Speeds pre-1998

[Top_Cat]

Yeah good post. I read an article a while ago based on the idea that if people are bigger, faster, stronger, more explosive, better trained, better nutrition, better chemicals and better equipment then why have shot put performances hardly changed in 30 years?

Was a good read. Not everything has improved as much as some would like to think.

Well, even with better tech being the main suspect, shot put is a really poor sport to pick on in this instance because it uses so much shoulder. Shoulders muscles are pretty small, plenty of tendons and ligaments at work there which you can't train or make any stronger/faster with medications. Additionally, it's incredibly difficult to balance training them with avoiding injury because the stability of any joint is determined by the muscles around it and, being small, it's really easy to fatigue them. And if you do that, to maintain the weight you're lifting at the time, the pressure switches to the ligaments which don't like it and if they rip, that's that. They'll never bounce back the same. So there's a limit to how far shot put can go and it was probably reached many years ago.

 

[Richard]

The argument, is it not, is that the same is true of cricket bowling?

 

[Manee]

* Which is why I used Holding as an example.

The 400m isn't about speed, it's more about stamina and maintaining a particular speed.

Holding didn't sprint-in during his action, he was barely at a canter. If leg speed was so important, it'd manifest itself in his (of all people's) action.

Instead, his action is the prime example of rhythm, regardless of whether he was a great runner, his speed wasn't as a result of fast leg movement (or upper body strength).

I disagree that holding 'was barely at a canter', his run up was deceptively fast. Just check out the beginning of the clip here. Moreover, the 400m is definitely not a jog, I'm pretty sure that professional runners take it at around 90% capacity for the whole thing. Heck, it might be more useful for bowling than a 100m sprinter, as 100m sprinting requires explosive top order movements which can throw the bowling action off somewhat and you don't really want to be travelling at 100% speed when you are running in to bowl - I'm sure Goughy can clarify it regarding balance and such, but it is just not practical to do so.

Think Craig White was the ultimate "fast bowler as ambler". Just gently trotted in and somehow got it down the other end at over 90mph. Amazing arm speed.

Indeed. I've only been following fast bowling for a few years, but I recall vividly watching Craig White casually jog into the crease, get into that brilliant load up and bowl pretty quick at times.

Being strong in itself doesn't equal pace, though of course guys like Cotter & Tait owe a lot of their pace to imense upper body strength.

If one has functional strength with flexibility though, there is no reason why each increase in strength cannot bring an increase in pace.

 

[Manee]

The argument, is it not, is that the same is true of cricket bowling?

Bowling encompasses quite a few muscles in the body. The movement of the arm from just in front of the hip (or at the head) through past the hip to the release position involves the stretching and contracting of a lot of muscles in a pivotal sequence. It is a critical difference to shot put. Not to mention all of the hip drive and leg movements, because that is in common with shot put.

 

[Top_Cat]

The argument, is it not, is that the same is true of cricket bowling?

Bowling physicality has changed dramatically, though. Sure the top speed might be largely the same but there are definitely a lot more blokes challenging it than there have been previously. Certainly far more bowlers in the 140km/h range and lot fewer bowling 125km/h and being successful (not saying by any stretch that bowling as a skill has progressed, though). It's almost passe that a bloke can top out at 90mph+ these days.

 

[Goughy]

Shot-put and steroids

I think what has been said in this thread has truth to it. Training, diet, suppliments can push guys to be quicker, on average, than before but the top pace doesnt really change.

 

[rivera213]

I disagree that holding 'was barely at a canter', his run up was deceptively fast. Just check out the beginning of the clip here. Moreover, the 400m is definitely not a jog, I'm pretty sure that professional runners take it at around 90% capacity for the whole thing. Heck, it might be more useful for bowling than a 100m sprinter, as 100m sprinting requires explosive top order movements which can throw the bowling action off somewhat and you don't really want to be travelling at 100% speed when you are running in to bowl - I'm sure Goughy can clarify it regarding balance and such, but it is just not practical to do so.

At a canter FOR HIM (obviously not for us). He was very fast at full tilt, and everything looks faster side-on. The fact he was a 400m sprinter allowed him to develop a rhythmical action (as I said earlier, it's the prime example of a rhythmical action).

Have you seen the 100m from side-on? Insane stuff.

Holding wasn't anywhere near sprinting & while leg sped matters with SOME actions, it's not essential to your action like the 3 points I mentioned were. You need those 3 in your action to bowl fast. You don't NEED to have fast leg speed with every action.

Jeff Thomson had the calmest run-up to the crease of any express bowler I've seen but is also the fastest bowler I've ever seen so surely that's proof that leg speed isn't essential. Shoaib on the other hand was very quick into the crease so it's all relative.

I never said the 400m was a jog but it isn't about sprinting, it's about stamina and maintaining a particular speed. I wouldn't say it's 90% throughout- and it all depends on what the leader is going at. You want to stay close enough with him/her that when the final stretch appears, you are able to go all-out and overtake him/her.

Indeed. I've only been following fast bowling for a few years, but I recall vividly watching Craig White casually jog into the crease, get into that brilliant load up and bowl pretty quick at times

From memory, White got it up to 92mph but his average speed was "only" mid-late 80's. He wasn't consistently fast. Darren Gough was faster on average, even though his fastest speed was about the same as White's.

If one has functional strength with flexibility though, there is no reason why each increase in strength cannot bring an increase in pace.

For sure, but bowlers throughout the years have proved that it isn't essential.

Rhythm, forward movement & weight behind the ball however IS essential. Even somone with as awkward an action as Andrew Flintoff has those fundamentals. He certainly doesn't have fast leg speed unless he's going to the pub.

Marshall, Holding, Thomson, Lillee, Roberts etc differ in attributes but all have the 3 essentials.

Tyson also, from what I've seen had a good action. I don't believe he was as fast as Thomson because he didn't put as much of his body into the action as Thommo did, but that's another nice action nevertheless.

 

[rivera213]

...but the top pace doesnt really change.

Because it doesn't have to do with brute strength for the most part.

I do, however believe Thomson is the fastest bowler in history because he has the perfect action to bowl very fast.

It's more how long a bowler can sustain their speed which has changed.

There's no way Trueman could sustain his pace for as long as an athlete like Holding could. No way.

 

[a massive zebra]

i dont think too many things in cricket would have changed despite the decades that have passed.

the quick batsmen average a 60+ strike rate (trumper, richards, pietersen). there is always one or two mad men who scored faster (jessop, kapil, gilchrist) at 75+ SR. the slow and steady batsmen (hobbs, gavaskar, dravid) scored at 40 runs per 100 balls faced.

great fast bowlers averaged 4 wickets a test conceding around 20 runs (spofforth, mashall, mcgrath). spinners needed more deliveries to get their wickets hence averaged a little more (faulkner, oreilly, warne).

despite some trends being reflective of specific eras (in the early years batsmen and bowlers averaged less because of the nature of wickets, the playing style of the 50s and 60s was slower and hence the bowling SR was higher, post mid-90s more batsmen average more than 50 due to batting friendly wickets) a player would be equally successful or medicore or bad, IMO, and have a similar impact on the game in every era as his own.

similarly, bowling speeds, i believe, would not be too different in the video recorded eras from the earlier ones. express fast bowlers would frequently hit 150km averaging in the 140s. fast bowlers would average in 130s and reaching 140s at times. the fast medium bowlers (and old fast bowlers) would usually bowl in the 120s and hit 130s when they push themselves. spofforth, larwood, tyson, thommo, marshall, akhthar and lee could all be expected to bowl at similar pace at their peaks.

While I agree with the essence of your point, you do appear to hold some misconceptions about some of the greats of long ago.

Firstly, Jack Hobbs - a slow and steady batsman who scored 40 runs per 100 balls? Actually, the great statistician Charles Davis has estimated his Test match strike rate at 57.2, and if his batting after the war could be described as serene and steady, it certainly wasn't slow. To quote Neville Cardus:

His career was divided into two periods, each different from the other in style and tempo. Before the war of 1914-1918 he was Trumperesque, quick to the attack on springing feet, strokes all over the field, killing but never brutal, all executed at the wrists, after the preliminary getting together of the general muscular motive power.

When cricket was resumed in 1919, Hobbs, who served in the Royal Flying Corps as an Air Mechanic after a short spell in a munition factory, was heading towards his thirty-seventh birthday, and a man was regarded as a cricket veteran in 1919 if he was nearing the forties. Hobbs entering his second period, dispensed with some of the daring punitive strokes of his youthful raptures. He ripened into a classic. His style became as serenely poised as any ever witnessed on a cricket field, approached only by Hammond.

He scored centuries effortlessly now; we hardly noted the making of them. They came as the hours passed on a summer day, as natural as a summer growth.

Secondly, Fred Spofforth. Spofforth was certainly not, by modern standards, fast. His first wicket in Test cricket was a stumping, and five of his 92 Test wickets were likewise. This would suggest that he may have bowled at the pace of Alec Bedser, for whom keepers sometimes stood at the wickets. Blackham and Murdoch stood at the stumps for the majority of Spofforth deliveries, though they retreated a few paces when Spofforth signalled that he intended to bowl a faster delivery.

Spofforth boasted that"he was the fastest bowler that ever was", which Lord Hawke dismissed as "harmless delusion" because "he never achieved anything like the pace of JJ Kotze or Charles Kortright or even, for that matter, a number of other bowlers such as Thomas Richardson."

At best Spofforth can probably claim to be the fastest bowler around in the 1870s and possibly the early 1880s. In modern terms Spofforth would rank as a fast-medium bowler at his very best; that is, his fastest ball might just about fall into that category.

 

[bagapath]

well, thanks. but i used hobb's batting SR from statsguru.may be i made a mistake relying on incomplete info.

Jack Hobbs 1908-1930 61 102 7 5410 211 56.94 5449+ 46.54* 15 28

spofforth's bowling speed could be less than what i imagined, too. replace his name with cortwright or tom richardson. as long as we both agree that there are super fast, fast, fast medium bowlers in all eras, i am ok.

 

[SJS]

Thanks for digging up that article IAD.

If fast bowlers are consistently getting slower as the years go by, it would be at odds with almost every other major sport. I know there are differences between all sports, but one of the things which seems to be consistent is that people are running faster, swimming faster, hitting golf balls further and tennis balls harder than they have before.
Of course, with some sports that has to do with technology (ie golf and tennis) but imo it also has to do with training regimes and the rise of professionalism.
So, if guys are not bowling as quick now as they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago, that would seem to be an anomaly compared with the development of other profesional sports.

Fast bowlers are not likely to be getting slower but if wickets start getting slower, it would finally affect bowlers' speeds. Bowlers who bowl in places where wickets are overall faster than the places where they are generally slower, tend to bowl faster. It may have something to do with the fact that the physical effort that is put in brings the results the bowler desires as far as pace is concerned. Finally how many really fast bowlers we get has to be a function of how many are actually trying to bowl at tear-away pace and surely fewer people will be trying to do that on 'dead-as-a-dodo' wickets than on fiery ones.

 

[zaremba]

Fast bowlers are not likely to be getting slower but if wickets start getting slower, it would finally affect bowlers' speeds. Bowlers who bowl in places where wickets are overall faster than the places where they are generally slower, tend to bowl faster. It may have something to do with the fact that the physical effort that is put in brings the results the bowler desires as far as pace is concerned. Finally how many really fast bowlers we get has to be a function of how many are actually trying to bowl at tear-away pace and surely fewer people will be trying to do that on 'dead-as-a-dodo' wickets than on fiery ones.

Yeah there's truth in this.

The anomaly is Pakistan's line of genuinely quick bowlers in recent decades, which is hard to explain given that (as far as I'm aware, although I may be wrong about this) the surfaces there don't seem to have much pace in them?

 

[SJS]

Sheer frightening pace can be found anywhere, not necessarily in the top-most echelons of the game or amongst the greatest of bowlers. Bowlers, virtually unknown, have been reported to bowl at lightening speed. Hammond writes about one such bowler he came across while playing a match during the war in Cairo where his opponents had a giant of a bowler whose name too he does not remember . . .

"When I say a giant, I mean Giant, for he was as large as Jim Smith of Middlesex, perhaps bigger, and when his sleeves were rolled up, the fabulous vilage blacksmith was put in the shade of his own spreading chestnut tree. . . .

Now I have played against a good many fast bowlers - Gregory, MacDonald, Farnes, Larwood, Voce, McCormick, Bowes, Gilbert the Aboriginal - but I have never seen anyone send the leather down faster than this soldier; I suppose the velocity must have passed 90 miles an hour; and now and again he bumped them so that they hummed as they rose off the ground.. . He was no more accurate than a thunderbolt is, but he took as much stopping. . . the enemy skipper put the Giant on as opening bowler. Perhaps it was just his day, perhaps the pure speed of the ball beat us. The first two wickets fell for no runs and when I went in to try to reprieve the situation, you could hear a pin drop.

I took my guard with as much care as in a Test match. I had been studying the bowler's action and delivery very carefully, and I had come out of the pavilion to accustom myself to the light before going in. The bowler ran up, his feet seemed to shake the ground, brought his arm over - and the ball was past me in a flash and in the wicket-keeper's gloves standing fifteen yards behind the stumps.

There were two more to come in the over, and I got my bat to both of them, blocking the ball, but wondering how many like that my bat would stand before it broke. In the following over from the other end I got a run or two and then came the 'Demon' again. . . after a lucky snick to leg which got me a boundary, I found a bumper coming that was certainly going to take off my head, hooked at it hastily and dragged it round to my leg stick. And for me, that was that; I'd had it."​

By the way, Hammond states that this Giant was bigger than Jim Smith, Here is Jim Smith of Middlesex batting. It gives an idea of the man's size.

 

[a massive zebra]

well, thanks. but i used hobb's batting SR from statsguru.may be i made a mistake relying on incomplete info.

Jack Hobbs 1908-1930 61 102 7 5410 211 56.94 5449+ 46.54* 15 28

spofforth's bowling speed could be less than what i imagined, too. replace his name with cortwright or tom richardson. as long as we both agree that there are super fast, fast, fast medium bowlers in all eras, i am ok.

That strike rate is probably calculated using only/primarily matches after the War when he was a real veteran. His pre-war strike rate cannot have been far below Victor Trumper.

I completely agree with the notion that bowlers of all speeds would have been present in every era since the golden age. Significant improvements over time usually only occur in sports with little participation or a very short history. For example, the womens marathon world record improved by 30% as it was maturing and becoming established as an Olympic sport between 1960 and 1985, but has barely changed since then. As Matt states, the records in established sports such as the 100 metre sprint have barely changed over the last three quarters of a century, and even these minor improvements can be explained by factors other than the standard of the runner such as the use of cinder tracks, the absence of starting blocks and the less technically advanced footwear. The pre-eminence of cricket as a major sport in 19th century allowed cricketers to hit the ceilings of human capability far earlier than in most other sports.

Charles Kortwright, JJ Kotze or William Burns would all be suitable examples of super quick bowlers from the pre Larwood era, unlike Fred Spofforth.

 

[Richard]

Bowling physicality has changed dramatically, though. Sure the top speed might be largely the same but there are definitely a lot more blokes challenging it than there have been previously. Certainly far more bowlers in the 140km/h range and lot fewer bowling 125km/h and being successful (not saying by any stretch that bowling as a skill has progressed, though). It's almost passe that a bloke can top out at 90mph+ these days.

This is more-or-less exactly my position. If there were as many Goughs, de Villierses, Wasim Akrams, Dilhara Fernandos etc. in the 1930s and 1950s as there were in the 1990s and 2000s I'll eat my computer.

However, that the likes of Larwood, Tyson, Thomson and Tait peaked at the same peak is not remotely inconceivable. What it takes to be exceptional has always remained the same.

Equally, I imagine there were a handful of other bowlers who bowled around the 90mph\140kph mark in the 1930s and 1950s. Lindwall, Voce, Trueman, etc. But while such bowlers existed I imagine they were far less common than now.

 

[Richard]

Spofforth was certainly not, by modern standards, fast. His first wicket in Test cricket was a stumping, and five of his 92 Test wickets were likewise. This would suggest that he may have bowled at the pace of Alec Bedser, for whom keepers sometimes stood at the wickets. Blackham and Murdoch stood at the stumps for the majority of Spofforth deliveries, though they retreated a few paces when Spofforth signalled that he intended to bowl a faster delivery.

Spofforth boasted that"he was the fastest bowler that ever was", which Lord Hawke dismissed as "harmless delusion" because "he never achieved anything like the pace of JJ Kotze or Charles Kortright or even, for that matter, a number of other bowlers such as Thomas Richardson."

At best Spofforth can probably claim to be the fastest bowler around in the 1870s and possibly the early 1880s. In modern terms Spofforth would rank as a fast-medium bowler at his very best; that is, his fastest ball might just about fall into that category.

Did you type this out word-for-word from a pre-written text (either your own or someone else's) or did you just copy-paste your previous post on the matter?

 

[a massive zebra]

Does it matter, Richard? Is it your hobby to revise and recall every post ever posted on cricketweb?

Copy and pasted from previous post if you must know.

 

[fredfertang]

Spofforth boasted that"he was the fastest bowler that ever was", which Lord Hawke dismissed as "harmless delusion" because "he never achieved anything like the pace of JJ Kotze or Charles Kortright or even, for that matter, a number of other bowlers such as Thomas Richardson."

Legend has it that Halliwell stood up to take Kotze and that, as a result of Kotze's speed, he started the practice of putting steak inside his gauntlets - sounds like an apocryphal tale but I've seen it repeated in so many places I'm inclined to accept it at face value

 

[rivera213]

Sheer frightening pace can be found anywhere, not necessarily in the top-most echelons of the game or amongst the greatest of bowlers. Bowlers, virtually unknown, have been reported to bowl at lightening speed. Hammond writes about one such bowler he came across while playing a match during the war in Cairo where his opponents had a giant of a bowler whose name too he does not remember . . .

"When I say a giant, I mean Giant, for he was as large as Jim Smith of Middlesex, perhaps bigger, and when his sleeves were rolled up, the fabulous vilage blacksmith was put in the shade of his own spreading chestnut tree. . . .

Now I have played against a good many fast bowlers - Gregory, MacDonald, Farnes, Larwood, Voce, McCormick, Bowes, Gilbert the Aboriginal - but I have never seen anyone send the leather down faster than this soldier; I suppose the velocity must have passed 90 miles an hour; and now and again he bumped them so that they hummed as they rose off the ground.. . He was no more accurate than a thunderbolt is, but he took as much stopping. . . the enemy skipper put the Giant on as opening bowler. Perhaps it was just his day, perhaps the pure speed of the ball beat us. The first two wickets fell for no runs and when I went in to try to reprieve the situation, you could hear a pin drop.

I took my guard with as much care as in a Test match. I had been studying the bowler's action and delivery very carefully, and I had come out of the pavilion to accustom myself to the light before going in. The bowler ran up, his feet seemed to shake the ground, brought his arm over - and the ball was past me in a flash and in the wicket-keeper's gloves standing fifteen yards behind the stumps.

There were two more to come in the over, and I got my bat to both of them, blocking the ball, but wondering how many like that my bat would stand before it broke. In the following over from the other end I got a run or two and then came the 'Demon' again. . . after a lucky snick to leg which got me a boundary, I found a bumper coming that was certainly going to take off my head, hooked at it hastily and dragged it round to my leg stick. And for me, that was that; I'd had it"

I've never heard that story before. Pretty cool stuff.

As soon as a time machine is invented, I'm gonna accompany Shaun Tait back to that time just to see Hammond's face. Lol.

I like how Hammond (who was an intelligeant man) says "...must've passed 90mph" instead of plucking a number out of the air like Tyson, Thomson, Marsh (in regards to Thomson), Benaud (in regards to Tyson) etc.

I don't think finding bowlers with pace is the problem. It's finding bowlers with pace AND accuracy which is so rare when we're talking 93mph/150kph+.

Normally guys who can bowl in excess of 90mph have trouble controlling the ball. Amjad Khan can bowl at 92-93mph but has absolutely no accuracy at that speed so comes down to 85mph.

I'm sure a lot of "Fast-medium" can max at 92mph or so, but won't be able to control where the ball ends up so it's useless.

That's why I'm such a big Jeff Thomson fan.

By the way, Hammond states that this Giant was bigger than Jim Smith, Here is Jim Smith of Middlesex batting. It gives an idea of the man's size.

[/SIZE]

It doesn't help the wicketkeeper is standing in a ditch....

Charles Kortwright, JJ Kotze or William Burns would all be suitable examples of super quick bowlers from the pre Larwood era, unlike Fred Spofforth.

I think the fact wickets were so poor (well, good for bowling) helped with the illusion of "fast" bowling.

The thing which has gotten drastically better (overall) throughout the decades is wicket maintenence.

Kortright played at peak in the very late 19th to very early 20th century and Kotze in the very early 20th century. I can only imagine how poor the wickets were so the ball speed after it's left the bowler's hand would SEEM (although in reality not be) much quicker than someone bowling at the same speed nowadays.

There's a huge advantage of bowlers pre-speed gun. They can pick a number they want and someone will back it up regardless of whether it's true or not. There will be some moron on Cric Info who says a bowler is "one of the fastest bowlers of all time" or even "the fastest bowler of al time". It's complete unproven bollocks.

Nowadays, every ball is clocked so bowlers can't BS. We know Shoaib often bowled in excess of 93mph during his peak because there is proof. Whether people believe or disbelieve the accuracy of speed guns is another thing (though I think the only ones who disbelieve in their accuracy are those who thought they were faster), but that to me is more reliable than hearsay.

What do you think?

Equally, I imagine there were a handful of other bowlers who bowled around the 90mph\145kph mark in the 1930s and 1950s. Lindwall, Voce, Trueman

I think all of those would be viewed as "Fast-medium" today, personally.

Especially since Lindwall and Trueman are swingers and the general view of swing bowling (regular) is that it's best at "Fast-medium" pace (82-85mph).

That doesn't necessarily mean they COULDN'T bowl at 90mph, but I doubt they did unless bowling effort balls.

Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram held back so it's hard to compare between a balls-out paceman (Thomson, Lillee, Tait, Tyson, Shoaib, Holding etc) and the swingers (Trueman, Lindwall, Waqar, Wasim).

Legend has it that Halliwell stood up to take Kotze and that, as a result of Kotze's speed, he started the practice of putting steak inside his gauntlets - sounds like an apocryphal tale but I've seen it repeated in so many places I'm inclined to accept it at face value

Lol, that can't be true, surely?!

I'd take the bruise!

 

[nightprowler10]

Think Craig White was the ultimate "fast bowler as ambler". Just gently trotted in and somehow got it down the other end at over 90mph. Amazing arm speed.

Never fails to amuse me that.

Also, that was a great Matt79 post GIMH quoted.