CW All Time XI Fast Bowlers

[silentstriker]

Why? 140kph without a helmet can be scary.

 

[watson]

I guess we will have to disagree, but the concept of Michael Holding bowling in the same speed zone as Chris Martin or Jaques Kallis is very strange to me.

I think that we have little choice but to conclude that the technology used in that 1979 competion was either inaccurate and therefore wrong by about 10-15 kms/hr, or we we believe Jeff Thomson's assessment that the speed of the ball was averaged over the entire length of the pitch. After all, he was actually there, not us.

The idea that Michael Holding bowls at only '141.3 km/hr' is just plain mental.

 

[silentstriker]

I think that we have little choice but to conclude that the technology used in that 1979 competion was either inaccurate and therefore wrong by about 10-15 kms/hr, or we we believe Jeff Thomson's assessment that the speed of the ball was averaged over the entire length of the pitch. After all, he was actually there, not us.

The idea that Michael Holding bowls at only '141.3 km/hr' is just plain mental.

Haha, righto. The person in the video who actually did the tests is lying about how he himself did the test? That's clearly less mental than believing Holding bowled at 141kph?

As I said, to each his own.

 

[kyear2]

No one who ever watched Whispering Death or Thomo would believe that the topped out at 140k. Lillee (pre injury), Thompson, Marshall, Holding, Bishop were all scarry fast, no matter what the guns that day said.

 

[silentstriker]

Except nobody said Thommo topped out at 140kph.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I very highly doubt that. McGrath had a beautiful action too - that says very little about his speed. Thommo on the other hand had an extremely unorthodox action - and certainly no one would claim he was as rhythmic as this, and yet he was clearly faster than Holding.

I think 1979 competition was probably about right in terms of his average (135-140kph).

McGrath was mechanical in his action, didn't have the litheness that you see in the fastest bowlers. Holding had that; Lee and Akthar had it.

You look at a Steyn, he operates mostly around the 140km/h mark, maybe down a little bit when working his way through a spell. I think that it's quite likely that Holding would have mostly operated in that high 130s area for the majority, but when going well he could push it up very close to 150km/h, a la Pattinson, Siddle, etc.

 

[Arachnodouche]

To the naked eye, Holding looks very rapid from front on camera angles (angles fairly similar to the ones in use today), as rapid as some of the fastest bowlers caught on tape. The same angles show Andy Roberts on most occasions (though I'm aware he had wicked variety) and post-surgery Lillee to be pretty pedestrian in terms of pace to these eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpYQNOEGQus&feature=related

Not front on, but that is no Chris Martin there..suitable cues are the batsman's jerky reactions. Beaten for high pace for mine.

 

[Arachnodouche]

McGrath was mechanical in his action, didn't have the litheness that you see in the fastest bowlers. Holding had that; Lee and Akthar had it.

Yeah, McGrath had an economical action, a repeatable action, a safe action but his run up was fairly normal. The fastest, most effective always have an approach that gathers momentum and transfers it to the delivery stride. There are exceptions like Thomson or Tait who are all body but even a guy like Akram, who used so much shoulder at the crease, had a very smooth, rhythmic approach.

 

[silentstriker]

I think that it's quite likely that Holding would have mostly operated in that high 130s area for the majority, but when going well he could push it up very close to 150km/h, a la Pattinson, Siddle, etc.

That wouldn't be unreasonable and would not contradict the tests. I would probably say 145kph instead of 150kph though. 10kph over his fastest is a lot.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'm prepared to make a bit of an allowance for inexperience with being timed, trying to bowl as fast as you can is often far more inefficient than using natural rhythm, and didn't they bowl a few short balls as well before realising that the fuller, the quicker/better?

 

[silentstriker]

They did, and there were also points given for accuracy, so while I won't say it's match conditions, I can't fathom them being slower by 10kph. And especially given the accuracy (the lack thereof) in terms of some of their deliveries, there's probably a better argument for saying they bowled faster than they would in match conditions. I'm willing to allow a little leeway but to claim someone bowls 150kph+ when an actual test measuring their bowling after being in a competition where they are told to bowl as fast as they can measures speeds in the 130s....well it's way past stretching it IMO.

 

[Jager]

The conditions in the '79 test were borderline unbearable. They were bowling in net conditions, which means they did not have the adrenaline rush nor aggression that comes instinctively during a test match.

 

[silentstriker]

 

[silentstriker]

Are we really at the point where we're seriously arguing that a bowler in a Test match who may have to bowl 20-25 or more overs a day is going to be bowling faster than when he just has to bowl an over or two and told to bowl as fast as possible and doesn't have to conserve his strength?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Are we really at the point where we're seriously arguing that a bowler in a Test match who may have to bowl 20-25 or more overs a day is going to be bowling faster than when he just has to bowl an over or two and told to bowl as fast as possible and doesn't have to conserve his strength?

Not consistently. But we overrate how quick guys are all the time. Brett Lee operated in the main between 140-144km/h, but we all call him a 150km/h because of what he could touch.

And as if a West Indian bowler from that era ever had to bowl 25 overs in a day? : #70oversinaday

 

[Jager]

Are we really at the point where we're seriously arguing that a bowler in a Test match who may have to bowl 20-25 or more overs a day is going to be bowling faster than when he just has to bowl an over or two and told to bowl as fast as possible and doesn't have to conserve his strength?

I should have just left this one, but I thought I could add an extra point or two. Trivial argument regardless, I will leave it now.

 

[watson]

Did Glen Grath ever bowl for a sustained period (eg opening spell) of 150 km/hr plus with a high degree of accuracy? No.

Did Dennis Lillee ever bowl for a sustained period (eg opening spell) of 150 km/hr plus with a high degree of accuracy? Probably, although the hard scientific evidence is not brilliant. What we are relying upon is a comparitive analysis via eyewitness which of course is subjective. For example, Ian Chappell may have been thinking to himself when he made his original point - "Look, I stood at first slip while watching Lillee bowl and jeez he was ****ing fast. Dennis Amiss was ****ting himself. Lillee has to be 15 km faster than McGrath who looks fast medium at best."

 

[silentstriker]

Actually the hard scientific evidence, such as it is, points that he didn't. But I think we've moved past this since I don't think we'll be able to convince each other.

 

[Jager]

Actually the hard scientific evidence, such as it is, points that he didn't. But I think we've moved past this since I don't think we'll be able to convince each other.

That's the frustrating yet intriguing thing about the history of the game. There's so much that we want to know yet will always remain unanswered. I love it

 

[watson]

That's the frustrating yet intriguing thing about the history of the game. There's so much that we want to know yet will always remain unanswered. I love it

Tis true.