Bowling speeds

[TheJediBrah]

tbh I'd think it would be harder to face a delivery the more it slows down by the time it gets to the batsman. ie the ball "holding up" off the wicket

The more it maintains it's speed the easier to face

 

[stephen]

One of the easiest bowlers I faced was also one of the quickest. Speed means nothing if you're being fed half volleys. The hardest bowling to face is bowling that bounces at the top of and on or just outside off stump line.

 

[Burgey]

I honestly think speed at release point is not as good a measure to show what difficulty it may pose to the batsman as a few other things when it comes to bowling.

Try facing someone releasing it at 150 compared with someone at 135. it's a massive difference, but I certainly agree with you and TJB that things like height make a massive difference because, tbh I'd rather fact a 6' bloke bowling balls to the wall like say, Lee than a bloke bowling 135-140 odd and bouncing it past your chest when it should be drive-able a la Garner/ McGrath/ Haze etc. The latter might not kill you, but it's just a tougher trajectory.

 

[Burgey]

tbh I'd think it would be harder to face a delivery the more it slows down by the time it gets to the batsman. ie the ball "holding up" off the wicket

The more it maintains it's speed the easier to face

This is also true. the more a ball holds up the harder it is to adjust and the longer it takes to get in. You basically need either a proper half volley or a rank long hop to score on those decks, because you just have to play so late and with softer hands to make the adjustments when it's no coming on.

 

[NZTailender]

What was interesting during the depressing Aus vs NZ series is that everyone talked about CdGs lack of pace, but it seemed fairly consistent in the read out of the hand vs after pitching speed. It would clock him at 120-odd out of the hand, but by the time it reached the batsman it was down to 110-odd. Compare that to Starc or Cummins or whichever superhuman quick Aus played, they'd release at 140odd but by the time it reached batsman it was between 115-125. So CdG pace would lose little off the pitch(about 10kmph), whilst the rapid quicks would lose significantly more (more than 20kmph at times).

Not being an international cricketer who has faced proper quick bowling, but I wonder if the less variable change in CdGs speed makes him more difficult to face than it appears on tv, hence his unlikely success (being able to nip and move the ball helps)

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah I know what you're saying but it doesn't make sense. The effect speed of the ball has on the batsman is a function of how long it takes to get from the bowler to the batsman. What difference does it make where in the journey the speed is relatively speaking?

Coz when you deliver a cricket ball, there are two components to the speed. And it does make a difference because the deceleration after pitching is not uniform and therefore, batsmen may end up facing balls at the same speed that were delivered at different speeds.

Try facing someone releasing it at 150 compared with someone at 135. it's a massive difference, but I certainly agree with you and TJB that things like height make a massive difference because, tbh I'd rather fact a 6' bloke bowling balls to the wall like say, Lee than a bloke bowling 135-140 odd and bouncing it past your chest when it should be drive-able a la Garner/ McGrath? Haze etc. The latter might not kill you, but it's just a tougher trajectory.

I am not saying speed off the hand is not important. I am just saying it being the only measure is not accurate enough in its depiction of what challenge it presents to the batsman. I have said this else where but there is a reason why the speedometer records short balls being slower than full deliveries. We measure the distance but not the trajectory, to put it in simple, but less accurate, terms.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What was interesting during the depressing Aus vs NZ series is that everyone talked about CdGs lack of pace, but it seemed fairly consistent in the read out of the hand vs after pitching speed. It would clock him at 120-odd out of the hand, but by the time it reached the batsman it was down to 110-odd. Compare that to Starc or Cummins or whichever superhuman quick Aus played, they'd release at 140odd but by the time it reached batsman it was between 115-125. So CdG pace would lose little off the pitch(about 10kmph), whilst the rapid quicks would lose significantly more (more than 20kmph at times).

Not being an international cricketer who has faced proper quick bowling, but I wonder if the less variable change in CdGs speed makes him more difficult to face than it appears on tv, hence his unlikely success (being able to nip and move the ball helps)

My assumption would be simply that the slower you bowl the less it slows down, proportionally speaking, rather than being something specific to do with those particular bowlers

Coz when you deliver a cricket ball, there are two components to the speed. And it does make a difference because the deceleration after pitching is not uniform and therefore, batsmen may end up facing balls at the same speed that were delivered at different speeds.

of course but why is that a better measurement than speed out of the hand? It's not any a more accurate measure of what the batsman faces (unless the ball is really short I guess).

 

[stephen]

Yeah air drag slows the ball down faster the faster that the ball is delivered.

 

[social]

I also found that there were some bowlers that I couldn't pick up early for whatever reason and that made them appear much quicker than the speed gun would have shown

 

[honestbharani]

of course but why is that a better measurement than speed out of the hand? It's not any a more accurate measure of what the batsman faces (unless the ball is really short I guess).

Coz speed off the hand is not the speed it travels through either. Air drag and bounce do slow it down and the pace at which it reaches the batsman gives a better indication of how fast his reflexes need to be to play the stroke.

 

[cnerd123]

What was interesting during the depressing Aus vs NZ series is that everyone talked about CdGs lack of pace, but it seemed fairly consistent in the read out of the hand vs after pitching speed. It would clock him at 120-odd out of the hand, but by the time it reached the batsman it was down to 110-odd. Compare that to Starc or Cummins or whichever superhuman quick Aus played, they'd release at 140odd but by the time it reached batsman it was between 115-125. So CdG pace would lose little off the pitch(about 10kmph), whilst the rapid quicks would lose significantly more (more than 20kmph at times).

Not being an international cricketer who has faced proper quick bowling, but I wonder if the less variable change in CdGs speed makes him more difficult to face than it appears on tv, hence his unlikely success (being able to nip and move the ball helps)

I've faced bowlers in club level that do this as well. They aren't quick, but they hurry you up for some reason. Probably something to do with how the ball is released.

 

[Migara]

Yeah I know what you're saying but it doesn't make sense. The effect speed of the ball has on the batsman is a function of how long it takes to get from the bowler to the batsman. What difference does it make where in the journey the speed is relatively speaking?

Issue is in the adjustment to the loss of speed. Pitching changes the game a lot compared to a baseball pitch, which does not "pitch" at all. (I can hit the daylight out of a baseball pitch with a cricket bat, but doing it with a baseball bat would be the difficult part)

 

[stephen]

Issue is in the adjustment to the loss of speed. Pitching changes the game a lot compared to a baseball pitch, which does not "pitch" at all. (I can hit the daylight out of a baseball pitch with a cricket bat, but doing it with a baseball bat would be the difficult part)

Hitting a baseball is ridiculously hard - the sweet spot is remarkably small.

Still, building an innings is something that separates the sports and makes cricket eminently more interesting IMO.

 

[thierry henry]

I completely disagree with my 2005 self lol. Now I reckon most club cricketers probably bowl SLOWER than they think.

Also I wonder if my 14+ year old reference to Ronnie Hira was my first ever

 

[NZTailender]

My assumption would be simply that the slower you bowl the less it slows down, proportionally speaking, rather than being something specific to do with those particular bowlers

Oh yeah, I wasn't talking about the specific bowlers in general - but moreso, the perception that the higher speed will be harder to face, and there was a lot of talk about pace that series (or lack thereof). It was interesting that the slower, medium bowlers lose a lot less pace which may make them harder to face than expected.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Coz speed off the hand is not the speed it travels through either. Air drag and bounce do slow it down and the pace at which it reaches the batsman gives a better indication of how fast his reflexes need to be to play the stroke.

Is it though? This has been my point the whole time. The average speed at which the ball travelled during the 22 yards would be the best indication. And as we've mentioned, the less it slows down (ie. the faster it is travelling when it reaches the batsman) the easier it probably would be to face.

Issue is in the adjustment to the loss of speed. Pitching changes the game a lot compared to a baseball pitch, which does not "pitch" at all. (I can hit the daylight out of a baseball pitch with a cricket bat, but doing it with a baseball bat would be the difficult part)

Yes we've been over that on this very page

Oh yeah, I wasn't talking about the specific bowlers in general - but moreso, the perception that the higher speed will be harder to face, and there was a lot of talk about pace that series (or lack thereof). It was interesting that the slower, medium bowlers lose a lot less pace which may make them harder to face than expected.

Not really, because the speed at the time the ball reaches the batsman is only indicative of a small part of the journey. If it is released at 150kph then most of the 22 yard trip is still at a significantly faster pace and the batsman has relatively less time to react than the speed at the batsman would indicate.

 

[Burgey]

I completely disagree with my 2005 self lol. Now I reckon most club cricketers probably bowl SLOWER than they think.

Also I wonder if my 14+ year old reference to Ronnie Hira was my first ever

This is probably true tbh. A bit like club golfers, who invariably look for their ball in the rough about 50 metres further down the hole than it actually ended up.

 

[Victor Ian]

Wouldnt the path a ball takes effect the time it takes to reach the batsman, more than loss of speed through the air? What i mean is that bowling a full toss, the ball only travels 22ish yards, but bowling an extreme bouncer, it might be travelling up to 30 yards. Im just curious how much the distance can increase.

 

[jimmy101]

I could imagine a hooping outswinger would lose pace as it travels down the pitch.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wouldnt the path a ball takes effect the time it takes to reach the batsman, more than loss of speed through the air? What i mean is that bowling a full toss, the ball only travels 22ish yards, but bowling an extreme bouncer, it might be travelling up to 30 yards. Im just curious how much the distance can increase.

Yes this is considered conventional wisdom. Fuller balls travel less distance and hence will give you less time to adjust.

For some reason it is also considered conventional wisdom that full balls read quicker on the speed gun, even though it measures out of the hand. I can't explain that one.

I could imagine a hooping outswinger would lose pace as it travels down the pitch.

That's actually a very interesting point too