Aubrey Faulkner vs Shaun Pollock (Tests)

[Johan]

Lol your assumptions are irrelevant as long as I am consistent with my line of arguments.

being consistent with your argument is meaningless when your argument has an inconsistent application of a concept behind it

 

[Line and Length]

Here are the numbers. Please seethe lol.

All matches | Miscellaneous records | Bowling speeds (2) | ESPNcricinfo

Find records of Bowling speeds (2) in All matches only on ESPNcricinfo.

www.espncricinfo.com

Jeff Thomson made a mockery of these speed tests by bowling full tosses so the pitch didn't slow his deliveries. He also won accuracy accolades by hitting the stumps with his 'fullies' while others in the test bowled regular deliveries, often deviating off the pitch. I witnessed those tests live, and Andy Roberts was by far the most impressive.

 

[DrWolverine]

At the Aeronautical College in Wellington, New Zealand in 1955 metal plates were attached to a cricket ball and a sonic device was used to measure their speed, with Tyson's bowling measured at 89 mph (143 km/h), but he was wearing three sweaters on a cold, damp morning and used no run up, Brian Statham bowled at 87 mph (140 km/h). He certainly bowled faster than 89 mph in matches, and Tyson claimed that he could bowl at 119 mph (192 km/h)

Ridiculous

I am guessing he would have bowled more than 90mph and since there was no protective gear back then, he would have been even more terrifying to face.

 

[subshakerz]

being consistent with your argument is meaningless when your argument has an inconsistent application of a concept behind it

Which you are repeatedly guilty of btw

 

[Johan]

I'd be shocked and bamboozled if Tyson ever bowled 89 mph even at his fastest.

 

[Johan]

Which you are repeatedly guilty of btw

Top five things that never happened.

 

[subshakerz]

Top five things that never happened.

It happens all the time with you as far as inconsistent application is concerned. Flat pitches matter for some cricketers and not others, series context matters for some cricketers and not others, injuries matter for some cricketers and not others, bad form matters for some cricketers and not others.

 

[Johan]

It happens all the time with you as far as inconsistent application is concerned. Flat pitches matter for some cricketers and not others, series context matters for some cricketers and not others, injuries matter for some cricketers and not others, bad form matters for some cricketers and not others.

Never happened. Depends on the context. Injury thing is the other way around, I never denounced any runs just because someone was in bad form.

 

[ataraxia]

What the hell are you two even arguing about? Your mutual dislike? Please explain.

 

[Johan]

I like Subs but Subs spiraled out of control after I suggested Michael Holding is the same speed as Ollie Robinson.

 

[subshakerz]

Never happened. Depends on the context. Injury thing is the other way around, I never denounced any runs just because someone was in bad form.

You were actively trying to downplay Laras failures in the 90s by saying he was going through a bad patch.

 

[subshakerz]

What the hell are you two even arguing about? Your mutual dislike? Please explain.

We have mutual respect for each other. We can afford to argue once in a while.

 

[Johan]

You were actively trying to downplay Laras failures in the 90s by saying he was going through a bad patch.

No, I was saying it's worse to underperform against great teams at your peak than it is to underperform when you're declining.

 

[subshakerz]

No, I was saying it's worse to underperform against great teams at your peak than it is to underperform when you're declining.

You never brought this argument for other bats though and it came across as excusing Lara's failures.

 

[Johan]

You never brought this argument for other bats though and it came across as excusing Lara's failures.

I don't care how it came accross, point was Sachin underperformed against great attacks even at his peak (39) and I don't like that being excused.

 

[subshakerz]

Please explain.

Here is the background:

A while back some of us were questioning whether Jack Hobbs's high standing was justified given that there are question marks over the professional standards of that early 20th century era and we don't have footage to verify anything.

Johan took umbrage on that and began to build a strawman counter argument that because we suggest cricket evolves, every quality cricketer of a modern era is automatically better than any ATG of a precious era. Nobody argues that of course but he thinks he is being clever by making this strawman seem silly.

The reality is that all of us have cut off points in cricket history when we don't consider the standards of the time to use the stats as reliable on face value. Even Johan believes this but will never admit it given his high defensiveness over early era English cricketers like Hobbs and Barnes.

And he will periodically revisit this strawman though it doesn't help his case or anything really.

Hope that helps.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't care how it came accross, point was Sachin underperformed against great attacks even at his peak (39) and I don't like that being excused.

Thanks for admitting you just brought that argument for Sachin vs Lara and not others, which proves my point.

 

[sayon basak]

Ridiculous

I am guessing he would have bowled more than 90mph and since there was no protective gear back then, he would have been even more terrifying to face.

Definitely ridiculous, more than ridiculous, actually.

He definitely bowled 93-94 mph imo.

 

[Johan]

Your mutual dislike? Please explain.

Alright, let me give a real explanation then.

In this thread, the argument predominantly presented was that Cricket before Chappell's Australia and Lloyd's West Indies was inherently inferior and does not count. So I simply went with the argument that Cricket, like other sports, gradually becomes more professional, competitive and the standards were raised.

The problem arised when the application of logic becomes constant instead of a one off, the same people who have no problem refusing to acknowledge the careers of the likes of Faulkner or even Sutcliffe, became offended when the idea of their favourite cricketers being left behind was presented, for example a certain individual is content with dismissing the careers of everyone before the Second World War in relativity to Viv Richards but cannot live with the idea of dismissing the career of Viv Richards in comparison to Joe Root.

so I simply applied the logic uniformally, sure, the cricketers from the 1920s would be no match for the Cricketers from the 1970s, but I applied the logic again and said that the Cricketers from the 1970s would be a no match for the cricketers from 2020s and then I posted evidence from Dr Frank Pyke's study in 1979 that the express bowlers of the 1970s and 1980s would be medium pace trundlers in modern context, and somehow that sent Subs spiraling.

Sports Evolution that multiple have discussed so far is just treated as a bogey concept really, sports evolution would be applied by people until the year X, after that the game stagnated, reason? because their favourite Cricketers got on, the entire existence of the concept is because people insist on downgrading Crickets before their preffered time period, so naturally when I'm honest with the application of the concept and declare the fab 4 the greatest bats of all time, it's suddenly a problem because the concept is being used with intellectual consistency and honesty, and obviously, some people are not fans of the results.

this is the application of sports evolution for some "Cricket developed massively between 1915 and 1970, despite two world wars, but there was no developement between 1970 and 2025 because Imran/Viv/Lillee/whoever started playing" and I take an issue with that.

That's all, really, They hated Jesus when he told the truth too.

 

[ataraxia]

Here is the background:

A while back some of us were questioning whether Jack Hobbs's high standing was justified given that there are question marks over the professional standards of that early 20th century era and we don't have footage to verify anything.

Johan took umbrage on that and began to build a strawman counter argument that because we suggest cricket evolves, every quality cricketer of a modern era is automatically better than any ATG of a precious era. Nobody argues that of course but he thinks he is being clever by making this strawman seem silly.

The reality is that all of us have cut off points in cricket history when we don't consider the standards of the time to use the stats as reliable on face value. Even Johan believes this but will never admit it given his high defensiveness over early era English cricketers like Hobbs and Barnes.

And he will periodically register this strawman though it doesn't help his case or anything really.

Hope that helps.

Thanks. That sounds very CW.

Johan does touch on a few valid points though. (1) Many people don't adjust for era when rating players. (2) Bowling speeds are typically exaggerated, and moreso when speed guns weren't commonplace. (3) Cricket didn't magically go up a gear in 1918 or 1970 and they're used as convenient separation dates overly often.