SF Barnes

[The Sean]

He must have changed his mind then

"Over a full season, under all sorts of conditions, I rank Larwood as the fastest bowler of all"

Don Bradman in "Farewell to Cricket" published in 1950

Lest I be accused of being disingenuous he did preface that by saying the fastest spell he ever faced was from Eddie Gilbert but he does add that wasn't bowling

I was thinking the same thing - and in 1986 Bradman claimed that the three fastest bowlers he ever saw were Larwood, Tyson and Marshall. Clearly he thought Lol among the very fastest of all time, though I would have been very keen to ask him where he ranked Thommo. As lightning quick as Marshall was at his peak, I always had the impression that for pure speed Thommo (and Michael Holding for that matter) were just that fraction quicker. And Bradman would have seen both men close at hand.

Perhaps he just ignored any cricketer who played in WSC.

Bradman also went to great pains to explain that Gilbert's over that dismissed him was as fast as, or faster than, anything he ever faced - but also that Gilbert's fitness, temperament and consistency meant he couldn't ever be considered one of the fastest ever over an extended period of time.

 

[The Sean]

This team is solely about achieving the greater glory of Don Bradman isn't it? Because you look at the team and think "Tallon (Test average of minus 35) at number 6? LIndwall at 7? Lillee 8? Well I suppose you can afford it because Sir Don averaged 99.94 and he's at number 3". And then you see Bedser who was a fine bowler but not worthy of a place in an all-time XI who's clearly got in because he bowled Bradman with a good ball once. And then we have Bradman's mates from the Australian team. Grimmett? Morris? Hmmmmmmmmmm.

It's not even that good - Tallon batting at no.6 with a Test average of less than 35 is nearly excusable, but it's actually less than 20. Completely ridiculous - I remember Bradman saying that Tallon was a better batsman than his Test average indicated and that he had FC centuries for Qld. Behave, Sir Don. Test average of 19 does not an All Time XI no.6 make.

The crazy thing about Sir Don's XI is that he said the presence of Sobers - and his subsequent versatility with the ball - was the key, as it allowed him to play five bowlers. I would think completely the opposite, particularly if you've got a bloke averaging 19 coming in at four wickets down to face history's finest. If Sobers' versatility means he can act as the fifth bowler and that one of the other bowlers (probably Grimmett or Bedser) can be dropped to get 12th Man Hammond into the side, then you have this team:

Richards
Morris
Bradman
Tendulkar
Hammond
Sobers
Tallon
Lindwall
Lillee
Bedser/Grimmett
O'Reilly

Notwithstanding the baffling absence of Hobbs (particularly at the expense of an admittedly brilliant batsman who played in all of four Tests), I think even that one change of Hammond for a bowler makes Bradman's side considerably stronger.

 

[The Sean]

Perry get's a lot of stick in Australia for making things up and taking advantage of Bradman towards the end of his life - I am sure Archie could give a better perspective - I've never actually read anything Perry has written

This is true, but it's more than that. If it was just his Bradman devotion then I think there'd be less of an issue - The Don was far too shrewd to allow Perry or anyone else to take advantage of him.

The problem with Roland Perry is that he's simply not very good. He clearly likes cricket and enjoys his subject matter, but so do the rest of us and we're not getting paid for it. As a writer he is no better than moderate, as an analyst of the game he is limited. Worst of all, however, is that he is sycophantic to the point of inducing nausea. There doesn't seem to be a critical writing bone in his body, even when there should be and even when, more to the point, the story is enhanced by applying a critical eye. His books invariably seem to be less of a detailed study of the game and its players and more a fawning PR exercise for whoever he is making money from at the time.

Still, his books sell by the truckload and he gets commissioned to write more. Total books commissioned, written and published by The Sean - nil. So what do I know?

 

[fredfertang]

Only if they conveniently repeatedly avoid the filter.

I would provide examples of how such typos might do such a thing but, well... you know.

Demonstration not required Richard - Mr Z seems to be well versed in filter avoidance!

 

[Richard]

I was thinking the same thing - and in 1986 Bradman claimed that the three fastest bowlers he ever saw were Larwood, Tyson and Marshall. Clearly he thought Lol among the very fastest of all time, though I would have been very keen to ask him where he ranked Thommo. As lightning quick as Marshall was at his peak, I always had the impression that for pure speed Thommo (and Michael Holding for that matter) were just that fraction quicker. And Bradman would have seen both men close at hand.

Perhaps he just ignored any cricketer who played in WSC.

Bradman also went to great pains to explain that Gilbert's over that dismissed him was as fast as, or faster than, anything he ever faced - but also that Gilbert's fitness, temperament and consistency meant he couldn't ever be considered one of the fastest ever over an extended period of time.

I wonder what an "extended period of time" is TBH. Tyson himself acknowledged that he could only bowl the sheer lightning speed - perhaps the fastest ever - that he managed for perhaps a couple of years. And so he did. He retired early, and I'm pretty sure he uttered the words "I'll bowl fast or not at all". If not, someone paraphrased it for him.

Likewise, Holding has always said (as have those who faced him) that he was merely "fast" after his injury in '77, having been probably as quick as anything except Tyson for the couple of years before it. Ditto, of course, Thomson after his own injury in '76/77.

Almost all of those who have pushed speed to the very boundaries of plausibility have been able to do it only for a few years, at best. Shoaib Akhtar and Shaun Tait's injury problems illustrate this perfectly.

 

[The Sean]

I think what Bradman was getting at was that it was difficult for Gilbert to maintain that kind of speed for any more than a few overs at a time, let alone a few seasons.

And I think dear Mr Boycott would argue that Holding was still as fast as ever in 1981...

 

[Richard]

As good as ever, beyond all question.

As fast as ever? Well, we won't ever really know. For starters, Boycs was absent as Holding was running amok in '76.

Peter Willey would perhaps be a better man to consult on Holding's relative speed, but as I say - he himself has always maintained he lost the ability to bowl fast beyond fast after that injury he suffered which allowed Garner in in '77.

 

[The Sean]

That's interesting Rich, I didn't realise Holding had said that - I'd always been under the impression that his pace in the early 80s was a blistering as ever. Would be good to get some accounts from the likes of Willey, as you say.

 

[zaremba]

It's not even that good - Tallon batting at no.6 with a Test average of less than 35 is nearly excusable, but it's actually less than 20.

Sorry - my attempt at a joke - I meant minus as in it's so low as to actually register as a negative.

 

[Richard]

That's interesting Rich, I didn't realise Holding had said that - I'd always been under the impression that his pace in the early 80s was a blistering as ever. Would be good to get some accounts from the likes of Willey, as you say.

I'm not sure he's on record saying it anywhere, but I've definately heard him mention it once or twice during stints on Sky Sports.

There's a really good mini-biography of him on CricInfo somewhere as well... well, available on CricInfo... and I think there might be some mention of his speeds in that.

Certainly makes it plain that his Test career should've started and finished at home in, respectably, '76 and '86. Had it done so, well... look at the averages yourself, if you don't know 'em already. Amazing how much of a difference that series in Australia and that one-off Test in New Zealand makes.

 

[The Sean]

Sorry - my attempt at a joke - I meant minus as in it's so low as to actually register as a negative.

I need to be the one apologising actually - complete misread on my part!

 

[The Sean]

What I've discerned most from all this is that lots of different people thought lots of different people the fastest and second-fastest.

Only two constants seem to be there - just about everyone seems to place Kortright and Larwood as very fast indeed.

True on both counts. While it's always useful to take eye-witness accounts into consideration, even the men who faced these bowlers often provide inconsistent assessments. Hobbs and Sutcliffe, for example, didn't agree on which of Gregory or MacDonald was faster during the early 1920s. Neither man, it seems, was as quick as Tibby Cotter before WWI - though it's hard to tell from contemporary accounts whether Cotter or Jones was the fastest Australian bowler up to that point.

That Kortright was faster than just about anyone seems near-univerally acknowledged, and he could clearly bowl as well - he wasn't just fast and nothing else. Which in itself begs the question - even with competition of the immortal stature of Richardson and Lockwood, how did the man not get given a single Test?

 

[Goughy]

Whilst obviously a posed photograph and whilst he was not as quick as Kortright, I find this photo interesting.

His grip is clearly of a fast off-spin/cutter.

If that is the grip used in games then I dont think the pace could be comparable of those quicks from after the 'golden-age'

 

[SJS]

Okay, here is a treat. Action pictures of Richardson. He is slightly older and a bit rotund I am afraid. :-)

Tom Richardson - Delivery Stride

Tom Richardson - Follow Through

 

[SJS]

Someone mentioned Cotter. Here is another treat. Action pictures of one of the bowlers mentioned in every short list of the fastest bowlers.

Albert (Tibby) Cotter - Action 1

Albert (Tibby) Cotter - Action 2

Albert (Tibby) Cotter - Action 3

Albert (Tibby) Cotter - Action 4

When I first saw these pictures, my day was made. I hope you enjoy them too.

 

[The Sean]

Someone mentioned Cotter. Here is another treat. Action pictures of one of the bowlers mentioned in every short list of the fastest bowlers.

When I first saw these pictures, my day was made. I hope you enjoy them too.

Fantastic SJS, thanks for this. I'd only ever seen the second pic before and always thought there was more than a hint of Thommo to his action. The others are new to me and wonderful to see.

 

[The Sean]

Whilst obviously a posed photograph and whilst he was not as quick as Kortright, I find this photo interesting.

His grip is clearly of a fast off-spin/cutter.

If that is the grip used in games then I dont think the pace could be comparable of those quicks from after the 'golden-age'

Honest Tom was renowned for his mastery of what was called the "break-back" from off to leg, and the grip in that shot tends to validate this. As you say though, it's so pronounced as to preclude genuine express paced bowling if that's the case.

And yet all accounts of his bowling, particularly during his prime, tend to talk of his great speed. While contemporary writings could be written off by the fact that no one else bowled any faster, he was still being put forward as a model of both skill and pace for years after his retirement - you would think if his pace had been noticeably down on those that followed then this would have been noted.

Perhaps judgements of Richardson are clouded a little by nostalgia - he certainly does remain one of the most romantic of all fast bowlers. Cardus likened his bowling to "a great wave of the sea about to break" and chose him as one of the Six Giants of Wisden's first 100 years. Bill Lockwood, when comparing himself to Richardson, once said "I wasn't in the same street" and the stories of his marathon spells and quotes such as, when asked about the increase in the number of balls in an over from five to six, he replied "Give me ten!" have surely only enhanced his mystique to the point of making it exceedingly difficult to separate the fact from the fiction. Perhaps, though, that's just all part of the appeal.

 

[Uppercut]

Wow- Albert Cotter reminds me of Shaun Tait, of all people. This picture's particularly scary:

Could get some serious power from that position.

 

[Goughy]

The Cotter photos are fascinating.

It is an action that is built for pace that only a rare athlete could manage.

Im just leaving work, Ill try and write more later as I think they are great pics.

 

[SJS]

Kortright himself thought the long forgotten Arthur "Timber" Woodcock of Leicestershire to be the fastest ever but as a Gentleman, and doubtless a modest one, I don't suppose we can read too much into that.

What might be more illuminating is that Plum Warner, who thought Kortright the fastest, considered the South African Kotze the second fastest - Kortright's biographer follows that one up with confirmation that Halliwell, the South African 'keeper, was known on occasions to stand up to Kotze and take leg side stumpings!

JJ Kotze coming up next