Cricket: NZ vs England
-
So Jofra is actually really really quick and outer radar was just making him look slow and disinterested.
How did our guys speeds stack up against Archer? Weren't they similar? So if Archer is actually bowling at 150 clicks when the radar says 130 how unbelievably quick woul Lochie Ferguson be with a "proper" radar...
Or was he struggling with having to grind through a test match.
Seeme quite an articulate and personable bloke but can't escape the feeling he was over hyped, over bowled and over here.
-
So Jofra is actually really really quick and outer radar was just making him look slow and disinterested.
How did our guys speeds stack up against Archer? Weren't they similar? So if Archer is actually bowling at 150 clicks when the radar says 130 how unbelievably quick woul Lochie Ferguson be with a "proper" radar...
Or was he struggling with having to grind through a test match.
Seeme quite an articulate and personable bloke but can't escape the feeling he was over hyped, over bowled and over here.
@booboo said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
So Jofra is actually really really quick and outer radar was just making him look slow and disinterested.
How did our guys speeds stack up against Archer? Weren't they similar? So if Archer is actually bowling at 150 clicks when the radar says 130 how unbelievably quick woul Lochie Ferguson be with a "proper" radar...
Or was he struggling with having to grind through a test match.
Seeme quite an articulate and personable bloke but can't escape the feeling he was over hyped, over bowled and over here.
Our radar guns being slow isn't a new one. I've heard that from plenty of kiwi bowlers too.
Doesn't really stack up when you had Archer breaking the 150 mark during the test series though (does he reckon that was 160+?)
-
I think it depends on the method used.If clocked out of the hand with a radar you will get a much higher reading than off the pitch. If (as I think most TV stats are now, it is the calc of time and distance between release and bat (or crease) then it will depend on the length being bowled and the hardness of the pitch.
-
The reality is that despite all those stats the only time we have had a series win is when we have had a bowler firing at their peak (ably supported).
I can't see us getting 20 wickets at a reasonable cost without one bowler really singing. A Bond or Paddles in this lineup would be the icing on the cake. -
I always thought the Aussie ones were quick. I remember Ponting being clocked at 130!
@mariner4life said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
I always thought the Aussie ones were quick. I remember Ponting being clocked at 130!
A commentator a year or two back said that they have 3 guns. The Aussies were using the fastest one, others like us use the middle one. So yeah, method used is a big factor.
You really would think that they would standardise things. It should be the same between bowlers in the same test, but that could also be worldwide.
-
After the hype before the tour started Archer ended up with 2-209 in the series. The Duke ball and juicy pitches obviously make a big difference.
@Bovidae said in Cricket: NZ vs England:
After the hype before the tour started Archer ended up with 2-209 in the series. The Duke ball and juicy pitches obviously make a big difference.
Besides a couple of hostile spells to Smith, he was a bit meh in the Ashes.
