Was Glenn Mcgrath ALWAYS a medium pacer, or did he bowl quick sometimes?

[HeavyBall]

Saw some footage of 1996 World Cup. Mcgrath had some BITE in his bowling, good pace and nippy. Post 2000, his bowling has been very accurate but BORING.

Secondly, how fast was Mcgrath in early to mid 1990's?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Pretty sure KP's ribs will attest he was still sharp enough even in his dotage.

 

[Flem274*]

You get more excited by a speed gun number than by the ball that was bowled?

 

[Eds]

I don't think boring is the word I'd use.

 

[fredfertang]

I wish he had been a bit more boring

 

[kingkallis]

Saw some footage of 1996 World Cup. Mcgrath had some BITE in his bowling, good pace and nippy. Post 2000, his bowling has been very accurate but BORING.

Secondly, how fast was Mcgrath in early to mid 1990's?

Oh boi...

 

[Burgey]

He was in the 140s when he was young. Was clocked one time near 150 at Perth against SA. Ask Peter Kirsten if he was quick.

 

[silentstriker]

It was interesting and I think he was one of the bowlers who always looked faster than he was because he was so accurate and gave you so little to work with. When speed guns came out, I remember batsmen commentating that they were surprised that his speed wasn't as high as some of the other bowlers.

If every delivery you get is very hard to negotiate, and you get it at an awkward line/length, sometimes it can 'appear' as more or less fast because you're simply having trouble with it. By the same token, the ball that broke 100mph (Akhtar) was a pretty ordinary delivery and I bet the batsman on strike woudn't have pinpointed it as the fastest delivery he has ever faced.

Plus, if you get hit at the right spot..you'll break ribs and heads whether the delivery is at 130kph or 150kph....

I wonder if you'd be able to differentiate if you got hit at 130kph vs 150kph (of course you'd have less time to react at 150kph but I mean in terms of pain).


Anyway to answer your question, my guess is he might have been averaging near 140kph at one point but I really doubt he averaged too far above that at any point (obviously a couple deliveries here and there could be faster).

 

[silentstriker]

Plus as the fastest bowler competition back in the 70s showed, people tend to overestimate a lot of bowlers. Being fast certainly helps but not nearly as much as some people think it does. I'm sure there's some 'minimum' pace you need, but I doubt that's higher than 125kph or so - after that it's about how you bowl. Because holding didn't bowl at 150kph doesn't make him any less of a bowler, or say anything about him not being effective if he were bowling today. An action that beautiful will always work .

Of course bowling super fast and super accurate is ideal but IMO an increase in accuracy/skill will give you much more dividends after that minimum mark than an increase in speed will.

 

[HeavyBall]

It was interesting and I think he was one of the bowlers who always looked faster than he was because he was so accurate and gave you so little to work with. When speed guns came out, I remember batsmen commentating that they were surprised that his speed wasn't as high as some of the other bowlers.

If every delivery you get is very hard to negotiate, and you get it at an awkward line/length, sometimes it can 'appear' as more or less fast because you're simply having trouble with it. By the same token, the ball that broke 100mph (Akhtar) was a pretty ordinary delivery and I bet the batsman on strike woudn't have pinpointed it as the fastest delivery he has ever faced.

Plus, if you get hit at the right spot..you'll break ribs and heads whether the delivery is at 130kph or 150kph....

I wonder if you'd be able to differentiate if you got hit at 130kph vs 150kph (of course you'd have less time to react at 150kph but I mean in terms of pain).


Anyway to answer your question, my guess is he might have been averaging near 140kph at one point but I really doubt he averaged too far above that at any point (obviously a couple deliveries here and there could be faster).

Ishant Sharma is a fine example. When he bowled that great spell to Ponting at Perth, he was mostly around 135-137 kph mark, but his line and length was superb and made Ponting look like an amateur.

4 years down, he bowls consistently 90+ mph now but his length is bad. As a result, Ponting is EASILY hitting him for fours.

 

[Furball]

Ishant Sharma is a fine example. When he bowled that great spell to Ponting at Perth, he was mostly around 135-137 kph mark, but his line and length was superb and made Ponting look like an amateur.

4 years down, he bowls consistently 90+ mph now but his length is bad. As a result, Ponting is EASILY hitting him for fours.

lolno

 

[Burgey]

It was interesting and I think he was one of the bowlers who always looked faster than he was because he was so accurate and gave you so little to work with. When speed guns came out, I remember batsmen commentating that they were surprised that his speed wasn't as high as some of the other bowlers.

If every delivery you get is very hard to negotiate, and you get it at an awkward line/length, sometimes it can 'appear' as more or less fast because you're simply having trouble with it. By the same token, the ball that broke 100mph (Akhtar) was a pretty ordinary delivery and I bet the batsman on strike woudn't have pinpointed it as the fastest delivery he has ever faced.

Plus, if you get hit at the right spot..you'll break ribs and heads whether the delivery is at 130kph or 150kph....

I wonder if you'd be able to differentiate if you got hit at 130kph vs 150kph (of course you'd have less time to react at 150kph but I mean in terms of pain).


Anyway to answer your question, my guess is he might have been averaging near 140kph at one point but I really doubt he averaged too far above that at any point (obviously a couple deliveries here and there could be faster).

Can attest that getting hit in the ribs at 135-140 hurts more than at 115-120

 

[zaremba]

Silenstriker making some really good points, but from my recollection of McGrath in the 1990s he was a fast bowler - not lightning, but really pretty swift

 

[Top_Cat]

Can attest that getting hit in the ribs at 135-140 hurts more than at 115-120

130-145 = little difference, though. Bones get broken, ****ing hurts.

McG was one of those guys who could bowl really swift (140+) but figured out early that the quicker he bowled, the less bounce he got which meant less wickets. Bowled within himself, started destroying sides, rest = history.

 

[robelinda]

Always found it quite entertaining watching McGrath tear up batting lineups and make the look like amateurs, that was never boring for me. Unless winning world cup after world cup etc is boring for people, *shrugs*....must be Mohammad Sami fans that like the speed and don't care about being hammered on a daily basis and losing.....

 

[Son Of Coco]

Saw some footage of 1996 World Cup. Mcgrath had some BITE in his bowling, good pace and nippy. Post 2000, his bowling has been very accurate but BORING.

Secondly, how fast was Mcgrath in early to mid 1990's?

You, sir, are obviously a cricket connoisseur.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Christ if he was boring there is no hope for anyone.

Never express in the Lee mould but in his younger days he was more quick enough, just adapted his game to what worked best, can't blame him for that. Still had a slippery bouncer at times when he needed it.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Saw some footage of 1996 World Cup. Mcgrath had some BITE in his bowling, good pace and nippy. Post 2000, his bowling has been very accurate but BORING.

Secondly, how fast was Mcgrath in early to mid 1990's?

Obviously didn't chuck it so much post 2000

 

[Burgey]

And of course McGrath got bounce. If you're tall enough to get bounce such that a length which a batsman would otherwise press forward to becomes uncertain, and you're accurate, batting becomes very difficult even for test quality players.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Obviously didn't chuck it so much post 2000