C_C said:
I think you are the one displaying an inability to grasp basic truths. And its irrelevant as to what research you've conducted. Self praise *IS* the last bastion of the egotistically idiotic ones. you are building quiete a case for yourself in that category.
No, you are trying to build a case for it. And failing.
It's not irrelevant at all, I've every right to big myself up if I know what I'm on about.
Medically, you can tell consistently the difference of 3mph. And the slower one might seem quicker to US. because we are seeing it from a totally different trajectory and angle, not to mention we have an element of parallax involved.
The batsmen dont have the parallax problem and when you are batting you DO know which one is quicker. Ask a player to stand where the batsman is and rate deliveries as quicker or slower than the previous/next one while confirming with a speedgun. The accuracy you will find is quiete impressive.
No, you'll find it's quite terrible. I've done it myself, many times; heard batsmen talking about how quick someone was bowling when there was no speedgun in their view and while already knowing myself that they were in fact not bowling that fast. We've also seen countless times where commentators have said "that was a quick ball" and found it to be no quicker whatsoever than the last few.
I am not talking on an individual level. I am talking on a collective level. and no, collectively a weirder action and inferior nutrition will give you a slower mean bowling speeds.
Collectively? Do you mean generally? If so, you're wrong, again - pace of bowling depends primarily on speed of arm, and fitness. And given some of the pursuits involved in the more reticent days (such as mining and farmworking) many cricketers were actually very fit, even if not as well nourished as standard today.
And there's absolutely no reason why modern-day bowlers should have faster arms than older ones.
Your reasoning is inconsistent ( not to mention, ridiculous). I still fail to see why premeditating the length is any worse than premeditating the movement.
Because it's easy to pick length, it's impossible to pick movement. You pick length almost the split-second the ball is delivered; you can never know how much or in which direction a ball is going to move until it does so.
There are no variations a spectator will spot BETTER than a close in fielder or a batsman.
The players who've faced McGrath ( and like i said, some of them i've talked to personally are international level players who are quiete successful) are on record saying that he has the most variations of any pacer in the last 10-15years barring Akram. Something i agree with, having watched McGrath bowling in the nets.
A decent TV viewer will be able to pick variation every bit as well, if not better, than a close-fielder, given countless close-ups and slo-mos.
Ambrose was NOT a big mover of the ball. I've seen Ambrose bowl throughout the 90s and he didnt move the ball much at all.
And I've seen him bowl plenty and plenty, and I've seen countless deliveries which he moved miles.
Again, i say, you have NO CLUE.
a 1cm movement is enough to fox a batsman. Thats all it takes to induce an edge or for the ball to miss the bat.
No, you have no clue - you clearly haven't taken a look at a large selection of deliveries that move certain amounts. 1cm of movement will barely register, especially on a short ball.
Not to mention, you are factually incorrect- as batsmen have one of the least level of success consistently middling McGrath's deliveries compared to other bowlers, not to mention, Kumble as well.
They do indeed - because McGrath on a seamer and Kumble on a turner are incredibly difficult to middle.
, I think that when referring to thought about cricket it does. You combine way out ideas with rigid thoughts about what constitutes a certain scenario in cricket and it's kind of pointless to talk to you about it. We've had these conversations a thousand times before...
he will take a step outside off stump and smash him for 6.
):
