Mitchel Johnson

[fineleg]

why?

http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2673711&postcount=129

[vvvslaxman]

Anyone who makes people sit up and watch Test cricket deserves a round of applause. Gilchrist, Warne, Sehwag, Steyn.. Johnson join the list in injecting life to Test cricket

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[express bowling]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2I2U7KCGqpw Hmm! So for all this talk of greatness of modern batsmen and over hype of bowlers of the old, it might help to remember that there were literally no protective gear. Without the modern gear, you can add another 20 km / hr to the speed Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That is exactly the point being debated. Even a 135 k pacer would feel really quick if faced with inadequate protective gear. The hostile fast bowlers of the 70s and 80s were not necessarily 145 k+ .or 140 k+. This discussion is not about the quality of batters or bowlers. There were obviously some superb , high quality cricketers then.

[vvvslaxman]

That is exactly the point being debated. Even a 135 k pacer would feel really quick if faced with inadequate protective gear. The hostile fast bowlers of the 70s and 80s were not necessarily 145 k+ .or 140 k+. This discussion is not about the quality of batters or bowlers. There were obviously some superb ' date=' high quality cricketers then.[/quote'] Pitches were quicker. Look at the last ball 145k [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAFMK_b82I4]4 6 4 6 MS Dhoni vs Dale Steyn Assaulted - YouTube[/ame]

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[express bowling]

In the last ODI, Ryan McLaren hit Yuvraj on the head. If there were bad quality or no helmets and no speed guns then McLaren, 6'4" pacer hitting a batsman on a lively pitch, would have been perceived as bowling 150 k. In reality he was mostly 132 to 137 k.

[express bowling]

Pitches were quicker. Look at the last ball 145k 4 6 4 6 MS Dhoni vs Dale Steyn Assaulted - YouTube

Yes they were.

[express bowling]

Absolutely. I also must add here that a lot of people feel that wearing protective equipment completely removes the fear of the cricket ball and transforms it into a harmless Tennis ball. A classic example is that post#129 by ravishing.

Not all parts of the body are protected even today. A 150 k delivery hitting an unprotected part can't be amusing.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Raghav_12]

Watching Johnson bowl yesterday was awesome. The contrast between him and other fast bowlers was day and night. I would add Waqar to that list as well.

Yes. Johnson is performing at the level which draws people to watch cricket. Magnificent bowling in first innings. All balls 90+ mph. Good to watch. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdk6x8NUev4]MITCHELL JONSON 7 for 40 VS England 2nd Ashes test 2013 ( All 7 Wickets ) - YouTube[/ame]

[Raghav_12]

Not all parts of the body are protected even today. A 150 k delivery hitting an unprotected part can't be amusing.

That is key thing. Irrespective of amount of protective gear you wearing, you would always is scared of a well directed bouncer. A batsmen's shot making would always be affected by that fear factor. Even after all these protective gears, you see batsmen bleeding on pitch so why they would not be scared of genuine pace bowling?

[fineleg]

^ Bleeding yes. Even now things can happen. But comparatively - the risk was far far higher back then of serious injury -without modern material protective gears. That does not mean risk is zero today.

[Muloghonto]

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.

I stated facts about tennis: 1. Rackets today are better than what Sampras or Agassi first started out with. That is a fact. 2. First serve percentages today are the same as first serve percentages from early-mid 1990s. That is also a fact. 3. Average first serve speeds for top 100 players today is slower than they were in the 1990s. That is also a fact. These three facts lead to one conclusion: tennis servers were better in the 1990s than today, thus debunking your idea of 'newer = stronger, faster, fitter' idea.

[Muloghonto]

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.

In fields such as athletics and swimming, where power and fitness are the only criterias towards excellence, performances have improved. In every other sport where power and fitness are supplimental to the sport but not fundamentally determinant of it, such as tennis, cricket, baseball, hockey, etc. there is no evidence whatsoever that fitness has gotten better. Sergei Samsonov set the NHL all-star record for fastest lap time on ice in 1999 or 2000. it still stands.

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.

That is silly and conceited to trash the opinions of those far more qualified to speak on the matter than internet warriors like ourselves. If a batsman says X is the fastest bowler he's faced and he is not the only one, it carries far more weight than what they look on tv.

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.

You really have no idea on how those measurements were taken, do you ? in the 1970s, radar gun used to measure speed measured it after pitching, not out of the bowler's hands. Kindly dont make authorative statements before investigating the matter completely. Seems more of a case of confirmation bias to me. A case of batsman being partial to their era.

[Muloghonto]

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.

Err, if there is one consensus in heavyweight boxing, its that Mike Tyson had the hardest punch. This is why 90% of his fights that he won are in round 1 or 2. Iron Mike had to land one or two punches and the guy would be done. I've watched boxing from the 80s era, George Foreman had a killer roundhouse but his jab, hook and uppercuts were not as hard as Mike Tyson's.

[Muloghonto]

from videos, you expect atleast a decent observer to note that vinay is slower than shami and that shami is slower than umesh? is it too hard? :haha: its a decent evidence.in more subtle situations like hitting batsman on the kneeroll/thighs or fielder's hands under the ball, it is difficult to make a judgement.but speed of a bowler is not so subtle. also my reading and memories from those days.i watched a lot of the 80's action including matches not telecast on dd.i remember the transition between WI to the likes of waqar/Donald. and powers of observation are not equal anyway.depends on multiple factors.so don't worry about what others can do.its not a feasible exercise considering the reality and vastness of individual differences.

You can conclude reasonably from videos TODAY that Steyn is faster than Tsotsobe. That is because today you have uniform camera angle and exact same equipment used to record the matches. You cannot compare it from the 1970s viewing because camera angles were completely different and it makes a huge difference to perception of speed of a 3d object in a 2d projection based on camera angle alone.

[Muloghonto]

Quality of evidence -- Word of mouth of a guy claiming that he faced a 8 ft. express bowler who could bowl 100mph throughout the day while literally breathing fire >> Written word in books, especially if there is nobody to corroborate >> Video evidence which obviously has so many problems and errors. :--D

that is exactly correct, if in the first case the word of mouth is from a professional first hand experience and video evidence does not have uniformity of resolution or camera angle.

[div]

The quickest I faced were Shaun Tait and Shoaib Akhtar. It was the unpredictability of their actions and rhythm that made you nervous.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/10490651/Who-is-the-quickest-bowler-you-have-ever-faced-We-ask-our-Telegraph-Sport-columnists.html

[Raghav_12]

^ Bleeding yes. Even now things can happen. But comparatively - the risk was far far higher back then of serious injury -without modern material protective gears. That does not mean risk is zero today.

And that is enough to keep them on toes. That is enough to curtail their shot making. Saying that batting is easier now because fear is less now is not a valid statement. Batting would be easier only if there is no fear, like playing with Tennis. Protective gear may reduce fear a bit, but would not eliminate to the extent of making batting easier.