• 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.

Biggest six

thierry henry

International Coach
And if you plonked Bolt into 1936?
He'd run his normal 9.6 or whatever and be considered some sort of superhuman freak, if you follow my hypothetical scenario through.

Same with comparing physicists, if you sent a current day physicist back to Newton's time Newton would seem like a moron by comparison.

Does this mean Robert Laughlin is a "greater physicist" than Newton, or Kohli is better than Bradman? NO, because it's not a fair comparison. However, my whole point is, I perceive that there are legions of cricket fans who genuinely don't believe that progress is occurring in cricket, despite it being self-evident that it constantly occurs in all facets of life. There are people who really think the players way back when bowled faster than current players. That's every bit as absurd as saying Jesse Owens ran faster than Usain Bolt.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
One thing that could be done would be to give Bolt a 1936 style pair of spikes and find him a cinder track or whatever they ran on in those days and see how far off his PB he ended up
 

smash84

The Tiger King
He'd run his normal 9.6 or whatever and be considered some sort of superhuman freak, if you follow my hypothetical scenario through.

Same with comparing physicists, if you sent a current day physicist back to Newton's time Newton would seem like a moron by comparison.

Does this mean Robert Laughlin is a "greater physicist" than Newton, or Kohli is better than Bradman? NO, because it's not a fair comparison. However, my whole point is, I perceive that there are legions of cricket fans who genuinely don't believe that progress is occurring in cricket, despite it being self-evident that it constantly occurs in all facets of life. There are people who really think the players way back when bowled faster than current players. That's every bit as absurd as saying Jesse Owens ran faster than Usain Bolt.
But Henry don't you think people who would have played for a long time (let's say Wasim from 1984-2003) would be a pretty decent judge of the speeds at which bowlers bowl in that era as well as eras just preceding and succeeding them?
 

unam

U19 12th Man
But Henry don't you think people who would have played for a long time (let's say Wasim from 1984-2003) would be a pretty decent judge of the speeds at which bowlers bowl in that era as well as eras just preceding and succeeding them?
No because people tend to over exaggerate past.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
Right, so Shoaib and Lee circa 2000 weren't faster than... Pattinson and Roach (??) circa 2012?
...and your point is? That doesn't show anything, I don't think anyone's said that every young "fast" bowler from recent times is automatically faster than the two quickest guys in history.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Progress will also eventually reach a plateau or at least start slowing down - at least in the case of sports
 

unam

U19 12th Man
Right, so Shoaib and Lee circa 2000 weren't faster than... Pattinson and Roach (??) circa 2012?
No, we have speed records of Shoaib and Lee circa 2000.. but we don't have any official record of eras before that. All we have are stories from people which will over exaggerate the speed of past. "Thomson used to bowl at 180 kph" etc

Even if we talk about quality of bowling, in the old footage most batsmen had no foot work, plus the wickets had something in for bowlers. These days, with so many facilities available to batsmen to work on their techniques and foot work, we see that even if there is little movement of the pitch, teams start crumbling and score of 150-200 become par score.
 
Last edited:

Flametree

International 12th Man
Right, so Shoaib and Lee circa 2000 weren't faster than... Pattinson and Roach (??) circa 2012?
...and your point is? That doesn't show anything, I don't think anyone's said that every young "fast" bowler from recent times is automatically faster than the two quickest guys in history.
My point is that people in this thread keep comparing fast bowlers to other athletes. But while the 100m record comes down year after year after year, fast bowlers don't get quicker every year. There is no-one bowling now who bowls quicker than two or three blokes did over a decade ago. (I picked Pattinson and Roach as the two quickest around at present - the question marks were to show that I'm not sure if those two are the quickest, but they're close...) Yet there are several 100m runners who have run faster than Maurice Greene, who held the 100m record back in 2000. The two disciplines just aren't comparable.

And when we point this out we're told "but folks deliberately or through faulty memory exaggerate the past". Well my memory tells me Lee, Bond and Shoaib were quicker than anyone bowling today, and we have measurements to confirm that my memory isn't faulty. So why would I not believe anyone who says that Frank Tyson say, was quicker than anyone who bowled for a decade or more after that...
 

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
No because people tend to over exaggerate past.
AWTA. Also remember that the bowling is always going to seem quicker if you 22 yards away trying to not die then sitting in your armchair watching from a camera angle that slows things down a lot. Therefore past players are always likely to say the players they played against are quicker.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
My point is that people in this thread keep comparing fast bowlers to other athletes. But while the 100m record comes down year after year after year, fast bowlers don't get quicker every year. There is no-one bowling now who bowls quicker than two or three blokes did over a decade ago. (I picked Pattinson and Roach as the two quickest around at present - the question marks were to show that I'm not sure if those two are the quickest, but they're close...) Yet there are several 100m runners who have run faster than Maurice Greene, who held the 100m record back in 2000. The two disciplines just aren't comparable.

And when we point this out we're told "but folks deliberately or through faulty memory exaggerate the past". Well my memory tells me Lee, Bond and Shoaib were quicker than anyone bowling today, and we have measurements to confirm that my memory isn't faulty. So why would I not believe anyone who says that Frank Tyson say, was quicker than anyone who bowled for a decade or more after that...
When people say bowlers today are generally quicker than back in the day, we mean bowlers from more like 20 or more years back. Guys like Lee and Akhtar count as "modern" bowlers imo. Anyway, saying that Lee and Akhtar were quicker than today's bowlers can't be used as justification for saying the same about Tyson and Trueman etc. We have clear video footage for two of them, but not for the other two.
 
Last edited:

Flametree

International 12th Man
When people say bowlers today are generally quicker than back in the day, we mean bowlers from more like 20 or more years back. Guys like Lee and Akhtar count as "modern" bowlers imo. Anyway, saying that Lee and Akhtar were quicker than today's bowlers can't be used as justification for saying the same about Tyson and Trueman etc. We have clear video footage for two of them, but not for the other two.
But the argument is that modern bowlers "must" be quicker because Usain Bolt is quicker than Maurice Green or Carl Lewis or Hazely Crawford or whoever. I'm just saying that there's no similar progression in bowling speeds which to my mind refutes the whole argument. I've watched cricket for almost 40 years. Shoaib was the quickest I've seen, and Lee probably next. But no other "modern" bowler was any quicker than Donald or Waqar in the 90's or Holding, Thomson, Daniel, Willis, early Hadlee or Lillee in the 70's. So there might be the occasional spike, but a graph of the past 35 years would be pretty much flat.

Since I believe that's true, I don't see why we'd expect a graph of the previous 35 years not to be similar, particularly since any eyewitness accounts of Tyson in particular but also Adcock or the young Peter Pollock tend to agree.
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
We may have hit a plateau in the past 30 years or so, but that doesn't automatically mean we've been at the same level since before the 1950s.
 

Flametree

International 12th Man
We may have hit a plateau in the past 30 years or so, but that doesn't automatically mean we've been at the same level since before the 1950s.
I agree it doesn't. But of all the folk who watched, played, and wrote about cricket from the 50's onwards, I don't know of any who said that bowling speeds went up in general. (They may have written something like it about specific bowlers, like when Lillee and Thommo were bowling together, or when the West Indian pack took over the world). You'd think if it were the case, someone would have commented.

I know Wikipedia is to be taken with a grain of salt but here's a chunk of the entry for Tyson :

At the Aeronautical College in Wellington, New Zealand in 1955 metal plates were attached to a cricket ball and a sonic device was used to measure their speed, with Tyson's bowling measured at 89 mph (142 km/h), but he was wearing three sweaters on a cold, damp morning and used no run up. Brian Statham bowled at 87 mph (139 km/h).

[snip]

Dickie Bird, the famous England umpire, wrote "he was certainly the quickest bowler I ever seen through the air, and on one occasion the quickest bowler I never saw through the air".[46] When playing for Yorkshire vs the MCC at Scarborough in 1958 "I opened the innings against him and hit his first three deliveries through the off side for four. With supreme confidence I went on to the front foot for the fourth ball. Tyson dropped one short. It reared up and hit me on the chin. I went down as if I'd just been on the receiving end of a right hook...I still carry the scar to show my folly that day. There was blood all over and I saw stars. I could hear bells ringing in my head...".[47] Dickie came back to score his then highest first class score of 62 and Tyson took 4/30. When they met in Australia in 1998-99 Tyson joked 'You're looking well Dickie. See you still have the scars through'

Proves nothing, I know, but it's a cute story!
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
There's so much that goes towards a quick bowler that I'm not sure that all the other theories apply. What we have got is a situation where more people can bowl at a higher speed than what they otherwise would have because of developments in coaching and training, but there are so many variables that analogies with 100m sprinters are almost ridiculous.
 

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's so much that goes towards a quick bowler that I'm not sure that all the other theories apply. What we have got is a situation where more people can bowl at a higher speed than what they otherwise would have because of developments in coaching and training, but there are so many variables that analogies with 100m sprinters are almost ridiculous.
Yeah I agree. There's no reason why a bloke back in the 30's couldn't have bowled as quick as someone today.

Just as an example, look at Malinga. I would hardly say he's been considerably aided by modern coaching techniques. That's just how he bowls.
 

Top