Mitchel Johnson

[div]

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.

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

[express bowling]

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.

That racquets have become better is a fact. I don't know how you know for a fact that first serve % is the same. What is your source ? It may or maynot be, does not matter for this discussion. Please try to read the following part without the prejudice that comes from trying to win a debate. The first serve technique used by most tennis players today is a bit different from the serve and volley players of the 90s. Then, the big servers, for first serves, used to toss the ball more in front of their bodies and hit the ball flatter while hurling themselves infront. This used to take them to mid court and did nit allow them to play ground strokes. They had to serve and volley . The problem with serve and volley was that it made the players more inconsistent even then. That is why, Sampras, unless he was playing on grass, played ground strokes after his second serve. Now, with the improved racquets like you stated, it is even more difficult to serve and volley and players get passed easily. Add to that the really quick moving players of today who never tire and end up reaching most balls ... it is very difficult to serve and volley. So, A DIFFERENT SERVING TECHNIQUE IS USED NOWADAYS FOR FIRST SERVES, different from the big servers of the 90s while first serving. The ball is not tossed in front as much as before. This allows them to stay on the baseline and play ground strokes. It also results in slower serves in most cases. This is more as a result of the technique used for the reason I explained. Not because servers have become slower because of their lack of ability. Inspite of this technique, we are still getting big servers like DelPotro, Isner etc.and super and faster ones like Roddick.

[express bowling]

in the 1970s, radar gun used to measure speed measured it after pitching, not out of the bowler's hands.

Often, speeds of deliveries from the time of release to the time they reach the batsman, including their speed after pitching, is shown on tv. A 145 k delivery, after pitching , becomes about 110 to 115 k .Even if you take it as 115 k then it retains 79% of its speed. Holding, shown bowling a fastest of 141 k ... if it were measured after pitching would have a release speed of 178 k. Thomson clocked at a fastest of 147 k would have a release speed of 186 k. Does it seem possible ?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[~ Miss Warner ~]

That Stare!

[vvvslaxman]

Devar Magan Johnson

[ravishingravi]

Yes. The way he single handedly had crashed South African party in 2009 (SA tour of Australia), it was expected that he would be there to revive Australian fortunes. But then he went missing completely. That series everybody expected SA to win as it was coming right after SA's victory against Aus in Aus. But Australia won 2-1. Mich was highest wicket taker with 16 @25 and scored 255 @ 85 (Second highest runs from Australia)

That was one of best fast bowling spells I had seen. In fact it was one of the best series in terms of fast bowling.

[Muloghonto]

That racquets have become better is a fact. I don't know how you know for a fact that first serve % is the same. What is your source ? It may or maynot be, does not matter for this discussion.

ATPtour.com website. Just see the match stats from various grand slams from mid 90s to now, the first serve percentages are virtually identical, it ranges from 55-60% with the furthest outliers in the 25% to 75%, the bulk majority fall in the 50-55% mark.

The first serve technique used by most tennis players today is a bit different from the serve and volley players of the 90s. Then, the big servers, for first serves, used to toss the ball more in front of their bodies and hit the ball flatter while hurling themselves infront. This used to take them to mid court and did nit allow them to play ground strokes. They had to serve and volley . The problem with serve and volley was that it made the players more inconsistent even then. That is why, Sampras, unless he was playing on grass, played ground strokes after his second serve.

This is not true. Federer from the early 2000s and Federer from now has the same service style. You assume that a serve & volley player must change his serve style to be a serve & baseliner, its not true. If you serve and volley, you simply let the momentum carry you to the net, if you wanna stick to the baseline for the IDENTICAL serve, you simply bear down more on your leading foot to halt your progress instead of going forwards. This is why there are more knee injuries today in tennis than before because there is more stress on the knees to halt progress towards the net. There is no difference in the service style whatsoever except in what happens after the ball has left the raquet, namely, the followthrough. Serve and volley is not a more 'inconsistent style', the purpose of serve and volley is to end the points quicker. You have less reaction time, so it relies more on weak return from the opposition to succeed and any tennis player who can tee off against a serve & volleyer will generate way more passing shots than those who are forced out of their comfort zone. Since the courts are a lot slower now than 10 years ago, the returners have far more time to tee off on their shots, making serve & volley impractical. Its not about consistency, its about speed of the game. Courts in the 80s and 90s were faster. This is a fact. It catered more to the supreme attacking style of tennis- serve & volley than courts do now.

Now, with the improved racquets like you stated, it is even more difficult to serve and volley and players get passed easily. Add to that the really quick moving players of today who never tire and end up reaching most balls ... it is very difficult to serve and volley.

There is no evidence whatsoever that tennis players today are better movers than in the past. The best movers in Tennis that *I* have seen are Connors, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic. Of them, I will say that Chang and Borg were easily the best movers of them all. Improved rackets dont make serve and volley less potent, it makes it MORE potent- because the lighter the racket is with more flex, the more force it can impart on the ball- linear or angular. What makes serve and volley suck is a slower surface. This is why till Federer won the French Open, the last 'predominant or ace serve and volleyer' to win the French Open was Rod Laver. Now when you make all the courts slower, it just gives more time for the opposition to catch up to the ball, even if you are hitting it harder.

So, A DIFFERENT SERVING TECHNIQUE IS USED NOWADAYS FOR FIRST SERVES, different from the big servers of the 90s while first serving. The ball is not tossed in front as much as before. This allows them to stay on the baseline and play ground strokes. It also results in slower serves in most cases. This is more as a result of the technique used for the reason I explained. Not because servers have become slower because of their lack of ability. Inspite of this technique, we are still getting big servers like DelPotro, Isner etc.and super and faster ones like Roddick.

Err no, your 'different technique to serve' is completely not true. The ball is tossed in front for a flat first serve, on top of your head or slightly behind for a kick serve and slighly off center for a slice serve. You can do the exact same first serve flat and either go to the net or not and get the exact same pace and accuracy off of it, its just a matter of how much you arrest your followthrough momentum. Besides, every era has a few 'safe servers' vs the standard model 'blam on the first serve, safe on the second serve' , its just that this era has less talented first servers than the 90s. As i said, the only ones today or in the last ten years in the top 50 who would make the top 15-20 servers of the last 20-25 years on simple ability to serve fast & furious, are Isner, Roddick, Cilic, Del Potro & Raonic. in the mid 90s alone you had Becker, Stich, Sampras,Ivanisevic, Phillipousis, Rusedski, Krajicek, etc. who were easily as fast as Roddick's average speed and serving at nearly identical accuracy. The late 80s to late 90s were clearly the apex era of tennis serving, not due to a difference in rackets or technique but simply because that was the era of the most fearsome first serving players going around. Its not about linear progression just because 'newer = better than the old', i see no evidence whatsoever in that matter except for in sports like athletics or olympic individual sports where the sole benchmark to succcess or failure is physical supremacy. So yes, the 100m dash guy, who's only job is to have better acceleration & top speed than the rest, has gotten better in the last 20 years. But in any other sport where technique, tactics and strategy are the fundamental part of the equation, i see no evidence that current era is better than 15-20 years ago.

[express bowling]

@ Muloghanto As I said before, you are making highly theoritical and impractical arguments about a sport of which you have no practical knowledge. I suggest you play tennis for a couple of years and then you will understand what I am saying. Not that I think, even if you agree with me in your mind, you are going to accept it in this forum. There is no point in debating this. It won't lead anywhere.

[Raghav_12]

ATPtour.com website. Just see the match stats from various grand slams from mid 90s to now, the first serve percentages are virtually identical, it ranges from 55-60% with the furthest outliers in the 25% to 75%, the bulk majority fall in the 50-55% mark.

I don't know why first serve percentage is relevant here, not that you anyway write much relevant stuff. First serve percentage has nothing to do with how good server you are. It is a simply a mathematical optimization problem. If a player is having too high a first serve percentage, that means he is not putting his best as he can do even better by taking few more chances. In process his first serve percentage will come down but his chances of hitting aces or winning quick points will increase. If 1st serve percentage too poor that means, second serve percentage in too high that allows opposition a too many opportunities to win points relatively easily. That hardly has to do with any improvement in game or technique. If you create a probability distribution function with first serve percentage as the only random variable and then run an optimization on this function, you'll see that probability of winning point is maximum (maximum value of PDF) for the value of random variable i.e. first serve percentage close to 55-60. That's why you don't see any change in first serve percentage over the years.

[Detonator]

Often, speeds of deliveries from the time of release to the time they reach the batsman, including their speed after pitching, is shown on tv. A 145 k delivery, after pitching , becomes about 110 to 115 k .Even if you take it as 115 k then it retains 79% of its speed. Holding, shown bowling a fastest of 141 k ... if it were measured after pitching would have a release speed of 178 k. Thomson clocked at a fastest of 147 k would have a release speed of 186 k. Does it seem possible ?

178k :WTF: 186k :WTF: Batsmen :viking: Batsmen without helmet :saint:

[express bowling]

178k :WTF: 186k :WTF: Batsmen :viking: Batsmen without helmet :saint:

It tells you that those speeds of the 70s contest, of 139 k , 141 k etc. ,were release speeds only.

[rkt.india]

Jeff Thomson says if Lee-Akhtar could 160kph then he could bowl 180 kph. Case closed.

[Tiger80]

It tells you that those speeds of the 70s contest' date=' of 139 k , 141 k etc. ,were release speeds only.[/quote'] That could had been release speed, but method looks much different from todayO/W we to accept that many those were like Indian trundlers Holdings first delivery was 127.9 average speed of around 135 Roberts too bowled first at 128 kmph On the other Hand I just watched Shanon Gabriel against new zealand on tv and he cranked two deliveries in eighth over at 140 ks and average speed of 134-135.Please remember he is just a fast medium or even a medium fast bowler

[coffee_rules]

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

Hilarious take on this by bumble. very funny. DrCNUrnsu2s @ 1:03. you used to bowl in a wig. :cantstop: @5:17 can you take the pain away and keep the swelling!

[coffee_rules]

That could had been release speed, but method looks much different from todayO/W we to accept that many those were like Indian trundlers Holdings first delivery was 127.9 average speed of around 135 Roberts too bowled first at 128 kmph On the other Hand I just watched Shanon Gabriel against new zealand on tv and he cranked two deliveries in eighth over at 140 ks and average speed of 134-135.Please remember he is just a fast medium or even a medium fast bowler

Nol94jVqCXk Thommo was clocked at 99 mph at the batsn. so he should have been more that 110 mph at release. so there you go...

[rkt.india]

That could had been release speed, but method looks much different from todayO/W we to accept that many those were like Indian trundlers Holdings first delivery was 127.9 average speed of around 135 Roberts too bowled first at 128 kmph On the other Hand I just watched Shanon Gabriel against new zealand on tv and he cranked two deliveries in eighth over at 140 ks and average speed of 134-135.Please remember he is just a fast medium or even a medium fast bowler

Gabriel is genuine fast. He is just lacking rhythm right now, probably can be as quick as Tino. Was clock in 145-150 easily against Zim.

[coffee_rules]

some very good olf footage of Thompson. 4cukAdBEpMs

[CG]

Nol94jVqCXk Thommo was clocked at 99 mph at the batsn. so he should have been more that 110 mph at release. so there you go...

It is not humanly possible to clock 99mph at batsman end.

[Tiger80]

Nol94jVqCXk Thommo was clocked at 99 mph at the batsn. so he should have been more that 110 mph at release. so there you go...

Did I say that they were measured at batsmen end? .The camera's in bowling competition were very close or at different angle which we see in real matches ,so of course they were measured measured them differently . Here is comment at youtube

He wasn't timed "over a distance". That 160kph speed was calculated by measuring the distance the ball travelled over the 1st few frames from a high speed cine camera at point of release. Another camera at the batting end measured the same delivery at 139kph. All explained in Dennis Lillee's book The Art of Fast Bowling. If you're interested in the truth.

Anyway I will gladly take Thommson 110 mph than believing that Mohit Sharma has same speed of Holding :giggle: and Vinay Kumar is faster than WAyne Daniel BTW I am wondering at what speed Kapil used to bowl , if 130s was the speed of fast bowlers at time Probably just 120 kmph