Fastest over EVER bowled in test cricket history

[Richard]

Well... aside from the fact that other athletes could also use these drugs if they were illegal... I'd say that the ability to train for long has to be accompanied by a willingness to do it, which far from all possess. This too should be applauded.

 

[Richard]

Caddick fan-boy much?

Not a fanboy, I don't do fanboyism. But Caddick could be a damn superb bowler, and you underestimate him if you think he couldn't.

Yeah and I saw all of Caddick's test career and he wasn't as good as you think he was. I don't see why you like him so much, he had 3 good years, not even great years- just good.

Nah, Caddick between July 1999 and May 2001 was absolutely superb. Nothing short of. Had he been able to keep that up for longer - or, better, started to produce it earler - he'd have been one of England's best bowlers.

He was only great against the poor and/or fading teams (New Zealand & West Indies from memory). His record against Australia is poor.

That's because he never played against Australia at the only time he was bowling sustainedly well. Had Australia been on England's itenerary in 2000 or 1999, he'd have destroyed them too, simple as. You make the mistake of thinking the batsman controls the game when you say "he only did well against poor and\or fading teams". Caddick's bowling was so good in that time that he'd have gotten the figures against any batsmen.

He also, BTW, had odd spells (an innings, a game, sometimes even 2 or 3 games) where he bowled well against Australia between 1993 and 1998, and between 2001 and 2002/03. Same as against other teams, though, this was only on odd occasions.

Temperament is part of being a bowler btw.

Easily as good as Bob Willis, no way. Bob got pissed off and bowled better, Caddick got hit by batsmen and flopped.

Really? Some of Willis' worst performances came when the likes of Fredericks, Greenidge etc. got after him. Caddick sometimes responded well to batsmen going after him. It all depended what mood he was in and what the pitch was like - what the batsmen did was near-irrelevant.

Had Caddick been better of temperament he could easily have been as good as Bob Willis. John Snow, BTW, was even better than Willis. Ask pretty much anyone who saw them bowl. Or look at the stats from the relevant phases of their careers.

Because Asif's drug taking added pace which turned him from decent to good. That added A LOT to his bowling. Not his accuracy, no steroid can do that otherwise Sami would've taken some, but added that extra zip which got wickets. That's cheating, simple as.

As I say, Asif's pace was increased by maybe 3-4 mph. This is barely noticeable to top-class batsmen.

He always swung the ball but early (very early) in his career, he was much faster. As he got better, he mastered swing and it became largely irrelevent how quick he was. The same with Akram. Both slowed down a lot as they mastered swing.

Not really. Wasim was a master of swing all his career; Waqar was a master of swing between 1990/91 and 1994/95 - and he was also extremely quick in this time. I'd say Waqar's ability to swing the ball dimmed more than his pace after his injury, and thus he became so much lesser a bowler.

Brett Lee has still gotten wickets though whereas others of a slower pace haven't and hasn't often been smashed since he's got into the Aussie team "full time".

Lee has rarely been out of the Australian team since 1999/2000 (he only had one spell out, in the calendar-year of 2004 - otherwise he's barely missed a game). And mostly he's been smashed, and hasn't gotten many wickets. He's had two very short spells of great effectiveness, but neither of them (1999/2000-2000/01 and 2007/08) had anything to do with how quickly he was bowling.

Malcolm Marshall is simply a great bowler, if he bowled at 80mph he would've taken wickets.

That's not my point. I know there have been great slower paced bowlers, but you NEED to be great to have a long & successful career if you bowl slower than "Fast"- even more important nowadays.

You need to be what you're terming "great" to have a long and successful career. Regardless of how quick you are.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Okay, I think it's fair enough to say it wasn't to do with pace - it just sounded to me like you were 100% certain that drugs were nothing to do with his success which in all honesty is something we can't be certain of either way.

Making a bowler quicker isn't the only way drugs could help improve a bowler.

Quite so.

A bowler, purely hypothetically, might have an injury that would keep him out of a major tournament, take a prohibated substance that's known to speed recovery and be fit in time to take part.

 

[nato]

apologies if anything i say has been said already, i read the first page or 2 and couldnt believe the amount of crap that people were coming up with. People saying about Shoaib been quicker than someone and it went on and on and on ....

Not long ago i was working with someone, an ex first class cricketer who also played a handful of tests for Australia. Went on a few tours, West Indies among them. I asked him at the time, who was the quickest bowler he had faced, and he said without doubt, that Thomson was the quickest he had faced. He said Holding and all them were quick, and not nice to face, but he said Thomson pace wise, was just on another level. He also added, that he in his opinion, had no doubt Thomson at his peak would of bowled 170kph.

Either way, Facing Thomson, Lillee, Holding, Roberts, Ambrose, Marshall, Waqar, Wasim.... it would of been horrible haha. I think facing Marshall might almost of been the worst, he could bowl so many different balls, he could probably hit you with all of them and just tease you ..... i guess we could ask Mike Gatting!

If the crap had finished in this thread, then i apologise for bringing it up again at top of post.

 

[fredfertang]

In my youth I went to a dinner where Colin Cowdrey was a guest speaker - for some reason he didn't seem to be particularly keen to give a straight answer to the "who is the fastest bowler you have ever seen" question but when put on the spot said Jeff Thomson - someone then, with a howl of anguish, pointed out he'd played five tests alongside Frank Tyson in 54/55. Cowdrey, ever the diplomat, simply said that his perception of speed was different when he was 22 than when he was 42.

 

[Manee]

It raises an interesting point though, seemingly minor things such as perception as one gets older are critical when judging empirical evidence.

 

[vic_orthdox]

As I say, Asif's pace was increased by maybe 3-4 mph. This is barely noticeable to top-class batsmen.

Tosh, especially from the pace he was coming from.

Nah, Caddick between July 1999 and May 2001 was absolutely superb. Nothing short of. Had he been able to keep that up for longer - or, better, started to produce it earler - he'd have been one of England's best bowlers.

That's because he never played against Australia at the only time he was bowling sustainedly well.

So, funnily enough, he didn't bring his best against the best of his time? When all his form leading up to that had indicated otherwise?

 

[GIMH]

Well... aside from the fact that other athletes could also use these drugs if they were illegal... I'd say that the ability to train for long has to be accompanied by a willingness to do it, which far from all possess. This too should be applauded.

You cannot applaud somebody who breaches regulations, it's as simple as that. Nobody is above the law. If you disagree with the law, fine, but that doesn't give you the right to break it.

 

[Richard]

In my youth I went to a dinner where Colin Cowdrey was a guest speaker - for some reason he didn't seem to be particularly keen to give a straight answer to the "who is the fastest bowler you have ever seen" question but when put on the spot said Jeff Thomson - someone then, with a howl of anguish, pointed out he'd played five tests alongside Frank Tyson in 54/55. Cowdrey, ever the diplomat, simply said that his perception of speed was different when he was 22 than when he was 42.

Ind33d. No way of getting around that. There's just no true way of telling speed when you're a batsman facing it for certain.

It's why there are so many different accounts of who was faster out of various crops of bowlers. Only when there's a real wedge between one and another - eg Darren Gough to Shoaib Akhtar - is it likely that all will be in agreeance.

 

[Richard]

Tosh, especially from the pace he was coming from.

So you're seriously telling me that the Asif of 126-128kph or so was vastly different to the one of 132-134kph? I'm surprised. The sea-change in Asif was not in pace but in accuracy, skill and nous.

So, funnily enough, he didn't bring his best against the best of his time? When all his form leading up to that had indicated otherwise?

You watch the games in question and you keep a straight face telling me Caddick's bowling was no different.

The notion that Caddick bowled exactly the same against the Australians in 2001 as he had against New Zealand, Zimbabwe and West Indies in 1999 and 2000 and the Australians punished severely what others had laboured against is nothing but absurd.

It's every bit as absurd as the notion that the Indians punished what everyone else struggled against with Warne's bowling.

 

[Richard]

You cannot applaud somebody who breaches regulations, it's as simple as that. Nobody is above the law. If you disagree with the law, fine, but that doesn't give you the right to break it.

So because someone has breached one regulation that means nothing whatsoever that they do - even if everything else is within regulations - is worthy of applause?

 

[Burgey]

In my youth I went to a dinner where Colin Cowdrey was a guest speaker - for some reason he didn't seem to be particularly keen to give a straight answer to the "who is the fastest bowler you have ever seen" question but when put on the spot said Jeff Thomson - someone then, with a howl of anguish, pointed out he'd played five tests alongside Frank Tyson in 54/55. Cowdrey, ever the diplomat, simply said that his perception of speed was different when he was 22 than when he was 42.

Interesting that, because my own experience (at a much, much lower level of course) is that I tended to think the blokes I faced when I was 18-22 were shed loads quicker than those I've faced from 30 onwards, and they fazed me a lot more when I was younger as well.

Then again, maybe they were a shed load quicker :dunno:

 

[Top_Cat]

You watch the games in question and you keep a straight face telling me Caddick's bowling was no different.

The notion that Caddick bowled exactly the same against the Australians in 2001 as he had against New Zealand, Zimbabwe and West Indies in 1999 and 2000 and the Australians punished severely what others had laboured against is nothing but absurd.

But that's sorta Jack's point I reckon; had Caddick played against the Aussies even in the middle of his purple patch, he probably still would have struggled. Had form and fitness in the lead-ups to the Ashes series' against lesser opponents but faltered against the Aussies. You're essentially arguing that his form dropped off coincidentally at the exact time he started a series against the Aussies every time. That you can say that with a straight face is interesting.

As far as Warne goes, actually, yeah he pretty much did bowl the same stuff against the Indians as he did against the other teams. It just wasn't good enough. I've made the point many times that no visiting spinner has performed even vaguely well in India for yonks and Warne was no different but when the same cricketer with form on their side does less well against a specific opponent on multiple occasions, the idea that it's random chance crumbles and is fairly quickly replaced with a trend. Much like Caddick against the Aussies.

My own perception of Caddick's bowling in the series I saw him bowl in against Australia (away in 1997, 2001 and home in 2003/03) was that in all those series he really did come into them in good form and certainly ripped the occasional ball past the Aussie batsmen. There's no way he was out of form in 1997 or 2001. His lack of success was really because he couldn't sustain it for very long and had long periods where he'd sit back-of-a-length and be economical but unthreatening. Not the bowling of someone who would '.....have destroyed them too, simple as.' Not buyin' what yo sellin', dawg.

 

[vic_orthdox]

So you're seriously telling me that the Asif of 126-128kph or so was vastly different to the one of 132-134kph? I'm surprised. The sea-change in Asif was not in pace but in accuracy, skill and nous.

Asif didn't bowl inaccurately, it was that he was bullied by the Australian batsmen because he was bowling a fairly dead ball. He wasn't hitting the pitch hard nor hurrying the batsmen at all; Gilchrist pulled a half volley for six!

You watch the games in question and you keep a straight face telling me Caddick's bowling was no different.

The notion that Caddick bowled exactly the same against the Australians in 2001 as he had against New Zealand, Zimbabwe and West Indies in 1999 and 2000 and the Australians punished severely what others had laboured against is nothing but absurd.

TC covered a lot of it above. For mine, it was more of a case of weathering an early storm and then Caddick grew more impatient. When he really got his tail up, he could be a handful and was likely to run through you. If you could blunt him early, he generally bowled worse as the innings went on, and that could be carried onto the next game if you didn't let him get off to a start.

It's every bit as absurd as the notion that the Indians punished what everyone else struggled against with Warne's bowling.

Even when Warne did bowl well, the fact that he aimed the ball outside leg or on leg stump played into the hands of the Indians. He actually had to change his style of bowling by the time he did OK in the last series, bowling at the stumps and keeping them driving through the offside.

 

[Top_Cat]

Even when Warne did bowl well, the fact that he aimed the ball outside leg or on leg stump played into the hands of the Indians. He actually had to change his style of bowling by the time he did OK in the last series, bowling at the stumps and keeping them driving through the offside.

His pace made a big difference too. Was quicker through the air after being mauled in 1997 with loopy leg-spin. Either Sachin would slap him against the spin over cow corner (still stunning) or guys like Azhar would get down the track and flick him through mid-wicket. Bowling quicker made it much harder for them to do it allied with the change in line you mentioned.

 

[Richard]

But that's sorta Jack's point I reckon; had Caddick played against the Aussies even in the middle of his purple patch, he probably still would have struggled. Had form and fitness in the lead-ups to the Ashes series' against lesser opponents but faltered against the Aussies. You're essentially arguing that his form dropped off coincidentally at the exact time he started a series against the Aussies every time. That you can say that with a straight face is interesting.

I'm saying nothing of the sort, actually. I was extremely worried after the Second Test against Pakistan in 2001, because it was very obvious to me that in that match Caddick had bowled far worse than he ever had, once, over the past couple of years. And the same, incidentally, was true of England's catching. And sure enough, both haunted them badly in the following series against Australia.

And he'd struggled every bit as much against other teams 1993-1998 as he did against Australia. Truth was that he had odd good spells against all teams and many poor ones. There was absolutely no correlation of him being good against everyone else and poor against Australia.

As far as Warne goes, actually, yeah he pretty much did bowl the same stuff against the Indians as he did against the other teams. It just wasn't good enough. I've made the point many times that no visiting spinner has performed even vaguely well in India for yonks and Warne was no different but when the same cricketer with form on their side does less well against a specific opponent on multiple occasions, the idea that it's random chance crumbles and is fairly quickly replaced with a trend. Much like Caddick against the Aussies.

So it's just coincidence that Warne bowled absolutely dreadfully against all teams in virtually all other games in between the series' in India in 1997/98 and 2000/01? I don't think so. I think Warne just bowled poorly in that period, and the Indians punished him worse than most. Had he bowled as he did between NZ '92/93 and SA '97/98 in that time he'd have been moderately (probably not hugely, but certainly moderately) successful against them. Just as he was when he finally hit an India series in the middle of a spell where he was bowling as we mostly knew him to bowl (ie, 2001 to 2005).

My own perception of Caddick's bowling in the series I saw him bowl in against Australia (away in 1997, 2001 and home in 2003/03) was that in all those series he really did come into them in good form and certainly ripped the occasional ball past the Aussie batsmen. There's no way he was out of form in 1997 or 2001. His lack of success was really because he couldn't sustain it for very long and had long periods where he'd sit back-of-a-length and be economical but unthreatening. Not the bowling of someone who would '.....have destroyed them too, simple as.' Not buyin' what yo sellin', dawg.

Caddick also struggled to bowl economically against Australia... and, yes, also others in the 1993-1998 period, and also the 2001-2002/03 one.

Caddick wasn't often "out-of-form" as such - he was just not all that good at Test level between 1993 and 1998. Nor was he that good between the Second Test against Pakistan in 2001 and the end of his career. It had absolutely nothing to do with Australia.

 

[Richard]

TC covered a lot of it above. For mine, it was more of a case of weathering an early storm and then Caddick grew more impatient. When he really got his tail up, he could be a handful and was likely to run through you. If you could blunt him early, he generally bowled worse as the innings went on, and that could be carried onto the next game if you didn't let him get off to a start.

This doesn't really tie-in with Caddick's most common trait - to be more successful in the second-innings than first-. It is true that he was sometimes haunted by impatience, but certainly not that if you could get on top of him early he'd generally get worse. Caddick had any number of occasons (and they were much more common '99-'01 than before or after) where he'd bowl anonoymously for a while then suddenly just click into gear and rip an opposition apart.

Asif didn't bowl inaccurately, it was that he was bullied by the Australian batsmen because he was bowling a fairly dead ball. He wasn't hitting the pitch hard nor hurrying the batsmen at all; Gilchrist pulled a half volley for six!

Well if you say so, and I wasn't watching that match with sufficient attention-to-detail to recall his exact pitchmaps. However, you can't bully bowlers just because they bowl a dead ball, except maybe occasionally if you're Adam Gilchrist. Otherwise all batsmen would control most games, and that just isn't the case - bowlers control the game, as I've mentioned about 1,349,741 times.

 

[Top_Cat]

So it's just coincidence that Warne bowled absolutely dreadfully against all teams in virtually all other games in between the series' in India in 1997/98 and 2000/01? I don't think so. I think Warne just bowled poorly in that period, and the Indians punished him worse than most. Had he bowled as he did between NZ '92/93 and SA '97/98 in that time he'd have been moderately (probably not hugely, but certainly moderately) successful against them.

Haha, what? There was less than a month between when Warne had just finished bulldozing South Africa and the first tour game in India where Warne went for more than 6 an over and immediately before a Test series where he was spanked by the Indians. You're not seriously arguing a sudden loss of form or that he radically changed how he bowled in that time? It's because he bowled the same stuff that wrecked NZ and SA that he got smashed. The same outside leg from around the wicket deliveries which scared the pants off Cronje and co were being deposited over the fence in the arc between mid-wicket and mid-on. He'd have gone the journey regardless.

 

[Richard]

Spinners scaring the pants off Cronje? That's news to me. Wasn't a million miles behind the Tendulkars and Azharuddins as a player of spin in my experience.

Either way, I have never seen more than odd isolated balls from that Ind-vs-Aus series in '97/98. I've heard that his shoulder was already beginning to worsen in condition by the Australian home season and got gradually worse still in India; I have, yes, also heard that he bowled no different in that series to how he had done for 5 years previously. Which to believe I don't know, but that either could be true is conceivable to me.

However, there's no disputing that Warne between that India series and the one in 2000/01, didn't bowl well in Test cricket. Against anyone. Well, OK, a couple of decent games in Sri Lanka in 1999/2000. Apart from that, nothing. India, England, West Indies, Pakistan, New Zealand - he could do nothing against any of 'em. Heck, people were very seriously talking about him retiring imminently, before his return to form in the 2001 Ashes.

 

[GIMH]

So because someone has breached one regulation that means nothing whatsoever that they do - even if everything else is within regulations - is worthy of applause?

Okay, let's put it this way. A batsman is on 19, they hit one to mid-off and the fielder shells it. The batsman goes on to score 132. You believe that the innings should have ended at 19, what he did afterwards is almost irrelevant when it comes to you ranking the batsman, because he shouldn't have been out there.

Asif took illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Therefore what he did after doing so is pretty much irrelevant to me; he shouldn't have been on the pitch. It doesn't really matter how much drugs had to do with it (we differ in our opinion on that and obviously will never know for sure, fair enough) because he shouldn't have been playing.

That's the way I view drugs cheats.