Fastest over EVER bowled in test cricket history

[vic_orthdox]

Also, I've been trying really hard to actually see the full over, scouring youtube for Shoaib vs Punter. Remember watching it at the time, was awesome to watch.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

Of course. Raw speed is a different issue from effectiveness.

 

[Richard]

Richard

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

Actually I do.

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.

Yes I do, actually - see, I've seen people do it, lots. And I've heard top-class batsmen talk about it, lots.

No top-class batsman ever gets beaten purely for pace - ie, can't get the bat down quickly enough - by deliveries merely in the early-90s in mph. It has to be a fair bit quicker than that to even have a chance.

That's not to say such deliveries are slow, by any stretch of the imagination. But to beat a top-class batsman purely and simply for pace takes insanely fast deliveries.

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.

Can't see what the point of posting this is. No-one is in any doubt that Zahid for those few months was seriously, freakishly fast.

King Is only an average bowler in the greater scheme of things, who cares if he was a good prospect.

Err - quite a lot of people actually. King was a damn fantastic bowler for a brief time, and to say he wasn't simply shows ignorance of the way things were.

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.

Those two lines are completely contradictory. If King, Rose, McLean etc. would "take out" the seamers of the '70s and '80s for speed, then this means they were quicker. It's generally a good idea to understand the words you are uttering before you utter them.

Let's go through this again - King, Rose, McLean, Edwards and Lawson probably were\are about the same pace as Roberts, Marshall, Daniel, Croft, Davis etc. and maybe even a bit quicker on average than Garner. They were not, however, remotely likely to be as quick as Holding in 1976.

 

[Richard]

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.

Well, they both matter. The pace out of the hand is what matters as far as what the bowler's achievement is, but "how quick the batsman finds it" (ie, what his reaction time has been) is of course the most important thing as to how difficult the delivery is to play.

And of course there is much besides pace that makes deliveries difficult to play. Most notably sideways movement and bounce.

 

[Richard]

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.

Actually he was - believe it or not, Pakistan vs Australia isn't the only game in international cricket.

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.

How does training and analysis make the quickest bowlers likely to be quicker? The requirements to bowl at high pace are the same now as they were in the 1900s - a fast arm, good fitness, a quick run-up and a good bowling-action. All of these can be and were achieved long, long ago.

Bowlers wouldn't seem quicker because of lack of protective equipment. Aside from anything else, those who did the facing with protective equipment weren't the same as those who did the facing without protective equipment.

 

[Debris]

Actually he was - believe it or not, Pakistan vs Australia isn't the only game in international cricket.

How does training and analysis make the quickest bowlers likely to be quicker? The requirements to bowl at high pace are the same now as they were in the 1900s - a fast arm, good fitness, a quick run-up and a good bowling-action. All of these can be and were achieved long, long ago.

Bowlers wouldn't seem quicker because of lack of protective equipment. Aside from anything else, those who did the facing with protective equipment weren't the same as those who did the facing without protective equipment.

Australia vs Pakistan may not be the only game but it is the only time we can make a direct comparison. Speed guns and conditions seem to vary so the only reliable gauge is looking at their speed in the same match. And, as I say, in these matches Brett Lee always seemed to be faster. Review them if you don't believe me.

So if better training does not help, explain to me how sprinters now are much faster than they were 50 years ago. Are not the requirements the same now as then and could have been achieved a long time ago? In all sports where improvements can be measured, there have been improvements. Athletes 50 years ago just were not as strong or as technically good as they are today because training techniques were not there. This is why world records usually don't last that long. Or are you saying that cricket is some sort of bizarre special case?

And if you don't think protective equipment helps, try driving a car at 100kmh and then sit in a billy-cart at the same speed. See which seems faster.

 

[Goughy]

So if better training does not help, explain to me how sprinters now are much faster than they were 50 years ago.

Well if we ignore the changes in tracks, the changes in footwear, changes in clothing, advances in chemistry etc

 

[Debris]

Well if we ignore the changes in tracks, the changes in footwear, changes in clothing, advances in chemistry etc

They would still be faster now. And anyway, all these things apply to cricketers as well.

Javelin throwers may have perhaps been a better example. They throw it further (ie. faster launch speeds) now than in the past.

 

[Manee]

Scarcely relevant to this thread, I stumbled upon some foorage of Holding bowling in 1976 on youtube and have to say that it seems to look more in the 140-150kph range than anything beyond.

 

[GIMH]

They would still be faster now. And anyway, all these things apply to cricketers as well.

Javelin throwers may have perhaps been a better example. They throw it further (ie. faster launch speeds) now than in the past.

Isn't the Javelin WR shorter than it used to be because they chanegd the Javelin?

Might have only been in the women's, not sure

 

[Burgey]

Scarcely relevant to this thread, I stumbled upon some foorage of Holding bowling in 1976 on youtube and have to say that it seems to look more in the 140-150kph range than anything beyond.

Don't reckon you can tell with much reliability from the footage tbh mate. If you look at the 74-75 footage of Thommo, Marsh doesn't look to be further back than he was for Lillee, but everyone says he was, and considerably so. When we're talking the difference between very quick, super-quick and uber-quick, you can't really tell from normal footage sans a speed gun imo.

 

[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.

So, Dr. Frank Pyke was good enough to get back to me, and according to him:

The speed was measured out of the bowler's hand.​

His words, straight from the guy who did the measurement. That's that.

So to me, it seems that Thommo was as quick as anyone we have now pre-injury and possibly faster, if he was still bowling 148kph post-injury, as everyone agrees he slowed down after. However, it does put him more into the reasonable range, as well as the rest of the bowlers instead of having 10 bowlers who were all supposedly capable of bowling 150+ in the seventies. I have no idea how the 'we take average speed' myth got started though, as it seems to be a common perception.

 

[Top_Cat]

Scarcely relevant to this thread, I stumbled upon some foorage of Holding bowling in 1976 on youtube and have to say that it seems to look more in the 140-150kph range than anything beyond.

From all reports, that pitch was dead so it's pretty likely Holding cut back on his pace a bit.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, in the fastest bowler competition, he averaged 135 kph, with a fastest of 141 kph. Even if that was a slow day for him, you'd still say 140-145kph is about his range.

 

[Top_Cat]

So, Dr. Frank Pyke was good enough to get back to me, and according to him:

The speed was measured out of the bowler's hand.​

His words, straight from the guy who did the measurement. That's that.

So to me, it seems that Thommo was as quick as anyone we have now pre-injury and possibly faster, if he was still bowling 148kph post-injury, as everyone agrees he slowed down after. However, it does put him more into the reasonable range, as well as the rest of the bowlers instead of having 10 bowlers who were all supposedly capable of bowling 150+ in the seventies. I have no idea how the 'we take average speed' myth got started though, as it seems to be a common perception.

Haha, you're going to be unbearable from now on in debates about this.

Well, in the fastest bowler competition, he averaged 135 kph, with a fastest of 141 kph. Even if that was a slow day for him, you'd still say 140-145kph is about his range.

It's interesting the question you raised earlier of players being poor judges of speeds. Because I distinctly remember Holding in the comm box during the 1999 WC saying of Akhtar (against Scotland I think) "Wow, that's fast. I never bowled that quick." It's tempting from what we know of Holding and his public statements to say he was being excessively modest but who knows?

 

[silentstriker]

Haha, you're going to be unbearable from now on in debates about this.

Haha, yea . The facts are what they are - I couldn't stand all the hearsay that everyone always threw around, and it was weird because the videos implied that the speed was indeed being measured from the hand. And I couldn't find a first hand description of the methodologies anywhere!

In any case, the speeds on that day do not mean they never bowled faster (in case of Lillee and Thompson - they most certainly did prior to injuries), but it does give you a very good, objective, and accurate reading of their general range.

 

[trapol]

Let us remember that when you are entered into a speedball competition with no consequences you are able to run in and try and bowl as fast as you can.

So its entirely plausible to think that these guys bowled as quickly as they could at that given time.

Personally i think one of the best gauges is simply how far back the wicket keeper is standing. I know its a very unscientific way but when talking quick spells the keeper will usually be a long way back.

 

[archie mac]

Let us remember that when you are entered into a speedball competition with no consequences you are able to run in and try and bowl as fast as you can.

So its entirely plausible to think that these guys bowled as quickly as they could at that given time.

Personally i think one of the best gauges is simply how far back the wicket keeper is standing. I know its a very unscientific way but when talking quick spells the keeper will usually be a long way back.

From memory and was only a kid, they were given extra marks for hitting the wicket

 

[silentstriker]

From memory and was only a kid, they were given extra marks for hitting the wicket

Yes, there was an accuracy component, but most times they didn't bother. Many times, you just saw them bowling short. Last two balls, they all seemed to go all out on speed.

 

[Debris]

Isn't the Javelin WR shorter than it used to be because they chanegd the Javelin?

Might have only been in the women's, not sure

The javelin is shorter and less aerodynamic than it used to be. Continuous improvements meant that they were starting to throw it far enough to hit the track instead of the field.