Biggest six

[thierry henry]

You're kidding, right?

I can get that the hard numbers are getting better. But every sport without question has its best players littered throughout its history.

How often have we heard about the apparently unmatched exploits of Pele, or Ali, or the '95 all Blacks, or whoever.

Jesse Owens may have been slower than Usain Bolt, but that doesn't stop him being the better athlete.

wtf? Especially to the last sentence. wtf is that? I said no-one would say that old sportsmen would beat modern sportsmen, you're saying people reckon Owens would beat Bolt in a 100m sprint?

 

[weeman27bob]

wtf? Especially to the last sentence. wtf is that? I said no-one would say that old sportsmen would beat modern sportsmen, you're saying people reckon Owens would beat Bolt in a 100m sprint?

Pretty sure he's not suggesting that Owens is faster over 100m, just a better athlete, because of his diversity.

 

[Satguru]

This thread needs some Balaji... anyone have any idea how big this one was?
Balaji lofts Sami for 6. - YouTube

After watching this video, i take back what i said earlier about the Ponting six against Sidebottom... this is easily the best six ever
Anyone else miss this guy? Certainly deserved a few more chances considering the fact that utter ****house bowlers Ishant and Sreesanth have played 70 matches between them

 

[turnstyle]

I am not a technological expert. But in those raw footage bowlers from old era do look slower than the bowlers we have today, except a few...

If we have any expert, maybe he can explain better how the video footage have developed over the years and how we can compare them..............................

Y'know, bowlers, good bowlers, always bowl to the conditions. Why would you bowl 90+, when you can put it on a good length and let the uncovered pitch do the rest? There was no real need or obsession with speed until speed cameras started popping up around grounds. Even 12-15 years ago, nobody cared how fast an Adam Dale or a Shaun Pollock bowled. They were economical and effective.

When i moved here to play a bit of semi serious 'village' cricket, i laughed at the **** bowlers i saw. They probably wouldn't have hit 70 yet there was so much in the decks there was no need to. Barely any of us Aussies could lay bat on them. We joked that they'd be lucky to take a wicket a season back on Perth's flat decks but the thing was they didn't need to. They just needed to bowl well on that pitch we were playing on. I'm a good bit faster than those blokes and i got pasted - i just didn't play to the conditions.

So i guess my point is they just weren't obsessed with trying to bowl 160 clicks. There was no way to measure it anyway and they were taking bag loads of wickets, so who cares?

 

[unam]

Y'know, bowlers, good bowlers, always bowl to the conditions. Why would you bowl 90+, when you can put it on a good length and let the uncovered pitch do the rest? There was no real need or obsession with speed until speed cameras started popping up around grounds. Even 12-15 years ago, nobody cared how fast an Adam Dale or a Shaun Pollock bowled. They were economical and effective.

When i moved here to play a bit of semi serious 'village' cricket, i laughed at the **** bowlers i saw. They probably wouldn't have hit 70 yet there was so much in the decks there was no need to. Barely any of us Aussies could lay bat on them. We joked that they'd be lucky to take a wicket a season back on Perth's flat decks but the thing was they didn't need to. They just needed to bowl well on that pitch we were playing on. I'm a good bit faster than those blokes and i got pasted - i just didn't play to the conditions.

So i guess my point is they just weren't obsessed with trying to bowl 160 clicks. There was no way to measure it anyway and they were taking bag loads of wickets, so who cares?

I was replying to those who say that bowlers from old eras were faster than bowlers we have today and they have so many stories, yet when we look at old footage, they are underwhelming.

 

[weeman27bob]

Could you not take the other approach, and film current bowlers using old methods to see how they stack up?

 

[Burgey]

wtf? Especially to the last sentence. wtf is that? I said no-one would say that old sportsmen would beat modern sportsmen, you're saying people reckon Owens would beat Bolt in a 100m sprint?

How do you know, given the same training methods etc?

Besides, I think he mentioned athlete. There can be no question Owens was a better athlete than Bolt is, given he had long jump as well as the track events

/hairsplitting

 

[thierry henry]

How do you know, given the same training methods etc?

I was referring to a direct comparison i.e. if you plonked 1936 Jesse Owens into the 2012 Olympics. I'm saying people actually think old-timey cricketers were flat-out better than current ones. There's actually a school of thought that old Duffer McBlacknwhite could jump in a time machine and play a test tomorrow and register 170kph and be the best bowler in the world. Preposterous.

Besides, I think he mentioned athlete. There can be no question Owens was a better athlete than Bolt is, given he had long jump as well as the track events

I'd certainly dispute that but it's completely irrelevant to the argument anyway, not even sure why it was raised. How does saying that an athlete who participated in several events is better than a 100m/200m specialist have anything to do with the old v new debate? I'm saying Jesse Owens, transported to 2012, would get flogged in all of his events. That's surely not in dispute.

 

[uvelocity]

plonked 1936 into 2012

Holy Smokes Bradman.

 

[turnstyle]

I'm saying Jesse Owens, transported to 2012, would get flogged in all of his events. That's surely not in dispute.

And if you plonked Bolt into 1936?

Doubt Owens would hit many sixes off Bolt though tbf. Man can bowl!

 

[L Trumper]

I was referring to a direct comparison i.e. if you plonked 1936 Jesse Owens into the 2012 Olympics. I'm saying people actually think old-timey cricketers were flat-out better than current ones. There's actually a school of thought that old Duffer McBlacknwhite could jump in a time machine and play a test tomorrow and register 170kph and be the best bowler in the world. Preposterous.

Yeah, if you plonked Newton from 17th century to 21st century, I obviously know better than what he knew. Ergo, I am a better physicist.
I mean its not like they can plonk me back into 17th century, because my hypothetical assertions should support my arguments only, not the other way around is it?

 

[Flametree]

I'm saying people actually think old-timey cricketers were flat-out better than current ones. There's actually a school of thought that old Duffer McBlacknwhite could jump in a time machine and play a test tomorrow and register 170kph and be the best bowler in the world. Preposterous.

....

I'm saying Jesse Owens, transported to 2012, would get flogged in all of his events. That's surely not in dispute.

This is true. Similarly George Best would probably not last 15 minutes in modern football such is the pace of the modern game (and if he tried having a pre-game pint and fag, he might not even make it onto the field).

I'm less convinced that this argument applies to cricket, and in particular fast bowling. Apart from the occasional steroid-induced blip or a Beamon freak, world record times in athletics come down year after year. Usain Bolt runs faster than whoever held the record 10 years ago. But the same isn't true of fast bowling. Ten years ago Lee, Shoaib and Bond were bowling quicker than anyone currently bowling. I doubt there was anyone bowling in the mid-80s who was quicker than Thomson ten years earlier, or anyone bowling in the late 60's who was quicker than Tyson ten years earlier. I tend to think there's an "optimal" bowling speed beyond which very very few bowlers can bowl accurately enough to be effective, or whose bodies can cope with the demands for long enough to be successful. It may be this speed is around 90 mph, or 150-155 kph, and it may be that bowlers first reached this optimal level in the 1930s, or 1950s, or 1970s. I just don't see a linear progression in bowling speeds.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Yeah, if you plonked Newton from 17th century to 21st century, I obviously know better than what he knew. Ergo, I am a better physicist.
I mean its not like they can plonk me back into 17th century, because my hypothetical assertions should support my arguments only, not the other way around is it?

But that's a bit different than comparing Owens to Bolt. Both are top in their field. A bit of a difference between you and Newton (unless you are a leading physicist?)

 

[ch00baka]

Can I have a few minutes of my life back for reading about 1930s quick bowlers for 3 pages in a thread about the biggest sixes?

 

[Cabinet96]

This is so obviously true, and yet people who claim to be knowledgeable about the game will still dispute it. Cricket is surely the only sport where fans will say with a straight face that players from "the old days" would beat current players and not get ridiculed. It's the weirdest thing.

Indeed. Haven't seen enough of the old days to really comment but the idea of people not being as good now doesn't make much sense, considering the training and technology that is in the game now.

 

[L Trumper]

Indeed. Haven't seen enough of the old days to really comment but the idea of people not being as good now doesn't make much sense, considering the training and technology that is in the game now.

Again you are only considering them playing now, but the problem is we are so much more advanced so obviously we are going to be better. You have to look the other way what if we go back to that time, without all these advantages .. it works both ways.

 

[L Trumper]

But that's a bit different than comparing Owens to Bolt. Both are top in their field. A bit of a difference between you and Newton (unless you are a leading physicist?)

Well I don't have to be a leading physicist, If you want we can compare William D. Phillips, or Robert Laughlin or Brian Greene with Newton. But no one in their right mind says they are better than Newton. But all of them all ready know what newton did, and much more. They are going to solve QED, QCD related problems, newton wouldn't even dreamt of. But that does not make them better than Newton. You simply cannot transport past to present and conclude they are poor, you have to think the other way around, what would we will be without all the prior knowledge we accrued due to living in present.

 

[L Trumper]

This is true. Similarly George Best would probably not last 15 minutes in modern football such is the pace of the modern game (and if he tried having a pre-game pint and fag, he might not even make it onto the field).

At the same token if Messi was to play in 1950s they weren't any harmone growth medicine monitoring systems in football back then. He wouldn't be a footballer. It works both ways.

 

[Cabinet96]

Again you are only considering them playing now, but the problem is we are so much more advanced so obviously we are going to be better. You have to look the other way what if we go back to that time, without all these advantages .. it works both ways.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the people now are better natural cricketers, probably the other way round to be honest, but that with all the new advances in cricket now, they shouldn't be a worse standard.

If you brought back most of todays best players into yesterday's era I'd expect yesterday's era to do better, because their used to how things were back then.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

You simply cannot transport past to present and conclude they are poor, you have to think the other way around, what would we will be without all the prior knowledge we accrued due to living in present.

Why can't you?
This is a hypothetical situation, and you are bringing in your own criteria. Surely it is not too hard to figure out that not everybody will be thinking of the exact same criteria for this hypothetical situation as you.

If a sportsman doesn't go back in time without his modern technology and knowledge, then only a shell of him is going back in time.

Nobody is saying they are poor either, just that with modern science etc the modern athlete would be faster/stronger in most cases. Top athletes of the past are still top athletes, but there are always different standards due to what was available for those athletes.