Bowling speeds

[Daemon]

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.

Maybe they measure distance of the horizontal plane

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Guys who bowl a 'heavy' ball gets more off the wicket.

 

[honestbharani]

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.
.

Yes and No. Average speed might give you the average time required but batsmen don't setup on release always. A lot of the players use the bounce as the trigger and that means the deceleration past pitching is a better indicator of what time batsman has to play the stroke but I just think its much easier to measure the speed at which the ball is actually coming when it meets the batsman, as it shows you what bat speed is needed and how much fraction of a second a batsman has to adjust his stroke etc. Again, I just feel its a "better" indicator than speed off the hand alone, but neither is really the best as there are a variety of factors involved in the way a batsman plays, including the length of the ball.

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.

Its coz they only measure the speed across the pitch not the speed across the height. So the release of a full ball comes with more speed on the horizontal but the release of a bouncer may come with more speed on the vertical plane.

 

[honestbharani]

Guys who bowl a 'heavy' ball gets more off the wicket.

See, now I just take it to mean a ball that decelerates lesser than average after pitching thus hurrying the batsman.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Please settle this debate forever and schedule a game on a frictionless plane surrounded in a vacuum chamber.

 

[social]

Yes and No. Average speed might give you the average time required but batsmen don't setup on release always. A lot of the players use the bounce as the trigger and that means the deceleration past pitching is a better indicator of what time batsman has to play the stroke but I just think its much easier to measure the speed at which the ball is actually coming when it meets the batsman, as it shows you what bat speed is needed and how much fraction of a second a batsman has to adjust his stroke etc. Again, I just feel its a "better" indicator than speed off the hand alone, but neither is really the best as there are a variety of factors involved in the way a batsman plays, including the length of the ball.





Its coz they only measure the speed across the pitch not the speed across the height. So the release of a full ball comes with more speed on the horizontal but the release of a bouncer may come with more speed on the vertical plane.

Huh?

Every batsman ever is taught to watch the ball out of the bowler’s hand and every single trigger movement is from that point

The moment that the ball bounces is way too late

 

[marc71178]

Our method is very simple. We bowl with a 5cm square net by the side of the bowler. 25fps cam is good enough, 60fps one is super accurate. We average the distance the ball traveled in first three frames after the ball has left the bowlers hand, and then calculate the speed. A bright light at the bowling crease nicely produces a shadow of the ball and the net which can be filmed from the opposite side if you can cover the side of the practice net with a translucent paper big enough.

You can never criticise TJB and his protractor again if you're claiming this to be "super accurate".

 

[honestbharani]

Huh?

Every batsman ever is taught to watch the ball out of the bowler’s hand and every single trigger movement is from that point

The moment that the ball bounces is way too late

I guess trigger movement is not perhaps the right word but I meant basically the point you start to get into the stroke, or commit to the stroke. I don't think you can do that as soon as the ball is released. Isn't the whole point of all the "staying still" advice every player gets?

 

[Migara]

You can never criticise TJB and his protractor again if you're claiming this to be "super accurate".

Wouldn't call it super accurate. But if the reduction of the speed over time can be tracked, then it can be bettered. We just didn't have technology for such a thing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I guess trigger movement is not perhaps the right word but I meant basically the point you start to get into the stroke, or commit to the stroke. I don't think you can do that as soon as the ball is released. Isn't the whole point of all the "staying still" advice every player gets?

If you're talking about facing spinners, or really, really slow bowlers then what you're saying has some merit.

edit: for quicker bowlers you can make small adjustments but you need to start the stroke pretty much right after the ball is released

 

[AndrewB]

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.

It doesn't increase that much: if you model the path travelled by straight lines, the difference in distance between a bouncer and a beamer is about 3%.

According to http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html: "Regardless of the speed of the ball when it leaves the bowler's hand, air resistance causes the ball to slow down by about 12% by the time it lands on the pitch. It slows down by another 30% or 40% when it hits the pitch, depending on the speed of the pitch and the angle of incidence. A ball bowled at 150 km/hr will arrive 0.46 s later at the batter's end, travelling at about 85 km/hr."

 

[Cabinet96]

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 take is that the people we consider to bowl a heavy ball, don't lose as much speed by the time the ball reaches the batsman, and thus feel quicker for the batsman than the speedgun would make you think.

 

[honestbharani]

My take is that the people we consider to bowl a heavy ball, don't lose as much speed by the time the ball reaches the batsman, and thus feel quicker for the batsman than the speedgun would make you think.

Finally, someone from the same school of thought as me.

 

[stephen]

My take is that the people we consider to bowl a heavy ball, don't lose as much speed by the time the ball reaches the batsman, and thus feel quicker for the batsman than the speedgun would make you think.

It is probably caused by the amount of back spin imparted/ not imparted in the ball at release, which impacts the amount of bounce a ball gets. A "heavy ball" often refers to the ball hitting higher up on the bat, which means it's hitting a part of the bat which causes more vibrations and takes power out of the shot.

If a ball is travelling faster when it reaches the batsman then it'll fly off the bat more quickly if it hits the middle.

 

[Migara]

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.

The horizontal vector of the speed of the ball is higher in full balls. Highest will be in beamers and lowest in bouncers.

 

[Line and Length]

I recall an interesting study of bowling speeds conducted at the WACA by the University of WA. It involved Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson, Michael Holding and Andy Roberts. Thomson's fastest release speed was 160.45kph with Roberts next fastest at 150.67kph. Interestingly Thomson's run-up was the slowest (18.02kph) with Lillee fastest at 33.57kph.

In 1979, Thomson won a fastest bowling competition held by the Australian television station Channel 9, in a year in which he was banned from playing professional cricket. His maximum speed was measured at 147.9 km/h using the same method as employed during the 1975 study at the WACA. He also came top for accuracy in the competition. I vividly remember watching that. Thomson's accuracy was based on the fact that he hit the stumps more frequently regardless of the fact that they were all full tosses. By comparison, Andy Roberts was judged less accurate as his deliveries were pitching in line and moving away to miss the off stump.

As an aside, and noting the discussions about speeds at club cricket level, Bob Massie coached my club, Bentley, in the 78/79 season. He would have been 31 at the time and was only a shadow of the swing bowler he was in 1972. He tended to bowl down breeze and short of a length but his speed wasn't particularly noteworthy. He finished the season with 29 wickets at an average of 16.6 and left the following season. There have certainly been quicker bowlers at Bentley over the seasons and I would modestly put myself in that category early in my career.

 

[kumadude]

My son Matt 12.5 years old just clocked 106km/h at the cricket act radar. Has a bad arm due to vaccinations, reckons he can hit 108. Has finally figured out his technique for accuracy as well. Matt from Marist, stage 2 sky gold

 

[social]

My son Matt 12.5 years old just clocked 106km/h at the cricket act radar. Has a bad arm due to vaccinations, reckons he can hit 108. Has finally figured out his technique for accuracy as well. Matt from Marist, stage 2 sky gold

That’s good for his age

Don’t worry too much about accuracy as that will come

Just get him fit

 

[kumadude]

That’s good for his age

Don’t worry too much about accuracy as that will come

Just get him fit

The accuracy came from run and line down 6th to 6th, with focus on base of 6th. Can swing it all 30 overs (for that age). Can manage about 10 overs before his legs begin to collapse. Upper body is extremely well built from karate, soccer and 6 years of cricket.