Speeds pre-1998

[rivera213]

He did. I've said it many times - Donald lost so much between early-2001 and early-2002. Some people don't accept this, of course, but that's the way it went. He was quite superlative one minute and barely a year later he was a skeleton.

Purely with hindsight I so wish he'd hung-up his boots after the West Indies tour of 2001, even though I would never, ever have wanted that at the time and can absolutely 100% see why he wasn't thinking that way (because, as I say, I wasn't myself).

It's strange how he declined SO rapidly. I suppose it can just happen when you're post-30.

FYI, Bedi-Chandra-Prasanna-Venkat was either the best or second-best spin attack in cricket history (the only competitor being the SA wristspin triplet of Schwarz, Vogler and Faulkner in the 1900s). To succeed against them is a far more notable achievement than succeeding against one spin bowler, however good, in Warne.

By far the best IMO, though they did play half their tests on wickets which were pretty much perfect for them.

However, finger spin is easier to null than wrist as a general rule (regardless of whether the bowler and batsmen are both right handed or are opposities) and only Chandrasekhar was a wrist spinner of the quartet.

I don't disagree with Lloyd and Kallicharran being great players of spin (both average 55+ I believe against India in an era when 40 was the bench mark of great batsmen).

But:

Lloyd was dismissed by Bedi & Chandrasekhar 7 times each I think, Venkataraghavan 5 times and Prasanna 3 times as well as against lesser known spinners and Kallicharran was dismisse by Chandrasekhar 4 times, Bedi 3 times, Prasanna twice and Venkataraghavan once so while both were excellent players of spin, there weren't by any means unpenetrable for the spinner.

Therefore, it's not a given Lloyd and Kallicharan wouldn't have been owned by Warne like so many other great players of spin (Tendulkar for example) or that a team including Haynes, Richards, Kallicharan and Lloyd wouldn't have fell to Warne like so many others.

You don't have 700+ wickets @ a strike rate of in between 55 and 60 if you don't constantly find a way of getting even the best players of spin out.

Individually, none of the Indian Quartet were as good as either Warne or Muralitharan IMO and it only takes 1 bowler to run through a team.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Well yes, teams featuring Lloyd and Haynes collapsed against spin on occasions. I'd say Warne would have every chance of taking good figures. (Although 9-12 is an exaggeration). Considering Warne is possibly the best legspinner of all time I'd reckon he'd stir them up a little.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

QED.

FYI, Bedi-Chandra-Prasanna-Venkat was either the best or second-best spin attack in cricket history (the only competitor being the SA wristspin triplet of Schwarz, Vogler and Faulkner in the 1900s). To succeed against them is a far more notable achievement than succeeding against one spin bowler, however good, in Warne.

Much like how Australian batsman have faced more allround bowling attacks over the past decade. 4 decent bowlers instead of 1 great bowler and 3 crap bowlers.

 

[Richard]

Well yes, teams featuring Lloyd and Haynes collapsed against spin on occasions. I'd say Warne would have every chance of taking good figures. (Although 9-12 is an exaggeration). Considering Warne is possibly the best legspinner of all time I'd reckon he'd stir them up a little.

I'm sure Warne'd do juuuuuuuust fine, because the man could bowl, but there's no way he'd rip through every innings as some Australians seem to believe - just because Allan Border and Bob Holland dominated a couple of dead Tests on The Spin Haven.

A WI team featuring a batting unit of Fredericks, Greenidge, Rowe, Kallicharran, Richards, Lloyd, Murray; or Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Kallicharran, Lloyd, Murray; or Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Gomes, Richards, Lloyd, Dujon would certainly not be the sort of line-up that would be falling to Warne every innings, or close to. They were all far too good.

The likes of Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall would do a far better job on the Haydens of this World than Warne could possibly hope to do on them.

 

[Richard]

By far the best IMO, though they did play half their tests on wickets which were pretty much perfect for them.

When you're that good, you earn the right to have your home wickets tailored for you - in fact, you make it essential. 'Tis the point I always make about Hadlee and Rice.

If you can offer the team something, they're mad if they downplay what you can offer them.

(But even so, not every wicket in India was a turner. Even in the 1970s. There's precious few of them at the current time.)

Individually, none of the Indian Quartet were as good as either Warne or Muralitharan IMO and it only takes 1 bowler to run through a team.

One bowler can only hope to run through a side once in any number of games. Three\four-prong quality is a totally different matter. And yes, of course Warne was surrounded by two (occasionally even three) other outstanding bowlers himself, but the Aussie case generally tends to be that Warne would do to any West Indies unit - in himself - what Marshall, Holding, Garner etc. would do to Australia.

(As for the rest of the massive post which I didn't quote - agree with it FTR)

 

[rivera213]

When you're that good, you earn the right to have your home wickets tailored for you - in fact, you make it essential. 'Tis the point I always make about Hadlee and Rice.

If you can offer the team something, they're mad if they downplay what you can offer them.
(But even so, not every wicket in India was a turner. Even in the 1970s. There's precious few of them at the current time.)

Oh, for sure. I wasn't disagreeing with the decision or anything but that's what made them even more of a handful.

I think we should tailor the wickets in this country for our bowlers rather than think about "what if the test only lasts 4 days".

Not every wicket was a turner, but the majority were. It's obviously much less so the case nowadays but as a general rule, batsmen who were to tour India knew they were going to face wickets geared to spin bowling.

One bowler can only hope to run through a side once in any number of games. Three\four-prong quality is a totally different matter. And yes, of course Warne was surrounded by two (occasionally even three) other outstanding bowlers himself, but the Aussie case generally tends to be that Warne would do to any West Indies unit - in himself - what Marshall, Holding, Garner etc. would do to Australia.

(As for the rest of the massive post which I didn't quote - agree with it FTR)

Definitely, I only meant that Warne had the ability to rip through the best players of spin.

On his own, he couldn't take the role of 3 top notch bowlers. It's crazy to think anyone could do that.

Maybe Warne & Benaud together could equal what 3 top seamers could do in tests at the (pre-2002) Gabba, Adelaide Oval and (1970-2002) SCG but definitely not at every ground in the world.

 

[Migara]

Haynes seemed, from what I know of him, to get better against spin as the years rolled on - anyone who scored whatever it was he made in Border's Match in '88/89 must be pretty good

Haynes was brought down by SL spinners in their first ever test, and was clueless against spin in ODIs. This was in 1993-4, and he might have declined a bit by then.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm sure Warne'd do juuuuuuuust fine, because the man could bowl, but there's no way he'd rip through every innings as some Australians seem to believe - just because Allan Border and Bob Holland dominated a couple of dead Tests on The Spin Haven.

A WI team featuring a batting unit of Fredericks, Greenidge, Rowe, Kallicharran, Richards, Lloyd, Murray; or Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Kallicharran, Lloyd, Murray; or Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Gomes, Richards, Lloyd, Dujon would certainly not be the sort of line-up that would be falling to Warne every innings, or close to. They were all far too good.

The likes of Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall would do a far better job on the Haydens of this World than Warne could possibly hope to do on them.

Personally I don't think Warne would have a problem getting Roberts, Holding, Garner or Marshall out.

 

[Top_Cat]

Haynes was brought down by SL spinners in their first ever test, and was clueless against spin in ODIs. This was in 1993-4, and he might have declined a bit by then.

No, you're right. Haynes was pretty ordinary against spin. That he scored well when AB took wickets doesn't mean a whole lot. AB didn't exactly rip through the WI order with big turning deliveries.

 

[bagapath]

haynes was ravi shastri's bunny. that should mean something.

 

[Richard]

No, you're right. Haynes was pretty ordinary against spin. That he scored well when AB took wickets doesn't mean a whole lot. AB didn't exactly rip through the WI order with big turning deliveries.

What did he do then?

 

[jonny1408]

does this take into the account that the bowling speed on the speed guns are not the average speed over the 22 yards, they are the speed just at the release of ball. As they occasionally show the speed as it passes the batsman and they are actually around 70mph when they pass the bat from a ball released at 90 mph

 

[rivera213]

does this take into the account that the bowling speed on the speed guns are not the average speed over the 22 yards, they are the speed just at the release of ball. As they occasionally show the speed as it passes the batsman and they are actually around 70mph when they pass the bat from a ball released at 90 mph

The speed of every cricket delivery, baseball pitch etc is the speed from the hand. Since there are so many factors which contribute to ball speed at the batsman: trajectory of delivery (the flatter, the faster it seems through the air), wind direction and speed/drag, how fast/slow the wicket is etc it's impossible to say how fast a particular bowler would be in regards to how fast the ball at the batsman was.

This is 1 of the problems I have with people saying Frank Tyson is by far the fastest of all time. When he took his 7 wickets in Melbourne, it was on a hard (fast and bouncy) wicket with some green coverage (so the ball didn't mmentarily stop in the wicket causing a loss of pace) and he had a heavy wind behind him. All these factors contribute to the illusion of someone bowling much faster than they were.

Since the wickets have changed SO much nowadays to what they were in the 1990's (much flatter and slower), looking for how fast a bowler is based on batsman reaction time of how high the WK collects the delivery is pointless (unfortunately that's how a number of ex-players who talk about speed base how fast a bowler was).

 

[Richard]

Bowling with the wind behind you doesn't create the illusion of more speed than is there - it assists in creating more speed than would otherwise be there.

Bowling with assistance from the wind is a means of a bowler of lesser talent helping boost himself.

 

[rivera213]

Bowling with the wind behind you doesn't create the illusion of more speed than is there - it assists in creating more speed than would otherwise be there.

Bowling with assistance from the wind is a means of a bowler of lesser talent helping boost himself.

Speed out of the hand I meant.

Nothing can help the speed out of the handm but through the air obviously is assisted by having a wind behind you.

Guys like Tyson who maybe bowled 90mph+ out of the hand would look much faster with the wind behind him on the Melbourne wicket than say, Shaun Tait bowking at the MCG today. Completely different conditions which is why I give little creedance to quotes from fielders or batsmen who say "(insert bowler here) is the fastest I played with/against" since there are too many factors to consider.

I've no doubt Tyson's deliveries got to the batsmen much faster than Statham for example, but that isn't just down to the extra 3-5mph out of the hand.

 

[Richard]

Speed out of the hand I meant.

Nothing can help the speed out of the hand

Even the breeze can - it can cause you to run in that slight bit faster, and thus use that little more energy in sending the ball down.

The difference won't be that much, but it will conceivably be something.

 

[rivera213]

Even the breeze can - it can cause you to run in that slight bit faster, and thus use that little more energy in sending the ball down.

The difference won't be that much, but it will conceivably be something.

We're talking hundreths of a mile per hour not enough to say it has anywhere near the impact on ball speed as wind speed/direction and the wicket. Also, sometimes though obviously not all time time, the breeze makes you run in too fast so you lose natural rhythm and control.

The majority of top notch bowlers wont mind this though if someone used to running up hill into a strong wind bowls in a match running downhill with the wind, there'll be a period of adjustment needed in all likelyhood.