I'm fascinated by bowling speeds. This short film illustrates how hard it is to compare era by era
Thomson and Lillee, along with the West Indian quicks, were timed at the WACA in 75-76 series. All four quicks were comfortably bowling at over 90 mph. Then when they were filmed for the "fastest bowler" competition using the same equipment, they were on average at least 10kph slower.
It would be interesting to compare speed guns of the 70s with the modern version. No idea how you do this mind!
90 mph + seems to have been the sign of true express pace bowling since at least the 30 when Larwood was supposed to bowl at between 90-100 mph.
But are bowlers today quicker than their forbears?
On one side, it's arguable the true quicks are only marginally quicker today than say 40-50 years ago. Look at Brett Lee and Shoaib, bowling 20 years ago and no one has bowled quicker since. Then there's Thomson bowling nearly 50 years ago at 100 mph (if the speed guns then were correct).
Brian Statham was timed at 90mph in New Zealand, nearly 70 years ago.
Yet on the other side, any modern bowler who bowls in excess of 95 mph can only really manage it for very short spells before breaking down. Cummins and Starc bowled throughout most of the recent Ashes series at less than 90 mph and I suspect this was why they managed to stay the course for the entire series.
If we go even further back, then Ted MacDonald was seen as the quickest bowler in the early 20s. Yet commentators of the time thought Knox, Cotter and Jones, who bowled less than 20 years earlier, were at least as fast, while Kortright, was seen as faster than any of them. But could he really have been that fast? He generally bowled spells of more than 10 overs (sometimes 20 over + in a row), and he was rarely if ever injured. Plus there's one memorable quote from the period, of how he knocked a stump out of the ground which flew back bouncing over the keeper's head, who was standing fully 12 yards back. 12 yard is around 8-10 yards less than a modern quick.
I'm not sure where this ends but would love to know what people think
It would be interesting to compare speed guns of the 70s with the modern version. No idea how you do this mind!
90 mph + seems to have been the sign of true express pace bowling since at least the 30 when Larwood was supposed to bowl at between 90-100 mph.
But are bowlers today quicker than their forbears?
On one side, it's arguable the true quicks are only marginally quicker today than say 40-50 years ago. Look at Brett Lee and Shoaib, bowling 20 years ago and no one has bowled quicker since. Then there's Thomson bowling nearly 50 years ago at 100 mph (if the speed guns then were correct).
Brian Statham was timed at 90mph in New Zealand, nearly 70 years ago.
Yet on the other side, any modern bowler who bowls in excess of 95 mph can only really manage it for very short spells before breaking down. Cummins and Starc bowled throughout most of the recent Ashes series at less than 90 mph and I suspect this was why they managed to stay the course for the entire series.
If we go even further back, then Ted MacDonald was seen as the quickest bowler in the early 20s. Yet commentators of the time thought Knox, Cotter and Jones, who bowled less than 20 years earlier, were at least as fast, while Kortright, was seen as faster than any of them. But could he really have been that fast? He generally bowled spells of more than 10 overs (sometimes 20 over + in a row), and he was rarely if ever injured. Plus there's one memorable quote from the period, of how he knocked a stump out of the ground which flew back bouncing over the keeper's head, who was standing fully 12 yards back. 12 yard is around 8-10 yards less than a modern quick.
I'm not sure where this ends but would love to know what people think
