Speeds pre-1998

[oitoitoi]

Hard to imagine anyone being quicker than akhtar at his peak, he was the only bowler I've ever seen to make tendulkar look genuinely troubled for pace, he even shortened his back lift. It was literally a case of if you blinked you missed it.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I don't recall him bowling consistently over 150kph. In his prime, I'd say he bowled 40% of deliveries in an early spell over 150kph and I wouldn't call that consistent. However, I'd be willing to accept you as right on that one as my memory is not too great. Tbh, it doesn't really affect my point that Shoaib and Lee are standouts and their existence does not make 145kph 'slow'. BTW, I still have that thing with bowlers in the SA Vs Australia series' that anything below 145kph from Steyn or Johnson was a disappointment and any non slower ball below 140kph was just...unacceptable

Steyn's more of a 140kph average bowler, who can crank it up whenever he needs to whilst Johnson is more of a 145kph average bowler.

But I'm pretty certain about Lee bowling 150kph consistantly and he'd hit 154-155kph every so often. Steve Waugh used to use him in very small bursts and get him to bowl as fast as he possibly could without worrying about the scoreboard. It was one of the reasons why Lee eventually got dropped.

 

[oitoitoi]

Steyn's more of a 140kph average bowler, who can crank it up whenever he needs to whilst Johnson is more of a 145kph average bowler.

But I'm pretty certain about Lee bowling 150kph consistantly and he'd hit 154-155kph every so often. Steve Waugh used to use him in very small bursts and get him to bowl as fast as he possibly could without worrying about the scoreboard. It was one of the reasons why Lee eventually got dropped.

I would have said steyn is 145 average and johnson 150. I reckon Steyn can really crank it up when he wants to though, he's touched 155 before IRC, he concentrates on getting his big away swinger going accurately rather than pace most of the time.

 

[bagapath]

waqar, devon malcom and, before their time, marshall and holding bowled in the 145+ speeds. and touched 150+ often. willis and imran must have been in the 135+ category most of the time and imran would have touched peak speeds in the 82 - 83 seasons. allan donald wouldnt have been too different from these two. didnt see thomson and lillee and roberts. all said and done akhthar and lee are really among the fastest i have seen. akhthar's colombo spell of 5 for 16 against australia when he ripped the great middle order apart was riveting stuff

 

[oitoitoi]

all said and done akhthar and lee are really among the fastest i have seen. akhthar's colombo spell of 5 for 16 against australia when he ripped the great middle order apart was riveting stuff

It's that spell that convinced me that the windies 80's side would beat the later great australian side.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

It's that spell that convinced me that the windies 80's side would beat the later great australian side.

Why? He got Mark Waugh out who was playing in his last Test series before getting dropped, Steve Waugh who was about 37 at the time, Adam Gilchrist, who bats at number 7 and Shane Warne and that's just off the top of my head from what I've seen on youtube.

Needless to say that none of those West Indies batsman faced a spinner the calibuar of Shane Warne, so what's to say that he wouldn't of spun circles around them. How do you reckon the great Windies side would've gone against Sri Lanka on an absolute dustbowl of a pitch against Mendis & Muralitharan? Also taking into consideration that you rate Sangakkara in the top 2 batsman that are currently playing.

 

[oitoitoi]

Adam Gilchrist, who bats at number 7

Lol worst detracting of success ever.

It's not the only time that Australian set up was taken apart by a genuine quick, also remember that Akhtar did that on a sri lankan 'dust bowl', not the WACA. The 80's Windies record vs India was good enough to convince me they would have been ok vs warne. As you rightfully take into account performance in all conditions it's worth noting that genuine pace bowlers + mcgrath & pollock are the only bowlers to have consistently performed in all conditions (very few spinners have done it if any, warne and murali both poor in India), the windies side of 83 for example was capable of fielding 4 genuine quicks. In a bowling shoot out that that's 4 top class quicks vs mcgrath.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Lol worst detracting of success ever.

It's not the only time that Australian set up was taken apart by a genuine quick, also remember that Akhtar did that on a sri lankan 'dust bowl', not the WACA. The 80's Windies record vs India was good enough to convince me they would have been ok vs warne. As you rightfully take into account performance in all conditions it's worth noting that genuine pace bowlers + mcgrath & pollock are the only bowlers to have consistently performed in all conditions (very few spinners have done it if any, warne and murali both poor in India), the windies side of 83 for example was capable of fielding 4 genuine quicks. In a bowling shoot out that that's 4 top class quicks vs mcgrath.

The difference between the best spinners of the 80s and 00's is greater then the difference between the quality of pace bowlers of the 80s and 00's. How Malcom Marshall & Shane Warne bowl would be the key difference because I think the Australian batsman could handle the other Windies bowlers, but would have trouble with Marshall, much like the Windies batsman wouldn't have much of a clue against Warne.

 

[The Sean]

It's that spell that convinced me that the windies 80's side would beat the later great australian side.

Bob Holland's performance at the SCG in 1985 convinces me of the opposite.

 

[Richard]

The Atherton spell did have a speed gun. A diferent method maybe to now but speeds were given (89 mph IIRC). It isnt comparable to the way speeds are given now but Id be interested in how that was calculated.

The Atherton spell being the 185* game, or something in 1994?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Lol worst detracting of success ever.

It's not the only time that Australian set up was taken apart by a genuine quick, also remember that Akhtar did that on a sri lankan 'dust bowl', not the WACA. The 80's Windies record vs India was good enough to convince me they would have been ok vs warne. As you rightfully take into account performance in all conditions it's worth noting that genuine pace bowlers + mcgrath & pollock are the only bowlers to have consistently performed in all conditions (very few spinners have done it if any, warne and murali both poor in India), the windies side of 83 for example was capable of fielding 4 genuine quicks. In a bowling shoot out that that's 4 top class quicks vs mcgrath.

So the Windies would bowl us out for 56, and then Warne would take 9/12 as they piled on 45 in reply.

 

[bagapath]

Bob Holland's performance at the SCG in 1985 convinces me of the opposite.

and hirwani's heroics in madras in 1987...

honestly if the best of 77 - 87 windies team played a 3 test series against the best of 95 -05 aussies in a neutral venue like lords or wanderers or wankhade, the series is very likely to end 1-1.

if mcgrathwarneandcompnay fall half an inch short of marhsallholdinggarnerroberts, then gilly would be the balancing factor. the batting strength is pretty even

 

[Richard]

So the Windies would bowl us out for 56, and then Warne would take 9/12 as they piled on 45 in reply.

Warne'd have no chance of taking 9-12, or probably even particularly good figures, against such outstanding players of spin as Haynes, Kallicharran and Lloyd.

 

[King Pietersen]

Nah Richard, you're wrong mate. Ben's told us (and he's always right) that the Windies of the 80's were clueless against spin, so I reckon Warnie'd come on and take 6 in his first over tbh, they'll not be able to cope with seeing someone turning the ball!

 

[bagapath]

Nah Richard, you're wrong mate. Ben's told us (and he's always right) that the Windies of the 80's were clueless against spin, so I reckon Warnie'd come on and take 6 in his first over tbh, they'll not be able to cope with seeing someone turning the ball!

that too with the fingers!!

 

[Flem274*]

That sig of yours keeps catching me out. Have thought "Why is that old joke posted in here AGAIN?" haha

 

[Goughy]

The Atherton spell being the 185* game, or something in 1994?

YouTube - atherton vs donald

 

[Richard]

Oh, that one in 1998? That speedgun was a proper one. That series was the first time a genuine, reliable speedgun had been used in cricket.

Donald bowled 92-93mph in some spells that series and very occasionally touched 95mph. Even at 31 years of age.

 

[Manee]

Oh, that one in 1998? That speedgun was a proper one. That series was the first time a genuine, reliable speedgun had been used in cricket.

Donald bowled 92-93mph in some spells that series and very occasionally touched 95mph. Even at 31 years of age.

Did not know that. His pace must have declined rapidly then, as he was merely a 135kph bowler towards 2001-2003.

 

[rivera213]

Did not know that. His pace must have declined rapidly then, as he was merely a 135kph bowler towards 2001-2003.

Ja, he did really slow down tbf.

Oh, that one in 1998? That speedgun was a proper one. That series was the first time a genuine, reliable speedgun had been used in cricket.

Donald bowled 92-93mph in some spells that series and very occasionally touched 95mph. Even at 31 years of age.

Yep. I can't see how you'd GAIN more pace as you get older past the age of 23 or something so I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility he was hitting 97-98 in 1994-1996.

EDIT: Yep, one ball at 89mph, not that that proves much but interesting nonetheless.

Brilliant action, one of the best, imo.

I struggle to believe having watched him bowl against Athers that he was only hitting 89mph.

I love his action too, so uncomplicated- loads of rhythm.