Mitchell Johnson vs. Dale Steyn

[div]

I have been telling for sometime that he uses ICF for typing practice.

you are absolutely right.

QUOTE=Muloghonto;2243342] Ambrose for most of his career was 135-140 kph and by the time India visited the carribean in 1997, Ambrose was barely crossing 130kph at most. Ambrose never was blindingly fast, what he had, was execptionally good control and exceptionally good bounce from good length. When good length deliveries come to your average 5'7 batsman's chest high, its practically unplayable. As i said, none of the bowlers i named ( Ambrose, Walsh, Pollock, Akram, McGrath, Fanie deVilliers,etc) were faster than the likes of Ishant/Junaid Khan/Yadav and in most cases, were a shade slower.

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

Yeah you are probably one of those legions of desi kids who equate a 35 year old Walsh bowling at 135 and concluded that a 25 year old Walsh was incapable of 145kph consistently. Walsh was one of threw most intimidatory bowlers to face, despite his good natured approach because he bowled brutally fast and fed batsmen steeply deviating inswing perfume balls from good length. Practically impossible to play. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2

[velu]

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

Absolute pawnage :rofl:

[Ultimate_Game]

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

Tune to uski bina vaseline ke hi le li :hysterical:

[rkt.india]

Morkel does not bowl regularly at 147-150kph. he bowls more at the 140-145 kph range. Steyn does not target the body as much, he doesn't need to since he's got so many tools in his kit that he doesnt need to do the classic 'peg them on the backfoot by bowling fast & at their body and then mix in a fast & full one for driving/lbw/bowled'. Morkel bowls at the speed of Joel Garner, with less control, bounce, brains and no yorker.

FYI, let me bring you speeds clocked on speed guns in first test. Mitch- 1st innings 89.4 average 93.6 fastest. 2nd innings 89.6 average, 94.8 fastest. Morkel- 1st innings 89.2 average 92.9 fastest, 2nd innings 88.3 average, 92 fastest. It tells you there is not much difference in average speeds. What goes in favor of Johnson is being left armer giving him an awkward angle because batsmen are not used to facing a left arm pacer bowling 150K, his low arm quickish slingy action which helps him skid the ball quicker than other hit the deck bowlers, and then he is not overall accurate but his bouncers are damn accurate at most times.

[Vijy]

On current form, Mitch is head and shoulders (and light years) ahead of the rest.

[express bowling]

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

:hysterical::hysterical: div :hatsoff: Find some more....

[Muloghonto]

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

I don't see the statements as inconsistent. Why do you ? I said Ambrose was 135-140 for most of his career. That is correct. Here, i said that Ambrose, at his best, was a top speed fast bowler. That is also correct. Ambrose made his debut at the age of 24 IIRC. Ambrose played till he was 37. He was Johnson fast, IE, consistently averaging 90mph throughout spells, for a solid 45-50 matches over just five years before he began to slow down a bit (IIRC, it was after his shoulder surgery just before India hosting WI in 93 or so). Ambrose was a genius, he was one bowler who averaged 20-21 bowling dizzying spell after spell of top pace, then he averaged 20-21 bowling at fast medium pace, then he averaged 18-20 bowling at Vinay Kumar speed. I hope you realize that Mitch is genuinely fast but not super-fast like Holding, Lee, Akhtar, Schultz, etc were.

[Muloghonto]

FYI, let me bring you speeds clocked on speed guns in first test. Mitch- 1st innings 89.4 average 93.6 fastest. 2nd innings 89.6 average, 94.8 fastest. Morkel- 1st innings 89.2 average 92.9 fastest, 2nd innings 88.3 average, 92 fastest. It tells you there is not much difference in average speeds. What goes in favor of Johnson is being left armer giving him an awkward angle because batsmen are not used to facing a left arm pacer bowling 150K, his low arm quickish slingy action which helps him skid the ball quicker than other hit the deck bowlers, and then he is not overall accurate but his bouncers are damn accurate at most times.

Its not a unique thing about Johnson. Facing leftie is no problem just because he is a leftie after a while. What is a problem, is when ANY fast bowler, can make balls rear from that good length/short of good length into a perfume ball. Johnson does this. Morkel does not. Morkel bowls fearsome bouncers, bowling short. Ie, a great challenge for all but the technically and reflexively soundest. Morkel's good length balls are just not directed well enough to be a problem. This sort of crazy-intimidatory and wicket-taking combo was displayed by the likes of Lillee, Thommo, Holding, Roberts, Marshall, Ambrose as well.

[rkt.india]

I don't see the statements as inconsistent. Why do you ? I said Ambrose was 135-140 for most of his career. That is correct. Here, i said that Ambrose, at his best, was a top speed fast bowler. That is also correct. Ambrose made his debut at the age of 24 IIRC. Ambrose played till he was 37. He was Johnson fast, IE, consistently averaging 90mph throughout spells, for a solid 45-50 matches over just five years before he began to slow down a bit (IIRC, it was after his shoulder surgery just before India hosting WI in 93 or so). Ambrose was a genius, he was one bowler who averaged 20-21 bowling dizzying spell after spell of top pace, then he averaged 20-21 bowling at fast medium pace, then he averaged 18-20 bowling at Vinay Kumar speed.

and you were measuring his speeds when he was clocking as fast as Johnson? Yes his average is great but SR is nowhere close to the best. He was a great bowler, one of my favorites of all time and I have seen him since 1993 but do not think he was as quick as Johnson is now that is too much exaggeration. Neither Walsh was was quick. I have seen him and Bishop's spell to Robin Smith in 1990 and he looked considerably slower than Bishop who looked like clocking the speeds of Johnson in that spell. Walsh was Mcgrath like in terms of pace all throughout.

[rkt.india]

I I hope you realize that Mitch is genuinely fast but not super-fast like Holding, Lee, Akhtar, Schultz, etc were.

Guy clocking 156K (96-97 mph) is not super-fast for you? Schultz was not that quick. Holding, Lee, Akhtar were but only marginally quicker in terms of top speed. Johnson can maintain top speeds all throughout the day. Though Akhtar could bowl as quick as 157-158Ks whenever he wanted in test matches.

[Muloghonto]

and you were measuring his speeds when he was clocking as fast as Johnson? Yes his average is great but SR is nowhere close to the best.

SR not being great doesnt mean much. It certainly doesnt mean he wasn't fast. Were you measuring his speeds either to say he was *not* as fast ? I have batsmen after batsmen who claim he was genuinely fast. Bonafide fast. I've seen him and I've seen Johnson, they are in the same ballpark at their peaks, though Johnson does crank one or two out a bit faster than Curtly. But you claim he was never that fast. So provide *YOUR* evidence first.

He was a great bowler, one of my favorites of all time and I have seen him since 1993 but do not think he was as quick as Johnson is now that is too much exaggeration. Neither Walsh was was quick. I have seen him and Bishop's spell to Robin Smith in 1990 and he looked considerably slower than Bishop who looked like clocking the speeds of Johnson in that spell. Walsh was Mcgrath like in terms of pace all throughout.

You saw him at 1993 as a doodh-peeta bachchey.Literally. Don;t kid yourself. FYI, his fastest years were before 93 or 94, when he suffered a shoulder-injury, that put him a bit slower, in the 135-140kph class consistently, instead of the 145 kph consistently. Walsh was faster than McGrath, who could also bowl genuinely fast but chose not to FYI. You again, have no idea. FYI, Bishop was amazingly fast, faster than Johnson, Ambrose, etc. You have no idea how bloody fast Bishop was, he was probably Brett Lee fast but with the menace and control of a great bowler. Then he broke his back, such was the stress of how bowling. If you'd seen Bishop's bowling and met him in person, you'd realize how bloody fast this guy must've bowled to actually break his back doing it and still end up a fast medium bowler after recovering from spinal fractrures. Not stress fractures, it were stress related spinal fractures ( ask Dhondy, if he is still around, the difference). If he'd lasted in his first version (before devastating back injury #1), he'd probably be remembered the greatest bowler since Akram's debut. If he'd lasted in his second version, he'd still end up as one of the greatest bowlers of the last two decades. But after his second version also broke himself, one of the most promising careers in fast bowling history was over. Don't under-estimate Bishop. I'd happily take a young Bishop over any bowler I've seen in the last 10 years, except Steyn. That, FYI, includes McGrath.

[Muloghonto]

Guy clocking 156K (96-97 mph) is not super-fast for you? Schultz was not that quick. Holding' date=' Lee, Akhtar were but only marginally quicker in terms of top speed. Johnson can maintain top speeds all throughout the day. Though Akhtar could bowl as quick as 157-158Ks whenever he wanted in test matches.[/quote'] Johnson averages 89-91 mph through the day, which is easily topped by that of Holding, Lee, Akhtar, Marshall, 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. btw, answer my question. Tu ne kaise deciede kiya ki Ambrose was not that fast. Kahaan dekha ? kab dekha ? kitne umar me dekha ? *****-banana bhi kya tera top priority hai ?

[rkt.india]

Johnson averages 89-91 mph through the day, which is easily topped by that of Holding, Lee, Akhtar, Marshall, 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. btw, answer my question. Tu ne kaise deciede kiya ki Ambrose was not that fast. Kahaan dekha ? kab dekha ? kitne umar me dekha ? *****-banana bhi kya tera top priority hai ?

Dude. Even Lee and AKhtar barely averaged 90 mph in test matches. You need to be built like bull and fit to clock that speed for 30 overs. Guys like Mitch are not made overnight, the kind of endurance he has. No one in the last 10-15 years can match it. Regarding watching Ambrose, yes, I have seen in him. I am old enough to see cricket from 93 onwards, not 80s. I watched WI blowing us for 100 in Mumbai in 1993-94 on TV. Kambli being sorted by Benjamin.

[rkt.india]

SR not being great doesnt mean much. It certainly doesnt mean he wasn't fast. Were you measuring his speeds either to say he was *not* as fast ? I have batsmen after batsmen who claim he was genuinely fast. Bonafide fast. I've seen him and I've seen Johnson, they are in the same ballpark at their peaks, though Johnson does crank one or two out a bit faster than Curtly. But you claim he was never that fast. So provide *YOUR* evidence first. You saw him at 1993 as a doodh-peeta bachchey.Literally. Don;t kid yourself. FYI, his fastest years were before 93 or 94, when he suffered a shoulder-injury, that put him a bit slower, in the 135-140kph class consistently, instead of the 145 kph consistently. Walsh was faster than McGrath, who could also bowl genuinely fast but chose not to FYI. You again, have no idea. FYI, Bishop was amazingly fast, faster than Johnson, Ambrose, etc. You have no idea how bloody fast Bishop was, he was probably Brett Lee fast but with the menace and control of a great bowler. Then he broke his back, such was the stress of how bowling. If you'd seen Bishop's bowling and met him in person, you'd realize how bloody fast this guy must've bowled to actually break his back doing it and still end up a fast medium bowler after recovering from spinal fractrures. Not stress fractures, it were stress related spinal fractures ( ask Dhondy, if he is still around, the difference). If he'd lasted in his first version (before devastating back injury #1), he'd probably be remembered the greatest bowler since Akram's debut. If he'd lasted in his second version, he'd still end up as one of the greatest bowlers of the last two decades. But after his second version also broke himself, one of the most promising careers in fast bowling history was over. Don't under-estimate Bishop. I'd happily take a young Bishop over any bowler I've seen in the last 10 years, except Steyn. That, FYI, includes McGrath.

Where did I say he was not fast because his SR was not low. I am just saying that he was a great bowler but his SR shows he lacked that real striking abilities of like Marshall who had SR in 40s. Regarding Bishop, I have always said he is one of the fastest bowler I have ever seen. even in 1996 WC when he had already lost his pace, he was pretty quick. Videos of his spell in England 1990 was as quick as any one can see. Same was Holding's spell to Brian Close. These two guys could be really quick.

[Muloghonto]

Dude. Even Lee and AKhtar barely averaged 90 mph in test matches.

. You need to be built like bull and fit to clock that speed for 30 overs. Guys like Mitch are not made overnight, the kind of endurance he has. No one in the last 10-15 years can match it.

[rkt.india]

Yes, neither of them were fit enough to shine Ambrose, Akram, Marshall, Holding's etc. shoes

I will still Ambrose was not as quick as them, neither was Akram.

Old enough to see and old enough to process are two different things. And seeing in person versus seeing in tv over the years and drawing conclusions from different footages of different aspect ratios and zoom, digital or analog, means nothing. Not-a-thing. trying to determine who is faster than whom without the exact same frame of reference from tv, is as stupid as trying to get milk from a stone. FYI, as i said, Ambrose did not make that tour because of shoulder injury. Before that, he was frighteningly fast. So where are you getting the idea that Ambrose wasn't frighteningly fast, if you havn't seen him before that, despite the fact that there are those who've seen him and maintain he was genuinely fast ???

I said Ambrose was not as quick as Holding, Bishop, Akhtar, Lee, Thommo, Johnson. I did not say he was trundler. He could still bowl quick but not in category of these 5.

[Muloghonto]

Where did I say he was not fast because his SR was not low. I am just saying that he was a great bowler but his SR shows he lacked that real striking abilities of like Marshall who had SR in 40s.

again, spoken without much knowledge. Marshall, like Waqar, Steyn, etc. were part of a great bowling attack, getting the choicest of the bowling times. Ambrose had a very good 50-51 strike rate, which before the fast scoring 'strike rate boosting' days of 2000s, were only distinctly bettered by only a few bowlers of his stature. so his strike rate is not an issue. equating strike rate with real striking ability is akin to equating the average with real run scoring ability. they show correlation but are not completely one and the same like you are trying to simplify. also, as i demonstrated before, it is unnecessary and useless to have a bowler striking much below 50 balls per wicket unless his average is also correspondingly much lower. otherwise, a guy who has 54 strike rate and 20 average is a better strike bowler than one who has a 47 strike rate and 24 average.

[Muloghonto]

I will still Ambrose was not as quick as them' date=' neither was Akram. [/quote'] On what basis ? you yourself admitted you've never seen ambrose when he was at his fastest and his best.

[rkt.india]

On what basis ? you yourself admitted you've never seen ambrose when he was at his fastest and his best.

based on videos. Now, 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:

[rkt.india]

again, spoken without much knowledge. Marshall, like Waqar, Steyn, etc. were part of a great bowling attack, getting the choicest of the bowling times. Ambrose had a very good 50-51 strike rate, which before the fast scoring 'strike rate boosting' days of 2000s, were only distinctly bettered by only a few bowlers of his stature. so his strike rate is not an issue. equating strike rate with real striking ability is akin to equating the average with real run scoring ability. they show correlation but are not completely one and the same like you are trying to simplify. also, as i demonstrated before, it is unnecessary and useless to have a bowler striking much below 50 balls per wicket unless his average is also correspondingly much lower. otherwise, a guy who has 54 strike rate and 20 average is a better strike bowler than one who has a 47 strike rate and 24 average.

SR and average both are as important together. Good ER leads will mostly to good average, 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.