who's the fastest of them all
das...@my-dejanews.com
(not retired, if not in an international team) fast bowlers?
If there are no official stats, I'd love to see people's opinions.
To start who is the fastest of them all. Donald? Waqar? One of the new
Pakistanis/ West Indians?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Curious George
of unofficial ranking Shoaib Akhtar, followed by Mohammed Zahid with Donald,
Waqar a close tie on their best day...the rest only differ by very little...
Tim Cotsford
das...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
I've heard it said it was one of the new Pakistanis.
Was it Afridi?
The fastest I've seen of late was Donald
Cheers
Tim
Courtenay
>I've heard it said it was one of the new Pakistanis.
>Was it Afridi?
>The fastest I've seen of late was Donald
Apparently the opening spell of the new Pakis Shoaib Aktar and
Mohommad Zahid in the second test v. the aussies was one of the quickest
spells. it got slats out but taylor scored a few :))
kort
--
"I don't like much really do I? But what I do like, I love passionately"
------------------------ Pet Shop Boys, "Paninaro" ----------------------
Courtenay LEE SHOY (The PSBoy or Bored Kort)
c...@uow.edu.au * http://www.ozemail.com.au/~kort
Michael Creevey
Tim Cotsford wrote:
> I've heard it said it was one of the new Pakistanis.
> Was it Afridi?
> The fastest I've seen of late was Donald
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
Yes, his top-spinner can be pretty quick :-)
Don't forget Jason Gillespie.
Michael Creevey
das...@my-dejanews.com
> spells. it got slats out but taylor scored a few :))
>
> kort
True! a few :)
Anyone has any figures on these guys?
They did play at Dhaka. Didn't they?
From the selective reading of Crickinfo's commentary that I did , the fastest
ball bowled at Dhaka in the recent competition was 135kmph which is 84 mph.
Didn't either one of them bowl a single ball flat out?
Now if memory serves me right; I read an article long back ranking 12 pacemen
of that time. Jeff Thompson was the fastest at a shade under 100mph. Followed
by Mike Holding, Andy Roberts, in upper 90s. Imran Khan and Sarfaraz Nawaz
were the nos 11 and 12. But I think they were also over 85mph. I can't
remember where Dennis Lillie stood. Bob Willis was 90mph. The modern quicks
slower than their predecessors?
Anyone care to add or correct the above figures?
Curious George
conditions whereas the rankings that you presented were done in non-match
conditions...the bowlers were asked to bowl in nets as a gimmick to
determine their speeds...in any case Akhtar in the last two series has been
labeled as the fastest by the opposing batsmen...Cronjie and Taylor both
mentioned that it was the fastest that they ever played...Zahid is also very
fast...the two are definitely the consistently fastest bowlers in the world
right now...
Mark Wilson
das...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<72a7a4$244$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
> Now if memory serves me right; I read an article long back ranking 12
pacemen
> of that time. Jeff Thompson was the fastest at a shade under 100mph.
Followed
> by Mike Holding, Andy Roberts, in upper 90s. Imran Khan and Sarfaraz
Nawaz
> were the nos 11 and 12. But I think they were also over 85mph. I can't
> remember where Dennis Lillie stood. Bob Willis was 90mph. The modern
quicks
> slower than their predecessors?
Lillee was timed at around 95mph on occasions.
Jason Gillespie was timed at around 150kmph in a one day match in South
Africa last year (around 6-7km/h quicker than Donald was bowling during
that time perid), and undoubtedly bowled quicker down the slope at
Headingley. He also bowled one ball at the MCG which landed on a length,
cleared Healy and bounced just in front of the sight screen. Tim Nielsen
was standing right on the 30 metre circle when keeping to him at the WACA
in the same season. Doesn't seem to have reached that pace again however.
(Cybiades) Peter B
>
> Is there any way that I can get a ranking by speed of all currently playing
> (not retired, if not in an international team) fast bowlers?
>
> If there are no official stats, I'd love to see people's opinions.
>
> To start who is the fastest of them all. Donald? Waqar? One of the new
> Pakistanis/ West Indians?
Well, I've heard the South African young bloke, Mornantau (?) Hayward
has been clock at 155 kph...Victoria's Brad Williams is about that,
although he's been injury hit recently...Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammed
Zahid were up there too...Pakistan toured Australia a coule of years ago
with a guy called Mohammed Akram...beautiful action, modelled on Michael
Holding actually. But he was quick, easily the same speed as the 2 W's.
'Later
Peter
--
Cybiades: Computing For Fun
http://www.ticnet.com/azenomei/fels/fels.html
Visit my online world!!! (In progress)
Running Linux 2.0.35
AfterStep FAQ http://www.ticnet.com/azenomei/as/start.html
Mike Holmans
<azen...@ticnet.com> decided to opine:
>das...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> Is there any way that I can get a ranking by speed of all currently playing
>> (not retired, if not in an international team) fast bowlers?
>>
>> If there are no official stats, I'd love to see people's opinions.
>>
>> To start who is the fastest of them all. Donald? Waqar? One of the new
>> Pakistanis/ West Indians?
>
>Well, I've heard the South African young bloke, Mornantau (?) Hayward
>has been clock at 155 kph...Victoria's Brad Williams is about that,
>although he's been injury hit recently...Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammed
>Zahid were up there too...
For comparison, the speed gun which displayed at the Tests in England
this summer showed Donald at 92mph (147kph) at his fastest. Mostly he
was bowling at about 140kph.
Cheers,
Mike
--
RSC's Official Irascible Swine and Pompous Clot
Running total of Colin the Magnificent's predictions: -5
ravi_krishna
>For comparison, the speed gun which displayed at the Tests in England
>this summer showed Donald at 92mph (147kph) at his fastest. Mostly he
>was bowling at about 140kph.
Sorry, 140 kmph is not fast by any standards. This can at best be called fast
medium, same speed as Srinath. Heck, even Agarkar bowls the same speed.
RK-
PS: before someone mocks me, take a course in sarcasm.
Mike Holmans
>pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk says...
>
>>For comparison, the speed gun which displayed at the Tests in England
>>this summer showed Donald at 92mph (147kph) at his fastest. Mostly he
>>was bowling at about 140kph.
>
>Sorry, 140 kmph is not fast by any standards. This can at best be called fast
>medium, same speed as Srinath. Heck, even Agarkar bowls the same speed.
>
True. Maybe Donald is slowing down in his old age.
It's interesting, the way we classify bowlers at that end of the
scale. Gough bowled to RSA at 85-90 mph, and is called fast-medium.
Donald bowled to England at 88-92 mph and is called fast. Kallis
bowled 82-87 mph, and he gets called medium-fast, same as Fraser at
77-81 mph. Considerable overlap between these ranges, I'd say, so why
is one FM, another F, and others MF? Donald *looks* faster, somehow,
yet the speed gun doesn't seem to really agree.
ravi_krishna
>Now if memory serves me right; I read an article long back ranking 12 pacemen
>of that time. Jeff Thompson was the fastest at a shade under 100mph. Followed
>by Mike Holding, Andy Roberts, in upper 90s. Imran Khan and Sarfaraz Nawaz
>were the nos 11 and 12. But I think they were also over 85mph. I can't
>remember where Dennis Lillie stood. Bob Willis was 90mph. The modern quicks
>slower than their predecessors?
>
>Anyone care to add or correct the above figures?
If you are referring to some speed test conducted in Packer circus, and which
was published before WC 1979 ( I remember reading it in Illustrated Weekly of
India). The ranking was as follows:- (to the best of my knowledge)
1. Thomson :- somewhere around 93 mph
2. Holding :- around 91 mph
3. Imran Khan :- around 87 mph ( this I am sure, he was 3rd)
4. Colin Croft :-
5. Garth Le Roux :- Imran's Sussex partner, from RSA.
6. Roberts
7. Pascoe
8. Willis
9. Hadlee
10. Sarfraz - I am sure he was the last.
Except for first 3, I am not that sure about the other rankings, though I am
pretty confident about the names of the bowlers.
RK-
ravi_krishna
>>Sorry, 140 kmph is not fast by any standards. This can at best be called fast
>>medium, same speed as Srinath. Heck, even Agarkar bowls the same speed.
>>
>True. Maybe Donald is slowing down in his old age.
Actually my post was bit sarcastic, besides being a bait for you-know-who.
>It's interesting, the way we classify bowlers at that end of the
>scale. Gough bowled to RSA at 85-90 mph, and is called fast-medium.
>Donald bowled to England at 88-92 mph and is called fast. Kallis
>bowled 82-87 mph, and he gets called medium-fast, same as Fraser at
>77-81 mph. Considerable overlap between these ranges, I'd say, so why
>is one FM, another F, and others MF? Donald *looks* faster, somehow,
>yet the speed gun doesn't seem to really agree.
True. When India toured RSA in 1997, JS was clocking around 90 mph and yet he is
classified as FM.
Speed guns are notorious to show incorrect speeds or show something which is
inconsistent with general perception. I have seen Prabhakar being shown faster
than Akram in Sharjah 1991. Now unless Akram was bowling right hand, there is no
way he can be slower than Prabhakar. In 1996 when Pak toured Eng, Akram once
bowled a bouncer to Atherton, at a speed which made him take an ugly evasive
action. The speed as per the gun was 61 mph. ????
The best way to judge the speed is by observing how much the batsman hurry for
the stroke. In the Kanpur test, Mcmillian was bowled by Srinath, even before his
bat was down. When I saw the video tape of that match, I was impressed.
Now that was a FAST delivery, regardless of how one classfies JS.
Anyhow, does it matter whether a bowler is FM or F, except to boost ego of some
mentally sick fans.
RK-
rosh...@my-dejanews.com
> If you are referring to some speed test conducted in Packer circus, and which
> was published before WC 1979 ( I remember reading it in Illustrated Weekly of
> India). The ranking was as follows:- (to the best of my knowledge)
>
> 1. Thomson :- somewhere around 93 mph
> 2. Holding :- around 91 mph
> 3. Imran Khan :- around 87 mph ( this I am sure, he was 3rd)
> 4. Colin Croft :-
> 5. Garth Le Roux :- Imran's Sussex partner, from RSA.
> 6. Roberts
> 7. Pascoe
> 8. Willis
> 9. Hadlee
> 10. Sarfraz - I am sure he was the last.
>
hey, I remember reading that too. As a 6 year old I dont remember what was in
there, but it sure had lots of color pictures (a rare commodity during those
days) of fast bowlers. It had Kapil listed around 83mph (I dont remember) but
had his photo of that BIG leap he use to have before delivering the ball.
Roshan
GuessWho?
>hey, I remember reading that too. As a 6 year old I dont remember what was in
>there, but it sure had lots of color pictures (a rare commodity during those
>days) of fast bowlers. It had Kapil listed around 83mph (I dont remember) but
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Easily the joke of the century. Must be either 83 kmph or they must have used
HMT watch to clock his speed.
panc...@yahoo.com
Ravi Krishna wrote:
> In article <72a7a4$244$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, das...@my-dejanews.com says...
>
> >Now if memory serves me right; I read an article long back ranking 12 pacemen
> >of that time. Jeff Thompson was the fastest at a shade under 100mph. Followed
> >by Mike Holding, Andy Roberts, in upper 90s. Imran Khan and Sarfaraz Nawaz
> >were the nos 11 and 12. But I think they were also over 85mph. I can't
> >remember where Dennis Lillie stood. Bob Willis was 90mph. The modern quicks
> >slower than their predecessors?
> >
> >Anyone care to add or correct the above figures?
>
> was published before WC 1979 ( I remember reading it in Illustrated Weekly of
> India). The ranking was as follows:- (to the best of my knowledge)
>
> 1. Thomson :- somewhere around 93 mph
> 2. Holding :- around 91 mph
> 3. Imran Khan :- around 87 mph ( this I am sure, he was 3rd)
> 4. Colin Croft :-
> 5. Garth Le Roux :- Imran's Sussex partner, from RSA.
> 6. Roberts
> 7. Pascoe
> 8. Willis
> 9. Hadlee
> 10. Sarfraz - I am sure he was the last.
No Joel Garner/Clarke/Dennis Lilee( assuming they were there? )
If we assume the diff. between two successive guys is .5 mph then
hadlee has 84. Well somebody suggested own the thread that
Kapil was recorded at 83 and Kaps don't look bad. :-)
-SA
> Except for first 3, I am not that sure about the other rankings, though I am
> pretty confident about the names of the bowlers.
>
> RK-
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
rosh...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Easily the joke of the century. Must be either 83 kmph or they must have used
> HMT watch to clock his speed.
Mr. Nit-picker, I clearly mentioned the fact, I was 6 years old and I dont
remember the exact figure, now if you stoop so low as to fight with a 6 year
old brain I cant help it.
Also it was in 79', where kapil bowling at 83mph (132kmph) is not a fantasy
(considering it was done to measure the speed and no accuracy was needed)
Roshan
Shridhar
>Actually my post was bit sarcastic, besides being a bait for you-know-who.
What other job have you got than to post baits here.
>True. When India toured RSA in 1997, JS was clocking around 90 mph and yet he is
>classified as FM.
>
>Speed guns are notorious to show incorrect speeds or show something which is
>inconsistent with general perception. I have seen Prabhakar being shown faster
>than Akram in Sharjah 1991. Now unless Akram was bowling right hand, there is no
>way he can be slower than Prabhakar. In 1996 when Pak toured Eng, Akram once
>bowled a bouncer to Atherton, at a speed which made him take an ugly evasive
>action. The speed as per the gun was 61 mph. ????
Okay, at last. You've contradicted yourself. I was waiting for the
devil to shoot his mouth!
You imply that speed guns are not much consistent and then give examples of high
speed gun readings of Srinath when someone says that Srinath is just fast
medium. Then above you point out that speedguns could give wrong readings.
And when someone points out that Donald was clocked as 88 mph, you say so much
for being FAST.
This gives an example of the way you argue which is stupid to say the least.
Taking selective facts and mixing them to prove your point.Go suck something!!
Shridhar
Sridhar
>
> Getting off quicks.
> The two best spinners are still well out in front.
> Best Off Spinner- clearly Saqlain Mushtaq
one wonders how much thought and consideration goes into these
kinds of posts. for the record, murali figures in many people's books
as the best offie at the moment, and according to pwh-coopers
ratings, the best spinner. end of story.
> Best Leg Spinner - clearly Shane Warne
>
> I'd love to see them bowl together.
> Both of them bowling to Sachin Tendulkar and Mark Waugh would be something to see.
Sridhar
>
> >
> > Easily the joke of the century. Must be either 83 kmph or they must have used
> > HMT watch to clock his speed.
>
> Mr. Nit-picker, I clearly mentioned the fact, I was 6 years old and I dont
> remember the exact figure, now if you stoop so low as to fight with a 6 year
> old brain I cant help it.
>
> Also it was in 79', where kapil bowling at 83mph (132kmph) is not a fantasy
> (considering it was done to measure the speed and no accuracy was needed)
kapil was measured at ~118kph during a tournament in sharjah in '91.
akram was actually bowling a shade slower than that and so was
prabhakar. srinath was bowling at ~124 kph, and younis at ~136 kph.
i doubt if kapil ever reached 80+ mph, but with rk around, even
suggesting it is a crime.
ravi_krishna
Mine was a reply to Mike. Let us first understand the context of my reply to
him.
Mike wrote:-
> It's interesting, the way we classify bowlers at that end of the
> scale. Gough bowled to RSA at 85-90 mph, and is called fast-medium.
I replied:-
> True. When India toured RSA in 1997, JS was clocking around 90 mph
> and yet he is classified as FM.
So, I was only concurring with Mike.
Mike wrote:-
>Donald bowled to England at 88-92 mph and is called fast. Kallis
>bowled 82-87 mph, and he gets called medium-fast, same as Fraser at
>77-81 mph. Considerable overlap between these ranges, I'd say, so why
>is one FM, another F, and others MF? Donald *looks* faster, somehow,
>yet the speed gun doesn't seem to really agree.
I replied:-
> Speed guns are notorious to show incorrect speeds or show something
> which is inconsistent with general perception.
Once again I was only concurring with Mike and to prove my point I gave the
example of Sharjah match. How can Prabakar be shown as MF, whereas Akram as
F when they both were clocking almost same speed.
Now let us come to your reply:-
>Okay, at last. You've contradicted yourself. I was waiting for the
>devil to shoot his mouth!
Only that there was no contradiction.
>You imply that speed guns are not much consistent and then give
>examples of high speed gun readings of Srinath when someone says that
>Srinath is just fast medium.
Explained above. Speed gun readings not consistent with classification, the same
point raised by Mike.
> And when someone points out that Donald was clocked as 88 mph, you
> say so much for being FAST.
Funny that I never recollect ever saying that, but then you are born with
special comprehension ability.
Bottomline: You are a complete idiot.
RK-
ravi_krishna
>The real problem is that the speed guns are not set up at the same angle
>or focussing on the ball at the same point of delivery. Obviously
>"muzzle velocity" is higher than the pace the ball is travelling at half
>way down the pitch. You will often see great variances in pace for the
>same bowler across 2 games a week apart. This is to be expected if
>readings are taken after the ball bounces, but even on a dead wicket you
>wouldn't expect a 10-15 percent difference in maximum speed at point of
>release.
Valid point.
And the real problem with all the classification as shown in TV captions and
others is that it remains constant. For eg, if a bowler was fast in 1990,
and was classified as fast, he continues to be called as fast, even in 1996, by
then he may have slowed down to just fast medium. During WC 1992, Marshall was
classified as F but the fact was that by then he was only FM.
Actually there is only one moron in rsc who is so obsessed with speed. I donno
what pleasure he gets by wrongly classfying Agarkar and even Kuruvilla as FAST.
If that gives him some vicarious please, let him have it.
RK-
Shridhar
>Actually there is only one moron in rsc who is so obsessed with speed. I donno
Hmmm...if i am not wrong this thread is about speed. Can't help it if you are
high on Ganja. I am not able to get to your wavelength of digressing from the
topic.
>what pleasure he gets by wrongly classfying Agarkar and even Kuruvilla as FAST.
>If that gives him some vicarious please, let him have it.
Against my own wishes, i have to stoop to your level to counter your dickhead
claims about Srinath being Fast and arguing vehemently at that when he is never
listed as FAST by any agency of speed measurement. If you go on and on about
Srinath being Fast in almost every topic concerning him, then i can't help but
give you back some of your own taste of medicine.
I am prepared to go by the measurements and call Agarkar Fast medium but before
that you will have to accept the reality about Srinath too, OW be prepared for
more threads on Agarkar being Fast.
Anyway, since you claim yourself that speed guns are not consistent, why double
standards in not accepting Agarkar being Fast vis a vis Srinath. Take it from
me, you are one biased freak besides being a stupid ignorant fellow.
Shridhar
Donald Rose
Michael Creevey wrote in message <3648221B...@one.net.au>...
>
>
>Tim Cotsford wrote:
>
>> I've heard it said it was one of the new Pakistanis.
>> Was it Afridi?
>> The fastest I've seen of late was Donald
>>
match so presumable in similar conditions. Gillespie bowled the fastest
individual balls but Donald was consistently the quickest on average with
the other two very close.
Thommo was clocked at 159.?? kph. which is near as dammit 100 mph, in non
match conditions but he was of the personal opinion that he had bowled
faster at times in real Test matches. He is widely regarded as the fasted
bowler of all time. When this speed was recorded, all of the other WSC
quicks including Holding, Imran and Lillee were timed and Thompson's average
speed was higher than the fastest ball bowled by any other bowler.
Thommo was also the most accurate but this was generally considered sheer
luck. Also slingers tend to skid the ball more which makes them more likely
to not bounce the ball over the wicket.
Today, accuracy is valued over sheer pace because the protective equipment
worn by top level batsmen has reduced the physical terror value of sheer
pace.
Other bowlers who were noted at the time as being intimidatingly quick were:
Tibby Cotter (pre WWI Aust) A slinger.
Hal Larwood (powerful for a shortish man)
Eddie Gilbert (Aust. Aboriginal who Bradman regarded
as the quickest he ever faced. Gilbert
never played Test cricket because of his
race/colour but he played in the Sheffield
Sheild). Another slinger
Frank Tyson In the UK, Tyson bowled with an orthodox
action and while fast was rarely express.
When in Australia, Tyson reverted to the
slinging action of his youth and terrorised
Aussie batsmen.
I have also heard that Wes Hall could deliver some very quick deliveries and
Lillee in his early years before his back injury was much faster than when
he was timed in the WSC exercise.
Don
ravi_krishna
>Hmmm...if i am not wrong this thread is about speed. Can't help it if you are
>high on Ganja. I am not able to get to your wavelength of digressing from the
>topic.
So you accept that you are that moron. You see I never mentioned your name.
>Against my own wishes, i have to stoop to your level to counter your dickhead
>claims about Srinath being Fast and arguing vehemently at that when he is never
>listed as FAST by any agency of speed measurement.
Listen dingbat, I clearly told that it does not matter whether any bowler is
rated F or FM. And yes I believe JS to be F, regardless of what TV captions say.
I would rather take the word of McMillian,Hansie Cronjie, Imran (read his
comment on Ind-Eng series 1996).
>I am prepared to go by the measurements and call Agarkar Fast medium but before
>that you will have to accept the reality about Srinath too, OW be prepared for
>more threads on Agarkar being Fast.
Perhaps you are not aware that deja news has archived all your gems. It is *you*
who insists on proving that JS is not F and AA is FAST. Shall I prove it.
>Anyway, since you claim yourself that speed guns are not consistent, why double
>standards in not accepting Agarkar being Fast vis a vis Srinath. Take it from
>me, you are one biased freak besides being a stupid ignorant fellow.
I am yet to see anyone( excl, you-know-who) claiming that AA is faster than JS.
Most say he is clearly slower, some say he is as fast as JS. So how can AA be F
and JS = FM. And since u are besotted by radar guns, in which match was AA
recorded bowling at a faster speed than JS.
Bottomline: Your logic is as screwed as SRT's batting in crunch situation.
RK-
PS:- Even by your standards "kuruvilla is FAST" is stupid.
Sridhar
>
> Listen dingbat, I clearly told that it does not matter whether any bowler is
> rated F or FM. And yes I believe JS to be F, regardless of what TV captions say.
> I would rather take the word of McMillian,Hansie Cronjie, Imran (read his
> comment on Ind-Eng series 1996).
is there any cut-off for pacers to be classified as f ? this captioning
system never really rubbed off on me. in australia in '86, binny,
chetan, kapil, mcdermott were all tabbed mf. big mc was clearly a
lot faster than any of the others and chetan himself was
appreciably quicker than his seniors.
anyway, some bowlers are just quicker than others on some days,
so all these best laid classifications migh mean nothin on game day.
Shridhar
>So you accept that you are that moron. You see I never mentioned your name.
Nice try to deviate but no good. you really should try something new.
>Listen dingbat, I clearly told that it does not matter whether any bowler is
>rated F or FM.
then why continuously harp on Srinath's Fastness while not acknowledging the
same for Agarkar.
>And yes I believe JS to be F, regardless of what TV captions say.
And i beleive Agarkar and Kuruvilla to be Superfast regardless of what anyone
says!!!!(read sarcastic)
>I would rather take the word of McMillian,Hansie Cronjie, Imran (read his
>comment on Ind-Eng series 1996).
And i would take Srikanth's statement that Agarkar was fast on dead paki
wickets.
>Perhaps you are not aware that deja news has archived all your gems. It is *you*
>who insists on proving that JS is not F and AA is FAST. Shall I prove it.
And shall i prove that you continually piss everyone off with Srinath is Fast
statements.
>I am yet to see anyone( excl, you-know-who) claiming that AA is faster than JS.
As long as you smoke along with panix who (mis)feeds a million starved fans
you can say that. BTW, have u even watched a single game where Agarkar played?
Do that and then we can talk sensibly.
>Most say he is clearly slower, some say he is as fast as JS.
Most say moron RK should jump into the nearest well. Now do that for us.
>Bottomline: Your logic is as screwed as SRT's batting in crunch situation.
And we are supposed to acknowledge your stupidity instead. good going.
>PS:- Even by your standards "kuruvilla is FAST" is stupid.
And Prasad is good is most dumb by any standard.
Shridhar
Shaun
Shaun
Ravi, Krishna wrote:
> In article <72a7a4$244$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, das...@my-dejanews.com says...
>
> >Now if memory serves me right; I read an article long back ranking 12 pacemen
> >of that time. Jeff Thompson was the fastest at a shade under 100mph. Followed
> >by Mike Holding, Andy Roberts, in upper 90s. Imran Khan and Sarfaraz Nawaz
> >were the nos 11 and 12. But I think they were also over 85mph. I can't
> >remember where Dennis Lillie stood. Bob Willis was 90mph. The modern quicks
> >slower than their predecessors?
> >
> >Anyone care to add or correct the above figures?
>
> If you are referring to some speed test conducted in Packer circus, and which
> was published before WC 1979 ( I remember reading it in Illustrated Weekly of
> India). The ranking was as follows:- (to the best of my knowledge)
The figures above are from an actual Test match,
Thomson was a touch under 160 km/h
Holding and Roberts were next quickest.
The figures below are from the competition set up during World Series Cricket.
>
>
> 1. Thomson :- somewhere around 93 mph
> 2. Holding :- around 91 mph
> 3. Imran Khan :- around 87 mph ( this I am sure, he was 3rd)
> 4. Colin Croft :-
> 5. Garth Le Roux :- Imran's Sussex partner, from RSA.
> 6. Roberts
> 7. Pascoe
> 8. Willis
> 9. Hadlee
> 10. Sarfraz - I am sure he was the last.
>
In the last decade or so the quickest from what i can gleam has been Wasim
Akram.He rarely bowls near his quickest but from what i've seen when he lets one
go it's look quicker than any other bowlers i've seen. The young Paki at the
moment bowls damn quick himself but still very raw. Gillespie is pretty quick at
times.
Patterson Thompson also but a shocking bowler.
Allan Donald and Waquar the other genuine express bowlers.
McDermott in his younger years was pretty scary aswell.
Brad Williams is probably one of the quickest bowlers around but don't think he is
even playing at the moment. Probably injured again
Getting off quicks.
The two best spinners are still well out in front.
Best Off Spinner- clearly Saqlain Mushtaq
Mark Wilson
> pos...@jackalope.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >For comparison, the speed gun which displayed at the Tests in England
>
> >this summer showed Donald at 92mph (147kph) at his fastest. Mostly he
>
> >was bowling at about 140kph.
>
> Sorry, 140 kmph is not fast by any standards. This can at best be
> called fast
> medium, same speed as Srinath. Heck, even Agarkar bowls the same
> speed.
>
The real problem is that the speed guns are not set up at the same angle
or focussing on the ball at the same point of delivery. Obviously
"muzzle velocity" is higher than the pace the ball is travelling at half
way down the pitch. You will often see great variances in pace for the
same bowler across 2 games a week apart. This is to be expected if
readings are taken after the ball bounces, but even on a dead wicket you
wouldn't expect a 10-15 percent difference in maximum speed at point of
release.
Cheers
Mark Wilson
mose...@netcomuk.co.uk
resolved unless all bowlers are timed by the same equipment on the same
day which is unlikely ever to happen and cannot include former players.
Let me assure you that anything over about 75 mph feels quick when you
are standing down the other end and has a great deal to do with many
other things such as trajectory, action, sight screens etc. Try batting
against a bowling machine at 80/90mph. It's fine when the ball is
pitched up but quite different when it's pitched just short of a length
or shorter.
My own list within my own experience would include
Geoff Thompson
Sylvester Clarke
Andy Roberts
Michael Holding
Patrick Patterson
Wes Hall
Charlie Griffith (the one he threw!)
MRM
Farmer
But I really don't think anybody was ever as quick as Thommo at his
prime. :)
--------------------
Have a nice day
Farmer 3:16
ach...@my-dejanews.com
Numbers or compared to other fast men.
Malcolm Marshall
Courtney Walsh
Curtly Ambrose
Rodney Hogg
Chris Old
John Snow
Also didn't Lillie and Thompson have a contemporary called Max Walker? Was he
genuinely quick?
Mike Holmans
opine:
>>
>Does anyone know how fast were any or all of these guys, at their prime?
>Numbers or compared to other fast men.
>
>Malcolm Marshall
>Courtney Walsh
>Curtly Ambrose
>Rodney Hogg
>Chris Old
Chilly wasn't genuinely fast, ever. He was genuinely injured,
sometimes.
>John Snow
>
>
>Also didn't Lillie and Thompson have a contemporary called Max Walker? Was he
>genuinely quick?
The Mighty Max wasn't genuinely quick: he just waved his arms about a
lot. However, he has been a far greater star on the 12th Man tapes.
Dianne van Dulken
>Di
Will you just stop it!
You and Mic between you!!
Aargh!
Di
http://www.geocities.com/soho/studios/2497,http://www.netserv.net.au/dianne/skeletons
My cool quote of the month:
"Please tell me quite often I am pretty, if you don't mind. I feel so much more comfortable when I can believe I'm pretty"
Usual girly "Oooh Aaah you are so clever" noises apply to the first one to email me with the source.
Last months was from "The Man Upstairs" by PG Wodehouse.
Prometheus
in late 1978 (source: The Cricket War: The Inside Story of World Series
Cricket" by Gideon Haigh.
Jeff Thompson 148kph
Michael Holding 141.3
Imran Khan 139.7
Colin Croft 139.2
Andy Roberts 138.6
Dennis Lillee 136.4
Garth LeRoux 135.9
Wayne Daniel 133.5
Len Pascoe 131.6
Richard Hadlee 129.8
Mike Procter 128.6
Sarfraz Nawaz 121.7
Note: Thompson's speed was recorded after his serious shoulder injury.
I have a very clear recollection of Thompson being clocked at 99.7mph and
Holding at 97mph but I don't know when. Does anyone know what the source
of these are. If my recollection is accurate the speeds are surprisingly
discrepant from the times at the WACA. ie Holding at 97mph converts to
about 155kph which is 14 kph faster than 141.3. This is in fact a very
large difference being about the same as the difference in pace between
LeRoux (Who I saw and was very quick) and Sarfraz( who was very medium)!
GuessWho?
>Jeff Thompson 148kph
>Michael Holding 141.3
>Imran Khan 139.7
>Colin Croft 139.2
>Andy Roberts 138.6
>Dennis Lillee 136.4
>Garth LeRoux 135.9
>Wayne Daniel 133.5
>Len Pascoe 131.6
>Richard Hadlee 129.8
>Mike Procter 128.6
>Sarfraz Nawaz 121.7
This was the one which was published in the Illustrated Weekly of India, 1979
just before the WC, about which I posted a reply yesterday.
I think IWOI also published Sober's top ten batsmen at that time, which
triggered lot of flames. More to it later.
>I have a very clear recollection of Thompson being clocked at 99.7mph and
>Holding at 97mph but I don't know when.
According to IKhan, the fastest spell he has ever seen was in the packer circus
by Holding. So fast was he that all the top batsmen of the world wanted to get
away from him and preferred Roberts to him. All except one, Issac Vivian
Alexendra Richards.
Coming to SObers top ten batsmed (in 1979):-
1. IVA Richards - No dispute
2. Ian Chappel - Pooh, the GRV of Australia. Somehow like GRV he had the knack
of being in the good books of critics who overrated him.
3. Greg Chappel -
4. Sunil Manohar Gavaskar - Easily the #2 at that time.
5. Barry Richards - Poor guy, played only 4 test matches.
6. Boycott.
7. Greenidge.
8.
9. Zaheer Abbas - What ???????? No GRV but Zabbas.
10. Kallicharan.
It is now nearly 20 years since it was published and I may be wrong. Someone
with a better memory can correct me.
sm...@lehigh.edu
>Coming to SObers top ten batsmed (in 1979):-
I don't recall if Sobers had actually ranked them, but here's the top 10 list:
>1. IVA Richards - No dispute
>2. Ian Chappel - Pooh, the GRV of Australia. Somehow like GRV he had the knac
> of being in the good books of critics who overrated him.
>3. Greg Chappel -
>4. Sunil Manohar Gavaskar - Easily the #2 at that time.
>5. Barry Richards - Poor guy, played only 4 test matches.
>6. Boycott.
Boycott wasn't in. Derek Randall was the sole pick from England - and the most
controversial one as well. Gavaskar had argued that GRV ought to have been in
Randall's place. He also added that he would've picked GRV ahead of himself,
but wanted to replace a middle order bat with another MOBat.
>7. Greenidge.
>8.
Lloyd
>9. Zaheer Abbas - What ???????? No GRV but Zabbas.
>10. Kallicharan.
Sami (that's my name - not the batsman named instead of Kalli :-) )
samarth harish shah
Just hoping you don't *EVER* become a cricket umpire/match referee. And if
you do, I hope I'm never playing in a game you're officiating :-).
-Samarth.
On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Shaun wrote:
>
>
> Sridhar wrote:
>
> > Shaun wrote:
> > >
> > > Getting off quicks.
> > > The two best spinners are still well out in front.
> > > Best Off Spinner- clearly Saqlain Mushtaq
> >
> > one wonders how much thought and consideration goes into these
> > kinds of posts.
>
> Yes, i do wonder about people that rush in replying without thinking about what cricket
> the previous poster has seen to come to the conclusion he did.
>
> > for the record, murali figures in many people's books
> > as the best offie at the moment, and according to pwh-coopers
> > ratings, the best spinner. end of story.
> >
>
> 1) I've seen more of Saqlain that Murali2) What i've seen of their deliveries, Saqlain
> is light years in front of Murali e.g. Murali about 1 for 200 or something at Perth with
> Slater smashing him all over the pace.
> I can only dream of a batsmen capable of treating Saqlain in such a harsh manner.
> 3) Be warned, Controversial but the honest to god truth.
>
> I did consider that despite not seeing much of Murali he has apparently taken a
> bundle of Test wickets since the last time i saw him. BUT, i ask myself how can i
> seriously consider someone that had a delivery action that at times clearly did *not*
> look to be bowling but in fact throwing?. So i actually question in my own mind whether
> he in fact is an off spin
> *bowler* and from everthing i've seen of him i can't say he is so on the point alone he
> is not even in the running until i'm convinced he actually does bowl and what i
> construed to be throwing was in fact an illusion which is one theory i've heard.
>
> I know some people are certainly not going to like what i've written but it's simply the
> truth of how i've viewed the deliveries i've seen from Murali. I got nothing againt him
> or the Sri Lankans in general as i expect some poeple will want to assume.
> Murali seemed a wonderful person from his demeanor whilst fielding etc. but just because
> i like him does not mean i'm not going to question his bowling action in my own mind
> He's not the only bowler i've seen that i have doubts on at times.
> Some of the highlights of the Cricket lately i've even thought to myself that Brendon
> Julian looks like he might chuck a few of his quicker and shorter balls but i have not
> seen enough angles to be sure. I'd like to see a spell of him to have a really good look
>
>
>
>
>
>
ravi_krishna
>I don't recall if Sobers had actually ranked them, but here's the top 10 list:
Yup it was Sobers. I remember it bcos we use to argue that Sobes showed his WI
bias by including Lloyd and Greenidge and not GRV, what to talk about Randall
and Zaheer. Mind you it was at the time of WC 1979 and I was a big fan of GRV at
that time (though started leaning towards SMG after the Pak tour of 1978).
GRV at that time had a higher average than Lloyd (albeit very small difference).
Greenidge IMO was never a great bat, a weak attack bully. He could never come to
terms in Aus. Kallicharran was another fine batsman, very stylish, though he had
to live with the reputation of "his confidence not so unshakeable against peak
pace" after the 1975 disaster against Aus.
RK-
Shaun
Mic Cullen
have written:
[snips]
>>Di
>
>Will you just stop it!
>You and Mic between you!!
>Aargh!
I didn't say anything in this thread, and I sure as hell wouldn't go around
insinuating that you were "fast". Oh no. Not after last week....
Mic. (Return address will work as is...)
A hot dog feeds the hand that bites it.
sha...@mail.austasia.net
samarth harish shah <shs...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> Just hoping you don't *EVER* become a cricket umpire/match referee. And if
> you do, I hope I'm never playing in a game you're officiating :-).
I take it you throw :-)
No i'd never become a proper cricket umpire. I have umpired during some of
our low grade cricket games but i can't say i've seen any blatant chucking
going on whilst i was umpiring myself. There is a guy on my team who i reckon
chucks but he very very rarely gets a bowl and if he does it's when the game
is well and truly lost or beyond a result.
I have noticed a helluva lot of chucking in indoor cricket though but i've
never umpired there.
>
> -Samarth.
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Shaun wrote:
>
> >
> >
--
" He thought i came from Mars.
I thought he came from Uranus "
Glenn Manton relating to Sheedy
samarth harish shah
> I take it you throw :-)
Never been called in my life (played cricket for school, college, club and
Madras city junior colts). But, neither was poor Harbhajan :-). Besides, I
would think it's a little tough for left-arm spinners to chuck, because we
would then lose out on that all-important pivot about the front foot in
the delivery stride.
-Samarth.
sha...@mail.austasia.net
>
> Never been called in my life (played cricket for school, college, club and
> Madras city junior colts). But, neither was poor Harbhajan :-).
Sorry, i don't know him at all.
I take it he is an Indian cricketer.
I've heard there are soem cricketers with suspect actions but never seen them
myself so keep an open mind to see how they bowl.
We don't get to see much cricket outside Australia so some of the new
cricketers from that area we know nothing about. E.g. I've seen absolutely
nothing of the Sri Lankan team since the coverage of the last World Cup a few
years ago.
Simon Flatman
<snip>
>
> Geoff Thompson
> Sylvester Clarke
> Andy Roberts
> Michael Holding
> Patrick Patterson
> Wes Hall
> Charlie Griffith (the one he threw!)
>
A fairly rapid selection :-) I might like to add Fiery Fred, Tyson and, as
already mentioned by another poster, Larwood to the list. Pre 1920s bowlers
are a little difficult to rate but I'm sure there must be a worthy
candidate or three.
An interesting side issue of this debate, is the almost total lack of left
arm bowlers suggested (Akram excepting). The percentage ratio of left
handers would suggest that there should be at least a fewn names in, say, a
twenty or thirty strong list which has emerged out of the various
discussions on this subject. Is it a coincidence, that people don't rate
left-armers so quick or some other reason ?
The truth is out there, but we're unlikely to find it,
Simon
samarth harish shah
> Sorry, i don't know him at all.
Ricky Ponting sure knows him :-). I'm not sure he knows how to play him,
however :-). Especially the floater :-).
> I take it he is an Indian cricketer.
> I've heard there are soem cricketers with suspect actions but never seen them
> myself so keep an open mind to see how they bowl.
>
> We don't get to see much cricket outside Australia so some of the new
> cricketers from that area we know nothing about. E.g. I've seen absolutely
> nothing of the Sri Lankan team since the coverage of the last World Cup a few
> years ago.
That's funny. In India, we get live telecast on cable of most of the
tests/ODIs played in Australia, West Indies, South Africa and England. We
also get the English county season live. And of course, matches within
Asia. I guess Aussies not as cricket-crazy as Indians :-).
No cricket on TV here in the US, though :-(((((((. So, I try and lap up
anything to do with cricket on the web. And of course, there's RSC :-).
-Samarth.
A. A. Khan
>
>mose...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote in article <364AC8...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
><snip>
>> My own list within my own experience would include
>>
>> Geoff Thompson
>> Sylvester Clarke
>> Andy Roberts
>> Michael Holding
>> Patrick Patterson
>> Wes Hall
>> Charlie Griffith (the one he threw!)
>A fairly rapid selection :-) I might like to add Fiery Fred, Tyson and, as
>already mentioned by another poster, Larwood to the list. Pre 1920s bowlers
>are a little difficult to rate but I'm sure there must be a worthy
>candidate or three.
Tom Richardson was arguably the fastest of the lot in the pre-1920
era. He had tremendous stamina. Besides, there was Cotter from
Australia. Others were "fast-medium".
>
>An interesting side issue of this debate, is the almost total lack of left
>arm bowlers suggested (Akram excepting). The percentage ratio of left
>handers would suggest that there should be at least a fewn names in, say, a
>twenty or thirty strong list which has emerged out of the various
>discussions on this subject. Is it a coincidence, that people don't rate
>left-armers so quick or some other reason ?
>
>The truth is out there, but we're unlikely to find it,
I think the truth is rather simple-->the number of left-arm
bowlers has been relatively few. Logically, it follows that
the number in this last would be minimal. Left-arm fast-medium
bowlers (apart from Akram) would include Alan Davidson,
Alan Moss (who played a few Tests for England), Rhodes (whose
acton was suspect), Gary Gilmour, Rusi Surti and Karsan Ghavri
from India (Ghavri finished with over 100 wickets in Test cricket).
Collinge from New Zealand was left-handed, I believe. With the
exception of Davidson, none of them could be called great bowlers.
Sobers could bowl fast-medium but not consistently outstanding in
that role.
A. A. Khan
>Simon
sha...@mail.austasia.net
>
> Ricky Ponting sure knows him :-). I'm not sure he knows how to play him,
> however :-). Especially the floater :-).
Sounds like he played in the Test series you flogged us in, sorry, Tendulkar
flogged us in :-) Kumble did a bit aswell i think.
> > I take it he is an Indian cricketer.
> > I've heard there are soem cricketers with suspect actions but never seen
them
> > myself so keep an open mind to see how they bowl.
> >
> > We don't get to see much cricket outside Australia so some of the new
> > cricketers from that area we know nothing about. E.g. I've seen absolutely
> > nothing of the Sri Lankan team since the coverage of the last World Cup a
few
> > years ago.
>
> That's funny. In India, we get live telecast on cable of most of the
> tests/ODIs played in Australia, West Indies, South Africa and England. We
> also get the English county season live.
We are not big on cable television out here.
Most of us (90% +) only see free to air tv so if the cricket ain't on there we
basically only get to read reports in newspaper.
This was the first time we even had a tour to sub continent on radio.
I did manage to goto a Casino(where they had the pay-tv coverage on big
screen) to watch a few odd sessions but it was probably about 4 hours of the
whole tour at most i saw so can't remember much of it other than seeing
Tendulkar get a century and Healy and Robertson batting well for Australia.
You sound like you get to see cable tv quite often
And of course, matches within
> Asia. I guess Aussies not as cricket-crazy as Indians :-).
Nah! You guys are looney on cricket :-)
I even get the feeling you guys worship Bradman more than Aussies do.
I'm football (Aussie Rules footy) crazy to the extent you Indians are
cricket-crazy or i might even be crazier :-)
Cricket is the summer sport i love though. Distant second is Tennis.
The times i visited the Casino to watch the coverage of games of Australia v
India there was heaps and heaps of Indians i nthere watching. They went crazy
cheering any time anything remotely good happened for an Indian player.
I saw Australia v Pakistan a bit last week but the Pakistani crowd in Casino
were not quite as many as when the Indians play. Us Aussies are very quiet in
comparison to you cricket mad Indians and Pakistan people.
> No cricket on TV here in the US, though :-(((((((. So, I try and lap up
> anything to do with cricket on the web. And of course, there's RSC :-).
This joint is crazy also but not always in a good way.
Cheers,
Shaun
cy...@mindspring.com
Michael Creevey
A. A. Khan wrote:
> >A fairly rapid selection :-) I might like to add Fiery Fred, Tyson and, as
> >already mentioned by another poster, Larwood to the list. Pre 1920s bowlers
> >are a little difficult to rate but I'm sure there must be a worthy
> >candidate or three.
>
> Tom Richardson was arguably the fastest of the lot in the pre-1920
> era. He had tremendous stamina. Besides, there was Cotter from
> Australia. Others were "fast-medium".
There were several fast bowlers before Larwood. The names mentioned werefast;
Cotter apparently had a slinging action not unlike Jeff Thomson.
Gregory and MacDonald, probably the first bowlers to physically intimidate
opposition into defeat (if you don't include Barnes and Foster with their leg-
theory, but they were only medium pace) were both quite quick. Bradman
regarded him as quick as Larwood; around the 90 mph.
Ernest Jones, a fast bowler around the turn of the century, described Larwood
as being half-rat pace, or something like that. He was pretty quick, apparently,
and is noted for bowling a few balls through W.G.s beard. Jones was probably
the fastest bowler of his era according to accounts I've read, probably a touch
quicker than Richardson or Cotter. Other fast bowlers include N.A. Knox,
who only played a couple of test matches because of injury (IIRC) and the
fastest bowler in England before the war, who never played a test match,
C.J. Kortright.
Fred 'the Demon' Spofforth was also capable of a very fast ball by all accounts,
but cleverly mixed up his pace.
The fastest balls ever bowled before WWII were probably bowled by the
Queensland Aborigine, Eddie Gilbert. After getting Don Bradman out for
a duck, the great man desribed it as 'the luckiest duck I ever made'.
Problems with perceived chucking and probably racism conspired to limit
his career, and he never played a test. Other really quick bowlers of that
era include Laurie Nash (also a famous Aussie Rules player) and Gubby
Allen, who at his fastest nearly matched Larwood for speed.
A few West Indians of that era (Herman Griffith, Manny Martindale)
also approached Larwood for speed.
Michael Creevey
J.W. McCree
I heard terror Thomo this morning say "i was recorded at 90mph but that was after
my shoulder injury,before that i was quicker".
Cheers JIM
Dr A. N. Walker
> Gregory and MacDonald, probably the first bowlers to physically intimidate
They most certainly were not. One of the earliest "Punch"
cricket cartoons, from the 1870s, shows a man greeting a friend who
is swathed in bandages and slings, with a caption something like
"'Ad a haccident?" "No, I 'ad a hover of Jackson." Jackson was a
tearaway fast bowler, who sadly died in penury, as so many early
cricketers, who must have been pretty intimidating in those days of
pitches that made Jamaica look like a billiard table. In the photos,
he looks a bit like Fred Trueman for hostility. He wasn't the first,
either, as the "round-arm" era was famous for slinging actions and
uncertain direction, again on very dubious pitches. Batsmen, with
essentially no protection, were occasionally killed in those days,
which is about as intimidating as it gets.
A little later, but well before Gregory and MacDonald,
Kortright was famously intimidating, and had even the best batsmen
retreating to square leg.
> Ernest Jones, a fast bowler around the turn of the century, described Larwood
> as being half-rat pace, or something like that.
Be that as it may, those who saw all three at Trent Bridge
[not me!] were unanimous that Larwood was faster than Tyson who was
faster [at his best, in 1955] than Thomson. All three were pretty
frightening, though.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
Mike Holmans
<a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> decided to opine:
>
> Be that as it may, those who saw all three at Trent Bridge
>[not me!] were unanimous that Larwood was faster than Tyson who was
>faster [at his best, in 1955] than Thomson. All three were pretty
>frightening, though.
This seems to me to be dubious. Did anybody ever see Tyson bowl in
England as fast as he did on the 1954-5 tour of Australia? My friend
Peter Judge (Middx, Glam & Bengal), who was a contemporary of
Larwood's, reckoned Lol was about the same speed as Malcolm Marshall,
which was pretty frightening in the 1930s, as it still is today.
Donald Rose
Michael Holding who was quite slippery. Sure he bowled in the days of
Thommo who was almost certainly the fastest of them all, but in any other
era, Holding would have been rated highly.
I have a personal theory which I have voiced before, that the increase in
personal protection equipment has reduced the sheer terror factor in extreme
express pace bowling. Consequently, bowlers have reverted to line and
length at sharpish pace. Also we have a preponderance of beanpole bowlers
which was started by Joel Garner and continued on with Walsh, Ambrose, Reid,
McGrath and so on. Guys like these have a muscular structure which is not
conducive to explosive pace. The express bowler is the sprinter of the
cricket world. If you want a 10 sec. 100 metre run, you don't look to the
slender athlete, instead you look for the muscular mesomorph type.
Sydney is probably the richest catchment area for cricket talent in the
world. Yet I doubt there is one really express paceman going the rounds
(apologies to Don Nash who I have umpired in a pre-season match but have
never seen bowl really quick). If we ain't producing them, who is?
Don
Dr A. N. Walker
> This seems to me to be dubious. Did anybody ever see Tyson bowl in
> England as fast as he did on the 1954-5 tour of Australia?
Yes. I did. Just the once, in the first Test of 1955
at Trent Bridge vs South Africa. Soon after that, he was injured,
and I don't think he was ever again the same bowler. I saw him
quite often over the following few years, and he usually bowled
off a relatively short run [perhaps 25-30 yards?], and was still
*very* fast, but had lost the edge that had made him *terrifyingly*
fast. He played the occasional Test, but was taken to Oz in '58-9
largely for psychological reasons.
The more-or-less contemporary comparisons are with Lindwall
and Miller in 1953, Adcock and Heine in 1955, Gilchrist in 1957,
and the other English fast bowlers of the time, Statham, Trueman
and Loader. All of these were fast, but Tyson was *yards* faster.
Nevertheless, he didn't impress the Trent Bridge old fogeys [who
must have been all of 40-odd. Umm!], who to a man told me "Ah,
but you should have seen Larwood."
Some of it was no doubt kidology, but I have never since
seen a field like Tyson's for his opening spell -- Evans standing
some 30-35 yards back, four slips who might more accurately have
been called fine third man, third man, wide third man and very
wide third man, four leg slips, and deep point -- ie, an umbrella
field but with everyone ten or twenty yards further away than
normal. There would have been an easy bye to every ball, but for
the reluctance of the non-striker to get to the other end.
McGlew stood firm, as did Cheetham when he arrived to play a
captain's innings [and break his elbow, IIRC], but the other
SA batsmen, Goddard, Waite and Endean -- all fine players --
were reduced to vaguely wafting at the ball from a couple of
yards towards square leg. If Tyson had been at all accurate,
he would have had a hatful of wickets.
I don't recall the reasons, but England never kept the
same attack twice in that series. Tyson, Statham, Trueman,
Loader, Bedser and Bailey all opened at one time or another,
and the spinners varied between Appleyard, Wardle, Laker and
Lock. Any one of those players would utterly transform our
current team!
euse...@one.net.au
"Dr A. N. Walker" <a...@maths.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> Michael Creevey wrote:
> > Gregory and MacDonald, probably the first bowlers to physically intimidate
> > opposition into defeat [...]
>
> They most certainly were not. One of the earliest "Punch"
> cricket cartoons, from the 1870s, shows a man greeting a friend who
> is swathed in bandages and slings, with a caption something like
> "'Ad a haccident?" "No, I 'ad a hover of Jackson." Jackson was a
> tearaway fast bowler, who sadly died in penury, as so many early
> cricketers, who must have been pretty intimidating in those days of
> pitches that made Jamaica look like a billiard table. In the photos,
> he looks a bit like Fred Trueman for hostility. He wasn't the first,
> either, as the "round-arm" era was famous for slinging actions and
> uncertain direction, again on very dubious pitches. Batsmen, with
> essentially no protection, were occasionally killed in those days,
> which is about as intimidating as it gets.
One suspects, not very. The intimidation level was probably due to the
very poor nature of pitches in those days, and the very poor skill level
of some of the batsmen. Essentially an unrelated scenario to what we were
discussing, which was test cricket. I s'pose old William Clarke could have
intimidated many players out with his very difficult to play lobs. Some
players were evidently intimidated into not playing very many shots.
What I said had the implication (in my own mind, perhaps) at least the
nuance of physical intimidation of the nature of modern short pitched
bowling administering a crushing test defeat. The leg-theory of Barnes
and Foster was a precursor, as I admitted, but neither of them were
all that quick, apparently. I could have mentioned that game in the
Banstown thirds in which the local lob bowler scythed the heads of 3
opposing batsmen on a vicious sticky, but I neglected to do so.
>
> A little later, but well before Gregory and MacDonald,
> Kortright was famously intimidating, and had even the best batsmen
> retreating to square leg.
would have been intimidating, just as Jones reputedly was too quick for
Grace (but he was over 50 at the time!), but was there a systematic
approach of physical intimidation, not caused by pitch vagaries, which
led to opposition teams being crushed? Actually, Spofforth and Boyle were
very fine bowlers, who intimidated batsmen by all acounts. The didn't do
this by bowling short, however (from what I understand).
> > Ernest Jones, a fast bowler around the turn of the century, described
Larwood
> > as being half-rat pace, or something like that.
>
> Be that as it may, those who saw all three at Trent Bridge
> [not me!] were unanimous that Larwood was faster than Tyson who was
> faster [at his best, in 1955] than Thomson. All three were pretty
> frightening, though.
Tyson was only at full pace for one series. I think it would be difficult
to imagine a faster bowler than Thomson. I believe Larwood was timed at
about 90 mph, which is a far cry from the 100 mph for Thommo post-shoulder
injury.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Mr_Sqiggle
<dr...@novation.com.au> wrote:
>
>Sydney is probably the richest catchment area for cricket talent in the
>world. Yet I doubt there is one really express paceman going the rounds
If we ain't producing them, who is?
>
interesting observation. i have a lot of contact with many NSW
juniors at representitive level. i am both a coach and umpire. there
aren't too many very fast young bowlers coming through (although there
are a few), however, there are plenty of high quality legspinners
(thanx shane!!).
15 years ago it was totally the opposite, the juniors then didn't know
what legspin was!
>(apologies to Don Nash who I have umpired in a pre-season match but have
>never seen bowl really quick).
i've umpired don many times. he's very fast, however, i don't think
he really has what it takes to make it at the next level.
wayne holdsworth was another very fast youngster who never really made
it. in his prime he was about the fastest i ever umpired.
andrew
Dr A. N. Walker
> One could speculate as to how fast those round armers actually were.
Jackson wasn't round-arm. But in any case, I have no
reason to suppose that the fastest round-arm bowlers were *slow*.
Intimidation is not merely a matter of speed. Eg, Trueman was
intimidating even in "old age" when he was barely fast-medium,
more so than Statham ever was, and more so, eg than Holding or
Marshall at their fastest. It's to do also with body language,
with the feeling that the bowler is out to "get" you, that he
will be *much* happier to demolish the wicket completely than
merely to induce a snick or remove a bail, that the next ball
might be a bouncer coming straight at *you*.
> One suspects, not very. The intimidation level was probably due to the
> very poor nature of pitches in those days,
Agreed. After all, that remains true today -- if the
Jamaica Test had been continued, there can be little doubt that
*all* the fast bowlers on display would have been intimidating.
> and the very poor skill level
> of some of the batsmen.
*Some* of the batsmen? Well, of course. 9, 10, Jack will
be intimidated by practically anything. But I have no reason to
suppose that the skill levels of, eg, the Notts batsmen in the
late Victorian era were any lower than their equivalents today.
There were *more* club cricketers in those days, and more coaching
in schools, and cricket was a more attractive career for a lad
with promise than it is today.
> Essentially an unrelated scenario to what we were
> discussing, which was test cricket.
You didn't *say* Test cricket! Intimidation -- and, for
that matter, speed -- is not confined to Test bowlers. Many of
the fastest bowlers have been simply too wayward, or too injury-
prone, or too short-careered to be picked in Tests. Devon Malcolm
was fast and intimidating [when roused], as SA found to their cost;
but he would *never* have made the England team in the 1950s --
indeed, he would probably not even have made the Derbyshire team,
ahead of Jackson and Gladwin.
> I s'pose old William Clarke could have
> intimidated many players out with his very difficult to play lobs.
"Difficult to play" is not at all the same characteristic
as "intimidating". I don't know whether you are merely sneering
at lob bowling; if so, I think it's misplaced. It is possible
to bowl fast lobs; but these were clearly superseded by the even
faster round-arm and over-arm styles which also have more difficult
trajectories, so fast lobbing is dead. But slow or medium lobbing
is significantly more accurate than its round- or over- equivalent,
and can take more spin, which should provide some compensation for
the lesser bounce. The problem is that we haven't seen a top-class
player trying it for over 80 years; not because it couldn't work
-- Jephson and Simpson-Hayward proved that it could even at the
highest levels and on good wickets against top batsmen -- but
because it needs a long apprenticeship, like all spin bowling,
and *unskilled* lobsters are laughed off the pitch and carted
all over the place.
[Kortright]
> Yet he never played a test. Yes obviously a fast bowler like Kortright
> would have been intimidating, just as Jones reputedly was too quick for
> Grace (but he was over 50 at the time!), but was there a systematic
> approach of physical intimidation, not caused by pitch vagaries, which
> led to opposition teams being crushed?
Yes. Read the accounts of, eg, the Gents vs Players matches
that he played in. He was "unlucky" in that he played for an
unfashionable county, and he had good years, bad years and injured
years, but managed never to have a good year when there was a home
Test series.
Drewy
<365cde03...@news.zipworld.com.au>...
Andrew & Don
I too have umpired a young Wayne Holdsworth (Poidevin-Gray Shield Under 19
level) and he was VERY sharp. I actually backed him to win one of those
pace bowling competitions at the SCG and he broke down the week before,
bowled with a bad back and was beaten by Andrew Jones (now of South Sydney
Shires). Cracker was quick.
I had the pleasure also of umpiring Glenn McGrath in Mike Whitney's
Testimonial Match. Glenn had just been selected to make his debut for NSW
but had not played a first class match yet. He bowled to Mark Waugh (on
placid North Sydney Oval) and had Mark VERY surprised at his pace. After an
over of the ball zipping under his chin, Mark said "I don't mind you
bowling this quick in a friendly match, as long as you do it for NSW next
week too." McGrath then complained of a twinge in his side which saw him
pull out of the NSW match. Glenn has become a much better bowler than he
was then but I suspect he is not as quick as he was on that day - trying to
impress some future team-mates!
Andrew, I was six years on the executive of the NSW Junior Cricket Union
and still, when I can, umpire the young representative teams of NSW. (I've
had NSW U17 intra-squad matches and Emerging Blues U14 matches this season
and have some State Schoolboys matches coming up.) Are you a member of the
NSWCUA? Do I know you?? (And, if not, why not??!!)
Drewy
(Michael Drew)
Kenny
<dr...@novation.com.au> wrote:
>A pretty good and informed analysis. Well done. You only missed out on
>Michael Holding who was quite slippery. Sure he bowled in the days of
>Thommo who was almost certainly the fastest of them all, but in any other
>era, Holding would have been rated highly.
>
>I have a personal theory which I have voiced before, that the increase in
>personal protection equipment has reduced the sheer terror factor in extreme
>express pace bowling. Consequently, bowlers have reverted to line and
>length at sharpish pace. Also we have a preponderance of beanpole bowlers
>which was started by Joel Garner and continued on with Walsh, Ambrose, Reid,
>McGrath and so on. Guys like these have a muscular structure which is not
>conducive to explosive pace. The express bowler is the sprinter of the
>cricket world. If you want a 10 sec. 100 metre run, you don't look to the
>slender athlete, instead you look for the muscular mesomorph type.
>
>Sydney is probably the richest catchment area for cricket talent in the
>world. Yet I doubt there is one really express paceman going the rounds
>(apologies to Don Nash who I have umpired in a pre-season match but have
>never seen bowl really quick). If we ain't producing them, who is?
>
Interesting observations...
Pakistan have produced Waquar , Shoaib Ahktar and mohammad Zahid in
very quick time...along with Mohammad Akram. And I`m sure there are
others...
WI still have a good few very quick youngsters, but there is too much
riding on them being in the right place at the right time to progress.
In the past much more risks were taken.
Patterson Thompson ...who toured Aus last WI tour is very quick but is
all over the place. I hear they have corrected most of his faults and
that he has been training for some time. Nixon Mclean who is touring
with WI right now is also very quick and Marshall thinks is the
quickest bowler in the world along with Donald and Ahktar. Then there
is a young guy from Guyana called Colin Stuart who is very pacy...but
he is behind in the queue until he most probably plays for WI
Presidents 11 vs Aus.
There is also a young Bajan called Corey Collymore who had a stress
fracture of his back and is now coming back at the age of 19... He is
very quick too...
There is talent and bar Stuart most of these guys are 6 ft 4 or more,
but they have more defined physiques (like Mclean)...than say Ambrose.
The shorter guys just dont get any joy anymore on the dead pitches
that go around the Caribbean...
Kenny
>Don
>
>
Mic Cullen
[snips]
> I think it would be difficult
>to imagine a faster bowler than Thomson. I believe Larwood was timed at
>about 90 mph, which is a far cry from the 100 mph for Thommo post-shoulder
>injury.
Presumably you mean "pre" injury for Thommo. I agree, it's hard to imagine
anyone quicker than him at his peak. I still remember the injury occurring
- I was at the Adelaide Oval that day. I think the only 2 people at the
ground who couldn't see what was happening were Thommo and Alan Turner -
you could feel people holding their breath just as it was about to occur.
Have a good one,
Mic. (Return address will work as is...)
(A) ABORT, (R) RETRY, (P) PUNCH THE MONITOR
Mr_Sqiggle
>
>
>I had the pleasure also of umpiring Glenn McGrath in Mike Whitney's
>Testimonial Match. Glenn had just been selected to make his debut for NSW
>but had not played a first class match yet. He bowled to Mark Waugh (on
>placid North Sydney Oval) and had Mark VERY surprised at his pace. After an
>over of the ball zipping under his chin, Mark said "I don't mind you
>bowling this quick in a friendly match, as long as you do it for NSW next
>week too." McGrath then complained of a twinge in his side which saw him
>pull out of the NSW match. Glenn has become a much better bowler than he
>was then but I suspect he is not as quick as he was on that day - trying to
>impress some future team-mates!
never had the pleasure of standing for glenn
>
>Andrew, I was six years on the executive of the NSW Junior Cricket Union
>and still, when I can, umpire the young representative teams of NSW. (I've
>had NSW U17 intra-squad matches and Emerging Blues U14 matches this season
>and have some State Schoolboys matches coming up.) Are you a member of the
>NSWCUA? Do I know you?? (And, if not, why not??!!)
yup u do
>
>Drewy
>(Michael Drew)
andrew
das...@my-dejanews.com
> Presumably you mean "pre" injury for Thommo. I agree, it's hard to imagine
> anyone quicker than him at his peak. I still remember the injury occurring
> - I was at the Adelaide Oval that day. I think the only 2 people at the
> ground who couldn't see what was happening were Thommo and Alan Turner -
> you could feel people holding their breath just as it was about to occur.
Mic, this was before my time. Would you care to relate how it came about?
Also, I'd heard about an innings played by Brian Close against the West Indies
pace attack. Did anyone witness that match? Does anyone have any details about
it?
Thank you gentlemen, it is really interesting reading this thread.
Michael Creevey
Mic Cullen wrote:
> > I think it would be difficult
> >to imagine a faster bowler than Thomson. I believe Larwood was timed at
> >about 90 mph, which is a far cry from the 100 mph for Thommo post-shoulder
> >injury.
>
> Presumably you mean "pre" injury for Thommo.
Yeah, you're right.
> I agree, it's hard to imagine
> anyone quicker than him at his peak. I still remember the injury occurring
> - I was at the Adelaide Oval that day. I think the only 2 people at the
> ground who couldn't see what was happening were Thommo and Alan Turner -
> you could feel people holding their breath just as it was about to occur.
But we've all seen that kind of thing happening, or personally been involved
in that kind of collision or near collision, where the worst result is
generally
and I s'pose thankfully just a dropped catch (which is bad enough)
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
das...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snip]
I'd heard about an innings played by Brian Close against the West Indies
> pace attack. Did anyone witness that match? Does anyone have any details about
> it?
>
I didn't see it, but I know he was recalled in 76 at the age of 45 (!) to
face Michael Holding, Andy Roberts and Wayne Daniel for 3 tests,
and I do remember that he was repeatedly hit on the body on at least
one occasion.
Michael Creevey
Drewy
<365F6A80...@one.net.au>...
>
> I didn't see it, but I know he was recalled in 76 at the age of 45 (!) to
> face Michael Holding, Andy Roberts and Wayne Daniel for 3 tests,
> and I do remember that he was repeatedly hit on the body on at least
> one occasion.
>
Repeatedly hit on the body on one occasion?? Now THAT delivery must have
been moving around! :-)
samarth harish shah
> Repeatedly hit on the body on one occasion?? Now THAT delivery must have
> been moving around! :-)
Lol!! :-))
Tim Cotsford
Michael Creevey wrote:
> das...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> [snip]
> I'd heard about an innings played by Brian Close against the West Indies
>
> > pace attack. Did anyone witness that match? Does anyone have any details about
> > it?
> >
>
> I didn't see it, but I know he was recalled in 76 at the age of 45 (!) to
> face Michael Holding, Andy Roberts and Wayne Daniel for 3 tests,
> and I do remember that he was repeatedly hit on the body on at least
> one occasion.
>
> Michael Creevey
I saw the game(s) on the teev.
Close basically went out there and was prepared to be hit.
Stories of his 'toughness' are legend. He was always the first to be the closest of
close (sorry) fielders, disdained a helmet. He was of the old school where you
didn't show fear or let the bowler know if he'd hurt you. He was a more than useful
cricketer who was past his best when I saw him. Fell foul of the establishment. A no
nonesense bloke & cricketer. The WIndies pace attack was knocking our batsmen to
pieces. And whilst Close was too old to have the reflexes to deal adequatly with
them, he could demonstrate a willingness to stand up to fast bowlers. Sadly, not too
many followed his example. Then again, the bowlers were rather hot.
Cheers
Tim
Mad Hamish
<T.cot...@library.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
>I saw the game(s) on the teev.
>Close basically went out there and was prepared to be hit.
>Stories of his 'toughness' are legend. He was always the first to be the closest of
>close (sorry) fielders, disdained a helmet. He was of the old school where you
>didn't show fear or let the bowler know if he'd hurt you. He was a more than useful
>cricketer who was past his best when I saw him. Fell foul of the establishment. A no
>nonesense bloke & cricketer. The WIndies pace attack was knocking our batsmen to
>pieces. And whilst Close was too old to have the reflexes to deal adequatly with
>them, he could demonstrate a willingness to stand up to fast bowlers. Sadly, not too
>many followed his example. Then again, the bowlers were rather hot.
>
Reminds me of something one of the channel 9 commentators came out with during
the Perth test. Apparently someone in an English paper once wrote "Ah April, the
sound of leather on Brian Close"
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
h_l...@tassie.net.au
Tim Cotsford
Mad Hamish wrote:
> Reminds me of something one of the channel 9 commentators came out with during
> the Perth test. Apparently someone in an English paper once wrote "Ah April, the
> sound of leather on Brian Close"
>
> ****************************************************************************
> The Politician's Slogan
> 'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
> of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
> Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
> ****************************************************************************
>
> Mad Hamish
>
> Hamish Laws
> h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
> h_l...@tassie.net.au
One of the (possibly apocryphal) stories of Closey was him fielding almost under the
batsmans armpit, the batsman middled it, it flew off the shiny dome of Closeys' head and
as he went down he was heard to cry 'catch it!'.
Cheers
Tim