Best ever left-arm pacer? Wasim Akram or Alan Davidson?

[AMSS]

Saw Davidson's footage on Youtube. I encourage everyone on this thread to have a look themselves.

He was pretty much a poor man's Sam Curran. Would be rank ordinary today, not worth a second glance. Wasim on the other hand forged his career having had famous duels with some of the best to have wielded the cricket bat.

No comparison.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION], do you reckon Davo would get into the ATG Aussie XI?

I’d say that the top five Aussie fast bowlers are Lindwall, Miller (a must as the all-rounder), Davo, Lillee and McGrath. I honestly don’t know who misses out, given that you’d have to drop one and get in Warne, or maybe two on a Bunsen and get Grimmett, O’Reilly or Benaud.

1. Bobby Simpson (Captain)
2. Victor Trumper
3. Don Bradman
4. Ricky Ponting
5. Greg Chappell
6. Keith Miller
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8. Alan Davidson
9. Shane Warne
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Glenn McGrath

I don’t think there’d be too many arguments about any of the Eleven - it picks itself.

The only controversy is “Lindwall or Lillee?”

 

[Robert]

1. Bobby Simpson (Captain)
2. Victor Trumper
3. Don Bradman
4. Ricky Ponting
5. Greg Chappell
6. Keith Miller
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8. Alan Davidson
9. Shane Warne
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Glenn McGrath

I don’t think there’d be too many arguments about any of the Eleven - it picks itself.

The only controversy is “Lindwall or Lillee?”

Probably it is Lindwall vs. Lillee.

I’d get AB in for Ponting though. He got tougher runs against better bowlers in weaker batting lines, and is a lefty.

 

[Robert]

Saw Davidson's footage on Youtube. I encourage everyone on this thread to have a look themselves.

He was pretty much a poor man's Sam Curran. Would be rank ordinary today, not worth a second glance. Wasim on the other hand forged his career having had famous duels with some of the best to have wielded the cricket bat.

No comparison.

If you’re saying Davidson was no good, you are saying Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Sobers, May and Cowdrey were no good either. That’s a big call to make.

 

[big_gamer007]

LOL is this a joke?

Alan Davidson is not even close to Irfan Pathan or Junaid Khan comparing him to Wasim is blasphemy.

He was great for his time no doubt but during his time the quality of game was so poor (compared to modern standard) that he is a lesser bowler than today's trundlers.

 

[big_gamer007]

If you’re saying Davidson was no good, you are saying Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Sobers, May and Cowdrey were no good either. That’s a big call to make.

They were great for their time and have had huge impact on game. But evolution is only natural and the game has evolved, compared to modern players the guys you mentioned are mediocre. There is plenty of footage online to watch and see the standard.

The only point which one can argue to rate these players ahead of modern players is that they were so far ahead of their time that they would have adjusted to the modern game and dominated the modern game as well. However that is not a FACT it is an assumption, maybe the probability of them adjusting and dominating is more than them failing but end of the day it is an assumption and not a FACT.

 

[big_gamer007]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7FEcLTdDZk&t=58s

VS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQOzWn_WlCQ

You judge.

@Tuskar [MENTION=143730]AMSS[/MENTION] [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] [MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION] [MENTION=147314]topspin[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]

 

[Khan12]

From that YouTube footage he seems to be bowling at around 120 max.

 

[Robert]

LOL is this a joke?

Alan Davidson is not even close to Irfan Pathan or Junaid Khan comparing him to Wasim is blasphemy.

He was great for his time no doubt but during his time the quality of game was so poor (compared to modern standard) that he is a lesser bowler than today's trundlers.

Blasphemy - this is a revealing comment.

 

[Robert]

They were great for their time and have had huge impact on game. But evolution is only natural and the game has evolved, compared to modern players the guys you mentioned are mediocre. There is plenty of footage online to watch and see the standard.

The only point which one can argue to rate these players ahead of modern players is that they were so far ahead of their time that they would have adjusted to the modern game and dominated the modern game as well. However that is not a FACT it is an assumption, maybe the probability of them adjusting and dominating is more than them failing but end of the day it is an assumption and not a FACT.

I would argue that the skill sets change over time. Fielding is much better now. Power hitting is much better. Defensive techniques have deteriorated even since the 1980s.

As to your second paragraph. Fangio was unarguably a great racing driver. Perhaps second only to Schumacher. Put Fangio in a modern F1 car and I believe he would dominate today.

 

[topspin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7FEcLTdDZk&t=58s

VS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQOzWn_WlCQ

You judge.

@Tuskar [MENTION=143730]AMSS[/MENTION] [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] [MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION] [MENTION=147314]topspin[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]

It's a joke of a comparison. It's disrespectful to compare Wasim with a relatively unknown cricketer from the amateur era.

 

[wrongun]

1. Bobby Simpson (Captain)
2. Victor Trumper
3. Don Bradman
4. Ricky Ponting
5. Greg Chappell
6. Keith Miller
7. Adam Gilchrist (wk)
8. Alan Davidson
9. Shane Warne
10. Dennis Lillee
11. Glenn McGrath

I don’t think there’d be too many arguments about any of the Eleven - it picks itself.

The only controversy is “Lindwall or Lillee?”

Plenty of arguments about Trumper, Simpson making opener and a middle order without AB or S. Waugh.

No dead set wrong picks but I'd say MOST Oz XI's would have about 2 or 3 different to yours.

 

[topspin]

I would argue that the skill sets change over time. Fielding is much better now. Power hitting is much better. Defensive techniques have deteriorated even since the 1980s.

As to your second paragraph. Fangio was unarguably a great racing driver. Perhaps second only to Schumacher. Put Fangio in a modern F1 car and I believe he would dominate today.

Hence the term "All Time Great".

A bonafide ATG can perform in all eras, on all pitches + conditions against all opposition and can change the course of the game.

Ask yourself seriously if Alan Davidson was bowling today with the same run up and action, would he be successful? He wouldn't make the Australia team of today ahead of Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood. In fact he isn't good enough to make their A side to be frankly honest. So on what basis is he an ATG?

 

[Tusker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7FEcLTdDZk&t=58s

VS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQOzWn_WlCQ

You judge.

@Tuskar [MENTION=143730]AMSS[/MENTION] [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] [MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION] [MENTION=147314]topspin[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]

I have seen those footages before but the Akram footage is truly astonishing no matter how many times I watch it. Another Akram video that is a favorite of mine is the master class he did with sky a few years ago well after his retirement.

 

[big_gamer007]

I would argue that the skill sets change over time. Fielding is much better now. Power hitting is much better. Defensive techniques have deteriorated even since the 1980s.

As to your second paragraph. Fangio was unarguably a great racing driver. Perhaps second only to Schumacher. Put Fangio in a modern F1 car and I believe he would dominate today.

And this is where you MIGHT be wrong. You believe he can dominate but truth is the chances of him failing are equally as much as him dominating.

Below is the average speed evolution of F1 cars from Monaco track:

http://www.motorsportsetc.com/info/spd_mon.htm


See how much difference there is in the speeds? What if Fangio's peak reflexes were what he had during his time, he would not be able to get in any F1 team of modern time if that was the case. What you are assuming is that since Fangio was great for his time, his reflexes will automatically be improved to handle the speeds of modern cars. This is assumption everyone has limits, someone who might dominate U-17 or School/University sports by a huge margin may not make it big when the competition improves because their limit was way more than kids their age but inferior to the top level and they could not improve the skill level exponentially.

Same is the case with people like Fangio, Bradman, Davidson etc, they were ahead of their time however the sport during their time was so far behind the modern days that they can never get into even a C team of today. All we can do is assume they will adjust which they may or may not.

So to say that Davidson of 1950s is even comparable to Wasim is blasphemy and this thread is an insult to both Wasim and Davidson himself.

 

[BreadPakoda]

None.

My vote goes to Fred Morley. Quite possibly the fastest bowler ever. Absolutely breathtaking - 1200 wickets! Average of 13.4 with an economy of less than 2 over 232 test matches.

And he bowled to the greatest batsmen of the game.

 

[Robert]

And this is where you MIGHT be wrong. You believe he can dominate but truth is the chances of him failing are equally as much as him dominating.

Below is the average speed evolution of F1 cars from Monaco track:

http://www.motorsportsetc.com/info/spd_mon.htm


See how much difference there is in the speeds? What if Fangio's peak reflexes were what he had during his time, he would not be able to get in any F1 team of modern time if that was the case. What you are assuming is that since Fangio was great for his time, his reflexes will automatically be improved to handle the speeds of modern cars. This is assumption everyone has limits, someone who might dominate U-17 or School/University sports by a huge margin may not make it big when the competition improves because their limit was way more than kids their age but inferior to the top level and they could not improve the skill level exponentially.

Same is the case with people like Fangio, Bradman, Davidson etc, they were ahead of their time however the sport during their time was so far behind the modern days that they can never get into even a C team of today. All we can do is assume they will adjust which they may or may not.

So to say that Davidson of 1950s is even comparable to Wasim is blasphemy and this thread is an insult to both Wasim and Davidson himself.

There’s that b-word again. All this debate about skill and technique is irrelevant sophistry to some Wasim fans because belief in him is an article of faith, not based in reason. I think you are conflating Wasim with yourself. He has iconic power, like Princess Diana.

I’m sue Wasim would not be insulted. He is a humble man. I’m sure he wonders how he would have done against Sobers and the rest.

 

[Tusker]

See how much difference there is in the speeds? What if Fangio's peak reflexes were what he had during his time, he would not be able to get in any F1 team of modern time if that was the case. What you are assuming is that since Fangio was great for his time, his reflexes will automatically be improved to handle the speeds of modern cars. This is assumption everyone has limits, someone who might dominate U-17 or School/University sports by a huge margin may not make it big when the competition improves because their limit was way more than kids their age but inferior to the top level and they could not improve the skill level exponentially.

Exactly !! I have said this numerous times to the OLD Era fanatics but they just wont get it. In their minds Cricket quality is actually inferior today than it was in the Old days therefore the severe caustic comments borne out of rage and indignation, when someone suggests that its actually the otherway around.

The best way to illustrate this is using Jack Hobbs : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoORpp1AdSk


Any serious cricket fan will automatically recognize that the technique is well below par and that it wont scale upto even U19 levels. And in response these guys reach out to their Cricket book shelf dust-off the Wisden Almanack Circa 1918 and start quoting eminent cricket historians and writers using flowery language to describe Jack Hobbs batting.

Sadly it just never ever occurs to them that those analysis and opinions were true for that time ONLY. It never occurs to them that one cannot have a future-proof cricketing assessment of any player. They just dont get it.

 

[big_gamer007]

There’s that b-word again. All this debate about skill and technique is irrelevant sophistry to some Wasim fans because belief in him is an article of faith, not based in reason. I think you are conflating Wasim with yourself. He has iconic power, like Princess Diana.

I’m sue Wasim would not be insulted. He is a humble man. I’m sure he wonders how he would have done against Sobers and the rest.

The only one who does not believe in skill, technique and fact is you. The footage is there see it for yourself.

You are just lost in nostalgia. When you see you don't have any arguments you resort to ad hominem like you are doing right now.

Nothing else to add, anyone with half a brain can see the footage and decide for themselves.

 

[Tusker]

(In reply to my mentioning that Davo worked in a bank out of season)




Yes [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION].

We seem to have arrived at a point in which even when I provide evidence to back you up you still argue!

I actually agreed with you!

So do you agree that even the WI team of the 70s and 80s werent truly professionals ? If not what is your take on Gordon Greenidge (which you never directly respond to )

Link:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...eenidge-desmond-haynes-talk-their-partnership

The main tidbit:

"For us, if we didn't play, we didn't get paid. There was no contract. So, we had to play. It didn't matter if we had game after game, consecutive games within two or three days… we would have played, we wanted to play. We had to play in order to get paid. It's very, very different"

 

[AMSS]

If you’re saying Davidson was no good, you are saying Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Sobers, May and Cowdrey were no good either. That’s a big call to make.

An easy call to make once you learn to trust your eyes, form your own judgment, and take a commonsense approach.

Yet another logical fallacy from you is assuming that if I deem a player unworthy of hype, it somehow reflects on all his peers. It does not.

 

[Robert]

The only one who does not believe in skill, technique and fact is you. The footage is there see it for yourself.

You are just lost in nostalgia. When you see you don't have any arguments you resort to ad hominem like you are doing right now.

Nothing else to add, anyone with half a brain can see the footage and decide for themselves.

I didn’t apply an ad hominem, I offered you insight into your mind concerning your attitude to Wasim based on your choice of language. You used ‘blasphemy‘. That’s not a word one uses while defending humans, is it?

I see a bowler starting at high pace, slowing down as the ball gets older, bowling to a super-aggressive field and making good batters look hopeless as he gets so much movement.

 

[Robert]

An easy call to make once you learn to trust your eyes, form your own judgment, and take a commonsense approach.

Yet another logical fallacy from you is assuming that if I deem a player unworthy of hype, it somehow reflects on all his peers. It does not.

But Davo averaged 20 at a minuscule economy rate. So indirectly you are saying Sobers was no good because Sobers couldn’t hit him.

It’s an easy call for you.

Despite Imran, whose career overlapped Sobers’ saying Sobey was head and shoulders over all the allrounders of the eighties.

Can Imran not trust his eyes, judgement and common sense?

 

[happydavy]

I voted for Davidson as a mark of protest for not including Jaydev Unadkat in the list of best ever

 

[Joseph Gomes]

From that YouTube footage he seems to be bowling at around 120 max.

Doesn't look any faster than Afridi.

 

[AMSS]

But Davo averaged 20 at a minuscule economy rate. So indirectly you are saying Sobers was no good because Sobers couldn’t hit him.

It’s an easy call for you.

Despite Imran, whose career overlapped Sobers’ saying Sobey was head and shoulders over all the allrounders of the eighties.

Can Imran not trust his eyes, judgement and common sense?

Every sentence in this post is either an obfuscation or problematic in other ways. You aver that Sobers found Davidson difficult to hit. But a quick look at statsguru tells me that the only series where they met, the West Indian reeled off 2 centuries and averaged over 50. Looks like Sobers - a batsman whom I actually rate from that era because I have seen him bat - treated Davidson like the trundler he was. Davidson did get Sobers out twice (once after he scored 168) but Cronje got Sachin out multiple times too. It proves nothing.

Once again, I am going to urge you to watch the footage of his bowling and form your own judgment instead of allowing Imran Khan to colonize your mind. It's frankly a little shameful how you have delegated the task of thinking to Imran khan. I mean he's a cricketer and they are prone to making the most bombastic claims. I'd rather use my own judgment.

 

[Robert]

Bored now.

 

[topspin]

Every sentence in this post is either an obfuscation or problematic in other ways. You aver that Sobers found Davidson difficult to hit. But a quick look at statsguru tells me that the only series where they met, the West Indian reeled off 2 centuries and averaged over 50. Looks like Sobers - a batsman whom I actually rate from that era because I have seen him bat - treated Davidson like the trundler he was. Davidson did get Sobers out twice (once after he scored 168) but Cronje got Sachin out multiple times too. It proves nothing.

Once again, I am going to urge you to watch the footage of his bowling and form your own judgment instead of allowing Imran Khan to colonize your mind. It's frankly a little shameful how you have delegated the task of thinking to Imran khan. I mean he's a cricketer and they are prone to making the most bombastic claims. I'd rather use my own judgment.

"So indirectly you are saying Sobers was no good because Sobers couldn’t hit him".

Myth exposed nicely - great post.

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] at least do some research before you make such invalid and misleading claims.

 

[Robert]

Every sentence in this post is either an obfuscation or problematic in other ways. You aver that Sobers found Davidson difficult to hit. But a quick look at statsguru tells me that the only series where they met, the West Indian reeled off 2 centuries and averaged over 50. Looks like Sobers - a batsman whom I actually rate from that era because I have seen him bat - treated Davidson like the trundler he was. Davidson did get Sobers out twice (once after he scored 168) but Cronje got Sachin out multiple times too. It proves nothing.

Once again, I am going to urge you to watch the footage of his bowling and form your own judgment instead of allowing Imran Khan to colonize your mind. It's frankly a little shameful how you have delegated the task of thinking to Imran khan. I mean he's a cricketer and they are prone to making the most bombastic claims. I'd rather use my own judgment.

Ok, not bored any more.

Looking at Davo’s stats for that series, he took 33 wickets in four tests, average 18. Pretty good trundling overall, I would say. Maybe Sobey blocked him, and scored off the lesser bowlers.

If you saw Sobey play I am rather envious.

I thought I was the old man here but you must be at least sixty.

As for my own judgement, I will always take Imran’s over my own in matters of cricket. He was a champion player, and I wasn’t. He knows better than me. He also went to a better university than I did, which I respect. That’s not shameful, that’s wisdom.

 

[MMHS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7FEcLTdDZk&t=58s

VS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQOzWn_WlCQ

You judge.

@Tuskar [MENTION=143730]AMSS[/MENTION] [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] [MENTION=90888]Itachi[/MENTION] [MENTION=147314]topspin[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]

Different era, so we shouldn't compare like this. As I said in another thread - in Bradman's time, best Tennis players like Perry, Budge, Lacoste, Tilden .... would lose 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 against this Japanese girl, winning last US Open.

Davidson was outstanding in his era, so was Wasim - Wasim's durability, achievement, contribution & impact on the game was far higher than AK Davidson. Also, personally, I rate cricket at highest between mid 70s to early 2000s, therefore biased towards the top cricketer of that 30-35 years.

 

[sunny85]

I would say Chaminda Vas better than Alan wilkinson

 

[AMSS]

Ok, not bored any more.

Looking at Davo’s stats for that series, he took 33 wickets in four tests, average 18. Pretty good trundling overall, I would say. Maybe Sobey blocked him, and scored off the lesser bowlers.

If you saw Sobey play I am rather envious.

I thought I was the old man here but you must be at least sixty.

As for my own judgement, I will always take Imran’s over my own in matters of cricket. He was a champion player, and I wasn’t. He knows better than me. He also went to a better university than I did, which I respect. That’s not shameful, that’s wisdom.

Like I keep reminding you, Davidson's wickets prove exactly nothing. He found success because, as ***** his bowling was relative to today's standards, the batsmen he was up against were of similarly low quality. There's nothing to see in his pretty little average and his haul of wickets.

I see his bowling footage and know exactly how that tripe would fare today. The batsman wouldn't see him as a bowler but a buffet waiting to be demolished.

As for deferring to Imran over your own mind, I wish you well.

 

[AMSS]

"So indirectly you are saying Sobers was no good because Sobers couldn’t hit him".

Myth exposed nicely - great post.

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] at least do some research before you make such invalid and misleading claims.

Pay attention to his logic: Alan Davidson played against Sobers and Imran called Sobers the greatest ever so Alan Davidson must be a bonafide legend. Beggars belief.

 

[Robert]

Like I keep reminding you, Davidson's wickets prove exactly nothing. He found success because, as ***** his bowling was relative to today's standards, the batsmen he was up against were of similarly low quality. There's nothing to see in his pretty little average and his haul of wickets.

I see his bowling footage and know exactly how that tripe would fare today. The batsman wouldn't see him as a bowler but a buffet waiting to be demolished.

As for deferring to Imran over your own mind, I wish you well.

Well, in that case there is nothing to see in anyone’s average.

Extended your line of thinking, Kohli is useless because he didn’t face the 120 mph upswing bowlers of 2050. He only found success due to the terrible 90 mph bowlers of the 20-teens who could only bowl inswing and outswing. There’s nothing to see in his haul of centuries.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Well, in that case there is nothing to see in anyone’s average.

Extended your line of thinking, Kohli is useless because he didn’t face the 120 mph upswing bowlers of 2050. He only found success due to the terrible 90 mph bowlers of the 20-teens who could only bowl inswing and outswing. There’s nothing to see in his haul of centuries.

You do realize 100mph is peak bowling speed, right? Bowlers have stopped bowling above 90mph since early 2010s to prevent injury and maintain better control. Bowling speed average has been stable since 1980s. Late 90s-Early 2000s was peak of express fast bowling when Lee and Akhtar were in their prime.

 

[Robert]

You do realize 100mph is peak bowling speed, right? Bowlers have stopped bowling above 90mph since early 2010s to prevent injury and maintain better control. Bowling speed average has been stable since 1980s. Late 90s-Early 2000s was peak of express fast bowling when Lee and Akhtar were in their prime.

I said I would not reply to you any more, but you’ve been polite here so I will.

Who know what will happen to athletic performance with advances in cybernetics, nanotechnology, gene-splicing, and increasingly liberalised attitudes to performance-enhancing drugs. 100 mph may look slow in not so many years from now.

And even if you are right and it does not, my satire is accurate as the game has changed since the 1960s and will look different again in 2050, when youngsters will look at footage of Kohli and ridicule his technique while people who saw Kohli play shake their heads in the certain knowledge that he was a genius.

You can only judge a player against those whom he faced, with certain caveats - 1972-2002 was probably the greatest era of fast bowling, for example. Sobers and Davidson were still superlative to other players in their day.

To return to the original question of who was the best left-arm quick, I still cannot choose between Davo and Wasim.

 

[AMSS]

Well, in that case there is nothing to see in anyone’s average.

Extended your line of thinking, Kohli is useless because he didn’t face the 120 mph upswing bowlers of 2050. He only found success due to the terrible 90 mph bowlers of the 20-teens who could only bowl inswing and outswing. There’s nothing to see in his haul of centuries.

Unfortunately for you, there *is* a peak beyond which humans physiologically cannot go. If you didn't notice, bowling speeds have stayed constant for well over 4 decades now. And if you ignore outliers such as Akhtar and Lee, the average bowling speed is highest today. Current day batsmen collectively face the paciest bowlers ever. A random Oshane from Windies bowled 150kmph thunderbolts the other day and it barely created a flutter.

But theoretically, if bowlers from distant future do bowl 120 mph on average then yes, it would be legitimate to wonder if Kohli and his cohorts could cope with this bump in cricketing standard. I have no idea why you think I'd have a problem accepting this at all.

What does astonishes me is how you could watch the footage of Davidson trundle in like an uninterested part-timer and still claim he was an equal of Wasim. I think i have wasted enough time on this nonsense.

 

[Robert]

Unfortunately for you, there *is* a peak beyond which humans physiologically cannot go. If you didn't notice, bowling speeds have stayed constant for well over 4 decades now. And if you ignore outliers such as Akhtar and Lee, the average bowling speed is highest today. Current day batsmen collectively face the paciest bowlers ever. A random Oshane from Windies bowled 150kmph thunderbolts the other day and it barely created a flutter.

But theoretically, if bowlers from distant future do bowl 120 mph on average then yes, it would be legitimate to wonder if Kohli and his cohorts could cope with this bump in cricketing standard. I have no idea why you think I'd have a problem accepting this at all.

I am attempting to lead you to the idea that a given cricketer can only reasonably be judged against his peers, not players fifty years later.

What does astonishes me is how you could watch the footage of Davidson trundle in like an uninterested part-timer and still claim he was an equal of Wasim. I think i have wasted enough time on this nonsense.

Hmm, in the link I posted he appeared to be properly quick at the beginning.

When did they start having new balls after a certain number of overs? Did Davidson ever get a new ball after the one at the beginning of the innings? Did he have to slow down to medium pace to concentrate on accuracy because the ball was so soft that bowling fast had little effect?

 

[AMSS]

I am attempting to lead you to the idea that a given cricketer can only reasonably be judged against his peers, not players fifty years later.



Hmm, in the link I posted he appeared to be properly quick at the beginning.

When did they start having new balls after a certain number of overs? Did Davidson ever get a new ball after the one at the beginning of the innings? Did he have to slow down to medium pace to concentrate on accuracy because the ball was so soft that bowling fast had little effect?

Here's a gratuitous advice, if you plan to lead someone with your idea, it helps not being confused yourself. I mean, you didn't have to go in roundabouts to tell me players can only be reasonably compared against their own peers. It's hardly a fresh idea and I endorse it fully.

On the other hand, when you compile a list of ATG XI, this is exactly what you do - compare players across eras. And when you suggest a trundler like Davidson be compared to Akram, it's bound to invite ridicule. It is possible that if Davidson were born in this era he could have bowled quicker and with more skill but it's all theoretical. he might as well have been flogged and flopped.

On the other hand Akram did bowl quicker, had a lot more punishing cricketing schedule, bowled in a variety of conditions, and bowled to some of the best bats ever. This is a call that is very easy to make.

 

[humzy]

That’s just silly, sports science never told these guys to lift heavy weights , they do it on their own accord. Why would any scientists use rugby league as a training benchmark for cricket players

 

[Junaids]

You do realize 100mph is peak bowling speed, right? Bowlers have stopped bowling above 90mph since early 2010s to prevent injury and maintain better control. Bowling speed average has been stable since 1980s. Late 90s-Early 2000s was peak of express fast bowling when Lee and Akhtar were in their prime.

With all due respect, the evidence strongly suggests that the peak period for pace bowling was the 1970’s.

The University of Western Australia used 500 frame per second speed cameras for the 1975-76 Australia v West Indies Test at the Gabba: the same cameras are still used at times today, and are 20 times more accurate than the 25 frame per second speed cameras used today.

Over 50% of the deliveries bowled by Jeff Thomson and Andy Roberts were faster than 150K, and whereas Shoaib Akhtar exceeded 160K in something like 3 balls out of 2000 measured in his career, Thomson did in something like 3 balls out of 20.

But then again, why would “modern” bowlers be quicker than the pros of 40 years ago? They have no advantage in terms of childhood diet, training regimen or muscle mass. But modern Australian, New Zealand and South African bowlers tend to have excessive upper body bulk due to prevailing rugby-based sports science.

Is Pakistan’s fastest 2018 Test bowler quicker than Imran Khan was in 1978?

Is Steven Finn or whoever is the quickest current England bowler quicker than Bob Willis was in 1978?

Is Trent Boult quicker than Richard Hadlee was in 1978?

Is Kemar Roach quicker than Michael Holding was in 1978?

Is Kagiso Rabada quicker than Garth Le Roux was in 1978?

Is Mitchell Starc quicker than Jeff Thomson was in 1978?

Across the board it is plain to see that fast bowling was quicker in 1978 than 2018. By a huge margin.

 

[Tusker]

With all due respect, the evidence strongly suggests that the peak period for pace bowling was the 1970’s.

The University of Western Australia used 500 frame per second speed cameras for the 1975-76 Australia v West Indies Test at the Gabba: the same cameras are still used at times today, and are 20 times more accurate than the 25 frame per second speed cameras used today.

The cameras used for the speed measurement by Hawkeye et.al are definitely not 25 FPS. Where did you get that information from ? You keep repeating that over and over as though it is some sort of well known fact. Feel free to provide some reference.

Over 50% of the deliveries bowled by Jeff Thomson and Andy Roberts were faster than 150K, and whereas Shoaib Akhtar exceeded 160K in something like 3 balls out of 2000 measured in his career, Thomson did in something like 3 balls out of 20.

No evidence whatsoever to this. I present you the 1978 Speed bowling competition where not one single ball bowled by anyone came close to 150K.

Another reason why nobody takes you seriously but carry on.

 

[Tusker]

Pay attention to his logic: Alan Davidson played against Sobers and Imran called Sobers the greatest ever so Alan Davidson must be a bonafide legend. Beggars belief.

there is worse things he has said in the past .... right here in this thread he says that anyone who gets a match fee is a Professional according to him.

But perhaps the most ludicrous thing he has said in the past is that we can compare great players from different ERAs by constructing a chain using overlapping years between 2 players. So he uses Hobbs-Bradman-Hutton-Sobers-Sunny-Viv-Tendulkar-Kohli using the overlapping years as "proof" that the older player could play with the next generation therefore he concludes that Hobbs could play in Kohli-SRT ERA ... I kid you not.

 

[The Googly]

I am not sure if you got the point. Perhaps I did not explain as well as I should have. Any person who has an interest in science will be aware of the scientists that you mentioned. You cannot dig deep into science without coming across these people.

However, the same cannot be said about Alan Davidson. Today, he is a forgotten man unlike the great cricketers of his time or before him.

It has nothing to do with the Age of Information. Players who played before him are better known today because they left bigger marks on the game. Something was missing from his career that did not enable him to leave a lasting legacy, and that something is the reason why he should not be compared with Wasim, and why he hardly makes any list of any former cricketer or analyst.

Totally agree with you!!

Davidson is not fit to toe Wasim’s shoe laces. Just look at old clips of him in action. Even Aussies put him way below Lillee, Thommo and McGrath and here we have someone putting Davidson in the same sentence as Akram! It’s a sporting blasphemy almost similar to comparing Audley Harrison to Muhammad Ali. Yes - Davidson was good - but please don’t compare him to an ATG.

 

[Tusker]

With all due respect, the evidence strongly suggests that the peak period for pace bowling was the 1970’s.

The University of Western Australia used 500 frame per second speed cameras for the 1975-76 Australia v West Indies Test at the Gabba: the same cameras are still used at times today, and are 20 times more accurate than the 25 frame per second speed cameras used today.

Just to show you how accurate the modern tech is:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/jul/15/hawk-eye-england-india-drs

Then I had a conversation with my old South African bowling mate Vince van der Bijl, who is in charge of all things to do with umpires and match referees at the ICC. I was wrong, he argued vehemently; Hawk-Eye is actually extremely accurate and while the protocols under which it is used might not be all they could be – placing, in my view, too much emphasis on protecting the umpires’ integrity and not enough on getting correct decisions – the technology itself is not at fault. I should see for myself, he said. So a couple of months ago I went down to Sony Europe, at Basingstoke, to meet Steve Carter, the managing director of Hawk-Eye Innovations, who Vince was sure would be able to demonstrate the capability of the technology to my satisfaction. It was fascinating and changed my opinion totally to the extent now that, as far as I am concerned, the only arguments should be about how, not if, it is used.

The acid test for me was to see how Hawk-Eye’s predictive tracking would marry up to a delivery that had gone straight through to the wicketkeeper. Would there be a significant differential in the path? Simple, said Steve. Then he showed me footage of a batsman allowing a delivery to pass by outside off stump. The same delivery was then shown from square leg, with the tracking superimposed, and the outcome, given my reticence, was staggering.

But then it shouldnt have come to this ... simple common sense suggests that ICC ( and many other sports body's in the world ) wouldnt be paying millions of dollars to use this technology if it was soo woefully inaccurate. Just THINK Damnit !!

(And now there will be the predictable silence and you will pop-up on a different thread some day later and post the same non-sense and it will be back to square one as though all this never happened. )

 

[Junaids]

Sorry, [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION], you’re plain wrong about technology.

The ICC goes for measuring equipment which is accurate enough but at an economic price.

The UWA machinery which measured Thomson at 160.641 Km/h in 1976 was accurate to 3 decimal places, but is still expensive and difficult to use.

The Supersport machinery which measured Shoaib Akhtar at 161.4 K in 2003 was accurate to 1 decimal place.

Ultimately, they are both 161K deliveries. It’s cricket, not a 100 metres sprint, so the extra accuracy of the 1975-76 study isn’t required.

 

[Tusker]

Sorry, [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION], you’re plain wrong about technology.

The ICC goes for measuring equipment which is accurate enough but at an economic price.

The UWA machinery which measured Thomson at 160.641 Km/h in 1976 was accurate to 3 decimal places, but is still expensive and difficult to use.

The Supersport machinery which measured Shoaib Akhtar at 161.4 K in 2003 was accurate to 1 decimal place.

Ultimately, they are both 161K deliveries. It’s cricket, not a 100 metres sprint, so the extra accuracy of the 1975-76 study isn’t required.

So you don't believe that Hawkeye's accuracy claim of 3.6mm ?

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

This is thread is super funny!

There is so much false equivalence going on that its mute to even considering debating anything whatsoever.

 

[salih]

These comparisons are stupid. No one has seen Alan Davidson, so what can we base our judgement on him one? Surely not stats alone? (Even just off stats, Wasim's much better)

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&#55356;&#57295; 916 international wickets<br>&#55357;&#56613; Most sixes in a Test innings (12)<br>&#55356;&#57286; ICC Men's Cricket World Cup 1992 winner<br><br>Wishing a happy birthday to the former Pakistan captain and speedster Wasim Akram &#55356;&#57218;</p>— ICC (@ICC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ICC/status/1532549543556190209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 3, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/e/xlmffg" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>