Fastest over EVER bowled in test cricket history

[oldmancraigy]

By whose report? I keep hearing it, but I can never find a source of any reliability.



Yea, even if it was measured out of the hand, he was certainly quicker pre-injury, and probably pushed mid-high one-fifties then and would probably in contention with Shoaib.

If it is indeed measured at the batsman's end, or averaged, then he would certainly have been the fastest of all time. However, I'm a bit doubtful this is the case, as I said, I can't find any actual source on that.

Hey I'm also dubious! But if the only "reports" are that it was measured at the batsmans end, and there are no "reports" that it was measured out of the hand, then the weight of evidence leans a little bit one way doesn't it?

Either way - no doubt he was express and a 160+ delivery (even if it's just out of the hand) in a test match is insanely fast....

It would've been nice to have the speed-gun in operation his whole career I guess! Folklore talks about him bowling 170+ (and he did hit the sight-screen on the full at the WACA) - but folklore also has Joel Garner at 7' tall (he was "only 6'8).... so I don't put much weight on that.

Be interesting to see how quick bowlers get in 10 years time - will the 'express' bowlers then be slinging it in at 160+ and hitting 170? It seems that all achievements are bettered in time - so we'll see...

 

[Migara]

The only thing I can say with any degree of certainty is that Akhtar is the fastest I have seen since I started following cricket in the mid-late 80s.

No he wasn't. But the fastest was not an Aussie, English or a West Indian either. I believe it is a tie between Mohammed Zahid against Lara in 1993, and Mohammed Akram against Hathurusinghe and Ranatunga in Sialkot in 1995. Those were easily the quickest spells I have seen on television, including Thommo's footages.

 

[Richard]

If you want to get a little impartial about the Holding thing, the speed to take would be the top speed he clocked in a 'speedsters bowloff' in 1978: which was 141.3kmh (Imran Khan just behind him on 139).

Now we can get all romantic about it and talk about where that speed was measured (bowlers hand, mid pitch or at the batsman) and what the relative speed "must" have been - but in the end that's not overly useful is it? Because it doesn't provide any empirical evidence.
(reportedly it was measured towards the batsmans end)

But what we CAN deduce from that 1978 "bowloff" is that we shouldn't bother talking about Michael Holding because he was whipped by an injured Jeff Thomson - who clocked 147.9kmh to finish miles in front.
When I say "injured" I refer to the dislocation of his right collarbone (1976) after which those who faced him said he never bowled as fast again.

Prior to the collision (1975) he had twice been clocked over 160 in a test match by a radar gun - again, reportedly this was at the batsmans end (according to those present and those measuring) - but if true that would seem ridiculously quick...

Anyway - all this does is remove Holding from discussion, but promotes Thomson (pre-1976) as a candidate for the 'fastest over ever bowler'

Right then, try realising the fact that Holding had also suffered an injury which, exactly like Thomson's collision with Turner, reduced his pace.

In any case I've never set any real stall by those measurements in the '70s. The technology used to make them was not reliable - the first time anyone has made accurate measurements of bowlers' pace was in 1998. Even if said measurements were accurate, we know that they refer to something different to what is nowadays considered to be bowling speed.

Thomson for those couple of years in '74/75 and '75/76 may well have been as fast as anything except Tyson in '54/55. However, it is very likely that Holding in '76 was the same, and that Shoaib Akhtar of late has been likewise.

As for Wesley Winfield Hall, I've no idea.

 

[Richard]

Richard, was merely pointing out that often players are 'blinkered' by their own era and cant see past it.

Err... no, I wasn't. It is true that some players are blinkered by their own time and can't see past it, but I made no mention of this anywhere this thread.

What was refreshing about this discussion was that he was able to say look, these windies bowlers were incredible bowlers, but they werent arent werent any quicker than todays mob. incidentally that was in the days of Reon King and the like. Now i fully realise he couldnt bowl and comparing them as bowlers is crazy.

Im also not saying that King and co are quicker they are not but all he is trying to say is that these guys have been put up on a pedestal when in fact pace wise they shouldnt be but as bowlers of course.

What you said was that you had real evidence that West Indian bowlers of late were quicker than those of the '70s and '80s... because one person said so. This is so nonsensical it needs little further discussion. As I've said, that there was no difference in speed is very likely - and in fact no-one has ever talked of Roberts, Marshall etc. as being anything other than 90 mph ish. Garner is generally said to have been often only fast-medium, but capable of cranking it up every now and then when the mood took him.

BTW the assertion that King "couldn't bowl" is also utter cluelessness - King was one hell of a prospect whose career was ruined by injury. Anyone who saw him before his own injury will tell you that.

BTW it is commonly accepted that Sylvester Clarke was the uickest and nastiest of that crop. I have spoken to many international batsman from different countries and they all say that. Incidentally he wasnt as good a bowler as the other lot but was the quickest.

Clarke wasn't particularly unlucky - he made his own bed by electing for Rebel tours. He and Croft were generally said to be the nastiest of the many Caribbean seamers of the two decades and Clarke's bowling talent was certainly rated by many domestic cricketers in England and South Africa as equal to the likes of Roberts, Holding, Garner and Daniel (not Marshall, almost all recognised him as a cut above the rest).

Whether Clarke would have been an outstanding Test bowler if he'd gotten the chance can of course never be known. It may be likely, but it is not certain.

Last point, players never play92-93mph bowling with ease even if there is never any movement. That is **** quick in everbodies language

Actually they do. I have never once seen a batsman beaten for pace by a ball at 92-93 mph (except, of course, if it's a quicker effort-ball, in which case they're beaten by change of pace not pace in itself). 92-93 mph is indeed exceptionally quick and if the ball does anything much you're in business, but it's not quick enough to beat a batsman of Test standard purely and simply for pace.

 

[Richard]

Yeah - I was trying to help his argument a little with the very few figures out there.

There are no figures of any reliability before 1998. Until then we can only go on what batsmen, wicketkeepers and viewers thought, which isn't ideal, but is all there is.

 

[Richard]

Be interesting to see how quick bowlers get in 10 years time - will the 'express' bowlers then be slinging it in at 160+ and hitting 170? It seems that all achievements are bettered in time - so we'll see...

Not neccessarily. There is a ceiling on everything, and there's no reason to assume that that for speed of bowling hasn't been hit long ago. There is no amount of anything that will make a bowler's arm or run-up quicker as nutrition, technology etc. develop. And some bowlers have always bowled with outstanding actions that maximise the ability for pace.

It's very conceivable that Larwood in the 1920s was bowling at exactly the same speed as Thomson and Holding in the 1970s and Shoaib Akhtar in the 1990s.

 

[fredfertang]

Bowlers may well have seemed faster to batsmen prior to 1969 because of the old back foot no ball law which allowed the quicks to "drag" and therefore, in effect, shorten the pitch

 

[Uppercut]

No he wasn't. But the fastest was not an Aussie, English or a West Indian either. I believe it is a tie between Mohammed Zahid against Lara in 1993, and Mohammed Akram against Hathurusinghe and Ranatunga in Sialkot in 1995. Those were easily the quickest spells I have seen on television, including Thommo's footages.

Interesting.

There's no reason why the guy who can fling a ball down with the most pace must necessarily be international class. The fastest over ever bowled was quite possibly by someone we've never heard of, contained a number of wides and maybe a few beamers and didn't threaten the stumps once.

 

[trapol]

Richard

If you honestly believe that batsman of whatever class arent beaten by 92/93 mph you really have no idea.

In fact i would go as far to say that this comment is arguably the worst and most ridiculous comment ive ever heard about the game. Man you have no idea what its like to face bowling at that speed.

I have in Fact faced both Mo Zahid and Reon King and Zahid is definitely a yard up on King. He was genuinely quick and the post about him to Lara in 93 was a different league.

King Is only an average bowler in the greater scheme of things, who cares if he was a good prospect. I said that the 80s test player said that all the Windies bowlers were no quicker than he and co.

My point is that that would take out all those Windies players for out and out speed but of course not for quality of bowling. Thats a different topic.

 

[Goughy]

Interesting.

There's no reason why the guy who can fling a ball down with the most pace must necessarily be international class.

 

[Evermind]

Richard

If you honestly believe that batsman of whatever class arent beaten by 92/93 mph you really have no idea.

In fact i would go as far to say that this comment is arguably the worst and most ridiculous comment ive ever heard about the game. Man you have no idea what its like to face bowling at that speed.

I have in Fact faced both Mo Zahid and Reon King and Zahid is definitely a yard up on King. He was genuinely quick and the post about him to Lara in 93 was a different league.

King Is only an average bowler in the greater scheme of things, who cares if he was a good prospect. I said that the 80s test player said that all the Windies bowlers were no quicker than he and co.

My point is that that would take out all those Windies players for out and out speed but of course not for quality of bowling. Thats a different topic.

Welcome to cricketweb. Just a warning: arguing with Richard may be hazardous to your mental health.

 

[fredfertang]

Interesting.

There's no reason why the guy who can fling a ball down with the most pace must necessarily be international class. The fastest over ever bowled was quite possibly by someone we've never heard of, contained a number of wides and maybe a few beamers and didn't threaten the stumps once.

No indeed - at various times Charles Kortright (by almost all his contemporaries), Billy Burns (by Frank Chester) and Eddie Gilbert (by Bradman), none of whom ever appeared in Test Cricket, have been declared the fastest ever by people whose opinions are worth listening to.

 

[grecian]

Andre van Troost was the quickest I've seen. He was crap though......

 

[archie mac]

It is a fun debate but people making definite statements such as Shoaib was quicker than Holding seem to have little more then opinion to back them up. I watched Holding in Aust in the mid 80s and he was as quick as anyone I have watched, and I imagine he was slower then circa 76.

Rose coloured glasses have always been the way in cricket. Walter Brearley after seeing Ernie Jones said 'I could throw my hat faster"

Jones on seeing Larwood said "he couldn't knock a dent in a pound of butter on a hot day"

And so it goes from generation to generation. I would imagine once someone bowls over 90 it is quick and a mile here or there would not make a huge amount of difference

 

[Debris]

Every time I have seen Aktar and Brett Lee in the same match, Brett Lee has been quicker. I am pretty sure I remember Brett Lee bowling an over where every ball was in the high 150s. Yet to see any concrete evidence that Aktar was consistently quicker than Lee.

Aktar probably seemed faster because of what else he could do with the ball but based on the speed gun he wasn't.

Would only be speculating about older bowlers because they were not recorded. I suspect again they seemed faster because protective equipment was worse or not around. I do find it a bit hard to believe that with all the traing and analysis around these days that bowlers are slower than in the past. It doesn't happen in any other sport.

 

[SJS]

It is a fun debate but people making definite statements such as Shoaib was quicker than Holding seem to have little more then opinion to back them up. I watched Holding in Aust in the mid 80s and he was as quick as anyone I have watched, and I imagine he was slower then circa 76.

Rose coloured glasses have always been the way in cricket. Walter Brearley after seeing Ernie Jones said 'I could throw my hat faster"

Jones on seeing Larwood said "he couldn't knock a dent in a pound of butter on a hot day"

And so it goes from generation to generation. I would imagine once someone bowls over 90 it is quick and a mile here or there would not make a huge amount of difference

Thats right.

Another thing people tend to forget is that today the speeds are measured ONLY at the point of delivery. Whereas when the speeds were measured earlier, it was done on the basis of averages speed over the 22 yards. There is a big difference.

Finally as you said, above 90 miles per hour is really fast. It At 90 miles per hour (average and not at point of delivery) it gives you exactly 0.5 secs over 22 yards (0.477 over 21 if you please). If the speed was to go up to 100 mph average (which hasn't been achieved) these figures change to 0.474 secs and 0.431 secs respectively.

These figures are given to show not that there is no difference between 90 or 100 (or that the difference is massive) but to put in perspective what it means practically.

An increase of five mph at that speed roughly translates to a difference of one yards for the batsman. So a batsman who was good enough could decide early and go back on his backfoot, could actually negate the additional speed advantage than one who stood rooted to the crease. Conversely going forward would add the equivalent of another five miles to the speed as far as time available to the batsman is concerned.

Interesting.

 

[silentstriker]

Hey I'm also dubious! But if the only "reports" are that it was measured at the batsmans end, and there are no "reports" that it was measured out of the hand, then the weight of evidence leans a little bit one way doesn't it?

I don't really see that as evidence though. Any word from people who actually did the measuring? You may be right - I am not discounting it. I just don't know, and I am simply skeptical. My guess is the measuring technique has been about the same - but I could be mistaken on that.

 

[SJS]

I don't really see that as evidence though. Any word from people who actually did the measuring? You may be right - I am not discounting it. I just don't know, and I am simply skeptical. My guess is the measuring technique has been about the same - but I could be mistaken on that.

I actually heard Imran Khan talking about it on TV and he was one of those who took part in that contest.

 

[silentstriker]

I actually heard Imran Khan talking about it on TV and he was one of those who took part in that contest.

I've heard bowlers themselves mentioning it, but if you look at the video, you can clearly see the screen with the cameras only being where the bowler delivers the ball, not throughout or at both ends to measure the speed accurately and averaging it. Averaging would not necessarily make sense either, as in that case, all the bowlers would be bowling full tosses to remove the pitch. But you don't see any bowler doing that. However, without knowing the methodology, that does not necessarily prove anything.

It was conducted by Dr. Frank Pyke of University of Western Australia. So I thought I'd ask him - what the hell, it can't hurt. I've sent him an email (he is still active, he was quite young in 1979). Let's hope he responds, and we'll know one way or the other.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Players frankly are really bad at judging pace, especially differences of 5-6mph. I remember right after the introduction of speed guns, players were shocked as some of the bowlers they thought were express turned out to be mid eighties. It seemed that way because of their action, or because of their other characteristics, they were simply harder to face.

They may have been faster, they may not. I'd say not, but I'm sure as heck not going to take players words for it. To listen to some of the players, every leg spin bowler they faced was 200mph and fast bowlers were breaking mach III.

Depends though. In the end, it doesn't matter how quick the ball is on the speed gun, it's how quick the batsman finds it.