SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
Australia should give robelinda a medal of the highest order.
Just want to sit on their hoard. Frustrating af. A lot of this footage is going to never be available for purchase.I will never understand the mindset amongst media companies and cricket boards about utilising match archives. You can't even buy series compliations on DVD these days.
His other channel robelinda is still active and usually has those long 2 hour ball by ball spells from Hadlee, Garner etc.My dad's actually going to be devastated when he finds out. He spends quiet weekends binging robelinda videos of some random Viv Richards or Doug Walters innings or videos of Hadlee's bowling.
Him and me both.My dad's actually going to be devastated when he finds out. He spends quiet weekends binging robelinda videos of some random Viv Richards or Doug Walters innings or videos of Hadlee's bowling.
You say, using a color screenshot, of what happened to be a singularly talented slip cordon in all of cricket history.I am never going to consider the argument that as wicketkeepers in the black and white era seem to be standing closer to the stumps than they do today means the fast bowlers then were slower again.
View attachment 32871
Another confounding factor is actual pitch speed. It is perfectly possible that pitches as a rule, in any given era (including the one pictured) could be slower than what we are accustomed to currently. So a bowler could be much slower after pitching, even though they are the same speed or faster out of the hand (which is the accepted measure we see cited nowadays on our TV sets).You say, using a color screenshot, of what happened to be a singularly talented slip cordon in all of cricket history.
OK.
You say, using a color screenshot, of what happened to be a singularly talented slip cordon in all of cricket history.
OK.
Well pitch speed isn't a factor as it's at Bridgetown on what was reputedly a fast pitch at the time, and you'll find very few people agreeing that pitches were slower then than now.Another confounding factor is actual pitch speed. It is perfectly possible that pitches as a rule, in any given era (including the one pictured) could be slower than what we are accustomed to currently. So a bowler could be much slower after pitching, even though they are the same speed or faster out of the hand (which is the accepted measure we see cited nowadays on our TV sets).
All of it to say , too many confounding variables, picture doesn't prove anything.
Mods please ban this fool. This is a CRICKET ON YOUTUBE thread.