None of these guys crossed 150, what was the hype about? Now, when you talk to these bowlers, they will talk, how much faster they were than the current crop.
@indianspartacus these guy's bowling speeds were being measured after the ball hit the pitch not out of the hand like the measure it these days. Tommo was hitting over 140 KPH off the pitch so it’s very likely he was bowling 150+ out the hand.
Michael Holding and Tommo are generally accepted as being two of the fastest bowlers of all time, easily up there with Shoaib and Brett Lee.
@bagel1986 What I saw the ball speed was measured at the time of release with the help of the board next to the popping crease, this is my opinion, Usain Bolt runs faster than any sprinter from 1970s, there are more fastbowlers now than ever.
@indianspartacus More fast bowlers now than ever!! Are you mad? Throughout the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s almost every side had at least 2 proper world class quick’s and often more. Only very recently has the world’s fast bowling attacks started to look formidable again. Over the previous 5 years or so test batsman have been getting an easy ride compared to their predecessors. Look how many batsmen these days can’t play the short ball. West Indies pace attack of the 80's best ever.
Typical aussie scam to make an aussie the fastest using Dr Frank Pyke and his bogus computer...Nowadays due to commercialisation speed guns are adjusted to reflect higher speeds...There is no way Shoib Akthar could have any been faster than these guys, certainly not by that margin... May be somewhere around them..
@rodtorre7 not that I know of, just that, probably, the right handed people are more in existence, esp in the parts of the world where they play cricket more, so more probability that righties bowl more, and , it somewhat was the trend too, before wasim akram, that left armers never were thinking of bowling fast....as much...
@bcozigothigh Holding has probably the finest actions in fast bowling history... I love watching him on youtube as well; such a fluent and controlled action.
As for an overall bowler I still aspire and look up to Dennis Lillee. Just his attitude and aggression was so unique... (and he's Australian haha)
Is the speed measured in the direction of the balls motion or just the component parallel to the ground? This would make a big difference between a beamer bowled parallel to the pitch and a bump ball aimed at about mid wicket.
Thompson and Lillee were almost old men here. Their peak was early seventies. They timed it from the end of the pitch, after the ball had travelled 22 yards. So tack on some speed, and consider this was just a day in the life of fast bowling greats, and suddenly they seem to not only match, but excede the calibre of today's bowlers.
@sinobuddy100 The reason being the 70's blokes reading lower speed is simple. they were all timed at the batsmen's end and the current crop lee, shoaib etc are timed at the moment of release. if you factor the loss in the air and pitch which is say 15Ks then the numbers look as good as look today
i hav jus been told dat da measuring equip. dat dey used is different 2 da 1 dat dey use 2day. da measuring equip. dat dey used during da vid measures da time it takes da ball to get from da hand to da end of da wicket but 2day dey measure time from da hand to da 5 metres or before it bounces.... so u cud add 5 k's on da speeds in da vid.
Well, you can see the speed of Thompson 148 max lol. How could you compare him to current fasties like Akhtar, Lee, Tait etc. I think they looked too fast because of the absence of helmets which made them more dangerous.
can someone please explain to me how the bowlers of today, that have by far better fitness and strength levels than the bowlers of the 70s, are still not able to bowl as fast as the likes of jeff thompson or michael holding?
@8urfutrkin Quicks have always been pretty fit, the job requires it, but modern fitness coaching is more about stamina to cope with the over packed cricket schedule than to encourage pace. A bowler steaming in flat out ball after ball like Thommo or Holding in the modern game with the amount of cricket now played would have to retire after a season or two with stress injuries. Look at the limits now placed on Tait's career.
could someone please explain to me why these legendary fast bowlers are only as fast as 135 on an average. I thought they were super fast? Todays average bowlers are able to do 135.
They measure speed now, only for the first 5ft out of the bowlers hand. The ball is measured approx. 14 times in that period and a speed taken. However, the ball hitting the pitch slows the ball approx. 10%. Back in the 70's when Thommo got measured at 100mph - that was timed at the batsman's end, after the ball had bounced and travelled that distance. So add that 10% and his speed is around 110mph. And that was not under match conditions with adrenalin. No-one comes close.
Bloody Hell! I thought that Ian Pont had come up with this new Drop Step Front Foot Block technique but every single one of these guys way way back in the 70s does it!!!
I would suggest the only way to measure today's bowlers against Thomson, is to use the exact same technology to measure the speed of bowlers today. Sure it may not be completely accurate, but at least the readings could be compared and the questions finally anwered.
@DonOfTheWorldMall He has the fastest recorded ball but what you have to understand is a lot of these bowlers weren't clocked in their career or were only clocked at the end of it.
Geoff Thompson in 1974/ 75 before he injured his shoulder was perhaps the quickest I have seen. Dennis Lillee was a master bowler, very fast as a young player, later a master of all the arts and crafts. The West Indies were immense in the 70s and 80s, having an endless supply of hostile fast bowlers of whom Holding was perhaps the quickest,they were able to completly batter the opposition with never a break from bouncers and hostility. Imran Khan was immense, so hostile, a master bowler.
Been watching world cricket since 1960,my father had watched all the greats from 1920s onwards. I have no bias towards any country unlike many placing comments here. Cricket has changed in many ways. Modern fielding, fitness of the players is vastly superior to the past. Modern safety equipment and changes to rules have made life more easy for modern players facing fast bowlers.
Must have been hell facing larwood bowling leg theory in the bodyline series with no helmets or body protection !
the bowlers speeds may be measured out of the hand in modern cricket, but geoff thompsons fastest delivery in this comp didnt pitch, so it wouldve only been marginally faster out of the hand than the length of the pitch
@LMAO---Thommo would be regularly hitting 100+mph.
very rightly said adi2777
ha ha..THOMMO himself admitted during 99 WC that SHOAIB is wayyy quicker than him at least in avg speed...both LILLE--THOMSON didnot get success in subcontinent....
BTW,the hand-release speed was measured in this competition.No excuses.Fact is cricketers are much better now.Obviously stronger & fitter.Dale steyn is a fantastic fielder too & a handy batsman.All these so-called greats of the older generations couldn't bat or field to save anyone's life,or wife.
LMAO@"Thommo would be regularly hitting 100+mph."Thommo would survive about 2 back to back tests on the flat roads in India before getting injured.Lilee played 1 test in pakistan & gave 300+ runs.
@adi2777 so your are judging 2 of the greats by guessing what would happen to one of them and one test match for the other? How do you know Lilee wouldn't have taken 14 wickets the next match he played? Stupid dumbass...
Cricketers are much better now? Really? Pampered bunch of pansies who play with helmets and covered pitches. Malcolm Marshall pisses all over Lillee, Thomson and Steyn.
@ZelenoffFanClub :Idiot,bowlers have to bat & field now.There was no concept of batting & fielding for bowlers.The pitches are batting frendly,batting equipment including protection is much better.Also the scheduling is such that there is little rest in b/w games.Cricketers play all around the world and not just in familiar home conditions.If steyn bowled on uncovered pitches batsmen would be pissing all over themselves.
Overrated bunch of pansy-arse cricketers are from the 70's.
@ZelenoffFanClub :Read my earlier posts first.I can't believe Marshall,Holding etc etc would survive a season of modern international cricket.Anyone who believes that needs to get their head out of their ass.
@adi2777 Mate, what are you on? There maybe more 'international' cricket knocking around these days, but that does not equate to more cricket. Unless you think pissing about for a couple of hours in a 20/20 game turns cricketers into supermen? As for what you might believe... well opinions are like arseholes, or in you case hats.
the high speed film cameras used in this competition are set to 400 frames/sec and are measuring RELEASE speed as you say. they go through 1000 feet of film in the blink of an eye so you cant measure a whole days bowling. jeff thomson has bowled above 100mph many times but hasnt had the luxury of speed cameras.
@adi2777 Realize that Jeff Thompson played 51 tests for Australia, took 200 test wickets, 8 five for's, with BB of 6 for 46 and with a bowling average of 28. He has also been quoted by many cricketers at the time as being consistently over 100 mph, they could not measure accurately during tests. Dennis Lillee is one of the greatest bowlers ever with 355 wickets, second only to McGrath and Warne. He has taken 7, 10 for's and 23, 5 for's, BB of 7 for 83, do you even know what cricket actually is.
the cricketers of that time wern't nearly as fit & fast bowlers didn't believe in the concepts of batting or fielding.intensity of cricket was much lower.scheduling was better & it didn't take as much effort coz these guys weren't on a perennial world tour like present day cricketers,hence had adequate rest.they only played in a few countries & the pitches were much better for bowling.Also,the bats & safety equipment weren't nearly as good.lil parhiv patel would kill lilee on a flat track now.
To those who think the method of measuring speed is the same now as then, check out the clip of Sky Sports Fastest Club bowler in the UK competition here on youtube. The winner was timed at 82mph or 131kph. Does anyone really believe Michael Holding was the same speed as a club cricketer? Get real. These guys would all be well into the 90mph zone these days, Thommo would be regularly hitting 100+mph.
@goweresque Exactly, Plus even in the 1970s speed guns were different at different times. In Lillees book on fast bowling(published in mid 70s) he has a table of the speeds recorded in Australia and they show thommo at 99 mph Andy Roberts at like 98 mph etc. So unless all these times the same type of guns were used it is impossible to compare.
Does anyone honestly think the speed measured here was from the ball release from the hand rather than the average speed down the pitch? If these bowlers are being measured in modern methods that means guys like Holding were only fast medium bowlers which is absurd.
I think they are using a tennis ball there. Also, they are taking turns after one ball (I have not seen the full video but with what I have seen, I think that is the case). They would really not be in the full rhythm that way. Why couldn't they use proper cricket balls? Was it because they needed to insert some device inside the ball and a tennis ball was the only way?
well i think doet really the speed matter..some bowler they beat the batsman with some fantastic seam and extra bounce like glean macgrath and wasim ..so on the pitch the batsman feels they are more quicker than the like of shaoib or breet lee..
@kyberkhan1 - Absolutely correct. Pure speed alone means little. It has always captured the imagination of the public but experienced cricketers know better.
It's so difficult to compare bowlers from different times. Not just because of trying to compare speeds but they all have to face a different generation of batsman. Compare opening the bowling to Geoff Boycott against opening to Sehwag!
@MrSmallfoot100 -Joel Garner was not as fast as Roberts or Holding but he's the best one-day bowler I've ever seen and his steep bounce meant he was always a handful. I agree with Richie's comments on this footage about Andy Roberts. He was my favourite West Indian quick of this era. His ability to make the ball do nasty things on a flat wicket had to be seen to be believed!
Imran was reshaping his action at that moment and I am sure after 3 or 4 years of this competition, he would have been as accurate and quicker as Jeff if not faster.
@revealingislam It's possible that the 1983 Imran was as quick as the 1983 Thomson but I'm pretty sure Imran himself wouldn't claim to have ever reached the speeds Thomson was hitting in '75/'76 before his shoulder injury ( 160 kmh plus ). As for accuracy Imran was always more accurate than Thomson.. Thommo just had a good day here.,, & in terms of general quality Imran was a significantly better bowler than Thomson. Sobers aside Imran was probably the best all rounder that's ever played.
@everkenz004 I will have to agree with you on that because I am too young to have seen greats like Thompson and others, though I have seen documentaries and videos of Imran as he is one of my favourites. They say back in those days it was truely a gentlemen game, but I feel what sets Imran apart from others was how he played it fairly. I have heard incidents such as Imran calling the opposition batsmen back when he knew they weren't out.. The way he lead the team was amazing too.
@revealingislam -yep, I have to agree with everkenz004. Thommo's only real weapon was his extraordinary pace and bounce and once he lost it ( I saw the incident live-Zaheer Abbas top edged a hook and Thommo and Alan Turner collided-just after lunch 1st Test Aus Vs Pak 1976/77) he was a shadow of his former self. Imran was a far more complete bowler. Wasim Akram is my pick for best Pakistani quick and best leftie ever. 2nd best leftie Australian Alan Davidson 170 wickets at about 20 or 21 each.
@Biggus63 I'd place Imran slightly above Akram as a bowler. Imran Khan had stamina, could bowl longer spells and tended to be more economical than Akram. Akram was more prodigiously gifted, almost freakishly good fast, swing bowler whereas, Imran was of a conventional mould and had an action to die for.
Agreed with that Garner comment though. Champion Test bowler, but typically unplayable in ODs.
@Imrankniazi -we might have to agree to disagree on the Imran/Wasim thing. Both really wonderful cricketers anyway and I really enjoyed watching them both play. They are both held in high regard here in Australia.
Imran was the second fastest (average speed)? Faster than Holding, Roberts, and Lillee?
And the prize is only A$1000? Even though this is 1979, that is what, just A$3000 today? An amazingly small amount for such a contest amongst top bowlers in a major sport.
Different bowlers are at their peaks at different times. Holding was at his peak, Roberts and Lillee after it, Imran before it, etc. So this time is not necessarily representative of each players peak.
There are two kinds of speeds that are calculated today. First is average speed with which the ball has reached the stumps at striker's end. The other is the instantaneous speed which varies during the ball's travel from baller's hand through the air and off the pitch . So, even if those greats had bowled today, it would have shown same results.
There's only one kind of measurement today, which is the speed shortly after the ball is released. The average speed, as used in this video, is around 20km/h or so less than the release speed. That's why Michael "Whispering Death" Holding was producing numbers akin to Glenn McGrath... the numbers represent different measurements entirely.
I don't think at any other point in cricket history there were so many of the fastest bowlers at one time with WI leading the pack. 70s was perhaps the golden era of greatest of the fastest bowlers, not sure if we'll ever be able to witness such a moment in cricket ever again.
Dennis Lillee was said to be faster in the early 1970's than he was by this time but was slowed by a bad back injury. However, I dare say that all fast bowlers have had some injury, be it arm, legs or back so I doubt it really mattered to Lillee.
im not trying to be negative or anything but they werent as fast as i thought like people said that tommos speed could get up to 160. their still fast though
Every other fast bowler has had injuries INCLUDING HOLDING and you never see any of that excuse with them . But thommos die hard fans always point that out. AI think he was the same speed after injury. The injury was not lethal plus he was way too young . Also Thommos performance outside Austrailia is not that good - pace and danger wise. He did bowl some real quick spells in west Indies but he does NOT stand alone as the quickest., just my opinion
Yeah, Thommo got the injury at the end of '76 against Pakistan & was never as consistently quick again. Vid 'Lillee & Thomson bowling speeds' shows him timed at 160.45 in '75 in just one random over timed. Thomson rates Marshall as the best fast bowler he's ever seen though (but not the fastest).
@MrAIMANZUL Haven't read his book but I'd be interested to read it. Thomson's injury was particularly bad & initially it was thought he wouldn't bowl again. The type of injury particularly with his action did compromise him thereafter although he did occasionally reach the speeds of old. It's the batsmen who faced him before & after who noticed the difference.
@everkenz004 In australia do you get the ball to ball footage of Jeff at his fastest - like at Perth in that Ashes series in 1974. I would love to see it. tthx
Sick of seeing comments like "m an indian n i accept the facts". That doesn't mean that every Indian have to accept the facts u accept. Your comment about Sehwag "desert-range pitches" explain your knowledge or facts u know. Please don't bring "being an Indian" on your own cricket analys like this. You should rather say that you are proud to be "classic" cricket fan who follows someone else's old cricket statement that says the "old cricket" is always the best !
Thommo clearly is focusing on full tosses so that the ball loses no speed after pitching, and thus has an inflated average speed compared to others who pitched it half-way down the pitch. If these discrepancies are accounted for, they all maybe close to each other (average between 135-138 with that measure). And, it is ridiculous to suggest that they are all 165-170 kmh, they are clearly much less, probably less than 150.
Fast bowling is for pricks who like panting all day trying to bowl 100mph, who have given-up on life and would like to sacrifice their bodies for a few years for the noble cause of getting on one or two wickets! dumb as donkeys are these fast bowlers!
@eurodude9999 ..he is just a typical indian ranter..comes out of utmost inferiority complex for not having any mentionale fast bowler throughout history..back home in india most indian fellas r like that
yeah man, that is good. They are certainly a talent in the game that should never be erased.
Ishant Sharma isn't a bad bowler, bowling around 140s, but still not striking fear into the batsmen with the 150 mark. Although pace isn't everything, just look at Vaas in the IPL T20 at the moment.. unbelieveable.
@eurodude9999@eurodude9999 yup..true...Mcgrath, wasim akram r great mentions too....line n length bowlers r always more economical n nifty....but what a scene is it to see a 95 miler uprooting stumps of a maestro or a 90 miler bouncer shaking a batting guru...its all about thrill in the game....n especially with cricket becomin more batsmen friendly over recent yrs i seriously wish a return of grizzly pacers...great west indians, brutal waqar, ruthless allen donald, brett lee n akhter etc
@jairamesh2009 ..thats a typical indian ranting :P...excellent batters...lifeless, thrill-less, powerless fast bowlers...dude u guys miss being hawkish...thrills of sehwags n likes work only in "desert-range pitches" they make...while great sachin deserves applause..much of the beauty n euphoria of cricket goes to guys like marshal, lillee, wasim, waqar,mcgrath, brett lee n shoaib akhter...nothing wrong in accepting reality...m an indian n i accept the facts.
Finally, opinions come from different players and they don't have to be of "general truth" at all times. An ex, youtube / watch?v=14ycl4X7ptk&feature=related . Langer says Aktar is the fastest he or probably cricket has ever seen. What can we say? We can't simply downplay the old fast bowlers referring to that comment. Can we? Even their old opinions might have changed over a time and we may not know unless he is willing/daring to backout :-)
And, when comparing the speed of the ball, why should anyone try to comment based on the built(body) of bowler or where the wicket keeper was standing (are we comparing the pitch?)? Please note that none of my comments are directed at u. But in general as I have seen(not necessarily here) more and more comments like that.
Thommo & Shoib had strong built where as Mohammed Sami(who also recorded 160km+) is smaller in size. Lee and Shaun Tait have medium built bodies.
Hi @Aimanali, I am not arguing anybody to be honest. But, I believe in giving respect to the guys who bowls heart out, be it in the past or present. However, I am just worried about the "classic fans" downplaying the achivements of the modern players so easily with saying that the the old bowlers "would have or might have done" better. Sometimes, its hard to compare the old and the new due to the lack of technology etc and then its just leave it to dust if one can't meaningfully compare.
in those days, the pitches favoured fast bowlers compared to today...stilll believe the current bowlers are faster and more accurate too with advent tougher rules on wides and bouncers
Oh, yea.. If these guys bowl another 25 yrs later, can add another 10km. May be 100 yrs later, they would have added 40kms more by the rate u guys are talking about and would have bowled at 200km speed. Come on guys, humen being is an evolution. If someone could have bowled at 150 before and u expect him to bowl 20kms more now, it doesn't have to be just him ! Are people growing physically challanged over time? Just relax and dont comp the old and the new unnecessarily if that makes u unrest..
@ramanan1357 My opinion exactly - it is interesting that Wasim Akram said that the fastest bowling he saw was from patrick patterson in 1985. Imran said Holding in the 1970s...even though played with Waqar & Devon Macolm at there fastest. Evolution does occur but in general ( generally people might be quicker but I doubt it happens so fast). wicket keepers stood to Holding , Thommo, Akhtar and Lee just the same distant behind the wicket. I say Thommo and Holding #1
I don't know why it is only in cricket we keep saying that the guys of old were faster and quicker than today. In every other sport (tennis/athletics for example), everyone understands that today's sportspersons are faster and quicker than those of previous generations. Surely, that must apply to cricket as well?
Don't know about today, but in the 1979 competition they are measuring on release - using the timing mechanism and grid shown on the super slo-mo replays. But I reckon Thomson would definitely be faster than that today, given better training etc
The fastest of all time must be thomson cause in those days they use to calculate speed after pitch and today they calculate after release.If Thompson bowls today he can reach 170 km/h.
It's amazing to see that in the olden days when the batsmen were bowled, the stumps did not get up-rooted!! Like wise prior to now, Fast bowlers like Dale Steyn and Brett Lee up-root stumps 90% of the time!
quite slow by todays fast bowling standards.. seeing as brett lee and shoaid akhatar have got to 100mph or 163kmh.... understanderable as todays crickets are training and doing fittness work every day.
not exactly,, nowadays the speed of the ball is calculated after the ball is released from the hand (before it pitches....)
those days speed was calculated after ball is released till it reached the opposite wicket... as we all know once the ball picthes it losses a lot of pace....
@ProudIndianJoe1 certainly you are right!! for a refrence you can add up to "10KMP" to these numbers which they have achieved. That makes TOMO 1st , Micheal Holding 2nd and Imran 3rd... Also shows that the standard of cricket and especially fast bowling is not what it use to be!
You are wrong! Speed calculating method has been pretty much the same! I work on several applications based on radar guns and I can guarantee on the fact that they used the same method which is to calculate the speed after it releases from bowlers hand.
proudindianjoe1 comment below is correct .experts believe thommo would of been 170km/h plus out of the hand at his alltime fastest .he wasnt even playing the year this contest was run .also it must be said he had serious shoulder surgery a few years before
i wonder if someone representing India lol
strangersilent 2 weeks ago
hahahah i am laughing because no Indian in this fast bowling competition. world 2nd largest population.
1adnanbhatti 2 weeks ago
None of these guys crossed 150, what was the hype about? Now, when you talk to these bowlers, they will talk, how much faster they were than the current crop.
indianspartacus 1 month ago
Comment removed
bagel1986 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@indianspartacus these guy's bowling speeds were being measured after the ball hit the pitch not out of the hand like the measure it these days. Tommo was hitting over 140 KPH off the pitch so it’s very likely he was bowling 150+ out the hand.
Michael Holding and Tommo are generally accepted as being two of the fastest bowlers of all time, easily up there with Shoaib and Brett Lee.
bagel1986 3 weeks ago
@bagel1986 What I saw the ball speed was measured at the time of release with the help of the board next to the popping crease, this is my opinion, Usain Bolt runs faster than any sprinter from 1970s, there are more fastbowlers now than ever.
indianspartacus 3 weeks ago
@indianspartacus More fast bowlers now than ever!! Are you mad? Throughout the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s almost every side had at least 2 proper world class quick’s and often more. Only very recently has the world’s fast bowling attacks started to look formidable again. Over the previous 5 years or so test batsman have been getting an easy ride compared to their predecessors. Look how many batsmen these days can’t play the short ball. West Indies pace attack of the 80's best ever.
bagel1986 3 weeks ago
Typical aussie scam to make an aussie the fastest using Dr Frank Pyke and his bogus computer...Nowadays due to commercialisation speed guns are adjusted to reflect higher speeds...There is no way Shoib Akthar could have any been faster than these guys, certainly not by that margin... May be somewhere around them..
rampadma 1 month ago
I have one question.
WHY ALL EXPRESS BOWLERS ARE RIGHTIES??
RIGHT ARM BOWLERS MORE STRONGER THAN LEFTIES?
Is there any scientific reason behind it??
rodtorre7 3 months ago
@rodtorre7 not that I know of, just that, probably, the right handed people are more in existence, esp in the parts of the world where they play cricket more, so more probability that righties bowl more, and , it somewhat was the trend too, before wasim akram, that left armers never were thinking of bowling fast....as much...
jazbaedil 3 months ago
@jazbaedil u must b a leftie...lol
rodtorre7 2 months ago
@rodtorre7 biomechanics behind a left arm bowler and how they fall away after they complete the action
666heavymetaladdict 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@666heavymetaladdict is bio-mechanics missing in righties?
rodtorre7 2 months ago
THOMMO IS KING!.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
Isn't this cricket?
bigbagron 4 months ago
what are you guys talking about? Wavell Hinds was clearly the fastest bowler to have ever played the game
metalandcricket 4 months ago
Micheal Holding was the scariest.. Just ask Close or Edrich!!! They both retired rather than face him again...
jonnynuclear 4 months ago 2
@bcozigothigh Holding has probably the finest actions in fast bowling history... I love watching him on youtube as well; such a fluent and controlled action.
As for an overall bowler I still aspire and look up to Dennis Lillee. Just his attitude and aggression was so unique... (and he's Australian haha)
666heavymetaladdict 6 months ago
Is the speed measured in the direction of the balls motion or just the component parallel to the ground? This would make a big difference between a beamer bowled parallel to the pitch and a bump ball aimed at about mid wicket.
lsbrother 6 months ago
Thompson and Lillee were almost old men here. Their peak was early seventies. They timed it from the end of the pitch, after the ball had travelled 22 yards. So tack on some speed, and consider this was just a day in the life of fast bowling greats, and suddenly they seem to not only match, but excede the calibre of today's bowlers.
666heavymetaladdict 6 months ago
@666heavymetaladdict Are you sure about that? It looked to me like they were measuring the speed of the arm at the moment of delivery.
77Fortran 5 months ago
@666heavymetaladdict
they DID NOT time it from the end of the pitch,thats bullshit.
it is timed using a photosonic 16mm high speed film camera at 400fps from side on to the bowling crease
it is then digitized and run through a computer that plots the ball in each frame and calculates a speed
very accurate
heathirving 4 months ago
i thought these bowlers were pretty quick but fast bowlers like wahab riaz, umar gul, steynn, andersin can clock 140 kmh very easily
sinobuddy100 6 months ago
@sinobuddy100 The reason being the 70's blokes reading lower speed is simple. they were all timed at the batsmen's end and the current crop lee, shoaib etc are timed at the moment of release. if you factor the loss in the air and pitch which is say 15Ks then the numbers look as good as look today
666heavymetaladdict 6 months ago
@666heavymetaladdict don't forget to mention how hot it was that day lol
funk192 6 months ago
shahid afridi is the quickest spinner of all time! LOL
SuperTaco20 6 months ago
Munaf Patel is the quickest bowler of all time......
thecorneredtigers11 6 months ago
How accurate are the speed gun readings?
I thought those West Indians were 90 mph+ ??
FlyingPig1902 7 months ago
@FlyingPig1902 it wasn't measured out of the hand like it is by radar today
MrAngy 6 months ago
@MrAngy how fast would it be today?
thecorneredtigers11 6 months ago
venkatesh prasad?
KarraTasi 7 months ago
Muhammad sami delivers a ball of 101.9mph that is 164 kph
/watch?v=P-JMsvfrJ6s
unknown96101 7 months ago
Comment removed
unknown96101 7 months ago
i hav jus been told dat da measuring equip. dat dey used is different 2 da 1 dat dey use 2day. da measuring equip. dat dey used during da vid measures da time it takes da ball to get from da hand to da end of da wicket but 2day dey measure time from da hand to da 5 metres or before it bounces.... so u cud add 5 k's on da speeds in da vid.
rhwsb 7 months ago
@bcozigothigh true good points
8urfutrkin 7 months ago
Well, you can see the speed of Thompson 148 max lol. How could you compare him to current fasties like Akhtar, Lee, Tait etc. I think they looked too fast because of the absence of helmets which made them more dangerous.
shj346 7 months ago
didnt shaun tait bowl a 100+ mph ball?
SnoddyD123 7 months ago
@SnoddyD123 Yes he did!! Once in a T20 match against Pakistan I reckon!!
souav 7 months ago
can someone please explain to me how the bowlers of today, that have by far better fitness and strength levels than the bowlers of the 70s, are still not able to bowl as fast as the likes of jeff thompson or michael holding?
8urfutrkin 8 months ago
@8urfutrkin Quicks have always been pretty fit, the job requires it, but modern fitness coaching is more about stamina to cope with the over packed cricket schedule than to encourage pace. A bowler steaming in flat out ball after ball like Thommo or Holding in the modern game with the amount of cricket now played would have to retire after a season or two with stress injuries. Look at the limits now placed on Tait's career.
everkenz004 7 months ago
if he did bowl at 164.3 km/hr think we would have heard about it by now!
happysoul745 8 months ago in playlist worlds fastest bowler
ATUL SHARMA bowled at 164.3 km/hr
rodtorre7 8 months ago
@rodtorre7 No he didn't
pysgodfach 8 months ago
wait a second this player past the line with the ball in his hand
thats an out
humzanrazi 9 months ago
could someone please explain to me why these legendary fast bowlers are only as fast as 135 on an average. I thought they were super fast? Todays average bowlers are able to do 135.
Am I missing something?
mdharis 9 months ago
They measure speed now, only for the first 5ft out of the bowlers hand. The ball is measured approx. 14 times in that period and a speed taken. However, the ball hitting the pitch slows the ball approx. 10%. Back in the 70's when Thommo got measured at 100mph - that was timed at the batsman's end, after the ball had bounced and travelled that distance. So add that 10% and his speed is around 110mph. And that was not under match conditions with adrenalin. No-one comes close.
69Ocker 10 months ago 3
@69Ocker do u have proof to back your statement? that the speed gun displays of today vs yore are shown differently? bowlers end vs batsman end.
because if u do, it should NOT be a 10% difference because the ball slows down far, far more than 10% on ground impact
mdharis 9 months ago
I would add 8-10mph to all of these deliveries
Containiac 10 months ago 4
@Containiac Why?
lokhtar 9 months ago
Bloody Hell! I thought that Ian Pont had come up with this new Drop Step Front Foot Block technique but every single one of these guys way way back in the 70s does it!!!
aaqucnaona94 10 months ago
SARFARAZ NAWAZ WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE ART OF REVERSE SWING BOWLING.
munnapakora 11 months ago 13
is this off a DVD if so can anyone upload the rest of it or tell me where i can get?
TopGearDog431 11 months ago
I would suggest the only way to measure today's bowlers against Thomson, is to use the exact same technology to measure the speed of bowlers today. Sure it may not be completely accurate, but at least the readings could be compared and the questions finally anwered.
jonothecameraman 1 year ago 2
@jonothecameraman thats a great idea if the technology is still around they should trial it in a couple of games preferably in australia.
TopGearDog431 11 months ago
Shoaib Akthar is the official world's fastest bowler in the Cricket History !!! 161.3 km/h (100.2 mph) twice against England.
DonOfTheWorldMall 1 year ago 28
@DonOfTheWorldMall did he do it twice?
TopGearDog431 11 months ago
@DonOfTheWorldMall yeah because speed cameras in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's etc were common as was TV.
basilbrushnz 10 months ago
@DonOfTheWorldMall I'snt it the same match where Wasim Akram got measured at 161.3 as well? before shoaibs over?
toursanxterme11 9 months ago
@DonOfTheWorldMall He has the fastest recorded ball but what you have to understand is a lot of these bowlers weren't clocked in their career or were only clocked at the end of it.
Firefly0100 4 months ago
@DonOfTheWorldMall srsly shoaib was nothing compared to thompson, if he played in current times he would regularly break 100 mph!
70s80sWINDIES 4 months ago
@DonOfTheWorldMall
Courtesy Nandrolone and amendments in the laws of cricket for his chucking action.
Wonder how much the likes of Hadlee and Andy roberts would have generated with that support and backing..
trackblazer23 3 months ago
@DonOfTheWorldMall BULLSHIT!, Thomo beat him!, 162. 45!
Eat shit!.
85Aheadstix 3 months ago
Comment removed
666heavymetaladdict 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Comment removed
DonOfTheWorldMall 1 year ago
03:00 lol umpire
DonOfTheWorldMall 1 year ago
Jeff Thomson's highest speed was once measured as 160.45 km/hr and remained a record for about three decades.
woozymj 1 year ago
@woozymj highest recorded speed im guessing he would of bowled quicker at some stage.
TopGearDog431 11 months ago
Comment removed
woozymj 1 year ago
lol..... 128, and 126?? 132 lol
How about shoaib Akhtar's 161?
aafrika0 1 year ago
@aafrika0
and shun taits 160.7? and brett lee's 161.3
goddo2305 1 year ago
@goddo2305 taits quickest is 161.1 now i think he did it last year in england theres a vid of it somewhere on utube.
TopGearDog431 11 months ago
@aafrika0 How abt Zaheer Khan's 175 kmph!!! Dont believe me?? Check on YT..
hardikvyas21 1 month ago
@hardikvyas21 LOL i remember that. hahaaha 175kph. it was confirmed as a speed gun error (DUH). Speed guns in WC 2011 were f-ed up.
walE3dk 1 month ago
WAT THE FUCK SHOIB AND BRETT LEE IS FASTER THAN THAT
KASHMIRI7864LYFE 1 year ago
Geoff Thompson in 1974/ 75 before he injured his shoulder was perhaps the quickest I have seen. Dennis Lillee was a master bowler, very fast as a young player, later a master of all the arts and crafts. The West Indies were immense in the 70s and 80s, having an endless supply of hostile fast bowlers of whom Holding was perhaps the quickest,they were able to completly batter the opposition with never a break from bouncers and hostility. Imran Khan was immense, so hostile, a master bowler.
no1knowledge 1 year ago
Been watching world cricket since 1960,my father had watched all the greats from 1920s onwards. I have no bias towards any country unlike many placing comments here. Cricket has changed in many ways. Modern fielding, fitness of the players is vastly superior to the past. Modern safety equipment and changes to rules have made life more easy for modern players facing fast bowlers.
Must have been hell facing larwood bowling leg theory in the bodyline series with no helmets or body protection !
no1knowledge 1 year ago
the bowlers speeds may be measured out of the hand in modern cricket, but geoff thompsons fastest delivery in this comp didnt pitch, so it wouldve only been marginally faster out of the hand than the length of the pitch
Bonswally 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LMAO---Thommo would be regularly hitting 100+mph.
very rightly said adi2777
ha ha..THOMMO himself admitted during 99 WC that SHOAIB is wayyy quicker than him at least in avg speed...both LILLE--THOMSON didnot get success in subcontinent....
it's high time that people get o
tupustapus 1 year ago
Comment removed
tupustapus 1 year ago
BTW,the hand-release speed was measured in this competition.No excuses.Fact is cricketers are much better now.Obviously stronger & fitter.Dale steyn is a fantastic fielder too & a handy batsman.All these so-called greats of the older generations couldn't bat or field to save anyone's life,or wife.
LMAO@"Thommo would be regularly hitting 100+mph."Thommo would survive about 2 back to back tests on the flat roads in India before getting injured.Lilee played 1 test in pakistan & gave 300+ runs.
adi2777 1 year ago 3
@adi2777 so your are judging 2 of the greats by guessing what would happen to one of them and one test match for the other? How do you know Lilee wouldn't have taken 14 wickets the next match he played? Stupid dumbass...
TheNertsae 1 year ago
@TheNertsae :stupid dumbass?
That term proves your stupidity.Are there smart dumb-arses?Can't even insult someone after trying so hard.
Fucking retard.
adi2777 1 year ago
@adi2777
Cricketers are much better now? Really? Pampered bunch of pansies who play with helmets and covered pitches. Malcolm Marshall pisses all over Lillee, Thomson and Steyn.
ZelenoffFanClub 1 year ago
@ZelenoffFanClub :Idiot,bowlers have to bat & field now.There was no concept of batting & fielding for bowlers.The pitches are batting frendly,batting equipment including protection is much better.Also the scheduling is such that there is little rest in b/w games.Cricketers play all around the world and not just in familiar home conditions.If steyn bowled on uncovered pitches batsmen would be pissing all over themselves.
Overrated bunch of pansy-arse cricketers are from the 70's.
adi2777 1 year ago
@ZelenoffFanClub :Read my earlier posts first.I can't believe Marshall,Holding etc etc would survive a season of modern international cricket.Anyone who believes that needs to get their head out of their ass.
adi2777 1 year ago
@adi2777 man you are talking way off your head - you self proclaimed expert on cricket - bet you won't last a day in the ''season'' ...
antiwarzone 1 year ago
@adi2777 : you need to get ur ass out of ur head -
antiwarzone 1 year ago
@adi2777 You can 'believe' what you like, mate. Opinions are like arseholes, or in your case hats...
ZelenoffFanClub 10 months ago
@adi2777 Mate, what are you on? There maybe more 'international' cricket knocking around these days, but that does not equate to more cricket. Unless you think pissing about for a couple of hours in a 20/20 game turns cricketers into supermen? As for what you might believe... well opinions are like arseholes, or in you case hats.
ZelenoffFanClub 10 months ago
@adi2777
at last someone who has some technical knowledge.
the high speed film cameras used in this competition are set to 400 frames/sec and are measuring RELEASE speed as you say. they go through 1000 feet of film in the blink of an eye so you cant measure a whole days bowling. jeff thomson has bowled above 100mph many times but hasnt had the luxury of speed cameras.
heathirving 1 year ago
@adi2777 Realize that Jeff Thompson played 51 tests for Australia, took 200 test wickets, 8 five for's, with BB of 6 for 46 and with a bowling average of 28. He has also been quoted by many cricketers at the time as being consistently over 100 mph, they could not measure accurately during tests. Dennis Lillee is one of the greatest bowlers ever with 355 wickets, second only to McGrath and Warne. He has taken 7, 10 for's and 23, 5 for's, BB of 7 for 83, do you even know what cricket actually is.
DIZZYSUPERROO 11 months ago
the cricketers of that time wern't nearly as fit & fast bowlers didn't believe in the concepts of batting or fielding.intensity of cricket was much lower.scheduling was better & it didn't take as much effort coz these guys weren't on a perennial world tour like present day cricketers,hence had adequate rest.they only played in a few countries & the pitches were much better for bowling.Also,the bats & safety equipment weren't nearly as good.lil parhiv patel would kill lilee on a flat track now.
adi2777 1 year ago
To those who think the method of measuring speed is the same now as then, check out the clip of Sky Sports Fastest Club bowler in the UK competition here on youtube. The winner was timed at 82mph or 131kph. Does anyone really believe Michael Holding was the same speed as a club cricketer? Get real. These guys would all be well into the 90mph zone these days, Thommo would be regularly hitting 100+mph.
goweresque 1 year ago
@goweresque Exactly, Plus even in the 1970s speed guns were different at different times. In Lillees book on fast bowling(published in mid 70s) he has a table of the speeds recorded in Australia and they show thommo at 99 mph Andy Roberts at like 98 mph etc. So unless all these times the same type of guns were used it is impossible to compare.
AIMANALI 1 year ago
Does anyone honestly think the speed measured here was from the ball release from the hand rather than the average speed down the pitch? If these bowlers are being measured in modern methods that means guys like Holding were only fast medium bowlers which is absurd.
bongo155 1 year ago
I think they are using a tennis ball there. Also, they are taking turns after one ball (I have not seen the full video but with what I have seen, I think that is the case). They would really not be in the full rhythm that way. Why couldn't they use proper cricket balls? Was it because they needed to insert some device inside the ball and a tennis ball was the only way?
yaanni 1 year ago
well i think doet really the speed matter..some bowler they beat the batsman with some fantastic seam and extra bounce like glean macgrath and wasim ..so on the pitch the batsman feels they are more quicker than the like of shaoib or breet lee..
kyberkhan1 1 year ago
@kyberkhan1 - Absolutely correct. Pure speed alone means little. It has always captured the imagination of the public but experienced cricketers know better.
Biggus63 1 year ago
how ever the speed is calculated pakistanis were fastest and we r fastest digest it proudindian
haseebimran01 1 year ago
It's so difficult to compare bowlers from different times. Not just because of trying to compare speeds but they all have to face a different generation of batsman. Compare opening the bowling to Geoff Boycott against opening to Sehwag!
AdvancedCricket1 1 year ago
where was big bird he would have won
MrSmallfoot100 1 year ago
@MrSmallfoot100 -Joel Garner was not as fast as Roberts or Holding but he's the best one-day bowler I've ever seen and his steep bounce meant he was always a handful. I agree with Richie's comments on this footage about Andy Roberts. He was my favourite West Indian quick of this era. His ability to make the ball do nasty things on a flat wicket had to be seen to be believed!
Biggus63 1 year ago
can some body upload the matches of best allrounders between G4(IMRAN KHAN.SIR RICHARD HADLEE,KAPIL DEV, EN BOTHAM)
fathsomuch 1 year ago
Imran was reshaping his action at that moment and I am sure after 3 or 4 years of this competition, he would have been as accurate and quicker as Jeff if not faster.
revealingislam 1 year ago
@revealingislam It's possible that the 1983 Imran was as quick as the 1983 Thomson but I'm pretty sure Imran himself wouldn't claim to have ever reached the speeds Thomson was hitting in '75/'76 before his shoulder injury ( 160 kmh plus ). As for accuracy Imran was always more accurate than Thomson.. Thommo just had a good day here.,, & in terms of general quality Imran was a significantly better bowler than Thomson. Sobers aside Imran was probably the best all rounder that's ever played.
everkenz004 1 year ago
@everkenz004 I will have to agree with you on that because I am too young to have seen greats like Thompson and others, though I have seen documentaries and videos of Imran as he is one of my favourites. They say back in those days it was truely a gentlemen game, but I feel what sets Imran apart from others was how he played it fairly. I have heard incidents such as Imran calling the opposition batsmen back when he knew they weren't out.. The way he lead the team was amazing too.
revealingislam 1 year ago
@revealingislam -yep, I have to agree with everkenz004. Thommo's only real weapon was his extraordinary pace and bounce and once he lost it ( I saw the incident live-Zaheer Abbas top edged a hook and Thommo and Alan Turner collided-just after lunch 1st Test Aus Vs Pak 1976/77) he was a shadow of his former self. Imran was a far more complete bowler. Wasim Akram is my pick for best Pakistani quick and best leftie ever. 2nd best leftie Australian Alan Davidson 170 wickets at about 20 or 21 each.
Biggus63 1 year ago
@Biggus63 I'd place Imran slightly above Akram as a bowler. Imran Khan had stamina, could bowl longer spells and tended to be more economical than Akram. Akram was more prodigiously gifted, almost freakishly good fast, swing bowler whereas, Imran was of a conventional mould and had an action to die for.
Agreed with that Garner comment though. Champion Test bowler, but typically unplayable in ODs.
Imrankniazi 1 year ago
@Imrankniazi -we might have to agree to disagree on the Imran/Wasim thing. Both really wonderful cricketers anyway and I really enjoyed watching them both play. They are both held in high regard here in Australia.
Biggus63 1 year ago
IMRAN KHAN MY STAR!!
umairalii 1 year ago
lillie & holding were the most complete fast bowlers while thomson is fastest
abhu2487 1 year ago
Holding had such an orgasmic action!
masudv 1 year ago
@masudv orgasmic? hmm.. well Allan Donald does it for me, I'd always get up having creamed my pants after watching him bowl.
mrbollocks1979 1 year ago
Imran was the second fastest (average speed)? Faster than Holding, Roberts, and Lillee?
And the prize is only A$1000? Even though this is 1979, that is what, just A$3000 today? An amazingly small amount for such a contest amongst top bowlers in a major sport.
kmg4 1 year ago
Different bowlers are at their peaks at different times. Holding was at his peak, Roberts and Lillee after it, Imran before it, etc. So this time is not necessarily representative of each players peak.
kmg4 1 year ago
There are two kinds of speeds that are calculated today. First is average speed with which the ball has reached the stumps at striker's end. The other is the instantaneous speed which varies during the ball's travel from baller's hand through the air and off the pitch . So, even if those greats had bowled today, it would have shown same results.
sackhatri 1 year ago
@sackhatri
There's only one kind of measurement today, which is the speed shortly after the ball is released. The average speed, as used in this video, is around 20km/h or so less than the release speed. That's why Michael "Whispering Death" Holding was producing numbers akin to Glenn McGrath... the numbers represent different measurements entirely.
thomasnonsense 1 year ago
I don't think at any other point in cricket history there were so many of the fastest bowlers at one time with WI leading the pack. 70s was perhaps the golden era of greatest of the fastest bowlers, not sure if we'll ever be able to witness such a moment in cricket ever again.
reckz420 1 year ago
Holding was amazing. The rollsroyce of fast bowlers. Great post.
newromantic888 1 year ago
They should do a modern day one with todays express pace bowlers!
rodd3rs1 1 year ago
Dennis Lillee was said to be faster in the early 1970's than he was by this time but was slowed by a bad back injury. However, I dare say that all fast bowlers have had some injury, be it arm, legs or back so I doubt it really mattered to Lillee.
Holden308 1 year ago
I still believe that Michael Holding was the fastest bowler.
mongoslay 1 year ago
im not trying to be negative or anything but they werent as fast as i thought like people said that tommos speed could get up to 160. their still fast though
aiser009 1 year ago
Every other fast bowler has had injuries INCLUDING HOLDING and you never see any of that excuse with them . But thommos die hard fans always point that out. AI think he was the same speed after injury. The injury was not lethal plus he was way too young . Also Thommos performance outside Austrailia is not that good - pace and danger wise. He did bowl some real quick spells in west Indies but he does NOT stand alone as the quickest., just my opinion
MrAIMANZUL 1 year ago
lillee aint the fastest but he was the best of all of them
SuperFreddyKruger1 1 year ago
@SuperFreddyKruger1
Jason Voo Rape ur litle ass.
MuerteyMalevolencia 1 year ago
This contest was four years after Thommo stuffed his shoulder - have a look at 74/75 - he was heaps faster then than here, but he still won.
Malcolm Marshall could not compete with Thommo in terms of speed at least
waynepeake 1 year ago
Yeah, Thommo got the injury at the end of '76 against Pakistan & was never as consistently quick again. Vid 'Lillee & Thomson bowling speeds' shows him timed at 160.45 in '75 in just one random over timed. Thomson rates Marshall as the best fast bowler he's ever seen though (but not the fastest).
everkenz004 1 year ago
@everkenz004 was that in thommos book
MrAIMANZUL 1 year ago
@MrAIMANZUL Haven't read his book but I'd be interested to read it. Thomson's injury was particularly bad & initially it was thought he wouldn't bowl again. The type of injury particularly with his action did compromise him thereafter although he did occasionally reach the speeds of old. It's the batsmen who faced him before & after who noticed the difference.
everkenz004 1 year ago
@everkenz004 In australia do you get the ball to ball footage of Jeff at his fastest - like at Perth in that Ashes series in 1974. I would love to see it. tthx
AIMANZUL1 1 year ago
jairamesh2009, ur comment is funny enough for this video :-) . Without fast bowlers, the game is not called cricket then :-)
ramanan1357 1 year ago
Sick of seeing comments like "m an indian n i accept the facts". That doesn't mean that every Indian have to accept the facts u accept. Your comment about Sehwag "desert-range pitches" explain your knowledge or facts u know. Please don't bring "being an Indian" on your own cricket analys like this. You should rather say that you are proud to be "classic" cricket fan who follows someone else's old cricket statement that says the "old cricket" is always the best !
ramanan1357 1 year ago
Thommo clearly is focusing on full tosses so that the ball loses no speed after pitching, and thus has an inflated average speed compared to others who pitched it half-way down the pitch. If these discrepancies are accounted for, they all maybe close to each other (average between 135-138 with that measure). And, it is ridiculous to suggest that they are all 165-170 kmh, they are clearly much less, probably less than 150.
deezina1 1 year ago
Genuine fast bowlers are a dead breed now
Taimoor03 1 year ago
I'd take Malcolm Marshall over these!
Spursrule1969 1 year ago
Fast bowling is for pricks who like panting all day trying to bowl 100mph, who have given-up on life and would like to sacrifice their bodies for a few years for the noble cause of getting on one or two wickets! dumb as donkeys are these fast bowlers!
jairamesh2009 1 year ago
@jairamesh2009
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Drum1203 1 year ago 2
@jairamesh2009
Nothing better then seeing the fear in the
batsmen's eyes when your charging in and
ripping down a 130-140kmph delivery...sure
enough there are injuries, but seeing the stumps
fly is awesome!!!
eurodude9999 1 year ago
@eurodude9999 ..he is just a typical indian ranter..comes out of utmost inferiority complex for not having any mentionale fast bowler throughout history..back home in india most indian fellas r like that
4agebeyondages 1 year ago
@4agebeyondages
yeah man, that is good. They are certainly a talent in the game that should never be erased.
Ishant Sharma isn't a bad bowler, bowling around 140s, but still not striking fear into the batsmen with the 150 mark. Although pace isn't everything, just look at Vaas in the IPL T20 at the moment.. unbelieveable.
eurodude9999 1 year ago
Comment removed
4agebeyondages 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eurodude9999 @eurodude9999 yup..true...Mcgrath, wasim akram r great mentions too....line n length bowlers r always more economical n nifty....but what a scene is it to see a 95 miler uprooting stumps of a maestro or a 90 miler bouncer shaking a batting guru...its all about thrill in the game....n especially with cricket becomin more batsmen friendly over recent yrs i seriously wish a return of grizzly pacers...great west indians, brutal waqar, ruthless allen donald, brett lee n akhter etc
4agebeyondages 1 year ago
@jairamesh2009 ..thats a typical indian ranting :P...excellent batters...lifeless, thrill-less, powerless fast bowlers...dude u guys miss being hawkish...thrills of sehwags n likes work only in "desert-range pitches" they make...while great sachin deserves applause..much of the beauty n euphoria of cricket goes to guys like marshal, lillee, wasim, waqar,mcgrath, brett lee n shoaib akhter...nothing wrong in accepting reality...m an indian n i accept the facts.
4agebeyondages 1 year ago
yeah...n first cricket was regarded as a gentleman's game...n now after aussies...it is officially called game for faggots n convicts...lol
nincompoop2008 1 year ago
so england played crap anyway noone likes em
cudpus 1 year ago
First there used to be fast bowlers and spinners. Then they coined the terms "fast-medium" and "medium pace" after India started playing cricket
LickinMuhLips 1 year ago
Finally, opinions come from different players and they don't have to be of "general truth" at all times. An ex, youtube / watch?v=14ycl4X7ptk&feature=related . Langer says Aktar is the fastest he or probably cricket has ever seen. What can we say? We can't simply downplay the old fast bowlers referring to that comment. Can we? Even their old opinions might have changed over a time and we may not know unless he is willing/daring to backout :-)
ramanan1357 1 year ago
Comment removed
ramanan1357 1 year ago
And, when comparing the speed of the ball, why should anyone try to comment based on the built(body) of bowler or where the wicket keeper was standing (are we comparing the pitch?)? Please note that none of my comments are directed at u. But in general as I have seen(not necessarily here) more and more comments like that.
Thommo & Shoib had strong built where as Mohammed Sami(who also recorded 160km+) is smaller in size. Lee and Shaun Tait have medium built bodies.
ramanan1357 1 year ago
Hi @Aimanali, I am not arguing anybody to be honest. But, I believe in giving respect to the guys who bowls heart out, be it in the past or present. However, I am just worried about the "classic fans" downplaying the achivements of the modern players so easily with saying that the the old bowlers "would have or might have done" better. Sometimes, its hard to compare the old and the new due to the lack of technology etc and then its just leave it to dust if one can't meaningfully compare.
ramanan1357 1 year ago
lillees action is so beautiful hes the greatest ever
SuperFreddyKruger1 1 year ago
in those days, the pitches favoured fast bowlers compared to today...stilll believe the current bowlers are faster and more accurate too with advent tougher rules on wides and bouncers
jairamesh2009 1 year ago
Btw, my thanks to the author for the video. Excellent one and nice to know a history of such and event. Enjoyed very much and rated five..
ramanan1357 1 year ago
Oh, yea.. If these guys bowl another 25 yrs later, can add another 10km. May be 100 yrs later, they would have added 40kms more by the rate u guys are talking about and would have bowled at 200km speed. Come on guys, humen being is an evolution. If someone could have bowled at 150 before and u expect him to bowl 20kms more now, it doesn't have to be just him ! Are people growing physically challanged over time? Just relax and dont comp the old and the new unnecessarily if that makes u unrest..
ramanan1357 1 year ago
@ramanan1357 My opinion exactly - it is interesting that Wasim Akram said that the fastest bowling he saw was from patrick patterson in 1985. Imran said Holding in the 1970s...even though played with Waqar & Devon Macolm at there fastest. Evolution does occur but in general ( generally people might be quicker but I doubt it happens so fast). wicket keepers stood to Holding , Thommo, Akhtar and Lee just the same distant behind the wicket. I say Thommo and Holding #1
AIMANALI 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't know why it is only in cricket we keep saying that the guys of old were faster and quicker than today. In every other sport (tennis/athletics for example), everyone understands that today's sportspersons are faster and quicker than those of previous generations. Surely, that must apply to cricket as well?
abdussalam7 1 year ago
Comment removed
abdussalam7 1 year ago
looking at thompsons action..id say hes like a javelin thrower..cudve bowled at about 165km or even more
ayaazcyclops 1 year ago
Don't know about today, but in the 1979 competition they are measuring on release - using the timing mechanism and grid shown on the super slo-mo replays. But I reckon Thomson would definitely be faster than that today, given better training etc
siarach1 1 year ago
The fastest of all time must be thomson cause in those days they use to calculate speed after pitch and today they calculate after release.If Thompson bowls today he can reach 170 km/h.
1dollar20cents 1 year ago
from what i know the speed guys in thoughs days were different - they measured th speed in different ways than today
AIMANALI 1 year ago
onya two up
jagdpanther1944 2 years ago
80kmph even our women can bowl ... and once we chuck we ll cross 120
ProudIndianJoe1 2 years ago
why didnt venktapathi raju , venkatesh prasad, debashish mohanty, take part in this competition....
ProudIndianJoe1 2 years ago
It's amazing to see that in the olden days when the batsmen were bowled, the stumps did not get up-rooted!! Like wise prior to now, Fast bowlers like Dale Steyn and Brett Lee up-root stumps 90% of the time!
woodamler 2 years ago
quite slow by todays fast bowling standards.. seeing as brett lee and shoaid akhatar have got to 100mph or 163kmh.... understanderable as todays crickets are training and doing fittness work every day.
nottinghampokerpro 2 years ago
not exactly,, nowadays the speed of the ball is calculated after the ball is released from the hand (before it pitches....)
those days speed was calculated after ball is released till it reached the opposite wicket... as we all know once the ball picthes it losses a lot of pace....
ProudIndianJoe1 2 years ago 8
yea even the speed today would be bit lower because the ball is thrown 'down' and not in straight line but its pretty accurate tho
shahidafridi6 1 year ago
@ProudIndianJoe1 certainly you are right!! for a refrence you can add up to "10KMP" to these numbers which they have achieved. That makes TOMO 1st , Micheal Holding 2nd and Imran 3rd... Also shows that the standard of cricket and especially fast bowling is not what it use to be!
Hajumula 1 year ago
@ProudIndianJoe1
You are wrong! Speed calculating method has been pretty much the same! I work on several applications based on radar guns and I can guarantee on the fact that they used the same method which is to calculate the speed after it releases from bowlers hand.
thejanwitha 1 year ago
@thejanwitha so u were around the 1970s as well to see the speed guns used ! ?
AIMANALI 1 year ago
@ProudIndianJoe1 in this video the release speed was measured and not average speed.
dasiths 1 year ago
proudindianjoe1 comment below is correct .experts believe thommo would of been 170km/h plus out of the hand at his alltime fastest .he wasnt even playing the year this contest was run .also it must be said he had serious shoulder surgery a few years before
videoonline72 2 years ago 2
No-one can bowl 170KM/h.
Gummerman 2 years ago