Speeds pre-1998

[Goughy]

Yep. I can't see how you'd GAIN more pace as you get older past the age of 23 or something so I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility he was hitting 97-98 in 1994-1996.

Did you watch him in the early 90s?

 

[funnygirl]

Many of the quicks post 98 has have suspicious action . looked ugly to the naked eye.

Pre98 quicks had much better action atleast pleasing to the naked eye.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Warne'd had no chance of taking 9-12, or probably even particularly good figures, against such outstanding players of spin as Haynes, Kallicharran and Lloyd.

Yeah, despite the fact that those players never been played any spin-bowler anywhere near the calibur of Shane Warne. That comment is as about as true as someone saying that Marshall, Holding, Garner, etc would be murdered by the likes of Hayden, Ponting, Steve Waugh & Gilchrist. Even ask King Pietersen, he rates Ricky Ponting very highly.

 

[The Sean]

Warne'd had no chance of taking 9-12, or probably even particularly good figures, against such outstanding players of spin as Haynes, Kallicharran and Lloyd.

Haynes was a lot of things, but I wouldn't have called him an outstanding player of spin. Abdul Qadir for one seemed to pwn him pretty regularly.

 

[fredfertang]

Any batsman who succeeded against Bedi, Chandra, Venkat and Prasanna in the 70's, as Lloyd and Kallicharran did, can legitamately claim to be an outstanding player of spin

 

[rivera213]

Did you watch him in the early 90s?

Not early 90's, but from 1994 onwards.

I was a proper cricket geek from around 9-16 years of age, even used to tape highlights and keep them even though sometimes I saw the game live!

 

[Goughy]

Not early 90's, but from 1994 onwards.

I was a proper cricket geek from around 9-16 years of age, even used to tape highlights and keep them even though sometimes I saw the game live!

I did the same

 

[fredfertang]

I hope no one has suggested that such an activity is anything other than a normal healthy habit?

 

[rivera213]

I did the same

Cool (well, probably not in most people's eyes but in mine at least! ha ha).

I think the BBC had all England cricket rights back then.

I wish I kept better care of my tapes- I had (amongst the collection) Atherton's 185* and Malcolm's 9/57.

Atherton was bad ass against South Africa. If he played against South Africa every week, he'd be 1 of the most successful batsmen of all time.

 

[rivera213]

I hope no one has suggested that such an activity is anything other than a normal healthy habit?

Ha ha.

If not for school obligations (ie- actually going to school. Lol) my habit would've been even worse.

 

[Richard]

Did not know that. His pace must have declined rapidly then, as he was merely a 135kph bowler towards 2001-2003.

He did. I've said it many times - Donald lost so much between early-2001 and early-2002. Some people don't accept this, of course, but that's the way it went. He was quite superlative one minute and barely a year later he was a skeleton.

Purely with hindsight I so wish he'd hung-up his boots after the West Indies tour of 2001, even though I would never, ever have wanted that at the time and can absolutely 100% see why he wasn't thinking that way (because, as I say, I wasn't myself).

 

[Richard]

Yeah, despite the fact that those players never been played any spin-bowler anywhere near the calibur of Shane Warne.

Any batsman who succeeded against Bedi, Chandra, Venkat and Prasanna in the 70's, as Lloyd and Kallicharran did, can legitamately claim to be an outstanding player of spin

QED.

FYI, Bedi-Chandra-Prasanna-Venkat was either the best or second-best spin attack in cricket history (the only competitor being the SA wristspin triplet of Schwarz, Vogler and Faulkner in the 1900s). To succeed against them is a far more notable achievement than succeeding against one spin bowler, however good, in Warne.

 

[Manee]

He did. I've said it many times - Donald lost so much between early-2001 and early-2002. Some people don't accept this, of course, but that's the way it went. He was quite superlative one minute and barely a year later he was a skeleton.

Purely with hindsight I so wish he'd hung-up his boots after the West Indies tour of 2001, even though I would never, ever have wanted that at the time and can absolutely 100% see why he wasn't thinking that way (because, as I say, I wasn't myself).

Quite interesting that he lost so much over a short period of time.

 

[funnygirl]

He did. I've said it many times - Donald lost so much between early-2001 and early-2002. Some people don't accept this, of course, but that's the way it went. He was quite superlative one minute and barely a year later he was a skeleton.

Purely with hindsight I so wish he'd hung-up his boots after the West Indies tour of 2001, even though I would never, ever have wanted that at the time and can absolutely 100% see why he wasn't thinking that way (because, as I say, I wasn't myself).

But he is the bowler who had a very short span of bad days among his contemporaries.I loved to watch him in 2001 though .He was still unplayable.Maintained that beautiful run up and fluid action.

 

[Richard]

Quite interesting that he lost so much over a short period of time.

Purely in terms of the pace, I'm not so sure it was quite that quick. I don't remember him being White Lightning in South Africa in 1999/2000 (he was still damn brilliant, but I don't think he was quite as quick as previously). I might be wrong as I don't have speedgun readings from that series, as I do from the 1998 one and the 1999 World Cup.

The last time I know for certain that Donald was still seriously quick was the 1999 World Cup. The pace possibly dropped-off gradually from then to 2001. The quality, however, went in the blink of an eye in mid-2001. This does happen - can easily happen. And has done on a few occasions, including in the case of the great AAD.

 

[Goughy]

This does happen - can easily happen. And has done on a few occasions, including in the case of the great AAD.

Yeah, continued wear and tear and then one injury brings the whole house down. Many have done through it, ranging from Larwood to Gillespie and Nel

 

[zaremba]

Bedi-Chandra-Prasanna-Venkat was either the best or second-best spin attack in cricket history (the only competitor being the SA wristspin triplet of Schwarz, Vogler and Faulkner in the 1900s). To succeed against them is a far more notable achievement than succeeding against one spin bowler, however good, in Warne.

You know what I'm going to post here Richard... "mostly hopeless" etc... so consider it posted!

 

[Richard]

Haynes was a lot of things, but I wouldn't have called him an outstanding player of spin. Abdul Qadir for one seemed to pwn him pretty regularly.

Haynes seemed, from what I know of him, to get better against spin as the years rolled on - anyone who scored whatever it was he made in Border's Match in '88/89 must be pretty good - though I must say I'm probably exaggerating his skill by grouping him with Lloyd and Kallicharran, who truly were outstanding.

Of course, that chap called Vivian Richards wasn't bad either, though most accounts seem to put him below Lloyd and Kallicharran.

 

[Richard]

You know what I'm going to post here Richard... "mostly hopeless" etc... so consider it posted!

You know, there's quite a few posters down the years who've grabbed one line I've posted early in my correspondance with them and ran with it down the years.

Most famous example being Fuller and his "well Richard says White was better than McGrath", even though I of course didn't actually say that.

 

[zaremba]

You know, there's quite a few posters down the years who've grabbed one line I've posted early in my correspondance with them and ran with it down the years.

Tbf, something about your style just demands it! At least it shows that what you write is memorable.

And btw you're wrong to claim that White is better than McGrath.