Craig Miles

[Richard Dixon]

Has ripped out the Hampshire middle order. Couldn't help noticing he's only 18 but also made his FC debut two years ago as a 16 y/o unless there's some sort of error here?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2013/engine/current/match/593548.html

Richard

[RH]

On May 8, 1:53 pm, Richard Dixon <richsdixon1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has ripped out the Hampshire middle order. Couldn't help noticing he's only 18 but also made his FC debut two years ago as a 16 y/o unless there's some sort of error here?
>

> http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2013/engine/current/match/...
>
> Richard

No. He is reputed to be rapid. RH

[Richard Dixon]

On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 15:11:31 UTC+1, RH wrote:

> No. He is reputed to be rapid. RH

Bowling style: Right-arm medium

Well someone's wrong...

Richard

[RH]

The classifications in books and websites of pace bowlers mean
nothing. RH

[John Hall]

In article <1bcebef5-69d6-4a8b...@googlegroups.com>,

It seems to be common for Cricinfo, CricketArchive and Playfair to err
on the low side when if comes to a bowler's speed. For instance Playfair
have Stuart Meaker as RFM rather than RF.
--
John Hall
"Sir, I have found you an argument;
but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

[Mike Holmans]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 19:55:29 +0100, John Hall
<nospam...@jhall.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>In article <1bcebef5-69d6-4a8b...@googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Dixon <richsdi...@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 15:11:31 UTC+1, RH wrote:
>>
>>> No. He is reputed to be rapid. RH
>>
>>Bowling style: Right-arm medium
>>
>>Well someone's wrong...
>
>It seems to be common for Cricinfo, CricketArchive and Playfair to err
>on the low side when if comes to a bowler's speed. For instance Playfair
>have Stuart Meaker as RFM rather than RF.

There is no conflict between being tagged as medium in 2013 and being
considered rapid by the standards of the 1950s.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Mike Holmans]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 20:43:18 +0100, Mike Holmans
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

More to the point, what is considered rapid in schools and age-group
cricket is usually only medium by adult standards.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[Andrew B]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2011/content/story/514670.html says
he was the 4th youngest Glos player in FC history.

[Andy Walker]

On 08/05/13 20:43, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 19:55:29 +0100, John Hall

>> It seems to be common for Cricinfo, CricketArchive and Playfair to err
>> on the low side when if comes to a bowler's speed. For instance Playfair
>> have Stuart Meaker as RFM rather than RF.
> There is no conflict between being tagged as medium in 2013 and being
> considered rapid by the standards of the 1950s.

Whoa! The *only* RF bowlers listed by the 1955 "Playfair" are
Trueman and Tyson ["fastest since Larwood"]. Even Statham and Loader
are only listed as RFM. I think you can take it that "Playfair", at
least, was being quite conservative by any standards when describing
bowlers of the '50s. If they said RF, they meant "really fast".

[Perhaps also worth adding, for the benefit of those who saw
Statham, Tyson and Trueman only in the late fifties or early sixties,
that 1955-ish was the high point, for speed, of their careers. All
three, Tyson because of injury, Statham and Trueman to gain control,
cut down on their top speed -- which is not to say that they were not
all three still genuinely fast and dangerous in later years. But you
should have seen them in 1955 ....]

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Mike Holmans]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 23:25:29 +0100, Andy Walker <ne...@cuboid.co.uk>

tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On 08/05/13 20:43, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2013 19:55:29 +0100, John Hall
>>> It seems to be common for Cricinfo, CricketArchive and Playfair to err
>>> on the low side when if comes to a bowler's speed. For instance Playfair
>>> have Stuart Meaker as RFM rather than RF.
>> There is no conflict between being tagged as medium in 2013 and being
>> considered rapid by the standards of the 1950s.
>
> Whoa! The *only* RF bowlers listed by the 1955 "Playfair" are
>Trueman and Tyson ["fastest since Larwood"]. Even Statham and Loader
>are only listed as RFM. I think you can take it that "Playfair", at
>least, was being quite conservative by any standards when describing
>bowlers of the '50s. If they said RF, they meant "really fast".
>

Sorry. I should have made it clear that I meant the Golden Fifties
when all the players were much better than they are today. I wasn't
talking about the real world.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[RH]

In 1955 these bowlers might well have been classified as fast if Finn
is classified as fast: Preston, Ridgeway, CS Smith, Statham, Moss,
Tyson, Loader, Flavell, Trueman.
In 1960: the list would be longer: Rhodes, Jeff Jones, White, Brown,
Sayer, Statham, Hilton, Brougham, Moss, Larter, Tyson, Cotton,
Loader, Flavell, Trueman.

RH

[Richard Dixon]

On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:39:17 UTC+1, RH wrote:

> The classifications in books and websites of pace bowlers mean
> nothing. RH

Makes me wonder why on earth they're there - if that's the case they should just have the type of spinner which is fairly distinguishable I'd have thought or "fast".

Richard

[Richard Dixon]

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 07:16:55 UTC+1, RH wrote:

> In 1960: the list would be longer: Rhodes, Jeff Jones, White, Brown,
> Sayer, Statham, Hilton, Brougham, Moss, Larter, Tyson, Cotton,
> Loader, Flavell, Trueman.

Is there not - surely - enough footage to be able to ascertain from the frame rate of film just how quick these guys were? I appreciate maybe that the frame rate has uncertainty around it also but surely we can have some ballparks as to whether these guys were low 80s or low 90s.

Maybe someone has done this already...

Richard

[RH]

On May 8, 11:25 pm, Andy Walker <n...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:

When Tyson bowled something used to happen which I have never seen
with any other player: a great gasp would go around the ground as
people who had never seen him before were staggered by his speed. Len
Hutton asked for Tyson to go on the 1954/5 Ashes tour because he had
seen a batsman whom Tyson hit full on the pad, take the pad off and
massage his leg. RH

[RH]

This is something I have been long suggesting. RH

[Richard Dixon]

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:27:29 UTC+1, RH wrote:

> This is something I have been long suggesting. RH

A challenge for you in your retirement. Would make a great article. Surely there'd be some archivists/cricket historians interested in the results.

Richard

[g.ca...@uea.ac.uk]

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:27:29 UTC+1, RH wrote:

And I suspect it has been long pointed out to you why it wouldn't be a useful exercise. To get a fair estimate of the bowlers pace you would need to count frames from the point of release to the point where the ball pitches (as the change in pace of the pitch depends on the height and action of the bowler as well as the pitch and the length of the ball). A ball travelling at 90mph covers 1.76 yards per frame of film/video (assuming 25 fps). So assuming the ball pitches about 3/4 of the way down the pitch, that means there will be around only 9.4 frames to work with. For a bowler bowling at 85 mph there will be 9.9 frames to work with. So the difference between a fast medium bowler and a genuinely fast bowler is about half a frame; the film/video doesn't have the required resolution even if the frame rate were known accurately. A greater problem is that the ball rarely leaves the hand or pitches at the the precise time necessary for them to be conveniently captured on a particular frame, so there will be uncertainty in estimating the start and end points as well. It just isn't mathematically feasible, the uncertainties are too high for it to be a worthwhile approach, which is presumably why even in the 50s they used other methods.

I suppose you could perform a statistical analysis over hundreds or thousands of deliveries to get an idea of the general speed of a bowler (as the various errors are likely to average out), but measuring the speed of a particular delivery or a bowlers top speed this way is likely to be futile.

[Graham P Davis]

Also, I don't think this method would be compatible with current
measuring systems where the speed of the delivery is measured from the
hand and not based on how long it takes to travel a distance.

There was an attempt to time Frank Tyson using a sonic device and a ball
with metal plates attached. He only managed 89mph (he reckoned he
could reach 190kph (119mph)) but such a slow delivery could be excused
as he was wearing three sweaters and took no run-up; his normal run-up
used to start near the sight-screen.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks.
Free office software: http://www.libreoffice.org/
Carlos Seixas, Sonata nº 1 - best version of this I've found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXox7vonfEg

[RH]

One could measure the time taken to go between two points. I
appreciate the speed of the film could blur the results because the
speed of film has changed over the past century but there has been
good speed film since 1930 which would not be that much slower than
that used in fairly recent times, ie, until digital took over. RH

[RH]

On May 8, 11:25 pm, Andy Walker <n...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:

No bowler playing today is anything like as fast as the likes of Hall,
Peter Pollock, Thompson, Marshall, Holding... I select only from those
I saw as an adult....RH

[g.ca...@uea.ac.uk]

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 15:39:22 UTC+1, RH wrote:
> On May 9, 11:09 am, g.caw...@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:27:29 UTC+1, RH  wrote:
>
> > > On May 9, 9:04 am, Richard Dixon <richsdixon1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Thursday, 9 May 2013 07:16:55 UTC+1, RH  wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > In 1960: the list would be longer: Rhodes, Jeff Jones, White, Brown,
>
> >
>
> > > > > Sayer, Statham, Hilton, Brougham, Moss, Larter, Tyson, Cotton,
>
> >
>
> > > > > Loader,  Flavell, Trueman.
>
> >
>
> > > > Is there not - surely - enough footage to be able to ascertain from the frame rate of film just how quick these guys were? I appreciate maybe that the frame rate has uncertainty around it also but surely we can have some ballparks as to whether these guys were low 80s or low 90s.
>
> >
>
> > > > Maybe someone has done this already...
>
> >
>
> > > > Richard
>
> >
>
> > > This is something I have been long suggesting. RH
>
> >
>
> > And I suspect it has been long pointed out to you why it wouldn't be a useful exercise.  To get a fair estimate of the bowlers pace you would need to count frames from the point of release to the point where the ball pitches (as the change in pace of the pitch depends on the height and action of the bowler as well as the pitch and the length of the ball).  A ball travelling at 90mph covers 1.76 yards per frame of film/video (assuming 25 fps).  So assuming the ball pitches about 3/4 of the way down the pitch, that means there will be around only 9.4 frames to work with.  For a bowler bowling at 85 mph there will be 9.9 frames to work with.  So the difference between a fast medium bowler and a genuinely fast bowler is about half a frame; the film/video doesn't have the required resolution even if the frame rate were known accurately.  A greater problem is that the ball rarely leaves the hand or pitches at the the precise time necessary for them to be conveniently captured on a particular frame, so there will be uncertainty in estimating the start and end points as well.  It just isn't mathematically feasible, the uncertainties are too high for it to be a worthwhile approach, which is presumably why even in the 50s they used other methods.
>
> >
>
> > I suppose you could perform a statistical analysis over hundreds or thousands of deliveries to get an idea of the general speed of a bowler (as the various errors are likely to average out), but measuring the speed of a particular delivery or a bowlers top speed this way is likely to be futile.
>
>
>
> One could measure the time taken to go between two points.

There is no difference between that and counting the number of frames, which as I have already pointed out do not have sufficient resolution to form a useful estimate because the camera video only operates at 24/5 frames per second.

These problems have been explained to you before, for instance in the thread "Broad 93mph", back in May 2009.

> I
>
> appreciate the speed of the film could blur the results because the
>
> speed of film has changed over the past century but there has been
>
> good speed film since 1930 which would not be that much slower than
>
> that used in fairly recent times, ie, until digital took over. RH

Blurring is an additional issue that is *distinct* from the temporal resolution of the film/video.

[David North]

<g.ca...@uea.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:ac04284e-bba5-4673...@googlegroups.com...

thread "Broad 93mph", back in May 2009.'

There is also the difficulty of trying to measure accurately the position of
the ball in 3D space from a 2D frame, and therefore the distance travelled
between frames.
--
David North

[g.ca...@uea.ac.uk]

indeed, that was also covered in the thread back in 2009.

[RH]

On May 9, 9:54 pm, "David North" <dno...@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk>
wrote:
> <g.caw...@uea.ac.uk> wrote in message

It may not be perfect but it would allow for a comparison between
bowlers caught on film of roughly the same speed. That would not give
the exact speed but it would allow comparisons to be made between
bowlers in terms of who was fastest as measured by that means. RH

[RH]

On May 10, 10:00 am, g.caw...@uea.ac.uk wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 May 2013 21:54:16 UTC+1, David North  wrote:

> > <g.caw...@uea.ac.uk> wrote in message

It surely should be possible to calculate what any distorting effect
would be for any given film? RH

[g.ca...@uea.ac.uk]

No, it is a bit like trying to reconstruct the three dimensional appearance of an object from its shadow, information is irretrievably lost. If it were feasible, Hawkeye would not need to use multiple cameras, but it does.

[g.ca...@uea.ac.uk]

The comparison of two bowlers would still be subject to the same problem of the lack of temporal resolution of the film/video; the difference between FM and F is about half a frame, whether assessing the exact speed or making a comparison. There just is not sufficient information in the video/film, which is why Hawkeye uses multiple *high speed* cameras.

If a meaningful estimate could be gathered in this way, you can be sure it would have been investigated.

[David North]

<g.ca...@uea.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a55c49ca-cffd-4e16...@googlegroups.com...

> > indeed, that was also covered in the thread back in 2009.
>
>
>
> It surely should be possible to calculate what any distorting effect
>
> would be for any given film? RH

"No, it is a bit like trying to reconstruct the three dimensional appearance
of an object from its shadow, information is irretrievably lost. If it were
feasible, Hawkeye would not need to use multiple cameras, but it does."

If you have film taken from square of the pitch, so the ball is moving
across the picture, it's probably not too bad; if it's taken from one end,
so the ball is moving away from or towards the camera, the problem will be
much worse.
--
David North

[RH]

On May 10, 1:32 pm, "David North" <dno...@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk>

But you would still be able to get a relative ranking for those filmed
with film of the same speed. RH

[Offramp]

If it hasn't been done for baseball pitchers - it can't be done.

[g.ca...@uea.ac.uk]

As I have already explained, the frame rate means that the difference between an 85 and a 90 mph delivery is about half a frame, so such a system would not reliably rank fast-medium and fast deliveries correctly either. This is why Hawkeye uses high speed cameras (I think I may have already mentioned that).

[Unknown]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 02:38:51 -0700 (PDT), g.ca...@uea.ac.uk wrote:

>
>The comparison of two bowlers would still be subject to the same problem of=
> the lack of temporal resolution of the film/video; the difference between =
>FM and F is about half a frame, whether assessing the exact speed or making=
> a comparison. There just is not sufficient information in the video/film,=

> which is why Hawkeye uses multiple *high speed* cameras.
>

>If a meaningful estimate could be gathered in this way, you can be sure it =
>would have been investigated.

You can really only compare like for like. So with digital technology
available, would it be possible that a modern side on study could be
scaled down in quality and a comparison made between a bowler of a
different time period?
We already know all the details of the modern bowlers so no matter how
much the footage is scaled down in quality those details are still
sound.

max.it

[Andy Walker]

On 10/05/13 10:38, g.ca...@uea.ac.uk wrote:
> The comparison of two bowlers would still be subject to the same
> problem of the lack of temporal resolution of the film/video; the
> difference between FM and F is about half a frame, whether assessing
> the exact speed or making a comparison.

I would have expected that if the frames were "good enough",
then half a frame would be just about on the limit of resolution,
and if we had, say, ten balls to average over, then a meaningful
estimate would be possible. Unfortunately, those are two big ifs.
There is quite a lot of footage out there, but I haven't found any
of [eg] Tyson which is usable. See, for example,

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/typhoon-tysons-test-match
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5-WYHd5_d0

[the former including a nice clip of Statham's run-up from the
side]. If you freeze the film, it looks like a "Spot The Ball"
competition. I don't know whether it's possible to enhance the
film to the point where the ball is visible? Or perhaps it's my
screen [though the ball is easily visible in more recent stock,
with better camera positions, and, of course, esp in colour].
Anyone have links to good clips?

Ideally, we'd have pictures from square to the wicket
with seven or eight clearly-visible dots showing where the ball
is in each frame.

A second problem is that not much cricket was filmed in
those days. Tests, perhaps Gents vs Players, the Roses match,
and that was about it. The newsreel films would give you about
two minutes. Several of the players mentioned by Robert would
barely have featured on professional film/TV. Of course, it's
possible there is much more in the archives than was ever made
public -- but then researching it would be a serious undertaking,
not something "we" could do from our computers.

> There just is not sufficient
> information in the video/film, which is why Hawkeye uses multiple
> *high speed* cameras.

I'm not convinced that there couldn't be. Hawkeye is
doing something which needs much greater precision. As above,
whether there is in fact sufficient film is another matter.

> If a meaningful estimate could be gathered in this way, you can be
> sure it would have been investigated.

Again, not convinced. It would require a combination of
expertise in several areas together with sufficient interest and
sufficient resources. If Robert could be persuaded to chip in,
say, �50K, then he might find some volunteers. He can't expect
others to do it for him for free.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[David North]

"Andy Walker" <ne...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Wygjt.6356$lc7....@fx19.fr7...

> On 10/05/13 10:38, g.ca...@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>> The comparison of two bowlers would still be subject to the same
>> problem of the lack of temporal resolution of the film/video; the
>> difference between FM and F is about half a frame, whether assessing
>> the exact speed or making a comparison.
>
> I would have expected that if the frames were "good enough",
> then half a frame would be just about on the limit of resolution,
> and if we had, say, ten balls to average over, then a meaningful
> estimate would be possible. Unfortunately, those are two big ifs.
> There is quite a lot of footage out there, but I haven't found any
> of [eg] Tyson which is usable. See, for example,
>
> http://www.britishpathe.com/video/typhoon-tysons-test-match
> and
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5-WYHd5_d0
>
> [the former including a nice clip of Statham's run-up from the
> side]. If you freeze the film, it looks like a "Spot The Ball"
> competition. I don't know whether it's possible to enhance the
> film to the point where the ball is visible? Or perhaps it's my
> screen [though the ball is easily visible in more recent stock,
> with better camera positions, and, of course, esp in colour].

The YouTube clip is obviously degraded due to compression. The original film
would have been considerably better, but maybe still not good enough.
--
David North

[Andy Walker]

On 11/05/13 03:00, David North wrote:
> [...] See, for example,

>> http://www.britishpathe.com/video/typhoon-tysons-test-match
>> and
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5-WYHd5_d0

>>[...] If you freeze the film, it looks like a "Spot The Ball"
>> competition. [...]

> The YouTube clip is obviously degraded due to compression. The
> original film would have been considerably better, but maybe still
> not good enough.

Right. But the original stock is not [easily] available
on-line, thus taking the project out of range for the armchair
analyst. Eg, Pathe want �30 for their video, and researching
what other stock is out there would involve time and travel. If
you are a famous ex-cricketer/author/broadcaster wanting to make
money as an after-dinner speaker, it may make sense to spend on
building up a library of illustrative clips; but not just to
satisfy Robert's [and my] curiosity.

Put another way, if Robert [or anyone else] will send me
a sufficient collection of usable MPEGs or similar, then I'd be
happy to put in a couple of hours of analysis "pro bono", but I
draw the line at paying on top of that, or putting in serious
amounts of time [except at proper consultancy rates!]. Others
may feel in [even] more benevolent mood ....

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Steve Hague]

It's interesting to watch the bowling actions though, even if you can't see
the ball. Larwood ran through his action, much like Malcolm Marshall or
Wasim Akram. Tyson had a low arm position and looked very like Jeff Thomson
as he hit his delivery stride. The time the batsman had to play the ball
must have been affected by the front foot rule being adopted.
Steve Hague

[Steve Hague]

That's an elite group of express bowlers, to which I could add Imran Khan,
Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee, although Akhtar and Lee were not in the same
class as the others except in terms of pace. Of todays bowlers, the
Australian Tait is express pace, but hardly ever bowls due to his fragile
nature. Extreme pace seems to come in cycles; from the mid 70s to the late
80s there were quite a few bowlers who were regularly exceeding 90mph, most
of them being West Indians, but between 1968 and 1975 WI had to make do with
fast medium bowlers. At the moment there are Steyn and Morkel who are fast
but not express, and not a lot else.
Steve Hague

[Mike Holmans]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 16:55:37 +0100, "Steve Hague"
<steve....@virgin.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

Harmison was, at least at his peak. One might also consider Dirk
Nannes of the 4-overs-a-day club, and possibly Lasith Malinga.

Cheers,

Mike
--

[RH]

I could find a few more expresses from those I saw as an adult, the
good, the bad and the indifferent but they all had real pace: Griffith
(but he chucked), Alan Ward, Lillee (in his early career), Robberts
(in his early career) Daniel, Patrick Patterson, Donald, Waqar
Younis, Ian Bishop (in his early career) , George Ferris, Sylvester
Clarke, Devon Malcolm, Carl Rackerman. ... RH

[Richard Dixon]

On Saturday, 11 May 2013 17:43:07 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:

> Harmison was, at least at his peak. One might also consider Dirk
> Nannes of the 4-overs-a-day club, and possibly Lasith Malinga.

Seeing as we're talking about pace but not accuracy, surely Devon Malcolm at his peak was another rapid bowler? I recall someone saying he was still close to 90 mph as he neared 40...

Richard

[Richard Dixon]

On Saturday, 11 May 2013 17:43:07 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:

> Harmison was, at least at his peak. One might also consider Dirk
> Nannes of the 4-overs-a-day club, and possibly Lasith Malinga.

And here's probably England's closest to genuine quick bowler in action today clearing someone up at pace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUvreJSZc1I&

Now if his radar was less faulty...

Richard

[RH]

The front foot rule probably meant that most genuine pace bowlers were
one to one and a half yards further back when they delivered than
they had been under the old back foot law. The drags were quite
extraordinary in some cases, ege, O'Rorke and Trueman. RH