-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Biggest six
- Thread starter _Ed_
- Start date
kingjulian
U19 12th Man
Suit yourself...stick your head in the sand!
But it won't change the fact that in almost every other sport the quality and level of play has increased.
Boxing...i really don't know, it probably is the exception that makes the rule. In any case the interest in blood sport has gradually declined. The prize money in boxing does not reflect the danger a player has to face, compared to say a Tennis player. Even now, there is some interest in boxing, but it's not anywhere near the level it had back in the day. Cricket on the other hand is a thriving Sport...
We had Akhtar break the 100 mile barrier and Tait come really close, but still there are people who claim Larwood etc were faster.....if you take an Akthar bouncer flush in the face without a helmet, it would probably be the end of a career...one would require a miracle to stay alive after a head injury at that pace. I'm fairly certain we will have someone who will eclipse the likes of Akhtar in the next 10 years...
The speed has increased but perhaps the sense of danger has decreased, giving many people an illusion that bowlers were quicker back then.
But it won't change the fact that in almost every other sport the quality and level of play has increased.
Boxing...i really don't know, it probably is the exception that makes the rule. In any case the interest in blood sport has gradually declined. The prize money in boxing does not reflect the danger a player has to face, compared to say a Tennis player. Even now, there is some interest in boxing, but it's not anywhere near the level it had back in the day. Cricket on the other hand is a thriving Sport...
We had Akhtar break the 100 mile barrier and Tait come really close, but still there are people who claim Larwood etc were faster.....if you take an Akthar bouncer flush in the face without a helmet, it would probably be the end of a career...one would require a miracle to stay alive after a head injury at that pace. I'm fairly certain we will have someone who will eclipse the likes of Akhtar in the next 10 years...
The speed has increased but perhaps the sense of danger has decreased, giving many people an illusion that bowlers were quicker back then.
The fastest recorded ball was turned down to fine leg for a non-descript single. Just shows that being quickest doesn't necessarily help a bowler, so why strive for it?
And that ball was bowled, what over ten years ago? So what's happened? According to your theory lots of bowlers should be bowling quicker than Shoaib bowled...
I've watched cricket for 40 years as I said. Currently Steyn is about as quick as Lee was, who was about as quick as Donald, who was about as quick as Waqar, who was about as quick as Holding, who was about as quick as Thommo etc.
Being the quickest runner gets you lots of rewards. Being the quickest bowler not so much. When you can be as good as McGrath, Wasim, Ambrose, Pollock, Hadlee etc back to Bedser, and good old Sid Barnes why bother trying to be the new Sean Tait?.
TNT
Banned
Lee has been clocked at 159kmh, what is the highest speed has Steyn been clocked.
Holding as fast as Thommo, errr no, not ever.
unam
U19 12th Man
well his theory does seem to be correct to some extent. these days we have so many fast bowlers who can bowl around 150 kph. even if you go back 10 years, we only had few (akhtar, lee, tait,anyone else???) who could bowl at 150 kph.
kingjulian
U19 12th Man
Beating a batsman for pace feels as satisfactory as hitting a six...Don't tell me there is no motivation to bowl quicker through the air.
No quick bowler is every likely to topple Muralitharan's wicket record...why bother with quick bowling at all, lets all bowl spin!
You sure come up with some wild theories mate...
No quick bowler is every likely to topple Muralitharan's wicket record...why bother with quick bowling at all, lets all bowl spin!
You sure come up with some wild theories mate...
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
One factor that may make Tyson, for example, faster than some of the modern bowlers is that he was bowling off the old back-foot no-ball law, and he had quite a drag, so the ball had less far to travel from the point of release.
Thus, if he bowled at the same speed as a modern bowler such as Brett Lee, the batsman would have less time to react to him and hence would experience him as faster.
Additionally, as the ball will be decelerating from point of release, it will be marginally faster at the point of arrival at the batsman.
Thus, if he bowled at the same speed as a modern bowler such as Brett Lee, the batsman would have less time to react to him and hence would experience him as faster.
Additionally, as the ball will be decelerating from point of release, it will be marginally faster at the point of arrival at the batsman.
kingjulian
U19 12th Man
I'm looking at difference between players who played at least a decade or two apart mate....not like 5 years, that's not going to prove anything.
Actually i give up...
this is the last post in this thread....i have derailed it quite far off topic anyway...
Actually i give up...
this is the last post in this thread....i have derailed it quite far off topic anyway...
My "wild theory" is that sprinters try to be the quickest sprinters but bowlers try to be the best bowlers rather than the quickest. I agree, I live on the edge...
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
By that logic, every batsman should strive to hit sixes all the time...
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well I can't think of anyone currently who consistently bowls 150+. There are a few in the mid to high 140's who may occasionally get to 150.
Maybe 10 years ago not. But go back 35 years and you'd have had Lillee, Thomson, Pascoe, Hogg, Hurst, Roberts, Holding, Daniel, Croft, Willis, Imran, Hadlee, Procter, Rice (?) who all looked pretty quick even if we don't have speed gun records to confirm or deny it.
Howe_zat
Audio File
You're kidding, right?
I can get that the hard numbers are getting better. But every sport without question has its best players littered throughout its history.
How often have we heard about the apparently unmatched exploits of Pele, or Ali, or the '95 all Blacks, or whoever.
Jesse Owens may have been slower than Usain Bolt, but that doesn't stop him being the better athlete.
Last edited:
unam
U19 12th Man
Well, we did have so many bowlers,maybe better bowlers than we have today, but there is no reliable evidence that can show that those bowlers were faster than bowlers we have today. the only evidence is footage, which is underwhelming.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I can appreciate that the comparison of speed across generations is a difficult one.
But I don't really understand why we can't get a bit closer by examining old footage. We know the length of the pitch, and we know the frames-per-second of the film.
I'm assuming there is a flaw in this simplistic suggestion, which I suspect might have something to do with margins of error, but would appreciate an explanation from someone who understands where my reasoning falls apart
unam
U19 12th Man
I am not a technological expert. But in those raw footage bowlers from old era do look slower than the bowlers we have today, except a few...
If we have any expert, maybe he can explain better how the video footage have developed over the years and how we can compare them..............................
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This is very true. Some, Ken Farnes and Ernie McCormick in particular, look positively pedestrian in the old footage I've seen, and even Fiery Fred doesn't look particularly sharp. So I always thought perhaps it was just the effect of the black and white footage. And then you have a look at the footage of Larwood bowling in 32/33, and he looks so ****ing quick in that, or perhaps I'm just biased ..................
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Way ahead of ya.
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
You can, very easily. Download clips from youtube, chuck them in a video editing tool, and then count the frames from ball release to when it hits/passes the stumps. If you know the framerate, then you can use this to calculate the average speed of the ball during its 20-metre journey. Just did it for Trueman, he comes out consistently around the 130kph range. Taking into account that speed guns today measure the balls speed immediately after release, you should add about 10 or so kph to this result, which puts Trueman in the early 140s. Sounds about right to me. Obviously, it's a technique which will only give you rough ballpark figures for a bowler's general pace, not precise ball-to-ball readings.