• 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.

Who was faster on average – Michael Holding or Ollie Robinson?

Holding vs Robinson


  • Total voters
    6

sayon basak

International Coach
No, but if you wanted you could get the roughest of estimates just by comparing footage, even using a spurious methodology. Said methodology would prove these figures wrong quite easily, imo as they're not even in the right ballpark.
Wouldn't comparing footages be even more inaccurate? As they were almost obviously filmed at a different FPS?
 

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
Wouldn't comparing footages be even more inaccurate? As they were almost obviously filmed at a different FPS?
Yeah it's innacurate, but gives you a ballpark, unless the footage itself was actually sped up or slowed down.

And the point isn't to get a number. The point is to see who could/couldn't possibly be faster than others.
 

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
Ultimately, 8 balls in a net using dusty ass tech proving that Jeff Thompson couldn't possibly bowl faster than Roger Telemachus (yes he was clocked at 148) is laughable lunacy.
 

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
Does this count? If not, why?
The point isn't to get a number but a range, because the methodology has an inherently high degree of imprecision.

Ultimately I don't compare a hard and fast measured number (like those which were measured for Lee and Akhtar), to an imprecise range. Does that make sense?
 

sayon basak

International Coach
The point isn't to get a number but a range, because the methodology has an inherently high degree of imprecision.

Ultimately I don't compare a hard and fast measured number (like those which were measured for Lee and Akhtar), to an imprecise range. Does that make sense?
Apparently not for now, but pretty sure it will when you do a practical comparison and provide us that :D
 

Top