Fastest Left-Armer?

[Richard]

Bill Voce?

You know, he's another one who's always fascinated me. The impression I've generally had (and never yet found anything to change it) is that Voce was probably a "Darren Gough" sort of pace, and his partner Larwood (until his serious injury at least) more "Allan Donald" style pace, of mid-90s often and occasionally late-90s on real effort.

Certainly I've always presumed Larwood was quicker than Voce - the question then is how much and how quick exactly was Larwood?

I can't see any reason he'd not be able to compare with the fastest of them.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not to mention Dion Nash, nor how good Chris Cairns might have been had he not suffered so many early-career injuries, nor how good Vettori might've been between 2002 and mid-2004 had his back not played havoc with him...

And James Franklin in recent times as well.

Yeah it's interesting how many quicks NZ have produced over the last 10 years. None of them can stay on the park, though!

 

[Midwinter]

Saw Wasim Akram play vs Victoria on a country ground back before the world cup in 1992.

Javed Aquib (not sure ) was the other opening bowler and the Vics had Neal Maxwell and can't remember the others but not exactly a fear inspiring attack.

None of them could get the ball over stump high.

The wicket keeper was taking Wasim head-high half way back to the boundary.

Quickest left armer I've seen

 

[Precambrian]

Yeah Wasim was quick enough in the 80s and 90s and that explain a lot of lbws that he and Waqar got owing to the late swing at such speed. At his peak, Wasim is a prime candidate for 95 mph. Waqar too was quick, but somehow I don't think he'd go as high as 100 mph. May be 95 mph.

 

[thierry henry]

Honestly, I watched Akram from the early 90s to the early 2000s and never thought he was particularly quick

As mentioned, New Zealand games often had speed guns throughout the 90s. I always remember Akram bowling in the 130s. Waqar from my recollection was usually regarded as quicker than Wasim, and also registered faster than Wasim on the radar.

Apparently Wasim was bowling in the mid 140s in 1999/2000 in Australia, I never saw it but I will take the word of the people who saw it that it is true.

tbh, as a kid I thought Waqar was lightning, but in retrospect I think he may have only been marginally express. Sort of like Shane Bond- at his best, he hit 150, but was usually in the 140s. I think Wasim was fractionally slower, but maybe 1980s Wasim was as fast as peak Waqar??

Either way I actually think Mitchell Johnson is, marginally, the fastest lefty I have ever seen. Probably not a particularly popular position but there you go. I don't think Johnson is a world-beater by any means, but I also think it's silly that people question his potential- lefties with his pace are just that damn rare.

 

[Top_Cat]

Apparently Wasim was bowling in the mid 140s in 1999/2000 in Australia, I never saw it but I will take the word of the people who saw it that it is true.

One ball maybe! I distinctly remember after the caught behind decision against Langer which was given not-out in Hobart, Langer took a single and Gilchrist came on strike. Wasim was fuming by that point and tried a bumper, Gilchrist pulled it for 4. The speed? Around 141km/h. Was the only time I remember him going past 140km/h, was mostly in the mid-to-low 130's.

tbh, as a kid I thought Waqar was lightning, but in retrospect I think he may have only been marginally express. Sort of like Shane Bond- at his best, he hit 150, but was usually in the 140s. I think Wasim was fractionally slower, but maybe 1980s Wasim was as fast as peak Waqar??

In fairness, Waqar had a fairly significant back injury in 1991 which knocked a fair chunk of pace off him. In the late 80's, he was lightning.

 

[thierry henry]

One ball maybe! I distinctly remember after the caught behind decision against Langer which was given not-out in Hobart, Langer took a single and Gilchrist came on strike. Wasim was fuming by that point and tried a bumper, Gilchrist pulled it for 4. The speed? Around 141km/h. Was the only time I remember him going past 140km/h, was mostly in the mid-to-low 130's.

Well, that's exactly how I remember him as well. Mostly in the 130s. To me he was always about the short run-up, movement, and deception. I could be wrong but I suspect the "express pace" bit is a bit of a myth, or at least a misconception aided by the fact that he always bowled faster than he looked like he was going to.

In fairness, Waqar had a fairly significant back injury in 1991 which knocked a fair chunk of pace off him. In the late 80's, he was lightning.

Really?

I know all about how Waqar dramatically fell away after a great start to his career, but thought that happened around 1996. He was in his pomp around 1992-1995 when Pakistan toured NZ several times and he kept destroying us.

 

[Top_Cat]

Really?

I know all about how Waqar dramatically fell away after a great start to his career, but thought that happened around 1996. He was in his pomp around 1992-1995 when Pakistan toured NZ several times and he kept destroying us.

Missed the 1992 WC because of it, in fact. He was a better bowler when he came back, developing that nasty in-swing, but at 19-20, Waqar was all about the pace.

 

[fredfertang]

You know, he's another one who's always fascinated me. The impression I've generally had (and never yet found anything to change it) is that Voce was probably a "Darren Gough" sort of pace, and his partner Larwood (until his serious injury at least) more "Allan Donald" style pace, of mid-90s often and occasionally late-90s on real effort.

Certainly I've always presumed Larwood was quicker than Voce - the question then is how much and how quick exactly was Larwood?

I can't see any reason he'd not be able to compare with the fastest of them.

Bill Voce wasn’t as fast as Larwood by some way. Unlike Larwood, he was a tall man and he bowled mainly inswingers – he bowled leg theory for a couple of years before bodyline was conceived and would generally use his height to dig his inswingers in short and would often bowl from round the wicket to heighten the batsman’s discomfort.

 

[archie mac]

Bill Voce wasn’t as fast as Larwood by some way. Unlike Larwood, he was a tall man and he bowled mainly inswingers – he bowled leg theory for a couple of years before bodyline was conceived and would generally use his height to dig his inswingers in short and would often bowl from round the wicket to heighten the batsman’s discomfort.

If you did not know, and saw a photo of the two, you would think Voce was going to be by far the quicker

I always wonder these days with coaches and so on, whether Voce would have been the better bowler. Or even if England would have picked Larwood with their conforming hang-ups atm

 

[Richard]

If Larwood was having season after season averaging in the mid-late teens on some of the flattest pitches going around... I think they'd probably have picked him TBH.

Larwood's numbers truly are mesmirising:
1925: 73 at 18.01
1926: 137 at 18.31
1927: 100 at 16.95
1928: 138 at 14.51
1929: 117 at 21.66
1930: 99 at 16.38
1931: 129 at 12.03
1932: 162 at 12.86
1933: 1 at 18.00
1934: 82 at 17.25
1935: 102 at 22.70
1936: 119 at 12.97

That's some bowling.

 

[archie mac]

If Larwood was having season after season averaging in the mid-late teens on some of the flattest pitches going around... I think they'd probably have picked him TBH.

Tell it to Don S.

 

[TT Boy]

IIRR, Wasim was still sending it down at 90mph-plus in the 1999 WC, though I don't have the figures to hand currently (the 2000 Wisden will find them for you if you do have such a thing to hand). Certainly he wasn't slow even in 2002/03.

IIRR he was getting it down mid-80s in Pakistan in 2000/01 as well - and that in serious heat and humidity in his mid-30s.

I've often wished that Wasim's heyday had coincided with speedguns. Reckon he and Waqar could quite easily have been capable of touching 95mph.

Of course the thing about Wasim was that however quick he was, he seemed quicker because he "hid" the ball so the batsman saw it later than they would with, for instance, Michael Holding with his perfect classical action. This means that the slower bowler (and Wasim was almost certainly slower than Holding) can sometimes give a lesser reaction-time.

As for Schultz, dunno a thing about him really, other than that he was very injury-prone. Don't think he survived quite long enough to bowl in front of a gun. People reckoned he was quicker than Donald (not that that neccessarily means he was) IIRR and Donald was almost certainly a 95mph merchant in his heyday, given that he was still capable of reaching 93mph at the age of 32.

South Africa’s coach at the time, Mike Procter said Schultz in pomp was comfortably the quickest thing South Africa had. He was apparently ridiculously quick during the tour of Sri Lanka and was doing people just through sheer pace.

 

[Goughy]

South Africa’s coach at the time, Mike Procter said Schultz in pomp was comfortably the quickest thing South Africa had. He was apparently ridiculously quick during the tour of Sri Lanka and was doing people just through sheer pace.

Yeah. That tour to SL was supposedly spectacular but Id really like to see some footage.

Especially when his profile from Dec 93 isnt exactly amazing

Brett Schultz LF b. 26/8/70 Schultz has a good inswinger, and commendable big-match temperament. Given his day-to-day perfor- mance in domestic cricket, he would hardly qualify for a top provincial team, but he has repeatedly shown that important occa- sions lift him to produce fast bowling of sustained venom and threat. In the field, Schultz is ungainly, and his batting is probably inferior to that of any other current international player

 

[nightprowler10]

Surprised Alan Davidson hasn't been mentioned yet. He used to bowl faster than what Wasim could ever put out in his heyday from what I've read.

 

[fredfertang]

If Larwood was having season after season averaging in the mid-late teens on some of the flattest pitches going around... I think they'd probably have picked him TBH.

Larwood's numbers truly are mesmirising:
1925: 73 at 18.01
1926: 137 at 18.31
1927: 100 at 16.95
1928: 138 at 14.51
1929: 117 at 21.66
1930: 99 at 16.38
1931: 129 at 12.03
1932: 162 at 12.86
1933: 1 at 18.00
1934: 82 at 17.25
1935: 102 at 22.70
1936: 119 at 12.97

That's some bowling.

In 1936 he headed the first class averages for the fifth time - by then, due to his injury at the end of the bodyline tour, he had lost his express speed so his ability to adapt is underlined.

As you know Richard for me he's one of the all-time greats - and as I know for you he's not!

 

[Richard]

I just don't think he's one of England's best Test bowlers ever TBH. Even though the Bradman factor has to be thrown in, the simple truth is that he only had 1 series out of the top drawer (a series in which illicit tactics were used) and before then his record was decidedly moderate.

That he is one of the best bowlers (maybe THE second-best after SF Barnes) produced by this country is beyond doubt, to me. It's just a real shame that, apart from the Bodyline series, Test cricket never saw the best of him.

His record in Gents vs Players matches (something which, though many modern followers without a historical sense may not understand, was often a level higher than that of some Tests) is also truly bewilderingly moderate.

 

[fredfertang]

That, Richard, is open to the interpretation that Barnes is the only great bowler we have ever produced!

Anyway as Larwood's greatest admirer I feel obliged to come back to you even though I know I won't change your views

Firstly on the subject of Gents and Players - the annual Lords game did generally have the best available playing and was a great social event - there were always a few top amateurs about but you couldn't say it was the best 22 in the land by any means - best 13 plus 9 from the next 40 I would suggest

They also played a Gents v Players at the Oval, which generally had less quality, and also a game of that description at Scarborough but that was festival cricket and certainly can't count.

Larwood only played 3 times in the Lords match, once at the Oval and once at Scarborough. At Lords in '27 he took 0/4 so nothing to read into that. In '30 he took 0/54 - funny looking game as Maurice Leyland of all people was the man who took 9 of the 13 wickets that well - Tate, Larwood, Freeman and Geary only got 4 between them. Last occasion was '32 when he took 4/54. I don't think you can read anything into those stats

Of greater quality in those days were the annual test trials where the best 22 did play. Larwood took 16 wickets at 25 in those that he played in.

As to his Test Record he only really played in 4 quality series all against Australia - in 1926 at 21 he played twice and was instrumental in the final test victory - that counts as one up to Larwood to me.

In 28/29 it was 18 wickets at 40 each but that is skewed by 1/164 in the 5th test that was Australia's consolation victory - in the first four tests that established the 4-0 lead it was 17 at 32 - timeless tests on batting wickets don' forget - 2 up i reckon

1930 - the failure - injuries and severe dental problems affected him but never an excuse he used - 2-1

1932/33 he was magnificent - i don't agree the tactics were illicit but that's another debate. 3-1 Larwood

Magnificence in 75% of series played equals greatness in my book even if there hadn't been mitigating factors in 1930

He also played two tests against the WIndies - 6/114 and took 8/186 in three against SAfrica - in his one test against NZ he wasn't even called upon to turn his arm over!

 

[Richard]

That, Richard, is open to the interpretation that Barnes is the only great bowler we have ever produced!

(And I did read the rest of the post BTW - you might not change my view wholly, but interesting nonetheless)

 

[zaremba]

On Archie's recommendation I read "10 Great Bowlers" and learned about Lohmann, Lockwood and Richardson. And if Barnes was a great, great bowler, which plainly he was, then so were they. Maybe Richardson - about whom I'd previously heard very little - above all.

Oh an Maurice Tate, obviously...