Playing selector: Lets pick the best test XI of different eras

[silentstriker]

Tonight about 12 hours from now

Once on this forum I was asked to state just one field where humans have not improved, I gave the example of Cardus and one WS, I was told that even writng had improved!??since then I try not to argue about great bowlers of the past

Well, writing is a subjective item that is independent from increase in technology. It is a completely separate issue from purely physical attributes like speed and strength.

 

[neville cardus]

The thing is Thomson was clocked at 100mph, and that is 30 years ago, why haven't the modern bowlers consistently improved on this mark?

Superb argument, Archie! I'm rather jealous, I must say; I wish I'd thought of it.

Marshall was only a short man when compared to modern fast bowlers and let me tell you he was as fast as anything I have ever watched

Indeed.

It seems to me that fast bowlers have not improved in the last 30 years, so why would they have imrpoved so much from 1975 compared to 1935?

I can already see the much-used argument about the congested schedule of the modern cricketer and its effect on his body coming into play here, Archie. I do hope that you've a decent rejoinder.

And again fast bowling requires speed and they have hardly improved on the 100m of the 1936 games.

That's interesting. Care to elaborate?

 

[archie mac]

Jeff Thompson was timed at around 148 km/h in the fastest bowler ever competition. I don't really take that as a game situation, but outside of that controlled test, there really weren't cameras available at the grounds themselves, so I doubt he was ever all that fast. His chances of being 100mph are a lot better than Larwood's though, and its all a sliding case of probability. And I am not sure if fast bowlers' speed has necessarily gone down since 1975 ('better' is a relative term, 'faster' is not). I think on average, the bowlers are as fast as they've ever been in the last decade (the pitches have gotten worse to bowl on, and perhaps there was a time where the WI skewed the formula a bit with a lot of fast bowlers), but on average, I do think they've gotten faster.

I had the great Privilege of watching Thommo and I have no doubt he was the fastest bowler I have ever watched. Not the best but the fastest.

Next would be Holding or Marshall, although Donald from Sth Afr was pretty quick, but I think it a joke to say bowlers are faster these days

 

[silentstriker]

Jesse Owens ran a 10.2 in 1936. The current world record is 9.77. Not much difference you ask? Well if Jesse Owens ran a 10.2 in the 2004 Summer Olympics...he wouldn't even win a bronze.

 

[neville cardus]

Jeff Thompson was timed at around 148 km/h in the fastest bowler ever competition.

And at 160-odd on another occasion. When was that competition held, by the way?

I don't really take that as a game situation, but outside of that controlled test, there really weren't cameras available at the grounds themselves, so I doubt he was ever all that fast.

What? There aren't many who hit 148kph on a regular basis today, Striker -- and Thommo probably did it there without warming up (although, famously, he never did).

His chances of being 100mph are a lot better than Larwood's though, and its all a sliding case of probability.

As mentioned above, Thompson managed to get to 160kph (just under 100mph) in the nets once upon a time -- a time some while after his best years were over.

And I am not sure if fast bowlers' speed has necessarily gone down since 1975 ('better' is a relative term, 'faster' is not). I think on average, the bowlers are as fast as they've ever been in the last decade (the pitches have gotten worse to bowl on, and perhaps there was a time where the WI skewed the formula a bit with a lot of fast bowlers), but on average, I do think they've gotten faster.

You're wrong.

 

[neville cardus]

Tonight about 12 hours from now

Once on this forum I was asked to state just one field where humans have not improved, I gave the example of Cardus and one WS, I was told that even writng had improved!??

Now that is about as cringe-worthy as it gets.

 

[silentstriker]

I had the great Privilege of watching Thommo and I have no doubt he was the fastest bowler I have ever watched. Not the best but the fastest.

Next would be Holding or Marshall, although Donald from Sth Afr was pretty quick, but I think it a joke to say bowlers are faster these days

He might have been, and I admit that he could have been. I merely state that on average, people have gotten faster and stronger and it would be logical, in the absence of accurate technological measurements, to assume this for fast bowlers too. I know Lee is fast because he looks fast, but there is no way I can make a comparative judgment on his speed with someone who will play thirty years from now without the aid of technology. Human eyes simply cannot distinguish between things going that fast, unless the gap is large

 

[archie mac]

I can already see the much-used argument about the congested schedule of the modern cricketer and its effect on his body coming into play here, Archie. I do hope that you've a decent rejoinder.

That's interesting. Care to elaborate?

Well the county pros of the 30s played six days a week, and often toured during the winter, so i would not think they played any less cricket, just less Test cricket. And the pitches they play on now are pretty good

Jessie Owens (spelling), won 4 gold medals at the Berlin games in 1936, in 1984 Carl Lewis equalled this record, at the time they had a doco. and in that they said Owens on modern tracks and running shoes, would finish only just behind Lewis in the 100m. And this does not include diet or other things

 

[archie mac]

He might have been, and I admit that he could have been. I merely state that on average, people have gotten faster and stronger and it would be logical, in the absence of accurate technological measurements, to assume this for fast bowlers too. I know Lee is fast because he looks fast, but there is no way I can make a comparative judgment on his speed with someone who will play thirty years from now without the aid of technology. Human eyes simply cannot distinguish between things going that fast, unless the gap is large

As always we are going around in circles So I will agree to disagree

 

[shortpitched713]

Convenient, you say? How so, might I ask? If you are insinuating that I made this up, please bear with me as I cite six verifiable sources:

I am not insinuating that you made anything up. The reports are most definitely real. However, they mean next to nothing without a reliable method in which to measure such speeds. No such thing existed in the 1930s, so it really doesn't matter how fast you think the bowlers of that time were because it can not be verified.

 

[neville cardus]

Neither of them are fast bowlers and you cannot look at exceptions.

Oh, do me a favour! No, actually, do me two:

1. Explain to me why Hughes does not count as a fast bowler.
2. Tell me why I "cannot look at exceptions" when you can go and make such gross generalisations.

Oh, so human beings have gotten faster individually but if you put the individuals in a team sport, they revert to their previous slow speeds?

I am not even going to bother responding to that inglorious piece of cant.

Unfortunately not

You have absolutely no grounds, then, for making such a statement.

hence I said 'probably'.

I responded to the relevant excerpt of your post with "Have you seen any newsreel footage of Larwood bowling?"

In your assertion (which I quoted) -- "So no, I don't believe Larwood was as fast as Lee" --, I see no "perhaps" anywhere. Do you?

He could have been as fast or faster, but all evidence taken from how human beings do in sports that have relatively accurate measurements (sprinting) show that elite athletes are faster and stronger now than they were back then.

Oh I see. Cricket is immune to the increase in stamina, speed, explosiveness, strength? That's a surprise to me.

Whereas, with other sports, there is actual proof of an improvement, there is no proof of it at all in cricket; indeed, there is actually some which points to the contrary. You are, therefore, basing everything that you say on presumptuous hypothesis.

 

[neville cardus]

Well, writing is a subjective item that is independent from increase in technology. It is a completely separate issue from purely physical attributes like speed and strength.

...about which you have no evidence to substantiate your claims.

 

[neville cardus]

He might have been, and I admit that he could have been. I merely state that on average, people have gotten faster and stronger and it would be logical, in the absence of accurate technological measurements, to assume this for fast bowlers too.

You are now contradicting yourself, mate.

I know Lee is fast because he looks fast, but there is no way I can make a comparative judgment on his speed with someone who will play thirty years from now without the aid of technology.

And, by the same token...

 

[neville cardus]

Jesse Owens ran a 10.2 in 1936. The current world record is 9.77. Not much difference you ask? Well if Jesse Owens ran a 10.2 in the 2004 Summer Olympics...he wouldn't even win a bronze.

...and with modern training and equipment?

 

[neville cardus]

Well the county pros of the 30s played six days a week, and often toured during the winter, so i would not think they played any less cricket, just less Test cricket.

Well handled, sir.

Jessie Owens (spelling), won 4 gold medals at the Berlin games in 1936, in 1984 Carl Lewis equalled this record, at the time they had a doco. and in that they said Owens on modern tracks and running shoes, would finish only just behind Lewis in the 100m. And this does not include diet or other things

Very interesting.

 

[neville cardus]

I am not insinuating that you made anything up. The reports are most definitely real. However, they mean next to nothing without a reliable method in which to measure such speeds. No such thing existed in the 1930s, so it really doesn't matter how fast you think the bowlers of that time were because it can not be verified.

Charles "Terror" Turner was once measured in laboratory conditions. That would have been in the 1890s, I reckon. Forty years later, in the 1930s, the art must surely have developed to some reliable extent.

 

[Goughy]

Apologies if I my comments are not completely relevant as Ive not fully read the thread.

There is no doubt that people, in general, have become bigger, faster and stronger over time.

The same is true in cricket. There are many more bowlers in the last 10-15 years capable of bowling fast. The problem when it comes to the fastest is that the very fastest are freaks that are born to bowl fast or have an action that helps.

Average speeds and the numbers have increased but top speed will not have changed much at all since the days of Larwood.

Also a point on 100m. The tracks are designed for speed now with hard synthetic materials and the shoes weigh a fraction of what they did and the starting blocks dont have to be dug out of shale any more. Those changes in the environment will have affected times as much if not far more than any changes in human physiology (unless PED related)

 

[archie mac]

Apologies if I my comments are not completely relevant as Ive not fully read the thread.

There is no doubt that people, in general, have become bigger, faster and stronger over time.

The same is true in cricket. There are many more bowlers in the last 10-15 years capable of bowling fast. The problem when it comes to the fastest is that the very fastest are freaks that are born to bowl fast or have an action that helps.

Average speeds and the numbers have increased but top speed will not have changed much at all since the days of Larwood.

Also a point on 100m. The tracks are designed for speed now with hard synthetic materials and the shoes weigh a fraction of what they did and the starting blocks dont have to be dug out of shale any more. Those changes in the environment will have affected times as much if not far more than any changes in human physiology (unless PED related)

Good points mate, and well made as I have come to expect from you

 

[JBH001]

Some good points there, Goughy.

I do have to say though, with AM, that it is odd that it is bowlers who get the bum wrap when it comes to cross generational comparisons. Batsmen and fielders are more deserving.

This is most clear with spinners. It is difficult to see how the task of spinning the ball effectively down the pitch is any different now than 75 years ago. Warne and Murali are perhaps the best 2 spinners of all time - but they would be irrespective of whatever time period they were born in. Their abilities are a reflection of their innate skill not out of any great improvement in standards of physical strength etc.

The same applies to fast bowling. A great deal has been made of gym sessions and diet and nutrition and so on and so forth, but from all accounts fast bowlers used to bowl plenty and plenty of overs especially in country cricket. Indeed this was how they got match fit, by endless hours of bowling. Moreover, these individuals often came from backgrounds where physical labour was part and parcel of their daily lives and they often worked too, and were therefore not mollycoddled into 2 hours of training and a nap.

I would therefore say that, as Goughy has stated, it is likely that average speeds have improved due perhaps to the general increase in health and well-being of the human population, but in terms of maximum speeds I think the differences would be negligible. The best fast bowlers then were physically prepossessing specimens as they are now, and they do then what they do now, deliver the same ball down the same length as fast as possible.

 

[shortpitched713]

Charles "Terror" Turner was once measured in laboratory conditions. That would have been in the 1890s, I reckon. Forty years later, in the 1930s, the art must surely have developed to some reliable extent.

Doesn't matter if it was measured in a laboratory or some guy's backyard. At that particular time no instruments existed that could measure the speed of a projectile moving that quickly with the level of accuracy needed to compare with the speeds of today's players. A stopwatch doesn't count.