Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Where have all the express bowlers gone?
22 views
Skip to first unread message
RH
Jun 21, 2012, 3:33:11 PM6/21/12
to
Where have all the express bowlers gone?
Posted on June 21, 2012
Robert Henderson
The relative speeds of fast bowlers today and in the past is a
perennial subject to which England batsman Alastair Cook recently gave
fresh legs. He claimed that pace bowlers playing now every bit as
fearsome as those in the early 1990s when the likes of Waqur Younis,
Wazim Akram, Walsh and Ambrose, Bishop and Donald were around
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/test-matches/england-v-west-
indies-england-845223). Cook also contends that the bowlers of today
must be quicker because in all other sports athletes have become
fitter and faster (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/
international/england/9306922/England-v-West-Indies-Jonny-Bairstow-is-
not-alone-in-the-pace-battle.html)
As someone who has been watching first class cricket since the mid
1950s I would profoundly disagree with the contention that modern
bowlers are bowlers are faster than those in the past and would go
further and say that there is no Test bowler today who is of extreme
pace. That is arguably a unique situation because until now every
decade of Test cricket has been able to furnish examples of such
bowlers.
The improvement of athletic disciplines argument does not stand
scrutiny. It may be true that in pure athletic activities such as
running and jumping improvements occur simply through more efficient
training routines, although even there the qualification of improved
tracks and running equipment is responsible for a significant part of
it. There is also the shadow of performance enhancing drugs which
probably were and are widely used. Moreover, athletics was amateur
until a generation ago. It would be expected that full-time
professionals would substantially improve on their amateur
predecessors. The British Olympic sprinter Peter Radford , who won a
bronze medal in the 1960 100 metres, has written interestingly on
the standard of athletic performance before organised amateur
athletics arose in the 19th century. He makes a persuasive case that
the athletic feats of the 18th century - invariably achieved by
professional athletes – may well have exceeded the performances of
the organised amateur era until well into the twentieth century
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/may/02/athletics.comment1). It
is also debatable whether faster is always better in the case of ball
games. For example, Premier League football is very fast but is it
better football than the slower football of the past when there was
more dribbling and the ball was given away far less?
It is also debatable whether faster is always better in the case of
ball games. For example, Premier League football is very fast but is
it better football than the slower football of the past when there was
more dribbling and the ball was given away far less?
Where bowling is concerned there is no improved equipment involved
and full-time professionalism in cricket has been established for
over a century and a half. Despite extensive testing in recent years
drugs have rarely been discovered amongst first class cricketers. Nor
is it easy to see how drugs would enhance a bowler’s speed. It is true
that a steroids might build muscle, but bowling fast is not a matter
of strength. Fast bowlers come in all shapes and sizes from the pint-
sized Aborigine Eddie Gilbert in the 1930s – probably the man who
bowled genuinely fast with the least physical resources – to giants
such as Ambrose. Not only that but fast bowling methods vary
enormously. Fast bowlers fall into two broad categories, the sprinters
who get their pace from a fast, often long runup such as, Larwood or
Hall and the strength bowlers such as Sylvester Clarke or Wayne
Daniel. Actions can be divided into the side-on and the chest-on but
there is far more variation than that. Get on YouTube and compare the
difference between two side-on bowlers such as Jeff Thompson and Fred
Trueman or two front-on bowlers, for example Bob Willis and Brian
Statham.
Read more at
http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/where-have-all-the-express-bowlers-gone/
Posted on June 21, 2012
Robert Henderson
The relative speeds of fast bowlers today and in the past is a
perennial subject to which England batsman Alastair Cook recently gave
fresh legs. He claimed that pace bowlers playing now every bit as
fearsome as those in the early 1990s when the likes of Waqur Younis,
Wazim Akram, Walsh and Ambrose, Bishop and Donald were around
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/test-matches/england-v-west-
indies-england-845223). Cook also contends that the bowlers of today
must be quicker because in all other sports athletes have become
fitter and faster (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/
international/england/9306922/England-v-West-Indies-Jonny-Bairstow-is-
not-alone-in-the-pace-battle.html)
As someone who has been watching first class cricket since the mid
1950s I would profoundly disagree with the contention that modern
bowlers are bowlers are faster than those in the past and would go
further and say that there is no Test bowler today who is of extreme
pace. That is arguably a unique situation because until now every
decade of Test cricket has been able to furnish examples of such
bowlers.
The improvement of athletic disciplines argument does not stand
scrutiny. It may be true that in pure athletic activities such as
running and jumping improvements occur simply through more efficient
training routines, although even there the qualification of improved
tracks and running equipment is responsible for a significant part of
it. There is also the shadow of performance enhancing drugs which
probably were and are widely used. Moreover, athletics was amateur
until a generation ago. It would be expected that full-time
professionals would substantially improve on their amateur
predecessors. The British Olympic sprinter Peter Radford , who won a
bronze medal in the 1960 100 metres, has written interestingly on
the standard of athletic performance before organised amateur
athletics arose in the 19th century. He makes a persuasive case that
the athletic feats of the 18th century - invariably achieved by
professional athletes – may well have exceeded the performances of
the organised amateur era until well into the twentieth century
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/may/02/athletics.comment1). It
is also debatable whether faster is always better in the case of ball
games. For example, Premier League football is very fast but is it
better football than the slower football of the past when there was
more dribbling and the ball was given away far less?
It is also debatable whether faster is always better in the case of
ball games. For example, Premier League football is very fast but is
it better football than the slower football of the past when there was
more dribbling and the ball was given away far less?
Where bowling is concerned there is no improved equipment involved
and full-time professionalism in cricket has been established for
over a century and a half. Despite extensive testing in recent years
drugs have rarely been discovered amongst first class cricketers. Nor
is it easy to see how drugs would enhance a bowler’s speed. It is true
that a steroids might build muscle, but bowling fast is not a matter
of strength. Fast bowlers come in all shapes and sizes from the pint-
sized Aborigine Eddie Gilbert in the 1930s – probably the man who
bowled genuinely fast with the least physical resources – to giants
such as Ambrose. Not only that but fast bowling methods vary
enormously. Fast bowlers fall into two broad categories, the sprinters
who get their pace from a fast, often long runup such as, Larwood or
Hall and the strength bowlers such as Sylvester Clarke or Wayne
Daniel. Actions can be divided into the side-on and the chest-on but
there is far more variation than that. Get on YouTube and compare the
difference between two side-on bowlers such as Jeff Thompson and Fred
Trueman or two front-on bowlers, for example Bob Willis and Brian
Statham.
Read more at
http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/where-have-all-the-express-bowlers-gone/
Unknown
Jun 21, 2012, 6:11:31 PM6/21/12
to
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>professional athletes =96 may well have exceeded the performances of
>bowled genuinely fast with the least physical resources =96 to giants
>owlers-gone/
The fast bowlers are still there, but not in the international team.
Players these days come through the pipeline from a very young age. If
a fast bowler clicks at the age of 20 without ever having been through
the pipeline, he will already be 8 years at least behind everyone else
in terms of experience. If Rankin was terrorising the NWCU leagues and
never selected for Ireland, do you think he would have a county
contract today? There must be dozens of Rankins in the English leagues
who never get looked at.
If you want to see good fast bowling toddle down to your local premier
2nds game, or u15 game. Note a few names and ages and see where they
are in 5 years.
max.it
wrote:
>the organised amateur era until well into the twentieth century
>(http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/may/02/athletics.comment1). It
>is also debatable whether faster is always better in the case of ball
>games. For example, Premier League football is very fast but is it
>better football than the slower football of the past when there was
>more dribbling and the ball was given away far less?
>
>It is also debatable whether faster is always better in the case of
>ball games. For example, Premier League football is very fast but is
>it better football than the slower football of the past when there was
>more dribbling and the ball was given away far less?
>
>Where bowling is concerned there is no improved equipment involved
>and full-time professionalism in cricket has been established for
>over a century and a half. Despite extensive testing in recent years
>drugs have rarely been discovered amongst first class cricketers. Nor
>is it easy to see how drugs would enhance a bowler=92s speed. It is true
>(http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/may/02/athletics.comment1). It
>is also debatable whether faster is always better in the case of ball
>games. For example, Premier League football is very fast but is it
>better football than the slower football of the past when there was
>more dribbling and the ball was given away far less?
>
>It is also debatable whether faster is always better in the case of
>ball games. For example, Premier League football is very fast but is
>it better football than the slower football of the past when there was
>more dribbling and the ball was given away far less?
>
>Where bowling is concerned there is no improved equipment involved
>and full-time professionalism in cricket has been established for
>over a century and a half. Despite extensive testing in recent years
>drugs have rarely been discovered amongst first class cricketers. Nor
>that a steroids might build muscle, but bowling fast is not a matter
>of strength. Fast bowlers come in all shapes and sizes from the pint-
>sized Aborigine Eddie Gilbert in the 1930s =96 probably the man who
>of strength. Fast bowlers come in all shapes and sizes from the pint-
>bowled genuinely fast with the least physical resources =96 to giants
>such as Ambrose. Not only that but fast bowling methods vary
>enormously. Fast bowlers fall into two broad categories, the sprinters
>who get their pace from a fast, often long runup such as, Larwood or
>Hall and the strength bowlers such as Sylvester Clarke or Wayne
>Daniel. Actions can be divided into the side-on and the chest-on but
>there is far more variation than that. Get on YouTube and compare the
>difference between two side-on bowlers such as Jeff Thompson and Fred
>Trueman or two front-on bowlers, for example Bob Willis and Brian
>Statham.
>
>Read more at
>http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/where-have-all-the-express-b=
>enormously. Fast bowlers fall into two broad categories, the sprinters
>who get their pace from a fast, often long runup such as, Larwood or
>Hall and the strength bowlers such as Sylvester Clarke or Wayne
>Daniel. Actions can be divided into the side-on and the chest-on but
>there is far more variation than that. Get on YouTube and compare the
>difference between two side-on bowlers such as Jeff Thompson and Fred
>Trueman or two front-on bowlers, for example Bob Willis and Brian
>Statham.
>
>Read more at
>owlers-gone/
The fast bowlers are still there, but not in the international team.
Players these days come through the pipeline from a very young age. If
a fast bowler clicks at the age of 20 without ever having been through
the pipeline, he will already be 8 years at least behind everyone else
in terms of experience. If Rankin was terrorising the NWCU leagues and
never selected for Ireland, do you think he would have a county
contract today? There must be dozens of Rankins in the English leagues
who never get looked at.
If you want to see good fast bowling toddle down to your local premier
2nds game, or u15 game. Note a few names and ages and see where they
are in 5 years.
max.it
Message has been deleted
Stephen Wolstenholme
Jun 22, 2012, 5:26:31 AM6/22/12
to
>Where have all the express bowlers gone?
What's an "express bowler"?
Steve
--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com
Message has been deleted
Murff
Jun 22, 2012, 7:03:24 AM6/22/12
to
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:26:31 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Where have all the express bowlers gone?
>
> What's an "express bowler"?
A sort of hard round hat for a train.
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Where have all the express bowlers gone?
>
> What's an "express bowler"?
--
Murff...
RH
Jun 22, 2012, 8:59:55 AM6/22/12
to
On Jun 21, 11:11 pm, (max.it) wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywhere...@gmail.com>
> >http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/where-have-all-the-exp...
Notts. Andrew Carter was playing for them. The Notts local radio
commentator mentioned casually that Carter had come to Notts as a
Shaun Tait-style tearaway complete with the same slinging action, but
Notts had got hold of him and made him bowl line and length.
There have always been genuine express bowlers who haven't made it. In
the fifties Yorkshire had David Pickles who had a fine start but then
never made the yorks team. They did the same with Steve Sylvester in
the 1970s. RH
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywhere...@gmail.com>
> >owlers-gone/
>
> The fast bowlers are still there, but not in the international team.
> Players these days come through the pipeline from a very young age. If
> a fast bowler clicks at the age of 20 without ever having been through
> the pipeline, he will already be 8 years at least behind everyone else
> in terms of experience. If Rankin was terrorising the NWCU leagues and
> never selected for Ireland, do you think he would have a county
> contract today? There must be dozens of Rankins in the English leagues
> who never get looked at.
>
> If you want to see good fast bowling toddle down to your local premier
> 2nds game, or u15 game. Note a few names and ages and see where they
> are in 5 years.
>
> max.it
The other day on Radio 5extra the commentary was on a match involving
>
> The fast bowlers are still there, but not in the international team.
> Players these days come through the pipeline from a very young age. If
> a fast bowler clicks at the age of 20 without ever having been through
> the pipeline, he will already be 8 years at least behind everyone else
> in terms of experience. If Rankin was terrorising the NWCU leagues and
> never selected for Ireland, do you think he would have a county
> contract today? There must be dozens of Rankins in the English leagues
> who never get looked at.
>
> If you want to see good fast bowling toddle down to your local premier
> 2nds game, or u15 game. Note a few names and ages and see where they
> are in 5 years.
>
> max.it
Notts. Andrew Carter was playing for them. The Notts local radio
commentator mentioned casually that Carter had come to Notts as a
Shaun Tait-style tearaway complete with the same slinging action, but
Notts had got hold of him and made him bowl line and length.
There have always been genuine express bowlers who haven't made it. In
the fifties Yorkshire had David Pickles who had a fine start but then
never made the yorks team. They did the same with Steve Sylvester in
the 1970s. RH
Message has been deleted
Richard Dixon
Jun 22, 2012, 6:22:54 PM6/22/12
to
RH <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ab3f0c9a-5d4d-4077...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
> Where have all the express bowlers gone?
> Posted on June 21, 2012
> Robert Henderson
For what it's worth Meaker and Mills (not your Mein Dulux Kampf correct
colour, Robert) have both been clocked at 91+ mph this year.
Richard
news:ab3f0c9a-5d4d-4077...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:
> Where have all the express bowlers gone?
> Posted on June 21, 2012
> Robert Henderson
colour, Robert) have both been clocked at 91+ mph this year.
Richard
RH
Jun 24, 2012, 2:06:50 AM6/24/12
to
On Jun 22, 11:22 pm, Richard Dixon <rdngem...@yah00.c0.uk> wrote:
It means nothing because we do not have the speeds of bowlers from
previous ages measured with the same equipment. Seeing bowlers in the
flesh is a very good way of assessing relative speeds. RH
previous ages measured with the same equipment. Seeing bowlers in the
flesh is a very good way of assessing relative speeds. RH
mike
Jun 27, 2012, 1:08:05 PM6/27/12
to
youn didnt define in mph what you meant by:
fast
express
extreme pace
Thomson was the fastest bowler I have ever seen bowl. Faster than even
the windies quicks of the 70s and 80s, although Marshall must have
been close. But i dont know what their relative speeds were.
Who is reckoned the fastest bowler around now?
mike
Graham P Davis
Jun 28, 2012, 12:28:53 AM6/28/12
to
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > It is also debatable whether faster is always better in the case of
> > ball games. For example, Premier League football is very fast but
> > is it better football than the slower football of the past when
> > there was more dribbling and the ball was given away far less?
A footballer who played in the 1957 FA Cup said that footballers now
mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > It is also debatable whether faster is always better in the case of
> > ball games. For example, Premier League football is very fast but
> > is it better football than the slower football of the past when
> > there was more dribbling and the ball was given away far less?
are more skilful than they were when he played. He then added something
that I wholeheartedly agreed with and was the main reason why I gave up
watching the game, namely that it "used to be played by men but now it's played by spoiled brats."
--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change 'boy' to 'man'
"A neighbour put his budgerigar in the mincing machine and invented
shredded tweet." - Chic Murray
openSUSE Linux: http://www.opensuse.org/en/
RH
Jun 28, 2012, 3:42:05 AM6/28/12
to
sections especially as we do not have measured speeds for most of Test
history. RH
>
> Thomson was the fastest bowler I have ever seen bowl. Faster than even
> the windies quicks of the 70s and 80s, although Marshall must have
> been close. But i dont know what their relative speeds were.
Thommo bowled the single fastest ball all I have ever seen. It was the
> Thomson was the fastest bowler I have ever seen bowl. Faster than even
> the windies quicks of the 70s and 80s, although Marshall must have
> been close. But i dont know what their relative speeds were.
Oval Test of 1977.Mike Hendrick of all people hit him for two or three
fours in quick succession. Thommo then bowled him with a ball which
was through him before he had moved his bat (literally). The film Ire
in Babylon has some excellent film of Thommo in the 1974/5 Ashes
series. I suspect he was as difficult a quick bowler in that series as
any have been at any time. He was never quite the same after the
series because of his shoulder injury which stopped him playing in the
final 1974/5 Test. RH
The fastest I have seen as an adult were apart from Thommo, Pollock,
Hall, Marshall, Holding, Daniel, Lillee (on his first tour to England
but not after), Alan Ward, Imran Khan.
Message has been deleted
Luke Curtis
Jun 28, 2012, 12:28:03 PM6/28/12
to
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Where have all the express bowlers gone?
>Posted on June 21, 2012
>Robert Henderson
>
>The relative speeds of fast bowlers today and in the past is a
>perennial subject to which England batsman Alastair Cook recently gave
>fresh legs. He claimed that pace bowlers playing now every bit as
>fearsome as those in the early 1990s when the likes of Waqur Younis,
>Wazim Akram, Walsh and Ambrose, Bishop and Donald were around
>(http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/test-matches/england-v-west-
>indies-england-845223). Cook also contends that the bowlers of today
>must be quicker because in all other sports athletes have become
>fitter and faster (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/
>international/england/9306922/England-v-West-Indies-Jonny-Bairstow-is-
>not-alone-in-the-pace-battle.html)
>
>As someone who has been watching first class cricket since the mid
>1950s I would profoundly disagree with the contention that modern
>bowlers are bowlers are faster than those in the past and would go
>further and say that there is no Test bowler today who is of extreme
>pace. That is arguably a unique situation because until now every
>decade of Test cricket has been able to furnish examples of such
>bowlers.
<SNIP>
There is the question of perspective, it is quite possible that 50
years ago the average "fast" bowler may have been bowling at 75mph,
when a couple of natural talents came round bowling at 90mph they
would have seemed incredible.
Fast forward to now and bowlers bowling 82-83mph are 10-a-penny, when
you see a Brett Lee bowling 90mph he looks fast but not as
astoundingly amazing as a 50s bowler bowling at 90 because Lee is only
going 7-8mph quicker that the "average" rather than 15mph quicker than
an average 60s bowler.
-
XBox 360 GT: Broton69
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
wrote:
>Where have all the express bowlers gone?
>Posted on June 21, 2012
>Robert Henderson
>
>The relative speeds of fast bowlers today and in the past is a
>perennial subject to which England batsman Alastair Cook recently gave
>fresh legs. He claimed that pace bowlers playing now every bit as
>fearsome as those in the early 1990s when the likes of Waqur Younis,
>Wazim Akram, Walsh and Ambrose, Bishop and Donald were around
>(http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/test-matches/england-v-west-
>indies-england-845223). Cook also contends that the bowlers of today
>must be quicker because in all other sports athletes have become
>fitter and faster (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/
>international/england/9306922/England-v-West-Indies-Jonny-Bairstow-is-
>not-alone-in-the-pace-battle.html)
>
>As someone who has been watching first class cricket since the mid
>1950s I would profoundly disagree with the contention that modern
>bowlers are bowlers are faster than those in the past and would go
>further and say that there is no Test bowler today who is of extreme
>pace. That is arguably a unique situation because until now every
>decade of Test cricket has been able to furnish examples of such
>bowlers.
There is the question of perspective, it is quite possible that 50
years ago the average "fast" bowler may have been bowling at 75mph,
when a couple of natural talents came round bowling at 90mph they
would have seemed incredible.
Fast forward to now and bowlers bowling 82-83mph are 10-a-penny, when
you see a Brett Lee bowling 90mph he looks fast but not as
astoundingly amazing as a 50s bowler bowling at 90 because Lee is only
going 7-8mph quicker that the "average" rather than 15mph quicker than
an average 60s bowler.
-
XBox 360 GT: Broton69
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
mike
Jun 28, 2012, 1:12:12 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 5:28 pm, Luke Curtis <tlot...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywhere...@gmail.com>
Does Lee still bowl at that speed? i guess we'll
find out on Friday, as he seems likely to play in the Oz match.
Is Steyn considered the fastest bowler at the moment?
mike
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywhere...@gmail.com>
find out on Friday, as he seems likely to play in the Oz match.
Is Steyn considered the fastest bowler at the moment?
mike
Mike Holmans
Jun 28, 2012, 2:47:33 PM6/28/12
to
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:12:12 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Jun 28, 5:28 pm, Luke Curtis <tlot...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywhere...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Where have all the express bowlers gone?
>> >Posted on June 21, 2012
>> >Robert Henderson
>>
>> >The relative speeds of fast bowlers today and in the past is a
>> >perennial subject to which England batsman Alastair Cook recently gave
>> >fresh legs. He claimed that pace bowlers playing now every bit as
>> >fearsome as those in the early 1990s when the likes of Waqur Younis,
>> >Wazim Akram, Walsh and Ambrose, Bishop and Donald were around
>> >(http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/test-matches/england-v-west-
>> >indies-england-845223). Cook also contends that the bowlers of today
>> >must be quicker because in all other sports athletes have become
>> >fitter and faster (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/
>> >international/england/9306922/England-v-West-Indies-Jonny-Bairstow-is-
>> >not-alone-in-the-pace-battle.html)
>>
>> >As someone who has been watching first class cricket since the mid
>> >1950s I would profoundly disagree with the contention that modern
>> >bowlers are bowlers are faster than those in the past and would go
>> >further and say that there is no Test bowler today who is of extreme
>> >pace. That is arguably a unique situation because until now every
>> >decade of Test cricket has been able to furnish examples of such
>> >bowlers.
This from someone who regularly confesses that he cannot make out what
goes on in the middle of the field because his eyesight is too poor.
And "watching since the mid-50s" means that he's including the time
the five-year-old Halfwit spent mooching around the ground wondering
when Daddy would take him home for tea.
As testimony, it is therefore as near to completely worthless as makes
no difference.
The current issue of Private Eye has a little panel showing samples of
"Mr Gove's New O level Papers", including "History: Write an essay on
how marvellous the 1950s were. (Additional marks will be awarded for
failing to notice how grim it was.)" The Racist Halfwit would almost
certainly get an A* on that.
is that the bowlers of yesteryear bowled shorter spells. Larwood was
usually used by Jardine in spells of two 8-ball overs (though
sometimes as many as three), and he hardly ever bowled more than four
overs on the trot in f-c cricket in England. You now see the likes of
Broad and Anderson delivering spells of six and seven overs at 88mph,
not only first thing in the morning but also towards the end of an
evening session when they've taken the new ball.
>Does Lee still bowl at that speed? i guess we'll
>find out on Friday, as he seems likely to play in the Oz match.
Probably not, though Cummins is certainly rumoured to.
>Is Steyn considered the fastest bowler at the moment?
Doubt it. Fastest top-quality bowler, maybe, but there are a few who
are regularly quicker while they spray it around. Shaun Tait is
probably the fastest, but he only plays the odd T20 when taking a day
or two off the physio's table.
Cheers,
Mike
--
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Jun 28, 5:28 pm, Luke Curtis <tlot...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywhere...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Where have all the express bowlers gone?
>> >Posted on June 21, 2012
>> >Robert Henderson
>>
>> >The relative speeds of fast bowlers today and in the past is a
>> >perennial subject to which England batsman Alastair Cook recently gave
>> >fresh legs. He claimed that pace bowlers playing now every bit as
>> >fearsome as those in the early 1990s when the likes of Waqur Younis,
>> >Wazim Akram, Walsh and Ambrose, Bishop and Donald were around
>> >(http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/test-matches/england-v-west-
>> >indies-england-845223). Cook also contends that the bowlers of today
>> >must be quicker because in all other sports athletes have become
>> >fitter and faster (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/
>> >international/england/9306922/England-v-West-Indies-Jonny-Bairstow-is-
>> >not-alone-in-the-pace-battle.html)
>>
>> >As someone who has been watching first class cricket since the mid
>> >1950s I would profoundly disagree with the contention that modern
>> >bowlers are bowlers are faster than those in the past and would go
>> >further and say that there is no Test bowler today who is of extreme
>> >pace. That is arguably a unique situation because until now every
>> >decade of Test cricket has been able to furnish examples of such
>> >bowlers.
goes on in the middle of the field because his eyesight is too poor.
And "watching since the mid-50s" means that he's including the time
the five-year-old Halfwit spent mooching around the ground wondering
when Daddy would take him home for tea.
As testimony, it is therefore as near to completely worthless as makes
no difference.
The current issue of Private Eye has a little panel showing samples of
"Mr Gove's New O level Papers", including "History: Write an essay on
how marvellous the 1950s were. (Additional marks will be awarded for
failing to notice how grim it was.)" The Racist Halfwit would almost
certainly get an A* on that.
>>
>> There is the question of perspective, it is quite possible that 50
>> years ago the average "fast" bowler may have been bowling at 75mph,
>> when a couple of natural talents came round bowling at 90mph they
>> would have seemed incredible.
>>
>> Fast forward to now and bowlers bowling 82-83mph are 10-a-penny, when
>> you see a Brett Lee bowling 90mph he looks fast but not as
>> astoundingly amazing as a 50s bowler bowling at 90 because Lee is only
>> going 7-8mph quicker that the "average" rather than 15mph quicker than
>> an average 60s bowler.
This is absolutely correct. The other point that is regularly missed
>> There is the question of perspective, it is quite possible that 50
>> years ago the average "fast" bowler may have been bowling at 75mph,
>> when a couple of natural talents came round bowling at 90mph they
>> would have seemed incredible.
>>
>> Fast forward to now and bowlers bowling 82-83mph are 10-a-penny, when
>> you see a Brett Lee bowling 90mph he looks fast but not as
>> astoundingly amazing as a 50s bowler bowling at 90 because Lee is only
>> going 7-8mph quicker that the "average" rather than 15mph quicker than
>> an average 60s bowler.
is that the bowlers of yesteryear bowled shorter spells. Larwood was
usually used by Jardine in spells of two 8-ball overs (though
sometimes as many as three), and he hardly ever bowled more than four
overs on the trot in f-c cricket in England. You now see the likes of
Broad and Anderson delivering spells of six and seven overs at 88mph,
not only first thing in the morning but also towards the end of an
evening session when they've taken the new ball.
>Does Lee still bowl at that speed? i guess we'll
>find out on Friday, as he seems likely to play in the Oz match.
>Is Steyn considered the fastest bowler at the moment?
are regularly quicker while they spray it around. Shaun Tait is
probably the fastest, but he only plays the odd T20 when taking a day
or two off the physio's table.
Cheers,
Mike
--
RH
Jun 28, 2012, 3:46:32 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 5:28 pm, Luke Curtis <tlot...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), RH <anywhere...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> There is the question of perspective, it is quite possible that 50
> years ago the average "fast" bowler may have been bowling at 75mph,
Take it from me, fifty years ago their were plenty of bowlers in CC as
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> There is the question of perspective, it is quite possible that 50
> years ago the average "fast" bowler may have been bowling at 75mph,
fast as Finn. I listed them in my original article:
Johnny Bairstow displayed some uncertainty against Kemar Roach’s fast
bowling in the recent Tests against the West Indies. This has been
ascribed to a lack of genuine fast – and the extinction of express -
bowling in county cricket these days. There may be something in this
because there are few bowlers in county cricket even of Finn’s pace.
This was not so in the past. For example, in the 1960s there were many
bowlers who played little or no Test cricket who were at least as
fast as Finn. In 1965 county batsmen Harold Rhodes, Jeff Jones,
Butch White, Bob Cottam (fast when he first appeared), Alan Brown,
David Sayer, Ken Shuttleworth, Peter Lever, John Price, David
Larter, John Cotton, Fred Rumsey and Geoff Hall They were in addition
to Snow, Statham and Trueman, the latter two being still able to bowl
a fast opening spell – I saw Trueman knock Mickey Stewart’s bat out of
his hands twice in an opening spell very late in Trueman’s career – if
unable to sustain their pace throughout the day.. RH
> when a couple of natural talents came round bowling at 90mph they
> would have seemed incredible.
>
> Fast forward to now and bowlers bowling 82-83mph are 10-a-penny, when
> you see a Brett Lee bowling 90mph he looks fast but not as
> astoundingly amazing as a 50s bowler bowling at 90 because Lee is only
> going 7-8mph quicker that the "average" rather than 15mph quicker than
> an average 60s bowler.
>
Steve Hague
Jun 29, 2012, 3:00:10 AM6/29/12
to
RH wrote:
>
>
> Thommo bowled the single fastest ball all I have ever seen. It was the
> Oval Test of 1977.Mike Hendrick of all people hit him for two or three
> fours in quick succession. Thommo then bowled him with a ball which
> was through him before he had moved his bat (literally). The film Ire
> in Babylon has some excellent film of Thommo in the 1974/5 Ashes
> series. I suspect he was as difficult a quick bowler in that series as
> any have been at any time. He was never quite the same after the
> series because of his shoulder injury which stopped him playing in the
> final 1974/5 Test. RH
>
> The fastest I have seen as an adult were apart from Thommo, Pollock,
> Hall, Marshall, Holding, Daniel, Lillee (on his first tour to England
> but not after), Alan Ward, Imran Khan.
I would add Croft, Patterson, Malcolm, Bishop and Van Troost, the Dutchman
>
>
> Thommo bowled the single fastest ball all I have ever seen. It was the
> Oval Test of 1977.Mike Hendrick of all people hit him for two or three
> fours in quick succession. Thommo then bowled him with a ball which
> was through him before he had moved his bat (literally). The film Ire
> in Babylon has some excellent film of Thommo in the 1974/5 Ashes
> series. I suspect he was as difficult a quick bowler in that series as
> any have been at any time. He was never quite the same after the
> series because of his shoulder injury which stopped him playing in the
> final 1974/5 Test. RH
>
> The fastest I have seen as an adult were apart from Thommo, Pollock,
> Hall, Marshall, Holding, Daniel, Lillee (on his first tour to England
> but not after), Alan Ward, Imran Khan.
who played for Somerset. I never saw LeRoux, but wasn't he express?
Steve Hague
Graham P Davis
Jun 29, 2012, 5:01:09 AM6/29/12
to
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:28:03 +0100
Luke Curtis <tlo...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
> There is the question of perspective, it is quite possible that 50
> years ago the average "fast" bowler may have been bowling at 75mph,
> when a couple of natural talents came round bowling at 90mph they
> would have seemed incredible.
Current bowlers' speeds are measured by radar gun at the point of
Luke Curtis <tlo...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
> There is the question of perspective, it is quite possible that 50
> years ago the average "fast" bowler may have been bowling at 75mph,
> when a couple of natural talents came round bowling at 90mph they
> would have seemed incredible.
release. In the past, they were measured over a distance yet Thommo
almost reached 100mph, which would be well over the ton using today's
methods. Tyson was timed at near 90mph bowling in 3 sweaters after
having had no warm-up.
When Tyson was on song, slips would stand about forty yards from the
bat. Imagine him bowling today in a limited-over game. How would the
umpires cope with close-catchers being ten yards outside the 30-yard
circle? Would he therefore only be allowed one slip and the
wicket-keeper as the two deep fielders in the first power-play? ;-)
DeadMangledPigeon
Jun 29, 2012, 1:26:35 PM6/29/12
to
RH
Jun 30, 2012, 1:30:04 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 28, 7:47 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:12:12 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike...@yahoo.co.uk>
Oh dear, Mr Unwholesome falls down on even basic arithmetic. I was
born in 1947. As for my eyesight, it has become poor only in recent
years and I can still see in the distance. It is staring at screens
and short-sight work that is difficult. RH
"Before I was 15 I had seen Tyson, Trueman, Statham, Adcock,
Lindwall, Miller, Davidson, Gilchrist, in action. I will not offer
a certain judgement on their pace because a child, even in his early
teens, is not a reliable witness to a bowler’s speed. However, I can
offer an impressionistic memory of these players. Trueman, Adcock and
Gilchrist struck me as magically quick, but Tyson was something
else. I saw him bowl often and he invariably produced a response
from the crowd I have heard no other bowler ever do: a regular
shocked astonished gasp. I suspect he was the fastest bowler I have
ever seen. Lindwall and Miller were of course near the end of their
careers.
By 15 someone is in a position to make an adult judgement. I reached
that age in 1963. Since then I would place these Test bowlers as
fast at some time in their careers:
Trueman (bear in mind he was past 30 then), David Larter, Jeff Jones,
John Snow, Statham (he maintained his pace well into his thirties) Ken
Shuttleworth, Peter Lever, Bob Willis, Graham Dilley, David
Lawrence, Darren Gough, Andrew Flintoff, Steve Harmison, Alan
Pascoe, Rodney Hogg, Alan Hurst, Geoff Lawson, Craig McDermot, Merv
Hughes, Jason Gillespie, Mike Procter, Dale Stein, Joel Garner,
Colin Croft, Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Kemar Roach, Dick
Motz, Richard Hadlee, Wazim Akram.
and these as express in at least part of their careers:
Alan Ward, Devon Malcolm, Jeff Thompson, Dennis Lillee, Brett Lee,
Wes Hall, Charlie Griffith, Andy Roberts, Wayne Daniel, Malcolm
Marshall, Michael Holding, Marshall, Patrick Paterson, Ian Bishop,
Peter Pollock, Allan Donald, Shane Bond, Imran Khan, Waqar Younis,
Shoaib Akhtar." RH
bigot personality: pre-pubescent shrieking... RH
would regularly bowl twenty or more overs in a day. Tom Richardson
would bowl for hours on end, as would Walter Brearley. RH
>
> --
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:12:12 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmike...@yahoo.co.uk>
born in 1947. As for my eyesight, it has become poor only in recent
years and I can still see in the distance. It is staring at screens
and short-sight work that is difficult. RH
>
> As testimony, it is therefore as near to completely worthless as makes
> no difference.
Oh dear, Mr Unwholesome hasn't bothered to read the full article:
> As testimony, it is therefore as near to completely worthless as makes
> no difference.
"Before I was 15 I had seen Tyson, Trueman, Statham, Adcock,
Lindwall, Miller, Davidson, Gilchrist, in action. I will not offer
a certain judgement on their pace because a child, even in his early
teens, is not a reliable witness to a bowler’s speed. However, I can
offer an impressionistic memory of these players. Trueman, Adcock and
Gilchrist struck me as magically quick, but Tyson was something
else. I saw him bowl often and he invariably produced a response
from the crowd I have heard no other bowler ever do: a regular
shocked astonished gasp. I suspect he was the fastest bowler I have
ever seen. Lindwall and Miller were of course near the end of their
careers.
By 15 someone is in a position to make an adult judgement. I reached
that age in 1963. Since then I would place these Test bowlers as
fast at some time in their careers:
Trueman (bear in mind he was past 30 then), David Larter, Jeff Jones,
John Snow, Statham (he maintained his pace well into his thirties) Ken
Shuttleworth, Peter Lever, Bob Willis, Graham Dilley, David
Lawrence, Darren Gough, Andrew Flintoff, Steve Harmison, Alan
Pascoe, Rodney Hogg, Alan Hurst, Geoff Lawson, Craig McDermot, Merv
Hughes, Jason Gillespie, Mike Procter, Dale Stein, Joel Garner,
Colin Croft, Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Kemar Roach, Dick
Motz, Richard Hadlee, Wazim Akram.
and these as express in at least part of their careers:
Alan Ward, Devon Malcolm, Jeff Thompson, Dennis Lillee, Brett Lee,
Wes Hall, Charlie Griffith, Andy Roberts, Wayne Daniel, Malcolm
Marshall, Michael Holding, Marshall, Patrick Paterson, Ian Bishop,
Peter Pollock, Allan Donald, Shane Bond, Imran Khan, Waqar Younis,
Shoaib Akhtar." RH
>
> The current issue of Private Eye has a little panel showing samples of
> "Mr Gove's New O level Papers", including "History: Write an essay on
> how marvellous the 1950s were. (Additional marks will be awarded for
> failing to notice how grim it was.)" The Racist Halfwit would almost
> certainly get an A* on that.
And there we have a first rate example of the most basic liberal
> The current issue of Private Eye has a little panel showing samples of
> "Mr Gove's New O level Papers", including "History: Write an essay on
> how marvellous the 1950s were. (Additional marks will be awarded for
> failing to notice how grim it was.)" The Racist Halfwit would almost
> certainly get an A* on that.
bigot personality: pre-pubescent shrieking... RH
>
>
>
> >> There is the question of perspective, it is quite possible that 50
> >> years ago the average "fast" bowler may have been bowling at 75mph,
> >> when a couple of natural talents came round bowling at 90mph they
> >> would have seemed incredible.
>
> >> Fast forward to now and bowlers bowling 82-83mph are 10-a-penny, when
> >> you see a Brett Lee bowling 90mph he looks fast but not as
> >> astoundingly amazing as a 50s bowler bowling at 90 because Lee is only
> >> going 7-8mph quicker that the "average" rather than 15mph quicker than
> >> an average 60s bowler.
>
> This is absolutely correct. The other point that is regularly missed
> is that the bowlers of yesteryear bowled shorter spells. Larwood was
> usually used by Jardine in spells of two 8-ball overs (though
> sometimes as many as three), and he hardly ever bowled more than four
> overs on the trot in f-c cricket in England. You now see the likes of
> Broad and Anderson delivering spells of six and seven overs at 88mph,
> not only first thing in the morning but also towards the end of an
> evening session when they've taken the new ball.
>
>
Utter nonsense as a generalisation. For example, Trueman and Statham
>
>
> >> There is the question of perspective, it is quite possible that 50
> >> years ago the average "fast" bowler may have been bowling at 75mph,
> >> when a couple of natural talents came round bowling at 90mph they
> >> would have seemed incredible.
>
> >> Fast forward to now and bowlers bowling 82-83mph are 10-a-penny, when
> >> you see a Brett Lee bowling 90mph he looks fast but not as
> >> astoundingly amazing as a 50s bowler bowling at 90 because Lee is only
> >> going 7-8mph quicker that the "average" rather than 15mph quicker than
> >> an average 60s bowler.
>
> This is absolutely correct. The other point that is regularly missed
> is that the bowlers of yesteryear bowled shorter spells. Larwood was
> usually used by Jardine in spells of two 8-ball overs (though
> sometimes as many as three), and he hardly ever bowled more than four
> overs on the trot in f-c cricket in England. You now see the likes of
> Broad and Anderson delivering spells of six and seven overs at 88mph,
> not only first thing in the morning but also towards the end of an
> evening session when they've taken the new ball.
>
>
would regularly bowl twenty or more overs in a day. Tom Richardson
would bowl for hours on end, as would Walter Brearley. RH
>
> --
0 new messages