• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Aubrey Faulkner vs Shaun Pollock (Tests)

Who was the greater Test all-rounder?

  • Shaun Pollock

  • Aubrey Faulkner

Results are only viewable after voting.
sayon basak

sayon basak

Cricketer Of The Year
Let me make this clear.

Back in 1940s/50s, people were bowling 170kph-180kph regularly. But suddenly, due to the increase in Global Warming, the global bowling average dropped to 90kph-110kph. And now, as we are following more greener chemistry now, speeds are rising again and pacers like Ollie Robinson are bowling absolute rockets.
 
sayon basak

sayon basak

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
Here are the numbers. Please seethe lol.

www.espncricinfo.com

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

Find records of Bowling speeds (2) in All matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
www.espncricinfo.com www.espncricinfo.com
Click to expand...
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)
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
sayon basak said:
BTW, why the hell are we arguing this in this thread? I thought we were in the Holding vs Robinson thread.
Click to expand...
Johan thinks if he can make the idea of cricket evolving seem silly, we can accept that 19th century cricketers would be able to score and take wickets at exactly the same rate as modern cricketers if they played today.
 
Johan

Johan

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Johan thinks if he can make the idea of cricket evolves seem silly, we can accept that 19th century cricketers would be able to score and take wickets at exactly the same rate as modern cricketers if they played today.
Click to expand...
It's you who is making the idea of Cricket evolution seem silly by your inability to let go of Imran and Holding, it's alright, it's fine, let it go. 19th Century Cricketers are probably legit closer to Dennis Lillee than Dennis Lillee is to modern day Cricketers.
 
Last edited:
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Johan said:
It's you who is making the idea of Cricket evolution seem silly by your inability to let go of Imran and Holding, it's alright, it's fine, let it go. 19th Century Cricketers are probably legit closer to Dennis Lillee than Dennis Lillee is to modern day Cricketers.
Click to expand...
Im sorry you believe that cricketers have been equally professional in all eras.
 
Johan

Johan

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Im sorry you believe that cricketers have been equally professional in all eras.
Click to expand...
No I believe it's gradually progressing, just that the progress since WSC has been instrumental, so Tom Richardson is probably more of an equivalent for Dennis Lillee than Dennis Lillee is for a Jasprit Bumrah.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Johan said:
No I believe it's gradually progressing, just that the progress since WSC has been instrumental, so Tom Richardson is probably more of an equivalent for Dennis Lillee than Dennis Lillee is for a Jasprit Bumrah.
Click to expand...
You don't believe in any real progress at all. Just a static cricket culture across a century.
 
Johan

Johan

International Coach
subshakerz said:
You don't believe in any real progress at all. Just a static cricket culture across a century.
Click to expand...
If that were true, it would be better than having my views constructed by an agenda of upping a certain era of Cricketers because they include Viv and Imran while downplaying all others.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Johan said:
If that were true, it would be better than having my beliefs dependent on an agenda of upping a certain era of Cricketers because they include Viv and Imran while downplaying all others.
Click to expand...
Yeah except I don't do that. I never said Lillee is better than Trueman because of era.

You don't even know the argument you are opposing. You're just rambling.
 
Johan

Johan

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Yeah except I don't do that. I never said Lillee is better than Trueman because of era.

You don't even know the argument you are opposing. You're just rambling.
Click to expand...
that's just because you don't want to be hit by Root>Tendulkar if you cash in with era arguments and professionalism nonsense.

But as I said, Michael Holding was 130-ish, same speed as Ollie Robinson and Chris Woakes, cry about it.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Johan said:
that's just because you don't want to be hit by Root>Tendulkar if you cash in with era arguments and professionalism nonsense.
Click to expand...
Lol your assumptions are irrelevant as long as I am consistent with my line of arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top