View Full Version : Did Binga bowl 100M/h
raikkonen64
8 Mar 2005, 20:59
i miss the last one dayer against New Zealand, but i remember reading somewhere that brett Lee bowled 160.8 km/h, if its true does that equal to 100M/h?
found where i read it
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2005/MAR/198796_NZAUS2004-05_07MAR2005.html
but does 160.8 kph = 100 Mph
silky-smooth
8 Mar 2005, 21:21
Equal fastest ball in history is was. 160.8 km/h is the same by Akhtar.
Just a touch over 100mph it is.
Bentleigh
8 Mar 2005, 21:43
Indeed.
Came up as 161km.
but does 160.8 kph = 100 Mph
160km = 100mph me thinks.
silky-smooth
8 Mar 2005, 21:47
It was officially recorded as 160.8 kmh - Sky Sport NZ don't go beyond the decimal point, so it rounded 160.8 up to 161.
That's still super quick - not as quick as Bentleigh... what the hell have you posted to now establish a 70-post lead from me, after being level about two days ago? Bloody oath!
skipper kelly
8 Mar 2005, 22:07
Converting
Miles to Kilometers Miles X 1.609
Kilometers to Miles Kilometers X 0.621
skipper kelly
8 Mar 2005, 22:08
99.8568
Yes he did throw one 100mh
I'm interested that it was Sky Sport NZ, I'm assuming that they're owned by Rupert Murdoch the same as Sky Sports in England.
The thing is England bowlers have realised for years that they're faster when they play Sky televised games rather than the Tests shown on C4.
They use different speedos.
Obviously it adds a bit of interest when you can report bowlers hitting some serious speeds.
That's why I can't help taking them with a pinch of salt.
silky-smooth
8 Mar 2005, 23:34
Brett Lee bowled a ball in a Test in 2000 (Aus v WI) that clocked 163kmh I think - it was the last wicket of the match so no-one really paid attention.
It wasn't until a year ago someone noticed it. Channel Nine then came out and said their speedo was faulty. Well, if it was faulty for the match - God knows how many other times it has been and how many mistakes they have made.
Perhaps the ICC could, in conjunction with all the global television networks, develop speedguns that are exactly the same for all TV coverages - therefore all speeds recorded would be accurate, in comparison to other speeds recorded in other matches.
London Adelaidian
8 Mar 2005, 23:55
Brett Lee bowled a ball in a Test in 2000 (Aus v WI) that clocked 163kmh I think - it was the last wicket of the match so no-one really paid attention.
It wasn't until a year ago someone noticed it. Channel Nine then came out and said their speedo was faulty. Well, if it was faulty for the match - God knows how many other times it has been and how many mistakes they have made.
Perhaps the ICC could, in conjunction with all the global television networks, develop speedguns that are exactly the same for all TV coverages - therefore all speeds recorded would be accurate, in comparison to other speeds recorded in other matches.
Good point actually. I remember a few years ago that some people were noticing that the same bowler was bowling a fairly different speeds in different countries, and they were assuming it was mainly down to the TV coverage reporting it.
Is there a set spot where the speed is measured (ie when it leaves the bowlers hand, halfway down the wicket, at a good length)? Or is it an average speed from when it leaves the bowl till it gets to the batsman? There are big differences between these options, and if one TV coverage measures with one of these options, then the result will be different to the exact same delivery that's bowled in another country with a different TV coverage.
Good point actually. I remember a few years ago that some people were noticing that the same bowler was bowling a fairly different speeds in different countries, and they were assuming it was mainly down to the TV coverage reporting it.
Is there a set spot where the speed is measured (ie when it leaves the bowlers hand, halfway down the wicket, at a good length)? Or is it an average speed from when it leaves the bowl till it gets to the batsman? There are big differences between these options, and if one TV coverage measures with one of these options, then the result will be different to the exact same delivery that's bowled in another country with a different TV coverage.
I was under the impression that the reading was the fastest velocity that the ball was travelling at.(I read that last year & it surprised me at first but then made sense)
So if you bowled a bouncer it may come up really quick but would actually take longer to reach the batsman(as the ball would lose a lot of pace from being smashed into the ground) than a yorker that showed up a touch slower.(& so would therefore have a slower average speed).
But I just read something on the subject that says that all speed guns take the reading of the ball as soon as it leaves the bowler's hand.I'm a bit dubious about this.
who cares if he bowled 100mp/h or not, that ball did not pick up a wicket, therefore it was a waste ;)
Yes he did throw one 100mh
Idiot
Equal fastest ball in history is was.
Equal fastest "recorded" ball. Thommo was quicker than both of them.
Cassius_Clay
9 Mar 2005, 06:18
Yes he did throw one 100mh
you ********er
Superpom
9 Mar 2005, 06:51
The papers here had it as 99.92 mph because i remember thinking it would have been nice if it had been 99.94
blackcat
9 Mar 2005, 08:21
Akhtar and Lee were clocked over 160 in SA World Cup with the benefit of those stadiums at altitude... think Akthar got 163/4, and Lee produced a few 161/2.
The gun must measure horizontal speed, hence yorkers/full toss/full pitche delveries regestering quicker than mid trackers.
silky-smooth
9 Mar 2005, 10:12
Equal fastest "recorded" ball. Thommo was quicker than both of them.
Well yeah you knew what I meant. ;)
Yes he did bowl at 160+ again, he should definetely be selected for the first test, on fire.
Bentleigh
9 Mar 2005, 19:19
Yes he did throw one 100mh
Everyone now and then Lee looks abit suss on the slow replays :o
Yes he did bowl at 160+ again, he should definetely be selected for the first test, on fire.
Because he's bowling fast :confused:
2004-2005 New Zealand v Australia - 5th Match
McLean Park (05/03/2005)
Bowling O M R W
B Lee 10 0 34 1
M S Kasprowicz 10 2 36 3
Everyone now and then Lee looks abit suss on the slow replays :o
Because he's bowling fast :confused:
2004-2005 New Zealand v Australia - 5th Match
McLean Park (05/03/2005)
Bowling O M R W
B Lee 10 0 34 1
M S Kasprowicz 10 2 36 3
No 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th match stats....how convenient :rolleyes:
No 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th match stats....how convenient :rolleyes:
& 1/34 off 10 overs is really bad isn't it....
Bentleigh
9 Mar 2005, 19:57
& 1/34 off 10 overs is really bad isn't it....
I didnt say it was. But you seem to forget Kaspa was better.
No 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th match stats....how convenient :rolleyes:
You want stats? :confused:
Kasprowicz
Average: 30.37
Economy Rate: 2.97
Series O M R W 5w 10w Best Avg S/R E/R
2003-2004 SRL v AUS 107.5 20 302 12 0 0 4/83 25.17 53.92 2.80
2004-2005 AUS v SRL 67.4 13 201 8 1 0 7/39 25.13 50.75 2.97
2004-2005 Border-Gavaskar Trophy 108.3 29 255 9 0 0 2/11 28.33 72.33 2.35
2004-2005 Trans-Tasman Trophy 66 14 216 9 0 0 4/90 24.00 44.00 3.27
2004-2005 AUS v PAK 56 17 142 9 1 0 5/30 15.78 37.33 2.54
Year O M R W 5w 10w Best Avg S/R E/R
2004 406 93 1116 47 2 0 7/39 23.75 51.83 2.75
Lee
Average: 31.66
Economy Rate: 3.58
Series O M R W 5w 10w Best Avg S/R E/R
2001 ENG v AUS 120.5 18 496 9 0 0 2/37 55.11 80.56 4.10
2001-2002 AUS v NZL 100.5 19 352 14 1 0 5/67 25.14 43.21 3.49
2001-2002 AUS v SAF 105 27 314 9 0 0 3/77 34.89 70.00 2.99
2001-2002 SAF v AUS 95.2 10 416 10 0 0 4/82 41.60 57.20 4.36
2002-2003 PAK v AUS 66.5 13 234 5 0 0 2/15 46.80 80.20 3.50
2002-2003 AUS v ENG 144.4 26 536 13 0 0 3/78 41.23 66.77 3.71
2002-2003 WIN v AUS 144.3 33 490 17 0 0 4/63 28.82 51.00 3.39
2003-2004 AUS v BAN 49.2 6 190 6 0 0 3/23 31.67 49.33 3.85
2003-2004 AUS v ZIM 73 17 222 6 0 0 3/48 37.00 73.00 3.04
2003-2004 AUS v IND 100.5 17 476 8 0 0 4/201 59.50 75.63 4.72
Year O M R W 5w 10w Best Avg S/R E/R
2001 301.4 57 1087 30 1 0 5/67 36.23 60.33 3.60
2002 269.2 42 1032 25 0 0 4/82 41.28 64.64 3.83
2003 378.2 80 1331 38 0 0 4/63 35.03 59.74 3.52
2004 51.5 7 276 4 0 0 4/201 69.00 77.75 5.32
johnnyhoward
9 Mar 2005, 20:07
The papers here had it as 99.92 mph because i remember thinking it would have been nice if it had been 99.94
don't compare binga to the great one.