Best ever medium pacer?

[albo97056]

you could atleast compare to see who was quicker, say mcgrath or larwood for instance by doing a simple split screen like on modern coverage.. whichever reached the batsman first (for a yorker obviously) would be quicker, speed through the air is fairly constant.... I mean you can see that hoggard is slower than mahmood that way.. and thats only a 5mph difference

 

[Goughy]

Larwood was 5'8" and McGrath is 6'6"

Makes a big difference to trajectory and speed off the wicket

 

[albo97056]

i was using that as an example.. i didnt know.. obviously you would use similar heighted bowlers

 

[roseboy64]

I'd say Wavell Hinds is the best example of a medium pacer.

 

[albo97056]

mark ealham is the definition of medium pace

 

[Langeveldt]

has to be a Kiwi, Gavin Larsen, Nathan Astle or Chris Harris, for proper medium pacers.. Not sure what their records are like though..

McGrath isn't a medium pacer! Thats as silly as calling Gilchrist an all rounder because he keeps wicket!

 

[Matt79]

Thats as silly as calling Gilchrist an all rounder because he keeps wicket!

Off-topic, but:
I would call Gilchrist an allrounder as, when in form, he performs in two separate disciplines at a standard that would merit his selection for each alone, ie. he'd be selected as a batsman if he didn't keep wickets, and he'd be selected as the keeper even if he was only an average bat. That's the definition I use for allrounder. The keeper is the only position where you could be selected because of your fielding skills, so I don't see why a keeper who's a good enough bat can't be classed as an allrounder. I'd put Andy flower, and Sangakkara in the same category.

 

[silentstriker]

Off-topic, but:
I would call Gilchrist an allrounder as, when in form, he performs in two separate disciplines at a standard that would merit his selection for each alone, ie. he'd be selected as a batsman if he didn't keep wickets, and he'd be selected as the keeper even if he was only an average bat. That's the definition I use for allrounder. The keeper is the only position where you could be selected because of your fielding skills, so I don't see why a keeper who's a good enough bat can't be classed as an allrounder. I'd put Andy flower, and Sangakkara in the same category.

I agree. My definition of an all rounder is that you can make a test-standard team separatly in at least two capacities (out of bowling, batting, keeping).

Of course, then Flintoff would be only a mediocre all rounder as he can make any team with the ball, but he'd have a hard time making teams with his bat alone.

 

[Top_Cat]

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/inte...ranktyson.html

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

Another side-note; that's not scientific accuracy but measurement accuracy. One can only work with the data one has available and in that case, cameras would have been a pretty awful way to measure speed to the error margin blows out, hence the large range of possible speeds.

 

[Goughy]

Another side-note; that's not scientific accuracy but measurement accuracy. One can only work with the data one has available and in that case, cameras would have been a pretty awful way to measure speed to the error margin blows out, hence the large range of possible speeds.

I only included the statement as I thought it was funny that someone even thought giving such such a conclusion was worth the paper it was written on.

I mean its such a wide margin that it was a pointless exercise and proved nothing

 

[a massive zebra]

Harold Larwood said in his autobiography that he was timed at 96mph in England during 1928.

 

[marc71178]

Using what exactly?

The Dickinson method?!

 

[silentstriker]

Harold Larwood said in his autobiography that he was timed at 96mph on the 1928-29 tour of England.

I call BS on that.

 

[albo97056]

why is it if something happened a long time ago, people discredit it. Why cant someone who played 70 years ago have bowled as fast as someone today... theyre all human! People have some sort of superiority complex about themselve and how great everything is today.

 

[a massive zebra]

I call BS on that.

If you do not believe me read The Larwood Story page 112.

 

[a massive zebra]

Using what exactly?

The Dickinson method?!

A stopwatch.

 

[steds]

How do you time something moving at 96 mph over 22 yards using a stopwatch?

96 mph is 46.933333 etc. yards a second, if my quick calculation is correct (which it probably isn't). That's an awful short time to react.

 

[a massive zebra]

I have no idea - just reading what it says in the book.

 

[Top_Cat]

why is it if something happened a long time ago, people discredit it. Why cant someone who played 70 years ago have bowled as fast as someone today... theyre all human! People have some sort of superiority complex about themselve and how great everything is today.

It's not that we don't believe people could have bowled quick in those days; we're just questioning the actual reading because those of us in science (or used to be, anyway) know that measurement tools of any real validity were non-existant back then.

 

[archie mac]

If you do not believe me read The Larwood Story page 112.

He also writes that Wes Hall was electronically timed at 90 mph