Thommo - how quick was he?'

[rkt.india]

4 hours ago, putrevus said:

 

 

 

WI already have had such quick pacers. Fidel Edwards, tino best,  Gabriel are quick as any in history.

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Less sweeping than calling experts who know far more about cricket than anyone here, as 'hyperbolic' . 

They played international cricketer doesnt mean we know any less than them.

[rkt.india]

Just now, rkt.india said:

They played international cricketer doesnt mean we know any less than them.

In fact I would say most of these experts live in their own la la land away from reality, very difficult to take their words.

[rkt.india]

39 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Irrelevant. 

There are people who've played Thommo at his peak and Waqar at his peak and Waqar had his speeds recorded in the early 90s (NZ series i believe). Hence one can extrapolate, very easily, whether Thommo was faster/slower than Waqar or not. 

 

Indeed. And there are several who've played Holding at his peak and Waqar at his peak. Border being one, for eg. So if Border says Holding was as fast as Waqar, i have no reason to doubt his statement.

 

No one is holding wasn't fast but here argument is muloghonto saying he could bowl 95 mph whole day. No one was saying holding and thommo were trundlers or not fast.

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

They played international cricketer doesnt mean we know any less than them.

Yes, yes it does. They faced the players, they have first hand experience. You don't. Until you have first hand experience- either coaching/playing against etc. the players in concern, you have zero credibility against them. Its pure egotistic nonsense to believe that a nobody sitting behind a TV knows as much as a guy who spent tens of thousands of hours over his lifetime gaining first hand experience. 

They are professionals with elite level experience. You are not a professional in the field, so your opinion is only that of a fan. Not an expert.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

No one is holding wasn't fast but here argument is muloghonto saying he could bowl 95 mph whole day. No one was saying holding and thommo were trundlers or not fast.

There are several players who played against Holding and Waqar at his peak, who've said Holding was just as fast. And virtually everyone who's played against Holding has said, he is unique in the fact that he virtually lost no pace even after bowling 20 overs for the day. I've already explained why/how that is: one of the best pure fast bowler's action ever combined with elite level sprinting skills ensured near effortless transfer of momentum every time.

 

[Vijy]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

There are several players who played against Holding and Waqar at his peak, who've said Holding was just as fast. And virtually everyone who's played against Holding has said, he is unique in the fact that he virtually lost no pace even after bowling 20 overs for the day. I've already explained why/how that is: one of the best pure fast bowler's action ever combined with elite level sprinting skills ensured near effortless transfer of momentum every time.

 

seems difficult to believe that they played both at their peak; must be about 15 years separating their peaks. hence, this will mean that the batsman was: (i) either young in his career when facing holding, or (ii) aging when facing waqar. hence, I'm not disposed to play too much faith in their claims. age almost always does have a major impact on player reflexes which are v. important in handling rapid pace.

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

first hand experiences can get corrupted by human nature,it could be  anywhere between mild exaggerations to outright lies,megasthenis claimed that he saw dogheaded people in india now you have to believe him since he had first hand experience.

Whatever. The best scientists in the world can go mad. Doesn't mean we take any random guy's opinion over a scientists. 

Same logic applies here.

Sorry, if you are not an expert in the field, your opinion is of very, very limited value. 

And none of us are experts in the field of cricket. An experts opinion, when in conflict with a non-expert opinion, logic says, expert wins.

PS: Your analogy with megasthenes is inapplicable. Megasthenes was a traveler. Not an expert in biology. Maybe he saw people wearing dog-heads as a crown/symbol. There is a lot lost in translation/cultural barriers to make accurate assessment of what exactly Megasthenes meant. For e.g., Herodotus reports that there are giant gold-digging ants in India, the size of dogs. hence Indians are so rich. Turns out, its not a gold-digging dog-sized ant, but a marmot/ground-hog that lives in the Potohar plateau (northern Pakistan) that digs burrows, with Potohar plateau being relatively rich in gold dust, the locals still collect the dirt leftover from this mole's digging activity and sift it for gold. 

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Muloghonto]

39 minutes ago, Vijy said:

seems difficult to believe that they played both at their peak; must be about 15 years separating their peaks. hence, this will mean that the batsman was: (i) either young in his career when facing holding, or (ii) aging when facing waqar. hence, I'm not disposed to play too much faith in their claims. age almost always does have a major impact on player reflexes which are v. important in handling rapid pace.

Waqar peaked early. Holding peaked till packer series. 
Players like Border, Gooch, etc. cover Holding's peak and Waqar's peak. 

 

Age can have big impact on a cricketer's reflexes, but its a myth that a 30 year old's reflexes are slower than a 20 year old's. Its in your 30s that your reflexes begin slowing down and reflexes are largely a matter of training as well. Pretty sure, if i were to serve 120mph at you in tennis, the first two weeks, you won't even touch a ball. in six months, your eye would train you to atleast put racket on ball every other ball. Its not like you grew extra reflexes in six months. 

Same applies for cricket. A 10 year veteran batsman, doesn't simply rely on reflexes to put bat on ball. There is a lot of 'pattern recognition' in your brain as well, which effectively compensates for/overrides reflexes.

 

PS: I coach tennis for tennis Canada. I serve at around 110mph. It doesn't matter if they are a 14 year old, 18 year old or a 30 year old. First time they see a 110mph serve, they are almost a SECOND late in their stroke. After six months, some can be good enough that i fear serving to them. You can't tell me, its all reflex. There is far more going on in your brain than just simple reflexive action, when undertaking complicated motion involving your body. If it were just all reflex, then returning serve (all the guys who come to me, know how to hit a tennis ball. I am not a newbie level coach, i coach intermediates. i.e., they know the basic game mechanics) would not show such drastic improvement in 6 months, as it is, in conventional terms, all about reacting to a ball being blasted at you at 160kph or more. 

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Muloghonto

[rkt.india]

48 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Whatever. The best scientists in the world can go mad. Doesn't mean we take any random guy's opinion over a scientists. 

Same logic applies here.

Sorry, if you are not an expert in the field, your opinion is of very, very limited value. 

And none of us are experts in the field of cricket. An experts opinion, when in conflict with a non-expert opinion, logic says, expert wins.

PS: Your analogy with megasthenes is inapplicable. Megasthenes was a traveler. Not an expert in biology. Maybe he saw people wearing dog-heads as a crown/symbol. There is a lot lost in translation/cultural barriers to make accurate assessment of what exactly Megasthenes meant. For e.g., Herodotus reports that there are giant gold-digging ants in India, the size of dogs. hence Indians are so rich. Turns out, its not a gold-digging dog-sized ant, but a marmot/ground-hog that lives in the Potohar plateau (northern Pakistan) that digs burrows, with Potohar plateau being relatively rich in gold dust, the locals still collect the dirt leftover from this mole's digging activity and sift it for gold. 

 

Why do you think they are expert.? Just because they played cricket, it doesn't make them expert. An expert and a player two different things. 

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

scientists or whoever it maybe needs to prove it, they cant just use their authority and credentials to sell their claim or bully the "nonexpert" , people who believe the claims of the authorities simply because they are authorities have no idea how science works,truth remains the truth it doesnt depend on any elites .

LOL. You are speaking to an engineer-turned-coder, buddy. Ofcourse, in things that can be empirically proven, proof is required. but there are plenty of topics, where empirical evidence is not present or isn't clear-cut. Eg: Economic theory. Evolutionary biology. History. 

There are also plenty of speculative theories in science, otherwise known as hypothesis. 
In such cases, the opinion of the expert wins. 

You don't have any facts or data or empirical evidence, to suggest how fast Holding or Roberts or Kapil were. There are maybe a few speed gun recordings here and there, but it represents 0.000001% of their careers. So why should i listen to you- who has no data and is predominantly basing it on opinion, over those who have tens of thousands of hours greater first hand experience over you or anyone here ??

 

11 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

 

and you dont have have to be an expert in biology to figure out if a head is that of a dog or human............anything and every thing can be claimed to be lostin translations ,it seems to me  people mostly use it as an excuse when they get it wrong ,it really is up to you if want you can put the cart before the horse and keep translating as much as you want.

as i said, many things are lost in translation. We don't have a direct first hand source on Megasthenes. What we have, is a 13th century Byzantine Greek record, which is a copy of a copy of a Roman translation of a Greek work from 1100 years prior. 

In either case, it is not a comparable analogy. Megasthenes was a traveller to India. He was not an expert on India. he didn't spend 20 years of his life living in India, he didn't go travel every corner of India. 

So its a false analogy. 

 

You are pitting your opinion against those who are experts in the field. Who have attained elite level competence and have elite level experience, especially with the players you name. To put your opinion on a higher pedestal than that of Gavaskar or Boycott or any such expert, is categoric evidence of egotistic nonsense. 

 

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Why do you think they are expert.? Just because they played cricket, it doesn't make them expert. An expert and a player two different things. 

highest level experience in a field while achieving elite status in said field makes one an expert. That makes all international cricketers, experts on cricket. Especially elite level international cricketer. 

 

 

What makes you think your opinion of equal value to someone who has put in close to 50,000 hours at their craft, when you have put in next to negligible amount ?

 

So basically the conclusion is, you, Multi, etc. are greater at something, with 0 hours of elite level experience, than another human being, who has 50,000 hours on you at the top, professional level. Ie, you are supermen.

 

I call that ABC egotistic behaviour, sorry.

You are not an expert on cricket. Don't kid yourself and insult our intelligence by billing yourself as one. Unless you are an elite level player/coach, you are not an expert. You are just a fan.

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Muloghonto

[rkt.india]

I will give an example how these so called experts create fiction out of nothing.

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/563136.html
 

Quote

 

In Adelaide in 1980, Australian fast bowler Len Pascoe figured he would unsettle Viv if he bounced him first ball. Then, as was normal practice for fast bowlers after a bouncer, he'd go for an outswinger or a yorker.

Pascoe's first delivery was a huge no-ball. Viv was suitably unimpressed; he was visibly angry, but while Lennie was yelling at the top of his voice, Viv held his tongue. Umpire Max O'Connell stepped in and told Pascoe to calm down. Viv walked towards them saying, "Hey Max, no man, let him be. He can bowl what he likes to me. Don't warn him. He's not bowling that quick."

Lennie bowled a yorker next. Viv shuffled into position and hit the ball straight back at him. It flew head-high with the velocity of a tracer bullet. "C'mon Lennie," Viv laughed, as the ball slammed into the fence. "Is that as fast as you can bowl?"

 

this Ashley Mallett. now watch that so called Yorker at 1.50.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by rkt.india

[Muloghonto]

Just now, MultiB48 said:

engineer turned coder lol they are dime a dozen these day , now why you try to discredit megasthenis may be he did see those people and but now they have died out ,just like your 95 mph balls

But what has Megasthenes got to do with this ?  I have already told you why its a false analogy. Megasthenes is not an 'expert' on India. he was a traveller, just like any traveller. Just because i travelled to Italy and lived there, doesnt make me an expert on Italy.

 

You are using it to try and buff up the idea that your opinion on Holding or Thommo is as valid as Gavankar's, who is an expert in the field and you are not. Gavaskar meets the definition of an expert at cricket : professional with decades of top level pro experience and achieving elite status. That is the definition of an expert in ANY field of expertise. 

 

PS: Maybe the engineer-turned-coder is dime-a-dozen these days is because people prefer to make just as much money/more money as engineer while not being locked in a 9-5 M-F job ??

 

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

I will give an example how these so called experts create fiction out of nothing.

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/563136.html
 

this Ashley Mallett. now watch that so called Yorker at 1.50.

It still doesnt change the fact that being slightly off/inaccurate over one specific instance is irrelevant to the overall opinion of a player they've played against for years. 

Thats like saying since your math teacher accidentally solved an equation wrong, he and Modi are same level mathematicians. 

 

No matter what you do, you are not an expert. You are not a professional, you have not invested the hours, you lack elite experience at every level of the game. So what makes you an expert ?? 

[rkt.india]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

It still doesnt change the fact that being slightly off/inaccurate over one specific instance is irrelevant to the overall opinion of a player they've played against for years. 

Thats like saying since your math teacher accidentally solved an equation wrong, he and Modi are same level mathematicians. 

 

No matter what you do, you are not an expert. You are not a professional, you have not invested the hours, you lack elite experience at every level of the game. So what makes you an expert ?? 

It does indicator that you can't take their words literally and there are a lot of hyperbolic staff and fascinating dictionary stories.

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

i train coders for a living.

good for u. Now maybe if you trained as an engineer or a scientist, you'd know the difference between what needs proof and what is deferred to expert opinion. 

 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

It does indicator that you can't take their words literally and there are a lot of hyperbolic staff and fascinating dictionary stories.

perhaps in individual recollection of individual events.Ie, anecdotes. When things are of near-consensus with experts, they win. No matter how much you want to go by 'Ambrose/Walsh were not genuine fast', your opinion loses due to consensus amongst experts. 

 

[rkt.india]

17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

perhaps in individual recollection of individual events.Ie, anecdotes. When things are of near-consensus with experts, they win. No matter how much you want to go by 'Ambrose/Walsh were not genuine fast', your opinion loses due to consensus amongst experts. 

 

I don't know why you call them experts? ambrose was certainly quite fast, walsh wasn't.

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

I don't know why you call them experts? ambrose was certainly quite fast, walsh wasn't.

Because, as i said, they meet the definition of being experts at cricket:  high end career professionals at any field are experts. A dude who has a PhD in history and taught history for 30 years on European History, is an expert in the field and has high end awards for it. So is the engineer with 30 years experience and high end recognition. 

So why the heck would not, high end cricket professionals, be experts in their field ? Especially when they give unanimous, direct opinion about their peers, who they played against ??

 

Thats contradictory logic.