Best ever medium pacer?

[archie mac]

Interesting that, especially as Larwood was never the same bowler he had been after the bodyline series. So that is a difficult basis for comparison.

(I guess a useful, functional definition of a medium pacer is one to whom a good keeper can consistently stand up at the stumps to).

Fair enough definition, I will agree with that.

From what I have read, Tom Richardson was one of the fastest bowlers around in the 1890's though this is the first I have really heard of Kortright..

A very good book on Kortright is 'The Demon and The Lobster' by Anthony Meredith

But to say that Larwood is the foundation stone of the true fast bowler is stretching it a liitle bit. And claiming that the old LBW rule disadvantaged Larwood is not such a good point, as it would have applied equally to all bowlers and is therefore a little irrelevant.

Just to confirm that I did not post that I thought Larwood was the foundation stone of a true fast bowler, or anything about the LBW law. Although it would have been interesting to have seen how Larwood would have faired under the current LBW law

 

[JBH001]

Sorry Archie Mac.

My comments re Larwood, fast bowling and the LBW law were more directed at Goughy.
I merely thought his comments a bit of a stretch - as apart from anything else, Larwood record really isnt all that flash.
Especially when isolated from the Bodyline series, where things were very much in his favour. Apart from, of course, the LBW rule and that would have been irrelevant anyway in the context of the Bodyline Series.

 

[archie mac]

Sorry Archie Mac.

My comments re Larwood, fast bowling and the LBW law were more directed at Goughy.
I merely thought his comments a bit of a stretch - as apart from anything else, Larwood record really isnt all that flash.
Especially when isolated from the Bodyline series, where things were very much in his favour. Apart from, of course, the LBW rule and that would have been irrelevant anyway in the context of the Bodyline Series.

Okay I will let it slide just this once

 

[JBH001]

As for Compton and his opinion on Larwood, he didnot (Compton) start his FCC until 1936 (I think) so would not have seen Larwood at his best, as he was beset by injuries after 1934 and even played as a batsman only for Notts in some matches.

Even so, after a little trawl through cricinfo it seems Larwood took 82 wickets in FC matches in 1934, as well as 100 wickets in 1935 and 1936. Maybe Compton's remarks should be given greater credence?

 

[archie mac]

Even so, after a little trawl through cricinfo it seems Larwood took 82 wickets in FC matches in 1934, as well as 100 wickets in 1935 and 1936. Maybe Compton's remarks should be given greater credence?

He had broken his foot during the Bodyline tour and most believed he was not the same fast bowler after this. Plus a row with the MCC seemed to hasten his retirement from the game, and as 1936 was his last season I would imagine he was not at his best. Plus I am not sure where C_C read those comments, I have never read anything about Compton saying this about Larwood.

 

[Goughy]

He had broken his foot during the Bodyline tour and most believed he was not the same fast bowler after this. Plus a row with the MCC seemed to hasten his retirement from the game, and as 1936 was his last season I would imagine he was not at his best.

Could not agree more.
If you look at pre-bodyline and actual bodyline footage and compare it to the later films, his run-up is shorter and there is a massive reduction in explosiveness at the crease after the injury. Either protecting the foot, or more likely given the severity of the injury and lack of proper healing he was not capable of bowling without pain or maybe just not capable of bowling at his old pace period.

The reason I mention Larwood as the model for future fast bowlers is that he was wonderfully athletic and flexible. He was also very 'aggressive' in his action in a time when many if not the vast majority were very stiff and robotic.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Best current medium pacer, IMO, is Vaas. About the only bowler these days who consistently bowls old fashioned cutters, especially when the ball is a bit old.

 

[Top_Cat]

It is very debatable whether Larwood was any faster than Charles Kortright or Charles Harenc.

How do you know? Did you see them bowl?

I see no reason why Larwood was anything more than a Rodney Hogg or Patrick Patterson- very quick but not of the highest quality either.

I've read quite the opposite. I've read plenty about how accurate Larwood was. I mean, not only did he managed to bowl a lot of batsmen in his career, he managed to hit quite a few too. Surely there's some accuracy required there? I did, however, read that early-on he was erratic. But by Bodyline, he was apparently at his peak with speed and accuracy.

The reason I mention Larwood as the model for future fast bowlers is that he was wonderfully athletic and flexible. He was also very 'aggressive' in his action in a time when many if not the vast majority were very stiff and robotic.

I thought his action was quite beautiful and fluid from what I've seen. I tried emulating it once and realised I'd have to build up a heck of a lot of upper-body strength because it was really difficult to avoid slinging the ball and bowling round-arm. The flexibility was the key, really.

 

[a massive zebra]

How do you know? Did you see them bowl?

That is exactly the point. There is no way of knowing for sure whether Larwood was in fact faster than any that had come before, so the following paragraph

Larwood was by FAR the fastest before and until Tyson. Watch the film, read in depth and listen to people. It is without doubt the case. Only those who know nothing or think they know soooo much about cricket that they can show it by arguing and believing a controversial point would think different.

is nothing but mere conjecture as the issue is highly debatable. H.S. Altham wrote in the 1930s that Kortright was the fastest bowler in living memory, and he for one must have seen Larwood.

 

[archie mac]

This speed thing is very interesting, you would imagine that as every sporting record that they have kept times for has been broken, and most are no older than 5 years, that fast bowlers must be quicker over all these days.

One of the earlier bowlers Charles 'Terror' Turner had the speed of his bowling measured in 1888 and he was found to bowl 55 mph or 88.5 kph

 

[C_C]

This speed thing is very interesting, you would imagine that as every sporting record that they have kept times for has been broken, and most are no older than 5 years, that fast bowlers must be quicker over all these days.

One of the earlier bowlers Charles 'Terror' Turner had the speed of his bowling measured in 1888 and he was found to bowl 55 mph or 88.5 kph

I think every era has 2-3 express quicks ( 95mph+ consistently)- Kortwrite(sp?), Larwood(perhaps), Charlie Griffiths, Jeff Thompson, Michael Holding, Patrick Patterson, Waqar Younis, Akhtar and Lee to name most of them.However, only Holding and Younis of that group have attained true greatness. But if we are to compare 90+mph bowlers, 75-96/97 is the period where there were the most quality pacers in that category.

 

[oz_fan]

I think every era has 2-3 express quicks ( 95mph+ consistently)- Kortwrite(sp?), Larwood(perhaps), Charlie Griffiths, Jeff Thompson, Michael Holding, Patrick Patterson, Waqar Younis, Akhtar and Lee to name most of them.However, only Holding and Younis of that group have attained true greatness. But if we are to compare 90+mph bowlers, 75-96/97 is the period where there were the most quality pacers in that category.

Completely agree with that.

 

[Matt79]

RE: larwood as a model, lindwall is reputed to have decided to become a fast bowler after watching larwood (not a small thing give he was an aussie kid and how much autralia loooved larwood), and then taught himself to bowl by watching and seeking to mimic film of larwood's run up and action. And lindwall IS considered an all time great who had a fantastic action, so its reasonable to think larwood's must have been alright as well.

RE: speed of deliveries getting faster over the decades, i think its nonsensical to believe that, on average, the speed of bowlers would not have increased - if you look at the physical fitness, improved nutrition and the fact that on average people are actually larger than they were a hundred years ago, and as has been alluded to, every record set against a watch is regularly broken, you'd expect bowlers to have become quicker. That said, there would be people who were freaks back in the day and would still be considered quick by modern standards.

 

[Craig]

I would like to know how somebody like McGrath can be consided 'medium-pace', he is medium-fast at the worst.

For me somebody like Craig McMillan, Andrew Symonds (not bowling off spin), Mark Butcher, Marcus Trescothick, Ian Harvey, Sachin Tendulkar (again when he is not bowling spin) etc. is the proper classifican for a medium pacer.

 

[albo97056]

surely its possible to measure the speed of bowlers from old footage roughly. You know that a frame is 25th of a second or something, you just add up the frames and the distance is a given, you can therefore find the speed.
That should give an accuracy of +- 5ish mph i would think.
Say you have a bowler who has a reaction time (from hand to bat) of .5 seconds. 100 mph... thats 12.5 frames.. if your error is one frame then thats .04 of a second.. Not bad really.
Of course it all depends on how accurate the camera is for that 25 fps, but i imagine its pretty accurate.
They do it today when they show those reaction time thingys on tele, i dont see this as any different, youll notice that every time they shift a frame on that reaction clock it increases by 0.04....
So theoretically, (im no expert) one should be able to find the speed of larwood and many before him i expect as there was film footage goin back to the 20s i imagine. Even if its to the nearest 10 mph it would give an idea of how they compare to today...

 

[Matt79]

Ok, I'm sensing not a lot of love for the idea of McGrath as a medium pacer. I know others have put his name forward, but I initially included him so I'll seek to explain my reasoning.

a) I agree if anything he's more 'medium-fast', not 'medium'. (although sometimes still 'fast-medium')
b) He has got slower from what I've seen, and I've not seen much of him since the Ashes, where for most of the time he had an injury he was recovering from. He seemed to be consistently bowling in the 120s. That is not fast-medium - its almost Steve Waugh pace and nobody called him fast-medium.
c) I think he bowls in the style that I've read about great medium pacers bowling, rather than your classic fast bowler, ie emphasis on accuracy, variations of movement, and speed, rather than intimidation (with the ball, the face and mouth are a separate issue), and pace.
d) I'm sure I've seen Gilchrist keeping up at the stumps to him on a few occasions in either a 20/20 or ODI. That he hasn't done so in tests yet is probably because McGrath would kill him than because it wouldn't be doable when McGrath is bowling at a slower speed.
e) None of this detracts from McGrath's bowling at all. He obviously still delivers the ball with enough on it to make it very difficult to play. In his heart he'll always be a menacing pace-man, much like Tiger O'Reilly liked to feel like he was the reincarnation of Spoffoth in attitude etc.

All that said, I wouldn't disagree with anyone leaving him out of their calculations for the reasons people have offered previously.

 

[Goughy]

surely its possible to measure the speed of bowlers from old footage roughly. You know that a frame is 25th of a second or something, you just add up the frames and the distance is a given, you can therefore find the speed.
That should give an accuracy of +- 5ish mph i would think.
Say you have a bowler who has a reaction time (from hand to bat) of .5 seconds. 100 mph... thats 12.5 frames.. if your error is one frame then thats .04 of a second.. Not bad really.
Of course it all depends on how accurate the camera is for that 25 fps, but i imagine its pretty accurate.
They do it today when they show those reaction time thingys on tele, i dont see this as any different, youll notice that every time they shift a frame on that reaction clock it increases by 0.04....
So theoretically, (im no expert) one should be able to find the speed of larwood and many before him i expect as there was film footage goin back to the 20s i imagine. Even if its to the nearest 10 mph it would give an idea of how they compare to today...

If only it was so easy, but that is not how speed is now measured. This method suggested means that different balls travel different distances and come off the pitch at different speeds. Bowlers height also comes into the equation. There are too many variables to make the results worth the paper they are written on.

Obviously we know use the speed from the hand and before bouncing. In reality it is measured at its quickest part. Measuring reaction speed would show a dramatically reduced figure from the numbers the methods used today produce.

 

[albo97056]

If only it was so easy, but that is not how speed is measured.

It is the speed from the hand and before bouncing. In reality it is measured at its quickest part. Measuring reaction speed would show a dramatically reduced figure from the numbers the methods used today produce.

ok yes thats true.. so why dont we use the full lenght reaction times for now and compare to the old footage? To take the speed of uncovered pitches out of the equation one would use a yorker from both periods, and preferably compare similar heights of bowlers. The distance is therefore the same and the slowing down the same, therefore allowing one to extrapolate the speed at realease by comparing to the release of the ball in the modern ball.

 

[Goughy]

On a sidenote. Don't you just love scientific accuracy.

"The methods of measurement are different. Harold Larwood in the 1920s had the speed measured by high speed photography and his speed was recorded as between 70mph and 130 mph."
http://thatscricket.oneindia.in/interviews/2307franktyson.html

In other breaking news it has just been discovered that I measure somewhere between 5ft and 7ft tall.

 

[albo97056]

wel that result had no modern analog so obviously was inaccurate.. going back to it nowdays it would give much better accuracy when we know so much more about how the pball slows down through the air and off the pitch