Mitchel Johnson

[Muloghonto]

I myself increased my serve speed a lot by using a technique, the momentum of which took me to the mid court, from where I could not play ground strokes. This made me serve and volley , which is a much more inconsistent technique. Players of today Don't use this all out serving technique so that they can play ground strokes. Also, Sampras was only a bit quicker than Federer in terms of serve speed. Del Potro is as quick today. Ivanisevic, Rusedski were quicker but super inconsistent.

You are not making sense. If first serve percentage is the same today as in the 90s, despite having superior equipment and the average speed of the first serve is slower, it leads to only one conclusion: that tennis had better servers in the 90s than today. You are an amateur, you really cannot use your amateurish experience to comment on this matter. Serve and volley does not necessarily produce the faster serve. Federer started out as a serve and volley exponent ( watch his S&V style vs Sampras in 2001 or 2002 or so) and Federer till he got old ( eg: 2008 Wimbledon finals) was still belting out serves at the same speed and consistency as he was in 2001, except he was not serve and volleying. Sampras was significantly quicker than Federer, he averaged 215 kph serve on any given day, Federer barely averages 200. FYI serve and volley is not inconsistent technique, it is simply far better suited at faster surfaces than slower ones. Its no secret that every tennis surface- Wimbledon included- has slowed down in the last 5 years or so compared to earlier, same with hard courts. That is the reason serve and volley is dead- because the courts are too slow, making your 140mph serve 'sit up' and be smashed back for a passing shot. But the plain fact is, serving in tennis is clearly inferior today than it was in the 90s. This can be the only conclusion when the first serve percentages across the field is the same but first serve speed is lower on average, despite better equipment. Oh and to give you another example of how nonsensical it is to simply assume that every sportsman today is stronger & fitter than they were in the past due to 'modernism', everyone in boxing agrees that Mike Tyson had the strongest punch in history of heavyweight boxing. And Iron Mike was a product of the 80s. Klitschko brothers, much bigger and much more 'modern' than Tyson don't punch nearly as hard enough.

[rkt.india]

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.

On his day, Ishant has rattled likes of Jaywardene and Amla in subcontinent with bouncers. It is about getting things right for him which does not happen often these days.

[CG]

Akram could crank out 145kph at will' date= 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.

I do nor agree that akram could crank it up to 145 km/h at will in 2000s as i have not seen him do so.He was 130-142ks but he always had the extra zip off the pitch.Regarding Walsh what i saw off him form 1996 he did not seem as a genuine quick.Yes higher release point contributes to less reduction in speed of ball after it pitches but its not as great as u made it out to be.

[vvvslaxman]

On his day' date=' Ishant has rattled likes of Jaywardene and Amla in subcontinent with bouncers. It is about getting things right for him which does not happen often these days.[/quote'] I would dearly love to see that video. Every time he attempted a bouncer it landed somehwere in the crowd. I remember him trying a bouncer against Jessie Ryder in NZ. It just sat up toe deposited into the stands. In the same tour 10.6 I Sharma to Ryder, SIX, Flamboyant whack over midwicket. He made it look so good. It was short delivery and Ryder has crashed it over midwicket in some style. Ishant has a few words to say at Ryder who just shrugs his shoulder. Praveen steps in to cool and puts his hand up to Ryder, his team-mate this year in IPL, to sort of say forget Ishant's histrionics. Ishant is still steaming as he walks off. Don't know what the fuss was about. Don't know who started it. That was furious frivolity 12.2 I Sharma to Ryder, SIX, Oh boy this is fun. Ryder on the storm. Ishant v Ryder and we have a clear winner. Ishant bangs it in short and Ryder muscles it high over deep midwic

[rkt.india]

I would dearly love to see that video. Every time he attempted a bouncer it landed somehwere in the crowd. I remember him trying a bouncer against Jessie Ryder in NZ. It just sat up toe deposited into the stands. In the same tour

Ishant could still bowl some probing spells on days when his wrist didn't fall, or when, by some stroke of luck, the ball landed on the seam more often than not. I distinctly remember his spell to Mahela Jayawardene on a docile Sri Lankan pitch, in which he made one of the world's finest batsmen dance to his tune. Unfortunately those spells were few and far between.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/681219.html Even Johnson was hit disdainfully by Dhawan, Kohli and Rohit. any bowler can be hit.

[vvvslaxman]

Even Johnson was hit disdainfully by Dhawan' date=' Kohli and Rohit. any bowler can be hit.[/quote'] yea. but when Johnson bowl bouncers he won't be hit for sixes like Ishant gets hit. Most bowlers won't be hit.. I would forgive top edged sixes. But with ishant you can wind up and send it infrotn of square for six. That is the difference. He has absolutely no shoulder effort when he bowls bouncers. He just shortens his length to bowl his bouncers.. That is not enough.

[rkt.india]

yea. but when Johnson bowl bouncers he won't be hit for sixes like Ishant gets hit. Most bowlers won't be hit.. I would forgive top edged sixes. But with ishant you can wind up and send it infrotn of square for six. That is the difference. He has absolutely no shoulder effort when he bowls bouncers. He just shortens his length to bowl his bouncers.. That is not enough.

Then you cannot compare Ishant and Johnson as both are in different phase of development. A 25 year old Johnson would not have bowled like a 32 year old Johnson is bowling. Johnson has a completely developed body strength wise and is at his quickest. Ishant is not as quick and might never be as quick consistently. Ishant might have played a lot but still is maturing years at 25. Johnson's strengthening work is showing in his bowling as even without hitting seam upright, he is getting bounce and pace. Here is another instance where Ishant troubled opposition with short pitch bowling.

Perhaps the key passage of play had come just before the tea break, when Ishant Sharma gave a glimpse of what he can do when the rhythm is right. He went wicketless in a four-over spell that cost 12 runs, but Amla, who had eased to a hundred with few alarms, suddenly appeared troubled. Zaheer, who replaced Ishant, continued the good work, putting together an outstanding spell either side of the interval - 6-3-11-2. "We've felt that he's just on the edge of doing some good stuff again," said Kirsten of Ishant's spell. "We know that he's an exceptionally talented bowler and he's just coming back to some really nice form. He bowled a nice aggressive spell. He wanted to get his pace up closer to the 140s where he wants to be. He was letting the ball go beautifully today. It was a very important spell because more than getting wickets, it set the tone for what we wanted to achieve after tea." Suddenly, the same attack that had looked largely innocuous for the first two sessions found its bite. More importantly, chances were grabbed, and the stumps hit to catch the dangerous AB de Villiers out of his ground. "If you're not getting wickets because the ball's doing a bit, you've got to build pressure," said Kirsten. "And there's no better way of building pressure than getting a few wickets. "It happened to us in the first Test. We were going nicely with the bat, we lost a wicket and pressure was created. We did that in this game. We mustn't always be looking for assistance to get wickets. When you can create pressure by doing some creative things on the field, which I thought we did today, batsmen play very differently."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/indvrsa2010/content/story/448225.html

[vvvslaxman]

Again we are not talking about "good spells". Good spell can be achieved with full length deliveries. We are talking about fast, intimidatory spellls. Can Ishant do something like what Johnson did.. ? Both can clock identical speed. One guy can look absolutely lethal, Other look pedestrian. Anyway..Ishant's career is mostly mediocrity in between very few notable moments. IN supposedly helpful conditions his average took a beating. In Australia, 73.54, In England 58.18, In South Africa 48.14.

[rkt.india]

Again we are not talking about "good spells". Good spell can be achieved with full length deliveries. We are talking about fast' date=' intimidatory spellls. Can Ishant do something like what Johnson did.. ? Both can clock identical speed. One guy can look absolutely lethal, Other look pedestrian. Anyway..Ishant's career is mostly mediocrity in between very few notable moments. IN supposedly helpful conditions his average took a beating. In Australia, 73.54, In England 58.18, In South Africa 48.14.[/quote'] I posted these two instances particularly because he used short pitch bowling to good effect in those spells and that too in subcontinental conditions and he was not Johnson in terms of pace. Short pitch bowling is more to do with accuracy of short balls at a good pace than just out and out pace and being wayward. Regarding comparison of Johnson and Ishant. Johnson has modeled himself to be like that with his intensive strength training. Though even 25 year old Johnson would not have done what a 32 year old Johnson is doing. Similarly, it is ridiculous to compare a 25 year old Ishant to a 32 year old Johnson as both are different stages of development and both are used and developed and grown differently on different pitches. Ishant was far more effective on Indian pitches than overseas because he knew how to bowl here. If you want to see weather Ishant could do this or not, check out his spells at Barbados test in 2011 where he took a 10-fer.

[vvvslaxman]

I posted these two instances particularly because he used short pitch bowling to good effect in those spells and that too in subcontinental conditions and he was not Johnson in terms of pace. Short pitch bowling is more to do with accuracy of short balls at a good pace than just out and out pace and being wayward.

I don't even know why you are defending him :cantstop: You very well know he is one of the worst in executing a decent bouncer.. Atleast from what i have seen he is worse than majority of Indian bowlers including Vinay Kumar. He may have once in a blue moon got it right. But since he made his debut i never rated him for bouncer, yorker. He simply can't bowl those. If you think they have seen it, could possibly be an illusion. For everyone such bouncer he probably bowled 100 useless attempted bouncers.

[rkt.india]

I don't even know why you are defending him :cantstop: You very well know he is one of the worst in executing a decent bouncer.. Atleast from what i have seen he is worse than majority of Indian bowlers including Vinay Kumar. He may have once in a blue moon got it right. But since he made his debut i never rated him for bouncer' date=' yorker. He simply can't bowl those. If you think they have seen it, could possibly be an illusion. For everyone such bouncer he probably bowled 100 useless attempted bouncers.[/quote'] I have already mentioned the reason of him being not as effective often with short balls and I am not defending him but just giving examples how when he gets things right he can be very good with short balls but problem is he does not get things right too often. He will always have something going wrong with his action, pace or rhythm and I criticize him for those that he is just wasting the kind of talent he has. He has everything a fast bowler can hope for but just cannot execute things and to me the reason is their lack of practice. Same I think is the case with Yadav. Both always look out of rhythm after a break. If you do not practice, you cannot execute things you want to. Ishant has some more problems as well like seam position.

[rkt.india]

I don't even know why you are defending him :cantstop: You very well know he is one of the worst in executing a decent bouncer...

Watch the dismissal of Michael Clark here. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPkA0S6Utso]Bulletin # 3 - Ishant Sharma inspires India fight back in Mohali Test Oct. 04 '10 - YouTube[/ame]

[express bowling]

You are not making sense. If first serve percentage is the same today as in the 90s, despite having superior equipment and the average speed of the first serve is slower, it leads to only one conclusion: that tennis had better servers in the 90s than today. You are an amateur, you really cannot use your amateurish experience to comment on this chmatter. Serve and volley does not necessarily produce the faster serve. Federer started out as a serve and volley exponent ( watch his S&V style vs Sampras in 2001 or 2002 or so) and Federer till he got old ( eg: 2008 Wimbledon finals) was still belting out serves at the same speed and consistency as he was in 2001, except he was not serve and volleying. Sampras was significantly quicker than Federer, he averaged 215 kph serve on any given day, Federer barely averages 200. FYI serve and volley is not inconsistent technique, it is simply far better suited at faster surfaces than slower ones. Its no secret that every tennis surface- Wimbledon included- has slowed down in the last 5 years or so compared to earlier, same with hard courts. That is the reason serve and volley is dead- because the courts are too slow, making your 140mph serve 'sit up' and be smashed back for a passing shot. But the plain fact is, serving in tennis is clearly inferior today than it was in the 90s. This can be the only conclusion when the first serve percentages across the field is the same but first serve speed is lower on average, despite better equipment. Oh and to give you another example of how nonsensical it is to simply assume that every sportsman today is stronger & fitter than they were in the past due to 'modernism', everyone in boxing agrees that Mike Tyson had the strongest punch in history of heavyweight boxing. And Iron Mike was a product of the 80s. Klitschko brothers, much bigger and much more 'modern' than Tyson don't punch nearly as hard enough.

Knowledge of tennis is not really your strong point. You have not played it and making bookish assumptions along with many wrong facts. No point debating about this. It won't go anywhere. Generally speaking, every sportsperson of yesteryears won't be slower or weaker. There will always be the freaks who were far ahead of the average of their time. It is the average among the top players as well as the general average which increases in most cases. Not an absolute rule though, just a trend as far as power, speed etc. are concerned. provided the intention to increase is also there.

[express bowling]

I do nor agree that akram could crank it up to 145 km/h at will in 2000s as i have not seen him do so.He was 130-142ks but he always had the extra zip off the pitch.Regarding Walsh what i saw off him form 1996 he did not seem as a genuine quick.Yes higher release point contributes to less reduction in speed of ball after it pitches but its not as great as u made it out to be.

Akram was mostly bowling 130 to 137 k in the 2000s. He just bowled one 144 k delivery in Australia and that was actually much faster than his 2nd fastest ball . I remember this point being discussed. He rarely bowled anything above 140 k at that point in his career. When somebody is embellishing Akram's speed in the 2000s, something we all saw , you know he is doing the same with other older pacers.

[Detonator]

You are not making sense. If first serve percentage is the same today as in the 90s' date= despite having superior equipment and the average speed of the first serve is slower, it leads to only one conclusion: that tennis had better servers in the 90s than today. You are an amateur, you really cannot use your amateurish experience to comment on this matter. Serve and volley does not necessarily produce the faster serve. Federer started out as a serve and volley exponent ( watch his S&V style vs Sampras in 2001 or 2002 or so) and Federer till he got old ( eg: 2008 Wimbledon finals) was still belting out serves at the same speed and consistency as he was in 2001, except he was not serve and volleying. Sampras was significantly quicker than Federer, he averaged 215 kph serve on any given day, Federer barely averages 200. FYI serve and volley is not inconsistent technique, it is simply far better suited at faster surfaces than slower ones. Its no secret that every tennis surface- Wimbledon included- has slowed down in the last 5 years or so compared to earlier, same with hard courts. That is the reason serve and volley is dead- because the courts are too slow, making your 140mph serve 'sit up' and be smashed back for a passing shot. But the plain fact is, serving in tennis is clearly inferior today than it was in the 90s. This can be the only conclusion when the first serve percentages across the field is the same but first serve speed is lower on average, despite better equipment. Oh and to give you another example of how nonsensical it is to simply assume that every sportsman today is stronger & fitter than they were in the past due to 'modernism', everyone in boxing agrees that Mike Tyson had the strongest punch in history of heavyweight boxing. And Iron Mike was a product of the 80s. Klitschko brothers, much bigger and much more 'modern' than Tyson don't punch nearly as hard enough.

WTF did I just read here :WTF: Sir, that's an overload of virtually theoretical tennis. Although I agree with the post except the bolded parts. Amateur Tennis players >>>>>>>>> Book tennis readers. And no, Mike Tyson isn't the hardest hitter. That would be George Foreman.

[express bowling]

On his day' date=' Ishant has rattled likes of Jaywardene and Amla in subcontinent with bouncers. It is about getting things right for him which does not happen often these days.[/quote'] During Ishant's first Australian tour, they showed a comparison of the loss of speeds after pitching , between Ishant and Lee. Both had release speeds of 146 k for the deliveries being compared. Ishant had a pace of 115 k and Lee 111 k. ( if I remember correctly, but definitely Ishant was quicker ). Now, Lambu has lost this pace off the pitch quite a bit.

[adi B]

WTF did I just read here :WTF: Sir, that's an overload of virtually theoretical tennis. Although I agree with the post except the bolded parts. Amateur Tennis players >>>>>>>>> Book tennis readers. And no, Mike Tyson isn't the hardest hitter. That would be George Foreman.

i think he is right regarding the tennis para..nowadays with better equipments and bigger racquets with polystrings it is much easier to play the passing shots on what are relatively slow courts hence S&V game has regressed gradually,add to that most of theplayers on tour are not that good in volleying

[Detonator]

i think he is right regarding the tennis para..nowadays with better equipments and bigger racquets with polystrings it is much easier to play the passing shots on what are relatively slow courts hence S&V game has regressed gradually' date='add to that most of theplayers on tour are not that good in volleying[/quote'] I agree dude, but what I don't like is saying current tennis games "inferior" to older games. imo, it's just a change. some purists like the s&v clashes but one can say those kind of games are monotonus and boring. yes, S&V is beautiful to watch, so does the hard topspin returns and intense netrushes.

[adi B]

I agree dude, but what I don't like is saying current tennis games "inferior" to older games. imo, it's just a change. some purists like the s&v clashes but one can say those kind of games are monotonus and boring. yes, S&V is beautiful to watch, so does the hard topspin returns and intense netrushes.

well its mulo :cantstop:

[Tiger80]

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

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283875.html Here are list of all studies and fastest bowl competetion. In 1975 study Thomson was regarged as fastest with 160.45 kph and in 1976 he was 160.6 . Andy roberts was 159.45 and 157.4 as second. The difference in speed in 1979 bowling competition was may be because of different method. Apart from Holding and Thomson no other bowler crossed 140 mark Also in 1998 Fastest bowler competition was held and Devon Malcom and Franklyn Rose bowled fastest at 141.6 Caddick was other bowler bowled 140 all other bowlers were below 140 mark. Today every Tom dick harry from Pakistan, Australia SA and West indies clock 140 mark.Either humans have developed superhuman strength in 2000s or we have to accept that measuring methods were different Also I agree with your point that humans are getting in sports but unlike cricket most sports have same format. cricket went through many changes in last 40 years .From five day to just 20 overs.From 6 bouncers to 1 bouncer rule and many more.