• 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.

Battle of Pre-Speedgun Fastest Bowlers

Manee

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
Seriously doubt it. The preliminary battles only let through one for the final battles and I am keeping it quick.
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Sorry to be a killjoy, and sorry to repeat what I said at the outset of this thread, but since it's Kortright v Tyson it seems apt.

Kortright may have been the fastest of his day, but there is no reliable comparative evidence of how quick he was compared with those of later generations. There may have been some old men who, in their 80s, saw Tyson bowl and were able to compare that sight with their misty-eyed reminiscences of watching Korty bowl when they were boys. Such evidence is so unreliable as to be meaningless, and I can't see how we can possibly accurately judge the pace of a bowler who last played the game over a century ago.
Click to expand...
That said, when the contest turns to bowlers that any of us have actually seen bowl I will enthusiastically take part!
 
Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
zaremba said:
Sorry to be a killjoy, and sorry to repeat what I said at the outset of this thread, but since it's Kortright v Tyson it seems apt.



That said, when the contest turns to bowlers that any of us have actually seen bowl I will enthusiastically take part!
Click to expand...

I saw Tyson bowl at Trent Bridge in the 80's in an Old England v Old Australia Match and it was the saddest thing I ever saw on a cricket field. He was in his mid 50's and absolute fodder for Ian Redpath who was still only early middle age then.

Anyway I'll vote for Tyson and Larwood.
 
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I believe, Mr Zaremba, that the opinions of the writers of standard texts are admissible in evidence provided the author is deceased. In this way we have ample evidence that Mr Kortwright was considered by many to be the fastest of his time.

I have already referred you to the writings of HHJ Chester who presided in the Supreme Court of cricketing judgment for over 30 years and his evidence about Mr Larwood - although it seems his evidence on the subject of Mr Burns has been disregarded.

In any event having reviewed the written evidence of the great scribes and spent a pleasant half hour viewing British Movietone’s website I am happy to make my judgment in favour of Messrs Larwood and Tyson

I regret to inform you Mr Zaremba that I was not assisted by your submissions in reaching my decision although I will excuse your unhelpfulness on this occasion as I appreciate the "Law" has recently traumatised you at both Hove and Manchester
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
fredfertang said:
I believe, Mr Zaremba, that the opinions of the writers of standard texts are admissible in evidence provided the author is deceased. In this way we have ample evidence that Mr Kortwright was considered by many to be the fastest of his time.
...
I regret to inform you Mr Zaremba that I was not assisted by your submissions in reaching my decision although I will excuse your unhelpfulness on this occasion as I appreciate the "Law" has recently traumatised you at both Hove and Manchester
Click to expand...
:laugh: :laugh: Very good!

As to the pace of old bowlers, I know that old texts are admissible in evidence (albeit that the debate becomes a bit sterile since none of us can have any input other than regurgitating what others have written) - and for this reason I'm happy to agree that Kortright was the fastest bowler of his time, as you would have seen had you read my skeleton argument fully.

My point is that we can't make any meaningful or sensible comparison of the speed of bowlers from different generations, particularly where we've not seen one (or, even worse, either) of the bowlers in question.
 
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
"Just because you are correct doesn't mean I am going to agree with you"

I was told by some **** of a County Court Registrar years ago - it seems appropriate in this context Mr Z
 
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
More a case of I dont like your client Mr Fertang are you man enough to do anything about it - I wasn't :no:
 
Manee

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
15 minutes left. An earlier stipulation states that if no bowler recieves more than 1 vote then neither goes through which will effectively end the preliminary battle - mean that no pre-1950 bowlers go through and mean that we get on to the modern era bowlers.
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Manee said:
15 minutes left. An earlier stipulation states that if no bowler recieves more than 1 vote then neither goes through which will effectively end the preliminary battle - mean that no pre-1950 bowlers go through and mean that we get on to the modern era bowlers.
Click to expand...
Ok then, Tyson and Larwood
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top