sayon basak
Cricketer Of The Year
Any particular reason you don't believe it? My 65 year old grandma could do it.Wow that's impressive lol
Any particular reason you don't believe it? My 65 year old grandma could do it.Wow that's impressive lol
Here are the numbers. Please seethe lol.Footage, now.
I ainrt seeing the footage Subzy.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
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)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
You have the numbers. Btw it seems based on the 1990s testing that the speeds actually regressed.I ainrt seeing the footage Subzy.
See? My explanation is 100% accurate.You have the numbers. Btw it seems based on the 1990s testing that the speeds actually regressed.
Climate change, yes I read.See? My explanation is 100% accurate.
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.BTW, why the hell are we arguing this in this thread? I thought we were in the Holding vs Robinson thread.
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.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.
Braindead, how would the numbers decrease lmao, that kills the credibility of the entire list.You have the numbers. Btw it seems based on the 1990s testing that the speeds actually regressed.
Im sorry you believe that cricketers have been equally professional in all eras.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.
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.Im sorry you believe that cricketers have been equally professional in all eras.
You don't believe in any real progress at all. Just a static cricket culture across a century.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.
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.You don't believe in any real progress at all. Just a static cricket culture across a century.
Yeah except I don't do that. I never said Lillee is better than Trueman because of era.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.
that's just because you don't want to be hit by Root>Tendulkar if you cash in with era arguments and professionalism nonsense.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.
Lol your assumptions are irrelevant as long as I am consistent with my line of arguments.that's just because you don't want to be hit by Root>Tendulkar if you cash in with era arguments and professionalism nonsense.