CW All Time XI Fast Bowlers

[silentstriker]

Yes it's a line that Tommo comes out, even heard him say it fairly recently.

Yea, it's one of those myths that keeps perpetuating. According to SJS, even Imran Khan had said it once. But clearly, they are wrong.

Even with that Thommo was measured at 147kph at his fastest - but you have to remember he hadn't been playing cricket all year, and this was in 1979, when by all accounts he was well past his fastest. I have no problem believing that at his fastest, he was the fastest bowler in history of cricket. But to say that the average speeds overall haven't improved just doesn't make sense.

 

[silentstriker]

We need to keep in mind that the 1979 competition was performed in stifling heat (around 40 degrees celsius, I believe), but of course you are more 'in the know' than I am on this topic. This is what I know of the 1976 tests... Lillee & Thomson bowling speeds - YouTube
Not much, but it seems like they used high speed cameras once more (judging by the long range side on footage).

The fact that they used cameras during a Test match to judge automatically makes me doubt its accuracy. Again, I don't know how they did it, but if you have any information on the group that did it, I might be able to look it up.

As I said, even if you take into account the heat, there is no way to explain 15kph differences....

I would be happy to be proven wrong of course and I'd love to find out more about those tests (maybe something was published?), but considering the type and the number of rumors and half-truths that seem to swirl around on this topic, I am hesitant to accept things based on peoples words.

 

[Jager]

The fact that they used cameras during a Test match to judge automatically makes me doubt its accuracy. Again, I don't know how they did it, but if you have any information on the group that did it, I might be able to look it up.

As I said, even if you take into account the heat, there is no way to explain 15kph differences....

I would be happy to be proven wrong of course and I'd love to find out more about those tests (maybe something was published?), but considering the type and the number of rumors and half-truths that seem to swirl around on this topic, I am hesitant to accept things based on peoples words.

I would also love to see the research, too. Do you have any leads as to where we could look?

 

[silentstriker]

Nope, otherwise I would have done it the last time we had this debate and I felt compelled to clear up myths about how thommo once broke the sound barrier or whatever . I feel confident in the 1979 research, and it also passes the 'logic' test as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Jager]

Nope, otherwise I would have done it the last time we had this debate and I felt compelled to clear up myths about how thommo once broke the sound barrier or whatever . I feel confident in the 1979 research, and it also passes the 'logic' test as far as I'm concerned.

If we added 10km/h on to each of their speeds, I'd readily accept them as their maximum match bowling speeds... Colin Croft bowling at 139km/h just doesn't make sense to me! He was a "menace to society" in his own words

 

[Jacknife]

Yea, it's one of those myths that keeps perpetuating. According to SJS, even Imran Khan had said it once. But clearly, they are wrong.

Even with that Thommo was measured at 147kph at his fastest - but you have to remember he hadn't been playing cricket all year, and this was in 1979, when by all accounts he was well past his fastest. I have no problem believing that at his fastest, he was the fastest bowler in history of cricket. But to say that the average speeds overall haven't improved just doesn't make sense.

I agree.

 

[silentstriker]

If we added 10km/h on to each of their speeds, I'd readily accept them as their maximum match bowling speeds... Colin Croft bowling at 139km/h just doesn't make sense to me! He was a "menace to society" in his own words

Well remember no helmets.

 

[Howe_zat]

The fastest delivery ever recorded in international cricket was tucked away for a single.

What's important is what speed the batsman thinks you're bowling at. And if he thinks he's in danger, then a) where the ball is going and b) whether it might be going there all day that are the prevailing factors. A few miles per hour makes precious little difference.

 

[Jager]

silentstriker, out of curiosity, what do you think of the accuracy of our modern day recording equipment?

 

[silentstriker]

Assuming everything is set up right? Pretty accurate. Even the handheld ones are within +/- 1mph.

 

[silentstriker]

The fastest delivery ever recorded in international cricket was tucked away for a single.

What's important is what speed the batsman thinks you're bowling at. And if he thinks he's in danger, then a) where the ball is going and b) whether it might be going there all day that are the prevailing factors. A few miles per hour makes precious little difference.

Clearly no one is claiming Brett Lee was a better bowler than Glenn McGrath. This discussion is purely about speeds.

 

[Jager]

Assuming everything is set up right? Pretty accurate. Even the handheld ones are within +/- 1mph.

In saying that, can you really believe James Pattinson is a fast bowler than Michael Holding, Andy Roberts or Colin Croft were? Pattinson was clocked at 153km/h once during the summer and several times around 148km/h. In my eyes, he is nowhere near being in the same class of athlete as any of the West Indians I mentioned above.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I'm repeating myself I'm sure but I wonder if it's humanly possible to get much faster than what Lee and Akhtar were doing in their pomp. Those two were physical specimens at their peak and relied more on rhythm than their impressive musculature when on song...hyperbole extends to a lot of what transpired in the past, as evidenced by Chappell's stupid comment (young McGrath was well capable of ratcheting things up to decent speeds). I just don't see any way for a Holding to bowl much faster than Lee.

 

[silentstriker]

In saying that, can you really believe James Pattinson is a fast bowler than Michael Holding, Andy Roberts or Colin Croft were? Pattinson was clocked at 153km/h once during the summer and several times around 148km/h. In my eyes, he is nowhere near being in the same class of athlete as any of the West Indians I mentioned above.

Is he a better bowler? No. Is he a faster bowler? Yes.

 

[Jager]

I'm repeating myself I'm sure but I wonder if it's humanly possible to get much faster than what Lee and Akhtar were doing in their pomp. Those two were physical specimens at their peak and relied more on rhythm than their impressive musculature when on song...hyperbole extends to a lot of what transpired in the past, as evidenced by Chappell's stupid comment (young McGrath was well capable of ratcheting things up to decent speeds). I just don't see any way for a Holding to bowl much faster than Lee.

There was arguably no one with greater rhythm than Michael Holding, hence why so many talk about his beautiful bowling action. I don't think Holding was faster than 160km/h, but I have no doubts whatsoever that he was bowling at over 150km/h regularly.

 

[silentstriker]

There was arguably no one with greater rhythm than Michael Holding, hence why so many talk about his beautiful bowling action. I don't think Holding was faster than 160km/h, but I have no doubts whatsoever that he was bowling at over 150km/h regularly.

I very highly doubt that. McGrath had a beautiful action too - that says very little about his speed. Thommo on the other hand had an extremely unorthodox action - and certainly no one would claim he was as rhythmic as this, and yet he was clearly faster than Holding.

I think 1979 competition was probably about right in terms of his average (135-140kph).

 

[Jager]

I guess we will have to disagree, but the concept of Michael Holding bowling in the same speed zone as Chris Martin or Jaques Kallis is very strange to me.

 

[silentstriker]

The proof's in the actual tests tbf, but to each his own I suppose.

 

[Howe_zat]

Clearly no one is claiming Brett Lee was a better bowler than Glenn McGrath. This discussion is purely about speeds.

Sorry, this was in response to Jager claiming that because Croft was intimidating he must have been one of the very fastest. The discussion had moved on by the time I posted it.

 

[Jager]

Sorry, this was in response to Jager claiming that because Croft was intimidating he must have been one of the very fastest. The discussion had moved on by the time I posted it.

That was definitely not part of my actual argument though, I was just pointing out that it's hard to imagine such a terror bowling at what would be considered near-tame speeds today.