Ranking the great fast bowlers

[watson]

If you are talking about the 1979 study, all readings were out of the hand. Just like they do today. I have never heard of any instance of anyone measuring the speed at the batsman's end. Ever.

Might have happened, but considering the nature of (for example) a full toss delivery or a yorker vs. a normal length or a short ball, it would give many misleading results and wouldn't really make much sense.

OK fair enough. But if we assume that current techology is reasonably accurate then we would have to conclude that Shoaib Akhtar is significantly faster than Jeff Thomson to the tune of approximately 12 kph at the point of the delivery ('out of the hand').

I guess we'll all have to be happy with that.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

No, then we'd have to conclude that a ball bowled by Akhtar at 160kph was 12 kph faster than a ball bowled by Thommo at 148kph. They're both isolated deliveries and say little about what the bowler's average speeds were.

 

[watson]

Here is Imran Khan and Jeff Thomson talking to Mark Nicholas about their bowling speeds during the late 70s. They seem to be believe the misconception that their speeds were timed "at the stumps".

Jeff Thomson and Imran Khan on recording bowlers' speed - YouTube

 

[watson]

No, then we'd have to conclude that a ball bowled by Akhtar at 160kph was 12 kph faster than a ball bowled by Thommo at 148kph. They're both isolated deliveries and say little about what the bowler's average speeds were.

True.

But in that fast bowlers competion none of competitors (Thomson, Holding and Imran etc) got anywhere near Akhtar's one-off speed for the entire duration of the tourament - assuming that their speeds were accurately measured 'out of the hand'.

Just out interest - how many times has Akhtar been clocked at about 160 kph?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

The standard excuse for the surprisingly low speeds in that competition is usually that it was an extremely hot day. Personally, I think that the bowlers simply lost their natural rhythm due to trying to bowl too fast.

 

[Migara]

The standard excuse for the surprisingly low speeds in that competition is usually that it was an extremely hot day. Personally, I think that the bowlers simply lost their natural rhythm due to trying to bowl too fast.

I can just lol at that. Pakistanis turn up in even hotter conditions and bowl with blistering pace.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah I don't think it's a valid explanation either.

 

[kyear2]

I also believe that they were out of rythm trying to bowl to fast. Also the adrenelin of playing in an actual match would push them over their normal capabilities. Holding bowling that over to Boycott or Thompson in his prime would have been faster than the staged event.

 

[kyear2]

There must be a way to use old videos to approximate speed. Would like to see some of the speeds for Marshal, Holding and Bishop. Fastest three I have seen. Lindwall I was told was lightning as well, as was Lille before his injury, though not quite as quick as the others named.

 

[mikerolls]

There must be a way to use old videos to approximate speed. Would like to see some of the speeds for Marshal, Holding and Bishop. Fastest three I have seen. Lindwall I was told was lightning as well, as was Lille before his injury, though not quite as quick as the others named.

Something that always sticks in my mind is the fifth Test of the 82-83 tour, played at Sydney. Thommo was no longer an automatic choice and the edge of that sheer raw pace was generally reckoned to have gone. I videoed the play and watched it the next day. Geoff Miller had made 34 and was facing Thompson who induced an edge to the keeper - which I think only the umpire missed. JRT looked ready to spit blood and Miller looked a bit apprehensive as the next ball thumped into his pads - first time I've seen anyone walk for an LBW shout!
My video had a facility for replaying one frame at a time and Thompson's delivery to Miller seemed SO much quicker than anything else I had watched that I replayed that and the delivery before it and deliveries from the other quicks as well. The result was that Thompson's deliveries were normally taking 10-11 frames, the other quicks (Lawson, Hogg, Willis, Cowans) were around 11-12 and Botham (only checked one delivery) took 14. The one that was adjudged as getting Miller took just 9 frames. The video's normal recording rate was 24 frames a second.

Taking a flight of 20 yards that very quick one from Thomson works out at around 108 mph. Allowing for the difficulty of determining precisely when the ball left his hand and when it hit the pad (and I must have replayed that delivery a dozen or more times) - so my counting could easily be anything up to a whole frame out in total - and the fact that he was timed in 1975 at Perth at 99.7 mph, that seems to tie in quite well as somewhere at or over 100. It puts his more normal deliveries around the 90+mark - he was trying pretty hard at the time so it seems not unreasonable - again allowing for a margin of error. It puts the other quicks in the mid to high 80s, - again I wouldn't argue. The one that puzzles me is Botham - 14 frames is only 70 mph and Botham was certainly a good bit quicker than that. I must admit that it was Thomson who really interested me in the experiment and it may be that I miscounted on Botham - or that I happened to choose one of his held back deliveries

Sadly I didn't keep the recording - VCR tapes cost £10 a time in those days!
Mike

 

[H4G]

Not in any particular order:

Marshall
Hadlee
Imran
McGrath
Allan Donald
Wasim
Ambrose
Garner
Waqar
Lindwall

 

[silentstriker]

The standard excuse for the surprisingly low speeds in that competition is usually that it was an extremely hot day. Personally, I think that the bowlers simply lost their natural rhythm due to trying to bowl too fast.

The competition measured accuracy too so they weren't only going for speed. Plus it makes little sense that every single one of them just all of a sudden happened to be out of rhythm because they couldn't adjust to being told 'bowl as fast as you can while remaining accurate.'
Those instructions aren't exactly much outside their normal strike zone.

 

[kyear2]

Your goal seems to be to prove that the bowlers of today are fitter, faster and probably better. I just don't buy that. Holding, Marshall, Thompson were faster than the bowlers today, who by the way can't seem to be able to remain fit and on the field, and one day in front of a radar gun in artificial circustances can prove otherwise.

 

[watson]

Just out of interest Silent Striker:

Do you agree with those speeds of 159-160 kph clocked against Shoaib Akhtar using modern radar?
If not, what then is a reasonable speed for Shoaib Akhtar 'out of the hand'?

Do you believe that Jeff Thomson consistently bowled slower, faster, or about the same as Shoaib Akhtar during the late 70s? Explain.

Cheers.

 

[Jager]

Your goal seems to be to prove that the bowlers of today are fitter, faster and probably better. I just don't buy that. Holding, Marshall, Thompson were faster than the bowlers today, who by the way cany seem to be able to remain fit and on the field, and one day in front of a radar gun in artificial cirxustances can prove otherwise.

awta!

 

[Faisal1985]

Always surprised how Akram almost never makes it to these types of lists.

 

[watson]

awta!

FMI - What's awta Jager?

I assume it doesn't stand for the Australian Wool Testing Authority.

 

[Jager]

Google misleading you

Agree with the above.

 

[watson]

Tar

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Your goal seems to be to prove that the bowlers of today are fitter, faster and probably better. I just don't buy that. Holding, Marshall, Thompson were faster than the bowlers today, who by the way cany seem to be able to remain fit and on the field, and one day in front of a radar gun in artificial cirxustances can prove otherwise.

No-one's saying that. All that's being said is that they were probably around the same speed as today's bowlers, rather than buying into the often heavily rose-tinted memories of ex-players.