fastest bowler ever?

[Migara]

There is no data but I've heard many commentators state, like Richie Benaud, that Tyson was the quickest he had ever seen, either on the pitch or from the commentators box.

Classic bias. It is one thing facing them and another seeing them from pavillion. It is not the same when you see them at 30 compared to 75. Subjective assessment of pace bowlers is almost always inaccurate once it is passed a certain speed.

My take for what its worth is that there's a limit to how fast the human body can bowl and we reached that a long time ago.

Probably it is what Shoaib or Zahid has done. And it was achieved in 90s and 2000s, not before.

 

[Line and Length]

Classic bias. It is one thing facing them and another seeing them from pavillion. It is not the same when you see them at 30 compared to 75. Subjective assessment of pace bowlers is almost always inaccurate once it is passed a certain speed.

I agree with your closing sentence. However, to called Benaud's opinion biased is a bit strong. He would have both faced Tyson and viewed him from the pavilion (as a player not a commentator). His comment about Tyson being the fastest bowler he had ever seen was made during the Lillee/Thomson era when Benaud would have been in his 40s. Interestingly Don Bradman also described Tyson as the fastest he had seen.

 

[the big bambino]

Just remember you're talking to a bloke who said there's no data to prove such then made a definitive statement despite their being no data to prove such. But is always on the look out for bias nonetheless

Most sides could put out pace heavy attacks but didn't because of historical selection policies and the fact the pace candidates available were hacks. When Australia were at their lowest in the mid 80s we could field Lawson, McDermott, Gilbert, Thommo, Hughes, Denis Hickey and Chris Matthews if we wanted. Plus we had Hogg and Rackemann in SA. Could've almost fielded an XI of fast bowlers but we were a bad side back then. They were all either at the twilight of careers or green. But they were faaaaaaast! Just not good. Much like the present SL pace attack. All well and good they're quick but not much if they are continually sent hopping over the boundary. It just means they don't have the bowling depth now. But they're quick ...

 

[Migara]

I agree with your closing sentence. However, to called Benaud's opinion biased is a bit strong. He would have both faced Tyson and viewed him from the pavilion (as a player not a commentator). His comment about Tyson being the fastest bowler he had ever seen was made during the Lillee/Thomson era when Benaud would have been in his 40s. Interestingly Don Bradman also described Tyson as the fastest he had seen.

Still you don't realize that there is a temporal bias too. Benaud at 25 and 40 is not the same observer, but two observers split by time. That is why scientific research train observers and use them only for short periods of time. Benaud may be knowledgable, but he is a single observer with both observational and temporal bias in this case. Hence grossly inaccurate if we to take his opinions ans conclusions.

 

[Migara]

Just remember you're talking to a bloke who said there's no data to prove such then made a definitive statement despite their being no data to prove such. But is always on the look out for bias nonetheless

Most sides could put out pace heavy attacks but didn't because of historical selection policies and the fact the pace candidates available were hacks. When Australia were at their lowest in the mid 80s we could field Lawson, McDermott, Gilbert, Thommo, Hughes, Denis Hickey and Chris Matthews if we wanted. Plus we had Hogg and Rackemann in SA. Could've almost fielded an XI of fast bowlers but we were a bad side back then. They were all either at the twilight of careers or green. But they were faaaaaaast! Just not good. Much like the present SL pace attack. All well and good they're quick but not much if they are continually sent hopping over the boundary. It just means they don't have the bowling depth now. But they're quick ...

Quick and express are not synonymus. Even today probably Mark Wood would be the only one who can claim to be express. (IPL the speed guns are on steroids, so I don't care about their readings). None of above other than Thompson were express. Even he may have not been in 80s.

Some people are glorifying the past so much. Everything improves including a 100m dash over 100 years, but not bowling speeds. Hmm . . .

 

[the big bambino]

So we’ve gone from every side has them to only Mark Wood? I see.

Rauf, Ferguson, Mills, Milne amongst many others quick. The thing that’s changed is the number of countries and therefore participants has increased. The shorter formats keep other wise injury prone speedsters in the game.

I remember seeing an ageing Brian Macmillan reach 140ks. He was nothing special in speed and slower than all the men I mentioned earlier. I take the argument about running speeds but it’s just a false analogy.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't really think we have more freak quick bowlers per capita now, but the average speed of the average bowler has definitely increased IMO, due to better coaching.

Chris Woakes and Matt Henry are basically thought of as medium-fast seamers but they usually bowl in the high 130s. This was way quicker than average 20 years ago.

Where it really stands out is associate cricket though. 20 years ago anyone from a non-Test playing nation bowling over 130km/hr was a real standout and specialist first and second change bowlers would rock up bowling little innies at 120km/hr... but you can now watch T20 games between the 25th and 26th ranked teams in the world and their seamers, while not as good as the main countries, generally keep up with them in pace, outlying freaks aside.

 

[Jack1]

How fast can Umran Malik bowl

Slower than Mark Wood.

 

[Line and Length]

Still you don't realize that there is a temporal bias too. Benaud at 25 and 40 is not the same observer, but two observers split by time. That is why scientific research train observers and use them only for short periods of time. Benaud may be knowledgable, but he is a single observer with both observational and temporal bias in this case. Hence grossly inaccurate if we to take his opinions ans conclusions.

Benaud "grossly inaccurate"? I'd accept his opinions/observations above most CW posters. You overlook the fact that two greats in Bradman and Benaud share the some opinions based on their observations of Tyson.

 

[Xix2565]

It's still judging by eyesight, and I don't think that comes with a HUD showcasing speeds as per current standards of measurement.

 

[thierry henry]

I don't really think we have more freak quick bowlers per capita now, but the average speed of the average bowler has definitely increased IMO, due to better coaching.

Chris Woakes and Matt Henry are basically thought of as medium-fast seamers but they usually bowl in the high 130s. This was way quicker than average 20 years ago.

Where it really stands out is associate cricket though. 20 years ago anyone from a non-Test playing nation bowling over 130km/hr was a real standout and specialist first and second change bowlers would rock up bowling little innies at 120km/hr... but you can now watch T20 games between the 25th and 26th ranked teams in the world and their seamers, while not as good as the main countries, generally keep up with them in pace, outlying freaks aside.

Yeah I distinctly recall (although perhaps filtered through childhood exaggeration and stupidity) the "minnow" teams at World Cups in the 90s and early 2000s legit being "slow medium" types. I might be wrong about specific bowlers but I wanna say the likes of the Netherlands or UAE circa 1996 were running with properly Nathan Astle-style 115kph, keeper up to the stumps type as their frontliners. Bangladesh had guys bowling 118kph even after getting test status (Manjurul Islam comes to mind). Even test-status 1990s Zimbabwe would have Mbangwa or John Rennie opening the bowling sometimes at barely 120kph. Don't really see it anymore.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah I distinctly recall (although perhaps filtered through childhood exaggeration and stupidity) the "minnow" teams at World Cups in the 90s and early 2000s legit being "slow medium" types. I might be wrong about specific bowlers but I wanna say the likes of the Netherlands or UAE circa 1996 were running with properly Nathan Astle-style 115kph, keeper up to the stumps type as their frontliners. Bangladesh had guys bowling 118kph even after getting test status (Manjurul Islam comes to mind). Even test-status 1990s Zimbabwe would have Mbangwa or John Rennie opening the bowling sometimes at barely 120kph. Don't really see it anymore.

Nah it's not really an exaggeration - Tim de Leede was Netherlands best bowler for a decade and that (Astleesque swingers) is exactly what he bowled. His son Bas is now a 5th/6th bowling option for them and a #3 bat, and he bowls at 90mph sometimes. It's a great example of how good professional coaches have become at getting the most out of the average bowler pace-wise.

I still don't think we're getting more absolute pace freaks though.

 

[cnerd123]

Does anyone know how bowling speeds are measured these days? Just curious about how reliable and consistent the readings are, and if the way they've been measured has changed significantly since back when Thommo et all were being tested. Wondering if anyone has done any research and/or written a piece about this.

Lockie Ferguson has a new app out called Machineroad. I tested it out last night and some guy in my nets clocked 134kmph lol. Definitely not accurate, but that got me thinking about how much we just take the numbers on screen for granted, and how much complexity/error there must be around measuring bowling speeds in general.

 

[thierry henry]

Nah it's not really an exaggeration - Tim de Leede was Netherlands best bowler for a decade and that's exactly what he bowled. His son Bas is now a 5th/6th bowling option for them and a #3 bat, and he bowls at 90mph sometimes. It's a great example of how good professional coaches have become at getting the most out of the average bowler pace-wise.

I still don't think we're getting more absolute pace freaks though.

It's weird though in retrospect cos even at club level cricket, anywhere in the world, you'll have a few blokes who are your quick bowlers even if quick just means that one bloke who can bowl 125-130kph. It's just inevitable if you assemble any decent number of cricketers. If you're naming your best side for a big occasion then surely, even if out of sheer embarrassment, you'd pick "that bloke who bowls quick"? Just can't imagine rocking up with shameless dibbly dobblers as your new-ball bowlers on the world stage. Even 1992 NZ picked Cairns or Watson or Morrison.

 

[Xix2565]

Just can't imagine rocking up with shameless dibbly dobblers as your new-ball bowlers on the world stage.

1983 India says hello.

 

[the big bambino]

I don't really think we have more freak quick bowlers per capita now, but the average speed of the average bowler has definitely increased IMO, due to better coaching.

Chris Woakes and Matt Henry are basically thought of as medium-fast seamers but they usually bowl in the high 130s. This was way quicker than average 20 years ago.

Where it really stands out is associate cricket though. 20 years ago anyone from a non-Test playing nation bowling over 130km/hr was a real standout and specialist first and second change bowlers would rock up bowling little innies at 120km/hr... but you can now watch T20 games between the 25th and 26th ranked teams in the world and their seamers, while not as good as the main countries, generally keep up with them in pace, outlying freaks aside.

I think Henry and Woakes have been wrongly categorised. I'm not sure about Henry but Woakes got his classification when he made his international bow and struggled to get it passed 120-125ks. He has become faster and probably is proof of your point about coaching and fitness improving an individual's speed at least. But he has reached a potential that was always there and an important improvement for him. But it's still not a speed that would have made him a standout 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

I agree about the associates and the improvements in sides like Zimbabwe. Ngarava and Muzarabani being an example of their improvement in quality. While Chatara is representative of what they were. There are more of them now because there are more countries playing. The administrators are better at finding the talent and have the money to entice them to play cricket rather than another sport. On top of that the coaches are extracting their full potential.

 

[Spark]

I thought the general consensus is that truly extreme pace needed some sort of physical freak specimen that only comes around once a generation anyway (at least to the level that they can bowl to international standard) and is sort of independent of coaching standards, whereas the 135km/h-140km/h sweet spot that like 70% of international bowlers seem to inhabit is far more likely to be achieved now with modern professional coaching?

 

[Jack1]

I thought the general consensus is that truly extreme pace needed some sort of physical freak specimen that only comes around once a generation anyway (at least to the level that they can bowl to international standard) and is sort of independent of coaching standards, whereas the 135km/h-140km/h sweet spot that like 70% of international bowlers seem to inhabit is far more likely to be achieved now with modern professional coaching?

Yes I think super fast bowlers are just natural athletes in this particular movement pattern. Sometimes technique and run up changes can make you faster but I don’t believe lifting weights is going to help you.

 

[the big bambino]

I thought the general consensus is that truly extreme pace needed some sort of physical freak specimen that only comes around once a generation anyway (at least to the level that they can bowl to international standard) and is sort of independent of coaching standards, whereas the 135km/h-140km/h sweet spot that like 70% of international bowlers seem to inhabit is far more likely to be achieved now with modern professional coaching?

Seems like it and Bhuvi is another example of a bowler moving from the mid 120s to mid to high 130s. Whereas Philander seemed to stay around the high 120 mark. Asif too. Though they may have bowled quicker in the shorter formats.

 

[Spark]

Even bowlers who were absolute tearaways when young seem to end up dropping back to that zone anyway, like Cummins and Steyn, it seems to be a real physical sweet spot where you can bowl long spells without really overtaxing your body but fast enough to still trouble international batsmen.