Best ever medium pacer?

[Matt79]

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

I'm sure Larwood was told he did deliver a ball at 96mph. I have some reservations about it though, not because I think he's lying, or that the person who told him that's how quick it was was lying, but because I can't see how they could accurately time it.

The only way I can think to time it with what was then available is to time how long it takes to travel a set distance and average it out - so any speed they worked out is going to be an average velocity over that distance. Practicality suggests it can't have been too short a distance as it would be too difficult to measure. Compare that to today's measurements using a radar gun which detects an objects speed at a particular instant.

Now the reason I doubt the 96 mph is that its lineball with the fastest speeds recorded today. But today's measurements are of a particular moment, and that moment is almost as soon as it leaves the bowler's hand. From the moment it leaves the bowler's hand it begins to lose speed, especially when it pitches. They had it on telly last season, following a bowl in slow motion as it travelled down the pitch. By half pitch a 90mph ball was travelling 80mph, after pitching high-60s. The amount of speed lost when pitching seems to vary from bowler to bowler, hence the impression that some bowlers are "quicker off the pitch" than others. For a delivery to AVERAGE 96mph over the length of the pitch, it would have to leave the bowler's hand at lot more than 100mph. That seems unlikely, given noone has achieved such a feet since more reliable measurements have come into being.

 

[albo97056]

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.

Yes i realise that you were talking about accuracy. The point i was making is that as things get older we take less respect in them. I dont think it was accurate, im just saying its perfectly reasonable that he did bowl in the 90's is it not.. I dont understand why people are so ready to BS it just becuase its an old story. He certainly looked rapid on old footage...

 

[silentstriker]

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

I believe YOU, I just don't believe he bowled at 96mph.

 

[albo97056]

I believe YOU, I just don't believe he bowled at 96mph.

Why not? I aggree the that that information is unlikely to be accurate.. but why is he bowling that fast NOT possible? Hes a human being.. none today is superhuman

 

[silentstriker]

Why not? I aggree the that that information is unlikely to be accurate.. but why is he bowling that fast NOT possible? Hes a human being.. none today is superhuman

Not impossible, but quite unlikely. For reasons Matt79 explained, as well as because fitness levels weren't as high, and the nutrition and other things that go along with today's game were not advanced. Is it possible? Yes. But I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Matt79]

Although I'm not backing away from the comments you're quoting S.S., I'd like to point out that those factors would affect the average levels of performance, and that as I said in that post, there would always be standout physical performers. I have no problem believing that for a time in his career Larwood could have bowled as rapidly as Akhtar, Lee, Bond whoever. But the 'average' speed of fast bowlers of the period would probably be less than in the modern era.

I think one definite change is that staying fit enough to maintain that level of performance would be vastly more difficult without today's fitness programmes advanced treatment. Hence the unsurprising claim that Larwood was extremely rapid, but after an injury never recovered that level of speed.

 

[oz_fan]

I think that a lot of fast bowlers are still at a much higher risk of injury even with new fitness programs. Brett Lee is the only fast bowler who has been able to remain regularly fit over the past 4 - 5 years. The others like Bond, Akhtar, etc have regularly been troubled by injury.

 

[Matt79]

I think that a lot of fast bowlers are still at a much higher risk of injury even with new fitness programs. Brett Lee is the only fast bowler who has been able to remain regularly fit over the past 4 - 5 years. The others like Bond, Akhtar, etc have regularly been troubled by injury.

But they've come back at something like the level they were beforehand. If somebody fifty years ago had had the injury problems Lee's had, let alone Akhtar or worse, Bond, they wouldn't have been able to continue, or would have done so as shadows of themselves.

 

[Laurrz]

Steve Waugh

 

[Richard]

And I get told-off for digging-up threads...

 

[Fiery]

Best ever Medium Pacer?:

Richard Hadlee:

A natural, born to play cricket. Very, very quick in his early years before evolving into a medium pacer in the early 80s, although still capable of bowling a very quick ball at times. Loved playing cricket, and had great enthusiasm and appetite for the game. An incredibly good action. His run-up and action were very simple and technically fantastic. His head was very still, his approach very direct and beautifully balanced. Like Dennis Lillee, he continually put the ball in the danger zone, making the batsman play…unbelievable accuracy. I’ve never seen a bowler who sends or sent down as many good deliveries as he did. All bowlers bowl some good nuts and good bowlers bowl a lot but he bowled an amazing amount of them. Sunil Gavaskar once said “when Richard is bowling well we are all like detectives looking for clues”. He simply had enormous natural ability with a cricket ball (and bat actually) .
He was clinical, single minded and professional. He was a captain’s dream: you threw him the ball and he got wickets; it’s as simple as that. He got wickets at the start of the innings, he got the vital breakthroughs, he cleaned up the tail – you can’t ask for anything more. He was a champion and the greatest ever NZ sportsman or women imo


Bibliography: Christmas in Rarotonga by John Wright

 

[Neil Pickup]

Was interested to see Kallis hit 90mph today...

 

[JPLCCC]

Ian Austin.

Very nice call. Best one-day guy Lancs ever had. Criminally underrated by England.

 

[Fiery]

Very nice call. Best one-day guy Lancs ever had. Criminally underrated by England.

Oh p..lease. Best overweight trundler ever maybe

 

[Richard]

Was interested to see Kallis hit 90mph today...

I wasn't, he did the same thing 9 years ago.

 

[shortpitched713]

Hadlee would have to be the best player to have ever bowled at a "medium" pace. Kapil Dev would have to be up there too.

 

[JPLCCC]

Oh p..lease. Best overweight trundler ever maybe

Ever actually see him bowl, did you? Because if you did you would see he was a major component in Lancashire's successful one day sides of the 90s.

 

[aussie tragic]

Just for info, Wilkpedia definition of pace is:

Fast: 90 + mph ---- 145 + kmh
Fast-medium: 80 to 89 mph ---- 129 to 145 kmh
Medium-fast: 70 to 79 mph ---- 113 to 129 kmh
Medium: 60 to 69 mph ---- 97 to 113 kmh

 

[Richard]

@ Wikipedia trying to define pace.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't buy that definition. Anything under 80 to me is medium.

Under 128 kph (80mph): Medium
128kph - 137kph (80-85mph): Medium Fast
137 - 150kph (149mph): Fast Medium
150kph (93mph) +: Fast

Obviously these are just arbitrary. But when I think of 'fast', I think of being able to hustle out International quality batsmen with pace alone, and really even though I know some bowlers touch 90 (Mahmood, Kallis, etc), really I only think of Akhtar and Lee as the 'fast' ones.

Fast medium is being able to hurry the batsmen, but not hustle them out with pace alone.
Medium Fast is your normal international bowler that relies on accuracy (Asif, McGrath, etc).
Medium are normally either your part timers, or sometimes medium fast bowlers who have a spell or two just a touch below 80mph.