I remember Sarwan being hit in the chest by a short ball from Craig White in 2000 which literally knocked him backwards. He was clearly expecting something on the trundling side of medium and it came as a big shock to him when it came at him at genuine pace.Never fails to amuse me that.
Also, that was a great Matt79 post GIMH quoted.
No, not at all - I just wondered, and was amused to see you using the exact same words.
No, I just know that one particularly well because it's from the thread which contains possibly the most famous post in CW history:Is it your hobby to revise and recall every post ever posted on cricketweb?
chris.hinton said:
What about Charles Harenc and Samuel Redgate?
And anyone prepared to look hard enough may come across other instances of me commiting the exact same sin. Sometimes if I have already made a point on a topic that is relevant to a current thread I get lazy and just copy and paste my previous post.
I was trying to think of bowlers from the generation prior to Larwood, to reinforce Bagapath's point that there have been bowlers of all speeds in all eras since the commencement of Test cricket.
It is good to know my presence on the forum has had a positive impact on the cricketing knowledge of cricketweb's most prolific poster!
The reason spinners were so much more effective was because of uncovered wickets. A) this meant wickets helped spinners inestimably more, and more often, and B) once it rained all that much that basically took the seam bowler out of the game, because with footwear that existed back then it was impossible for a seamer to keep his footing on a wet wicket.
People are becoming highly misguided regarding pace, imo. Lee and Shoaib were two of the all time quickest in their hayday (along with Thomson and Tyson, imo), we can't be comparing every bowler to the all time standouts, it just won't work. A 92mph average is bloody quick, if you consider that when Fidel Edwards even bowled a spell at that pace in the Tests against England in West Indies, it would always create several chances per over. Moreover, I don't recall Shoaib and Lee bowling consistently above 150kph in Tests (for more than an isolated series), ever, nor in ODIs, away from the 2003 World Cup, again, away from isolated games.
That's because Lee hasn't bowled consistantly over 150kph for about 5-6 years. For the last couple of years, his been bowling well within' himself to gain accuracy but in his earlier days he was always above 150kph.
I remember watching Lee bowl when I was younger and he had just first started out (1998-2002), he would usually get above 150kph and I remember watching that and that anything below 150kph was a disappointment. Being brought up in kph and seeing Lee bowl, made me think that 90mph isn't that fast afterall, once realizing that 90mph = 145kph and after I had seen Lee easily break 150kph so often in his earlier days.[/QUOTE]
Not in 1998 or 1999 he wasn't, but it's not completely and totally inconceivable (though, I think, unlikely) that he was quite as quick as they were in 2001-2002 sort of time in 1992-1994-ish.
He was pretty darned quick in the early 90s. At the WC in '92 people watching Donald and Patrick Patterson bowling in the nets side by side reckoned Donald was significantly quicker.
Patterson was a spent force by 1992, wasn't he?
Not as fast as Shoaib overall, but when he bowled against Atherton, he was lightning fast and in a spell, it's not beyond possibility he was hitting serious speeds.
Not Shoaib overall during his fastest (1999-2003), but I think the Donald of 1992-1996 was as fast as Lee at peak.
The Atherton spell did have a speed gun. A diferent method maybe to now but speeds were given (89 mph IIRC). It isnt comparable to the way speeds are given now but Id be interested in how that was calculated.
EDIT: Yep, one ball at 89mph, not that that proves much but interesting nonetheless.
Brilliant action, one of the best, imo.
