Fastest Left-Armer?

[archie mac]

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...

All but Barnes of the great pre-war bowlers seem to be skipped over on this forum, where as the great batsman seem to hold up OK

I think ten great bowlers should be read by all cricket fans, they will never doubt how great the Lohmann's, Lockwood's and Richardson's were

One of the arguments is that they had the chance to bowl on un-covered pitches. It should be mentioned that fast bolwers run ups were not covered so they often could not bowl on true stickies, the ball was bigger, the stumps smaller, the LBW law much tougher and they only got one ball per innings

 

[fredfertang]

Oh an Maurice Tate, obviously...

... a magnificent seam bowler who also managed the small matter of 21,000 runs and 23 centuries all scored at a rate of knots - what a one day cricketer Chub would have been - Lance Klusener fans eat your hearts out

 

[zaremba]

... a magnificent seam bowler who also managed the small matter of 21,000 runs and 23 centuries all scored at a rate of knots - what a one day cricketer Chub would have been - Lance Klusener fans eat your hearts out

Reading that book I found out about his sacking by Sussex which strikes me as being the lowest moment in the history of our club. He never returned to Hove afterwards.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Wasim Akram.

 

[social]

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.

Dont think so - about Zaheer Khan's pace tops

 

[gettingbetter]

Dont think so - about Zaheer Khan's pace tops

I got nothing substantial to back me up. But I always get the feeling that certain things from the past get over-blown such as speed. This is probably something I gather from the stories of J. Thompson - 170k balls etc etc.

 

[Richard]

Stupid exaggeration from clueless individuals shouldn't make anyone think along the lines of "old cricket was crap".

That Tyson (and maybe Thomson) were a bit faster than anyone else has ever been - freaks - is not inconceivable, but some people talk about stupid things like Thomson bowling 200kph or 180kph. It's just not feasible.

 

[Richard]

All but Barnes of the great pre-war bowlers seem to be skipped over on this forum, where as the great batsman seem to hold up OK

Are we talking WW1 or WW2 here?

There are many excellent pre-WW2 Test bowlers, though admittedly mostly spinners - Verity, Grimmett and O'Reilly being the foremost 3 in my mind.

I've said before that before the 1930s, there aren't many bowlers I know all that much about. Certainly of the great Australian seam bowlers of the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s I have always said that I have much to learn.

 

[Migara]

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.

Schultz was damn quick. He was easily quicker tha Donald in first SL tour of 93-94. All Lankan batsmen were ducking for cover against him barring De Silva, Ranatunga and Jayasuriya. In that series, Donald was taken for some pasting at couple occasions by de Silva, but even him did not go offensive on Schultz. Mind you, by 93-94, de SIlva was damn good against short bowling.

 

[Uppercut]

In truth, it was probably someone far too inaccurate to have played at the highest level and hence we've never heard of him.

 

[Migara]

To be fair to him, in his pomp he was fairly accurate as well. That's why he had such phenomenol success in SL. All other fastmen who had success in SL had conditions that helped them somewhat (SL is a swing bowlers land). But Schultz let them fly pass the nose on absolute dead tracks. Few years later, WInides pacemen who was known for great pace, Ambrose, Wals and Benjamin looked pedestrian on the same tracks.

 

[Uppercut]

To be fair to him, in his pomp he was fairly accurate as well. That's why he had such phenomenol success in SL. All other fastmen who had success in SL had conditions that helped them somewhat (SL is a swing bowlers land). But Schultz let them fly pass the nose on absolute dead tracks. Few years later, WInides pacemen who was known for great pace, Ambrose, Wals and Benjamin looked pedestrian on the same tracks.

I don't know much about Schultz, my response was aimed at the question at the top of the thread.

 

[archie mac]

Are we talking WW1 or WW2 here?

There are many excellent pre-WW2 Test bowlers, though admittedly mostly spinners - Verity, Grimmett and O'Reilly being the foremost 3 in my mind.

I've said before that before the 1930s, there aren't many bowlers I know all that much about. Certainly of the great Australian seam bowlers of the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s I have always said that I have much to learn.

I was thinking WW one but, it applies to both on thinking about it

 

[Richard]

Hmm, in my experience Rhodes generally holds-up damn well, even on here.

Apart from him, who else were you thinking of from 1900 to 1914? The only other one who comes instantly to my mind is Lockwood.