Biggest six

[Spark]

How big was the one Ponting hit off Sidebottom a few years ago?
Dont know if it was the biggest, but its probably the most amazing six ive ever seen

Yeah not the biggest but probably the best I've seen as well. Just astonishingly effortless, a firm push down the ground and it went a bloody mile.

 

[Somerset]

Wasn't at the 'G was it?

EDIT: esp. not if it's the one that was linked in the thread.

At Perth by the looks of things: 8th Match: Australia v Pakistan at Perth, Jan 30, 2005 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Ruckus]

I haven't got Google Earth installed, so I can't verify, but apparently someone measured that Blizzard six using that and found it was about 150m. That would be very hard to beat if true.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah but if it goes 104 to the roof which is 60 odd metres in the air, how far would it have gone?

Some stats nerd on here will have the prevailing breeze that day written down and can work it out with a protractor and a bloody abacus, surely? It'd be a hundred times more useful than a lot of the **** they come up with.

They know who they are. Get onto it ffs.

Not enough info there to tell that. The exact distance it'd have travelled will vary depending on whether the ball was still on rise or at its maximum height or travelling downwards etc when it hit he roof.

 

[Spark]

Yeah you'd need at least three "points" (one being the batsman, another being the point of impact) to work that one out.

 

[Furball]

I haven't got Google Earth installed, so I can't verify, but apparently someone measured that Blizzard six using that and found it was about 150m. That would be very hard to beat if true.

Is the Blizzard one the one I'm thinking of that was in a domestic final that he hit into a car park?

 

[Cabinet96]

I have serious doubts about the accuracy of the measurements. Does anyone know exactly how they do it? I've seen people hit the roof at Bangalore and Chennai at about 110 meters and then see people just clear the boundaries in Australia which are about the same length. I know the grounds are bigger but it seems weird.

From memery Thisara Perera hit one in a T20 at Perth in November 2010 that was around the mid 120's.

Here it is, 123: A humongous hit by Thisara Perera - 123 m - YouTube

Which goes back to my doubts, do you think that six was bigger than some of the ones Gayle and Warner hit here: CLT 20 2011 1st Semi Final (NSW vs RCB) Raining Sixes. Chris Gayle huge sixes ever - YouTube The ones at 2:09, 2:42 and 3:11 are huge.

 

[Hurricane]

Yeah but if it goes 104 to the roof which is 60 odd metres in the air, how far would it have gone?

Some stats nerd on here will have the prevailing breeze that day written down and can work it out with a protractor and a bloody abacus, surely? It'd be a hundred times more useful than a lot of the **** they come up with.

They know who they are. Get onto it ffs.

Guptil's last night had the same issue - it was at the top of its arc when it hit the roof.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

They don't measure a SIX by where it lands, but by where it would have landed at ground level.

You can see on the graphics they use. The 127m was measure from the crease to where the ball would have landed if the roof wasn't it the way.

 

[Flametree]

Biggest six I've seen at the ground was Astle's final 6 off Caddick during his 222. Went over the stand over a straight mid-off never to be seen again. Sounded like a rifle shot...

 

[Ruckus]

Is the Blizzard one the one I'm thinking of that was in a domestic final that he hit into a car park?

yeh I linked it on pg 1, Blizzard 6

Amazing shot really...

 

[Debris]

I am suspicious of the equipment measuring the length of sixes. If it is anything like the speed guns, I don't trust it.

 

[uvelocity]

They don't measure a SIX by where it lands, but by where it would have landed at ground level.

I don't believe that, I remember one hit to square leg region in the recent BBL it was smacked hard and low and ended up in a balcony at the GABBA and only registered just over 100m which would be the distance to where it stopped, not where it would have.

 

[marc71178]

Surely by definition if it's hit on a low trajectory it's not going to go miles past where it ended up when compared to something that hits the roof 60m up?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It's measured by the horizontal distance travelled at the point the ball hits something, I'm pretty sure.

 

[Howe_zat]

Perhaps when "they" measure these things it might not always be the same people doing it.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

They don't measure a SIX by where it lands, but by where it would have landed at ground level.

You can see on the graphics they use. The 127m was measure from the crease to where the ball would have landed if the roof wasn't it the way.

The "they" I am talking about it Sky NZ, but I'm pretty sure it is the same everywhere. Sky use Virtual Eye, which C9 call Hawk Eye, so it should be the same for NZ and Australia.

If you look at the graphics closely, you can see how they measure the SIX. There is a line along the ground and the trajectory in the air. While the ball may have hit the roof, or bounced into the stands, the actual measurement comes from where the ball was hit, where it landed, and the line that it took to get there.

I'm pretty sure this is the same for all technologies used throughout the world. When they measure the distance they aren't just talking about how far the ball went, but how well it was hit (how far it would have gone if there was nothing in the way).

Nobody wants to know how far the ball went before the roof/stands got in the way, they want to know how far it would have gone. The technology should be pretty accurate, because it isn't exactly rocket science.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

It's measured by the horizontal distance travelled at the point the ball hits something, I'm pretty sure.

I'm 100% sure you are wrong.

It's the same in baseball. They measure home runs by where they would have landed at ground level. They have a whole database of it, and it's pretty accurate.

Home Run Tracker

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I'm 100% sure you are wrong.

Yeah most likely.

 

[Burgey]

They don't measure a SIX by where it lands, but by where it would have landed at ground level.

You can see on the graphics they use. The 127m was measure from the crease to where the ball would have landed if the roof wasn't it the way.

When Waugh hit his, I don't think they yet measured them. Someone mentioned it was measured at 107m, but I understand that was done only a year or so back to the point of impact with the roof.

It's good they have the technology to measure it anyway. Bit of a decent diversion.