Mitchel Johnson

[Raghav_12]

Its fundamentally natural progression. Forget cricket, the world records are being broken all over the olympics. Swimming, athletics etc. Even outside sport kids are getting taller across the world. The human body is getting bigger and strong. Its hard to believe that pace bowling in cricket people are getting slower. and lets all keep in mind that Holding Marshall etc played in the semi professional era. Your telling me with todays modern analysis and emphasis on nutrition etc somehow people are slower? Even in baseball speeds of pitchers are on the up. Its time to put this debate to rest. Bowlers today are faster than their counterparts in the past. Bowlers in the future will be faster than their counter parts today. Its just natural progression. All we can say is without protective gear it was probably more dangerous for batsman back in those days. I agree with Boss bhai on this point. Enough of this "my era was the best era".

Forget about speed not increasing since the time of Marshall, there are people on this forum who believes that bowling speeds didn't increase since the time of Larwood. Cricket seems to be only game where people are getting slower :-).

[div]

Its fundamentally natural progression. Forget cricket, the world records are being broken all over the olympics. Swimming, athletics etc. Even outside sport kids are getting taller across the world. The human body is getting bigger and strong. Its hard to believe that pace bowling in cricket people are getting slower. and lets all keep in mind that Holding Marshall etc played in the semi professional era. Your telling me with todays modern analysis and emphasis on nutrition etc somehow people are slower? Even in baseball speeds of pitchers are on the up. Its time to put this debate to rest. Bowlers today are faster than their counterparts in the past. Bowlers in the future will be faster than their counter parts today. Its just natural progression. All we can say is without protective gear it was probably more dangerous for batsman back in those days. I agree with Boss bhai on this point. Enough of this "my era was the best era".

It is very simple.. even Vinay Kumar is quicker than Prasads and Abey Kuruvillas..hard to believe only Indian bowlers are getting quicker.

[vvvslaxman]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7dQ3UABXJk]World's fastest bowler JEFF THOMSON - YouTube[/ame] ball hit the fence on the half volley !

[putrevus]

ball hit the fence on the half volley !

I think he is the bowler who benefited most due to lack of protective gear, other than being fast he really did not have any other attributes. Once he got injured and became slower he had lost most of his potency.

[vvvslaxman]

I think he is the bowler who benefited most due to lack of protective gear, other than being fast he really did not have any other attributes. Once he got injured and became slower he had lost most of his potency.

You really think Ishant can knock someone down with his 145 k (his average speed in Australia) with his "so called" bouncers. Not once i found his bowling venomous. Sohdat Hussain's 128 k bouncers looked more venomous. Clock speed that we see on TV is only a guide. But that alone doesn't determine how a batsman perceives a bowler.

[CG]

You really think Ishant can knock someone down with his 145 k (his average speed in Australia) with his "so called" bouncers. Not once i found his bowling venomous. Sohdat Hussain's 128 k bouncers looked more venomous. Clock speed that we see on TV is only a guide. But that alone doesn't determine how a batsman perceives a bowler.

U clearly have not seen ishant spell in adelaide test in 2007 and the following cb series where he was at his quickest.To quote-"Pace like fire". Last time everybody was clocking 150ks on those speed guns,I doubt the accuracy.U will see when we tour aus next u will get some accurate speeds.

[G_B_]

Some may disagree. NHIS published a study recently in BBC saying that on average the British kids are less physically capable than their parents.

I assume you mean NHS. Provide me with a link. What is beyond doubt for example, British kids are getting taller. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-113130/Long-legged-teens-cutting-parents-size.html We are also taking about the world of sport. In total 54 world records were broken at the 2012 london olympics. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/datablog/interactive/2012/aug/10/olympics-2012-list-of-records-broken A huge chunk of world records are actually set in the past 10 years.

ever heard the phrase 'too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the meal' ? There is such a thing as being overcoached. Coaching today focusses first and foremost on sustainability. You show up to any fast bowling camp and instantly the criticism is about how 'your shoulder is torqueing too much' or 'you will break down if you do this', turning virtually everyone into 'medium fast bowling clones'. Back then people did not worry too much about your action- if it were legal and you were knocking batsmen out (literally or figuratively), it was good enough. For eg, take Akram's action- you think any coach would let a kid bowl like Akram, where you hyper-extend your groin and wrench your shoulder at exceptional speed ? No, they would be like 'this will break you in the future, you need to change'. Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Walsh were exceptional athletes. Because their focus was not to bowl as fast as they could but to bowl as fast as they could ALL DAY. Holding used to be an Olympic level medium distance runner ( 400m or 800m, cant remember and he got into final trials for team Jamaica, which is a track & field powerhouse!). Even in 1996, when Pollock first came to the scene, he said that his coach, Marshall had more stamina than he did as as 20 year old in FC cricket in South Africa. You should find pieces of Boycott or Gavaskar on Holding and Marshall. Boycs clearly said that the 'legendary over' Holding bowled to him is the fastest anyone has ever bowled at him and he certainly has faced Thommo at his peak. Gavaskar has said in the past that the crazy thing about Holding and Marshall was that they'd be bowling nearly at the same speed 5 hours into the innings on over #15 as they did in their first over. That is far more challenging for a batsman- to face a 147kph bowler all day long than an Akhtar, who bowls first two overs at 155, next two at 150, next two at 145 and then has to be taken off the attack.

Highly subjective. I really dont care what X batsman has to say. If you listen to Boycott he keeps going on about uncovered pitches and how that really helped bowlers of the past compared to today. This is the world's fastest bowler competition in 1979. Keep in mind Holding was 25 at this time. Everybody had 8 balls and lots of time between balls. bPDW7hj1yfs some people are barely crossing 140. This is way more scientific and has a basis on logic than what XYZ has to say.

Your hypothesis is nullified by first hand accounts of batsmen who have straddled the 90s and this millennium. The universal consensus amongst international bats is that there were faster AND more skilled bowlers around in the 90s than there are today. Since your hypothesis relies on correlation (about modern progression), it is refuted by first hand opinions of people who have plied the trade.

Seems more of a case of confirmation bias to me. A case of batsman being partial to their era.

This is not about 'my era is better than your era', there are trends in sports that are asymmetrical. 'This era' is *NOWHERE CLOSE* to being the best era of spin, which would probably be the 60s-70s era for the sheer volume of world class spinners going around ( Bedi, Prasanna, Chandra, Underwood, Gibbs, etc) or the 90s to early 2000s era ( Murali, Warne, Kumble, Saqqi,Mushie, Harbhajan, Vettori). So going by your 'logic', since everything improves linearly in the future, this too must be the golden era of spin bowling. If that isn't true for spin bowling, it doesn't have to be true for fast bowling either. This is not just about cricket, its seen in every sport where certain eras have the 'never before and never after' tag associated with them. Take tennis for example: with Sampras, Rusedski, Ivanisevic and Phillipousis around in the 1990s, it was easily the era of the most dominant serve, with much greater average pace and accuracy on the serve than you see in the last 10 years. Or soccer- till 'Italy model' killed soccer in the 1990s, the average international soccer star was far more competent at dribbling than they are today. 60s-80s was quite easily the peak of 'dribbling in soccer', with exponents such as Pele, Maradona, Garrincha, Socrates, Zico all being in the Ronaldinho class of dribblers or better. Today's soccer is all about 'formation, formation formation' and 'vison, vison vision'. The motto is 'if you get crowded, don't try to dribble past them, look for all passing options'. So as you can see, all skills and competencies do not progress linearly in sports, some progress, some regress.

Your mistaking skill with physical prowess. Hence i provided examples of sports such as athletics and swimming where physical attributes do matter a great deal than cricket. People can bowl fast. Does not mean that they will be good (which requires skills and brains) Todays bowlers are ingesting a lot of legal stimulants and drugs. Its not going to make them bowl slower.

[vvvslaxman]

U clearly have not seen ishant spell in adelaide test in 2007 and the following cb series where he was at his quickest.To quote-"Pace like fire". Last time everybody was clocking 150ks on those speed guns,I doubt the accuracy.U will see when we tour aus next u will get some accurate speeds.

I clearly saw it live. It was not life threatening spells that we saw from yester years. He just landed the ball the at corridor of uncertainty and cause some indecisive footwork among Aussie batsmen for a very very brief period. Besides i am talking about his last Australian series where he had an average speed of 145k. Why was he treated like a part time trundler.

[G_B_]

I clearly saw it live. It was not life threatening spells that we saw from yester years. He just landed the ball the at corridor of uncertainty and cause some indecisive footwork among Aussie batsmen for a very very brief period. Besides i am talking about his last Australian series where he had an average speed of 145k. Why was he treated like a part time trundler.

protective gear for one. A lot of people in the past appear to be more threatening cause the batsman were not adequately protected. One can equate the decline of the windies as a bowling force with the arrival of protective gear.

[vvvslaxman]

protective gear for once from the batsman. A lot of people in the past appear to be more threatening cause the batsman were not adequately protected. One can equate the decline of the windies as a bowling force with the arrival of protective gear.

I can never imagine Ishant hitting a batsman with his bouncer with or without protective gear. Bowling bouncers is also an art. Not every tom, dick, harry can do that. Broad and JOhnson delivered some well directed bouncers at decent pace. Rest of them were not that effective. Nothing to do with protective gears.

[CG]

I clearly saw it live. It was not life threatening spells that we saw from yester years. He just landed the ball the at corridor of uncertainty and cause some indecisive footwork among Aussie batsmen for a very very brief period. Besides i am talking about his last Australian series where he had an average speed of 145k. Why was he treated like a part time trundler.

clearly u have forgotten ? He hit clarke twice on ribs in perth and in adelaide he was really quick 150ks reverseswing to hayden in 2007-08 tour.In idi series the slip was standing at 45 yard circle such was pace. Last tour as i said he had too many problems and was not getting zip from pitch even if the release speed was high he lost much when the ball hit the ground . Ishant does not have a good bouncer thats given but his length deliveries nipping in hurt batsman.

[G_B_]

I can never imagine Ishant hitting a batsman with his bouncer with or without protective gear. Bowling bouncers is also an art. Not every tom' date=' dick, harry can do that. Broad and JOhnson delivered some well directed bouncers at decent pace. Rest of them were not that effective. Nothing to do with protective gears.[/quote'] so its art and not physical prowess. Ishant also never attempts to target the batsman because ever since he has started bowling he has had to bowl batsman with plenty of protection. Holding spent a lot of time on the bouncer because he knew it was a tactic to get a wicket or retire people. In this Johnson love fest, Johnson hit Broad on the back of the head with a bouncer. Broad just shrugged it off and was ready to face the next ball. Holding in todays era would have realised it would dumb to target people's head on every pitch. One can argue that rather than quality of bowling (fast bowling especially) declining its a case of a series of pro batsman refinements to have game have been made. Protective gear being chief among them.

[G_B_]

and speaking of progression. Lets forget about the windies for a second or even the old aussies etc. Lets compare Indian bowlers in the 80s 90s 00s and today. The fact of the matter is that Indian in the 80s operated on bowlers like Binny and Dev who were people who operated in the 125 zone. Then you had Venky and Srinath in the 90s Then you had Zaheer Ishant in the 00s You have Shami bhuvi Umesh today The batch of Shami Bhuvi Umesh is clearly the fastest. That is natural progression.

[vvvslaxman]

clearly u have forgotten ? He hit clarke twice on ribs in perth and in adelaide he was really quick 150ks reverseswing to hayden in 2007-08 tour.In idi series the slip was standing at 45 yard circle such was pace. Last tour as i said he had too many problems and was not getting zip from pitch even if the release speed was high he lost much when the ball hit the ground . Ishant does not have a good bouncer thats given but his length deliveries nipping in hurt batsman.

So the theory of "pace is enough" goes out of the window. OP is clearly talking about intimidatory bowling. I honestly don't see any Indian bowler around intimidating batsmen. Srinath is the only i have seen coming close. But he was a mental midget. No aggression. He would apologize to batsman after hitting him.You might say they have protective gears. Well they had protective gear even against Johnson. Why were they sh** scared to face Johnson in comparison to other bowlers. Ishant is never known for intimidating any batsman.. if anything he only intimidates his own close in fielders. For the briefest of briefest spell he had some success with good length incoming deliveries . Even considering that as an intimidatory bowling is a blasphemy.

[vvvslaxman]

so its art and not physical prowess. Ishant also never attempts to target the batsman because ever since he has started bowling he has had to bowl batsman with plenty of protection. Holding spent a lot of time on the bouncer because he knew it was a tactic to get a wicket or retire people. In this Johnson love fest, Johnson hit Broad on the back of the head with a bouncer. Broad just shrugged it off and was ready to face the next ball. Holding in todays era would have realised it would dumb to target people's head on every pitch. One can argue that rather than quality of bowling (fast bowling especially) declining its a case of a series of pro batsman refinements to have game have been made. Protective gear being chief among them.

Pretty much all England batsmen looked terrified against Johnson including Broad. Just because it didn't kill him doesn't mean Broad was happy to face him in comparison to other bowlers. Anyway with no bouncer restriction on pacier pitches with accurate bowling they were far more dangerous. Let us assume for a moment they were fearful because they had unfair advantages like lack of protective gears , faster pitches, no bouncer restriction. Bottmoline is discounting all the advantages they had which era was more uncomfortable for batsmen. Danda Roy's post is from a batsman's perspective. Not from bowlers perspective. So Sunny's batting in that era was much more challenging.

[G_B_]

Pretty much all England batsmen looked terrified against Johnson including Broad. Just because it didn't kill him doesn't mean Broad was happy to face him in comparison to other bowlers. Anyway with no bouncer restriction on pacier pitches with accurate bowling they were far more dangerous. Let us assume for a moment they were fearful because they had unfair advantages like lack of protective gears , faster pitches, no bouncer restriction. Bottmoline is discounting all the advantages they had which era was more uncomfortable for batsmen. Danda Roy's post is from a batsman's perspective. Not from bowlers perspective. So Sunny's batting in that era was much more challenging.

Personally speaking Sunny in my book was a better test player than Sachin. However overall it was Sachin cause Sunny basically sucked balls in the ODIs. Thats where i stand. What triggered my participation in the debate is this myth that somehow the pace bowling was faster in that era.

[maniac]

Personally speaking Sunny in my book was a better test player than Sachin. However overall it was Sachin cause Sunny basically sucked balls in the ODIs. Thats where i stand. What triggered my participation in the debate is this myth that somehow the pace bowling was faster in that era.

Pace wise don't think so because Athletes Now>Athletes in the past but I beleive facing even Unadkat without much padding could be life threatening too...so that makes the ball seem faster

[express bowling]

So the theory of "pace is enough" goes out of the window. OP is clearly talking about intimidatory bowling. I honestly don't see any Indian bowler around intimidating batsmen. Srinath is the only i have seen coming close. But he was a mental midget. No aggression. He would apologize to batsman after hitting him.You might say they have protective gears. Well they had protective gear even against Johnson. Why were they sh** scared to face Johnson in comparison to other bowlers. Ishant is never known for intimidating any batsman.. if anything he only intimidates his own close in fielders. For the briefest of briefest spell he had some success with good length incoming deliveries . Even considering that as an intimidatory bowling is a blasphemy.

In today's cricket nobody says, pace is all that is needed because of many factors, primary one being much superior protective gear. But it is one of the very impotant attributes which is required to be combined with skill to be an all condition strike bowler among pacers. But nevertheless, atleast one pacer who can target and hit the batsmen, is very. useful. It softens them up. But even for this , along with pace,.... bounce, zip off the pitch and accuracy are required. A really quick pacer whether bowling wide or low balls, won't threaten batsmen physically.

[maniac]

Johnson is threatening because of the line he bowls......Akram,Walsh and Ambrose had killer bouncers too but technically they were not Phaaaast,they were 135-140 max which is not way off of Vinay Kumar(on his best days) level speed wise,it is their line and accuracy that made them dangerous.Morne Morkel is another guy who would have been unplayable had he been born 30-40 years ago Most bowlers today are fast...Likes of Siddle are quicker than some of the bowlers of the past. I rate the WI quicks,Lillee,Thomson,Imran due to their skill but the pace they bowled is overrated.Infact 3 of the highest wicket takers of that era Botham,Kapil and Haddlee would all be considered tundlers now I am taking strictly in terms of pace....which era was more difficult,etc is debatable

[Muloghonto]

Johnson is threatening because of the line he bowls......Akram,Walsh and Ambrose had killer bouncers too but technically they were not Phaaaast,they were 135-140 max which is not way off of Vinay Kumar(on his best days) level speed wise,it is their line and accuracy that made them dangerous.Morne Morkel is another guy who would have been unplayable had he been born 30-40 years ago Most bowlers today are fast...Likes of Siddle are quicker than some of the bowlers of the past. I rate the WI quicks,Lillee,Thomson,Imran due to their skill but the pace they bowled is overrated.Infact 3 of the highest wicket takers of that era Botham,Kapil and Haddlee would all be considered tundlers now I am taking strictly in terms of pace....which era was more difficult,etc is debatable

Akram could crank out 145kph at will, even as late as 2000. Walsh & Amrbose were genuine fast bowlers, who due to the angle of their deliveries, gave the ball far more lift than straight line speed. As a batsman it doesn't matter, a 80mph ball rising at 40mph vertically requires quicker reaction time than a 90mph ball rising at 5mph. There is no such thing as the pace of those guys being overrated, virtually everyone who's played against them say they were faster than modern bowlers, except for Akhtar and Lee in short bursts. Kapil & Botham were trundlers, Hadlee was a trundle in the last half of his career but he too started out as a genuine fast bowler.