ICF All Time Test XI : Openers

[thongale]

And thats all that is needed for my point about the run up. just look at the no.of steps he has. Forget about the speed at which he is running into ... do you know of any modern day fast bowler with that sort of run up ?

There were many West Indians who bowled with short run ups, but produced thunderbolts. Colin Croft and Walsh did it frequently cutting down their run up and still sending nasty perfume balls. Length of the runup doesn't mean what pace bowler is bowling. For example, Pramodaya Wickremasinghe and Abey Kuruvilla had long run ups, but were just medium fast. Wasim Akram had a short run up, but he sent 90mph+ deliveries . Stronger guys need a lesser run up. A agree that faster bowlers have longer run ups generally, but it is not a ruled carved in steel. So the point on the length of run up is a highly varaiable indicator of judging the bowling speed.

In any case the film is not that woefull that it is capable of making a Train moving at 25mph appear as though it is moving at 5mph or the other way round. It has people moving about all the time and they look reasonably realistic.

Agree on the particular clip. But my response is a more general one, regarding a plethora of vintage clips you posted. (And some of them for a strange reason I cannot play as well).

Look at the height of the stumps and the bat when the players are standing besides them. they are pretty much the same as in any modern day footage. So there are no issues with the size aspect of objects. Its not like the film has made a 6ft guy look like a lilliput.

Once again size of the man doesn't matter. Shoaib Akthar was 6' 1", Malcolm Marshall was 5" 10", Jeff Thomson was 6' 2" and Sami is just below 6'. All of them bowl blistering quick. And for judging the height, we don't need clips as well. We can easily find out how tall was Bradman or Larwood was. And we can expect them to be smaller made than current players due to nutrition related issues and general poverty of the era they played. But showing a clip and saying Frank Tyson or Fred Trueman was a lilliput or bowled slow is blasphemus. Both of them were big men with physique similar to current bowlers. And FFS that Sydney Barnes was 6' 2" tall!

first of all that film is not shot at 10fps it is much more than that ... secondly are you suggesting that Donalds run up would also magically get shortened if we were to film him at a lowr FPS ?

Point is that under lower frame rates and inferior quality equipment, footage will look lot worse than the actual action. No one suggests that it will reduce the run up of a bowler, but rythmical, movements of a bowling action will get lost with inferior technology. To quote such a clip and say a particular bowlers action was crap is woefully wrong statement.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

None of the guys you mention here have the sort of run-up like Arthur Mold in that video. I dunno what to say but you can show that video to people who you trust and find out for yourselves. But what do you think is the speed at which Mold bowled per your own opinion since you seem to be sold on the idea that he was a genuine fast bowler as his speed rating suggests.

No one buys the argument that Arthur mold was super fast. Even the Fred "Demon" Spofforth must have been medium fast at his usual because keeper used to keep up to the stump some times. But it looks like you are sold on the fact that Larwood, Voce, Tyson, Trueman, Cotter, Kortright etc were medium pace trundlers, and Ernie Toshack was military medium.

This is the oldest of them all ... it was filmed in 1901 ... 111 friggin yrs ago !! So the rest of the clips posted are all from 20-30 yrs later. They will be atleast of the same quality if not better.

Still they are vestly inferior to the todays technology.

Not if the Frame rate is at a acceptable level ( which I think it is for this clip as explained thru various aspects of the film in previous posts ). The film is lacking in Resolution and ofcourse the ability to reproduce colors. But we are not using it to figure out a original picasso painting. Or some really high analysis. All we are interested is if the action is reasonably realistic.

You have just JUMPED in to the conclusion that it is reasonably realistic without ever seeing the original action. Without it you only have indirect evidence for it, which is not good enough. Should have direct evidence of it. And when these clips shown to old timers most of them say that actual action looked lot different than what is shown there.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

Which is why I don't trust the written accounts from Wisden & Co. He is listed as a "Fast" bowler on Cricinfo what a joke !

Agreed here, I don't digest all what Wisden says. I have given an example, of Spofforth, who was perceived to be fast, but it must be a joke if keeper has stood up to him. (or that keeper is super man).

why do I need to pretend otherwise ? ohhh because there exists million square inches of embellished written accounts ? Sorry I'am not as gullible as you to buy such hogwash. See above for reason.

So yoy say Larwood was a miltary medium bowler? Yes or No?

Anyhow what is the approx speeds at which Mold bowled in YOUR opinion based on the written accounts ?

Probably 120-125k looking at that clip. But that is only a wild guess. And the fast / fast medium / medium fast classification came much ;later. Before that any one who bowled reasonably quick was regarded as a fast bowler. Similarly, the swing and drift came to the vocabulary much later. Sydney Barnes' swinging and spinning deliveries actually were drifting and spinning deliveries when actual situation is analysed. Concentrating on one word like "fast" bowler from an account is as foolish as using a vintage clip to judge players.

inferior in other aspects ... but as far as giving a fairy realistic view of the action they are good enough.

Inferior in quality. That is good enough.

Back again to square one to start a circular discussion ? didn't we do one iteration of this already using the examples of other people moving about in that film ? didn't you accept that when you said

This is indirect evidence you present vs direct evidence wanted by me. You can provide 100 indirect evidence, but none of them is superior or exact as direct evidence. Simply, video current players under same technology, and we'll keep clips side by side and then compare. That would be a challenge to any person who likes to take it.

[Lurker]

Agreed here' date= I don't digest all what Wisden says. I have given an example, of Spofforth, who was perceived to be fast, but it must be a joke if keeper has stood up to him. (or that keeper is super man).

Nobody does that, except those like BB who has an agenda to castigate all such institutions. I truly doubt any cricket fan, even those who are pretty knowledgable of cricketers of yore, had heard/wrote/invoked Arthur Mold EVER in a discussion. Except BB who somehow seems to make players like him the crux of his arguments. Carry on though, I appreciate your patience!! Many of us ran out of it yeons ago.:winky:

[Marut]

Mold could have been a faster bowler than the primitive video suggests. Note that he was a controversial figure and widely considered a chucker - chucking adds mileage to your deliveries and he may have bowled fast even with a short run up, if he had really chucked.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

@thongale and those who complain about frame rates/old technology etc etc ... take a look at this video clip and tell me what is the frame rate http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a103/bossbhai/?action=view&current=MyMovie.mp4

Technique of bowlers and batsmen looks absolute **** for a start:--D. I know this is playes at x 1.5 in speed.

[maniac]

No nationalistic bias but a combo of Gavaskar and Sehwag for me....one rated by many as the greatest opener ever and the other the most destructive opener ever

[goggi]

Hutton and Gavaskar for me.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thongale]

Incorrect . But I asked about the frame rate ... So whats the frame rate of that clip ?

Who knows?:hysterical:

[Marut]

Incorrect . But I asked about the frame rate ... So whats the frame rate of that clip ?

Frame rate is inversely proportional to the playing speed. If 24fps plays at normal speed ( this is not a universal standard though, for eg, NTSC TV has 30fps usual for normal viewing), then 48fps will cause the film to move forward at half speed ( 1/2 X). If 12fps, then it will move forward at twice the speed, viz 2X. Based on the faster motion, frame rate for this video appears to be between 36 and 48. In other words, you cannot the determine frame rate by viewing the film, unless you know the frame rate for 1X speed on that playback device, and also know what X speed it is currently playing at.

[Ultimate_Game]

^^^ I simply can't understand for the life of me why all these discussions lead to fps, frame rates etc. Simple fact is that we simply don't have any footage available to compare it against the current lot and so will have to rely on stats and words of experts at the time. One or two obscure clips from early 1900s is unlikely to prove the player was cr@p or otherwise. It doesn't take a cricket fan with sufficient cricketing knowledge, no bias and decent understanding of the game that Bradman was one of a kind to have averaged 99.94 in Tests and 95 in FC across his career, or that Sydney Barnes with nearly 200 wkts at an average 16 was something special. When you look at the numbers/stats, read about the players in old biographies/articles and compare them to their peers it provides you sufficient information to figure out how good or bad a player was. You simply can't throw all this away and rely on a clip or footage taken more than a 100 years ago. You simply can't look at an old vintage 30 second clip and say Hobbs was cr@p or Bradman only faced trundlers. If that were the case I can look at Manjrekar's clips and call him an ATG and claim Sehwag wouldn't make it to a club team. Cricket is not just about clips, or stats/numbers. It's about actual numbers/results. If a player with supposedly poor technique can score runs or get wickets he is not really a poor player. If likes of Barnes, Lohaman, Bradman, Hobbs etc. succeeded and performed out of the world while their peers failed there has to be a reason and they have to be acknowledged for doing so rather than chided by saying "their technique is so cr@p and they would strugle to average 10 against Ambrose, Steyn, Marshall etc.". At the end of the day one truth cannot be denied, i.e. a good player in one era will always be a good player no matter the era. If a player performed well in one, he mwould be good enough to adjust and perform in another if given the opportunity.

[Marut]

Same here. I can't understand why some people can't understand that Bradman was special.

[Lurker]

^^^ I simply can't understand for the life of me why all these discussions lead to fps, frame rates etc. Simple fact is that we simply don't have any footage available to compare it against the current lot and so will have to rely on stats and words of experts at the time. One or two obscure clips from early 1900s is unlikely to prove the player was cr@p or otherwise.

Because it is natural for some folks to question everything till everybody is confused :giggle: This is rather simple, to me. No-one amongst would ever look at a Charlie Chaplin movie of 1920 and compare it to Avatar. You just wont. It is only the ridiculius who do that, and keep championing it.

[goggi]

Because it is natural for some folks to question everything till everybody is confused :giggle: This is rather simple, to me. No-one amongst would ever look at a Charlie Chaplin movie of 1920 and compare it to Avatar. You just wont. It is only the ridiculius who do that, and keep championing it.

Really, is that why The Artist was such a flop.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --