Aubrey Faulkner vs Shaun Pollock (Tests)

[shortpitched713]

For those who aren't allergic to nuance and context, here's an article on the history of measuring speed in baseball, and why some radar guns were more accurate/faster than others.

The Measure Of A Fastball Has Changed Over The Years

Where velocity is recorded on the journey from the mound to home plate makes all the difference. Take Aroldis Chapman, for example.

www.baseballamerica.com

One thing to keep in mind is that baseball pitches are all thrown at roughly the same angle to the ground as well, unlike cricket deliveries, so that adds another area of variance and uncertainty to measurements from older style guns measuring speed further out from the point of release. And also corroborates @Line and Length 's anecdote of Thompson making it easier for himself by gaming the gun with full tosses.

I hate to say those 1979 measures look even more unreliable still, knowing these pieces of information. They quite probably can't even be used to measure different bowlers against each other who all did the same test, due to the way different angle deliveries lose more/less speed. A cricket radar gun which doesn't measure out of the hand seems next to useless.

 

[shortpitched713]

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

Why? He was the outlier of his Era. Even given bowlers used to be slower, it seems very possible.

Oh ****, it's because you're still clinging to a bunch of numbers from the 70s from a poorly applied device as gospel... How embarrassing for you...

And that's the reason the 1979 study numbers could be dismissed so easily. It would necessitate that the 70s bowlers were much, much slower than both bowlers that came after them, and also somehow the bowlers that came before them also.

Maybe all the 70s bowlers had discovered LSD to cause the game to be played at a slower pace, and once they all kicked the habit the speeds spiked again.

 

[sayon basak]

Cricket balls aren't a thing.

They are edited into the TV screen.

 

[Johan]

And that's the reason the 1979 study numbers could be dismissed so easily. It would necessitate that the 70s bowlers were much, much slower than both bowlers that came after them, and also somehow the bowlers that came before them also.

Maybe all the 70s bowlers had discovered LSD to cause the game to be played at a slower pace, and once they all kicked the habit the speeds spiked again.

No way there were real speed tests before 1970s.

 

[sayon basak]

Speeds are not real. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that speeds are lies made up by NASA.

 

[kyear2]

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

What's wrong with Oldfield?

 

[shortpitched713]

No way there were real speed tests before 1970s.

Frame count estimates of Tyson and Trueman indicate minimum speeds higher than all besides Thomson from the 79 study you are so fond of.

 

[ma1978]

What's wrong with Oldfield?

a batting average of 22,65 to begin with.

 

[kyear2]

a batting average of 22,65 to begin with.

And a brilliant wicketkeeper.

Genuine question, is there a philosophy in India where actual wicket-keeping doesn't matter?

Like a coaching philosophy or something?

 

[ma1978]

And a brilliant wicketkeeper.

Genuine question, is there a philosophy in India where actual wicket-keeping doesn't matter?

Like a coaching philosophy or something?

wicket keeping has diminishing returns after a certain standard is achieved. The incremental value of a great wicket keeper vs an average wicketkeeper is tiny. Once a keeper is passable batting is the only thing that matters

 

[kyear2]

wicket keeping has diminishing returns after a certain standard is achieved. The incremental value of a great wicket keeper vs an average wicketkeeper is tiny. Once a keeper is passable batting is the only thing that matters

That isn't remotely true though.

I've had the Courtney Brown's and Junior Murray's of the world and the difference in quality and chances taken are vast.

The amount of chances I've seen Pant miss often means the difference between victory a f defeat vs good teams and isn't "automatically made up" by his batting

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Is there any team today that picks the better wicket keeper over the better batsman?

 

[ma1978]

That isn't remotely true though.

I've had the Courtney Brown's and Junior Murray's of the world and the difference in quality and chances taken are vast.

The amount of chances I've seen Pant miss often means the difference between victory a f defeat vs good teams and isn't "automatically made up" by his batting

wrong

 

[ma1978]

Is there any team today that picks the better wicket keeper over the better batsman?

no they don’t because they’re smart

 

[Johan]

Frame count estimates of Tyson and Trueman indicate minimum speeds higher than all besides Thomson from the 79 study you are so fond of.

Oh? Link?

 

[shortpitched713]

Is there any team today that picks the better wicket keeper over the better batsman?

I don't think this is always the right choice, but it's so much more easier to quantify batting runs contributed than something like fielding range for a position with such a nuance in range size and impirtance of pure reflex. We don't have anything like Statcast for that to evaluate cricket fielding like we do in baseball, but once something like that is utilized more, I think we'll see more keepers differentiating themselves for extraordinary keeping ability.

 

[shortpitched713]

Oh? Link?

Look in this thread: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/threads/speeds-pre-1998.35947/

Margin of error is huge because a single additional frame counted can reduce or increase speed calc by ~15kph, and so I don't like it as an actual measure.

Still, minimum top speed for guys like Tyson and Trueman is ~145. Which you're claiming no one besides Thomson could achieve over 20 years of improvement later. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[Johan]

Look in this thread: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/threads/speeds-pre-1998.35947/

Margin of error is huge because a single additional frame counted can reduce or increase speed calc by ~15kph, and so I don't like it as an actual measure.

Still, minimum top speed for guys like Tyson and Trueman is ~145. Which you're claiming no one besides Thomson could achieve over 20 years of improvement later. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

Look bro

Use the Big foot law, if you can't see it, no conclusive evidence or photos, it doesn't exist.

 

[sayon basak]

Look bro

Use the Big foot law, if you can't see it, no conclusive evidence or photos, it doesn't exist.

How would photos prove that they existed tho? We have photos of Dinosaurs from Jurassic Park, but they didn't exist.

Here's s conclusive proof on the matter by a Scholar.

Dinosaurs Seem Pretty Fake…

youtube.com

 

[Coronis]

How would photos prove that they existed tho? We have photos of Dinosaurs from Jurassic Park, but they didn't exist.

Here's s conclusive proof on the matter by a Scholar.

Dinosaurs Seem Pretty Fake…

youtube.com

I always thought dinosaurs were gay too.