How to measure bowling speed

[vijay.genius1]

Doubt!!!!!!!!!!!!

From the coaching section: "Naturally, the best thing possible to use would be a radar gun - however they're not generally widely available to clubs and schools - but there is a simple way that needs just a stopwatch and a calculator (or maths geek) to provide approximate results. Start the stopwatch when the ball is released, and then stop it again when either the batsman hits (or misses) it, then divide 45 (or 72) by your answer to get your answer in miles per hour (or kilometres). For example, a delivery timed at 1 second has travelled at about 45mph (72kph). To break the magical 100mph (160kph) barrier, the clock must register at 0.45 seconds. Once you get used to working the timer, you will get surprisingly consistent results. I've found that standing at the back of the net, either directly behind or just to the side, gets the best results."

I measure my bowling speed by taking a 17.68 m pitch(crease to crease)..Am I wrong?
We do have a 20.12 m pitch....but we generally get the speed with the bowler bowling from the bowling crease and the batman batting on the batting crease...Plz Clarify!!!

 

[zaremba]

Yeah, that sounds about right speed-wise. Gloucestershire brought their speed gun across to Oxfordshire last weekend for a fast bowling day, and our quickest U10 came in at 52mph: I didn't see anyone any quicker over the course of the summer. Add 5/6mph per age group and you're in the 70/75 range by the time you're 15. Nonetheless, I do however tell my boys that if anyone tells you a speed, then take 10mph off it and you might get an accurate number...

Of course, speed really isn't everything and bounce and a "heavy ball" make more of a difference than out and out numbers - see the classic Greg Blewett example.

What, apart from its degree of bounce and pace, makes a "heavy ball"?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I measure my bowling speed by taking a 17.68 m pitch(crease to crease)..Am I wrong?
We do have a 20.12 m pitch....but we generally get the speed with the bowler bowling from the bowling crease and the batman batting on the batting crease...Plz Clarify!!!

You have now posted the same thing three times and it is still completely incomprehensible.

 

[Neil Pickup]

What, apart from its degree of bounce and pace, makes a "heavy ball"?

$64,000 dollar question, isn't it? Why do some bowlers rush you despite looking reasonably gentle, whilst other bowlers seem quick and then really aren't. One would assume that there is going to be a great degree of wrist and shoulder behind it, plus the extent of the height of release and strength of base at the point of release, but this is far from my expert area.

 

[zaremba]

I fully acknowledge my own pedantry here, but a ball travelling at a particular velocity must hit the bat with precisely the same force as any other ball of the same mass travelling at the same velocity, regardless of the identities or bowling actions of the chaps who happened to propel them. So I'm not quite sure what a heavy ball, as opposed to a quick ball, actually means. It could be to do with the awkward angle at which the ball bounces, and perhaps an element of deception or surprise, but "heaviness" seems to get talked about as something distinct from those factors, and even distinct from pace - which must be wrong, surely?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It's not a literal, scientific term. Generally (IMO anyway), it refers to bowlers who are difficult to find the middle of the bat against, whom against the ball tends to squirt square or behind square a lot, giving rise to the illusion the the bowler is bowling a "heavier" ball than usual.

 

[vijay.genius1]

sorry for that

You have now posted the same thing three times and it is still completely incomprehensible.

sorry for that,
We at our backyard have taken a pitch that measures about 17.68 meters(popping crease to popping crease).We measure our speed in that pitch..Are we doing the right thing?

 

[Daemon]

sorry for that,
We at our backyard have taken a pitch that measures about 17.68 meters(popping crease to popping crease).We measure our speed in that pitch..Are we doing the right thing?

How do you measure your speeds? It shouldn't matter much as long as you divide using the correct distance.

 

[andyc]

Yeah, it seems you're a bit confused. Speed is always distance/time, so just do that. Either way it's not going to be like the speeds you get on TV; for one, they're more accurate, and I'm also fairly certain that the speed is measured as the ball comes out of the bowler's hand, rather than by the time it's reached the end of the pitch. As such it's going to be quicker.

 

[vijay.genius1]

Yeah...confused

According to the s=d/t method,A ball that reaches a batsman @ 0.45 seconds is 160 kph only if the distance is 20.12 meters(stump to stump).But no bowler bowls from the stump nor does any batsman stand on the stumps..So imo taking the speed from a distance of 17.68 m(crease to crease)is correct

 

[Riggins]

Download Marto's iphone app..it'll tell you!!

Is there anything the man can't do!!

 

[vijay.genius1]

How do you measure your speeds? It shouldn't matter much as long as you divide using the correct distance.

Speed is measured by the s=d/t method

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Why do some bowlers rush you despite looking reasonably gentle, whilst other bowlers seem quick and then really aren't. One would assume that there is going to be a great degree of wrist and shoulder behind it, plus the extent of the height of release and strength of base at the point of release, but this is far from my expert area.

... but "heaviness" seems to get talked about as something distinct from those factors, and even distinct from pace - which must be wrong, surely?

I am hardly an authority on this subject, but in my modest estimation the "heaviness" is some measure of the level of difficulty a batsman experiences in playing the ball. There are bowlers who seem to come quicker off the pitch and rush the batsmen into their strokes and the ball sometimes bounces higher than usual.

Assuming both of you would have followed the recently concluded series, Tim Bresnan's second innings spell in Nottingham is a pretty good example of bowling heavy balls, in my reckoning. He was predominantly getting the balls to lift off the seam from short of a length with a very strong wrist action and the top order batsmen were rushed into their strokes.

For example, Mukund fell to a 137 kph delivery and Yuvraj to a 132 kph delivery; both late into it and sorta fending/gloving the ball away. Not the kind of pace in the air to be classified as genuinely fast, but the way the two left-handers played it you could have sworn that Lee or Akhtar must have sent down those nuts.

From my personal experiences, when your fingers are loose over the seam, you sort of let the ball float out of your palm and swing in the air. When you have your fingers tightly wrapped around the seam and give it a strong rip with the wrist (at the point of delivery) you get some spite - bounce and pronounced movement - off the seam.

Would both the deliveries show up the same speed through the air? I don't know that but batsmen seem to be rushed by the latter and it's the kind that's called in some circles as the ball that gains pace off the pitch.


It's a vague explanation and perhaps I didn't articulate it very well, but I hope my point gets across to some extent.

 

[Cabinet96]

I have had a thought about the whole "heavy ball thing". I think it could be a ball that keeps its momentum for longer and therefore, although it looks slow out the hand, rushes you. Whereas other bowlers deliveries lose a lot of momentum in their delivery. So for example a bowler who uses his whole bodyweight and gets right behind the ball would bowl a heavier ball than someone who only uses his arm. I can't help noticing the people at my club who bowl the heaviest balls are the slightly tubbier ones.

This would be why slow looking bowlers can often seem quick and quick bowlers ofter seem slow.

I don't know if this is right, I'm just guessing. What do you think?

PS and the whole floating the ball definitely makes the ball lighter than if you hit the pitch harder.

 

[Daemon]

Speed is measured by the s=d/t method

...ok?

 

[AlwaysProteas]

I have had a thought about the whole "heavy ball thing". I think it could be a ball that keeps its momentum for longer and therefore, although it looks slow out the hand, rushes you. Whereas other bowlers deliveries lose a lot of momentum in their delivery. So for example a bowler who uses his whole bodyweight and gets right behind the ball would bowl a heavier ball than someone who only uses his arm. I can't help noticing the people at my club who bowl the heaviest balls are the slightly tubbier ones.

This would be why slow looking bowlers can often seem quick and quick bowlers ofter seem slow.

I don't know if this is right, I'm just guessing. What do you think?

PS and the whole floating the ball definitely makes the ball lighter than if you hit the pitch harder.

Momentum is just speed times weight, since weight remains the same, momentum in our case depends on speed alone. The only difference between heavier ball and a normal ball then would be the amount of speed a ball loses after it hits the pitch. So you're right, if through wrist/body action. You can hit the deck harder, the ball would probably lose much less speed off the pitch and carry more momentum.

 

[rjh]

warning

bowling fast is great - watch the workloads though guys - dont let batsman flog you. take breaks every 6 balls and stop the moment you feel pain - get massage and do pilates. dont try and bowl fast too often. my son was 14.5 years and bowled mid 130'ks against my wishes and intructions bowling side on away swingers. Was the result a stack load of wickets? well a few but the main result was a stress fracture and the loss of 11 months of bowling. Now the action is front on. He's a big guy and had to work hard. Now we have the knowledge to stay injury free and at nearly 16 can bowl a slower 125k with a quicker ball of 135k. Best to add a few ks every year. Different bodies react differently to bowling. Young guys-----stop trying be slim pakistanis and go crazy. Examine what McGrath did - he was the smartest of his generation and had an injury prone body type but had few injuries right!!??

 

[STWCAR]

I don't see how any of these methods can be truly accurate. The speed gun has the issue of not picking up the ball. I was at the Gloucester speed bowling session, in Oxfordshire last year and one lad couldn't record a speed at all. He was asked to change his shirt and hey presto the gun started working again. Not sure if it was operator error or not. At times i heard the operator say i don't know the speed of delivery but the bowler ran in at 12mph.
The formula to work out the speed depends on your reactions with the stopwatch. To quick to start and to slow to stop could result in a 10% difference at least.
The Platypus Speedball has a similar problem, where the bowler has to be accurate with the length bowled. If the bowler is accurate (this can be proven by setting cones to the desired distance) then the measurement of speed would be accurate.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yeah, agreed, it's never going to be perfect and I don't think we've ever claimed that this will be the case, but give yourself enough experience, practice and feedback and you will be able to get a pretty accurate idea.

Our school side had the chance to bowl in a full Pitchvision-equipped net in Cape Town a few weeks ago, and the speeds it returned for every bowler were, give or take 2mph, what I'd told them in the bus that I thought they were likely to be - so I'm pretty comfortable with the general accuracy of the method (and I've seen so much that I can get pretty close by eye now, too).

PS - I hear Hales Meadow is underwater again...

 

[STWCAR]

Young players are fascinated with what speed they bowl at. It would be good to have a session with a police speed gun (quiet word with our local traffic cop), a Speedball ( I have one) and try the stopwatch method to see how close they compare.

If we can actually get out to play cricket i might try it at an under 17 session.

Yes under water but going slowly, the new residents will be very unhappy when it's gone (ducks, geese and swans)