• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Fastest over EVER bowled in test cricket history

SJS

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks a ton for clarifying that one SS. Great job.
 
Migara

Migara

International Coach
SJS said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's not that simple. Pld method used the average speed of the ball, whereas current method uses the horizonthal vector of the speed at the point of release. It's apples and oranges.
 
Manee

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
No, which is a tad annoying. I have read in Lillee's book about the 1975 study, as noted in the article, if that helps the validity.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Doesn't really - not that I don't believe Lillee, but many of the older methods had a very high degree of uncertainty. The 1979 study was pretty accurate, we know that much so the significantly higher speeds of 1975 definitely raises a few bells. But before making a judgement, I'd like to find the methods they used.
 
pasag

pasag

RTDAS
We (read Manan) have asked for an interview with Dr Pyke about the 1979 competition and the issue in general for the CW site. Hopefully he'll agree and be able to answer some of the long standing questions in the field.
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
pasag said:
We (read Manan) have asked for an interview with Dr Pyke about the 1979 competition and the issue in general for the CW site. Hopefully he'll agree and be able to answer some of the long standing questions in the field.
Click to expand...
Good stuff :)
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Debris said:
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.
Click to expand...
The technology used in all speedguns is exactly the same. Of course speeds vary from country to country - there are any number of factors impacting on this (bowlers generally don't want to waste effort by trying flat-out in really hot conditions; the air in South Africa on the Highveldt is thinner so the ball travels faster; etc. etc.).

Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee were round about the same pace. There is absolutely no way Lee was quicker.
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? 8-)
Click to expand...
Cricket is indeed completely incomparable to any other sport - what happened in another sport is 100% irrelevant to cricket. As most other sports are incomparable to others, in fact. But cricket especially has precious little in common with, well, anything.

Cricket needs to be judged by itself, not using wrong-headed analogies to other sports. Look at the requirements for bowling fast - do not look at the requirements for running over 100 metres or throwing a javelin.
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.
Click to expand...
Protective equipment is utterly irrelevant because those wearing it and those not wearing it were completely different people!!!
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Richard said:
hat's frankly ridiculous. It is perfectly possible that Edwards and Lawson (no-one else) were as quick as the likes of Roberts, Marshall, Garner, Croft, Clarke, etc. (notice - not Holding) but to suggest they were quicker makes precisely zero sense. There is no way one person's view on this is of the remotest relevance. Not a single other person has ever made that suggestion when I've been observing, for starters. For seconds, every other person who has talked of the majority of West Indian quicks of the '70s and '80s says they were quick. Only Holding was ever said to be insanely quick (Shoaib\Tait sort of speed) but no-one thought they were below fast.
Click to expand...
Gatting in his autobiography talks about the first time the English tourists faced Marshall, in (IIRC) 1980. He said be bowled at "warp speed".

Gower ranks Sylvester Clarke as the fastest bowler he ever faced.

I realise this is anecdotal etc but I'd say these 2 (who faced some pretty quick bowling in their time) are well-qualified to comment.

For the reasons I've already given, however, I don't think your basic thesis (that Holding was insanely and outstandingly quick) is irrational.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Marshall and Clarke may have been capable of bowling the odd ball at 95 mph upwards. May have. But I'd say it's as likely as not.

I remember a good few people saying in 1999 and 2000 that Reon King was as quick as almost anything they'd faced too TBH. I certainly remember him clocking 92 mph at one point - and this was in a summer where he was being troubled by (as I'm about to say on a CricketWeb profile) "running on the pitch, trouble controlling the lavishly swinging ball, losing his run-up, a tendency to bowl too short and, most damagingly of all, a painful left heel".

Heaven knows how quick he might've been when all was well.
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Migara said:
It's not that simple. Pld method used the average speed of the ball, whereas current method uses the horizonthal vector of the speed at the point of release. It's apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point.

The really quick deliveries, according to the speedgun, are almost invariably those which are pitched up to the batsman, whereas what appear to be extremely fast bouncers are usually clocked significantly slower (I remember a 95.3 mph Brett Lee bouncer at the Oval in 2005, though, which KP hit for 6). I assume this is because the short-pitched balls have less horizontal speed due to the fact that they are angled more sharply downwards. Something to do with triangles and some chap called Pythagoras I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top