Fastest over EVER bowled in test cricket history

[rivera213]

Is this a good time to ask how the Aussie points system works for immigration?

I personally don't see a problem with players born in a different country representing England if they give 100%.

I'd take a Kevin Pietersen over a Steve Harmison every day of the week.

A person doesn't have the chance to choose where they are born, but if they make themselves available for selection for England only (and let's not kid ourselves, Pietersen would bat at No. 4 in every team in the world so it's not a case of not being good enough for your "own" country) then I don't see the problem.

Meaker has been here since he was 13 and Chambers wanted and was granted British citizenship. Both are within their right to represent England and have done since the Under-19 level.

 

[Goughy]

I personally don't see a problem with players born in a different country representing England if they give 100%.

I have no problem with it either. Unfortunately though it isnt as simple as that.

Players born overseas (for whatever reason) or appear different have an easier ride to England selection.

Maybe it makes them more interesting, maybe they appear more exciting, maybe it is false hope, maybe it is an inferiority complex, maybe it just raises their profile, maybe it helps them stand out from the crowd or maybe it is all these things.

However, being born overseas or having a different angle is an advantage when it comes to England selection. We have seen various fashions over the years.

I think it isnt more serious than laziness on the behalf of the selectors as 'being different' raises the profile and public interest levels. Still annoying though.

 

[Uppercut]

I have no problem with it either. Unfortunately though it isnt as simple as that.

Players born overseas (for whatever reason) or appear different have an easier ride to England selection.

Maybe it makes them more interesting, maybe they appear more exciting, maybe it is false hope, maybe it is an inferiority complex, maybe it just raises their profile, maybe it helps them stand out from the crowd or maybe it is all these things.

However, being born overseas or having a different angle is an advantage when it comes to England selection. We have seen various fashions over the years.

I think it isnt more serious than laziness on the behalf of the selectors as 'being different' raises the profile and public interest levels. Still annoying though.

Hmm. But for every Darren Pattinson who gets an opportunity he doesn't deserve there's a Jonathan Trott who performs for years without getting a look in. And for every Amjad Khan incompetent foreigner there's a Sajid Mahmood incompetent Englishman. I'm not sure if there's that much more to it than general crap selection. I don't think the phenomenon exists to quite the extent you do.

 

[GIMH]

I dunno, I think he has a point. If a player who is a couple of years from qualifying scores a century at taunton, you can guarantee that there will be at least five posts asking when he becomes England-qualified.

Whether the selectors follow suit I don't know, but as far as public perception goes I definitely agree with Goughy

 

[Richard]

The fact they play for counties suggest they are more than club bowlers. Clue is in the title.

I'm talking about -standard. There's currently no evidence that any are good enough for county cricket. And it's not like they're all little 17-year-olds; they're in their 20s now and if they're going to be anything like international-class you'd imagine they'd probably have done something vaguely notable at county level by now. But they haven't.

James Harris was taking Championship wickets at a decent rate before his 17th birthday. That is promise. Chambers, Westfield, Meaker, Jordan etc. are to date not.

 

[archie mac]

I'm more interested in average delivery speed than a single delivery being 100mph and I know the bowlers in the 2 tests had a number of deliveries timed (and that the ball Lillee said was his fastest was actually his slowest. Lol).

I don't get the average for fast bowlers when it comes to speed?

Surely if a particular bowler bowls a lot of slower balls that would make his average irelevent (spelling)

 

[rivera213]

I'm talking about -standard. There's currently no evidence that any are good enough for county cricket. And it's not like they're all little 17-year-olds; they're in their 20s now and if they're going to be anything like international-class you'd imagine they'd probably have done something vaguely notable at county level by now. But they haven't.

James Harris was taking Championship wickets at a decent rate before his 17th birthday. That is promise. Chambers, Westfield, Meaker, Jordan etc. are to date not.

Some players take time to develop and the English wickets don't exactly lend themselves to quality seam bowling like it did in years gone by.

In terms of ability, Meaker has very good control while bowling at high speeds and is skiddy. The majority of bowlers aren't really complete enough for international consideration til mid 20's anyway, I'm not talking about them waltzing into the England team and taking 5-for straight away like Dennis Lillee. I'm talking about a few years of county cricket, tours, facing quality batsmen & developing themselves as bowlers with knowledgable bowling staff like those at Surrey and Essx.

James Harris, while already pretty good, is only a medium pacer who I see as being a Martin Bicknell level bowler. He doesn't have anywhere near the pace to unsettle batsmen on the dead flat wickets around the world and I can't see how he's going to up his pace sufficiently enough without changing his action, even taking into account the fact he's still growing. This is where stats don't tell the full story.

People who think pace doesn't matter at international level are naive, you have to be GREAT (McGrath, S.Pollock etc) to trouble people bowling sub-90mph and Harris doesn't have that talent level IMHO.

I don't see how, in Meaker's case, bowling 90mph+ (up to 96mph) every delivery with accuracy at the age of 20 ISN'T potential. There's nothing guaranteeing he'll fulfil that potential, but that doesn't mean there isn't something there.

 

[rivera213]

I don't get the average for fast bowlers when it comes to speed?

Surely if a particular bowler bowls a lot of slower balls that would make his average irelevent (spelling)

If a bowler bowls many slower balls then yeah the average speed wouldn't really tell the full story (someone like Stuart Broad bowls loads of bvariation deliveries). Guys of the mid 70's to mid 90's didn't really bowl too many slower balls though and nowadays bowlers aren't really fast enough for their slower ball to make much of a difference in the batsman's reaction time). Not enough to drop the average sufficiently when they're bowling 15-20 overs per day.

My estimated averages are of a bowler's "fast" deliveries (no slower balls, cutters etc) and they're what I'd estimate over a full spell, not a single over. I've no doubt the speed merchants of the 70's bowled a number of single overs of near full pace (particularly Holding to Boycott and Close).

 

[rivera213]

I have no problem with it either. Unfortunately though it isnt as simple as that.

Players born overseas (for whatever reason) or appear different have an easier ride to England selection.

Maybe it makes them more interesting, maybe they appear more exciting, maybe it is false hope, maybe it is an inferiority complex, maybe it just raises their profile, maybe it helps them stand out from the crowd or maybe it is all these things.

However, being born overseas or having a different angle is an advantage when it comes to England selection. We have seen various fashions over the years.

I think it isnt more serious than laziness on the behalf of the selectors as 'being different' raises the profile and public interest levels. Still annoying though.

I can't think of many foreign-born players we've had in the team since I've been watching (17 years or so) that haven't deserved the oppurtunity (even if when they got to test level they flopped).

It's impossible to say whether guys like Tony Grieg, Robin Smith, Allan Lamb, Basil D'Olivera etc would've chose England over South Africa if they had the opportunity to play for SA, but all were good selections IMO.

Graeme Hick also deserved his chance, though didn't live up to his county form and I'm sure had Zimbabwe got test status, would've played for them.

I don't include guys like Nasser Hussain & Andrew Strauss as "foreign". They are very much English through and through, regardless of their surname.

Players like Amjad Khan, Geraint Jones, Tim Ambrose & Darren Pattinson were crap selections though. It was/is obvious neither of them are good enough for international level.

 

[Uppercut]

People who think pace doesn't matter at international level are naive, you have to be GREAT (McGrath, S.Pollock etc) to trouble people bowling sub-90mph and Harris doesn't have that talent level IMHO./QUOTE]

Emphatically not having that. Neither are Stuart Clark, Jason Gillespie, Ryan Sidebottom, Chaminda Vaas, Darren Gough or Mohammed Asif. All of whom are, in addition to McGrath and Pollock, in the top 20 fast bowlers of the past ten years (50+ wickets).

 

[Jono]

Blewwy was just cooler than cool.

*is

 

[Richard]

Some players take time to develop and the English wickets don't exactly lend themselves to quality seam bowling like it did in years gone by.

Players take time to develop of course, but I'm exceptionally sceptical that someone who has done nothing of note in county cricket by the time they've hit their early-20s is ever going to be international-class.

Chris Jordan especially has never looked remotely like a county-standard bowler, and the amount of excitement over him so far simply beggars belief. Utterly clueless.

In terms of ability, Meaker has very good control while bowling at high speeds and is skiddy. The majority of bowlers aren't really complete enough for international consideration til mid 20's anyway, I'm not talking about them waltzing into the England team and taking 5-for straight away like Dennis Lillee. I'm talking about a few years of county cricket, tours, facing quality batsmen & developing themselves as bowlers with knowledgable bowling staff like those at Surrey and Essx.

James Harris, while already pretty good, is only a medium pacer who I see as being a Martin Bicknell level bowler. He doesn't have anywhere near the pace to unsettle batsmen on the dead flat wickets around the world and I can't see how he's going to up his pace sufficiently enough without changing his action, even taking into account the fact he's still growing. This is where stats don't tell the full story.

People who think pace doesn't matter at international level are naive, you have to be GREAT (McGrath, S.Pollock etc) to trouble people bowling sub-90mph and Harris doesn't have that talent level IMHO.

I don't see how, in Meaker's case, bowling 90mph+ (up to 96mph) every delivery with accuracy at the age of 20 ISN'T potential. There's nothing guaranteeing he'll fulfil that potential, but that doesn't mean there isn't something there.

OK, we've yet to see any hard evidence of Meaker's 96 mph bowling. All supposition so far. I myself have also yet to see any evidence of, well, anything else about him. So I'll wait until I have before I decide whether he's so sensationally promising.

As for the 90 mph pace being essential at Test level - well, it just isn't. It's actually extremely naive to suggest it is. Hardly any of the best bowlers have actually had to bowl at that sort of pace (that is, throughout the time they've been good - plenty have done at some stage before continuing to be good after ceasing to bowl at that pace), and many of those who have have been very poor indeed.

If Harris is indeed capable of no more than 81-82 mph at most, then well, maybe he will indeed struggle to be a good Test bowler. But it's not a given. And nonetheless, he's done far, far more than most 17-year-olds will ever do so thus he's far more promising than some random nobody who happens to bowl at 90 mph.

 

[Richard]

Emphatically not having that. Neither are Stuart Clark, Jason Gillespie, Ryan Sidebottom, Chaminda Vaas, Darren Gough or Mohammed Asif. All of whom are, in addition to McGrath and Pollock, in the top 20 fast bowlers of the past ten years (50+ wickets).

Hmm, well Gough and Gillespie were TBH. But that wasn't what made them good.

But anyway, as I say, precious few bowlers have had to bowl at 90 mph + to be good Test bowlers. Pace of bowling is so hideously overrated. Not that it's not hugely useful if you can bowl at 90 mph, but to think it's a basic neccessity for Test success is simply wrong.

 

[Debris]

Can't be sure but, for me, noone got through an over faster than Darren Lehmann.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Dave Hussey runs him close.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hmm. But for every Darren Pattinson who gets an opportunity he doesn't deserve there's a Jonathan Trott who performs for years without getting a look in. And for every Amjad Khan incompetent foreigner there's a Sajid Mahmood incompetent Englishman. I'm not sure if there's that much more to it than general crap selection. I don't think the phenomenon exists to quite the extent you do.

I agree with your general gist, but I think it's been slightly overstated that Pattinson didn't deserve his chance. We were looking for a bowler who swung it and, at the time, if my memory serves, he was top of the first division wicket taking list.

I think there was a bit of resentment amongst some county bowlers that an Aussie arriviste who hadn't paid his dues was suddenly in the test squad from nowhere. Or from Melbourne, which is pretty much the same thing.

 

[rivera213]

Players take time to develop of course, but I'm exceptionally sceptical that someone who has done nothing of note in county cricket by the time they've hit their early-20s is ever going to be international-class.

That could just be down to being on a leash from the Surrey staff- not wanting to ruin his development.

OK, we've yet to see any hard evidence of Meaker's 96 mph bowling. All supposition so far. I myself have also yet to see any evidence of, well, anything else about him. So I'll wait until I have before I decide whether he's so sensationally promising.

It was an OFFICIAL ECB speed test, though tbh as soon as you see him bowl you'll realise what I mean.

As for the 90 mph pace being essential at Test level - well, it just isn't. It's actually extremely naive to suggest it is. Hardly any of the best bowlers have actually had to bowl at that sort of pace (that is, throughout the time they've been good - plenty have done at some stage before continuing to be good after ceasing to bowl at that pace), and many of those who have have been very poor indeed.

You misunderstood. I'm saying you have to be a GREAT bowler to bowl at medium pace and be a consistently successful international player.

All the sub-90mph bowlers that have had successful test careers are truly great bowlers who stand up against anyone. McGrath (later in his career, people don't realise he was bowling up to 92mph in his early days), S.Pollock (later in his career), Ambrose (when he lost his pace), Walsh (later in his career), Kapil Dev etc.

Not every seamer has to bowl 90+, but the margin for error is smaller the slower you bowl.

If Harris is indeed capable of no more than 81-82 mph at most, then well, maybe he will indeed struggle to be a good Test bowler. But it's not a given. And nonetheless, he's done far, far more than most 17-year-olds will ever do so thus he's far more promising than some random nobody who happens to bowl at 90 mph.

Hopefully he will be a hit. I'd love nothing better. I'd estimate he'd bowl around 85mph when he's fully grown.

Don't get me wrong, if he learns to swing the ball both ways, varies his pace well, can deliver a slower ball with almost identical action speed as his fast delivery, can adapt his bowling to different conditions etc he'll be a hit.

Hopefully he WILL. He certainly has good stats until now and in 7 years' time, who knows?

 

[zaremba]

People who think pace doesn't matter at international level are naive, you have to be GREAT (McGrath, S.Pollock etc) to trouble people bowling sub-90mph and Harris doesn't have that talent level IMHO.

Emphatically not having that. Neither are Stuart Clark, Jason Gillespie, Ryan Sidebottom, Chaminda Vaas, Darren Gough or Mohammed Asif. All of whom are, in addition to McGrath and Pollock, in the top 20 fast bowlers of the past ten years (50+ wickets).

And Cork, Hoggard, Caddick, Fleming, Alderman, Reid, Streak, Massie, etc etc etc. The list really does go on on and on.

I accept that, coupled with other factors, pace is a real asset to a bowler. But you don't need to be "GREAT" to trouble good batsmen bowling sub-90mph.

 

[zaremba]

McGrath (later in his career, people don't realise he was bowling up to 92mph in his early days)

Was he? I know he was pretty quick but I don't remember any speedguns being in operation back in 1997 when I first saw him bowl in England, and I've not seen him anywhere close to 92mph since then.

I'd be surprised if he was that quick, although it wouldn't be out of the question.

 

[rivera213]

Gough bowled 90mph+ at peak (93mph max I believe) and Gillespe started getting whooped when he lost his pace (2005 Ashes as proof).

Clark hasn't had a substancial international career.

Vaas is arguably a great bowler.

Asif isn't that good, and he's a drug cheat so shouldn't be mentioned.

Cork, Caddick were flash in the pan bowlers at international level.

There's also a HUGE difference between troubling batsmen for a few years til they work you out and having a long career which is what I'm hoping Harris has.

Only great medium pacers have had success over an extended period.