Aubrey Faulkner vs Shaun Pollock (Tests)

[Johan]

Yeah, a constant evolution of 50 years since 1970s, and that's why like Joe Root and Steve Smith are the pinnacle of Test Batsmenship, they are dominating the actually professional and extremely competitive format of the game. I don't know why people think the likes of Lara and Sachin are considered remotely in the same class, I mean, it was not long ago that people like Mohammad Asif and James Anderson were considered pioneers and geniuses for bowling the wobble seam ball, now it's a borderline stock delivery, in the 1970s and for the great west Indies side, "pace-like-fire" was actually barely medium speed in modern Cricket.

 

[Coronis]

That doesn't change ma1978's point though. Some players might have gotten a lot of money, but not everyone did and players often had other jobs outside of cricket. Teams also didn't have the sort of training routines that modern players currently do, even accounting for lack of modern equipment, general pay and time to invest. It really starts from the great Windies side and other teams like Australia taking from them and other Australian sports to improve their standards.

Fun fact: Not everyone is making a ton of money from cricket these days either.

 

[Johan]

In 1979, we had a competition between fast bowlers, and the "fast demon" aka Michael Holding who used to easily beat the great batters of the time, someone so fast he was considered the fastest of the Great Windies pacers and so forth... could barely bowl 141kmph, that's right, Peak Michael Holding was slower than 20-Year-Old Josh Hull. "Pace-like-fire" Dennis Lillee was actually bowling a similar speed to a 40+ James Anderson who used to hold back speed for control and movement, lol. Yet we compare the West Indies team of this time to modern sides, give it 10-20 years and they'd be getting slapped up by the Women sides.

Player	Mph	Kph
Jeff Thomson	91.86	147.9kph
Michael Holding	87.76	141.3kph
Imran Khan	86.77	139.7kph
Colin Croft	86.45	139.2kph
Andy Roberts	86.08	138.6kph
Dennis Lillee	84.72	136.4kph
Garth Le Roux	84.46	135.9kph
Wayne Daniel	82.91	133.5kph
Len Pascoe	81.73	131.6kph
Richard Hadlee	80.62	129.8kph
Mike Procter	79.87	128.6kph
Sarfraz Nawaz	75.63	121.7kph

 

[Xix2565]

Fun fact: Not everyone is making a ton of money from cricket these days either.

People can make a genuine living off being professionals and be fully dedicated to cricket though compared to back then. They also have access to more resources and information to help them develop. It's really not comparable.

Yeah, a constant evolution of 50 years since 1970s, and that's why like Joe Root and Steve Smith are the pinnacle of Test Batsmenship, they are dominating the actually professional and extremely competitive format of the game. I don't know why people think the likes of Lara and Sachin are considered remotely in the same class, I mean, it was not long ago that people like Mohammad Asif and James Anderson were considered pioneers and geniuses for bowling the wobble seam ball, now it's a borderline stock delivery, in the 1970s and for the great west Indies side, "pace-like-fire" was actually barely medium speed in modern Cricket.

There's really no need to take this argument to extremes that no one touches. It's not a binary thing, you can have players now who just aren't as good as some older players both in the recent and distant past for various reasons, even if as time goes on the sport has evolved and gotten more professional. We do take into account what the players faced and how far apart they were from their relative competition in such discussions, you know. Otherwise there wouldn't be a consensus on Bradman as the GOAT batter. This is just gets a bit silly to read if the immediate reaction to people arguing against the general standards of past players is to make up strawmen to yell at.

 

[Johan]

There's really no need to take this argument to extremes that no one touches. It's not a binary thing, you can have players now who just aren't as good as some older players both in the recent and distant past for various reasons, even if as time goes on the sport has evolved and gotten more professional. We do take into account what the players faced and how far apart they were from their relative competition in such discussions, you know. Otherwise there wouldn't be a consensus on Bradman as the GOAT batter. This is just gets a bit silly to read if the immediate reaction to people arguing against the general standards of past players is to make up strawmen to yell at.

I actually don't really mind going to the extremes immediately, I'm sure someone like Joshua Tongue is not faster than someone like Shoaib Akhtar but he can be faster than a Michael Holding. I don't really care about the consensus, people often want to argue one thing and not fully commit to an argument, you can't argue everything before as non-professional and simultaneously argue Bradman as the GOAT, people are notoriously terrible on this forum as far as following the implications of your arguments go, and again, I've undeniable evidence that people in the 1970s and 1980s were playing a far, far inferior game.

In 1979, we had a competition between fast bowlers, and the "fast demon" aka Michael Holding who used to easily beat the great batters of the time, someone so fast he was considered the fastest of the Great Windies pacers and so forth... could barely bowl 141kmph, that's right, Peak Michael Holding was slower than 20-Year-Old Josh Hull. "Pace-like-fire" Dennis Lillee was actually bowling a similar speed to a 40+ James Anderson who used to hold back speed for control and movement, lol. Yet we compare the West Indies team of this time to modern sides, give it 10-20 years and they'd be getting slapped up by the Women sides.

Player	Mph	Kph
Jeff Thomson	91.86	147.9kph
Michael Holding	87.76	141.3kph
Imran Khan	86.77	139.7kph
Colin Croft	86.45	139.2kph
Andy Roberts	86.08	138.6kph
Dennis Lillee	84.72	136.4kph
Garth Le Roux	84.46	135.9kph
Wayne Daniel	82.91	133.5kph
Len Pascoe	81.73	131.6kph
Richard Hadlee	80.62	129.8kph
Mike Procter	79.87	128.6kph
Sarfraz Nawaz	75.63	121.7kph

Imran with full effort hit 135 lol and his average speed was 138 when he put all effort in being fast, sacrificing all accuracy.

As I said earlier, give me a ball and a couple months to train and I'd probably bowl faster than Dennis Lillee. The Aussies of 70s barely bowl faster than 5ft 5 inches modern ladies, bar Thomson. Imran Khan would likely be a plumber or a waiter today.

 

[shortpitched713]

There are two pacers there.

All three of the Australians, English and the South Africans respect actual Cricket history, so do the ones from Windies and the educated ones from India and Pakistan, it's just about being educated and free minded, naturally people from those countries in 2025 would be more receptive of history, while the less educated individuals would obviously be race obsessed naturally.

Historical appreciation and recognizing modern skill improvement are not mutually exclusive.

Don't know what the **** you're on about with race, tbh.

 

[Johan]

Historical appreciation and recognizing modern skill improvement are not mutually exclusive.

Don't know what the **** you're on about with race, tbh.

don't blame me, Was not me who started talking about Race.

and Yeah, I'm acknowledging the modern skill improvement of the Sport, look at the post right above, I'm not sure why stuff like this rustles Jimmies, Ladies, these are the facts. The fact that Shabnim Ismail is quicker than Wayne Daniels on average is truly amazing. Please, let me demonstrate the gap, Michael Holding was considered a pace monster in his time, the fastest and then some, but in actuality...he was slower than the guy we used to troll for being a damn trundler, dude was slower on average than Ollie Robinson. Speed demons of 70s and 80s are slow medium pacers of today.

 

[Xix2565]

I actually don't really mind going to the extremes immediately, I'm sure someone like Joshua Tongue is not faster than someone like Shoaib Akhtar but he can be faster than a Michael Holding. I don't really care about the consensus, people often want to argue one thing and not fully commit to an argument, you can't argue everything before as non-professional and simultaneously argue Bradman as the GOAT, people are notoriously terrible on this forum as far as following the implications of your arguments go, and again, I've undeniable evidence that people in the 1970s and 1980s were playing a far, far inferior game.

Well no, because this just shows you don't want a proper discussion. You can have individual players who did become as professional and competitive as they could within their framework back in the past which wasn't as professional or competitive in general. You can certainly acknowledge such players to be even better than the most modern players simply because they were so dominant when they played compared to the modern players. It also means that you shouldn't act like these past teams with older greats are incredibly perfect though. Since this is all because ma1978 believes the older great XI wouldn't be that good in this matchup because of the players being picked not being as successful for understandable reasons:

lol@ the only reason the oldies get anywhere is because of Bradman and maybe Hobbs.

Bert Oldfield, one pace bowler, lol proves my point totally

I get it why the English love their pre war cricketers given the stinking mess of mediocrity that is is modern English cricket but it’s just plan weird for Aussies

I love the history of cricket, but I treat as that - history - Aubrey Faulkner is about as relevant to the sport as it’s played today as Alfred Mynn. Cricket became professional in the 1970s. It wasn’t because of India / Pakistan, it was because there was enough money in the game to allow amateurs to play professionally, standards went though the roof. Kerry Packer played a huge role: So yes, for me, pre 1970s as a player comparison, someone has to really stand out to be compared to post 1970s and I think pre Bradman, it was just a different sport. That doesn’t mean I don’t find the history of cricket fascinating.

It's okay to acknowledge that if you simply plopped in a past great they might struggle a bit with the challenges of the modern game and might not be as great in this scenario as they actually were.

 

[Johan]

Well no, because this just shows you don't want a proper discussion. You can have individual players who did become as professional and competitive as they could within their framework back in the past which wasn't as professional or competitive in general. You can certainly acknowledge such players to be even better than the most modern players simply because they were so dominant when they played compared to the modern players. It also means that you shouldn't act like these past teams with older greats are incredibly perfect though. Since this is all because ma1978 believes the older great XI wouldn't be that good in this matchup because of the players being picked not being as successful for understandable reasons:

Again, I'm actively agreeing with your points, I agree that Cricket became professional, in this millenium, and unlike Ma and you I'm actually actively posting evidence of how it became a completely professional sport, as I presented direct evidence, upto the 70s and 80s, Fast bowlers didn't exist, for example Geoffrey Boycott here calls Michael Holding the fastest and then some, and he'd have EXPERIENCE.

but then I post direct irrefutable evidence that Holding was slower than Ollie Robinson on average.

don't blame me, Was not me who started talking about Race.

and Yeah, I'm acknowledging the modern skill improvement of the Sport, look at the post right above, I'm not sure why stuff like this rustles Jimmies, Ladies, these are the facts. The fact that Shabnim Ismail is quicker than Wayne Daniels on average is truly amazing. Please, let me demonstrate the gap, Michael Holding was considered a pace monster in his time, the fastest and then some, but in actuality...he was slower than the guy we used to troll for being a damn trundler, dude was slower on average than Ollie Robinson. Speed demons of 70s and 80s are slow medium pacers of today.

View attachment 47532
View attachment 47533

here Dennis Lillee is called the fastest bowler and a tearaway quick

but clearly, his average speed and even top speed are not even as quick as Jimmy Anderson, let alone an actual pacer from today, I'm just saying upto 1970s and 1980s the fastest bowlers were medium pace trundlers, why so controversial?

 

[Xix2565]

I don't think you are agreeing with me as much as you want me to believe though, or that you genuinely believe what you're posting. Leaving aside how speeds have been recorded and how bowlers in general have gotten faster both naturally and unnaturally (fitness/talent/general usage/speed guns/etc) and going back to the thread topic and the ATG XI discussion, is it genuinely insulting to have the more modern players over the older players in more even comparisons? Should any side with Bradman automatically win the comp because of him regardless of what the XI looks like overall? Because I'm really not seeing why this ends up being such a thing for you.

 

[Johan]

I don't think you are agreeing with me as much as you want me to believe though, or that you genuinely believe what you're posting. Leaving aside how speeds have been recorded and how bowlers in general have gotten faster both naturally and unnaturally (fitness/talent/general usage/speed guns/etc) and going back to the thread topic and the ATG XI discussion, is it genuinely insulting to have the more modern players over the older players in more even comparisons? Should any side with Bradman automatically win the comp because of him regardless of what the XI looks like overall? Because I'm really not seeing why this ends up being such a thing for you.

I do believe that the game developed far, far more between 1980-2025 than it did between 1925-1980, and it's not a matter of belief as that's basic logic. I mean, have whoever you want in your XI lol, I'm just being real about the 1970s and the 1980s, if people can't take it, that's a them problem.

 

[Johan]

I reckon a full-strength Current English team would dominate and easily beat the strongest 1970s/80s West Indies side. probably a 5-0 in favour of England unless West Indies gets a proper greentop for their medium pace trundlers to get into the game.

 

[Xix2565]

Yeah, you're not fooling anyone with this.

 

[Johan]

I don't intend to fool anyone with anything, friend, I simply have an unfortunate love for challenging the status quo. It's factual that a current England with Archer/Woakes/Carse/Atkinson/Wood attack would absolutely obliterate 1970s/80s West Indies, it's common sense. Not sure if Archer is first choice anymore, if not, Stone would do. Wood/Carse would have West Indies bats like Greenidge, Viv and Lloyd retiring mid-series, it'd be a total humiliation and humbling for The West Indies. The Australians from the 2000s would be much more competitive.

 

[shortpitched713]

don't blame me, Was not me who started talking about Race.

and Yeah, I'm acknowledging the modern skill improvement of the Sport, look at the post right above, I'm not sure why stuff like this rustles Jimmies, Ladies, these are the facts. The fact that Shabnim Ismail is quicker than Wayne Daniels on average is truly amazing. Please, let me demonstrate the gap, Michael Holding was considered a pace monster in his time, the fastest and then some, but in actuality...he was slower than the guy we used to troll for being a damn trundler, dude was slower on average than Ollie Robinson. Speed demons of 70s and 80s are slow medium pacers of today.

View attachment 47532
View attachment 47533

This is a bad example, as the speed gun was different in the 70s specifically, they used average instead of instantaneous speed.

But yeah, even after more modern speed guns were introduced, you see a gradual speed increase upwards (and also as a side effect less stamina and durability in pacers, but that's another story).

 

[Johan]

This is a bad example, as the speed gun was different in the 70s specifically, they used average instead of instantaneous speed.

But yeah, even after more modern speed guns were introduced, you see a gradual speed increase upwards (and also as a side effect less stamina and durability in pacers, but that's another story).

Nah, the average speed is just a lot of copium the bowlers made up to make themselves look better and faster than they actually were, the shots used are at their fingertips almost or a little after, they say it's after the ball leaves the hand and the measuring screen is set up parallel to the crease, it's their accurate speed.

6:00

they clearly say that it is timed at the release of the ball from the bowler's hands, backed up by the still images and the placement of the device.

Indeed, The truth as this competition shows us, is that nobody really played fast bowling before the Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee, the fastest bowlers from the times before them were likes of Michael Holding, and he's literally the same speed as Chris Woakes and Ollie Robinson. Chris Woakes is just Michael Holding but with Wobble Seam every 1/3rd ball and greater fitness.

 

[Gob]

Aubrey Plaza

 

[shortpitched713]

Nah, the average speed is just a lot of copium the bowlers made up to make themselves look better and faster than they actually were, the shots used are at their fingertips almost or a little after, they say it's after the ball leaves the hand and the measuring screen is set up parallel to the crease, it's their accurate speed.

6:00

they clearly say that it is timed at the release of the ball from the bowler's hands, backed up by the still images and the placement of the device.

Indeed, The truth as this competition shows us, is that nobody really played fast bowling before the Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee, the fastest bowlers from the times before them were likes of Michael Holding, and he's literally the same speed as Chris Woakes and Ollie Robinson. Chris Woakes is just Michael Holding but with Wobble Seam every 1/3rd ball and greater fitness.

I will agree that players of old were slower. But the idea isn't that their guns had an average speed over the whole distance. Even an "instantaneous" measure requires a time to create a delta. The earlier, less precise machines had a greater delta, giving more time for the ball to slow down from air resistance. Point isn't to say that Jeff Thomspon could bowl 175 kph, but rather that the bowlers were a touch faster by a modern gun than shown there.

 

[Johan]

I will agree that players of old were slower. But the idea isn't that their guns had an average speed over the whole distance. Even an "instantaneous" measure requires a time to create a delta. The earlier, less precise machines had a greater delta, giving more time for the ball to slow down from air resistance. Point isn't to say that Jeff Thomspon could bowl 175 kph, but rather that the bowlers were a touch faster by a modern gun than shown there.

I mean, the delta could just be a couple inches or centimeters away from the fingertips which would be similar to how speed guns are used to measure today, the method used in this competition is often used to measure the speed of high speed projectiles like bullets, it can surely give an accurate reading of the speed of bowling.

 

[shortpitched713]

I mean, the delta could just be a couple inches or centimeters away from the fingertips which would be similar to how speed guns are used to measure today, the method used in this competition is often used to measure the speed of high speed projectiles like bullets, it can surely give an accurate reading of the speed of bowling.

Bullets have a much more consistent speed than hand thrown projectiles. Both are effected by air resistance, but for example a bullet shot from a rifled barrel will have a stabilizing spin imported on it from the barrel. A hand delivered projectile is much more inconsistent in this way and could lose speed very quickly, depending on the type of delivery and angle.

Once again I'm not saying there is a huge magnitude of error, just that it's much less likely to be the exact speed out of the hand as the most modern speed guns.