jairamesh Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Do you know when pitches became covered? There is no exact time I recall (as during my watching years pitches were always covered, especially if it was going to rain). But deducing from commentators (ex-cricketers) talking about uncovered pitches, it seems it was prevalent upto the late 1980s. With the introduction of MCC Law 11 and tv broadcaster's demand for tests to last 5 days, the practice of uncovered pitches went out of the window.
The Outsider Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 There is no exact time I recall (as during my watching years pitches were always covered, especially if it was going to rain). But deducing from commentators (ex-cricketers) talking about uncovered pitches, it seems it was prevalent upto the late 1980s. With the introduction of MCC Law 11 and tv broadcaster's demand for tests to last 5 days, the practice of uncovered pitches went out of the window. You're wrong on more than one count - please read up before blabbering.
Lurker Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 bPDW7hj1yfs Jeff Thomson, Fastest: 147.9 km/hr, average: 142.0 km/hr Mike Holding, Fastest: 141.3km/hr, average: 135.3 km/hr Imran Khan, Fastest: 139.7 km/hr, average: 138.3 km/hr Nothing special. What made them special was the uncovered pitches in those days, none of these doctored pitches with no cracks and grass. Few things. a) You are taking the speed literally. Which is obviously not correct. This was the time when technology, like that used up above, would be highly questionable today. Put it this way if you were having a loved ones operated upon would you trust technology of 2011 or X-ray machine of 1979? b) The game was played without any form of protection or very little, against bowlers who were free to utilize bouncers at will. A significant difference from today's body armor cricket. I would take that competition as more of a comparative study on where bowlers of that era stood by and large. Although it is obviously great to see snippets like that. xxx
ravishingravi Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 bPDW7hj1yfs Jeff Thomson, Fastest: 147.9 km/hr, average: 142.0 km/hr Mike Holding, Fastest: 141.3km/hr, average: 135.3 km/hr Imran Khan, Fastest: 139.7 km/hr, average: 138.3 km/hr Nothing special. What made them special was the uncovered pitches in those days, none of these doctored pitches with no cracks and grass. Happy to inform you that the speed gun discounted by 10 kms/hr. Video posted on Viv or Sachin thread
The Outsider Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Happy to inform you that the speed gun discounted by 10 kms/hr. Video posted on Viv or Sachin thread Bro! Discounted! That means Thompson was a 125 kmph trundler - just as a I thought.
jairamesh Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Happy to inform you that the speed gun discounted by 10 kms/hr. Video posted on Viv or Sachin thread Happy to inform you, your subjective views discount jack. Present your facts and I will be happy to consider them. As far I see in the above video, bowlers are no faster than today's bunch of crop. Infact many would be classed as fast medium. The bowlers of yesteryear had the huge advantage of playing on uncovered pitches, no limit on bouncers per over, batsmen without protection etc.
ravishingravi Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Happy to inform you, your subjective views discount jack. Present your facts and I will be happy to consider them. As far I see in the above video, bowlers are no faster than today's bunch of crop. Infact many would be classed as fast medium. The bowlers of yesteryear had the huge advantage of playing on uncovered pitches, no limit on bouncers per over, batsmen without protection etc. Not a a bright reader, are you ? I am not presenting any opinions. The same arguments were made in Viv or Tendlya thread and I have presented the video interviewing Thompson and Imran. Now do some work and dig it up yourself.
rkt.india Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Bro! Discounted! That means Thompson was a 125 kmph trundler - just as a I thought. hahaha...:cantstop: @ravi guys like Thomson, holding, and Ian bishop were genuinely 150k bowler with what i saw in videos if i am not wrong
Bublu Bhuyan Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Few things. a) You are taking the speed literally. Which is obviously not correct. This was the time when technology, like that used up above, would be highly questionable today. Put it this way if you were having a loved ones operated upon would you trust technology of 2011 or X-ray machine of 1979? b) The game was played without any form of protection or very little, against bowlers who were free to utilize bouncers at will. A significant difference from today's body armor cricket. I would take that competition as more of a comparative study on where bowlers of that era stood by and large. Although it is obviously great to see snippets like that. xxx From what I've hard, the speed here was measured after the ball bounced on the ground.
ravishingravi Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 hahaha...:cantstop: @ravi guys like Thomson, holding, and Ian bishop were genuinely 150k bowler with what i saw in videos if i am not wrong Glad a true connisseur of fast bowling sees this. ( no pun intended )
mishra Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 :hysterical::hysterical: Is that an Indian masquerading as Pakistani? Blue top with green jhanda? Or vice versa. Thats a pakistani fan in Mohali.. Dont you see the look of humiliation on his face
Prakat Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 I remember Thompson saying somewhere that those speeds would read 10 kmph + in today's guns. the old speeds were measured using the point of release and another point near the stumps. While today's guns measure from point of release to 6-12 inches ahead. Taking into account that the ball is fastest just after it is released.
jairamesh Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Not a a bright reader' date=' are you ? I am not presenting any opinions. The same arguments were made in Viv or Tendlya thread and I have presented the video interviewing Thompson and Imran. Now do some work and dig it up yourself.[/quote'] Like I said your views or Imran's views they all are subjective. Present the facts. Not some "oh oh the guy said that hit the wicket keeper's glove 10 miles faster", and the "speedometer measured it at just after release". Anyone with the basic understanding of motion will let you know that after projectile collides with a surface it loses energy (due to friction). So how in the world does the ball reach 10 miles faster to the keeper (from point of realease) after pitching? Seems like you, imran, and thomson are talking up your backsides.
Prakat Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 That's exactly what thompson is pointing out. their speed guns measured after the ball pitched. so if thompson's reading shows 90mph then that's after it pitched and lost some momentum.
jairamesh Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 That's exactly what thompson is pointing out. their speed guns measured after the ball pitched. so if thompson's reading shows 90mph then that's after it pitched and lost some momentum. nevertheless it's Thompson's word, he would love to proclaim himself as a 100mph bowler, and he goes "I was half charged". As he mentioned, he clocked 99mph at the keeper's glove, then why does the competition video state his fastest was 148km/hr = 92mph? If anything he should have been clocked at 110mph just after point of release! That chatshow video is a load of bull, with imran and thomson massaging each other's egos.
Prakat Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 Thompson's fastest ball was timed during a match. You are also missing the point again that the speed guns used in that competition were not measuring speed at the point of release or within a yard of it. Which is what they do now. Hence he says, as you did yourself before you came to know that you were actually arguing for thompson's case: "Anyone with the basic understanding of motion will let you know that after projectile collides with a surface it loses energy (due to friction)." As for Thompson being unreliable and questioning his integrity because of his obvious interest in the matter, that is, I suppose, fair game.
maniac Posted June 30, 2011 Posted June 30, 2011 With less protection for batsmen,less scrutiny through technology,home umpires advantage and more inconsistent pitches,bowlers of that era got more hype than they deserved.They were good but I guess they are overhyped.Before I am torn into pieces by some posters who oppose this let me give you an example if you play a bowler like M.Sami or M.Johnson without wearing the protection players wear today wouldn't you be shaking in your boots because let us admit average as they are they still are pretty quick. Lille-Thommo or WI bowlers were more about intimidation.If they tried those kind of tactics or those lengths in today's era,they will be smashed around the park by even some of our IPL legends. Except for Marshall who was both quick and had guile ala Steyn these days other leading bowlers were Hadlee,Kapil,Botham and Imran who were not super phaaast but relied on seam and swing. Even in recent times some of the most succesful bowelrs like Mcgrath,Pollock,Vaas and even Akram who wasn't super phaast by Paki standards have acheived more compared to Bond and Akthar Zaheer is one of the leading pace bowler today.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now