People claiming "technology" has improved have no clue what they are talking about. The base technology is the human body. it has not changed. Training methods have become more sophisticated but that only helps in sports with simple repetitive motions like weight lifting. It does not provide any benefit to complex actions like bowling or baseball pitching. In fact, weight training, in particular, is counterproductive for baseball pitching and cricket bowling. Thats why speed hasnt increased
Even from the batsmen point of view in those days, bowlers like Holding ,Roberts, Marshall, Croft , Lillee, Thompson , were very fast , consistently mid to high 90s. Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee , Imran Khan were medium fast. There are bowlers today who probably could bowl a fast ball like those guys, but not sustained pace like those guys back in the day.
Who are these cretins claiming Holding was medium pace! They obviously have only watched cricket in last 10-15 yrs. McGrath, Kapil, Hadlee they were medium pace compared to Holding! Must be the same idiots that recent voted on a best test XI in history on cricinfo, only to leave the greatest cricket, Gary Sobers out of the team in place of Kapil Dev!!!
@Indianmasterify Atleticism hasnt improved much from the 70s , Guys are mostly fitter and more professional today , But people like Lillee, marshall , Holding , Imran were all awesome athletic men and were equals of any man playing today. The 100m world record in 1968 was 9.8 and until 2008 was still around 9.8 , the long jump in 1968 was 8.9m now in 2011 8.95m , most womens atheletic world records are from 1980s . Athletes arent necesarily that much better today than 30 to 40 years ago
@Indianmasterify Atleticism hasnt improved much from the 70s , Guys are mostly fitter and more professional today , But people like Lillee, marshall , Holding , Imran were all awesome athletic men and were equals of any man playing today. The 100m world record in 1968 was 9.8 and until 2008 was still around 9.8 , the long jump in 1968 was 8.9m now in 2011 8.95m , most womens atheletic world records are from 1980s . Athletes arent necesarily that much better today than 30 to 40 years ago
@Indianmasterify In that case we agree completely!! Some people here are trying to say that the great fast bowlers of the 70s were as quick as today's bowlers, and Holding and Thomo in the mid to high 90s. Just nottrue
@Indianmasterify Clearly I can't know for a fact...but logic says overall they are. Holding and the other real quicks would have been right up there today. But still only 88-90 IMHO. People do like to look back with rose tinted spectacles. All sports progress as training, diet, knowledge, video etc moves on
In late 1970s there was an effort to measure the bowling speed for the first time and Holding was rated third fastest in the world (behind Jeff Thomson and Imran Khan) at 91 MPH.
well, Richards thought Madan Lal was the fastest ever (spinner) to have played at international level. Now can anyone beat that quote (it is true he said that)
Do you know that when Holding bowled boycott the bails was 3/4 distance to the boundary. Boycott who had faced Thompson and lillie in their pomp considers that the quickest over ever. Do you really believe that the bowlers before were not as quick as the players now. Stupid.
The speeds that we see on our tv's are actually the speed at release of the ball. A 140k/m ball at release hits the bat at about 120k/m but it will be shown as 140k/m. When Holding, lillee and the others was timed yrs ago, there were no opposing bat the speed was calculated over the pitch distance and ranged from 80+ to 90+ M/h). -128km/h to 144+km/h.
"fast" bowler speeds 144+km/h over the years are the same.
Camera speeds of the past give impressions of fast bowlers looking medium.
@goozoo49 I watched him bowl in person, circa 1981, in Taunton. He started his run two paces from the pavilion and the keeper was a good 20 yds back. He was VERY fast. So was Andy Roberts, mind you, same day!
Players who faced holding and are now coaches will tell you that the guys now are no faster than the legends. I have seen live cricket of holding, and most of the top faster bowlers for the last 30 yrs, and Holding, Croft, Garner, Thomson, Lillee, Imran were quick. Now we cannot time them so lets just let it lie. Any fan 50yrs and older will never make that comment. So you must be just a babe.
@MrHistorian123 A great player, absolutely. But this fastest tag is a myth. Bowlers and batters, and sportsmen in general are faster, fitter and better in all sports now. I bet he was high 80s to maybe low 90s. No way would he be the fastest. Remember pitches were worse, batsmen had less protection, bats were worse, and so many other factors. In every other sport the performance level has improved since the 70s by MILES. Are you really saying its gone backwards in bowling? Nah
Oh god, this is the same tripe Michael Vaughan repeats on TMS. Not only is it a poor argument, it also bad science or sport science for that matter. I deal with argument bit here and do the science later. Bowlers are fitter are they? Right, how many overs did Fred Trueman bowl in a season compared to Andrew Flintoff. Rubbish. The West Indian team of renown employed Dennis Wait for fitness. Holding ran the 400 for Jamaica. No mean feat with Jamaica's track and field record.
@boydakyns First, it's a shame you have to get abusive. It just says a lot about you. I disagree with you-every sport I can think of the standards have improved. Darts, snooker, athletics, soccer-doesnt matter if the equipment changes or if the sport is athletic or not-they just all improve. Cricket specifically, and bowling specifically-they have much better bowling boots (just like your spikes theory), video, diet, superior gym training etc. So what if Holding and Tureman were super fit
@boydakyns I agree, they were ahead of their time. But no way in the world were ALL these guys as quick as people bang on about. Also I recall seeing on youtube the fast bowling competition of all the 70s greats-most of the balls bowled struggled to get to mid 80s...and some were high 70s. And thats with them trying to bowl super quick. Your wooly arguments just don't have any substance Im afraid. A man runs and bowls-thats just TRIPE
@cockywatchman1976 No you're the one who is talking out of his bottom; that is proved by reference to the world's fastest bowler comp. They measured speed in 76 from wicket to wicket, after the ball has hit the pitch. This is different to speed gun of today which measures speed out of the hand, until it hits the wicket and no further. Oh dearie me, like I said your opinions are ill informed, factually incorrect and bad science. 76 speed's would be 10-15k faster today. You muppet.
@cockywatchman1976 A man runs and a man bowls, not tripe but simple scientific obs. Once again, for your brain to understand- yes improvement in other sports can be explained by diet, equipment, fitness, science, professionalism etc but what applies for the 100m does not hold with bowling a cricket ball fast. Eg tennis rackets have made serves master, what explains one man bowling faster in 1960 than 2015. Don't assert or generalise, explain. er, Albert Trott's six-batting not bowling, explain.
@boydakyns Bad science!!! What do you know about science-nothing. Science requires statisticaly relevant proof-not just your silly theories. You throw the spike theory fro 100m, but dismiss bowling boots for bowling-they used to cut big holes in their boots for god's sake. Believe what you like my simple friend-but don't pretend to have any scientific basis to your argument. Your just an abusive prat who thinks he knows it all-but clearly knows zilch. Also they disproved the tennis racket
@cockywatchman1976 very sad.; you clearly don't know what you're talking about but are not prepared to admit you're wrong. Science requires relevant proof you write. Ok, If you go by todays speed gun readings, the times from the world's fastest bowlers comp, you would add bwn 15-20km for pace lost when the ball hits the pitch. So in 76, Holding and Thommo et al were bowling 140-150km plus. So with bowling boots from 76, they bowling in mid 90s. Sorry for abuse but you're an idiot.
@boydakyns You don't know anything about science! What is your scientific degree in? You're deluded! You just want to look back with rose tinted spectacles! You'll be telling me Curtley Ambrose was 95 next! Another point-pitches are far more consistent now, the evidence I give adds up. I don't see any evidence from you. Cretin
@cockywatchman1976 Watch "Jeff Thomson and Imran Khan on recording bowler's speeds". Can't stop laughing at your inability to admit you are wrong. Re Ambi, he didn't bowl 90 unless he wanted to. He got enough bounce and movement not to need to bowl full tilt. Re Science, I have tried, god I've tried, to explain to you why bowling speeds may not have got faster compared to 100m sprint/ tennis serves etc but you just refuse to admit you're wrong. And I'm the cretin!
@cockywatchman1976 The evidence you king sized bertie is in the video on this called Jeff Thomson and Imran Khan on recording bowler's speeds. Watch it and say to myself oh what a fool I've made of myself. It's ok, there's nothing wrong with being wrong but have the courage to admit it. That's what a man would do. Something you clearly are not.
@boydakyns You're so arrogant that you really do believe you are right, bless you. Hmm, amazing that every athletic pursuit advances, particularly as money and media coverage increases. Strength, technique, speed, strategy, it all increases...you name the sport, rugby, soccer, athletics. Oh don't tell me, Jesse Owens was the fastest really and Georgie best would be the best player in the premiership today. You complete cockmonkey, Thomson, Khan et al. were very quick, but only low 90s peak
@boydakyns They weren't as quick as people like to fantasise about through their rose tinted specs. And the general speed level of fast bowlers has increased, fact. Additionally fielding has improved all round, batsmen have improved (aided by better bats). Come on admit you've made a bit of a boo boo here and not really thought this through. Name any sport other than cricket that hasn't progressed since the 70s? Marbles perhaps-you've lost your marbles that's for sure. You king size winnit
@cockywatchman1976 I have made a boo of myself. I, I. No you, you, you silly man haven't thought at all. You're even refuting mathemical calculation from experts as to what Tommo's at others speeds would have beeen if measured by today's speed gun, and you watched that clip too. I give up. Every athletic pursuit has improved you write, I've tried to explain to you why that doesn't hold true for every discipline but..... ok you win the world is flat. Not arrogant just stunned by a dunce. You win
@boydakyns Boo boo, not boo. No the earth is round, science has proven this. You have no proof. I have overwhelming common sense evidence. Name any sport-athletic or not, that has not made progress in it's general performance levels since the 70s.....you won't be able to because there aren't. All sports have got better, faster, stronger etc etc and not just down to equipment. Hard luck you cock muncher, you lost. Unlucky pal
@cockywatchman1976 If speeds have inceased then why do most commentators irrespective of national allegiance agree that there is a shortage of fast bowlers out there? The training a seamer does now isn't there to get them to bowl faster: it's there to increase core strength and stability for the most part to keep them operating at a consistent level for longer. Take Stuart Broad and his conditioning: not exactly a huge increase in pace but much greater consistency.
@HeartfeltDawn Thats true, a different issue. Of late fast bowlers slow down rapidly once they become internationals. And they have shortened careers. 20/20 and all these stupid ODIs are to blame
@cockywatchman1976 In some cases they slow down as outright pace isn't essential, certainly not in T20 cricket where quicks are likely to disappear a la Brett Lee versus Chris Gayle not so long back. In county cricket though there is a shortage of real quicks and you see this too in Aussie state cricket. On the Holding issue, the idea of him being medium fast at his peak is absurd.
@HeartfeltDawn Lets get it right, I NEVER said Holding was medium fast. He was fast, clearly. All I stated is that on the whole fast bowlers are quicker now. And people look back and make out these guys were all lightning quick-just not true and goes against every sporting trend. Holding was low 90s-thats quick even by todays standards. 20/20 surprisingly has the highest pace bowling-Tait, Lee etc. Guess its easier to have a quick burst.Someone like a Tremlett would have been classed as fast
@cockywatchman1976 I see no evidence for fast bowlers being quicker now. It's not shown up by the pace attacks around the world. Lee and Tait might well be quicker but neither of those guys are vaguely close to Holding, Marshall, Lillee etc in terms of overall quality and control. If it's a choice between Fred Trueman, who combined pace and swing, and Shaun Tait, I know where my money is. I know you've mentioned sporting trends earlier and I agree with much of it...
@HeartfeltDawn My own view is that while it seems that bowlers are worse, in fact they are better. Now the pitches are covered and generally better, bats are huge but light, batsmen have better technique. Video, better training and diet etc, I think overall bowlers are better, it just doesn't seem that way. Take Lillee-great bowler, but only high 80s Id guess. Wouldnt be the same threat today. Tait isn't great-but he is quick. Lee was decent enough.
@cockywatchman1976 Lots to debate there. Better batting technique? Anyone watching India this summer would debate that, indeed anytime they've had to face a bit of pace in the last couple of years. Australia over the last five to six years have consistently been done by swing. A mid 70s swinger like Praveen Kumar has had success with his bowling as batsmen simply aren't used to counteracting swing.
@HeartfeltDawn True, the skill levels of bowlers aren't great at the moment. Kumar was something different at test level-Im still shocked he got so many wickets. Batting while the purists would argue they don't have the defensive techniques, on the whole they sc ore quicker and have more shot variety. I think the game is more in favour of batsmen now, with flat pitches and these huge lightweight bats
@cockywatchman1976 Reading Fred Trueman's autobiography last week, the list of players he mentioned who didn't get into the England side as a bowler was staggering, and it's pertinent to point out that even he wasn't an England regular. Right now in world cricket, there's one genuine seamer of quality in Steyn and a few good ones. Slow bowling? Swann and possibly Vettori. Compare that with the bowlers 15 years ago: Donald and Pollack, McGrath and Warne, Wasim and Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh...
@cockywatchman1976 Rubbish. Things don't magically get better with time. Sprinters, for example, are running faster than before because they have better doping technology. Modern technology is behind the reduced pace of modern "fast" bowlers. Weight training equipment kills pace and increases the risk of injuries. Despite claims of "too much cricket" being the cause of fast-bowling's decline, the reality is that bowlers used to bowl a lot more in those days.
@ihamoitc2005 Im s till laughing at your comments! Sprinters are quickers because of better doping technology?? What? Maybe bowlers are quicker because of doping technology too. Lol. You sound like a complete moron stuck in 1970....if you're right, cricket must be the only sport where despite technology and a million other things to help, performance declines
@cockywatchman1976 ...but I'd suggest that there's very little you can do with conditioning and fitness work to increase the maximum speed anyone could reach. The like of Shoaib and Thompson, with perhaps Larwood in there too, is as fast as you can reach. Control is far more important than an extra 2 mph. A quick bowler with zero control is as worthless as a lightning quicker winger with no football control.
@boydakyns So how quick was Lillee? I say about 85-88...maybe touched 90 occasionally at his youngest.. Bet you'd say mid 90s and Thomo touching 100 lol
@boydakyns thoery-they got top servers to serve with old rackets and their fast serves were almost as quick. The great improvements were down to technique, strength, fitness etc etc. The same is true of why bowlers are quicker generally. Holding was quick, but only low 90-91 at peak
@cockywatchman1976 Why you are wrong- scienctifically. The 100m has been reduced over the last 50 years by half a second, tennis serves are faster, rugby players lift more weights and are stronger etc, yes progress but asphalt for grass, diet, professionalism, drugs, spikes, clothing account for that .5 of a second in the 100. Bowling a cricket ball, the ball hasn't changed, the pitch is still grass, all the factors that count in other sports have no bearing. A man runs and bowls, end of.
@cockywatchman1976 - Diet isn't going to make you bowl the faster, unless you were on the beers night before but Cognac didn't hold up Macko. As for fitness, I've disproved that argument below. Bowling makes you fit and Fred Trueman in a county season bowled more over than Fliintoff ever bowled for Lancashire in his career-just a wild guess. All the factors that have allowed other sports to progress simply don't apply to running up bowling a cricket ball. Human hands are not bigger are they?
@goozoo49 i don't know on what basis you're claiming he was 'medium fast'. besides, i'm sure batsmen KNEW Holding was a lot faster than Holding probably THOUGHT he was. Holding, Croft and Marshall are supposed to have clocked around 95 mph and Roberts and Garner around 90 mph. Holding wasn't called Whispering Death and Rolls Royce of fast bowling because of his physique. give me a break!
Ok abt Roberts and Boycott.. Legends.. But why isnt anyone noticing the proximity of the slips and the keeper!! They are like just 8-10 yards from the bat.. We now see keepers standing 20 yards to the quickies.. Couldn't believe my eyes..
@hardikvyas21 - The video is shot from aan angle in which the distance b/w batsman and keeper looks small. Just FYI in that delivery which bowled boycott the stump cartwheeled about 20 yards. Secondly the term fastest over is a little misleading. During this over all of the balls were faced boycott in an awkward fashion because of the pace and vicious lift holding was getting from the pitch. In terms of speed probably not his fastest, however to destroy boycott's confidence is what made it gr8
That's an illusion. At Scarborough in 1976, Derryck Murray was over 25 yards back when Holding was bowling and he was still taking the ball in front of his face. Holding was a freak - over 6 foot 3 and a true athlete with the most economical and smooth action ever. He was the fastest bowler I've ever seen and I've seen most of the really fast ones since 1970, including Fred Trueman against whom I've played, albeit right at the end of his career. And he scared me shitless.
Boycott played 108 times for England, during which time they only lost 20 times: usually when Boycott failed. You can see on the clip how delighted the West Indies team are that Holding got him out. Boycott was always the one that the other teams wanted out - praise indeed.
Sometimes I think the pace of older generation bowlers is exaggerated.. Granted they were fast and batsmen did not have a lot of protection so they would have been fearsome.. But I think the fastest of all times are still Lee, Akthar, Tait and Steyn. If you look at the keeper and slip fielders here, they are pretty close behind the stumps.. No way can they stand that close if he Holding was bowling at more than 90mph..
@skhv2607 when you see the keeper run in after the wicket falls he runs in 12- 13 steps ...watch ..that is basically the lenght that people who stand to Akhtar run and that is the length of the pitch. watch when the batsmen run between the wicket - see how many steps they take. I am sure the angle of the camera makes the keeper look close...like an illusion. just like it looks like Holding is not trying at all ...even though he said he was bowling flat out from 1st ball...
@skhv2607 you should watch "jeff thompson and imran khan on recording bowlers speed" and hear what they have to say about the older generations bowling speed.
@shubroto81 Hey thanks for the link! hmm interesting, I actually thought, even now they time it at the batsman's end.. Also there was some equipment at the bowlers end when I watched this video "World's Fastest Bowler Competition - 1979" so i thought they were timing at the bowlers end itself.. But wow!, if it was batsman's end and the fastest was 148 km/h = 92mph I guess Tommo is the hands down winner...
With the amount of Cricket played today I doubt we will ever see any bowlers like this again. Dale Steyn could be the last of the true raw pace bowlers, and that is a great shame!
@Camelsarse It is really quite difficult to compare bowlers from back then. The game has changed so much, and because of the levels of fitness required, there are some who bowl faster than this lot, lee, akhtar, steyn and even harmison when he was on form. However, they weren't as good because modern pacemen (with the shining exception of dale steyn) bowl erratically, with no movement or anything to keep the batsman guessing, it's also worth noting that batsman are more protected nowadays
@lozzag13 I agree, people should see the over Marshall bowled to Gavaskar in which the ball was so fast and heavy, it knocked the bat out of Gavaskar's hands. The other instance would be Garner's first over in 1983 world cup to Gavaskar - Garner wasn't fast but was deadly getting bounce and movement. Haven't seen any modern fast bowler in that class. Then there was another where Roberts and Holding competing with each other for speed against Aussies needless to say they screwed the Aussies.
@piyush93688 Roberts was not as fast as Akhter. And its a fact. He was more famous for his bouncers Geoff Thomson was the fastest in 1975. At that time Roberts played if he was faster he would have been recorded. LOL
@USMANchampNO1 when roberts played ball speed are not measured and you can see how far wicketkeeper is stand, when roberts speed measured in WSC he ranks third behind thomson and imran and i think you don't know far much in cricket. ROFL
@piyush93688 Roberts played from 1974 till 1983. And they had speed guns to figure the speed of bowling in cricket in the year 1975. So i think you need to get your facts right. LOL
You are only man i ever know who claims Any Roberts is the fastest bowler ever in cricket history. LOL
Be careful don't ROFL floor for lots of shit on it now.
@USMANchampNO1 I agree but I feel that the speed guns varied in the type of measurements. Consistency in speed guns only came in the last decade or so....even than some players doubt the consistency in different countries...like Bret Lee once said.I still believe that Akhtar is as quick as ANY.....
Actually there are people who believed that Roberts ON HIS DAY could be as quick as any ...
@piyush93688 Well back when Roberts played you could throw as many bouncers as many you wanted. If Shoiab was allowed to do that he would have been better as well.
@piyush93688 Thats what i said if he is better thats only because back then fast bowler could use his speed to bounce the ball to scare the batsman and thats what all the fast bowlers did back then man. Why don't you understand. There was a reason ICC made the law of two bouncers per over in Test Cricket. It was only because West Indian bowlers were breaking heads of English men.
@thatguyyouknow2 The man was clearly a genius. An ability to score over 8000 runs in Test matches including 22 centuries without playing a shot has to be admired. Clearly the cricketing equivalent of being a ventriloquist.
@thatguyyouknow2 Boycott made a match-saving 104 not out in the next Test, and scored 295, [despite only scoring a single in two innings in this match] runs in the 4-match series at an average of 42.14.
Such a beautiful flowing run-up Holding had.And he destroyed England in`76 with 14 wickets-on a dead wicket at the Oval.The West Indies were awesome in those days,with ,Greenidge,Lloyd,Roberts,Frederiks , Holding and the great Viv Richards.West indies won all the tests in that series when those last two played....the 1st and 2nd Tests were missed by Holding and Richards respectively.I used to like cricket then,but now its lost its appeal-even the Windies can`t be bothered these days!
The slips and 'keeper are standing fairly close for a man of the speed! These days they're almost at the 30 yard circle for anyone clocking over 150 kmph
@suicidaljoyride not true - it seems that way . If you look at when he gets bowled - the keeper runs like 13 - 14 paces - that is basically the length of the pitch (watch when batmen run between the wickets it is usually 13 running strides) From a different angle it will look different.
@rdpark71 If you can get your hands on some tape - watch Holding, Roberts, Marshall and Garner - todays fast bowler are not in that class. Don't judge by how far the wicket keeper is standing, look at the batsman's reaction.
@r8rdarklord the keeper runs 13 to 14 steps towards the batsmen after the wicket fell...that is basically how far wicket keepers stand for express bowlers. This is an 'optical illusion' - the angle of the camera that makes it look like that
@TheEuphony69 The talent is somewhat there, but what the West Indies introduced and perfected has been EMULATED and refined by other teams. Opposing batsmen who never experienced that kind of pace attack now have similar attacks in their own teams to practice with. And Just as the West Indies had changed the game, so too Australia and Sri Lanka did with the Super Spinner, in the form of Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan respectively.
This was before the days of speedguns of course, but Boycott isn't the only one. Several experts at the time said this was the fastest over they ever saw, one or two saying the ball must have been doing 110 mph.
At a time of truly great fast bowlers, Lillee, Thompson, Hadlee, Croft, Roberts, Garner, etc, Holding was the fastest. I remember on the 1980 tour of England. On one occasion Peter Willey was bowling to him, leading to the immortal line: "The batsman's Holding, the bowler's Willey."
I should add, however, that Geoff Thompson was faster in his day even than Holding. As for the all-time fastest, based on what other people say and on one incredible piece of film I once saw, the fastest was almost certainly Harold Larwood. During the Bodyline tour he was bowling so fast in one Test that even from the camera positioned behind the stumps you just couldn't see the ball. Especially frightening for batsmen giving the tactics. Accurate too. He consistently hit a penny in the nets...
...placed there so he could get his length. Wes Hall was another speed daemon. He once broke the jaw of the Aussie wicketkeeper standing behind the wicket in a State match. On at least one other occasion he left a stump in two pieces.
The Rolls Royce of fast bowlers, Holding was smooth from run-up to delivery. He was fast - as fast if not faster than any of his colleagues - he was fiery, and yet he had the look of a choir boy, even at The Oval in 1976 while destroying England with 14 wickets for 149 runs. In 60 Test matches, Holding took 249 wickets at an average of 23.68.
thanks for uploading this video. how i wish i could watch the windies in their glory days. im still a windies supporter, but it looks like these days their players don't even care about the game. sigh. lets hope things improve soon
Richie Benaud, who has seen a huge amount of test cricket, said the fastest bowler he ever saw was Frank Tyson in Australia in 1956 (? could have been '54) when, apparently, on one occassion the slips were 50 yards back !!! He reckons Thompson in 1975 was next quickest.
Also after the wicket falls the keeper RUNS (longer strides) to the wicket like 14-15 steps - that is the length of the pitch actually. When batsmen run between the wickets they run about 13 steps as well........look at it ...you will see. 0.41
@thornwivans If you look at the footage of the 1976 Old Trafford match , Holding bowling to Close...(on youtube) watch how far the keeper is (that was 4 years previous). watch were the keeper stands for Thommo in the 1974 . Even Ian chappel (Imran and Tony Greig) say that he was as fast as Thommo was. Infact Imran & Grieg say that he was consistently quicker than all of them. I think the camera angle makes the keeper look too close.
funny but he looked more menacing in the old Traford test in 1976 when he bowled all the bouncers with the wicket keeper standing way back and taking the ball over his head.
It wasn't just Holding. It was the entire West Indian team. 4 Slips, a Gully and a Silly Mid On. If this did not intimidate what does. Then off cause there was Holding's bowling. I would have surrendered before kick-off ;-)
i would say thompson was the fastest,unsual bowling action-and to all those stupid bastards-i,m not australian-i,m allowed to give an opinion,-so bollocks to those thick twats-goodbye
yes they are pretty close...Jeffery dujon the wicket keeper say it was a part of their intimidation..but he also said that he has pains in fingers till this very day from standing so close to those bowlers
Good old Geoffrey was 40 years old at the time.. he still managed to score a century in this 80/81 series against Holding Roberts, Croft and Garner...Not Bad eh
Knobhead. You've obviously never seen his wonderful innings in the 1965 Gillette Cup Final. Single handedly destroyed the Surrey attack with a magnificent 146.
Holding was once in contention to be a professional sprinter for Jamaica.....and on occasions such as this, even the greatest of batsmen would have wished that he had become one!
What about McGrath and Gillepsie, and surely you cannot be serious with Pollock and Donald. They were a solid combination but they got bashed by the Australians.
People claiming "technology" has improved have no clue what they are talking about. The base technology is the human body. it has not changed. Training methods have become more sophisticated but that only helps in sports with simple repetitive motions like weight lifting. It does not provide any benefit to complex actions like bowling or baseball pitching. In fact, weight training, in particular, is counterproductive for baseball pitching and cricket bowling. Thats why speed hasnt increased
ihamoitc2005 1 day ago
Even from the batsmen point of view in those days, bowlers like Holding ,Roberts, Marshall, Croft , Lillee, Thompson , were very fast , consistently mid to high 90s. Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee , Imran Khan were medium fast. There are bowlers today who probably could bowl a fast ball like those guys, but not sustained pace like those guys back in the day.
daddycarty 2 months ago
I'd pay a fortune just to have seen that action in person, that is incredible control, rhythm and beauty all in one.
lestephenois1 2 months ago
Who are these cretins claiming Holding was medium pace! They obviously have only watched cricket in last 10-15 yrs. McGrath, Kapil, Hadlee they were medium pace compared to Holding! Must be the same idiots that recent voted on a best test XI in history on cricinfo, only to leave the greatest cricket, Gary Sobers out of the team in place of Kapil Dev!!!
Dilmah82 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Indianmasterify Atleticism hasnt improved much from the 70s , Guys are mostly fitter and more professional today , But people like Lillee, marshall , Holding , Imran were all awesome athletic men and were equals of any man playing today. The 100m world record in 1968 was 9.8 and until 2008 was still around 9.8 , the long jump in 1968 was 8.9m now in 2011 8.95m , most womens atheletic world records are from 1980s . Athletes arent necesarily that much better today than 30 to 40 years ago
melglen1 4 months ago
@Indianmasterify Atleticism hasnt improved much from the 70s , Guys are mostly fitter and more professional today , But people like Lillee, marshall , Holding , Imran were all awesome athletic men and were equals of any man playing today. The 100m world record in 1968 was 9.8 and until 2008 was still around 9.8 , the long jump in 1968 was 8.9m now in 2011 8.95m , most womens atheletic world records are from 1980s . Athletes arent necesarily that much better today than 30 to 40 years ago
melglen1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all Paki's are terrorists, per US CIA/FBI/State Dept.. so why bother have this discussion ?
sonicbreaker00 4 months ago
@Indianmasterify In that case we agree completely!! Some people here are trying to say that the great fast bowlers of the 70s were as quick as today's bowlers, and Holding and Thomo in the mid to high 90s. Just nottrue
cockywatchman1976 4 months ago
@Indianmasterify Clearly I can't know for a fact...but logic says overall they are. Holding and the other real quicks would have been right up there today. But still only 88-90 IMHO. People do like to look back with rose tinted spectacles. All sports progress as training, diet, knowledge, video etc moves on
cockywatchman1976 4 months ago
In late 1970s there was an effort to measure the bowling speed for the first time and Holding was rated third fastest in the world (behind Jeff Thomson and Imran Khan) at 91 MPH.
sppati123 5 months ago
My grandmother could have done better.
m1trekker 5 months ago
Rubish
GangaGopal 5 months ago
eee, 'e were lucky ter get nought!
bifferspice 5 months ago
well, Richards thought Madan Lal was the fastest ever (spinner) to have played at international level. Now can anyone beat that quote (it is true he said that)
goozoo49 5 months ago
@goozoo49 was viv smokin something when he said that
melglen1 5 months ago
Holding, Croft, Marshall and Garner... the deadliest fast bowling quartet in Test match history!
Arrested101 5 months ago 2
my granny could've done better, wi' a stick of rooooooobarb.
InParticularNobody 6 months ago 11
@InParticularNobody What a dickhead comment.
CaptainHurricane 1 month ago
cricket in WI is not the same anymore
zerounite 6 months ago
Do you know that when Holding bowled boycott the bails was 3/4 distance to the boundary. Boycott who had faced Thompson and lillie in their pomp considers that the quickest over ever. Do you really believe that the bowlers before were not as quick as the players now. Stupid.
leuz1234 6 months ago
@leuz1234
That was the greatness of Holding's action... very smooth and unhurried...only the ball hurries onto the batsman at great speed....
rrshankar2000 5 months ago
The speeds that we see on our tv's are actually the speed at release of the ball. A 140k/m ball at release hits the bat at about 120k/m but it will be shown as 140k/m. When Holding, lillee and the others was timed yrs ago, there were no opposing bat the speed was calculated over the pitch distance and ranged from 80+ to 90+ M/h). -128km/h to 144+km/h.
"fast" bowler speeds 144+km/h over the years are the same.
Camera speeds of the past give impressions of fast bowlers looking medium.
leuz1234 6 months ago
@leuz1234 Exactly. Differing methods of analysing speeds do count against the fast bowlers of the past.
HeartfeltDawn 3 months ago
the batsman holding the bowlers willie
jackwills101 6 months ago
boycs
jackwills101 6 months ago
using modern technology, one can predict that he was medium fast, not quick as he thinks he was.. but hey who can prove it now.
goozoo49 6 months ago
@goozoo49 I watched him bowl in person, circa 1981, in Taunton. He started his run two paces from the pavilion and the keeper was a good 20 yds back. He was VERY fast. So was Andy Roberts, mind you, same day!
stevelitchfield 6 months ago 3
@goozoo49
Players who faced holding and are now coaches will tell you that the guys now are no faster than the legends. I have seen live cricket of holding, and most of the top faster bowlers for the last 30 yrs, and Holding, Croft, Garner, Thomson, Lillee, Imran were quick. Now we cannot time them so lets just let it lie. Any fan 50yrs and older will never make that comment. So you must be just a babe.
And slips were nowhere close as you say.
leuz1234 6 months ago
@goozoo49
you don't what you are talking about.
Dearie me, are you Alistair Cook in disguise
Holding medium fast.
Please don't cite the world's fast bowler competition either.
1970s technology and measurement of speed
He could bowl within himself at around mid 80.
boydakyns 6 months ago
@goozoo49 Medium fast my arse. Have you seen him bowling at Brian Close? Michael Holding was rapid just listen to anybody who saw him or faced him.
jr280188 6 months ago 8
@goozoo49,
LOL! Ask the batsmen who faced him if he was 'medium fast'?
By your reckoning, Glenn McGrath was quicker. But i fail to see McGrath troubling batsmen like the way Holding did to Brian Close
sonofthedestroyer 5 months ago
@goozoo49 He was not medium fast, he was lightning fast. I've seen him live and noone else was as fast, not even Shaoib Akhtar or Dale Steyn.
Thompson and Roberts were also very quick, but Holding was the fastest of all.
MrHistorian123 5 months ago
@MrHistorian123 A great player, absolutely. But this fastest tag is a myth. Bowlers and batters, and sportsmen in general are faster, fitter and better in all sports now. I bet he was high 80s to maybe low 90s. No way would he be the fastest. Remember pitches were worse, batsmen had less protection, bats were worse, and so many other factors. In every other sport the performance level has improved since the 70s by MILES. Are you really saying its gone backwards in bowling? Nah
cockywatchman1976 5 months ago
@cockywatchman1976
Oh god, this is the same tripe Michael Vaughan repeats on TMS. Not only is it a poor argument, it also bad science or sport science for that matter. I deal with argument bit here and do the science later. Bowlers are fitter are they? Right, how many overs did Fred Trueman bowl in a season compared to Andrew Flintoff. Rubbish. The West Indian team of renown employed Dennis Wait for fitness. Holding ran the 400 for Jamaica. No mean feat with Jamaica's track and field record.
boydakyns 4 months ago
@boydakyns First, it's a shame you have to get abusive. It just says a lot about you. I disagree with you-every sport I can think of the standards have improved. Darts, snooker, athletics, soccer-doesnt matter if the equipment changes or if the sport is athletic or not-they just all improve. Cricket specifically, and bowling specifically-they have much better bowling boots (just like your spikes theory), video, diet, superior gym training etc. So what if Holding and Tureman were super fit
cockywatchman1976 4 months ago
@boydakyns I agree, they were ahead of their time. But no way in the world were ALL these guys as quick as people bang on about. Also I recall seeing on youtube the fast bowling competition of all the 70s greats-most of the balls bowled struggled to get to mid 80s...and some were high 70s. And thats with them trying to bowl super quick. Your wooly arguments just don't have any substance Im afraid. A man runs and bowls-thats just TRIPE
cockywatchman1976 4 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 No you're the one who is talking out of his bottom; that is proved by reference to the world's fastest bowler comp. They measured speed in 76 from wicket to wicket, after the ball has hit the pitch. This is different to speed gun of today which measures speed out of the hand, until it hits the wicket and no further. Oh dearie me, like I said your opinions are ill informed, factually incorrect and bad science. 76 speed's would be 10-15k faster today. You muppet.
boydakyns 4 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 A man runs and a man bowls, not tripe but simple scientific obs. Once again, for your brain to understand- yes improvement in other sports can be explained by diet, equipment, fitness, science, professionalism etc but what applies for the 100m does not hold with bowling a cricket ball fast. Eg tennis rackets have made serves master, what explains one man bowling faster in 1960 than 2015. Don't assert or generalise, explain. er, Albert Trott's six-batting not bowling, explain.
boydakyns 4 months ago
@boydakyns Bad science!!! What do you know about science-nothing. Science requires statisticaly relevant proof-not just your silly theories. You throw the spike theory fro 100m, but dismiss bowling boots for bowling-they used to cut big holes in their boots for god's sake. Believe what you like my simple friend-but don't pretend to have any scientific basis to your argument. Your just an abusive prat who thinks he knows it all-but clearly knows zilch. Also they disproved the tennis racket
cockywatchman1976 4 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 very sad.; you clearly don't know what you're talking about but are not prepared to admit you're wrong. Science requires relevant proof you write. Ok, If you go by todays speed gun readings, the times from the world's fastest bowlers comp, you would add bwn 15-20km for pace lost when the ball hits the pitch. So in 76, Holding and Thommo et al were bowling 140-150km plus. So with bowling boots from 76, they bowling in mid 90s. Sorry for abuse but you're an idiot.
boydakyns 4 months ago
@boydakyns You don't know anything about science! What is your scientific degree in? You're deluded! You just want to look back with rose tinted spectacles! You'll be telling me Curtley Ambrose was 95 next! Another point-pitches are far more consistent now, the evidence I give adds up. I don't see any evidence from you. Cretin
cockywatchman1976 4 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 Watch "Jeff Thomson and Imran Khan on recording bowler's speeds". Can't stop laughing at your inability to admit you are wrong. Re Ambi, he didn't bowl 90 unless he wanted to. He got enough bounce and movement not to need to bowl full tilt. Re Science, I have tried, god I've tried, to explain to you why bowling speeds may not have got faster compared to 100m sprint/ tennis serves etc but you just refuse to admit you're wrong. And I'm the cretin!
boydakyns 4 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 The evidence you king sized bertie is in the video on this called Jeff Thomson and Imran Khan on recording bowler's speeds. Watch it and say to myself oh what a fool I've made of myself. It's ok, there's nothing wrong with being wrong but have the courage to admit it. That's what a man would do. Something you clearly are not.
boydakyns 4 months ago
@boydakyns You're so arrogant that you really do believe you are right, bless you. Hmm, amazing that every athletic pursuit advances, particularly as money and media coverage increases. Strength, technique, speed, strategy, it all increases...you name the sport, rugby, soccer, athletics. Oh don't tell me, Jesse Owens was the fastest really and Georgie best would be the best player in the premiership today. You complete cockmonkey, Thomson, Khan et al. were very quick, but only low 90s peak
cockywatchman1976 4 months ago
@boydakyns They weren't as quick as people like to fantasise about through their rose tinted specs. And the general speed level of fast bowlers has increased, fact. Additionally fielding has improved all round, batsmen have improved (aided by better bats). Come on admit you've made a bit of a boo boo here and not really thought this through. Name any sport other than cricket that hasn't progressed since the 70s? Marbles perhaps-you've lost your marbles that's for sure. You king size winnit
cockywatchman1976 4 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 I have made a boo of myself. I, I. No you, you, you silly man haven't thought at all. You're even refuting mathemical calculation from experts as to what Tommo's at others speeds would have beeen if measured by today's speed gun, and you watched that clip too. I give up. Every athletic pursuit has improved you write, I've tried to explain to you why that doesn't hold true for every discipline but..... ok you win the world is flat. Not arrogant just stunned by a dunce. You win
boydakyns 4 months ago
@boydakyns Boo boo, not boo. No the earth is round, science has proven this. You have no proof. I have overwhelming common sense evidence. Name any sport-athletic or not, that has not made progress in it's general performance levels since the 70s.....you won't be able to because there aren't. All sports have got better, faster, stronger etc etc and not just down to equipment. Hard luck you cock muncher, you lost. Unlucky pal
cockywatchman1976 4 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 If speeds have inceased then why do most commentators irrespective of national allegiance agree that there is a shortage of fast bowlers out there? The training a seamer does now isn't there to get them to bowl faster: it's there to increase core strength and stability for the most part to keep them operating at a consistent level for longer. Take Stuart Broad and his conditioning: not exactly a huge increase in pace but much greater consistency.
HeartfeltDawn 3 months ago
@HeartfeltDawn Thats true, a different issue. Of late fast bowlers slow down rapidly once they become internationals. And they have shortened careers. 20/20 and all these stupid ODIs are to blame
cockywatchman1976 3 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 In some cases they slow down as outright pace isn't essential, certainly not in T20 cricket where quicks are likely to disappear a la Brett Lee versus Chris Gayle not so long back. In county cricket though there is a shortage of real quicks and you see this too in Aussie state cricket. On the Holding issue, the idea of him being medium fast at his peak is absurd.
HeartfeltDawn 3 months ago
@HeartfeltDawn Lets get it right, I NEVER said Holding was medium fast. He was fast, clearly. All I stated is that on the whole fast bowlers are quicker now. And people look back and make out these guys were all lightning quick-just not true and goes against every sporting trend. Holding was low 90s-thats quick even by todays standards. 20/20 surprisingly has the highest pace bowling-Tait, Lee etc. Guess its easier to have a quick burst.Someone like a Tremlett would have been classed as fast
cockywatchman1976 3 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 I see no evidence for fast bowlers being quicker now. It's not shown up by the pace attacks around the world. Lee and Tait might well be quicker but neither of those guys are vaguely close to Holding, Marshall, Lillee etc in terms of overall quality and control. If it's a choice between Fred Trueman, who combined pace and swing, and Shaun Tait, I know where my money is. I know you've mentioned sporting trends earlier and I agree with much of it...
HeartfeltDawn 3 months ago
@HeartfeltDawn My own view is that while it seems that bowlers are worse, in fact they are better. Now the pitches are covered and generally better, bats are huge but light, batsmen have better technique. Video, better training and diet etc, I think overall bowlers are better, it just doesn't seem that way. Take Lillee-great bowler, but only high 80s Id guess. Wouldnt be the same threat today. Tait isn't great-but he is quick. Lee was decent enough.
cockywatchman1976 3 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 Lots to debate there. Better batting technique? Anyone watching India this summer would debate that, indeed anytime they've had to face a bit of pace in the last couple of years. Australia over the last five to six years have consistently been done by swing. A mid 70s swinger like Praveen Kumar has had success with his bowling as batsmen simply aren't used to counteracting swing.
HeartfeltDawn 3 months ago
@HeartfeltDawn True, the skill levels of bowlers aren't great at the moment. Kumar was something different at test level-Im still shocked he got so many wickets. Batting while the purists would argue they don't have the defensive techniques, on the whole they sc ore quicker and have more shot variety. I think the game is more in favour of batsmen now, with flat pitches and these huge lightweight bats
cockywatchman1976 3 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 Reading Fred Trueman's autobiography last week, the list of players he mentioned who didn't get into the England side as a bowler was staggering, and it's pertinent to point out that even he wasn't an England regular. Right now in world cricket, there's one genuine seamer of quality in Steyn and a few good ones. Slow bowling? Swann and possibly Vettori. Compare that with the bowlers 15 years ago: Donald and Pollack, McGrath and Warne, Wasim and Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh...
HeartfeltDawn 3 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 Rubbish. Things don't magically get better with time. Sprinters, for example, are running faster than before because they have better doping technology. Modern technology is behind the reduced pace of modern "fast" bowlers. Weight training equipment kills pace and increases the risk of injuries. Despite claims of "too much cricket" being the cause of fast-bowling's decline, the reality is that bowlers used to bowl a lot more in those days.
ihamoitc2005 2 months ago
@ihamoitc2005 Im s till laughing at your comments! Sprinters are quickers because of better doping technology?? What? Maybe bowlers are quicker because of doping technology too. Lol. You sound like a complete moron stuck in 1970....if you're right, cricket must be the only sport where despite technology and a million other things to help, performance declines
cockywatchman1976 2 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 ...but I'd suggest that there's very little you can do with conditioning and fitness work to increase the maximum speed anyone could reach. The like of Shoaib and Thompson, with perhaps Larwood in there too, is as fast as you can reach. Control is far more important than an extra 2 mph. A quick bowler with zero control is as worthless as a lightning quicker winger with no football control.
HeartfeltDawn 3 months ago
@boydakyns So how quick was Lillee? I say about 85-88...maybe touched 90 occasionally at his youngest.. Bet you'd say mid 90s and Thomo touching 100 lol
cockywatchman1976 4 months ago
Comment removed
boydakyns 4 months ago
@boydakyns thoery-they got top servers to serve with old rackets and their fast serves were almost as quick. The great improvements were down to technique, strength, fitness etc etc. The same is true of why bowlers are quicker generally. Holding was quick, but only low 90-91 at peak
cockywatchman1976 4 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 Why you are wrong- scienctifically. The 100m has been reduced over the last 50 years by half a second, tennis serves are faster, rugby players lift more weights and are stronger etc, yes progress but asphalt for grass, diet, professionalism, drugs, spikes, clothing account for that .5 of a second in the 100. Bowling a cricket ball, the ball hasn't changed, the pitch is still grass, all the factors that count in other sports have no bearing. A man runs and bowls, end of.
boydakyns 4 months ago
@cockywatchman1976 - Diet isn't going to make you bowl the faster, unless you were on the beers night before but Cognac didn't hold up Macko. As for fitness, I've disproved that argument below. Bowling makes you fit and Fred Trueman in a county season bowled more over than Fliintoff ever bowled for Lancashire in his career-just a wild guess. All the factors that have allowed other sports to progress simply don't apply to running up bowling a cricket ball. Human hands are not bigger are they?
boydakyns 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"using modern technology, one can predict that he was medium fast"
@goozoo49
I've heard a lot of toss in my life, and generated most of it, but you sir take the award for toss.
HengistTheGreat 5 months ago
@goozoo49
medium fast bowlers don't make the stump fly back a good 14-16 yards...only fast pacers do
dilkashh 4 months ago
@goozoo49 no technology required to predict you are a dumb a**
omkarashish 2 months ago
@goozoo49 i don't know on what basis you're claiming he was 'medium fast'. besides, i'm sure batsmen KNEW Holding was a lot faster than Holding probably THOUGHT he was. Holding, Croft and Marshall are supposed to have clocked around 95 mph and Roberts and Garner around 90 mph. Holding wasn't called Whispering Death and Rolls Royce of fast bowling because of his physique. give me a break!
allamericandiner 1 month ago
Boycott is far more attacking with his mouth and his opinion than he ever was with a bat.
wierdwesterner 7 months ago 2
Holding Bowled An Over Later At Ian Botham That Was Quicker Than The One At Boycott
Stryker563 7 months ago
Ok abt Roberts and Boycott.. Legends.. But why isnt anyone noticing the proximity of the slips and the keeper!! They are like just 8-10 yards from the bat.. We now see keepers standing 20 yards to the quickies.. Couldn't believe my eyes..
hardikvyas21 7 months ago
@hardikvyas21 - The video is shot from aan angle in which the distance b/w batsman and keeper looks small. Just FYI in that delivery which bowled boycott the stump cartwheeled about 20 yards. Secondly the term fastest over is a little misleading. During this over all of the balls were faced boycott in an awkward fashion because of the pace and vicious lift holding was getting from the pitch. In terms of speed probably not his fastest, however to destroy boycott's confidence is what made it gr8
damri 7 months ago
@hardikvyas21
That's an illusion. At Scarborough in 1976, Derryck Murray was over 25 yards back when Holding was bowling and he was still taking the ball in front of his face. Holding was a freak - over 6 foot 3 and a true athlete with the most economical and smooth action ever. He was the fastest bowler I've ever seen and I've seen most of the really fast ones since 1970, including Fred Trueman against whom I've played, albeit right at the end of his career. And he scared me shitless.
MrHistorian123 5 months ago
Boycott played 108 times for England, during which time they only lost 20 times: usually when Boycott failed. You can see on the clip how delighted the West Indies team are that Holding got him out. Boycott was always the one that the other teams wanted out - praise indeed.
gwalkron 7 months ago
I was there that day, 16 years old, and have never seen faster bowling in my life.
pokeystyles 8 months ago
much better WI crown. Now a days, they just dance to stupid drums regardless of match situation.
bilalhidayat 9 months ago
Viru and Rolls Royce amongst the fast bowlers would be a great duel
Perfume delivery Vs the Upar cut
TSunil60 10 months ago
@TSunil60
Impossible for Sehwag to face Roberts,Marshall,Holding and Garner
neo1mil2 9 months ago 3
Rolls Royce amongst the fast bowlers
TSunil60 10 months ago
Michael Holding was Known as Whispering Death. . A Fomidable Bowler. . . Absoluet Class
SonnyLondon1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That is absolutely rooobish...
rajivkumar420 11 months ago
bedazzled..
hankbazzoo 11 months ago
Shame West Indies cricket can't reach these heights again. The cricketing world needs a great Windies team.
nik1969100 11 months ago 21
@nik1969100 Agreed.
charliebad 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice stout girls finding romance online naneedj.info
ruvanoanne 11 months ago
Sometimes I think the pace of older generation bowlers is exaggerated.. Granted they were fast and batsmen did not have a lot of protection so they would have been fearsome.. But I think the fastest of all times are still Lee, Akthar, Tait and Steyn. If you look at the keeper and slip fielders here, they are pretty close behind the stumps.. No way can they stand that close if he Holding was bowling at more than 90mph..
skhv2607 1 year ago
@skhv2607 when you see the keeper run in after the wicket falls he runs in 12- 13 steps ...watch ..that is basically the lenght that people who stand to Akhtar run and that is the length of the pitch. watch when the batsmen run between the wicket - see how many steps they take. I am sure the angle of the camera makes the keeper look close...like an illusion. just like it looks like Holding is not trying at all ...even though he said he was bowling flat out from 1st ball...
AIMANALI 11 months ago
@skhv2607 you should watch "jeff thompson and imran khan on recording bowlers speed" and hear what they have to say about the older generations bowling speed.
shubroto81 11 months ago
@shubroto81 Hey thanks for the link! hmm interesting, I actually thought, even now they time it at the batsman's end.. Also there was some equipment at the bowlers end when I watched this video "World's Fastest Bowler Competition - 1979" so i thought they were timing at the bowlers end itself.. But wow!, if it was batsman's end and the fastest was 148 km/h = 92mph I guess Tommo is the hands down winner...
skhv2607 11 months ago
Comment removed
skhv2607 1 year ago
With the amount of Cricket played today I doubt we will ever see any bowlers like this again. Dale Steyn could be the last of the true raw pace bowlers, and that is a great shame!
Camelsarse 1 year ago
@Camelsarse It is really quite difficult to compare bowlers from back then. The game has changed so much, and because of the levels of fitness required, there are some who bowl faster than this lot, lee, akhtar, steyn and even harmison when he was on form. However, they weren't as good because modern pacemen (with the shining exception of dale steyn) bowl erratically, with no movement or anything to keep the batsman guessing, it's also worth noting that batsman are more protected nowadays
lozzag13 1 year ago
@lozzag13 I agree, people should see the over Marshall bowled to Gavaskar in which the ball was so fast and heavy, it knocked the bat out of Gavaskar's hands. The other instance would be Garner's first over in 1983 world cup to Gavaskar - Garner wasn't fast but was deadly getting bounce and movement. Haven't seen any modern fast bowler in that class. Then there was another where Roberts and Holding competing with each other for speed against Aussies needless to say they screwed the Aussies.
r8rdarklord 9 months ago
@Camelsarse,
Dale Steyn is not that quick. Why are so many people calling him a raw pace bowler? He isnt
He is more of the line and length bowler with swing
Fidel Edwards bowls quicker than him
sonofthedestroyer 11 months ago
@sonofthedestroyer don't agree he can easily go over 90miles per hour probably
not quick as shohaib and brett but he is a fast bowler.
melun1 11 months ago
@melun1 breet lee and shoaib are not fast than than roberts
piyush93688 10 months ago
@piyush93688 Roberts was not as fast as Akhter. And its a fact. He was more famous for his bouncers Geoff Thomson was the fastest in 1975. At that time Roberts played if he was faster he would have been recorded. LOL
USMANchampNO1 9 months ago
@USMANchampNO1 when roberts played ball speed are not measured and you can see how far wicketkeeper is stand, when roberts speed measured in WSC he ranks third behind thomson and imran and i think you don't know far much in cricket. ROFL
piyush93688 9 months ago
@piyush93688 Roberts played from 1974 till 1983. And they had speed guns to figure the speed of bowling in cricket in the year 1975. So i think you need to get your facts right. LOL
You are only man i ever know who claims Any Roberts is the fastest bowler ever in cricket history. LOL
Be careful don't ROFL floor for lots of shit on it now.
USMANchampNO1 9 months ago
@USMANchampNO1 I agree but I feel that the speed guns varied in the type of measurements. Consistency in speed guns only came in the last decade or so....even than some players doubt the consistency in different countries...like Bret Lee once said.I still believe that Akhtar is as quick as ANY.....
Actually there are people who believed that Roberts ON HIS DAY could be as quick as any ...
AIMANALI 9 months ago
@USMANchampNO1 i don't say that roberts is faster than shoaib but he is much better than shoaib
piyush93688 9 months ago
@piyush93688 Well back when Roberts played you could throw as many bouncers as many you wanted. If Shoiab was allowed to do that he would have been better as well.
USMANchampNO1 8 months ago
@piyush93688 Thats what i said if he is better thats only because back then fast bowler could use his speed to bounce the ball to scare the batsman and thats what all the fast bowlers did back then man. Why don't you understand. There was a reason ICC made the law of two bouncers per over in Test Cricket. It was only because West Indian bowlers were breaking heads of English men.
USMANchampNO1 8 months ago
Love it how Mikey just jogs that long run up then unleashes that raw pace!
TheRovers1995 1 year ago 3
Pace bowling at it's best.
prakram 1 year ago
This was on Saturday 14th March 1981.
It was referred to on Test Match Special on Monday 29th November 2010.
ajs41 1 year ago
Geoffrey Boycott playing a shot?..Never heard of it.
thatguyyouknow2 1 year ago 31
@thatguyyouknow2 The man was clearly a genius. An ability to score over 8000 runs in Test matches including 22 centuries without playing a shot has to be admired. Clearly the cricketing equivalent of being a ventriloquist.
pogmathon100 8 months ago 2
@thatguyyouknow2 Boycott made a match-saving 104 not out in the next Test, and scored 295, [despite only scoring a single in two innings in this match] runs in the 4-match series at an average of 42.14.
gwalkron 7 months ago
if boycott wont be playing that over england would have been 6 wickets down after that over....
thats how boycott remembers this over.....
bilalahmed592 5 months ago
Such a beautiful flowing run-up Holding had.And he destroyed England in`76 with 14 wickets-on a dead wicket at the Oval.The West Indies were awesome in those days,with ,Greenidge,Lloyd,Roberts,Frederiks , Holding and the great Viv Richards.West indies won all the tests in that series when those last two played....the 1st and 2nd Tests were missed by Holding and Richards respectively.I used to like cricket then,but now its lost its appeal-even the Windies can`t be bothered these days!
brinkadeira60 1 year ago
sdadasdas
elvavivi07 1 year ago
The slips and 'keeper are standing fairly close for a man of the speed! These days they're almost at the 30 yard circle for anyone clocking over 150 kmph
suicidaljoyride 1 year ago
@suicidaljoyride not true - it seems that way . If you look at when he gets bowled - the keeper runs like 13 - 14 paces - that is basically the length of the pitch (watch when batmen run between the wickets it is usually 13 running strides) From a different angle it will look different.
AIMANALI 1 year ago
@suicidaljoyride seen this one a few times you have posted what i was thinking.
rdpark71 1 year ago
@rdpark71 If you can get your hands on some tape - watch Holding, Roberts, Marshall and Garner - todays fast bowler are not in that class. Don't judge by how far the wicket keeper is standing, look at the batsman's reaction.
r8rdarklord 9 months ago 3
@r8rdarklord the keeper runs 13 to 14 steps towards the batsmen after the wicket fell...that is basically how far wicket keepers stand for express bowlers. This is an 'optical illusion' - the angle of the camera that makes it look like that
AIMANALI 9 months ago
Amazing bowler.
what happened to all the talent in west indies. Their team suck so badly
TheEuphony69 1 year ago
@TheEuphony69 The talent is somewhat there, but what the West Indies introduced and perfected has been EMULATED and refined by other teams. Opposing batsmen who never experienced that kind of pace attack now have similar attacks in their own teams to practice with. And Just as the West Indies had changed the game, so too Australia and Sri Lanka did with the Super Spinner, in the form of Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan respectively.
Thor17 11 months ago
This was before the days of speedguns of course, but Boycott isn't the only one. Several experts at the time said this was the fastest over they ever saw, one or two saying the ball must have been doing 110 mph.
At a time of truly great fast bowlers, Lillee, Thompson, Hadlee, Croft, Roberts, Garner, etc, Holding was the fastest. I remember on the 1980 tour of England. On one occasion Peter Willey was bowling to him, leading to the immortal line: "The batsman's Holding, the bowler's Willey."
madmax8903 1 year ago
I should add, however, that Geoff Thompson was faster in his day even than Holding. As for the all-time fastest, based on what other people say and on one incredible piece of film I once saw, the fastest was almost certainly Harold Larwood. During the Bodyline tour he was bowling so fast in one Test that even from the camera positioned behind the stumps you just couldn't see the ball. Especially frightening for batsmen giving the tactics. Accurate too. He consistently hit a penny in the nets...
madmax8903 1 year ago
...placed there so he could get his length. Wes Hall was another speed daemon. He once broke the jaw of the Aussie wicketkeeper standing behind the wicket in a State match. On at least one other occasion he left a stump in two pieces.
madmax8903 1 year ago
@madmax8903 It was "The bowler's Holding, the batsman's Willey."
SempreSami 1 year ago
Definitely a case of the corridor of uncertainty but of course his granny could of hit that with a stick of rhubarb
basstrom188 1 year ago
Smashed a domestic one day hundred, something like 146 off of 90 balls or something.
SGGH12 1 year ago
@SGGH12 Gillete Cup 1965 final? That was an exception more than a rule for Boycott. But, a top-notch knock nevertheless.
TheAdventurer1988 1 year ago
seeing him sitting quietly with an ever present smile in the commentary box, I never thought he is the most ferocious fast bowler of all time!
lestephenois1 1 year ago
@lestephenois1 I saw him at The Rose Bowl about a month ago. He still looks fit enough to bowl 90-100 MPH now
richardmiles21 1 year ago
WHAT GOING AT 0:15 - LOOKS LIKE A JAMAICAN DUTCH OVEN GOT A LITTLE OOTA CONTROL AND EVERYONE SCRAMBLING?
DocBrewster 1 year ago
The Rolls Royce of fast bowlers, Holding was smooth from run-up to delivery. He was fast - as fast if not faster than any of his colleagues - he was fiery, and yet he had the look of a choir boy, even at The Oval in 1976 while destroying England with 14 wickets for 149 runs. In 60 Test matches, Holding took 249 wickets at an average of 23.68.
samurai150 1 year ago
Comment removed
dosh225 1 year ago
The most intimidating run up - "Whispering Death". Awesome
goycius92 1 year ago
that man......the Rollsroyce. Luv the way he just trucks in.
newromantic888 1 year ago
incredible bowling. those were the days when the west indies had decent fast bowlers
jonoblair75 1 year ago
what do you mean 'a bunch of savages'
truthoutmedia 1 year ago
thanks for uploading this video. how i wish i could watch the windies in their glory days. im still a windies supporter, but it looks like these days their players don't even care about the game. sigh. lets hope things improve soon
sushidog7 1 year ago
Richie Benaud, who has seen a huge amount of test cricket, said the fastest bowler he ever saw was Frank Tyson in Australia in 1956 (? could have been '54) when, apparently, on one occassion the slips were 50 yards back !!! He reckons Thompson in 1975 was next quickest.
Mr Holding was certainly very slippery tho !!!
bradders050 1 year ago
@bradders050 were did you read about the 560 yards bit..in his book...wow. I remember in his doc. he said Tyson 1st. Holding and Thommo number two
AIMANZUL1 1 year ago
@bradders050 sorry 50 yards - i mean
AIMANZUL1 1 year ago
How fast Holding was? Only God Knows.
mongoslay 1 year ago
Also after the wicket falls the keeper RUNS (longer strides) to the wicket like 14-15 steps - that is the length of the pitch actually. When batsmen run between the wickets they run about 13 steps as well........look at it ...you will see. 0.41
AIMANZUL1 1 year ago
Look where the keeper is! He ain't the quickest!
thornwivans 1 year ago
@thornwivans If you look at the footage of the 1976 Old Trafford match , Holding bowling to Close...(on youtube) watch how far the keeper is (that was 4 years previous). watch were the keeper stands for Thommo in the 1974 . Even Ian chappel (Imran and Tony Greig) say that he was as fast as Thommo was. Infact Imran & Grieg say that he was consistently quicker than all of them. I think the camera angle makes the keeper look too close.
AIMANZUL1 1 year ago
that keeper is keeping so close to the stumps....
abner5640 1 year ago
Boycott never faced Jeff Thompsonat his fastest 74/75 ..he was in test excile
phillipr61 1 year ago
funny but he looked more menacing in the old Traford test in 1976 when he bowled all the bouncers with the wicket keeper standing way back and taking the ball over his head.
AIMANALI 1 year ago
It wasn't just Holding. It was the entire West Indian team. 4 Slips, a Gully and a Silly Mid On. If this did not intimidate what does. Then off cause there was Holding's bowling. I would have surrendered before kick-off ;-)
zsifk 1 year ago
@zsifk You would surrender even before holding bat in ur hand :D
shreyas41 1 year ago
i would say thompson was the fastest,unsual bowling action-and to all those stupid bastards-i,m not australian-i,m allowed to give an opinion,-so bollocks to those thick twats-goodbye
COLONEL961 1 year ago
Holding was the greatest fast bowler of all time.Whispering death!!!
sunderlandgent 1 year ago
They say Holding was the fastest ever...
Was he?
What about Thompson, Lillee or other West Indian bowlers...
He does look very quick though.
2107gc09 2 years ago
@2107gc09 i think Shaoib Akhtar is the fastest ever. I wouldn't say he's as good as these other bowlers though
duncandohnut1993 2 years ago 2
Is it only me, or the keeper and slips are actually standing too close by today's standards
sonasidhu 2 years ago
yes they are pretty close...Jeffery dujon the wicket keeper say it was a part of their intimidation..but he also said that he has pains in fingers till this very day from standing so close to those bowlers
kictodd 2 years ago 2
the angle makes the keeper and slips look closer than they actually are unlike rod marsh who stood around 30 yards/ 27 metres behind the batsman.
DKLillee355 1 year ago
the keeper was deryck murray. dujon was still years away.
vladtepes97 1 year ago
Good old Geoffrey was 40 years old at the time.. he still managed to score a century in this 80/81 series against Holding Roberts, Croft and Garner...Not Bad eh
thomaswow1 2 years ago
Amazing over, Dickie Bird called Holding "Whispering death" because he couldent her him running in, thank you for posting a truly magnificent over
deejayzak 2 years ago 2
in one of the interview usain said that he never bowled fast.. his friends used to comment "his run up was faster than his deliveries".......
chintureddyk 2 years ago
The picture quality isn't great, but it looks like the old wife beater is backing away to leg
whixley 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What was Boycs doing wafting his bat tamely at those balls? He should have attacked them-he may have fended Holding off for a while at least.
all6inthelast 2 years ago
The name Boycott and the word attacking dont go together lol
Jazzaaaaa1 2 years ago 32
@Jazzaaaaa1
Knobhead. You've obviously never seen his wonderful innings in the 1965 Gillette Cup Final. Single handedly destroyed the Surrey attack with a magnificent 146.
gibbon92 1 year ago
@Jazzaaaaa1
That is why Test Matches rarely last 5 days. He was a Test Match cricketer. KP take notice.
How often do you see a Test Match crowd at max on the 5th day?
We used to do in those days...due, in no small part, to the likes of Boycott.
Gangly1 1 year ago
@Jazzaaaaa1
Well, he must have got 8000-odd runs from somewhere. I doubt it was quick singles, though.
ludocrat 1 year ago
unplayable !!
ellandrd1306 2 years ago
great footage does anyone have any of wayne daniel he was pretty quick too.
DKLillee355 2 years ago
this is a bit of daniel if you google "worlds fastest bowler competition 1979" great footage of others too
jon031264 2 years ago
The greatest ever.............whispering death.
newromantic888 2 years ago
Holding was once in contention to be a professional sprinter for Jamaica.....and on occasions such as this, even the greatest of batsmen would have wished that he had become one!
sherrymo1234 2 years ago
I get the feeling looking at the ryhthm of the man he was destined for 200m or 400M.
newromantic888 2 years ago
What about McGrath and Gillepsie, and surely you cannot be serious with Pollock and Donald. They were a solid combination but they got bashed by the Australians.
pscucailin 2 years ago