West Indies (70's-80's) vs Australia (2000's)?

[manee]

Thomson probably had the potential to bowl 100mph but I highly doubt that he often did. I think, judging from watching some of the current bowlers and watching him on youtube that he mainly bowled inbetween or around 85-90mph.

In Dennis Lillee's book, Thomson, Lillee, Roberts and Holding got their speeds measured in a match and Thomson's was over 150kph, IIRC. However, I will try to find the book and get the exact figure.

 

[King Pietersen]

The video's on Youtube, was a test match at the MCG between Australia and West Indies.

 

[manee]

Yes, in match conditions, from that video:
- Lillee (unwell): 139kph
- Holding: 148.54kph
- Roberts (unwell): 150.67kph
- Thomson: 160.45kph

 

[King Pietersen]

Yeh, so thats officially measured, on video, the same way as the speed is measured today and Thomson was measured at 160.4kph. Surely that's further proof that Thomson is far quicker than Daren Powell ffs.

 

[Sureshot]

You are really failing to see logic. Players nowadays are allot more fitter (an example would be that Thomson was able to bowl in his debut with a broken foot) and a wider variety of bowlers can touch higher speeds more consistantly then bowlers of 30-40 years whilst it obviously seems that this was something amazing to do back in the day.

That's not an example of being fitter. That's an example of someone playing through the pain barrier with guts.

Warne, I think is the better bowler but I think the action of Muralitharan would be to complex and complicated for any other batsman of a different era to handle.

Weird actions aren't unique to just modern bowlers.

 

[aussie_ben91]

It's hopeless trying to convince you people.

You read far too much into other people's opinions and everything you post seems too far fetched to believe.

I used to think the same as you King_Pietersen but after reviewing Thomson's bowling and comparing it with some bowlers of the modern age then he wasn't as quick as what people have made out. The batsman have the same reactions and the release, pitch and how the ball travels to the keeper is basically the same.

You can't get away bowling with broken ankles these days and at the speeds they bowl, if you get hit in the head without a helmet, you'd most likely get killed, let alone keep batting. No one would want to play cricket because if they actually did bowl that fast without helmets then you'd have as much chance of surviving against them then you would if you got shipped off to war.

Some of you people are so gullible with some of the myths you've heard from the 70s & 80s.

If Thomson was bowling 160kph then I guess Ahktar was bowling 180kph because it look far more quicker then anything Thomo bowled. :

 

[manee]

Have you even considered that modern TV has a different view than 70s and 80s cricket - the latter making deliveries look slower?

 

[aussie_ben91]

That's a load of crap.

I watched games from the 80s on Foxsports and there is absolutely no difference.

 

[Dare]

That's a load of crap.

I watched games from the 80s on Foxsports and there is absolutely no difference.

dude that game was taped 25 years ago doesn't matter when and where you watched it. You could have watched it on the best TV in the world the game was taped 25 years ago the video is old.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Apart from the fact that it was set at the exact same angle and looked no different to modern day television.

The spinners looked exactly the same, why would the fast bowlers be any different?

 

[manee]

That's a load of crap.

I watched games from the 80s on Foxsports and there is absolutely no difference.

Apologies, the view on all youtube videos is different to the modern view as is those I see on ESPN Classic and so I assumed that your video had a similar view.

 

[Owzat]

dude that game was taped 25 years ago doesn't matter when and where you watched it. You could have watched it on the best TV in the world the game was taped 25 years ago the video is old.

Oh I get it, the video is old and therefore worn so it plays slower making it look like they're playing in slomo - thanks for clearing that up :

 

[Michaelf7777777]

West Indies 70's and 80's XI

1. Greenidge
2. Haynes
3. Richards
4. Kanhai
5. Sobers
6. Lloyd (*)
7. Dujon (+)
8. Marshall
9. Ambrose
10. Garner
11. Gibbs

Australia 1989-2008 XI

1. M.Taylor (*)
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. M.Waugh
5. S.Waugh
6. A.Border
7. Gilchrist (+)
8. Warne
9. Hughes
10. McDermott
11. McGrath

Head to Head comparisons

Greenidge vs Taylor - Even
Haynes vs Hayden - Hayden
Richards vs Ponting - Richards
Kanhai vs M.Waugh - M.Waugh
Sobers vs S.Waugh - Sobers
Lloyd vs Border - Border
Dujon vs Gilchrist - Gilchrist
Gibbs vs Warne - Warne
Marshall vs. McGrath - Even
Ambrose vs Hughes - Ambrose
Garner vs McDermott - Garner

West Indies: 4 Australia: 5 Even: 2

Conclusion - Modern era Australia slightly better but still the 2nd greatest team ever behind the Australian team straight after WWII.

 

[Dare]

Oh I get it, the video is old and therefore worn so it plays slower making it look like they're playing in slomo - thanks for clearing that up :

o good we have a modern day genius and a wise a$$ all in one.

thats not what I meant at all, what I mean is that the tape is old it is still probably in black and white and blurry. so watching the same tape on TV or youtube doesn't make allot of difference. having a new TV doesn't clear up the picture.

 

[WestIndian]

West Indies 70's and 80's XI

1. Greenidge
2. Haynes
3. Richards
4. Kanhai
5. Sobers
6. Lloyd (*)
7. Dujon (+)
8. Marshall
9. Ambrose
10. Garner
11. Gibbs

Australia 1989-2008 XI

1. M.Taylor (*)
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. M.Waugh
5. S.Waugh
6. A.Border
7. Gilchrist (+)
8. Warne
9. Hughes
10. McDermott
11. McGrath

Head to Head comparisons

Greenidge vs Taylor - Even
Haynes vs Hayden - Hayden
Richards vs Ponting - Richards
Kanhai vs M.Waugh - M.Waugh
Sobers vs S.Waugh - Sobers
Lloyd vs Border - Border
Dujon vs Gilchrist - Gilchrist
Gibbs vs Warne - Warne
Marshall vs. McGrath - Even
Ambrose vs Hughes - Ambrose
Garner vs McDermott - Garner

West Indies: 4 Australia: 5 Even: 2

Conclusion - Modern era Australia slightly better but still the 2nd greatest team ever behind the Australian team straight after WWII.

lol lol lol, is this guy for real??? I did promise that I would make no further post on this issue and I will not.