he wasn't 140kph' .

ON THIS VERY THREAD.

 

yes you can do that by comparing the videos of two bowlers and conclude who is quick who is not. I have memories of Mervyn Dillon bowling like Gray, similar height too and Dillon was 135KPH bowler.

[MCcricket]

4 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

yes you can do that by comparing the videos of two bowlers and conclude who is quick who is not. I have memories of Mervyn Dillon bowling like Gray, similar height too and Dillon was 135KPH bowler.

Ghantabhai says don't believe what ur eyes see, Thommos is fast very Phaast, behti Hawa saa Tha woh, udti patang sa Tha woh.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

yes you can do that by comparing the videos of two bowlers and conclude who is quick who is not. I have memories of Mervyn Dillon bowling like Gray, similar height too and Dillon was 135KPH bowler.

except you literally have no way to tell which was the quicker ball from watching it on tv. you have no frame of reference, especialy from a front/back-on view. If it was side on view, you would still be guessing wildly but atleast you would be in the right ball-park. 

 

Don't make me get out my physics formulas out, or else i will start demanding they ban your misleading rear-end for my efforts. 

infact, i am willing to put you to the test, by modifying youtube videos so you don't see the bowler's face to form a pre-concieved notion and watch you fail horribly. 

 

And as i said, the irony is, a guy like you, who is claiming you can tell speed from tv (which you cannot), thinks pros who have faced those same bowlers, know less than you do. 

 

Ego ki bhi hadh hoti haye...

 

[rkt.india]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

except you literally have no way to tell which was the quicker ball from watching it on tv. you have no frame of reference, especialy from a front/back-on view. If it was side on view, you would still be guessing wildly but atleast you would be in the right ball-park. 

 

Don't make me get out my physics formulas out, or else i will start demanding they ban your misleading rear-end for my efforts. 

infact, i am willing to put you to the test, by modifying youtube videos so you don't see the bowler's face to form a pre-concieved notion and watch you fail horribly. 

 

And as i said, the irony is, a guy like you, who is claiming you can tell speed from tv (which you cannot), thinks pros who have faced those same bowlers, know less than you do. 

 

Ego ki bhi hadh hoti haye...

 

how is it ego? Did I say Holding wasn't fast? Did i say Thommo wasnt fast? Did i say Marshall wasnt fast? These three were all fast. I only said Gray wasn't fast. Sylvetser Clarke was not fast. I go by evidence which are videos. Videos show Thommo, Holding, Marshall were fast. Videos show Clark and Gray not that fast. I said Duncan Spencer was fast who bowled to Viv Richards in 1994 and made him look like a novice though Richards was at the fag end of his FC career. While I posted Gray bowling in 1992 and did not look fast. Now it cant be that videos are making others look fast but not Gray or there is some visual illusion in videos of Gray.

[putrevus]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

how is it ego? Did I say Holding wasn't fast? Did i say Thommo wasnt fast? Did i say Marshall wasnt fast? These three were all fast. I only said Gray wasn't fast. Sylvetser Clarke was not fast. I go by evidence which are videos. Videos show Thommo, Holding, Marshall were fast. Videos show Clark and Gray not that fast. I said Duncan Spencer was fast who bowled to Viv Richards in 1994 and made him look like a novice though Richards was at the fag end of his FC career. While I posted Gray bowling in 1992 and did not look fast. Now it cant be that videos are making others look fast but not Gray or there is some visual illusion in videos of Gray.

People who faced Clarke in county matches swear by how fast he was , videos hardly tell how fast a bowler is bowling.

Edited October 11, 2017 by putrevus

[rkt.india]

15 minutes ago, putrevus said:

People who faced Clarke in county matches swear by how fast he was , videos hardly tell how fast a bowler is bowling.

It doesn't at all matter what they say. County is still a domestic cricket. What ever Videos I have seen of him doesn't look fast. Anyway for batsmen without protection gears, even 135 kph is very fast.

[putrevus]

9 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

It doesn't at all matter what they say. County is still a domestic cricket. What ever Videos I have seen of him doesn't look fast. Anyway for batsmen without protection gears, even 135 kph is very fast.

It was best domestic circuit at the time  and had all the great players playing there so it was no gimme, just because the videos you looked he didn't look bowling fast does not mean he was slow.

[MCcricket]

7 hours ago, putrevus said:

People who faced Clarke in county matches swear by how fast he was , videos hardly tell how fast a bowler is bowling.

One thing which was often talked about Clarke in hush tones was he chucked, especially his quicker deliveries n bouncer, he wasn't an out n out quick.

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, rkt.india said:

how is it ego? Did I say Holding wasn't fast? Did i say Thommo wasnt fast? Did i say Marshall wasnt fast? These three were all fast. I only said Gray wasn't fast. Sylvetser Clarke was not fast. I go by evidence which are videos. Videos show Thommo, Holding, Marshall were fast. Videos show Clark and Gray not that fast. I said Duncan Spencer was fast who bowled to Viv Richards in 1994 and made him look like a novice though Richards was at the fag end of his FC career. While I posted Gray bowling in 1992 and did not look fast. Now it cant be that videos are making others look fast but not Gray or there is some visual illusion in videos of Gray.

Because thinking you know more accurately, how fast someone is, despite lacking any first hand experience of facing them, but elite professionals, who are a 1000 times better than you in every aspect of cricket- including gauging speed of a ball- cannot tell who was the faster bowler, is the very definition of ego. You are claiming your inferior experience = superior knowledge than people with far superior experience than you = definition of egotistic nonsense.

 

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, rkt.india said:

It doesn't at all matter what they say. County is still a domestic cricket. What ever Videos I have seen of him doesn't look fast. Anyway for batsmen without protection gears, even 135 kph is very fast.

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 ??

 

[rkt.india]

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 ??

 

as I said even a 135 kph bowler bowling bouncers to poor batsmen without protecting gears will look quick. Like in women cricket, their fastest bowler bowls 120kph and that is super quick for them but it is military medium for men cricket.

 

If i go by our logic, i shouldn't even say Holding, Thommo, Marsall were fast because i cannot just their speeds in a 2D video but i can actually they were fast through those same 2D videos while this isnt the case of some others who i dont consider fast.

Edited October 12, 2017 by rkt.india

[putrevus]

15 hours ago, MCcricket said:

One thing which was often talked about Clarke in hush tones was he chucked, especially his quicker deliveries n bouncer, he wasn't an out n out quick.

 

When Steve Waugh was at Somerset as a young man, he recalled the atmosphere in the dressing room changing a full week before their appointment with Mr Clarke. Waugh then faced what he called "the most awkward and nastiest" spell of his career. "It was something you can't prepare for."

 

Speed is just not enough, Agarkar too bowled 140k but there was no nastiness in his bowling. Agarkar landing his 140 k and Garner landing his 140 k deliveries have different nastiness. That comes from the length at which those tall bowlers land the ball and the bounce they generated thats why IMHO this talk about just speed is irrelevant.

 

Aaron can generate as much speed as anyone but he has no control and he is already yesterday's news.Sad thing is you can't even say he didn't fulfill his potential.

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, rkt.india said:

as I said even a 135 kph bowler bowling bouncers to poor batsmen without protecting gears will look quick. Like in women cricket, their fastest bowler bowls 120kph and that is super quick for them but it is military medium for men cricket.

As i said, its completely hypocritical and egotistic to say YOU can gauge speed of a bowler from head-on view on tv with zero depth, but professionals who ACTUALLY FACE the said bowler cannot tell how fast they are. 

 

5 hours ago, rkt.india said:

If i go by our logic, i shouldn't even say Holding, Thommo, Marsall were fast because i cannot just their speeds in a 2D video but i can actually they were fast through those same 2D videos while this isnt the case of some others who i dont consider fast.

Actually correct. You cannot gauge how fast they are from head-on view. 

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

nonsense no batsman can measure pace

i am talking to a guy who thinks he can see a front-on view on tv and tell if a bowler is bowling 140ph or 120kph,but professional batsmen who actually face said bowlers, cannot. 

THAT is what i am pointing out, is laughably absurd. 

[MCcricket]

6 hours ago, putrevus said:

 

When Steve Waugh was at Somerset as a young man, he recalled the atmosphere in the dressing room changing a full week before their appointment with Mr Clarke. Waugh then faced what he called "the most awkward and nastiest" spell of his career. "It was something you can't prepare for."

 

Speed is just not enough, Agarkar too bowled 140k but there was no nastiness in his bowling. Agarkar landing his 140 k and Garner landing his 140 k deliveries have different nastiness. That comes from the length at which those tall bowlers land the ball and the bounce they generated thats why IMHO this talk about just speed is irrelevant.

 

Aaron can generate as much speed as anyone but he has no control and he is already yesterday's news.Sad thing is you can't even say he didn't fulfill his potential.

That is exactly my point, batters judge pace by how hard the ball hits the bat, how much the bowler hurries them, but thru video one can analyse the total path from hand to keeper, how far the keeper was, one does get an idea better then the bastmen.

The ball travel in XY plane which is relevant n not z plane much unless conventional or reverse swing n that movement will not change the distance of the path much, so his talks about 2d n 3d is juvenile, one gets n idea or estimate of pace , based on factors n certainly a guy can tell Aaron is much quicker then PK which per Ghantabhai is untrue, mind boggling.