West Indies of 80s vs Pakistan of 90s vs Australia of 2000s vs India of 2010s in ODIs

[Proactive_]

So if you don't believe that article that I posted why were you trying to use it to your advantage earlier ? I see you never answered that question. I wonder why. Perhaps desperately trying to wiggle ouut of the proper tangle that you find yourselves in .

Because I quoted what Ganguly actually said. There is no scope for misinterpretation and misappropriation there. Those were the exact words that Ganguly said. How about the writer of that article and you bring me the 7 decisions that went against India though?

Curiously waiting for the "data" that would "conclusively prove" that Australia were always aided by umpires.

Do you really think ICC is in the business of investigating umpiring blunders? What kind of bakwas is this? Pretty soon you are going to ask why there wasnt a proper court case to decide based on "proper" evidence. Perhaps its too depressing to see your beloved aussies go down a notch ?

Until DRS came in the Umpires operated like Kings. Absolutely no checks and balances. All rules written or unwritten were in their favor. This is what led to DRS and ironically it was because of Bucknor that we now see a truly fair system (as Tech improves and people understand the futility of fighting against Tech it will totally be a merit based system something you like to crow about all the time ... talk about Irony )

Aww look at you trying to be cute. You know as well as me that Bucknor wasn't removed for his alleged incompetence nor for this alleged bias against the Indians.

India have had a win in their battle over the umpiring in Sydney, with Steve Bucknor sacked from officiating in next week's Perth Test and replaced by Billy Bowden. The BCCI later confirmed that they will continue the tour as planned

"What we've seen over the last week is a lot of criticism of umpiring decisions, a lot of ill feeling," Speed said at the MCG. "It's not unlike the situation the cricket world faced at The Oval in 2006. What we need to do is to alleviate some of the tension that is focused on this match and one way of doing that is to bring in a new umpiring team."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvind/content/story/329743.html

It is hilarious that you keep shoving in the narrative that Bucknor having a confirmed agenda against specifically the Indians is what got him fired, when in reality it was the BCCI which threatened to call off the entire tour if they didn't get their away and something was not done to alleviate their paranoia that Bucknor was conspiring against them.

This is like saying there is no racism in America because Barrack Obama was elected president twice lol. I never said all decisions made by Bucknor were against India. However Bucknor never even considered contesting his ignominious firing after SCG 2008 which tells me that BCCI were spot on to refuse playing against a gully level 3rd rate umpire.

Yeah, like you have a 100 wrong decisions lined up in every India match that Bucknor officiated to somehow "conclusively prove" with "data" that he specifically favored the Australians. But somehow a series altering plumb decision that favored India can't be counted as a conspiracy because reasons..

 

[jeetu]

Top Team performance by Decade (based on Win-Loss Ratio

[table= class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Team [/td][td]Span [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Won [/td][td]Lost [/td][td]Tied [/td][td]NR [/td][td]W/L [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]2000-2009 [/td][td]283 [/td][td]202 [/td][td]66 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]12 [/td][td]3.06 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]West Indies [/td][td]1973-1979 [/td][td]23 [/td][td]17 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]2.833 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]West Indies [/td][td]1980-1989 [/td][td]170 [/td][td]122 [/td][td]46 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]2.652 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India [/td][td]2010-2017 [/td][td]196 [/td][td]120 [/td][td]65 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]1.846 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]South Africa [/td][td]2000-2009 [/td][td]254 [/td][td]157 [/td][td]86 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]1.825 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]South Africa [/td][td]1991-1999 [/td][td]177 [/td][td]110 [/td][td]61 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]1.803 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England [/td][td]1971-1979 [/td][td]46 [/td][td]27 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]1.8 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]South Africa [/td][td]2010-2017 [/td][td]152 [/td][td]93 [/td][td]53 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]1.754 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]2010-2017 [/td][td]180 [/td][td]107 [/td][td]61 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]11 [/td][td]1.754 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]1990-1999 [/td][td]225 [/td][td]140 [/td][td]81 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]1.728 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

 

[Tusker]

Yes,its not that the video is false.But the measurement methods were different,so you cant compare with modern speed gun.

First of all do you even agree that the speed as reported in that video is Release speed from bowlers hand ?

Your posts suggest to me you did not watch that clip I posted in Post#136 completely. Because it clearly states the accuracy of measurements ( one hundredth of sec )

https://youtu.be/uRlyFVCLOr4?t=6m14s

I cant wait to hear the next excuse.

And if you have seriously watched the videos your telling me holding is hardik/bumrah pace? lolz.Who is joking now?

Why don't you try and refute the speed measurements of Holding instead of resorting to peurile posts ?

 

[Proactive_]

Top Team performance by Decade (based on Win-Loss Ratio

[table= class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Team [/td][td]Span [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Won [/td][td]Lost [/td][td]Tied [/td][td]NR [/td][td]W/L [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]2000-2009 [/td][td]283 [/td][td]202 [/td][td]66 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]12 [/td][td]3.06 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]West Indies [/td][td]1973-1979 [/td][td]23 [/td][td]17 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]2.833 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]West Indies [/td][td]1980-1989 [/td][td]170 [/td][td]122 [/td][td]46 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]2.652 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]India [/td][td]2010-2017 [/td][td]196 [/td][td]120 [/td][td]65 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]1.846 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]South Africa [/td][td]2000-2009 [/td][td]254 [/td][td]157 [/td][td]86 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]1.825 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]South Africa [/td][td]1991-1999 [/td][td]177 [/td][td]110 [/td][td]61 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]1.803 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]England [/td][td]1971-1979 [/td][td]46 [/td][td]27 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]1.8 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]South Africa [/td][td]2010-2017 [/td][td]152 [/td][td]93 [/td][td]53 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]1.754 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]2010-2017 [/td][td]180 [/td][td]107 [/td][td]61 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]11 [/td][td]1.754 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Australia [/td][td]1990-1999 [/td][td]225 [/td][td]140 [/td][td]81 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]1.728 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

But if we were to believe one particular knowledgeable soul, that 202-66 record for Australia was all due to umpiring though.. not the fact that they had the best batting and bowling line up for almost a decade.. just the umpiring

 

[Tusker]

Because I quoted what Ganguly actually said. There is no scope for misinterpretation and misappropriation there. Those were the exact words that Ganguly said. How about the writer of that article and you bring me the 7 decisions that went against India though?

Curiously waiting for the "data" that would "conclusively prove" that Australia were always aided by umpires.

You quoted Ganguly using the same article that I posted which you are disputing. But I don't expect you to understand the problem with that and I await your usual deadbeat defence of the undefendable and make a mockery of your selves.

The Data is in that media link. If you dispute that then the onus is on you to prove that the article is inaccurate(It will help to realize that you rely on the same article. You can shout as hard as you can and I can do the same. Bottomline is you have ZERO evidence to prove that the article was incorrect. And dont forget the 2 video clips I already posted. Besides its not like you will change your tune and conceed given how you are trying to defend Bucknor.

Aww look at you trying to be cute. You know as well as me that Bucknor wasn't removed for his alleged incompetence nor for this alleged bias against the Indians.

India have had a win in their battle over the umpiring in Sydney, with Steve Bucknor sacked from officiating in next week's Perth Test and replaced by Billy Bowden. The BCCI later confirmed that they will continue the tour as planned

"What we've seen over the last week is a lot of criticism of umpiring decisions, a lot of ill feeling," Speed said at the MCG. "It's not unlike the situation the cricket world faced at The Oval in 2006. What we need to do is to alleviate some of the tension that is focused on this match and one way of doing that is to bring in a new umpiring team."

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvind/content/story/329743.html

It is hilarious that you keep shoving in the narrative that Bucknor having a confirmed agenda against specifically the Indians is what got him fired, when in reality it was the BCCI which threatened to call off the entire tour if they didn't get their away and something was not done to alleviate their paranoia that Bucknor was conspiring against them.

Thanks for making my point. See the bits with visual effects to help you realize why Bucknor got fired and never officiated again. If you are contending that Bucknor got a raw deal now would be the time to CLEARLY state your version of events as they unfolded in the parallel universe that you reside in.

Yeah, like you have a 100 wrong decisions lined up in every India match that Bucknor officiated to somehow "conclusively prove" with "data" that he specifically favored the Australians. But somehow a series altering plumb decision that favored India can't be counted as a conspiracy because reasons..

So there is no racism in America then ? a simple yes or no will suffice. This is the key to this discussion. And if the past is anything to go by you will not touch this one with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Proactive_]

You quoted Ganguly using the same article that I posted which you are disputing. But I don't expect you to understand the problem with that and I await your usual deadbeat defence of the undefendable and make a mockery of your selves.

The Data is in that media link. If you dispute that then the onus is on you to prove that the article is inaccurate(It will help to realize that you rely on the same article. You can shout as hard as you can and I can do the same. Bottomline is you have ZERO evidence to prove that the article was incorrect. And dont forget the 2 video clips I already posted. Besides its not like you will change your tune and conceed given how you are trying to defend Bucknor.

There is no data in the media link lol. There is a statement. 7 wrong decisions. Where are those 7 wrong decisions? What are those 7 wrong decisions. Where is the other data regarding Australia being favored by umpires? I know you can never cash on the checks that you're writing but it's funny to see you try to dodge YOUR own statement of "data" which "conclusively proves" that Australia were always favored by umpires. Let's see if you ever make any progress on that.

Thanks for making my point. See the bits with visual effects to help you realize why Bucknor got fired and never officiated again. If you are contending that Bucknor got a raw deal now would be the time to CLEARLY state your version of events as they unfolded in the parallel universe that you reside in.

"over the last week". Where does it mention that Bucknor had a bad rep on the international stage before Sydney 2008? Seriously, do I need to do 2+2 for you now?

So there is no racism in America then ? a simple yes or no will suffice. This is the key to this discussion. And if the past is anything to go by you will not touch this one with a 10 foot pole.

First explain to me what relevance does it have to this discussions. Then I'll even write a thesis on racism in America. You set of "data" to "conclusively prove" that Australia was always favored by the umpires thus far has been a statement from a report. That's all. , and you want me to ignore a series altering decision that on the contrary to your narrative.. benefited India? Yeah, right..

 

[Tusker]

There is no data in the media link lol. There is a statement. 7 wrong decisions. Where are those 7 wrong decisions?

So the article is soo wrong that it makes bogus claims? Simple Yes / No ?

"over the last week". Where does it mention that Bucknor had a bad rep on the international stage before Sydney 2008? Seriously, do I need to do 2+2 for you now?

Because you dont get fired for one bad match and worse never umpire again. Do you Seriously expect ICC to make a mockery of themselves by admitting that let Bucknor continue knowingly. Common Sense much ?

First explain to me what relevance does it have to this discussions. Then I'll even write a thesis on racism in America.

You were the one that produced a bad decision by Bucknor going against India to prove he is innocent. Therefore America is place free of racism on even much stronger grounds ( twice voted for Obama )

You set of "data" to "conclusively prove" that Australia was always favored by the umpires thus far has been a statement from a report. That's all. , and you want me to ignore a series altering decision that on the contrary to your narrative.. benefited India? Yeah, right..

dont forget your own reliance on the same article that you are disputing bigger

 

[Proactive_]

So the article is soo wrong that it makes bogus claims? Simple Yes / No ?

Tell me where is the "data" first. You know there is no data. You talked about data which you can't provide now. You're latching on to a statement which can't be substantiated. Tell me what were the 7 wrong decisions at least.. that's the least you should give in the name of data.

Because you dont get fired for one bad match and worse never umpire again. Do you Seriously expect ICC to make a mockery of themselves by admitting that let Bucknor continue knowingly. Common Sense much ?

Yeah, Bucknow was so horrible that's why he was given the responsibility of officiating in 3 WC Finals.

You were the one that produced a bad decision by Bucknor going against India to prove he is innocent. Therefore America is place free of racism on even much stronger grounds ( twice voted for Obama )

I'm using your one for one logic. If you can conclude something without a shadow of a doubt on the basis of one statement in a report which can't even be substantiated, then why shouldn't I post a series altering decision that went in favor of India from the same umpire in question?

dont forget your own reliance on the same article that you are disputing bigger

I'm not claiming anything in it as "DATA" though. At least I'm using something that was actually documented to have come out of Ganguly's mouth.

 

[Tusker]

Tell me where is the "data" first. You know there is no data. You talked about data which you can't provide now. You're latching on to a statement which can't be substantiated. Tell me what were the 7 wrong decisions at least.. that's the least you should give in the name of data.

I gave you clips for 2 already ... and from memory Clarke was let off twice ... once in the 90s ( iahve already mentioned this before) ... do you really expect people to keep track of ball-by-ball data 13 years later ... sorry Iam not a computer ... However not surprising at all that you vehemently arguing against it.

Yeah, Bucknow was so horrible that's why he was given the responsibility of officiating in 3 WC Finals.

I'm using your one for one logic. If you can conclude something without a shadow of a doubt on the basis of one statement in a report which can't even be substantiated, then why shouldn't I post a series altering decision that went in favor of India from the same umpire in question?

You are mixing two things ... Bucknor has a long well documented history of mugging India ... as I said you living in a parallel world is no excuse for reality being very different.

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2006/jan/12hair.htm
http://www.cricketcountry.com/artic...roblems-with-steve-bucknor-mike-denness-13295
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...Bucknor-Was-he-genuinely-biased-against-India


whereas using one decision to prove Bucknor was impartial is certianly your own idea. So now lets see the answer for America and racism.

I'm not claiming anything in it as "DATA" though. At least I'm using something that was actually documented to have come out of Ganguly's mouth.

It is also likewise "documented" that there were 7 dismissals most of which went against India ... lol

 

[Proactive_]

I gave you clips for 2 already ... and from memory Clarke was let off twice ... once in the 90s ( iahve already mentioned this before) ... do you really expect people to keep track of ball-by-ball data 13 years later ... sorry Iam not a computer ... However not surprising at all that you vehemently arguing against it.

Please..

In YOUR words:

Bottomline is the data conclusively proves that Aus benefited from these umpires

The only problem being that you have no data. It's not my claim. It's your claim, which you can't substantiate. Maybe, not exaggerate next time?

You are mixing two things ... Bucknor has a long well documented history of mugging India ... as I said you living in a parallel world is no excuse for reality being very different.

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2006/jan/12hair.htm
http://www.cricketcountry.com/artic...roblems-with-steve-bucknor-mike-denness-13295
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...Bucknor-Was-he-genuinely-biased-against-India

whereas using one decision to prove Bucknor was impartial is certianly your own idea. So now lets see the answer for America and racism.

So you agree that it was BCCI's insistence that Bucknor had always been out to get him which eventually got him removed after Sydney 08? That I can definitely agree on. Because no other team has had any problems with Bucknor other than India, so it wasn't like he was on the verge of being fired anyway.. BCCI bullied him to be fired.

It is also likewise "documented" that there were 7 dismissals most of which went against India ... lol

Then what were those decisions? I can tell you word by word of what Ganguly said from that report. Can you give me those 7 decisions?

 

[Tusker]

Please..

In YOUR words:



The only problem being that you have no data. It's not my claim. It's your claim, which you can't substantiate. Maybe, not exaggerate next time?

Yes I can actually ... found an old email with details (below) from a friend with whom I used to discuss cricket ... This is when you will quietly go missing from the thread if the past is anything to go by

AUS 1st Inngs:
Langer 1st ball plumb lbw
Lehman caught of gloves not given (was out eventually 10 runs later)
Clarke out plumb lbw off kumble on 92

India 1st inngs:
Irfan was given out caught behind of pad

In Aussie 2nd inngs
Martyn ruled not out despite padding up to Harby on atleast two occasions when still in single digits.


Ind 2nd Inngs:
Sehwag - bat before wkt lol
Chopra out to a ball bowled from wide of the crease missing leg stump
VVS out given lbw stretching well forward

So you agree that it was BCCI's insistence that Bucknor had always been out to get him which eventually got him removed after Sydney 08? That I can definitely agree on. Because no other team has had any problems with Bucknor other than India, so it wasn't like he was on the verge of being fired anyway.. BCCI bullied him to be fired.

Hold on ... werent you championing earlier that Bucknor did nothing horrible, that he was a reasonable umpire and you were throwing his credentials to back up your claim ... swift U-Turn much ?


Now before you twist and turn how about clearly stating whether or not Bucknor deserved to be fired ? Simple Yes /NO would suffice.

Then what were those decisions? I can tell you word by word of what Ganguly said from that report. Can you give me those 7 decisions?

See above ...

 

[Proactive_]

Yes I can actually ... found an old email with details (below) from a friend with whom I used to discuss cricket ... This is when you will quietly go missing from the thread if the past is anything to go by

AUS 1st Inngs:
Langer 1st ball plumb lbw
Lehman caught of gloves not given (was out eventually 10 runs later)
Clarke out plumb lbw off kumble on 92

India 1st inngs:
Irfan was given out caught behind of pad

In Aussie 2nd inngs
Martyn ruled not out despite padding up to Harby on atleast two occasions when still in single digits.


Ind 2nd Inngs:
Sehwag - bat before wkt lol
Chopra out to a ball bowled from wide of the crease missing leg stump
VVS out given lbw stretching well forward

I don't want first person accounts (which are obviously fake as well lol). Give me some reputable source that outlines and covers each wrong decision First person accounts from a random fan still doesn't constitute as data, sorry.

Hold on ... werent you championing earlier that Bucknor did nothing horrible, that he was a reasonable umpire and you were throwing his credentials to back up your claim ... swift U-Turn much ?

Now before you twist and turn how about clearly stating whether or not Bucknor deserved to be fired ? Simple Yes /NO would suffice.

See above ...

The argument was on whether there was a conspiracy to favor Australia by Bucknor, which YOU've twisted to make it more of an India-centric thing and brought in hilarious propositions like you've "conclusively proven" something on the basis of one test match, whose "data" (again your word, not mine) you can't provide from a reputable source.

 

[Tusker]

I don't want first person accounts (which are obviously fake as well lol). Give me some reputable source that outlines and covers each wrong decision First person accounts from a random fan still doesn't constitute as data, sorry.

Not when a reputable source like ESPN agrees and we have Bowdens apology to go with it. As opposed to Zippo evidence from your side.

 

[Proactive_]

Not when a reputable source like ESPN agrees and we have Bowdens apology to go with it. As opposed to Zippo evidence from your side.

I'm not claiming anything. You are. Obviously when you claim something you'd asked for at least a semblance of genuine "evidence", something which you don't have. You actually have nothing at all to latch on to other than a statement from a Cricinfo corresponding and your own intuition to "prove conclusively" that Australia were blatantly aided by umpires from 1999-2008, a period of almost 10 years.

 

[Tusker]

I don't want first person accounts (which are obviously fake as well lol). Give me some reputable source that outlines and covers each wrong decision First person accounts from a random fan still doesn't constitute as data, sorry.

I forgot to mention that there is already evidence for 2 which I have posted earlier
and here is the 3rd : https://youtu.be/fRSicFyQgvM?t=40m26s

So unless you have evidence to suggest that Aussies copped atleast 3 bad decisions you have no case here.

The argument was on whether there was a conspiracy to favor Australia by Bucknor,

Why don't you start by quoting the post that claims I said this? I realize very well that unless a proper inquiry has taken place ( which rarely happens in Umpiring cases ) there will always be the cop out option for shameless apologists like you to claim there was nothing wrong. Because in your black and white world all such allegations need to have a court ruling and handing punishments. Nothing less will do.

You on the other hand were actually accusing me of un-necessarily "stirring the pot" and few other things.

However now that I have properly burried you with evidence about all that Bucknor did (did you even read those links I posted) you have no case here to suggest that Aussies won fair and square which was your original shouting.

So now back to the Barrack Obama and America has no racism. Do you want to conceed you were wrong in trying to mislead that Bucknor operated fairly by producing one decision or you want to doggedly continue championing Bucknors innocense in the same manner as someone would like to claim that America has no racism issues because we voted for Obama?

 

[austerlitz]

First of all do you even agree that the speed as reported in that video is Release speed from bowlers hand ?

Your posts suggest to me you did not watch that clip I posted in Post#136 completely. Because it clearly states the accuracy of measurements ( one hundredth of sec )

https://youtu.be/uRlyFVCLOr4?t=6m14s

I cant wait to hear the next excuse.



Why don't you try and refute the speed measurements of Holding instead of resorting to peurile posts ?

Then how do you explain Jeff thomson being recorded at 160 Kph at perth i 1976.
Andy Roberts was clocked 159kph at perth in 1975.

But the competition shows they were less than 140 material lol.
Here.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283875.html

 

[Tusker]

I'm not claiming anything. You are.

let me refresh your memory ...

...... But again, I just don't remember any controversy regarding umpiring in that series. You're again trying to stir the pot for no reason.

there is more you claimed and its all here and something that you cant wiggle out of hard as you may try.

Obviously when you claim something you'd asked for at least a semblance of genuine "evidence", something which you don't have. You actually have nothing at all to latch on to other than a statement from a Cricinfo corresponding and your own intuition to "prove conclusively" that Australia were blatantly aided by umpires from 1999-2008, a period of almost 10 years.

So now your new theory is that Cricinfo is known to make bogus claims lol ... this is your new excuse ? Any chance you going to tell us why you were using the same bogus material. Perhaps to try take advantage without realizing it could backfire in your face? sounds very familiar. In any case do you realize that there are already 3 clips to go with it and a apology from the umpire and Ganguly's statement that he is well aware of what happened as it was played out on TV for everybody to see. So far you have nothing to prove to the contrary.

 

[Tusker]

Then how do you explain Jeff thomson being recorded at 160 Kph at perth i 1976.
Andy Roberts was clocked 159kph at perth in 1975.

But the competition shows they were less than 140 material lol.
Here .
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283875.html

The footage for the 1976 measurements does not exists so I cannot comment. However the 140K from 1979 is really 140Ks when compared side by side with a known 140Ks delivery from any current footage. Anyhow Thommo still clocked 147Ks which is still impressive. But if you are trying to suggest that he could bowl faster than baseball pitchers throwing a ball then it fails all logic.

 

[Proactive_]

I forgot to mention that there is already evidence for 2 which I have posted earlier
and here is the 3rd : https://youtu.be/fRSicFyQgvM?t=40m26s

So unless you have evidence to suggest that Aussies copped atleast 3 bad decisions you have no case here.

Dude you're not even at 50% of YOUR claim lol. Realize that the onus is on you, not me. I did not claim to "prove something conclusively" on the basis of "data", you did. Of which you clearly have no data other than bits and pieces of clips and your memory. I already posted 2 wrong decisions against Aus in the Kolkata Test itself. You haven't even me even half of your claimed seven.

You do realize that you're claiming that you've conclusively proven that Australia were favored regularly by the umpires for almost 10 years on the basis of a statement from a cricinfo report and 3-4 clips. I hope you do finally realize how ridiculous that sounds.

Why don't you start by quoting the post that claims I said this? I realize very well that unless a proper inquiry has taken place ( which rarely happens in Umpiring cases ) there will always be the cop out option for shameless apologists like you to claim there was nothing wrong. Because in your black and white world all such allegations need to have a court ruling and handing punishments. Nothing less will do.

So you're both claiming stuff and not claiming it at the same time. This is impressive. In case you're lost, the entire discussions was about whether the umpires favored Australia in their period of dominance or not, to which effect you've claimed irrefutable "proof" (something you still haven't provided) that they did.

You on the other hand were actually accusing me of un-necessarily "stirring the pot" and few other things.

However now that I have properly burried you with evidence about all that Bucknor did (did you even read those links I posted) you have no case here to suggest that Aussies won fair and square which was your original shouting.

So now back to the Barrack Obama and America has no racism. Do you want to conceed you were wrong in trying to mislead that Bucknor operated fairly by producing one decision or you want to doggedly continue championing Bucknors innocense in the same manner as someone would like to claim that America has no racism issues because we voted for Obama?

How does those article prove anything lol. One of them talk about 3 decisions from Bucknor that went against India in a span of 10+ years.

Seriously, you need to change your course of action here.

I'll make it easier for you :

Do you have at least any statements from any reputable cricket personality from any other country that claim that Australia were "always" favored by the umpires? Yes or No. Accept that you have no data to back up your claims and move on. This is like a broken record at this point.

 

[Proactive_]

let me refresh your memory ...



there is more you claimed and its all here and something that you cant wiggle out of hard as you may try.

Because the Indian captain himself said that wrong decisions are a part and parcel of the game. Duh. Where's the controversy?

So now your new theory is that Cricinfo is known to make bogus claims lol ... this is your new excuse ? Any chance you going to tell us why you were using the same bogus material. Perhaps to try take advantage without realizing it could backfire in your face? sounds very familiar. In any case do you realize that there are already 3 clips to go with it and a apology from the umpire and Ganguly's statement that he is well aware of what happened as it was played out on TV for everybody to see. So far you have nothing to prove to the contrary.

There is nothing in that article which substantiates on the 7 wrong decisions part. There are dozens of LBW shouts in each innings and 1-2 of them are found to have been wrong my marginal distances. The writer hasn't even explained what he means by the wrong decisions. What does he consider as genuinely wrong decisions (howlers) as opposed to marginal LBW calls gone wrong.. and that's something you've latched on to like a leech to skin. Obviously, I'll call you out on it and ask for a semblance of substantiation.

 

[Tusker]

Because the Indian captain himself said that wrong decisions are a part and parcel of the game. Duh. Where's the controversy?

Now that you have AGAIN used the same ESPN article (despite me repeatedly asking you how you find the same article questionable and credible depending on what you want to pick and chose) without providing a secondary source I take it that you concede the article is authentic. If not start by proving that ESPN is a unreliable source and then provide another source to back up your claim that there was no controversy.

BTW if the article is not credible do you also deny that Bowden issued a public apology ?

There is nothing in that article which substantiates on the 7 wrong decisions part. There are dozens of LBW shouts in each innings and 1-2 of them are found to have been wrong my marginal distances. The writer hasn't even explained what he means by the wrong decisions. What does he consider as genuinely wrong decisions (howlers) as opposed to marginal LBW calls gone wrong.. and that's something you've latched on to like a leech to skin. Obviously, I'll call you out on it and ask for a semblance of substantiation.

see above ... you think ESPN concoted a bogus article ?

 

[Proactive_]

Now that you have AGAIN used the same ESPN article (despite me repeatedly asking you how you find the same article questionable and credible depending on what you want to pick and chose) without providing a secondary source I take it that you concede the article is authentic. If not start by proving that ESPN is a unreliable source and then provide another source to back up your claim that there was no controversy.

BTW if the article is not credible do you also deny that Bowden issued a public apology ?



see above ... you think ESPN concoted a bogus article ?

But what Ganguly said is no secret lol. Nobody came to the writer and said that Ganguly had those words so publish it. Ganguly has been quoted to have actually said those words in the media word by word which have been reported. 7 wrong decision is a mystery which has never been explained. That's like saying Ganguly made a statement regarding something and not actually reporting what he even said, which is not what has happened. No comparison.

 

[Tusker]

But what Ganguly said is no secret lol. Nobody came to the writer and said that Ganguly had those words so publish it. Ganguly has been quoted to have actually said those words in the media word by word which have been reported.

Don't you want an actual credible evidence in the form of either a video or a certified court order going by your previous dead beat .... didnt realize that it could backfirer I suppose ? lol

7 wrong decision is a mystery which has never been explained. That's like saying Ganguly made a statement regarding something and not actually reporting what he even said, which is not what has happened. No comparison.

hello a big part of it has already been proved and there is the matter of Bowdens aplogy ... Are you now denying that bowden did not apologize ? lol

 

[ManFan]

Tests: WI of the 80's
ODI's: Aus of the 00's

 

[Proactive_]

Don't you want an actual credible evidence in the form of either a video or a certified court order going by your previous dead beat .... didnt realize that it could backfirer I suppose ? lol

No, because there is a big difference between reporting anything in between quotation marks and making a statement borne out of your own study/hypothesis/intuition. Any one who has ever seriously read a newspaper can attest to this.

hello a big part of it has already been proved and there is the matter of Bowdens aplogy ... Are you now denying that bowden did not apologize ? lol

How did you deduce that Bowden was willfully favoring the Aussies from this apology?

 

[Tusker]

No, because there is a big difference between reporting anything in between quotation marks and making a statement borne out of your own study/hypothesis/intuition. Any one who has ever seriously read a newspaper can attest to this.

And who is going to make sure that those quotes are accurate and the context behind them ? Keep in mind that you have earlier said that you do not trust ESPN Cricinfo.

How did you deduce that Bowden was willfully favoring the Aussies from this apology?

This is to do with accuracy of the ESPN Media Article . By your logic that entire report is not credible. Therefore the Bowden apology did not happen (at least in your mind) But if you agree that the Bowden apology is genuine then you are alleging ESPN with false reporting. In short you are properly stuck.

 

[Proactive_]

And who is going to make sure that those quotes are accurate and the context behind them ? Keep in mind that you have earlier said that you do not trust ESPN Cricinfo.

The issue isn't about trust. The issue is that the writer has written a highly ambiguous quote in the form of "at least 7 wrong decisions". The writer himself isn't sure. The number could 8,10,100 or 500. That's not very good reporting. The writer has neither explained what counts as a genuinely wrong decision for him (howler) nor stated what the wrong decisions actually were. Any sensible reader would criticize such amateurish reporting and rightly so.

This is to do with accuracy of the ESPN Media Article . By your logic that entire report is not credible. Therefore the Bowden apology did not happen (at least in your mind) But if you agree that the Bowden apology is genuine then you are alleging ESPN with false reporting. In short you are properly stuck.

Talking about "stuck".. coming from a guy who has in his mind "proven conclusively" with one statement of one article and 2-3 clips that Australia were always favored by the umpires for a period of almost 10 years. Yeah right, the only one stuck is you after your blunder of a "data" and "conclusively proven" statement.

 

[Tusker]

The issue isn't about trust. The issue is that the writer has written a highly ambiguous quote in the form of "at least 7 wrong decisions". The writer himself isn't sure. The number could 8,10,100 or 500. That's not very good reporting. The writer has neither explained what counts as a genuinely wrong decision for him (howler) nor stated what the wrong decisions actually were. Any sensible reader would criticize such amateurish reporting and rightly so.

Neither has the writer explained much about how he arrived at the conclusions that Ganguly refused to be critical. But no surprise that you are twisting that to suite your agenda.

BTW Gangulys only words are "You saw what happened on the TV". "We understand that, and move forward."

It could very well be because Ganguly feared attracting more fines from match officials which had already happened to Sehwag in that exact same match. So given the context ... No it is not clear from that article that it supports your viewpoint that there was no Umpiring controversy.

Talking about "stuck".. coming from a guy who has in his mind "proven conclusively" with one statement of one article and 2-3 clips that Australia were always favored by the umpires for a period of almost 10 years. Yeah right, the only one stuck is you after your blunder of a "data" and "conclusively proven" statement.

Dont avoid the question. Please CLEARLY answer the following:

1. Did the Bowden apology actually happen or not.
2. Did ESPNCricinfo make false and libelous allegation naming both Bowden and Bucknor alleging that they made Wrong decisions ( atleast 7 of them )

A Simple yes/no will suffice.

It is a serious issue if the most reputed Cricket site on earth alleges that Bowden and Bucknor were involved in wrong decisions especially if they never happened (Which is your stance).

So now lets see some clear answers ( Unlikely but one can always hope ).

ohhh and dont expect me to respond if you do not have the courtesy to provide clear answers.

 

[austerlitz]

The footage for the 1976 measurements does not exists so I cannot comment. However the 140K from 1979 is really 140Ks when compared side by side with a known 140Ks delivery from any current footage. Anyhow Thommo still clocked 147Ks which is still impressive. But if you are trying to suggest that he could bowl faster than baseball pitchers throwing a ball then it fails all logic.

What i'm 'suggesting' is simple -no way in hell is this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8hyolvj6U
Pandya/yadav pace.Batsman can't even get bat up.
If shoaib can bowl at such pace as lee can,i fail to see why thompson with that extreme discuss thrower slingshot action wouldn't be.

 

[Tusker]

Not sure why the posts got moderated but ...

Because the Indian captain himself said that wrong decisions are a part and parcel of the game. Duh. Where's the controversy?

Because he said no such thing to begin with. Ganguly's words were : "You saw what happened on the TV" and "We understand that, and move forward." It takes a pretty fertile mind to twist that into "Wrong Decisions are part and parcel of the game" especially when the back drop is that of umpire apologizing for bad decisions. So if anything Ganguly is implying that we know wrong decisions happened ( which everyone saw on TV) but that he is moving forward ( like he has any other option in the world of unscrupulous officiating lol )

Sorry but if they were such an integral part of the game the ICC wouldnt have ditched such an integral part like a used underwear when it went full DRS lol. These sort of constant bickerings and resentment were standard fare in the pre-DRS days. Its pretty disingenious of you to pretend everything was fair and lovely.

There is nothing in that article which substantiates on the 7 wrong decisions part.

So again Is this a bogus article then ? If you don't trust the conclusions of the writer why are you trusting the same article for other parts ? Remember the seriousness of the words used and names named. A credible news source will not make such serious negative comments lightly on a public platform. So therefore just a simple common sense assessment of the situation and the fact that video clips for 3 of those 7 have already been found suggests that the article is credible rather than your apologists claptrap.

Now if you want this discussion to continue you need to come up with a very clear answer to the following:

1. Do you still dispute that article completely
2. Do you dispute the article partially lol ?
3. Do you agree that there was an apology issued by umpire ?
4. Do you have 3 or more video clips to prove the Aussies suffered equally therefore there was no ?

A simple and clear yes/no will suffice. And don't expect me to respond if you do your usual feet dragging and the deadbeat routine. Save yourselves the trouble before you feel like regurgitating your usual apologists deadbeat claptrap to defend the undefendable. Its not like you will be enlightening us with anything new.

 

[Square Drive]

Pakistan of 2010s.

 

[Tusker]

What i'm 'suggesting' is simple -no way in hell is this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8hyolvj6U
Pandya/yadav pace.Batsman can't even get bat up.

I never compared anyone with anyone. The discussion was about WI pace bowlers and their measured speeds. Iam not interested in the verbally granted speeds.

At this point you need to CLEARLY answer my questions if you want to continue this discussion:

1. Do you agree that the speed as stated on this clip for all WI bowlers is correct (and that it is Release speed)?
2. If NOT what is the reason and your evidence to back your claim? Making peurile statements like "do you think Holding looks like x y and z" is NOT evidence.


But just to humor you Ishant Sharma 149.9Ks :https://youtu.be/fg1DcVr27Vw?t=2m45s

If shoaib can bowl at such pace as lee can,i fail to see why thompson with that extreme discuss thrower slingshot action wouldn't be.

I don't get the logic here ... Keep in mind that Shoaib had the advantage of hyper extension.

 

[austerlitz]

I never compared anyone with anyone. The discussion was about WI pace bowlers and their measured speeds. Iam not interested in the verbally granted speeds.

At this point you need to CLEARLY answer my questions if you want to continue this discussion:

1. Do you agree that the speed as stated on this clip for all WI bowlers is correct (and that it is Release speed)?
2. If NOT what is the reason and your evidence to back your claim? Making peurile statements like "do you think Holding looks like x y and z" is NOT evidence.


But just to humor you Ishant Sharma 149.9Ks :https://youtu.be/fg1DcVr27Vw?t=2m45s




I don't get the logic here ... Keep in mind that Shoaib had the advantage of hyper extension.

No i don't agree that speed is correct.It defies logic and is vastly different in result than all the rest of the tests during the period.And thomspon had a much slingier action and was physically bulkier.

 

[Tusker]

No i don't agree that speed is correct.It defies logic and is vastly different in result than all the rest of the tests during the period.And thomspon had a much slingier action and was physically bulkier.

So you don't agree with the stated accuracy(1/100 second ) of that test?


And what will it take for you to change your mind?

 

[austerlitz]

So you don't agree with the stated accuracy(1/100 second ) of that test?


And what will it take for you to change your mind?

No i don't agree because
1.The results of that test diverge so much with other tests of the same period .
2.The footage of bowling from the period,seeing the batsmen's reaction times despite lighter gear and bats its very clear these guys are not bowling high medium pace.
3.Its not just me that says thsi but all players of this era,and hardly any contrdict this amongst actual cricketers as well as spectators who watched both eras.

 

[Tusker]

No i don't agree because
1.The results of that test diverge so much with other tests of the same period .
2.The footage of bowling from the period,seeing the batsmen's reaction times despite lighter gear and bats its very clear these guys are not bowling high medium pace.
3.Its not just me that says thsi but all players of this era,and hardly any contrdict this amongst actual cricketers as well as spectators who watched both eras.

But the frame-by-frame comparisons using the speed measured by current technology for balls bowled at similar speeds gives the same results.

And why would anyone in a reputable position claim high levels of accuracy and attract ridicule and loss of reputation ? You think Channel 9 who conducted those experiments would let that happen?

 

[austerlitz]

But the frame-by-frame comparisons using the speed measured by current technology for balls bowled at similar speeds gives the same results.

And why would anyone in a reputable position claim high levels of accuracy and attract ridicule and loss of reputation ? You think Channel 9 who conducted those experiments would let that happen?

Then why would a particular test diverge so much in results from the other ones?
Also take into account that tests in that period were timed at the batsmen's end(not sure if in all tests or which specific ones),today they are timed at the bowler's end.
What you are suggesting by saying that test is the only true test is guys like imran bowled at praveen kumar pace,which simply you will find very difficult to convince many people with.And your explanation for this is diet regime.Really?How many pacers from rural areas do you think follow ultra modern diet regimes or have access to them till they enter intl cricket proper?

 

[Tusker]

Then why would a particular test diverge so much in results from the other ones?
Also take into account that tests in that period were timed at the batsmen's end(not sure if in all tests or which specific ones),today they are timed at the bowler's end.

No they were not timed at the batsmans end and I already proved this to you in more than one way. The evidence is right there in that video and confirmed by none other than Dr Frank Pyke the guy who did the measurements.

So once again - will you accept the frame-by-frame comparison ?

Another thing do you really think Hadlee and Proctor are bowling 140+ Kph Release speeds with that action and effort ? Absolutely not. It is very very difficult to bowl 140Ks. Anyone who has watched cricket will tell you that Hadlee is nowhere close to that speed but according to you adding even less than 15% to his top speed will put him in the 140K release speed range.

What you are suggesting by saying that test is the only true test is guys like imran bowled at praveen kumar pace,which simply you will find very difficult to convince many people with.And your explanation for this is diet regime.Really?How many pacers from rural areas do you think follow ultra modern diet regimes or have access to them till they enter intl cricket proper?

Yes I realize the deep levels of brainwashing that most older cricket fans have undergone and the difficulty in accepting reality lol. But facts are facts . About the only bowler from that ERA that could cross 150Ks is Thommo. Other than that rest is all pure bull dust.

Reasons for more bowlers bowling at high speeds is because of Crickets popularity , reach and how lucrative it is today. More people are trying cricket and therefore the chances of finding higher quality cricketers is much more high. You cannot deny that overall fitness and diets are also much much higher ... and this is true for other sports too. Its not like cricketers from the 70s were custom made once-in-a-lifetime specimen. But since express fast bowling was new the hype that they received was unprecedented. But now bowling 140Ks is no big deal.

 

[cricketAXEpert]

The WI of the 80s and the Aussies of the 2000s will wipe the floor with the Pakistan of the 90s and the current Indian setup. Never mind the presence of Wasim, Waqar, Imran and Javed in the Pakistan of the '90s.

Actually Pakistan of the 80s did much better versus the WI of 80s and 3 test series were even 1-1 result with both west indies and Pakistan winning 1 test each and that happened in 3 consecutive Test series . Imran Khan's Pakistan performed the best Against windies. Pakistan of 90s was not that good. Without the leader Imran Khan Pakistan Achieved little even with Wasim, Waqar etc.

 

[austerlitz]

No they were not timed at the batsmans end and I already proved this to you in more than one way. The evidence is right there in that video and confirmed by none other than Dr Frank Pyke the guy who did the measurements.

So once again - will you accept the frame-by-frame comparison ?

Another thing do you really think Hadlee and Proctor are bowling 140+ Kph Release speeds with that action and effort ? Absolutely not. It is very very difficult to bowl 140Ks. Anyone who has watched cricket will tell you that Hadlee is nowhere close to that speed but according to you adding even less than 15% to his top speed will put him in the 140K release speed range.



Yes I realize the deep levels of brainwashing that most older cricket fans have undergone and the difficulty in accepting reality lol. But facts are facts . About the only bowler from that ERA that could cross 150Ks is Thommo. Other than that rest is all pure bull dust.

Reasons for more bowlers bowling at high speeds is because of Crickets popularity , reach and how lucrative it is today. More people are trying cricket and therefore the chances of finding higher quality cricketers is much more high. You cannot deny that overall fitness and diets are also much much higher ... and this is true for other sports too. Its not like cricketers from the 70s were custom made once-in-a-lifetime specimen. But since express fast bowling was new the hype that they received was unprecedented. But now bowling 140Ks is no big deal.

If the test is right and you have 'proved' it even though we clearly see the camera recording the ball from the batsman's end,then why are the test results so radically different from other tests of the same era?
In those times fast bowlers didn't have this tremendous workload of all year day after day cricket,they had an offseason too.If you are seriously saying michael holding wasn't 150 kph or imran khan is same pace as praveen kumar,you are delusional mate.

 

[Tusker]

If the test is right and you have 'proved' it even though we clearly see the camera recording the ball from the batsman's end,then why are the test results so radically different from other tests of the same era?

Where in the video does it tell you that it was measured at batsmans end .. please post the time marker? here is that clip again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPDW7hj1yfs

But Did you even read my previous post ? Here is Ps#136 where I explain why it was measured at Bowlers end.

BTW the fact about speeds measured being release speeds in that 1978/79 speed measurement video I posed is in that video itself at about 15:00

https://youtu.be/uRlyFVCLOr4?t=14m55s

after Wayne Daniel bowls a full toss the guy who is commentating on the tests says : "lovely style a full toss ... still it is the speed that it leaves the hand that counts so lets just have a look and find out just how fast it did leave Wayne Daniels hand ... 123.6 "

And I wont talk about tests for which there is no video available.

In those times fast bowlers didn't have this tremendous workload of all year day after day cricket,they had an offseason too.If you are seriously saying michael holding wasn't 150 kph or imran khan is same pace as praveen kumar,you are delusional mate.

Why don't you start by posting Praveen Kumar's video clip where he is seen bowling above 140K? Who here is claiming that he bowled fast? I certainly dont and there is no evidence. So whats the fixaton with peurile childish comparisons ? Fake bravado much ?

So going by your own peurile logic you must also not believe that a small guy like Sami could bowl well above 150Ks ?

 

[austerlitz]

Where in the video does it tell you that it was measured at batsmans end .. please post the time marker? here is that clip again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPDW7hj1yfs

But Did you even read my previous post ? Here is Ps#136 where I explain why it was measured at Bowlers end.



And I wont talk about tests for which there is no video available.




Why don't you start by posting Praveen Kumar's video clip where he is seen bowling above 140K? Who here is claiming that he bowled fast? I certainly dont and there is no evidence. So whats the fixaton with peurile childish comparisons ? Fake bravado much ?

So going by your own peurile logic you must also not believe that a small guy like Sami could bowl well above 150Ks ?

Praveen kumar bowled 125 plus to low 130s,ur video test shows same speed for imran most balls.taht would imply imran was same speed as kumar.
I will simply ask you again if,that one test is right and all other tests were wrong,all other player experiences are also wrong..but only that test was right..is that what you are saying?

 

[Tusker]

Praveen kumar bowled 125 plus to low 130s,ur video test shows same speed for imran most balls.taht would imply imran was same speed as kumar.

I have never seen PK touch those speeds. But you did not comment on Hadlees speed. His top speed of 129Ks tranlates to a release speed of ~ 142Ks eve if we assume just 10% loss due to pitch ... do you believe that he is bowling 142 Ks with that action ?

I will simply ask you again if,that one test is right and all other tests were wrong,all other player experiences are also wrong..but only that test was right..is that what you are saying?

I told you already that I cannot comment on things that I cannot see and verify for myself.

Do you still deny that the speeds were measured at bowlers end (Even after that evidence I posted from the same video in post#136 or just ee my previous post ) ?

 

[austerlitz]

I have never seen PK touch those speeds. But you did not comment on Hadlees speed. His top speed of 129Ks tranlates to a release speed of ~ 142Ks eve if we assume just 10% loss due to pitch ... do you believe that he is bowling 142 Ks with that action ?




I told you already that I cannot comment on things that I cannot see and verify for myself.

Do you still deny that the speeds were measured at bowlers end (Even after that evidence I posted from the same video in post#136 or just ee my previous post ) ?

Hadlee and mcgrath were considered very similar.If mcgrath could bowl 140 plus early in his career(and high 130s even late in his career) why can't hadlee with a more muscular build and in his youth in 1979?You understand 142kph is not even 90mph but 88-89 probably.
What evidence?Its just a video,and its results are completely different from all other tests and player experiences.

 

[Tusker]

Hadlee and mcgrath were considered very similar.If mcgrath could bowl 140 plus early in his career(and high 130s even late in his career) why can't hadlee with a more muscular build and in his youth in 1979?You understand 142kph is not even 90mph but 88-89 probably.

McGrath put significantly more body and effort into his bowling than what you see with Hadlee. And BTW it is 89 MPH because I assumed only 10% reduction if you take 15% it goes to 148Ks ... laughable if you think someone can generate that kind of speed with that action. Sorry doesn't add up.

What evidence?Its just a video,and its results are completely different from all other tests and player experiences.

What do you mean "Just a video" . It was produced by Channel 9 and the measurements were conducted by a reputed university using high speed camera's.

 

[austerlitz]

McGrath put significantly more body and effort into his bowling than what you see with Hadlee. And BTW it is 89 MPH because I assumed only 10% reduction if you take 15% it goes to 148Ks ... laughable if you think someone can generate that kind of speed with that action. Sorry doesn't add up.



What do you mean "Just a video" . It was produced by Channel 9 and the measurements were conducted by a reputed university using high speed camera's.

Early 140s is easily possible with hadlee in his early days.Thats not even 90mph.Even hardik pandya does that regularly.Hadlee's action was very good - based on dennis lillee and capable of generating pace.

Yeah cameras from 1970s from univ guys,so reliable that it matches none of the other tests.not any player experiences.Very reliable i'm sure.

 

[Tusker]

Early 140s is easily possible with hadlee in his early days.Thats not even 90mph.Even hardik pandya does that regularly.Hadlee's action was very good - based on dennis lillee and capable of generating pace.

not surprised at you just stating that everything was easily done by oldies .. Is there any rule that says since X does it then Y should also have done it ? It doesnt work that way. I know these are all big names we are talking about but it is unmistakable that they are extremely over hyped (especially when it comes to pace).

Nobody can generate that speed with that kind of action. Hardik Pandya barely touches those speeds (that too occasionally) and he is a very fit guy. Also you can see that he puts in more body than

Yeah cameras from 1970s from univ guys,so reliable that it matches none of the other tests.not any player experiences.Very reliable i'm sure.

As I said before it matches the no.of frames from modern footage that has speed measurements that you trust. Players cannot measure speed using naked eye. Looks like you are not willing to accept the facts no matter what evidence is produced ... due to the deep brainwashing.

 

[austerlitz]

not surprised at you just stating that everything was easily done by oldies .. Is there any rule that says since X does it then Y should also have done it ? It doesnt work that way. I know these are all big names we are talking about but it is unmistakable that they are extremely over hyped (especially when it comes to pace).

Nobody can generate that speed with that kind of action. Hardik Pandya barely touches those speeds (that too occasionally) and he is a very fit guy. Also you can see that he puts in more body than



As I said before it matches the no.of frames from modern footage that has speed measurements that you trust. Players cannot measure speed using naked eye. Looks like you are not willing to accept the facts no matter what evidence is produced ... due to the deep brainwashing.

Don't understand at all why hadlee's action which is carbon copy of dennis lille's can't be high medium pace?Hadlee was a very fit guy himself,played nearly 2 decades with an average of 22.

What brainwashing?What is more reliable - one test or every other test and every player?Its a simple answer if you aren't biased.

 

[Tusker]

Don't understand at all why hadlee's action which is carbon copy of dennis lille's can't be high medium pace?Hadlee was a very fit guy himself,played nearly 2 decades with an average of 22.

Is that why Hadlee's pace is much lower than Lillee who is past his prime in that same footage using the same camera ?

What brainwashing?What is more reliable - one test or every other test and every player?Its a simple answer if you aren't biased.

The brainwashing and bias is very clearly evident when you readily accept anything said about past players without even so much as looking for proper evidence ( let alone double checking it ). Just look at how many modern players you have ridiculed without even producing a single piece of proper evidence.

Like it or not but there is ONLY one measurement for which footage is available. And I just absolutely do not trust any human being who claims he can measure speed thru naked eye. Just aint possible. Proven by science. You can argue till you go blue in your face but it just is not possible. Its shocking that someone in 2017 goes with words of players and bowling action to determine speed rather than technology. Past cricketers and historians are very notorious for shamelessly overhyping players from their generation and before. See this for example : http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...nder-50-in-Test-matches&p=9363777#post9363777


but one last time - do you dispute that the footage has same number of frames for the same recorded speeds when compared with modern videos that have measured speeds displayed ? Simple clear answer please.

 

[austerlitz]

Is that why Hadlee's pace is much lower than Lillee who is past his prime in that same footage using the same camera ?



The brainwashing and bias is very clearly evident when you readily accept anything said about past players without even so much as looking for proper evidence ( let alone double checking it ). Just look at how many modern players you have ridiculed without even producing a single piece of proper evidence.

Like it or not but there is ONLY one measurement for which footage is available. And I just absolutely do not trust any human being who claims he can measure speed thru naked eye. Just aint possible. Proven by science. You can argue till you go blue in your face but it just is not possible. Its shocking that someone in 2017 goes with words of players and bowling action to determine speed rather than technology. Past cricketers and historians are very notorious for shamelessly overhyping players from their generation and before. See this for example : http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...nder-50-in-Test-matches&p=9363777#post9363777


but one last time - do you dispute that the footage has same number of frames for the same recorded speeds when compared with modern videos that have measured speeds displayed ? Simple clear answer please.

If you don't trust any past players - fine.How do you explain the difference in results of tests from the same era?

 

[Tusker]

If you don't trust any past players - fine.How do you explain the difference in results of tests from the same era?

Show me the videos and I will give you a proper answer. Without that the best thing I can do is to compare that footage from 1978/79 with modern day measure footage for same speeds on a frame by frame basis. If as you say the speed was measured at batsmans end then the number of frames for the 1978/79 clip would be much lower than the modern day videos for the same stated speeds. This is obviously not the case.