-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Could Jeff Thomson have been the greatest?
- Thread starter aussie tragic
- Start date
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
As social said, it's a totally different method of calculation, and some of the deliveries in that video were as quick as anything that's been recorded in a match in the last 5 or 6 years since speed guns became the norm.silentstriker said:
Occasionally they have a breakdown of the speeds on TV, and your average delivery at 150 kph will be travelling around 130 by the time it reaches the batsman, but the speed is measured out of the bowler's hand. The deliveries in that clip that were around 138-140 and above on average would certainly have been over 150 out of the hand, and when you consider that Thomson is universally considered to have slowed considerably after his injury, it's not hard to believe at all that he would have pushed the odd delivery above 160 at his peak, which is something Lee and Shoaib have only just managed to touch.
edit: Just watched the clip again, I'd forgotten that Thomson hit 147 with his last delivery. Averaged over the 22 years, that's absolutely lightning quick.
Last edited:
C_C
International Captain
Yes, he could've been the most frightening bowler of alltime but as far as i am concerned, that claim rests squarely with Michael Holding.
Not only is he an alltime great bowler with an action for the purists, he is the author of some of the craziest and most frightening spells of fast bowling ever seen.
His over to Boycott is often talked about. What isnt so oftenly talked about is how he utterly humiliated Brian Close and his partner ( Amiss ? not sure) for an entire session.
Or his terror at Sabina park against the Indians...or his terrorising spell at a completely flat oval pitch where he took his 16-fer i think.
Not only is he an alltime great bowler with an action for the purists, he is the author of some of the craziest and most frightening spells of fast bowling ever seen.
His over to Boycott is often talked about. What isnt so oftenly talked about is how he utterly humiliated Brian Close and his partner ( Amiss ? not sure) for an entire session.
Or his terror at Sabina park against the Indians...or his terrorising spell at a completely flat oval pitch where he took his 16-fer i think.
archie mac
International Coach
What series did he humiliate Brian Close?C_C said:
I imagin it was 1976. His scores were 2, 36* 60,46 & 2, 20
He was 45 and to quote Bill Frindall "he defended stoically for 162 grim mins in his final Test innings, bravely chesting several vicious bouncers"
C_C
International Captain
Definite slant to Bill Frindall's commentary there.
I dunno which series it was but it was a young mikey holding and i managed to get a clip of that session ( 1.5 hrs of it anyways) through umm...'means'. Close got battered and bruised that match and several bouncers he turned his head away at the last possible instant. Even after the umpire warned Holding for overdoing the short stuff, he just started pitching it at good length at frightening speeds and still getting the ball to climb enough so Close got battered near his hips a few times. His partner ( Amiss i think-not sure) copped several bad ones on the chest from Mikey.
archie mac
International Coach
I must admit to not having ever watched the series, but I have read about it, and the words used are always brave and gutsy never humiliated.C_C said:
Brian Close may just be the most fearless cricketer ever to walk onto a cricket field.
Once when be struck on the head while fielding in close he yelled 'catch it' as he fell to the ground.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Of course it isn't. The reason that words like "gutsy" are used to describe the stand rather than "humiliated" is because they didn't get out. Holding got increasingly frustrated and bowled bouncer after bouncer and was eventually told to cut it out by the umpire, and despite being hit repeatedly (as you said), they survived until the close of play. There's no doubt it was a fearsome spell of bowling, but ultimately Holding lost the battle. Describing it as humiliation is akin to suggesting that Alan Donald "humiliated" Michael Atherton in the famous spell.C_C said:So uhh a batsman getting battered and bruised in the entire torso ( Close + his partner took atleast 30 balls on the body-most of them not bouncers but 'rib ticklers') and avoiding certain decapitation repeatedly at the last moment is not humiliation ?!?
Anyway, I've seen this spell too, and there's no question that Close was unbelievably gutsy. For a 45 year old to stand up to that kind of punishment and still preserve his wicket is simply amazing.
Last edited:
Josh
International Regular
It is after dismissal, when he's walking off the ground, and the camera gets a shot of his brown pants.C_C said:So uhh a batsman getting battered and bruised in the entire torso ( Close + his partner took atleast 30 balls on the body-most of them not bouncers but 'rib ticklers') and avoiding certain decapitation repeatedly at the last moment is not humiliation ?!?
Only then is it humiliation.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
And I don't have a problem with that either. Not 170 though.FaaipDeOiad said:
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
It's not such a big stretch, really. Perhaps not 170+, but certainly 160+ on a much more consistent basis than Lee or Shoaib, which suggests the occasional ball could have been up in the mid to high 160s. IIRC, Shoaib has broken the 100 mph barrier once (161 kph), which was in SA during the 2003 WC when many bowlers were clocked faster than normal, and Lee broke it twice in successive deliveries in New Zealand early last year. If 140 odd over 22 yards is around 150 out of the hand, and Thomson was bowling 147 over 22 yards after his shoulder injury, I think it's reasonable to suggest he was comfortably quicker than any other bowler in recent years. Michael Holding was an express quick after all, and probably bowled in the 150+ range like Shoaib, Lee, Bond, Edwards etc, and Thomson was clearly quicker than him by a distance even post-injuiry. Give him a high altitude or a generous camera or something and I think it's plausible that he could have got up close to the 105 mph mark.silentstriker said:
Obviously it's possible to release the ball quicker with a throwing action than a bowling one, but we're talking about a very low number of bowlers who can break 100 mph here, and the advantage of a lengthy run up combined with an efficient bowling action is a pretty significant one.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
But not enough to counterbalance the lack of a chucking action. Thats why baseball pitchers tend to be faster than cricket bowlers. High 90's is pretty common to see in baseball normally, its exceedingly rare to see that in cricket. Without proof, there is no way I am going to believe that anyone bowled a legal cricket delivery above around 165.FaaipDeOiad said:
Its an extraordinary claim, and thus requires proof.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
It's not something anyone can prove. Even if Lee did it in the first test on thursday it'd be hard to give it much credibility given that speed guns are fairly fallible and you get unrealistic variations in bowling speeds from one test to another and one region to another for the same bowlers. Brett Lee bowled the fastest of his career in New Zealand last year, including a handful of spells where he was consistently above 150kph, and one where he bowled an over that was something like 155, 160, 161, 158, 158, 155. In England a couple of months later he was around 90mph on average, which is around 145kph, and only got the odd delivery above 150, let alone 160.silentstriker said:
I just think that it's fairly plausible for Thomson. If we can assume that the delivery he bowled in that video that was clocked at 147 was 155+ out of the hand or perhaps even slightly quicker, and everyone agrees he was faster pre-injury, it's not a huge stretch to say he could have gone a fair bit quicker on the odd occasion earlier in his career. Whether that is merely the sort of pace Lee bowled in that one over in the 155-160 range or 5+ kph quicker than that is anyone's guess.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
I don't know why anyone would think that Holding was some kind of folk hero for bowling 5 or 6 bouncers an over at Close and Edrich (not Amiss as previously stated). It was a totally pointless assult that should not have been allowed to continue for that long. When they pitched the ball up the following day England were all out for about 120. Any of the great fast bowlers of the last 20 years could have done that if the rules permitted. At the time many observers felt that the Windies were taking out their frustration at the assault handed out to them by Australia the previous Winter, certainly Clive Lloyd made no attempt to stop it. They must have felt really proud at being able to intimidate two middle aged men....neither of whom ever played for England again.
archie mac
International Coach
Only because he faced some of the greatest fast bowlers, never wearing a helmet, and never stepping away to leg, and one time in the 60s walking down the pitch and smashing Griffith off his length.C_C said:
C_C
International Captain
If you saw the spell, you'd realise that Holding, Dereyck Murray and the first slip were smiling the whole time. Holding's plan was not to out the batsman then ( as Holding himself admitted later on and Lloyd said about that match) but to hurt them. It was 'pace like fire' philosophy at its nascent stages in the windies team of that time. It is definite distortion to say Holding got increasingly frustrated coz he couldnt out Close - he was toying with Close and that was the plan all along ! When you are bowling perfume balls after perfume balls and bouncers after bouncers that the batsman is copping on his body, it isnt about outing the batsman-its about humiliating him.
Nobody said the bowler has to out the batsman as soon as he can, particularly if he's got all the time in the world to play with and the batsmen cant score off of him but keep taking body blows. Actually,that is one of the scenarios every fast bowler enjoys in his heart and i dont see it as a battle lost.