Best up and coming players

[Blaze 18]

100Mph = 160Kmph(roughly). Not 150.

I didn't say it was I asked that question after seeing this post :

Well Shoaib is still bowling some pacy stuff. There are few guys who are touching 150 mark ATM

 

[Mike5181]

The bowlers of the pre modern era of cricket back then had no where near as much physical training/technique tweaking and the likely hood that many of them were touching 150 let alone 160 would be pretty bleak. You really would have to put Lee, Tait, Ahktar as the fastest bowlers cricket has ever seen.

 

[Shri]

Honestly tell me how many did bowl around 160? Possibly less than ten in all history. Md. Zahid, Md. Akram, Shoaib Akthar, Shaun Tait, Brett Lee, Jeff Thompson and possibly Michael Holding and Md. Sami. Almost all of them are post 1970. Only exception I could think of are Roy Gilchrist, Fred Trueman and Frank Tyson. But I feel they are more 150k bowlers rather than 160k bowlers with possible exception of Gilchrist.

Thats exactly why i want to see 'em back. They are rare and would make fast bowling great to see again. Been a long time since I have seen a 155-160 Kmph bowler live.

 

[M0rphin3]

The bowlers of the pre modern era of cricket back then had no where near as much physical training/technique tweaking and the likely hood that many of them were touching 150 let alone 160 would be pretty bleak. You really would have to put Lee, Tait, Ahktar as the fastest bowlers cricket has ever seen.

Awta.

 

[Goughy]

The bowlers of the pre modern era of cricket back then had no where near as much physical training/technique tweaking and the likely hood that many of them were touching 150 let alone 160 would be pretty bleak. You really would have to put Lee, Tait, Ahktar as the fastest bowlers cricket has ever seen.

That is as much bollocks as old guys saying "it was tougher in my day." It is swings and roundabouts. There are elements of truth to both but both obscure the full picture.

Life was more physical in the black and white days. Older cricketers accuse modern players of lacking strength. Just read the day-to-day activities of guys like Appleyard and Larwood.

Certainly there wasnt the gym work then but there isnt the day-to-day lifting, walking, running from a young age that older players experienced. They were more physical from a young age and bred to deal with physical hardships. Bowling fast is about pushing through the pain barrier and I would speculate that those conditioned to tolerate greater physical strains would be better at it. Add in the fact that they bowled a lot more overs from a young age and you could make a case for them being stronger allround. To borrow from American sport, 'farm strength' is is more allround than 'gym strength.'


There isnt an easy answer to the question, who is better conditioned? Without a doubt gym work helps but maybe that is just compensating for the less outdoor and more tame lifestyle people now have?

On a tangent, no gym work will replace Kenyan children running 10 km to school everyday at altitude. Just as no gym work will replace spending all day everyday being active outside in all conditions.

I'm not saying that guys bowled 160 kph in the past. Possibly Tyson did, Larwood maybe hit 150, Thomson surely did etc but my point isnt about speed. Its about people thinking that modern techniques elevate current athletes above others based on physicality when in reality those possibly just play catch up to the losses from a more sedentary and softer lifestyle.

As a wild theory, fast bowling specific gym work may add a few kph but allround physical exertion from childhood breeds greater tolerance to hardship and less susceptable to injury. Maybe the ideal fast bowler is someone from the past with a more rough, basic and physical upbringing with a modern scientific diet and a tailored weight regime?

 

[Bahnz]

Awta. A good modern example would be Shane Bond. He was essentially acting as only a semi-pro cricketer, with the only real conditioning that he got coming from his training with the police force, right up until the year of his selection in 2001, and he was still capable of 150+ pretty much straight from the go.

 

[GotSpin]

That is as much bollocks as old guys saying "it was tougher in my day." It is swings and roundabouts. There are elements of truth to both but both obscure the full picture.

Life was more physical in the black and white days. Older cricketers accuse modern players of lacking strength. Just read the day-to-day activities of guys like Appleyard and Larwood.

Certainly there wasnt the gym work then but there isnt the day-to-day lifting, walking, running from a young age that older players experienced. They were more physical from a young age and bred to deal with physical hardships. Bowling fast is about pushing through the pain barrier and I would speculate that those conditioned to tolerate greater physical strains would be better at it. Add in the fact that they bowled a lot more overs from a young age and you could make a case for them being stronger allround. To borrow from American sport, 'farm strength' is is more allround than 'gym strength.'


There isnt an easy answer to the question, who is better conditioned? Without a doubt gym work helps but maybe that is just compensating for the less outdoor and more tame lifestyle people now have?

On a tangent, no gym work will replace Kenyan children running 10 km to school everyday at altitude. Just as no gym work will replace spending all day everyday being active outside in all conditions.

I'm not saying that guys bowled 160 kph in the past. Possibly Tyson did, Larwood maybe hit 150, Thomson surely did etc but my point isnt about speed. Its about people thinking that modern techniques elevate current athletes above others based on physicality when in reality those possibly just play catch up to the losses from a more sedentary and softer lifestyle.

As a wild theory, fast bowling specific gym work may add a few kph but allround physical exertion from childhood breeds greater tolerance to hardship and less susceptable to injury. Maybe the ideal fast bowler is someone from the past with a more rough, basic and physical upbringing with a modern scientific diet and a tailored weight regime?

Great post. Recovering dignity after the Ashes thread fiasco

 

[Goughy]

Great post. Recovering dignity after the Ashes thread fiasco

haha

 

[GotSpin]

haha

I was never a fast bowler myself, was a left arm ortho, but wouldn't (excessive) weights stress a pace bowlers body to the point of incurring career threatening injuries?

Surely the best thing for a pace bowler, or any bowler for that matter, is just to bowl as much as possible and tone the body to accept the pain of bowling fast?

 

[TumTum]

Yeah good point Goughy. I had the exact same thing in the back of my head for a long time but never got the opportunity to post it.

The only difference is that bowlers of today are much more aware of the injuries you can get when fast bowling and are able to fine-tune their action for long periods of quick pace. Another thing is they're are able to train and strengthen certain muscles in the body which can avoid those injuries from a young age by adopting basic training regimes.

But I have no doubt that bowlers in those days can achieve the pace of bowlers of today, only problem is not getting injured.

 

[Himannv]

That is as much bollocks as old guys saying "it was tougher in my day." It is swings and roundabouts. There are elements of truth to both but both obscure the full picture.

Life was more physical in the black and white days. Older cricketers accuse modern players of lacking strength. Just read the day-to-day activities of guys like Appleyard and Larwood.

Certainly there wasnt the gym work then but there isnt the day-to-day lifting, walking, running from a young age that older players experienced. They were more physical from a young age and bred to deal with physical hardships. Bowling fast is about pushing through the pain barrier and I would speculate that those conditioned to tolerate greater physical strains would be better at it. Add in the fact that they bowled a lot more overs from a young age and you could make a case for them being stronger allround. To borrow from American sport, 'farm strength' is is more allround than 'gym strength.'


There isnt an easy answer to the question, who is better conditioned? Without a doubt gym work helps but maybe that is just compensating for the less outdoor and more tame lifestyle people now have?

On a tangent, no gym work will replace Kenyan children running 10 km to school everyday at altitude. Just as no gym work will replace spending all day everyday being active outside in all conditions.

I'm not saying that guys bowled 160 kph in the past. Possibly Tyson did, Larwood maybe hit 150, Thomson surely did etc but my point isnt about speed. Its about people thinking that modern techniques elevate current athletes above others based on physicality when in reality those possibly just play catch up to the losses from a more sedentary and softer lifestyle.

As a wild theory, fast bowling specific gym work may add a few kph but allround physical exertion from childhood breeds greater tolerance to hardship and less susceptable to injury. Maybe the ideal fast bowler is someone from the past with a more rough, basic and physical upbringing with a modern scientific diet and a tailored weight regime?

Good post this. Eitherway, its always going to be hard evaluating the pace of bowlers we've never seen. Tyson was reputed to be one of the fastest and most considered Larwood very fast. At the end of the day, the only way we can ascertain the speed of bowlers back in the day is simply by assessment by their peers and the many who watched them. As for how they compare with the speed of today's bowlers, we may never really know as there is no real foolproof way to be sure of how fast or otherwise they really were. Who knows, they could have even been faster than the modern day primadonnas.

 

[Mike5181]

That is as much bollocks as old guys saying "it was tougher in my day." It is swings and roundabouts. There are elements of truth to both but both obscure the full picture.

Life was more physical in the black and white days. Older cricketers accuse modern players of lacking strength. Just read the day-to-day activities of guys like Appleyard and Larwood.

Certainly there wasnt the gym work then but there isnt the day-to-day lifting, walking, running from a young age that older players experienced. They were more physical from a young age and bred to deal with physical hardships. Bowling fast is about pushing through the pain barrier and I would speculate that those conditioned to tolerate greater physical strains would be better at it. Add in the fact that they bowled a lot more overs from a young age and you could make a case for them being stronger allround. To borrow from American sport, 'farm strength' is is more allround than 'gym strength.'


There isnt an easy answer to the question, who is better conditioned? Without a doubt gym work helps but maybe that is just compensating for the less outdoor and more tame lifestyle people now have?

On a tangent, no gym work will replace Kenyan children running 10 km to school everyday at altitude. Just as no gym work will replace spending all day everyday being active outside in all conditions.

I'm not saying that guys bowled 160 kph in the past. Possibly Tyson did, Larwood maybe hit 150, Thomson surely did etc but my point isnt about speed. Its about people thinking that modern techniques elevate current athletes above others based on physicality when in reality those possibly just play catch up to the losses from a more sedentary and softer lifestyle.

As a wild theory, fast bowling specific gym work may add a few kph but allround physical exertion from childhood breeds greater tolerance to hardship and less susceptable to injury. Maybe the ideal fast bowler is someone from the past with a more rough, basic and physical upbringing with a modern scientific diet and a tailored weight regime?

So you are dismissing my view that today's bowlers are faster than bowlers pre modern era by discussing the determination/hardship of bowlers in the old days and then you say your not talking about speeds?

"Bowling fast is about pushing through the pain barrier and I would speculate that those conditioned to tolerate greater physical strains would be better at it"

You are proving my point without me even having to do say anything. That fact of the matter is that even with the weaker mindset that todays bowlers have they achieve things that bowlers of the past could never do due to what is available to athletes today. Look at the caliber of athletes we have these days and how much they have developed. Just ten years ago fast bowlers were the mugs down in fine leg who couldn't catch/stop a ball for peanuts, now they are the ones taking diving catches and saving boundaries.

Maybe the physical hardship was more publicized back then but what about the physical strain of cricketers these days? They play twice as much cricket as they did back then and no, today's bowlers bowl a lot more overs. Vettori bowled over 200 overs in unfamiliar steaming/hot conditions in just one series. Is performances like these not a sufficient exertion of physical strain on their bodies?

Yes, they may have been mentally tougher back then (still debatable) but we as humans are breaking down more of the wall of possibility as each generation passes. We strive to do better than our fathers etc. It is only natural that what we achieve is physically/statistically better than people before us. Something is done over and over in the past and today we have more information/experience as to what works and what doesn't. Coaching technique helps, physical conditioning helps, otherwise the millions of athletes over the world wouldn't do it. It doesn't level out perfectly because of the softer lifestyle players undergo these days because the mental strain etc we are put through is much different than our parents and we have seen some of these players regarded as soft achieve things others before could never do.

There is a huge difference to the way cricket is played today and we have things like weights/protein to exceed our potential.You have to understand that the statistical achievements that players achieve today takes nothing away from players of the past because it is the context in which those achievements were made that is important.

 

[GotSpin]

Good post this. Eitherway, its always going to be hard evaluating the pace of bowlers we've never seen. Tyson was reputed to be one of the fastest and most considered Larwood very fast. At the end of the day, the only way we can ascertain the speed of bowlers back in the day is simply by assessment by their peers and the many who watched them. As for how they compare with the speed of today's bowlers, we may never really know as there is no real foolproof way to be sure of how fast or otherwise they really were. Who knows, they could have even been faster than the modern day primadonnas.

Not to mention the questionable reliability of speed guns in modern times. They've been off in occasion during this Ashes series for sure

 

[Himannv]

Not to mention the questionable reliability of speed guns in modern times. They've been off in occasion during this Ashes series for sure

Yep, that too. Far too much uncertainty to really make a call on how fast they were. Most guesses will be just that, guesses.

 

[GotSpin]

So you are dismissing my view that today's bowlers are faster than bowlers pre modern era by discussing the determination/hardship of bowlers in the old days and then you say your not talking about speeds?

"Bowling fast is about pushing through the pain barrier and I would speculate that those conditioned to tolerate greater physical strains would be better at it"

You are proving my point without me even having to do say anything. That fact of the matter is that even with the weaker mindset that todays bowlers have they achieve things that bowlers of the past could never do due to what is available to athletes today. Look at the caliber of athletes we have these days and how much they have developed. Just ten years ago fast bowlers were the mugs down in fine leg who couldn't catch/stop a ball for peanuts, now they are the ones taking diving catches and saving boundaries.

Maybe the physical hardship was more publicized back then but what about the physical strain of cricketers these days? They play twice as much cricket as they did back then and no, today's bowlers bowl a lot more overs. Vettori bowled over 200 overs in unfamiliar steaming/hot conditions in just one series. Is performances like these not a sufficient exertion of physical strain on their bodies?

Yes, they may have been mentally tougher back then (still debatable) but we as humans are breaking down more of the wall of possibility as each generation passes. We strive to do better than our fathers etc. It is only natural that what we achieve is physically/statistically better than people before us. Something is done over and over in the past and today we have more information/experience as to what works and what doesn't. It doesn't level out with the softer life style we have as seen with some of these soft players achievements in recent times (Mitchell Johnson cough).

There is a huge difference to the way cricket is played today and we have things like weights/protein to exceed our potential but you have to understand that the statistical achievements that players achieve today takes nothing away from players of the past because it is the context that is important.

Several points are so so wrong

 

[Migara]

Yeah good point Goughy. I had the exact same thing in the back of my head for a long time but never got the opportunity to post it.

The only difference is that bowlers of today are much more aware of the injuries you can get when fast bowling and are able to fine-tune their action for long periods of quick pace. Another thing is they're are able to train and strengthen certain muscles in the body which can avoid those injuries from a young age by adopting basic training regimes.

But I have no doubt that bowlers in those days can achieve the pace of bowlers of today, only problem is not getting injured.

Tell me that Owens did run the 100 meters as quick as Usain Bolt.

 

[TumTum]

Tell me that Owens did run the 100 meters as quick as Usain Bolt.

What?

 

[Mike5181]

Several points are so so wrong

Care to elaborate

I was actually still editing when you copied the post btw.

 

[Migara]

What?

Or compare Carl Lewis and Usain Bolt.

 

[GotSpin]

Care to elaborate

Yes that was a bit of unfair of me. I will soon though