bunny Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4saUbc_yPE]Neil Harvey 167 vs England - 2nd test MCG 1958/59 ASHES - YouTube[/ame] Some bowlers are here: (Look for the left arm spinner who is chucking almost every delivery). http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/20341.html http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/8944.html http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/16331.html Jim Laker seems to have a nice elegant action. Anyhow, I feel these guys cannot be compared at all with modern cricketers.
bunny Posted February 7, 2012 Author Posted February 7, 2012 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdbCk4hMCg8]Peter May 113 vs Australia- 2nd Test 1958/59 ASHES Melbourne - YouTube[/ame] Even Benaud is bowling long hops. There's one more throw bowler: Meckiff :( There are some interesting field placements though. Quite attacking compared to modern cricket. Some nice shots especially sweeps and pulls. But overall, the cricket seems to be of much lower quality, and these are just the highlights ;) Alan Davidson looks to be a threatening bowler but only so much as Pedro Collins.
rkt.india Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 Pace bower bowling along with Davidson is bowling like Virat Kohli's medium pace.
Old guy Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 hm...but still whats ur point? no they cant be compared with modern guys.. but some of them were best of there era..after all thats what counts doesnt it ?
Old guy Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 The problem is when people start talking about these players as though they were the best of all times. u cant compare them..sorry but its not possible they were the best of there times.. tendulkar and co are best of today...just wait for 40 more years u wont be able to compare that generation players with tendulkar.. game evolves lol i hope there not a another discussion about that topic cos seriously im tired of it :cantstop:
bunny Posted February 8, 2012 Author Posted February 8, 2012 hm...but still whats ur point? no they cant be compared with modern guys.. but some of them were best of there era..after all thats what counts doesnt it ? I had never watched more than a few clips of cricket before the 60s, and I was just amazed at the glaring differences between now and then. Thought people would be interested in this one. Btw, I do buy your point that cricket will evolve more, and there will be newer techniques.
Old guy Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 I had never watched more than a few clips of cricket before the 60s, and I was just amazed at the glaring differences between now and then. Thought people would be interested in this one. Btw, I do buy your point that cricket will evolve more, and there will be newer techniques. ah ok i thought this is gonna be another u know ___vs ___ lol
Robelinda Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 I got heaps more 40's and 50's videos that i will upload one day.
Tapioca Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 I got heaps more 40's and 50's videos that i will upload one day. Some Frank Tyson please. There is exactly one clip of him available in youtube at the moment
Old guy Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 ok if you say so :D lol you care about 40 yrs from now ? Enjoy the present. Enjoy the great mans batting without bickering and whining. nope..i dont ..and i did enjoyed some gr8 innings my fav live one would be the ones in south africa recently .. this era was gr8 with players like lara,ponting all playing...no need to compare jsut enjoy there brilliance it wont lost for long now :( hope new players can step up only good one i can see is ab de villiers lol
bunny Posted February 9, 2012 Author Posted February 9, 2012 I got heaps more 40's and 50's videos that i will upload one day. Please do!!!! Any chance you have got a full day's of play, especially featuring Marshall/Holding or Richards?
Robelinda Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Please do!!!! Any chance you have got a full day's of play, especially featuring Marshall/Holding or Richards? Any chance? LOL. Yes, yes i do.
Old guy Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Any chance? LOL. Yes, yes i do. u r awesome :two_thumbs_up::hatsoff:
rabinjackman Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 What i want to see is, if those cameras would have been used today how the footage wud have looked :hmmm:
Guest BossBhai Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 -- Removed on request of the user --
Magneto Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 What i want to see is' date=' if those cameras would have been used today how the footage wud have looked :hmmm:[/quote'] It would look the same, because the resolution will only change (which means, the image will look cleaner/clearer and noise-free) and nothing else. Video frame-rates have remained the same, so the pace at which the deliveries have been bowled would look the same. The camera positioning (distance, height) and the focal length of lenses are pretty much the same, so the 'perspective' would not be very different as well. Sum total = A trundler will look like a trundler only but the images would look clear and sharper.
The Outsider Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the cricket in that clip - if you consider bowlers getting hammered on a patta to be a representation of cricket in the late 50s I refer you to the Calcutta test between Indian and South Africa a couple of years back. And LOL at the comment that video frame rates have remained the same - super slow motion is 10,000 frames per second and the video being played here is probably 30.
Magneto Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Honestly' date=' I don't see anything wrong with the cricket in that clip - if you consider bowlers getting hammered on a patta to be a representation of cricket in the late 50s I refer you to the Calcutta test between Indian and South Africa a couple of years back. [b']And LOL at the comment that video frame rates have remained the same - super slow motion is 10,000 frames per second and the video being played here is probably 30. The comment was NOT in reference to super slo-mo/high-speed cinematography, but in reference to PAL/NTSC mode of recording 'normal' action. From the Berlin Olympics (1936) to now, frame rates in recording of video of normal motion has not changed. The opportunities in terms of high-speed photography have increased, but normal action is never viewed in high-speed. The point was made in context to the normal action and not in context to slow-mos and super-slow mos. Also, the video played here would be 25 because Australia has traditionally used PAL and not NTSC.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now