Jump to content

Mitchel Johnson


kabira

Recommended Posts

@ 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.
Please do not assume. Tennis and football are the two sports I've been most competent at and currently i am a Tennis Canada CP level 2 instructor. What i've said re: tennis is common knowledge in the circuit. Pete Sampras didnt serve any slower when he played the French Open and Pistol Pete didnt rush to the net every single time on clay either. He didnt use any different serving technique, except when he wanted to stay back, his right leg plonked straight down and when he wanted to serve and volley, he didnt use his right leg as the brake to forward momentum. Look closely and you will notice this easiest on clay: the only difference in serving (for the same player that is) to go serve and volley and serving to stay at the baseline is in the follow-through of what your trailing leg does. And since claycourt tennis favours baseline play by far, its clay court specialists that have always tended to have the lion's share of knee injuries. From Muster, Kuerten to Moya, Rios, Nadal- its the claycourter's penchant to plonk their trailing foot as a brake to stay put at the baseline every single time is the reason they tend to have more knee injuries. It is a pretty uncontested fact that serving in tennis hasnt improved, its regressed over time, with the late 80s to early 2000s being the pinnacle of power serving in tennis. And the reason for me to cite this textbook example from tennis is to refute your notion that physical performance in every sport improves linearly with time and modernity. It may have some vailidity for purely physical sports such as running, swimming, weightlifting, etc. but for sports where a complex technique of motion is involved for excellence (such as playing ice hockey, bowling in cricket, etc.) it definitely is not the case. Even in sports where pure brute strength is ancillary but not decisive to the whole sport - such as serving in tennis, there is clear evidence that 10-15 years ago, tennis had faster & stronger servers than they do today.
Link to comment
Cricinfo's speeds are different from broadcast. Forget Ponting, a 37 year old Kallis was hitting 135-140 today. Sure he is quicker than Holding. EDIT: It was this match: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/518948.html Here is the post: http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=1740986&postcount=92
Link to comment
Kallis is known to bowl at those speeds for years .... and unless you are saying that the speed guns were faulty when he was bowling ... I dont see why you find this hard to believe. There is no hawkeye stats for the Hobart match where you claim he touched 137. Given that there is plenty of other evidence wherein there is no footage whatsoever of him bowling at those speeds in his younger days I doubt that he ever bowled at those speeds. Especially when there is H/E speeds from the match before. So what according to you were the speeds at which Holding bowled in his peak ? More Ricky footage -->
Holding would average high 140s to low 150s for his peak years.
Link to comment
Kallis is known to bowl at those speeds for years .... and unless you are saying that the speed guns were faulty when he was bowling ... I dont see why you find this hard to believe. There is no hawkeye stats for the Hobart match where you claim he touched 137. Given that there is plenty of other evidence wherein there is no footage whatsoever of him bowling at those speeds in his younger days I doubt that he ever bowled at those speeds. Especially when there is H/E speeds from the match before. So what according to you were the speeds at which Holding bowled in his peak ? More Ricky footage -->
Since you've resorted to your old habits of putting words in mouth of other posters and lying in a grand total of 2 posts, don't expect any further replies from me, but yeah Holding would be around Johnson's speed.
Link to comment
Since you've resorted to your old habits of putting words in mouth of other posters and lying in a grand total of 2 posts' date=' don't expect any further replies from me, but yeah Holding would be around Johnson's speed.[/quote'] Certainly Holding could bowl quick. Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Patterson all were 140+. I do not trust any of those world's fast bowler competitions calculations but they look quick to eyes that cannot be denied.
Link to comment
Please do not assume. Tennis and football are the two sports I've been most competent at and currently i am a Tennis Canada CP level 2 instructor. .
There is no way for me to know whether you are a tennis instructor or not. One of the problems of forums on the net. Further, even if you think I am correct about any point, whether it is tennis or cricket, you are not going to admit it here. You are just blindly refuting just about everything I have to say. So, what is the point of this debate as far as it pertains to opinions and non provable issues. So, I will just point out this. You have written in another post in this thread that according to you ... Holding's average pace was high 140s to early 150s during his peak years. Well .... you have no way of knowing this. Johnson, who every experienced cricketer who has played him are saying that he is really quick, was intimidating and fearful even though batsmen have modern day protective gear, .... was averaging early to mid 140s in the Ashes.
Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...