Mitchell Johnson vs. Dale Steyn

[Bilal_Khan]

Johnson is a frikin hack, just looking at this guy pisses me off he's just cashing in on some good form players will have him figured out before the summer is up. Steyn is in a league of his own, if he had one decent guy backing him up he'd run through the aussies, mind you he probably will anyways.

[Raghav_12]

you are absolutely right. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?p=2242922&highlight=walsh#post2242922

I know I was right but didn't know will be proved right as well, that too so soon :hysterical:

[Muloghonto]

based on videos. Now' date=' you will say its foolish judge the pace based on videos. When I can judge the pace of Bishop and Holding based on videos, cannot do same in case of Ambrose and Walsh. So lets stop it.:two_thumbs_up:[/quote'] No, you cannot judge pace by videos, unless ALL the videos use the same camera angle & zoom. Sure, you may be able to tell so-n-so looks fast on the videos, but it doesnt mean everyone who looks fast was or vice versa. Your process is broken, it doesnt mean a broken process will yeild a broken response every single time. As the saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. So you were right on a couple using completely faulty methodology. You havn't even seen these bowlers at peak in person, so your opinion means nothing compared to those who have seen them in person and the batsmen who've faced them. You said you didnt watch ambrose prior to 93/94. So now, its you didnt watch him outside of videos prior to 93/94 ?

[cricraja]

No, you cannot judge pace by videos, unless ALL the videos use the same camera angle & zoom. Sure, you may be able to tell so-n-so looks fast on the videos, but it doesnt mean everyone who looks fast was or vice versa. Your process is broken, it doesnt mean a broken process will yeild a broken response every single time. You said you didnt watch ambrose prior to 93/94. So now, its you didnt watch him outside of videos prior to 93/94 ?

Where did you watch Holding or Thompson, to claim the are faster than Johnson? Did they bowl to you at their fastest in your bedroom. Yeah right watching videos is not the way judge bowlers....

[Muloghonto]

SR and average both are as important together. Good ER leads will mostly to good average' date=' but good average and ER do mean good SR. I only talked about ER because if he was so express and so consistently accurate which his ER and average, he certainly should have had an SR in 40s like other guys who have SR less than 50.[/quote'] That he does not have a SR in the 40s, is due to the fact that batsmen left his deliveries alone more often. Borne out of the fact that once Bishop got injured in 92 and Marshall declined, one could afford to play out Curtley and Courtney and bash the Benjamins. SR is less important than economy rate, since economy rate builds pressure. Batsmen not scoring for a long time, ie, building pressure, leads to wickets. That is more important than a SR in the 40s. Oh and good average and good ER means bad SR. Get your basic right. EG: 10-8-5-1. ER of 0.5 Average of 5.00. SR of 60. Excellent ER means high SR and vice versa. If i don't play a single attacking shot to a bowler, how is his SR going to be low ? If i try to bash a bowler every single ball, i might connect a few but will automatically give him a low SR.

[Muloghonto]

Where did you watch Holding or Thompson' date=' to claim the are faster than Johnson? Did they bowl to you at their fastest in your bedroom. Yeah right watching videos is not the way judge bowlers....[/quote'] Tell me, genius, what effects the various camera angles and zoom have on depth perception of a 3d projection on a 2d image and i will give you a banana. If you think you can compare a 80s video footage to a 2000s one and conclude A is faster than B on the basis of that, you are a fool. Period. As for where I've watched Holding and Thommo, I've watched Holding live in 81, 83 and 84.

[cricraja]

Tell me, genius, what effects the various camera angles and zoom have on depth perception of a 3d projection on a 2d image and i will give you a banana. If you think you can compare a 80s video footage to a 2000s one and conclude A is faster than B on the basis of that, you are a fool. Period. As for where I've watched Holding and Thommo, I've watched Holding live in 81, 83 and 84.

I do not debate with mad-people, who would have read one too may books. Sorry for being rude. Also, there is no way Holding in 81, 83 and 84 was faster than Johnson of today. Even I watched him at the time and vouch Johnson is surely faster than Holding of that time.

[Muloghonto]

I do not debate with mad-people' date=' who would have read one too may books. Sorry for being rude.[/quote'] in other words, you don't know shyte. holding in 81 was much, much faster than johnson. everyone who's seen him in that timeframe agrees.

[Gambit]

I have seen Holding at Bridgetown in 1981 against the Poms and Johnson at Sydney against the Poms this year. Johnson was way quicker. It is not even a contest.

[rkt.india]

If i don't play a single attacking shot to a bowler, how is his SR going to be low ? If i try to bash a bowler every single ball, i might connect a few but will automatically give him a low SR.

You do not need batsmen to play attacking shots to get good SR. A good bowler gets wickets even when batsmen are defensive.

[Muloghonto]

You do not need batsmen to play attacking shots to get good SR. A good bowler gets wickets even when batsmen are defensive.

a good bowler will have his sr suffer when the batsmen are ultra defensive and have his er suffer when the batsmen are being ultra offensive. that is pretty obvious. playing defence is not just about shotmaking. just because you are blocking every single delivery does not make you a good defender.

[Muloghonto]

I have seen Holding at Bridgetown in 1981 against the Poms and Johnson at Sydney against the Poms this year. Johnson was way quicker. It is not even a contest.

i beg to differ. holding at bridgetown 81 was way quicker than johnson. its not even a contest, johnson's stock delivery is significantly slower than holding's.

[cricraja]

I have seen Holding at Bridgetown in 1981 against the Poms and Johnson at Sydney against the Poms this year. Johnson was way quicker. It is not even a contest.

Do not waste your time any further, on this topic. Thanks for confirming.

[express bowling]

Johnson averages 89-91 mph through the day' date=' which is easily topped by that of , Lee, Akhtar, [b']Marshall, Holding Waqar, Bishop and several others. he can throw one in at 96-97mph once in a while. does not mean much in the grand scheme of things, what your occasional once-every forty ball that didnt take a wicket all the time, was.

You have no way of knowing what Marshall, Holding, Waqar and Bishop averaged throughout the day. Speed guns were not used to record the speeds of every delivery then. Why do you keep on making these ridiculous statements ?

[BlueBee]

Muloghonto se larne ka koi fayda nehi :bumsmack:

[rkt.india]

Muloghonto se larne ka koi fayda nehi :bumsmack:

I am having dizzy spells. :nervous:

[BlueBee]

I am having dizzy spells. :nervous:

:giggle::hysterical:

[express bowling]

I am having dizzy spells. :nervous:

I have been watching cricket regularly from 1983, with special interest towards speeds of bowlers. From this I have concluded that Muloghanto just likes to instigate posters by opposing them .

[rkt.india]

I have been watching cricket regularly from 1983' date= with special interest towards speeds of bowlers. From this I have concluded that Muloghanto just likes to instigate posters by opposing them .

Really? :two_thumbs_up:

[Old guy]

I have been watching cricket regularly from 1983' date=' with special interest towards speeds of bowlers. From this I have concluded that Muloghanto just likes to instigate posters by opposing them .[/quote'] I thought u were youngsta beauty like me :omg: