The Ashes are coming home!

[Richard]

its never knowlingley went!!!!!

Do you have some sort of database recording the number of 's I use.

The youth of today..far too much time on their hands

No, I just notice you used it far, far more than anyone else in your early time, but more recently I haven't seen you use it once (possibly just because I haven't read as many of your posts) for quite a while.
Apologies for any misperceptions (such as the idea that I have too much time on my hands)

 

[Swervy]

Oh, quite, but you know how it is - there's just no telling most people that bowlers don't lose pace... drives me up the wall people going-on about how Pollock's lost pace when he's bowling maybe 1 or 2 mph slower now than he did 7 years ago...

well thats b0ll0x Richard and you know it....when pollock came onto the scene, he was consistantly in the higher 80's. It hasnt made him less of a bowler, but it is fact that he has slowed down.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Oh, quite, but you know how it is - there's just no telling most people that bowlers don't lose pace... drives me up the wall people going-on about how Pollock's lost pace when he's bowling maybe 1 or 2 mph slower now than he did 7 years ago...

Pollock has lost pace though, Glenn hasn't. Pollock might not have lost a LOT, but he's bowling in the high 70s now when he was always a low 80s bowler. McGrath has always bowled in the low 80s, with his effort ball pushing up a touch above 135kph (84 mph). He's sent down the odd ball quicker early in his career, but for many years now he has bowled within himself at about the same pace, and it was a completely intentional thing and still is.

 

[Richard]

Absolutely correct. He's never been a 90 mph bowler.

Not true, he bowled the odd 90mph-er in WC99 and IIRR one or two a series later.
And I'd be surprised if he couldn't bowl one now if he really wanted to.

 

[Swervy]

No, I just notice you used it far, far more than anyone else in your early time, but more recently I haven't seen you use it once (possibly just because I haven't read as many of your posts) for quite a while.
Apologies for any misperceptions (such as the idea that I have too much time on my hands)

I like being happy!!!!!

 

[Richard]

well thats b0ll0x Richard and you know it....when pollock came onto the scene, he was consistantly in the higher 80's. It hasnt made him less of a bowler, but it is fact that he has slowed down.

When he came on to the scene, yes. Well - maybe - there weren't speed-guns in those days.
Fact is, though, his injury in 1997 cut his pace down and since 1998 when timing technology was brought in he's rarely bowled above 82-3mph. Of course, there have been occasions he has and there still are, too.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's ridiculous, yes, but to be fair the author of those two pieces aren't the same.
Nor, to be fair, has he said he regards them as... blah-blah... just that some (exceptionally unwisely IMO) do so.

But, I don't know who these "some" are. Certainly there are a few around in the last week, mostly in England, but how many people were saying Australia was over the hill and jaded two months ago when they massacred New Zealand? If they were, you'd have to wonder why, and if they weren't, then they are basing their entire conclusions on what is quite literally one week of cricket. Pretty astonishing conclusion for anybody to come to, really.

 

[Richard]

Pollock has lost pace though, Glenn hasn't. Pollock might not have lost a LOT, but he's bowling in the high 70s now when he was always a low 80s bowler. McGrath has always bowled in the low 80s, with his effort ball pushing up a touch above 135kph (84 mph). He's sent down the odd ball quicker early in his career, but for many years now he has bowled within himself at about the same pace, and it was a completely intentional thing and still is.

Pollock has not lost pace!!!!!!!!
His average speeds in 2001, 2002 and 2003 were practically identical!!!!

 

[Swervy]

Pollock has lost pace though, Glenn hasn't. Pollock might not have lost a LOT, but he's bowling in the high 70s now when he was always a low 80s bowler. McGrath has always bowled in the low 80s, with his effort ball pushing up a touch above 135kph (84 mph). He's sent down the odd ball quicker early in his career, but for many years now he has bowled within himself at about the same pace, and it was a completely intentional thing and still is.

10 years ago, Pollock was quite definately a higher 80's bowler...

But yeah,McGrath hasnt dropped in pace as far as I can tell in the last 8 years at least..he is just a better bowler now

 

[Richard]

But, I don't know who these "some" are. Certainly there are a few around in the last week, mostly in England, but how many people were saying Australia was over the hill and jaded two months ago when they massacred New Zealand? If they were, you'd have to wonder why, and if they weren't, then they are basing their entire conclusions on what is quite literally one week of cricket. Pretty astonishing conclusion for anybody to come to, really.

Yes, it's totally ridiculous.
Fact is, often cricket writing is totally ridiculous.
Australia have lost 3 relatively (in the grand scheme of things) meaningless games, then been Pietersened once.
Cricket writers are mostly given to exaggeration, especially when their team is involved.
No big deal - really.

 

[Richard]

10 years ago, Pollock was quite definately a higher 80's bowler...

No, we can just guess that he was.
The first time we can know accurately how fast he bowled was the summer of 1998 when timing technology came in.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Pollock has not lost pace!!!!!!!!
His average speeds in 2001, 2002 and 2003 were practically identical!!!!

Well, I watched him during the England tour last year, and he was bowling most of his deliveries under 80 mph, or at most around 80-81. That's definately slower than he used to bowl, there's no two ways about it, given that you yourself said his average was more like 82-83. It's only a few mph slower of course, but it is nevertheless slower. McGrath is bowling the same way he has bowled ever since speed tracking was introduced.

 

[Swervy]

Pollock has not lost pace!!!!!!!!
His average speeds in 2001, 2002 and 2003 were practically identical!!!!

Is there somewhere where we can get these average speeds for Pollock...or have you just guess that they have not dropped!!??

But fair do's, he may not have dropped much pace in the last 4 years..but in general I dont think he would be able to slip in the faster ball as easily now

 

[Richard]

Charles Colville has turned in to one of the worst commentators ever... I think he want's to marry Twenty20 cricket and have rubbishy, stupid, commercialized children...

Oh, quite, but he's always had a propensity to go OTT at irrelevancies... still a decent commentator IMO.

 

[Richard]

Well, I watched him during the England tour last year, and he was bowling most of his deliveries under 80 mph, or at most around 80-81. That's definately slower than he used to bowl, there's no two ways about it, given that you yourself said his average was more like 82-83. It's only a few mph slower of course, but it is nevertheless slower. McGrath is bowling the same way he has bowled ever since speed tracking was introduced.

From the little I remember McGrath was bowling in the 84-5mph range in WC99 - might be wrong but he definately bowled the odd 90mpher.
Both of them have lost maybe 1 or 2 mph in the last 4 years or so - and in both cases it's utterly irrelevant, there's no real difference between 83mph and 80mph as far as the batsman's reaction-time is concerned.

 

[Swervy]

No, we can just guess that he was.
The first time we can know accurately how fast he bowled was the summer of 1998 when timing technology came in.

those speed camera things mean nothing...you see genuinely fast balls getting measured at 85 mph..and others that give batsmen all the time in the world , 5mph faster. Too much depends on the length of the ball to give a true reading.

It might be guess work for you...I saw him play..I know what a fast bowler looks like..and I can tell you straight of the bat that Pollock was consistantly in the higher 80's for the first few years of his test career

 

[Richard]

Is there somewhere where we can get these average speeds for Pollock...or have you just guess that they have not dropped!!??

But fair do's, he may not have dropped much pace in the last 4 years..but in general I dont think he would be able to slip in the faster ball as easily now

You didn't see some of his various quicker-balls (such as the one he beat Flintoff for pace with) during the winter, then?
As for the average speeds, I've never yet found any website detailing them, I was just lucky enough to be watching a Sky feed from the SA TV against WI last year where, at Pollock's specific request I shouldn't wonder, they showed his speeds in the matches they've covered in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 (though with 2004 it was just a single Test), and there was little or no deviation.
Most people watching would probably have been shocked - I wasn't.

 

[Richard]

those speed camera things mean nothing...you see genuinely fast balls getting measured at 85 mph..and others that give batsmen all the time in the world , 5mph faster. Too much depends on the length of the ball to give a true reading.

It might be guess work for you...I saw him play..I know what a fast bowler looks like..and I can tell you straight of the bat that Pollock was consistantly in the higher 80's for the first few years of his test career

And the fact is the human eye is useless at determining speeds - yes, you very often get deliveries that batsmen look hurried with and aren't actually that quick.
It's human perception, not the gun, that makes the errors. You think you'd be able to offer a defence in court that "the speed-camera means nothing - I saw my car and I know I was only going at 40mph - even though the camera somehow showed me going at 74".
Technology beats human eyes every time.

 

[Swervy]

From the little I remember McGrath was bowling in the 84-5mph range in WC99 - might be wrong but he definately bowled the odd 90mpher.
Both of them have lost maybe 1 or 2 mph in the last 4 years or so - and in both cases it's utterly irrelevant, there's no real difference between 83mph and 80mph as far as the batsman's reaction-time is concerned.

well thats right...in that a ball measured at even getting on 90mph can actually take longer to reach the batsman than a ball maybe 6 mph less (according to the speed measuring gear)..due to the effects of the angle the ball is bowled at, the friction of the pitch, wind speed and direction etc

 

[Swervy]

Most people watching would probably have been shocked - I wasn't.

thats because you are brilliant!!!