Cricket is now a ‘sissy’s game’, no aggression left: Andy Roberts

[MMHS]

The bowlers I mentioned did not play Cricket in the 50s. You don't need all the latest technology to tell that the Holding was very fast.

Game has changed since 70s, or at most mid 60s - but that doesn't mean Sobers is inferior to MoHa or Kanhai is is like Sabbir.

But, cricket changed from an English elite game to a professional men's game during that period, where technology started to get into the cricket. It's not surprising to know that, 1968 was the first time two mathematician at Uo Queensland first gave explanation of why cricket ball swings.

This footage is probably just after the change of No ball rule (front foot no ball, from back-foot), otherwise RR Lindwall was 5'11" at most & he was at fastest Watson's pace - that too Watto at his last years; no reason for his to over step by a foot. Personally, I don't believe before Lille & Roberts, world has ever seen 140KM speed. I heard lots of story about John Snow of 1970-71 - then watches his fastest spells at WACA & SCG (which was surprisingly the 2nd fastest wicket in AUS those days). Old footage of Hobbs' batting doesn't give me confidence that he ever faced anything faster than Afridi or Kumble's fast sliders - but, he is a true legend of the game, for his superiority in contemporary game - he'll make my all Test team over Gavaskar, Gooch or Boycott, for different reasons - just like I put Trumper between Greg & Ponting, among Aussies (Greg ahead). Commentators used superlative words, because of the then standard - someone bowling at 125km will be like cannon ball, if 9 others struggle to reach 120km. Just like Kapil is called, medium pacer in 80s - he would have been like lightning against "typhoon" Tyson of 1950s.

Only area that I feel probably was remotely comparable to modern days & cricket before 1960s is the quality of spin play - that too, because the game was slow & batsmen were expected to block spinners at around 1.5 RR, batting for hours with dead bat & pad play. The sort of foot-work that Lara, Azhar, Tendulkar, Zaheer, Viv had against spinners while making shots or the perfect defense that Gavaskar, Javed or Dravid had while killing spin - it's just not comparable; but you ask me, I'll say Hervey & Kanhai are among top 6 spin players ever.

 

[Mamoon]

The bowlers I mentioned did not play Cricket in the 50s. You don't need all the latest technology to tell that the Holding was very fast.

Yes of course he was very fast, no one is disputing that.

 

[Convict]

Game has changed since 70s, or at most mid 60s - but that doesn't mean Sobers is inferior to MoHa or Kanhai is is like Sabbir.

But, cricket changed from an English elite game to a professional men's game during that period, where technology started to get into the cricket. It's not surprising to know that, 1968 was the first time two mathematician at Uo Queensland first gave explanation of why cricket ball swings.

This footage is probably just after the change of No ball rule (front foot no ball, from back-foot), otherwise RR Lindwall was 5'11" at most & he was at fastest Watson's pace - that too Watto at his last years; no reason for his to over step by a foot. Personally, I don't believe before Lille & Roberts, world has ever seen 140KM speed. I heard lots of story about John Snow of 1970-71 - then watches his fastest spells at WACA & SCG (which was surprisingly the 2nd fastest wicket in AUS those days). Old footage of Hobbs' batting doesn't give me confidence that he ever faced anything faster than Afridi or Kumble's fast sliders - but, he is a true legend of the game, for his superiority in contemporary game - he'll make my all Test team over Gavaskar, Gooch or Boycott, for different reasons - just like I put Trumper between Greg & Ponting, among Aussies (Greg ahead). Commentators used superlative words, because of the then standard - someone bowling at 125km will be like cannon ball, if 9 others struggle to reach 120km. Just like Kapil is called, medium pacer in 80s - he would have been like lightning against "typhoon" Tyson of 1950s.

Only area that I feel probably was remotely comparable to modern days & cricket before 1960s is the quality of spin play - that too, because the game was slow & batsmen were expected to block spinners at around 1.5 RR, batting for hours with dead bat & pad play. The sort of foot-work that Lara, Azhar, Tendulkar, Zaheer, Viv had against spinners while making shots or the perfect defense that Gavaskar, Javed or Dravid had while killing spin - it's just not comparable; but you ask me, I'll say Hervey & Kanhai are among top 6 spin players ever.

Firstly I am going to talk about speeds as something a player was often able to do in match conditions. As someone who has played a lot of cricket I firmly believe that many physically fit, strong fast bowler in his 20s with good bowling technique can bowl 145 kmph with at least an effort ball.

Dunno. I've heard from uncles that Tyson that one Ashes series in Australia was that fast. But the thing with Tyson is that he was fast for only one or two years and imo that speed was about 145-150 kmph.

Logic and looking at how fit he was and his slinging action tells us that during his peak Thomson was probably as fast as peak Akhtar, Lee and Tait (albiet he could probably keep it up much longer than lets say Tait).
The 160 - 161 kmph a range is probably the max a human can actually physically bowl.

Roberts, as anyone with experience in fast bowling can tell you, is right about how important running is to fast bowling. Not so much a strength thing but it really fixes up your run up. I firmly believe that the West Indian bowlers of the 70s and 80s were at minimum just as professional as players today. Its no coincidence that World Series Cricket (the West Indian players credited Kerry Packer with forcing them to train like professionals) and then the era where county cricket frequently recruited young players from other countries to play as overseas professionals coincided with the Windies peak. The WICB could select full time professionals and were one of the few boards in the world that could do that (Sheffield Shield certainly wasn't professional at that point and County Crickets professionalism was restricted to the elite).

 

[Robert]

Why would the commentator emphasize on "70 mph" while calling him a "speed king" if he was capable of bowling 90+?

Because he didn't know what he was talking about. Again, how was this measured?

 

[MMHS]

Firstly I am going to talk about speeds as something a player was often able to do in match conditions. As someone who has played a lot of cricket I firmly believe that many physically fit, strong fast bowler in his 20s with good bowling technique can bowl 145 kmph with at least an effort ball.

Dunno. I've heard from uncles that Tyson that one Ashes series in Australia was that fast. But the thing with Tyson is that he was fast for only one or two years and imo that speed was about 145-150 kmph.

Logic and looking at how fit he was and his slinging action tells us that during his peak Thomson was probably as fast as peak Akhtar, Lee and Tait (albiet he could probably keep it up much longer than lets say Tait).
The 160 - 161 kmph a range is probably the max a human can actually physically bowl.

Roberts, as anyone with experience in fast bowling can tell you, is right about how important running is to fast bowling. Not so much a strength thing but it really fixes up your run up. I firmly believe that the West Indian bowlers of the 70s and 80s were at minimum just as professional as players today. Its no coincidence that World Series Cricket (the West Indian players credited Kerry Packer with forcing them to train like professionals) and then the era where county cricket frequently recruited young players from other countries to play as overseas professionals coincided with the Windies peak. The WICB could select full time professionals and were one of the few boards in the world that could do that (Sheffield Shield certainly wasn't professional at that point and County Crickets professionalism was restricted to the elite).

This is Frank "Typhoon" Tyson - at his fastest, when he blew AUS with his hostile pace. I leave it to you to judge his pace between 145-150km

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN1UAhYPByQ

 

[R1ddlR]

There is too much fear now and regulations around your actions, you can't even send off a batsmen without being fined these days or investigated and warned.. as a fast bowler i sometimes get a wicket and will do something ridiculous as a send-off but it's all in a bowlers mentality

 

[Robert]

This is Frank "Typhoon" Tyson - at his fastest, when he blew AUS with his hostile pace. I leave it to you to judge his pace between 145-150km

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN1UAhYPByQ

Look at how far back first slip is.

Godfrey Evans is standing close, but he was supposedly a genius - keepers were better in those days, picked for their keeping, not converted batsmen.

 

[MMHS]

Look at how far back first slip is.

Godfrey Evans is standing close, but he was supposedly a genius - keepers were better in those days, picked for their keeping, not converted batsmen.

Indeed Evans was a genius at keeping. Modern day keepers can't make 150km ball dip at knee level, standing at a similar distance behind batsman, where I saw Boucher keeping against Cronje. It the gravity of his genious that's pulling down 150km short staff below to his knees, standing about 15 metres behind.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
I think you are missing the point about bowlers from the 1950's.

It is an accepted fact that Tyson was viewed as express, yet as you have written he doesn't look in the 145+ range.

But this can match the established facts.

We know that Trueman was around 5-10K faster than Statham.

But we also have one indisputable reference point: the NZ Aeronautical College in Wellington recorded Statham at 87 mph (140K) and Tyson at 89 mph (143K).

But the Back foot rule means that both bowled from around 18 yards.

Which explains why a 143K Tyson from 18 yards felt like a 175K express merchant. Yet the keeper stood only as far back as we would expect for a 145 bowler.

Don't lose track of the actual measurements of some of the bowlers referenced in this thread.

But also remember that the 1970's West Indians were full time professionals supported by a highly professional fitness guru in Dennis Waight. And could abuse anabolic steroids with impunity.

 

[MMHS]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
I think you are missing the point about bowlers from the 1950's.

It is an accepted fact that Tyson was viewed as express, yet as you have written he doesn't look in the 145+ range.

But this can match the established facts.

We know that Trueman was around 5-10K faster than Statham.

But we also have one indisputable reference point: the NZ Aeronautical College in Wellington recorded Statham at 87 mph (140K) and Tyson at 89 mph (143K).

But the Back foot rule means that both bowled from around 18 yards.

Which explains why a 143K Tyson from 18 yards felt like a 175K express merchant. Yet the keeper stood only as far back as we would expect for a 145 bowler.

Don't lose track of the actual measurements of some of the bowlers referenced in this thread.

But also remember that the 1970's West Indians were full time professionals supported by a highly professional fitness guru in Dennis Waight. And could abuse anabolic steroids with impunity.

Can be - won't argue, if you think Truman was faster than Tyson.

But, one little correction - back foot law scrutinized bowlers back foot on the line parallel to wickets, not the popping crease. That's a freedom of 6 to 8 inches max - that too for bowlers like Ambrose, who could have managed back foot line & stress front foot by may be a feet over the line. For 4 yards advantage, Truman had to be almost 4 yards tall as well.

I do agree, front foot law has reduced the pace of fast bowlers - otherwise, if he was allowed to run free & don't bother for front step, someone like Holding, Shoaib or Lee indeed could reach 170 km. Larwood & Tyson had that freedom, hence I do believe sometimes they did reach 135km +; otherwise 125 was a struggle.

I know you are a doctor, I know you are a genuine cricket enthusiast. And I know, you do know the mechanics of fast bowling. Most crucial aspect of fast bowling is the run up & delivery stride - a fast bowler uses his body almost like a coil. He transfers his momentum from his run up through his smooth action in to bowling pace, using his front foot as the launching pad, almost like a javline thrower. Bowling isn't baseball pitching. That's why every fast bowler had been fantastic sprinter - not to mention the Jamaican or Barbadians, but I do believe both Waquar & Shoaib had a future in sprint athletics, if not in cricket.

Having said that - you have seen the bowling action of Tyson & Larwood - if you believe that with that yo yo run up & bowling action, just from shoulder at delivery stride, it's possible to reach 89mph (143km) - I can't argue with a doctor. One thing I can tell you that 150km or 125km, Tyson's speed won't have differed much had he bowled with 5 step runup, because he isn't getting anything much from that dibli dobli run up. And that's why Larwood or Tyson could maintain top speed (let's park the numbers here) bowling at 3 minutes/over (19 overs/hour) & sometimes for 35 overs in a day - for a time less Test in 5th or 6th day.

 

[someone21]

Rabada getting suspended also adds to cricket's sissy and soft image. Surely, a bit of aggression, passion should allowed in this sport.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
I think you are missing the point about bowlers from the 1950's.

It is an accepted fact that Tyson was viewed as express, yet as you have written he doesn't look in the 145+ range.

Why does he look sooooo ordinary even in the clip ( vs Aus at SCG 1954/55 series ) where he bowled the fastest as per the same "Experts" ?

Will you ever provide a straight answer ( that makes logical sense ) to that simple question ?

here is that clip again : http://www.britishpathe.com/video/selected-originals-typhoon-tysons-test-match/query/Tyson

But this can match the established facts.

We know that Trueman was around 5-10K faster than Statham.

But we also have one indisputable reference point: the NZ Aeronautical College in Wellington recorded Statham at 87 mph (140K) and Tyson at 89 mph (143K).

But the Back foot rule means that both bowled from around 18 yards.

Which explains why a 143K Tyson from 18 yards felt like a 175K express merchant. Yet the keeper stood only as far back as we would expect for a 145 bowler.

Another half truth propagated as fact and then brazenly embellished.

Here is why .... distance between popping crease at both ends is 19.33 yards ( 1768 cms ) . If Tyson bowled from 18 yards away from the batsman then his Delivery stride would be about 2.66 yards ( 2.43 mtrs or 243 cms).

See if you can even remotely come close to managing that kind of a stride without doing damage to your legs.

Don't lose track of the actual measurements of some of the bowlers referenced in this thread.

But also remember that the 1970's West Indians were full time professionals supported by a highly professional fitness guru in Dennis Waight. And could abuse anabolic steroids with impunity.

This is a blatant lie !! The WI team never had a contract and if they got injured or dropped from the squad they did not get paid. Simply put they got paid only if they played and this comes straight from Gordon Greenidge. Laughable to call that as a professional setup.

 

[Tusker]

He still kept playing because that was the best job he could do & highest he could earn. And he was picked because he was still better than others.

Regarding motivation, I tell you another story - once Kinshasa Bikele or Moses Kiptanui (or some one Kenyan world champion) was asked - what is the secret for Kenya to produce such wonderful middle distance runners virtually from no system or financial motivation; when West is failing to do so with best level facilities & finiacial back ups.

Answer was - one part is genetics, which we are born with; second part is the system - our kids starts day to compete with lions & gazzles & rhinos just to run for saving life; third part is motivation - an athelatics medal can give us a job in police or army which'll give us the hope to raise our kids in school, to feed them 3 times a day & to keep them under shed. On top of that an Olympic medal can land us in the dream land of Europe or North America.

Motivation in sports is a bit different than doing 9 to 5 job - it was always like that. Fortunately for current generation, it pays them in 8 digit.

Read what Steve Smith has to say ( Main article on Cricinfo )


"I know from my career that when I was dropped in 2011 if I didn't have a strong domestic competition to go back to, I certainly wouldn't be in the position that I'm in today," he wrote. "State players need to be taken care of financially so the domestic competition will always be strong which in turn keeps us strong at the International level"



This is exactly the main point I made about a Professional setup. You cannot possibly hope to get the same sort of participation levels and competition by hoping that people will duke it out for a medal of honor that wont even put food on table. That sort of system eliminates quite literally millions from the system.

I still maintain that in India alone there is enough talent to make 25 decent teams but alas the stupid system and logistics only allow for one team ... therefore too many people don't even bother trying as they feel the odds are against them. I can speak from my own experience and that of numerous friends and family far and near. Not one single kid even bothers to take up sports seriously. Even today !