Shaun Tait-Potential to be the fastest ever?

[Richard]

Yeah, I read that a while ago.

Plenty, I'd not be surprised, would be willing to write that off as "in-my-day"-brigadier-ism.

And most wouldn't know that Frank Tyson remains to this day one of the most progressive-minded on the subject of seam-bowling.

 

[The Sean]

He's a fascinating character all round, Tyson - surely there aren't too many other fast bowlers who've been able to quote Keats or Wordsworth in between deliveries?

Tyson's pace is one of those instances where the best judges of all - the men he played with and against - is pretty much unanimous. Just about all the guys who played against him - and it must be remembered that most of them are still alive to have seen everyone since - rate him one of the, if not THE fastest bowler they ever saw. Obviously I have no way of knowing for sure, and nor do any of us, but I'm happy to think that the final showdown for the title of Fastest Bowler Ever would probably come down to Tyson and Thommo. Though our 'Arold might have something to say about it.

 

[Richard]

He would?

On the subject of batsmen who faced him - I'd love to believe it, but a batsman would struggle to pick-up a 5mph difference in two really quick deliveries he faced with 10 seconds in between them. No-one has a cat-in-hell's chance of being able to tell a difference of 10mph over 40 years.

No-one will ever know exactly how fast Tyson was in comparison to Waqar Younis, for example.

The interesting thing, though, is that our Richie says he was considerably quicker than anyone at the time or that he thinks he's watched since - and there might just be something in that IMO.

When, that is, you add it to the fact that he did bruise Neil Harvey and others through their pads, something neither contemporaries, predecessors or succcessors have ever done on a regular basis.

 

[silentstriker]

He might very well have been the fastest, but 119mph? No.

 

[Richard]

Unlikely, but so is 99.94.

 

[silentstriker]

Unlikely, but so is 99.94.

99.94 is unlikely, but 119 might be physically impossible.

Baseball deliveries, on average, are faster than cricket deliveries. And the fastest cricket deliveries tend to be slower than the fastest baseball deliveries in any given year.

Now, the fastest baseball delivery in history has been 103-104mph. Assuming some cricketer came along and shattered the baseball record, which is possible, though unlikely, it would mean he pitched it at 105, 106, maybe even 107-108.

But 119? No.

 

[archie mac]

It'd be great if we had some way of knowing for sure just how quick those old blokes were - because opinions seem to vary between even the guys they played with. I've read that some thought Gregory was truly express, but others thought that his action gave a false estimation of his real pace and that Ted McDonald was the quicker of the two. And no less a judge than Jack Hobbs wrote that he believed Tibby Cotter was faster than both of them.

One of the first things I'm going to do in the next world is to get God to line me up Lockwood, Kortwright, Jones, Cotter, Larwood, Tyson, Hall, Lillee, Thommo, Holding, Marshall, Waqar, Lee, Shoaib and any others I've missed there, all at their absolute peak, and find out who was quickest.

Of course, I could just ask Him for the answer - but where would be the fun in that? I want to see blood on the pitch.

Will you be the one facing? can't hurt your would be already brown bread

 

[Richard]

99.94 is unlikely, but 119 might be physically impossible.

Baseball deliveries, on average, are faster than cricket deliveries. And the fastest cricket deliveries tend to be slower than the fastest baseball deliveries in any given year.

Now, the fastest baseball delivery in history has been 103-104mph. Assuming some cricketer came along and shattered the baseball record, which is possible, though unlikely, it would mean he pitched it at 105, 106, maybe even 107-108.

But 119? No.

Who's to say there haven't been freaks in baseball, too?

99.94 would be considered physically impossible had it not happened and you know it.

 

[FRAZ]

96 was the fastest I ever spotted him clocking-up...

Yeah I remember now !! You are right ,As I mentioned earlier that I was may be wrong about 98 but it sure was over 96 ..
A person as per habbit just blindly and stupidly denied the fact that South Africa used the speed gun during 93-94 during some of their home series .So can you spot any clip please .
I perfectly remember it was a tri series b/w Pak ,SA and WI and Waqar clocked 95 MPH and Wasim did go o ver 91 MPH ........ I cannot find any video of it with the screen showing the speed radar too . Anyways for that idiot I have that series in shape of VHS so he will have to come and sit with me and enjoy it on VCR and I ll definitely show that person that I wasn't lieng...Then only I will get warning from Pickup that I have started fuss ... Hypocrisy at it's extreme in this world !!!!

 

[Richard]

Well I do hate to break it to you (honestly, no sarcasm there) but the first reliable speed-guns were used in 1998 in the Eng-SA series. There had, certainly, been attempts to do so before, and even without them it's perfectly conceivable that Waqar might've bowled at 95mph or maybe even faster, but before 1998 nothing can be spoken with authority.

 

[FRAZ]

99.94 is unlikely, but 119 might be physically impossible.

Baseball deliveries, on average, are faster than cricket deliveries. And the fastest cricket deliveries tend to be slower than the fastest baseball deliveries in any given year.

Now, the fastest baseball delivery in history has been 103-104mph. Assuming some cricketer came along and shattered the baseball record, which is possible, though unlikely, it would mean he pitched it at 105, 106, maybe even 107-108.

But 119? No.

If you come at my indoor facility then you will understand how good a speed of over 140 KMPH actualy is . I have bowled over 130 K at many occasions and otherwise normal college level Pak students can only bowl at 115-116 Km or so and thats it !! I thought I was extremely quick at the age of 18-19 but now it's been quite a while buit still I am pretty quick !!!

 

[Richard]

A person as per habbit just blindly and stupidly denied the fact that South Africa used the speed gun during 93-94 during some of their home series ............ Anyways for that idiot I have that series in shape of VHS so he will have to come and sit with me and enjoy it on VCR and I ll definitely show that person that I wasn't lieng...

Sorry, I can't help it!!!!!!

That's just pure gold!

(No offence intended, BTW, Sean)

 

[FRAZ]

Well I do hate to break it to you (honestly, no sarcasm there) but the first reliable speed-guns were used in 1998 in the Eng-SA series. There had, certainly, been attempts to do so before, and even without them it's perfectly conceivable that Waqar might've bowled at 95mph or maybe even faster, but before 1998 nothing can be spoken with authority.

Yeah I understand the reliable part but as that person clearly said SA never used it , It kinda pi$$ed me off as if he thinks I am lieng !!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah I understand the reliable part but as that person clearly said SA never used it , It kinda pi$$ed me off as if he thinks I am lieng !!

Actually, I thought you were mistaken, not lying. If they did use speed guns in SA in 93/94, I humbly apologise. I have seen footage from that series though, and certainly never saw speed readings.

 

[FRAZ]

Actually, I thought you were mistaken, not lying. If they did use speed guns in SA in 93/94, I humbly apologise. I have seen footage from that series though, and certainly never saw speed readings.

If it is the same series in which Pak was bowled out at 44 . And Pakistan beat SA on a couple of occasions . In one match Waqar took 5fer against SA and in one match Wasim took 5 wickets .Try to check the clips of a match b/w Pakistan and South Africa (may be the first or the second preliminary match) . I remember Alan Donald bowling at 144kmph ,Wasim was clocked by their machine at 145 and Waqar did clock 155 kmph a few times.

 

[silentstriker]

Who's to say there haven't been freaks in baseball, too?

99.94 would be considered physically impossible had it not happened and you know it.

Because speed guns have been a staple for longer.

And I am not talking about hard. I am talking about 2-minute-mile impossible.

 

[FRAZ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/1927767.stm
This page has some info ...
And the following is an interesting find by me !!!
http://caribbeancricket.com/news/xxxx/xx/xx/261

 

[Tim]

With his action, he's gonna be a bit of a Nantie Hayward at times. But probably a bit better.

 

[chaminda_00]

Im only ever seen Thomspon and Tyson on tape and both looked the quickest i've seen. But Tyson seemed to looked quicker, but it might have more to do with the batsmen having no idea and playing so late.

Tait does look like he has inceased his pace by about 5 to 10 kms, but he looks like he has lost a lot of control. He never seemed to be able to get his control back since his injury a couple seasons. I think he'll be effective at International level without any control.

 

[Tim]

With Tait I think he could destroy an opposition one game, but then be a total liability the next game. Considering he hasn't played much ODI cricket, it would be a big punt to select him for the World Cup.