If Bradman played in today's era?

[mr_mister]

What happened to Zahid

 

[Migara]

Plenty did. Including Benaud. He went with Tyson

Their judgement has a 50 year gap.

 

[Migara]

What happened to Zahid

He was bowled to dust by Salim Malik in SL 1998, and broke his back. Even post injury he was 145k+ touching 150 at times. Woulkd give an idea how quick he was pre injury.

The the fella boasts about a 102mph delivery bowled against NZ A somewhere in 1996 circa, where the speed guns were at testing stages.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Their judgement has a 50 year gap.

May be so, but compared to someone who only saw one or another live it isn't necessarily less trustworthy

 

[Migara]

May be so, but compared to someone who only saw one or another live it isn't necessarily less trustworthy

Seeing live doesn't mean anything. Either playing repeatedly, keeping would make a better judgement about speeds. Examining a video clip is almost always superior, because you can see in multiple times unlike seeing live.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Clips have limitations. For starters, there are limitations of availability, particulalrly as far back as Tyson of whom there really is not much footage available and the camera technology may not be so dependable. The angle (both height and from the line of the pitch) I have found also can change the impressions of speed somewhat. Furthermore, I reckon from watching over the years that the modern thing of zooming in just as the ball is released (something I have come to abhor) increases the apparent speed of the delivery.
With a limited amount of footage, one may be stuck looking at deliveries of a certain length, and also of players playing back which they tended to do more in the past, and all this complicates things further. And the clips that made it into newsreels or highlights mightn't necessarily capture a good impression of the bowlers' speeds if they only show a limited number of deliveries. Different formats (film, interlaced video, etc.) and varying quality also makes things easier or harder to see (an effect quite apart from the same problems caused by different angles).

 

[mr_mister]

Could Goughie ever get it up to 150kmph?

He had that ***y slinging action(sort of anyway) that made his balls look lightning quick but I dunno if he was actually in that league of speed

 

[Logan]

Jeff Thomson, Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee are the three fastest bowlers IMO.

 

[the big bambino]

Seeing live doesn't mean anything. Either playing repeatedly, keeping would make a better judgement about speeds. Examining a video clip is almost always superior, because you can see in multiple times unlike seeing live.

You see this is just a rubbish excuse designed to placate your bias. No one can play over 50 years, the time gap you referred to. It’s absurd to think someone like you, mired in a prejudice for players in your favourite era, would have any idea compared to someone with the playing and critical experience of Benaud.

 

[Migara]

You see this is just a rubbish excuse designed to placate your bias. No one can play over 50 years, the time gap you referred to. It’s absurd to think someone like you, mired in a prejudice for players in your favourite era, would have any idea compared to someone with the playing and critical experience of Benaud.

That perfectly sounds why opinions are rubbish..

 

[trundler]

We have no objective way of judging pace from footage either though. I'll take Benaud's opinion over some Pathé footage with a shoddy angle and low frame rate.

 

[Red]

I don't care what anyone says. If Tait could hit 160, Thommo would have gone beyond that by at least 5 or 10 kmh.

 

[marc71178]

That perfectly sounds why opinions are rubbish..

Some a lot moreso than others...

 

[Starfighter]

That perfectly sounds why opinions are rubbish..

Some opinions are more informed than others.

 

[the big bambino]

That perfectly sounds why opinions are rubbish..

Only yours in this comparison.

 

[stephen]

I don't care what anyone says. If Tait could hit 160, Thommo would have gone beyond that by at least 5 or 10 kmh.

5 kph maybe. But bowling fast is asymptotic. It would be nigh on impossible for the human body to generate speeds much quicker. And the perception of a bowler who bowls 10kph faster is that they're a lot faster. 130-140kph is the difference between being fodder on Australian pitches to being effective on Australian pitches (for example).

 

[Red]

This is such a great photo.

 

[Logan]

I don't care what anyone says. If Tait could hit 160, Thommo would have gone beyond that by at least 5 or 10 kmh.

If Akhtar or Lee didn’t touch those speeds, I doubt Jeff would have bowled at 170. Someone with a similar action, Malinga seemed to be much faster and more difficult to face than what his speed actually suggest.

I believe Jeff Thomson must have been as fast as Akhtar or Lee and with a Malinga type of action, he would have looked much faster and way more difficult to face.

 

[Migara]

If Akhtar or Lee didn’t touch those speeds, I doubt Jeff would have bowled at 170. Someone with a similar action, Malinga seemed to be much faster and more difficult to face than what his speed actually suggest.

I believe Jeff Thomson must have been as fast as Akhtar or Lee and with a Malinga type of action, he would have looked much faster and way more difficult to face.

Malinga was the most difficult fast bowler to face out of bowlers of his pace. In that three or four years he consistently clicked 150+ he was beating batsmen on length because of his action. That "perfume ball" to KP is a good piece of evidence, where KP at top of his game, failed to notice a bouncer.

 

[Migara]

Only yours in this comparison.

More rubbish