Mitchel Johnson

[youngindia]

The kanpur test was a unusually lively pitch and the windies bowlers had a field day on it. kapil infact lambasted that "those who prepared the pitch should be anti national." gavaskar had his revenge in delhi.i remember watching on TV right from delhi to Chennai test.delhi,calcutta and Mumbai tests were in colour.ahmedabad and chennai was in B and W.

[youngindia]

Mitchell Johnson right now is a war machine....But it is only Johnson,rest are all decent bowlers that's about it......But What if there were 3-4 M.J's bowling at the same pace and the same line constantly?

marshall was the fastest at that time.but he is a bit slower than waqar or Donald.johnson is certainly faster. the windies bowler had 86m+ pace (at their peak) or awkward bounce (like garner) which was more than handy for that time. look at this ! ytNOth31K60

[akshayxyz]

OT' date=' but the discussion on TVs back in the day brought back to mind the two TV brands from that time - EC Tv and Weston. Anyone remember?[/quote'] Jolly Startrek TV

[akshayxyz]

I don't deny that. Its a very well known incident. but what I don't agree is the details like "It went to forward short leg or square leg or such like". And to make it sound like what Mitch did at Gabba was a walk in the park is also something I don't agree about. Watching cricket for all these years has taught me one thing : On a given day or any short period of time for that matter any decent cricketer can do things that are on par or better than the biggest legends of the game. I will give you a great example : Jimmy Adams scored a small matter of 520 runs in 3 tests in the 94 series against India which Included Kumble and Srinath in the bowling lineup. Tendulkar never even got close to that in his illustrious career. These things happen. Doesn't mean that Jimmy > Tendulkar. It also doesnt mean that Jimmy was a useless cricketer and that whoever thought of bringing his name up alongside Tendulkar needs to be ridiculed. This is my point in a nutshell.

Agree with this. Even Ishant Sharma/Sreesanth can be as intimidating as anyone else. Legends are legends because they have done it more often, but that doesn't mean that it is easier to face lesser known bowlers on their day/hour. In fact, it adds element of surprise! With bowlers of reputation, you would be careful to begin with.

[akshayxyz]

Dyanora TV with the closing doors anyone? :cantstop:

Our jolly TV was similar. except the channel/volume controls were on the lower half of the right side panel.

[akshayxyz]

Kirmani had series of bouncers one after another at Chennai . He kept on ducking every single time. Being short kinda helped him. They asked him to hook. He did not budge one bit. If i remember right it was one of the match where Marshall did not drop his pace from start to finish. Entire West Indies team was ultra aggressive against India as a revenge for world cup 1983 loss. Another incident was Ahmedabad Test. West Indies was absolutely pissed off at the pitch in which Maninder took 4 wickets in the first innings. Kapil took 9 for 83 in the 2nd. India just needed 242 to win. Lloyd openly said they were going to win it by any means. That pitch was a dodgy pitch. The bouncer barrage in that match went out of control..Funny thing highest partnership for India in the 2nd innings was 10th wicket between Maninder and Kirmani who were subjected to bouncer barrage. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63352.html

Day 3 - kapil scores 31, and then takes 6 wickets. and continues his spell on the 4th day. Rest day would have helped, but still, 30 overs - as a fast bowler- from one end out of total 60 :hatsoff:

[vvvslaxman]

Day 3 - kapil scores 31' date=' and then takes 6 wickets. and continues his spell on the 4th day. Rest day would have helped, but still, 30 overs - as a fast bowler- from one end out of total 60 :hatsoff:[/quote'] There was a cartoon where Kapil was asking Lloyd "can i bowl from both ends" that got famous :cantstop:

[adi B]

Day 3 - kapil scores 31' date=' and then takes 6 wickets. and continues his spell on the 4th day. Rest day would have helped, but still, 30 overs - as a fast bowler- from one end out of total 60 :hatsoff:[/quote'] the rest day used to be on day 2 but 30 ovrs on the trott from one end is unbelievable :hatsoff:

[adi B]

marshall was the fastest at that time.but he is a bit slower than waqar or Donald.johnson is certainly faster. the windies bowler had 86m+ pace (at their peak) or awkward bounce (like garner) which was more than handy for that time. look at this ! ytNOth31K60

wow! now those are some nasty deliveries,good old joel bouncers

[Muloghonto]

:hysterical::hysterical: as I had predicted you wouldnt like what I said. Sirf squareleg ? Arrey bhai while you are at it why dont you say Deep backward squareleg .... nobody is going to question you ... lage raho ... :two_thumbs_up: But if laws of physics and being accurate mean anything to you ... you will realize that this is simply impossible. Try hurling a bat with both hands and see how far you get.

Err, I've seen batsmen go for a full blooded stroke and the bat flying out of their hands to mid off before. And these are much, much heavier bats than what Gavaskar used. If Gavaskar was playing an attacking shot and it got knocked out of his hand, it quite easily could've made it to square leg.

[Muloghonto]

You are not going to like what I say but for what its worth ..... First of all back in those days DD used to rarely telecast matches live ... usually only those played in the 4 Metros IIRC .... secondly the no.of Indians who had access to TV in 1983 was perhaps not even 1% ... so its highly unlikely you watched Marshall Knocking off Gavaskars bat at Kanpur. You probably listened to AIR commentary and are trying to embellish. Next ... Mitch is no slow coach. Infact I would say he is much faster than Marshall. Watch the videos of Marshall bowling objectively and you will realize that. Now dont read this as Mitch > Marshall and start trolling. Then there is the aspect of bowling in Kanpur versus Bowling at the Gabba there is no comparison at all on which is harder. Regarding How many modern Indian batsmen can handle such bowling ... well remember Shoaib, Waqar, Steyn , Blee, Bond, Donald etc ... ? These were way faster than Marshall on an avg and are known to have inflicted serious injury to batsmen even with helmets on. So don't undermine the current crop for the sake of "hamarey zamaney mey aisa hota tha" nostalgia. Sunny was a great and Tendulkar himself acknowledges him as a hero. But there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to who was miles ahead . Sunny himself will acknowledge that Tendulkar was better than him. The record speaks for itself. At the same time we should be thankfull to SMG and Viv for inspiring SRT and he literally achieved what both did.

There is no proof that these guys were 'way faster' than Marshall, infact they probably weren't given that Marshall wore the tag of the 'fastest bowler in the world' for the better part of the 1980s and Holding was the clear-cut fastest bowler in the world of the 1970s after Thommo. Marshall, Roberts and Holding were exceptional athletes and they are in no way shape or form deserve to be devalued by comparisons with Akhtar or Lee. Neither Akhtar nor Lee could sustain their pace after 4-5 overs maximum, while Marshall and Holding pretty much bowled at the same speed for the whole day. That they were capable of this, I know first hand because I've seen the West Indies team of that era practice and they ran far more than any cricketers do, thus their staina is, at the very least, orders of magnitude higher than modern cricketers. What they lacked is proper injury management and recovery, which is why a lot of those great west Indies bowlers faded in their early 30s, while modern bowlers can easily make it to 35 if they are focussed. Also, this flawed obsession with speed amongst ICF-ers is perplexing. One would assume that ICF people would have basic grounding in physics but evidence seems to be contrary if one went by the 'fast bowlers' debate that goes on here. FYI, speed guns only measure horizontal speed of a ball, not vertical. Tall bowlers like Garner, Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop, McGrath or Mohd. Irfan don't get as much horizontal speed because the angle the ball comes down means they get far more vertical speed than shorter bowlers like Marshall, Waqar, Steyn. That doesn't mean batsmen have 'more time' to play the ball from these tall bowlers because putting bat on ball is a 3-d movement that takes horizontal speed and bounce ( vertical speed) into factor. A bowler that bowls at 85mph but gets the ball to bounce 5 feet gives you just as much time to play the ball as a bowler who bowls at 90mph and gets the ball to bounce 3 feet- this is because in the former case, the fraction of a second extra time you get in horizontal distance covered by the ball is nullified by the necessity to raise your bat/body higher to negate the vertical distance. I doubt you have played much cricket outside of glorified street cricket otherwise your views on fast bowling wouldn't be so far off the mark.

[vvvslaxman]

^ I was about to post on the "speed measurement". Factors like seam position, pitch determine the actual "reaction time" of batsman. Otherwise Ishant would have been too quick for most batsman in Australia. But they treated him like a trundler despite having a higher average speed (average around mid 140s) than Umesh. Besides hitting the impeccable length introduces element of uncertainty. That complicates the things even further.

[G_B_]

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".

[vvvslaxman]

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".

Not necessarily to the point that they will keep on increasing and someone will run 100 m eters in 2 second after 50 years. There is something called human limitations. There is something called individual limitations. Baseball pitching record still stands the test of time. Granted there are more and more 100 mph pitchers these days. Till date fastest ever pitching was from 1974 before that 1945 http://www.efastball.com/baseball/stats/fastest-pitch-speed-in-major-leagues/

[Muloghonto]

Its fundamentally natural progression. Forget cricket' date=' 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. [/quote'] Some may disagree. NHIS published a study recently in BBC saying that on average the British kids are less physically capable than their parents. 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. 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. 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.

[observer1]

:hysterical::hysterical: as I had predicted you wouldnt like what I said. Sirf squareleg ? Arrey bhai while you are at it why dont you say Deep backward squareleg .... nobody is going to question you ... lage raho ... :two_thumbs_up: But if laws of physics and being accurate mean anything to you ... you will realize that this is simply impossible. Try hurling a bat with both hands and see how far you get.

Boss Bhai India had live television for cricket from the 1974 series vs West Indies. It was in BW though. The 1984 series was definitely telecast live. I remember seeing the Kanpur match live - I can even tell you that it was about 1600 IST when the debacle occurred - I think Marshall took 3 wickets for about 10 runs in 5 or 6 overs of magical bowling. I have only seen Waqar Younis consistently as threatening as Marshall in his peak was.

[vvvslaxman]

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

Good post :hatsoff:

[express bowling]

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

Although improvement with passage of time is not always true , it is much more pertinent to matters of power, speed, physical ability etc. for sports persons who are trying to achieve them. Like bodybuilding, sprinting, weight lifting, swimming, hammer throwing, running etc etc. You have discussed artistic abilities like spin bowling and dribbling. They do not necessarily improve with time. Similarly, ordinary people may have less physical ability than their predecessors because of the highly aided lifestyle that they lead where they do not have to physically exert themselves as often. But, when that same youth goes to a gym and tries to build his body, he more often than not has a far better result than his father or grandfather. Regarding tennis, it is true that many top players in the 90s were bigger servers than today's top men. As I played tennis in the 90s and actively followed the development of the game,one thing that needs mention is that coaches of that era were a bit concerned about the lack of consistency of the big servers. Most of them were not in a position to play groundstrokes after the big serves and had to depend on serve and volley, which is a less consistent method of playing. Sampras was an exception and not many had his ability. It was more a conscious decision to not go all out on the serves and be ready for groundstrokes, in the 2000s. After that the top players have become super consistent and the number of semi final appearances by top 5 players have increased tremendously. Point to be noted is, although the serve speed of top players have decreased, the highest serve speeds have increased tremendously in the 2000s. Regarding bowling speeds of fast bowlers if different era, there are many factors which have worked both for and against increase in speeds over time. 'For' factors would be better strength, flexibility and stamina building techniques and facilities, use of biomechanics, better food supplements, more advanced performance improving drugs both legal and illegal etc. 'Against' factors would be coaches being too cautious about injury, changing a bowler's natural action, too much cricket, too much or wrong gymming resulting in large but wrong body types for fast bowling or injuries etc. Although we will never be able to say with certainty, which era was quicker but from videos of different eras starting from the seventies , it seems that the average speed is the quickest in the 2000s. There might have been a couple of exceptionally quick fast bowlers in the 70s and 80s but Shoaib and Lee are perhaps the quickest pacers ever along with maybe Thomson. I am not talking about a couple of quickest spells or very short international careers. The bowlers of the 70s and 80s induced more fear though, because of the lack of or bad helmets, other inadequate protective gears, unlimited bouncers rule, more lively pitches, unfit batsmen etc. Another point is, it is possible that Holding would have been quicker in speed ( not a certainty but a distinct possibility ) if he was a pacer of the 2000s but would have induced less fear than he did during his time.

[Muloghonto]

Although improvement with passage of time is not always true ' date= it is much more pertinent to matters of power, speed, physical ability etc. for sports persons who are trying to achieve them. Like bodybuilding, sprinting, weight lifting, swimming, hammer throwing, running etc etc.

In sports where the sole benchmark of success is physical improvement, like sprinting, weightlifting, etc. the boundaries have been pushed. But in sports, such as cricket, tennis, basketball, etc. where physical prowess auguments strategic and 'artistic' components of the game instead of being outright determinants of performance, linear improvement of physical prowess is *NOT* necessarily true. I see no evidence whatsoever to believe that bowlers today are fitter than they were in the past. Infact, I see evidence for otherwise: pace bowlers in the 70s & 80s averaged far more overs per year/matches per year than pace bowlers from the mid 90s onwards. There were also more pace bowlers from the 70s & 80s who were exemplary in fitness than there are today. People like Marshall, Holding, Kapil rarely spent more than a week injured at a time ( no major injuries) and people like Courtney Walsh were freakish in never having more than 1-2 games per year injured. I also see no evidence whatsoever that professional baseballers, footballers etc. are fitter today than they were 20 years ago on the average. It is assumed, simply because it is true for athletics and sheer performance sports but there is no evidence of it presented.

Regarding tennis, it is true that many top players in the 90s were bigger servers than today's top men. As I played tennis in the 90s and actively followed the development of the game,one thing that needs mention is that coaches of that era were a bit concerned about the lack of consistency of the big servers. Most of them were not in a position to play groundstrokes after the big serves and had to depend on serve and volley, which is a less consistent method of playing. Sampras was an exception and not many had his ability. It was more a conscious decision to not go all out on the serves and be ready for groundstrokes, in the 2000s. After that the top players have become super consistent and the number of semi final appearances by top 5 players have increased tremendously. Point to be noted is, although the serve speed of top players have decreased, the highest serve speeds have increased tremendously in the 2000s.

Incorrect. The serves today are slower *not* because the players themselves have cut down on full power & play percentage tennis more: the average first serve percentage in the 90s and today hover around the 55% mark for the field. This indicates that the loss of speed is *not* due to a shift in the sports mentality but it is because the sport right now does not have the same glut of power servers it did back in the day. We have a few- Isner and Cilic are true 'monster servers' and to an extent Raonic is as well but even they are not in the same class as Rusedski, Ivanisevic, Phillipousis,Sampras or Becker for pure first serve awesomeness. The highest serve speed has increased in the 2000s pretty much due to one guy alone: Roddick. Factor in the incremental improvement in racquet technology from the 90s (they are lighter and more resistant to warping during shotmaking than the 90s stuff), the average speed of the first serves in tennis today are lower than in the 90s and the fact that the average first serve % are the same as the 90s, it leads to one and one conclusion alone: 1990s was the golden era of monster servers in tennis. This is a clear example on how sheer physical performances in sports such as tennis, cricket, etc. does not improve linerarly through time.

Regarding bowling speeds of fast bowlers if different era, there are many factors which have worked both for and against increase in speeds over time. 'For' factors would be better strength, flexibility and stamina building techniques and facilities, use of biomechanics, better food supplements, more advanced performance improving drugs both legal and illegal etc. 'Against' factors would be coaches being too cautious about injury, changing a bowler's natural action, too much cricket, too much or wrong gymming resulting in large but wrong body types for fast bowling or injuries etc.

I don't know where you get the idea that just because bowlers go to the gym more today, they are by default fitter. I once worked a job for a year offloading sea can containers full of 40lbs. of alcohol boxes for a warehouse. After six months, I was far fitter than I ever was or ever have been and trust me, I've tried the whole 'gym and personal trainer' approach. Simply speaking, its *not* a science, let alone a perfect science. IMO, today's bowlers are less fit because they do not do nearly enough stamina training ( I know this as a fact. Not even the Aussie bowlers run as much every day as the West Indies bowlers from the 80s did as daily exercise) and they think lifting weights and sculpting a muscular body would translate to faster, fitter bowlers. Its more or less, a crock of shyte. Not every new idea is a winner and most of the ideas relating to fitness are in this category. I see far more impediment in today's bowlers due to too much tinkering on their actions by coaches and faulty ideas of fitness training and this much is borne out by facts: the average fast bowler in the 70s & 80s had far greater durability through seasons but a shorter career. Used to be when bowlers would more or less be fit and ready for 90% of their scheduled matches as a rule and have 10-12 year careers at the top level. Now bowlers play 50-55% of their scheduled matches (which still ends up being less than the average # of matches played in the 80s era) and have 12-15 year careers. THey have regressed, empirical analysis leads to this conclusion.

Although we will never be able to say with certainty, which era was quicker but from videos of different eras starting from the seventies , it seems that the average speed is the quickest in the 2000s. There might have been a couple of exceptionally quick fast bowlers in the 70s and 80s but Shoaib and Lee are perhaps the quickest pacers ever along with maybe Thomson. I am not talking about a couple of quickest spells or very short international careers.

I have no idea how you can actually make a sound judgement on the speed of bowlers based on videos. The only way you can do it with some intuitive credibility is if the camera angle and distance of the camera from the pitch were a constant for all videos watched. Otherwise, you are simply going by a series of optical illusions that play into projecting a 3-d concept ( cricket) on to a 2-d image ( television) and then re-imaged inside your head.

The bowlers of the 70s and 80s induced more fear though, because of the lack of or bad helmets, other inadequate protective gears, unlimited bouncers rule, more lively pitches, unfit batsmen etc.

Nonsense. The bowlers of the 70s & 80s invoked far more fear than Lee or Akhtar did because you could 'weather the storm' with Lee or Akhtar- neither were fit enough to deliver 8 overs on the trot and neither of them could bowl 20 overs an innings consistently. With Lillee or Imran, you knew they would come at you all day at near top speed. With the West Indians, its like having 4 Alan Donalds in the team- everybody capable of bowling 20 overs a match at 145+kph and that is a far tougher challenge than faced against any fast bowling unit today.

Another point is, it is possible that Holding would have been quicker in speed ( not a certainty but a distinct possibility ) if he was a pacer of the 2000s but would have induced less fear than he did during his time.

That may be so due to the curbing of the bouncer rule and better protective equipment. Holding was not just fearsome because of him being a great fast bowler. Its because when Holding was done, you had to face 3 other bowlers, who were 3 of Marshall, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Clarke. Ie, no respite. Btw, the 'unlimited bouncer rule' was changed not because it was intimidatory to the batsmen, it was changed because it became too easy to force a draw by bowling six bouncers in a row all sailing 3 feet over the batsmen's head.

[express bowling]

In sports where the sole benchmark of success is physical improvement, like sprinting, weightlifting, etc. the boundaries have been pushed. But in sports, such as cricket, tennis, basketball, etc.I where physical prowess auguments strategic and 'artistic' components of the game instead of being outright determinants of performance, lminear improvement of physical prowess is *NOT* necessarily true. I see no evidence whatsoever to believe that bowlers today are fitter than they were in the past. Infact, I see evidence for otherwise: pace bowlers in the 70s & 80s averaged far more overs per year/matches per year than pace bowlers from the mid 90s onwards. There were also more pace bowlers from the 70s & 80s who were exemplary in fitness than there are today. People like Marshall, Holding, Kapil rarely spent more than a week injured at a time ( no major injuries) and people like Courtney Walsh were freakish in never having more than 1-2 games per year injured. I also see no evidence whatsoever that professional baseballers, footballers etc. are fitter today than they were 20 years ago on the average. It is assumed, simply because it is true for athletics and sheer performance sports but there is no evidence of it presented. In sports where the sole benchmark of success is physical improvement, like sprinting, weightlifting, etc. the boundaries have been pushed. But in sports, such as cricket, tennis, basketball, etc. where physical prowess auguments strategic and 'artistic' components of the game instead of being outright determinants of performance, lminear improvement of physical prowess is *NOT* necessarily true. I see no evidence whatsoever to believe that bowlers today are fitter than they were in the past. Infact, I see evidence for otherwise: pace bowlers in the 70s & 80s averaged far more overs per year/matches per year than pace bowlers from the mid 90s onwards. There were also more pace bowlers from the 70s & 80s who were exemplary in fitness than there are today. People like Marshall, Holding, Kapil rarely spent more than a week injured at a time ( no major injuries) and people like Courtney Walsh were freakish in never having more than 1-2 games per year injured. I also see no evidence whatsoever that professional baseballers, footballers etc. are fitter today than they were 20 years ago on the average. It is assumed, simply becaus e it is true for athletics and sheer performance sports but there is no evidence of it presented.

I had commented about improvement in power , speed and physical ability by sports persons desiring such results. Such clear cut desire is present in bodybuilding, sprinting, running, swimming, weightlifting etc. and the results are for all to see. I did not really say that fitness has improved with time in all aspects of sports like Basketball , baseball , cricket . I personally don't know anything about baseball or basketball and won't comment. In football the strength, shooting power, speed and stamina has increased. Fitness , meaning staying injury free maynot have. In cricket , the batsmen have become much fitter. Their running between the wickets and fielding so so much better, it is not even worth debating. Regarding fast bowlers, the scenario is far more complex. I agree that the modern ones are more injury prone due to their actions being changed from their natural ones and also due to too much bodybuilding which often reduces their flexibility. Also, they do not give sufficient recuperation time after gym. Bowlers of yesteryears were surely less injury prone. But use of performance enhancers , both permitted as well as banned, have given them the ability to bowl quick as long as they bowl. Strength has increased too. In a nutshell, when the primary objective is not speed , power etc. we may r may not see improvement in them today because of the objective being aimed at.

Incorrect. The serves today are slower *not* because the players themselves have cut down on full power & play percentage tennis more: the average first serve percentage in the 90s and today hover around the 55% mark for the field. This indicates that the loss of speed is *not* due to a shift in the sports mentality but it is because the sport right now does not have the same glut of power servers it did back in the day. We have a few- Isner and Cilic are true 'monster servers' and to an extent Raonic is as well but even they are not in the same class as Rusedski, Ivanisevic, Phillipousis,Sampras or Becker for pure first serve awesomeness. The highest serve speed has increased in the 2000s pretty much due to one guy alone: Roddick. Factor in the incremental improvement in racquet technology from the 90s (they are lighter and more resistant to warping during shotmaking than the 90s stuff), the average speed of the first serves in tennis todayare lower than in the 90s and the fact that the average first serve % are the same as the 90s, it leads to one and one conclusion alone: 1990s was the golden era of monster servers in tennis. This is a clear example on how sheer physical performances in sports such as tennis,cricket, etc. does not improve linerarly through time

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.

don't know where you get the idea that just because bowlers go to the gym more today, they are by default fitter. I once worked a job for a year offloading sea can containers full of 40lbs. of alcohol boxes for a warehouse. After six months, I was far fitter than I ever was or ever have been and trust me, I've tried the whole 'gym and personal trainer' approach. Simply speaking, its *not* a science, let alone a perfect science. IMO, today's bowlers are less fit because they do not do nearly enough stamina training ( I know this as a fact. Not even the Aussie bowlers run as much every day as the West Indies bowlers from the 80s did as daily exercise) and they think lifting weights and sculpting a muscular body would translate to faster, fitter bowlers. Its more or less, a crock of shyte. Not every new idea is a winner and most of the ideas relating to fitness are in this category. I see far more impediment in today's bowlers due to too much tinkering on their actions by coaches and faulty ideas of fitness training and this much is borne out by facts: the average fast bowler in the 70s & 80s ad far greater durability through seasons but a shorter career. Used to be when bowlers would more or less be fit and ready for 90% of their scheduled matches as a rule and have 10-12 year careers at the top level. Now bowlers play 50-55% of their scheduled matches (which still ends up being less than the average # of matches played in the 80s era) and have 12-15 year careers. THey have regressed, empirical analysis leads to this conclusion

As I said, bowlers are not fitter in the sense that they get injured more often. You have not read my post. I have outlined the 'for' and 'against' factors which influences pace of bowlers now. But there are many injury prone bowlers who are bowling really quick when they play. Here, we are talking about just the pace of bowlers and not how successful their careers are.

have no idea how you can actually make a sound judgement on the speed of bowlers based on videos. The only way you can do it with some intuitive credibility is if the camera angle and distance of the camera from the pitch were a constant for all videos watched. Otherwise, you are simply going by a series of optical illusions that play into projecting a 3-d concept ( cricket) on to a 2-d image ( television) and then re-imaged inside your head

Would you care to read before debating ? I have clearly written that a clear opinion cannot be formed. Nobody will be able to do it ever, this way or that. But videos do give some idea..... much better than hearsay or personal opinions .

Nonsense. ThQe bowlers of the 70s & 80s invoked far more fear than Lee or Akhtar did because you could 'weather the storm' with Lee or Akhtar- neither were fit enough to deliver 8 overs on the trot and neither of them could bowl 20 overs an innings consistently. With Lillee or Imran, you knew they would come at you all day at near top speed. With the West Indians, its like having 4 Alan Donalds in the team- everybody capable of bowling 20 overs a match at 145+kph and that is a far tougher challenge than faced against any fast bowling unit today

How do you know that they bowled 145k +? You are making thus up without any evidence. We will never know the actual speeds at which these pacers bowled day in and day out.

That may be so due to the curbing of the bouncer rule and better protective equipment. Holding was not just fearsome because of him being a great fast bowler. Its because when Holding was done, you had to face 3 other bowlers, who were 3 of Marshall, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Clarke. Ie, no respite. Btw, the 'unlimited bouncer rule' was changed not because it was intimidatory to the batsmen, it was changed because it became too easy to force a draw by bowling six bouncers in a row all sailing 3 feet over the batsmen's head.

Their is no doubt about the fact that no team has ever had 4 such high quality pacers, like the golden era Windies. They created a lot of pressure because of 4 quality pacers bowling one after the other. I have a lot of respect for them. But we ate discussing speeds here. They did not look quicker than the quickest of today. But much better bowlers than many definitely. Ha ha. You are giving the official reason for the bouncer rule removal. Many say that it was because England got 2 or 3 ... 0-5 whitewashed from England and they had a lot of clout within the ICC then.