This is relevant to the "Thommo reckons he can bowl at 180kph" thread.
"Could it be possible that Jeff Thompson's world record of 160.5km/h was broken 40 years before if was set? If mythology is to be believed then the English pace kings, Larwood, Tyson and Trueman were faster again. If Thommo can be trusted, then he bowled much quicker than 160 anyway.
One of the many beauties of cricket is its unchangeability. One of these is that the distance between popping creases has remained unchanged for over a century - 22 yards.
It got us thinking, could a comparison of bowling speeds be made between eras using archival footage of the bowler in stride and at the moment of delivery? Surely by timing the ball from the moment it left the hand to the moment it arrived at the batsman we could obtain an approximate figure.
So given that VHS video works reliably at 25 frames per second, we adapted the sample to kilometres per hour and applied it to the many fast bowlers from different eras of whom action footage still exists.
From the movies we obtained, both Fred Trueman and Frank Tyson were found to bowl at 10 frames, putting them as high at 159.12km/h with an average of 152.63. While Thommo and Ray Lindwall were clocked at 11 frames putting their peaks in the low 150's with an average of 139. Keith Miller and Wes Hall were throwing them down in 12 dazzling frames at an average of 127.3 but the variant between venom was high with each."
They then go on to claim later in the article that "most of Frank Tyson's deliveries on the 1954-55 tour of Australia were too fast for Inside Edge to time".
Interesting, I dont buy into the exact figures being correct, as things like the drag from the old no-ball rule (thus some of the bowlers having a slightly shorter distance to cover), the quality of the footage and other factors would make it extremely difficult to be exact. But in general I think their claims are pretty close to the mark.
Interesting that Trueman appears to have been so sharp, I know he was quick but his name dosent often come up in "quickest ever" debates.
In front of me I have the Inside Edge magazine from October 2001, there is a very interesting article on this, I'll quote it...I wonder if they'll ever get the technology to be able to look at old film and measure speeds accurately from it? Might happen one day, but I'm technologically inept and couldn't tell you if it's possible or impossible.
"Could it be possible that Jeff Thompson's world record of 160.5km/h was broken 40 years before if was set? If mythology is to be believed then the English pace kings, Larwood, Tyson and Trueman were faster again. If Thommo can be trusted, then he bowled much quicker than 160 anyway.
One of the many beauties of cricket is its unchangeability. One of these is that the distance between popping creases has remained unchanged for over a century - 22 yards.
It got us thinking, could a comparison of bowling speeds be made between eras using archival footage of the bowler in stride and at the moment of delivery? Surely by timing the ball from the moment it left the hand to the moment it arrived at the batsman we could obtain an approximate figure.
So given that VHS video works reliably at 25 frames per second, we adapted the sample to kilometres per hour and applied it to the many fast bowlers from different eras of whom action footage still exists.
From the movies we obtained, both Fred Trueman and Frank Tyson were found to bowl at 10 frames, putting them as high at 159.12km/h with an average of 152.63. While Thommo and Ray Lindwall were clocked at 11 frames putting their peaks in the low 150's with an average of 139. Keith Miller and Wes Hall were throwing them down in 12 dazzling frames at an average of 127.3 but the variant between venom was high with each."
They then go on to claim later in the article that "most of Frank Tyson's deliveries on the 1954-55 tour of Australia were too fast for Inside Edge to time".
Interesting, I dont buy into the exact figures being correct, as things like the drag from the old no-ball rule (thus some of the bowlers having a slightly shorter distance to cover), the quality of the footage and other factors would make it extremely difficult to be exact. But in general I think their claims are pretty close to the mark.
Interesting that Trueman appears to have been so sharp, I know he was quick but his name dosent often come up in "quickest ever" debates.