This is what cricket is all about...thommo was a character that would have put bums on the seat...Its a pity that pitches all around the world are placid,and kudos to the batters there,facing such bowlers without helmet and protection-respect from India
@hamimannn thomson was THE fastest bowler ever, bar none, back when there were a lot more quality fast bowlers, and pitches weren't made for runs like they are now...this was th greates era of fast bowling ever...holding, roberts, lillee, hadlee, dev, garner, croft, willis, imran khan, marshall...so many quality bowlers who had real pace...before he broke his collar bone, he bowled at 160kmh plus...and he took wickets...lots of em...
It is blatantly obvious that all deliveries are throws or chucksings.Bowling means rotation of the arm there is no rotation of the arm.It is just plain throw or chucking.He just brings the hand from under and throws.It is very obvious.He just flails the hand up so that it would not look like throwing and suddenly without any continuity brings the hand from the hips and throws ina semicircle, no wonder he bowled that many bouncers!
It is blatantly obvious that all deliveries are throws or chucksings.Bowling means rotation of the arm there is no rotation of the arm.It is just plain throw or chucking.He just brings the hand from under and throws.It is very obvious.He just before bowling just flails the arm up so that it would not not look like throwing and without any continuity just bring the hands from the hips and throws.
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: I'm pretty sure that when Thommo was measured (and clocked 160.45kph) in 1975, he was measured with a high-speed camera during a test match. In 1976 he was timed with a radar though (160.58kph).
Speed guns always take the fastest speed (which is obviously on release of the ball). Thommo would not have & did not hit 160.58kmph at the batsman's end, it was out of the hand.
The ball slows down more than 10% from leaving the batsman's hand to reaching the other end. Hawkeye proves that.
@LastKnight85 .....You're obviously a knob. Thommo was consistently clocked a 160 even as late as 79 on the World Series Tour of the West Indies and his arm is straight unlike Akhar, Lee or Tait.
You obnoxious individual. I suggest you learn some manners :) Thommo also clocked 140 mph in one competition, he is not faster than Tait. You have clearly fallen for the "old is gold." Please listen less to old wives' tales and more on fact. He is more or less same speed as the 3 you mentioned.
I stopped taking you seriously when you called Tait or Lee a chucker.
@LastKnight85 you halfwit No one has been clocked at 140 mph. You're refering to kph. That competition was in 78/9 and the bowling speed measured was the speed of the ball AS IT PASSED THE BATSMAN not out of the hand as it is today, you pillock! Thommo was clocked at around 148 kph, still about 7 kph faster the the nearest bowler, Holding!
Thommo was clocked at 160 out of the hand at Perth against the WIndies, the following year the same.
@neuterallrednecks: Dr Pyke, the man who conducted the "World's Fastest Bowler" test in the late 70's is on record as saying the speeds were out of the hand. :)
Having said that, it was an 8-ball "net" over and no-one really gave a shit. Thommo was post-injury too so obviously not a measure of how quick he was ca 1974-1977.
@rivera213 Idk, Both Thommo and Khan agreed it was as the ball passed the bat so you'll have to show me where Pyke said that.
An 8 ball over doesn't matter (when timed in Perth 75 they were also 8 ball overs). Being the Fastest bowler ever and especially the 1st to be timed at 100mph was always an important goal for Thommo.
Drag is dependant also on speed. At circa 100mph drag is significantly reduced.
@neuterallrednecks: It was a reply to an e-mail sent by a person on a forum whoc wanted to clear it up. I can't seem to post the link but search in Google for "Dr Pyke world's fastest bowler" and it'll be on the first page.
I meant they only bowled 1 x 8-ball over each. They didn't bowl a succession of overs to get fully warmed-up, build up a rhythm etc.
@LastKnight85 ....as for Tait and Lee, if you watch them whenever a 150kph+ ball is bowled their elbow is bent. That's why they frequently strain their elbows you tard!
Lol I like the way you go all out to explain why 140mph is an error, to anyone else it seemed an obvious innocent mistake but you pounced on it like your life depended on it! Half wit? I work as a doctor, you probably clean toilets or some other crap job :)
Btw if thommo bowled one at 160 kmph no biggie, Tait/Akhtar/Lee/Sami have all got to there or there abouts. Doesn't prove that thommo is consistanlty faster.
Thomson and Lillee made the most difficult fast bowling pair ever: Thommo with raw pace and a ferocity that scared every batsman who ever faced him at his peak and Lillee the vily master with pace to match. To me Lillee is the best fast bowler of all times.
I used to work at Lords cricket ground as a trainee groundsman on the late 70's & early 80's.
The secret to making the stumps fly is dribble a little water into the holes where the stumps go - that was the orders from on high to make a spectacular dismissal even more spectacular.
I can tell you that having seen Jeff Thomson bowl up close & personal in the nets & in the middle he is the fastest I have seen before or since. Shaoib is the closest in pace more recently but Thommo got more bounce.
consider this, have you ever seen footage pre-1985 of stumps being uprooted. it is a common occurance today but i dont think ive ever seen an older bowler do this
@mmotorway The first batsman dismissed is the left hander John Edrich. The second to go is the England Captain, Mike Denness. Finally the utterly non-plussed batsman at the end is the allrounder Tony Greig. When interviewed Greig admitted that every single England batsman was scared to face Thomson, and on his own dismissal the ball was totally unplayable and he was quite happy to walk back to the Pavillion in one piece. Totally devastating performance by Thomson, unlikely ever to be equalled.
@ds1868 mate tony grieg barely even saw that ball. completely destroyed by the pace of the delivery, the bowlers today are not in thommos league when it comes to pace, shoaib and brett lee are and were the only 1s in his ball park.
@raff23 I agree Greig admitted in an interview that he didn't see it and was glad to get back into the Pavillion. I think Thommo is the only bowler to get six byes off his bowling by bowling at the Nursery End at Lords the bouncer cleared Marsh and hit the base of the fence at the Pavillion End. That was 1975 tour of England. I was at that match and never saw the ball when it left Thommos hand when bowling - and that was all on a fairly benign pitch. Quite incredible.
Arg... Im trying to get some side shots of this action but i cant find any anywhere, I bowl with a sling action much like this but about 80 km/h off This mans pace. If someone could link a few shots of this action it would be much appreciated.
@warror23 Have a look at vid " Lillee & Thomson bowling speeds" on you tube for slo-mo shots of both Lillee & Thommos actions. Beware though .. you need a freakishly flexible upper body to master Thommo's action ..many kids in the '70's / 80's injured themselves trying it & that final step before delivery where his right knee ends up almost facing backwards allowing him to 'sling' with a fairly high action is incredibly awkward. Get it right & you'll wreak havoc though...good luck !
@everkenz004 Yeah i don't get my knee like that. I've formed 4 maybe 5 sling actions so far and just yesterday i've made a new one. It is by far the quickest. So far... Thanks for that though i will try avoiding the backwards knee thing, I think I might be to tall to use it without hurting my-self
man i just wanna bowl like this guy for gods sake. I try everything and i cant seem to get my action right enough to bowl fast. My action is twisted half front on half side on... i want to bowl side one but sometimes i just land and im front on.
My friend i wouldn't try too hard, u will end up with a serious back injury by the sounds of it. Thommo, like several special bowlers, just had the type of body which could do that kinda stuff..its all in the genes! I'm afraid if u dont have that type of body and muscle structure, u could try for years n years and still be nowhere near his pace. Sorry to be so blunt but its reality...
But..... argh... its sooo fustrating when i drop a ball just slightly short... i play a high grade so the batsmen have unbelieveable eyes, they just rock back and crack it for 4.
@eurodude9999 Sounds like u r just naturally front on. U should really research bowling actions and pin point the key areas u need to change. Brett Lee has the best action possible to learn from. But if u really wana bowl faster, u need 2 properly understand how bowling works. You should work AS MUCH AS YOU CAN on upper body strength. Trust me it makes a HUGE difference. Get into a routine where u regularly work on the muscles that are used when u are bowling, u will see the difference!
i'm currently in the off season ( Australia ) and am working on shoulder, biceps and hamstring muscles. I'm young, so i only use small weights. Also i bowl about twice a month in the off season down at the nets, working on a change of action to more front on. I'm trying a few different things now.
@cricketluver4life Brett Lee averaged almost 31 in 70+ tests. The best bowling action to learn from would be DK Lillee, or for a front on type bowler, Malcolm Marshall? Mike Procter? Thommo was one out of the box. Lee leaked too many runs for not enough wickets to be put in the same category as those blokes.
the good old days of Australian cricket, remember them well and with great fondness. Thommo was a legend, and intimidated the batsmen with his style of bowling, great stuff.
@Legcut especially with that action uhh. Tony faced all of them at their fastest. snow holding roberts lille thomson daniels imran Garth Le rouz etc all at their fastest in the 1970s. as far as speed all reached there peak in there 70s. only imran bowled a couple of spells in te 1980s that might haven been quicker
Great to see the famous leg-stump yorker which got Tony Grieg - the most devastating delivery of the first test (Brisbane) in that series!!! - final delivery in this vid.
@8djm8 Thomson was very accurate.........check out the speed test for the fastest bowler in youtube.......Thomson won the prize for the fastest as well as the most accurate bowler...
@Khaksaar123 -I'm sorry to disagree but I am aware of the footage you mention-I saw it live and it was a fluke. Jeff himself admits he really didn't have too much idea where the ball was going most of the time. I'm Australian and I saw him at his best in 74/75 and 75 /76 and he was plain scary-but he did tend to spray it round a bit.
Worth trying watching the first 3 balls from the moment the ball hits the pitch to when it reaches the batsman. Is almost impossible to see. Gives an indication of how fast he was
Best XI In order (from whom I have seen play, 1990 onwards) 1. Lara 2. Tendulkar 3. Miandad 4. Imran 5. Steve Waugh 6. Gilchrist (W) 7. Wasim 8. Warne 9. Waqar 10. Courtney Walsh 11. Ambrose
Best XI I have seen ever play - across the world Javed Miandad Saeed Anwar Zaheer Abbas Younis Khan Mohammed Yusuf Shahid Afridi Wasim Bari Imran Khan Wasim Akram Waqar Yunus Curtley Ambrose
mate you are a fool mitchel johnson is not in thompsons league speed wise, he bowls at a maximum of about 92 and not consistantly, think about the difference in camera technology in those days. peter siddle can bowl just as quick as mitch as can flintof not to mention dirk nannas who is faster and a hell of a lot more dangerous
Whilst i certainly do think that our past greats' pace is a bit exagerated, i feel that Thommo would be the fastest. Ian Chappel talks of Thompson in his early days as the fastest he's ever seen. I have no doubt that Chappel's account is accurate. Thommo, whilst not balling every ball above 100 miles,, would ball in short spells and get over that speed on a regular basis.
True you can't get accurate readings from archive TV pics as they are only standard fps (25) . However Thomson was timed using High speed cameras ( 200 / 400 / 800 fps ) in 1975 at 99.7mph.This method is very very accurate.The footage still exists & has been re analysed many times since by Uni of WA with the same results .Knowing he was capable of bowling around the 100mph mark is why people speculate about his fastest but 115mph is extremely unlikely & pretty much impossible.
I agree with the speeds for Thommo, but there have been a number of "clocked speeds" for bowlers (Tyson, Trueman, Larwood) based on VHS footage which is hilarious. Similar methods produce Larwoods speeds sub-81mph and Trueman's post-90mph when Larwood was an all-out paceman and Trueman a swing bowler. If it were the other way round, it'd be credible.
Thommo, Lillee, Roberts, Holding etc were clocked "live" as it were so their speeds are pretty accurate to 1mph.
Some of these balls - I reckon - are over 100 MPH, no doubt. Some could even be 110 MPH. There is no-one else ever as fast. Only Larwood, not Holding.
I'm a huge Jeff Thomson fan but if people reckon he went over 100mph on regular occassion, they are kidding themselves.
And Larwood? There's almost no quality footage from his time with the correct angles to even guess how fast he bowled. Taking into the account, the fact wickets back then were very fast (which makes the bowler look faster than they were in reality) there's almost no accurate way of finding speed of a bowler.
The one time Thomson was accurately timed during play he managed 99.7 & it wasn't during a spell considered outstandingly quick by his standards. It's probably fair to say he is likely to have bowled over 100 a number of times before the injury in 1976/77 but if by 'regular' people mean over after over then no. Some claims made for his pace are ridiculous.
Larwood? we'll never know. The "who's the fastest ever" debate remains a fascinating one because we may never have a conclusive answer.
Yeah but there's nothing saying the fastest ball in that spell wasn't actually the fast he's bowled.
Lillee said his fastest delivery of the day (when clocked) by far was, in reality, the slowest by some distance.
I personally feel Thommo bowled an average speed of ca 94mph with some hitting very high 90's pre clavicle injury.
His action is the best for bowling fast & followed the "rules" of fast bowling so there's no doubt in my mind he was faster than Tyson & Larwood by some distance.
I take your point though the odds are it wouldn't've been his fastest ever ball. As for Lillee what he actually said was that the delivery he felt he had bowled fastest turned out to be the slowest one timed when the results came through, demonstrating that his pace was more to do with rhythm than effort.
I think we generally agree. I suspect Thommo may have hit 101 ,102 or thereabouts a few times but no more.
Something up to 165kph/102.48mph was possible considering Thommo's action and strength pre-Injury. I doubt he hit 100mph that often in regards to number of deliveries, but probably more so than any other bowler in history.
180kph/111.8mph (like Marsh said) or 191.59kph/119mph for Tyson however..... no way. That isn't humanly possible and I still LOL everytime I read a comment of that ilk.
1 problem which arises with speed debates when a bowler wasn't clocked is that they can pluck any number form the sky and people will believe them.
Tyson once said he thought he could bowl 119mph! Lol
The fact Tyson studied biomechanics seems to get people who don't know about biomechanics themselves agreeing with him just out of ignorance of the subject.
Plus, I don't think his action would be legal today with the slow-motion study etc.
Off-topic, but my final all-time XI would be - Gavaskar Hobbs Bradman (C) Vivian Richards Hammond Sobers (V) Imran Adam Gilchrist (W) Marshall Lillee Warne 12th Man : Hadlee. Also would have in reserve - Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock, Everton Weekes, Frank Worrell, Rohan Kanhai, Greg Chappell, Lara, Keith Miller, Michael Procter, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Clyde Walcott, Alan Knott, Jeff Thomson, Michael Holding, Akram, Ambrose, Muralitharan.
I can't really argue with any world XI since there are probably 50 genuine players to choose from!
Warne, Tendulkar & Gilchrist are the only certainties in my team. They are the 3 biggest progressive players I've seen "live" (on TV, but you know what I mean). I've always been skeptical over Muralidaran's action, he has the best stats but I don't know about that action myself.
To me only five players ever are indispensable and have to be part of the first XI that is drawn up - BRADMAN being the greatest batsman ever by far; SOBERS being the most talented versatile and greatest allrounder ever; VIVIAN RICHARDS being the most devastating entertaining and feared batsman ever, the greatest ever by far against genuine pace, and the best ever ODI bat by daylight; Lillee and Marshall who were IMO the two greatest superfast bowlers (of fastest great bowlers) ever.
I don't think Bradman was the greatest "by far". His stats and average suggest he was, but stats don't take into account the quality of the bowling said batsman faced.
He had all the shots and is 1 of my favourite batsmen & would no doubt be a top player in ANY era, but being the "greatest by far" is a dangerous statement.
Could you really see him (or anyone) getting a run average of 85 vs Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Warne, Muralidaran etc?
Bradman, Richards, Sobers, Hammond, Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock etc were far far far better at peak than T'kar. T'kar btw avg < 40 vs Walsh-Ambrose in the WI and this was when they both were way past their peaks; he avg 36 in Pak vs Pak and SA vs SA; never faced Waqar and Akram in their prime between '90 and '98 either in Pak or in Ind; while his avg in Aus vs Aus is around 54 he avg around 40 vs McGrath and 36 vs McGrath-Warne. This is not counting pitch conditions, protective gear, etc.
I actually think the lack of pace in wickets inhibited Tendulkar.
Touch players rely on pace from bowlers and the wicket, so a slow track timers would need to put more pace on the ball themselves bringing them out of their comfort zone. Funnily enough, I think Sachin would've had a better average in the 70's and 80's than in his own era.
Also, take into account the amount of short bowling Richards faced (which was his forte). I'm not an expert, but would never bowl short to him.
As an Indian I think Gavaskar was our greatest batsman ever, Amarnath best player of fast bowling, Vishwanath its most talented bat, and Kapil its greatest, most gifted, and most enigmatic cricketer ever. In terms of talent I think Kapil was second only to Sobers. I dont think T'kar would have handled the 70s and 80s pacers the way Gavaskar did. Gavaskar had all the problems that you can claim for T'kar and he even opened (Viv was 1 down and T'kar 2 down), plus way less money, hype support etc
You must be the only Indian who doesn't think Tendulkar is God himself! Lol.
Playing Devil's advocate, the hype, money and outside stuff in cricket today, especially for Sachin in the advertising hell that is India, adds extra pressure. Cricket is much more of a business now than it used to be and taht adds pressure in itself.
I like Gavaskar alot. Kapil I like, but not as much. He had a great knack of getting wickets with poor deliveries though. I would put him behind Botham & Imran myself...
GAVASKAR- best TEST opener ever IMO. Had a great array of shots, great timer, quality batsman. Could watch him all day.
BOYCOTT- Our best batsman of the modern era, would've got 10,000 TEST runs & had close to 30 centuries had he not thrown a hissy fit in the peak of his career. Adds steel to the line-up.
TENDULKAR- Great timer, has no really weak area, great player of spin and has the ability to change roles depending on the match situation. Ideal for No. 3.
G.POLLOCK- Great timer. Would've been the best ever test post-Don batsman stats wise. A century every 6 innings (just under). Best left hander ever IMO including Sobers.
RICHARDS- Big Viv. Best player of short stuff I've seen, best leg side player ever & the most destructive player in cricket history bar none.
SOBERS- Er..... not too bad a player. Easily the greatest allrounder ever & I'm a Botham fanboy!
GILCHRIST- Best batting wicketkeeper ever and in the top 3 glovemen ever.
WARNE (c)- Best spinner ever imo. Ridiculous turn on the crapest wickets. Has every ball in his armoury & 1 of the greatest cricketing brains ever. How he wasn't ever Aussie captain beats me!
AKRAM or YOUNIS- Sorry, I can't seperate the 2, but the comments apply for both. Great swinger in both directions and both types (regular and reverse). Ridiculous yorker.
LILLEE- Greatest paceman ever imo. If he was managed properly by Australian captains, he would've had 450+ test wickets.
i'm sorry, but wasim akrams ability to move the ball in any direction, his ability to do it with any type of ball at any point in the match, with one of the shortest run ups and most confusing bowling style made for a fast bowler who was pretty much unplayable. My point is, how can you not consider him to be the best bowler of all time? The amount of swing and movement he got was ridiculous...unplayable.
AMBROSE- Greatest paceman of my watching era imo. Insane bounce and at peak very lively pace. He, along with Joel Garner, were the 2 most "shit your pants" bowlers for a batsman I reckon. So nice off the field though.
OMMISSIONS- Anyone who wasn't/wouldn't be playing tests 1970> due to lack of footage, hence no Bradman (though I've seen a fair amount of footage of him). Bradman wouldn't be too pissed at losing out to Tendulkar and he is a fave of mine.
My dream team (based on who I have seen play) is Tendulkar- greatest technique, Javed Miandad- character, ability, Rahul Dravid-pressure player, Brian Lara, S. Waugh- greatest leader and player under pressure, Imran Khan- great leader and all rounder, W. Akram- best fast bowler OAT, Warne- greatest leggie OAT, W. Younis- swing!, Courteney Walsh- tall, unplayable, Curtley Ambrose- remember how he tore apart India in the W.I, when they needed only about 150 to win a test...
Woah. Feckin hell, Thommo was quick! Seriously quick! I once saw a video of one of his matches against England and they showed it at real speed instead of viewing speed, and dear lord it was lethal. How fucking scared must batsmen have been facing these close to 100mph deliveries with no helmet....
this guy is comfortably the fast bowler ever. considering his fastest ball was 164.5 clicks an hour and back then they measured the speed from where the ball pitched, not out of the hand as they do nowadays
Sorry mate, but that's just BS. I don't even need to argue physics, how fast it'd have to come out of the hand and whatnot when common sense should tell you it's BS. You wouldn't see the ball from hand to pitch if it were out of the hand 180kmph +/-.
A better question concerning the speed debate is "Was Jeff Thomson the most accurate express pace bowler ever?" in which case the answer is Yes.
Lillee was damn fast and accurate but Thommo was something else.
rivera, firstly let me say I'm a huge fan of Thommo - that gentle run up that concludes with the explosive final steps and catapult action to his raw speed, but to say he was the most accurate express pace bowler ever is a tad much.
Take a look at his both his test and 1st class bowling average and compare it with, say, Roberts, Marshall, Garner, Wasim or even Lillee.
And he was very injury prone, probably due to his action.
I'm a cricket and Thommo lover! Don't take it the wrong way!
I have a theory that the top level bowlers bowl up to 95% of their top speed ball after ball (due to the fact they can replicate their action over and over again- a reason why Shoaib can't be considered a truly great bowler IMHO) so that'd put Thommo's ball-after-ball speed around 95mph as opposed to Lillee/Holding/Roberts/Croft who were around 91-92mph. That's a big difference at these speeds and the faster you bowl, the harder it is to control location so that's why I'd pick Thommo personally.
Shoaib is lightning fast, but only interested in speed and therefore not that great w/line and length - class batsmen love facing him.
Yes, Thommo was incredibly quick, but would he be in a world 11? If I was the captain (wishful thinking!), I'd put the likes of Garner, Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee, Wasim and even Proctor way ahead of him. Imran and Kapil Dev too?
But let's not forget that Thommo gave Amiss and Fletcher a huge underwear cleaning bill in the '74/'75 series!
My World XI 1. Gavaskar 2. Tendulkar 3. Bradman 4. Barry Richards 5. Viv Richards 6. Garfield Sobers 7. Adam Gilchrist 8. Mike Proctor 9. Richard Hadlee 10 Malcolm Marshall 11. Joel Garner Left out? Greg Chappell, Martin Crowe, Wally Hammond and Graeme Pollock. And don't forget that both Marshall and Hadlee are capable of scoring 1st class centuries. Garner is the man. Genuinely quick, relentless line and length, his height and he can bowl yorkers at will.
Yes, after a re-think, Warne would have to be in, but which batsmen to drop? Also, I forgot to put Steve Waugh in the mix.
As for bowlers, other possibles are Andy Roberts, Glenn McGrath, Alan Donald and maybe Larwood?? Holding is definitley a possibility, but Garner is #1 for me for his mind boggling accuracy/height he bowls from.
And Barry Richards would open with Gavaskar, two completely contrasting styles. As for Gilly, there's absolutley no other choice. And I forgot about Lara.
Dropping that batsman is nigh impossible! Let me think about it.
Yes, McGrath was an accuracy robot, hence his possible selection in a world XI. Larwood? Aaah, I'm just romanticising as I'm a pom like you living out here in USA.
Just got back from Barbados - went to the 3rd day only. Dull game as you probably know. Batsman's paradise and it ended in a predictable draw.
Garner always got the last over in limited overs games when five runs were needed to win and usually did the biz.
I'd probably drop Barry Richards cos even though he was technically perfect and no doubt would've had a long sucessful test career- he didin't.
That's the only reason I can think of. I know it's poor reasoning but it's the only half-credible argument! Lol.
The whole W.I series was dull barring the final session of the Antigua & Trinidad tests. The W.I were so scared of losing the series, they had the groundsmen produce batting tracks to null our superior bowling. We still should've won 2-1!
Here's the thing about fast bowling in my humble opinion.
It's not just about sling the ball down the wicket at 250mph. There's more to it than that. Hate to sound corny, but it's all about thinking, plotting and scheming - almost like a game of chess.
This is what made Lillee a truly great fast bowler. He had more than just pace and, like Holding, as he aged and slowed down, he made up for it with guile and movement.
For sure, bowling isn't just about speed (Sami proves that! Lol). But I don't think Thommo is the BEST bowler, just the most accurate considering his speed.
It's obviously easier to be accurate the slower you bowl & at the high 90mph level, a difference of 3-4mph is the equivalent of about 10-15mph for medium pacers.
Thommo took 33 wickets @ 17.93 with a42.4 SR in the 74/75 Ashes whereas Lillee took 25 @ 23.84 with a SR of 58.4.
Jeff would've got 40 wickets in the same number of games!
Shoaib is a mystery. When he was at his peak, he was without doubt the most feared seamer in the world- every commentator said it & I agree, but he wasn't able to replicate his action consistently. Thomson at his peak, repeated his action perfectly, so in terms of average speed in a spell- Thommo is fastest (I estimate 95mph) although Shoaib has the official record for fastest single delivery.
Richards, Procter & G.Pollock would be shoe-ins in the South Africa all-time XI. Quality players.
Akhtar was a bit quicker and contrary to what most believe, he was extremely accurate for his pace as well. Sending down a yorker at 155 + kph is no easy task, most of the time you can't even work out where the ball has landed until after the batsman's played at it kudos to him, hope we all see him back in action soon
Shoaib could be very accurate for sure, but he could also be very inaccurate and didn't have the same level of accuracy as the express bowlers such as Thomson, Lillee, Roberts, Holding etc.
Having said that, Shoaib has come up with as many jaffers (I think the term is "ripper" in Oz?) as any fast bowler I've seen in my time (1994 onwards) including Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose, McGrath, Walsh- especially in ODI's.
Jeff Thompson was the worlds fastest bowler at over 160mph after he was suspended for 12 months and in his words sitting down and drinking piss for 12 months and not bowling a ball. I remember seeing this on the ABC when I was a kid and all the bowlers and some of the worlds greatest bowlers all agreed, Thomo had slowed down.........."You can see the ball" The WA uni estamated that at full pace, Thomo was bowling at inexcess of 170mp.
I think you mean kph. Even the awesome Thommo wasn't capable of bowling that fast. As a whinging pom I naturally don't like brash Aussies but credit where credit is due. Jeff Thompson was probably the most frightening bowler any batsman's had to face. No wonder Rodney Marsh had trouble with hand and wrist injuries!
There have been a few bowlers in the same pace bracket as Thomson was (Lee, Tait, Akhtar, Sami etc) but none of those are as accurate at their top speed as Jeff was.
Actually, Thommo said that before the "World's Fastest Bowler" competition in 1979. He maxed out @ "only" 147.9kmph (92mph +/-).
When he was clocked in 1975 & 1976, both were just below 100mph. That was Thommo at FULL SPEED though. Whether he could maintain that speed delivery after delivery is very questionable (due to human limitations) but he never bowled faster than that. Maybe 101mph or something when he wasn't timed, but not 5-10mph faster.
In those days, the speed was measured from the batsman's end after the pitch has taken off the initial pace. Today, bowling speeds are measured when it leaves the bowler's hand. So Akhtar's 160 kmph is actually 145, whereas under the same standard, Thommo's 147 is 165.
So when Thomson hit 99.8mph, Roberts 97.8mph, Lillee 96.2mph and Holding 95.2mph in 1976 you actually think they bowled 109.7mph, 107.5mph, 105.7mph and 104.7mph respectively out of the hand?
Sorry mate but they weren't bowling THAT fast.
If anything the speeds taken in the first 2 experiments in 1975 & 1976 (the results I posted were from '76 when Lillee was healthy) were too FAST but certainly not too slow.
Speed guns/radars take the fastest speed reading regardless of where the object is.
Why not? Certain things are inexplicable. Why dont Aus and esp WI have the plethora of fast bowlers they did through the 70s and 80s? Its possible that that era was destined to be the greatest for pace. Chappell and Mallet mention in their book that Thommo hit the sightscreen on the full after first bounce on the pitch- this happened at least thrice in the 70s including eyewitness accounts. ONLY Charles Kortright, Frank Tyson and Roy Gilchrist have done that. Shoaib, Lee, Tait dont come close.
I don't disagree that the 70's and early 80's was THE pace era but the Thommo sightscreen hitting instances (which I believe) is more a result of the wicket and trajectory than raw pace though, needless to say, the out of hand speed needs to be ridiculous too.
I highly doubt (actually I'm 99% certain) that Thommo would hit the sightscreen from a full ball on the crappy batsmen utopian wickets of today.
Shoaib would've got the same extreme bounce form the 70's wickets IMO. Tait bowls too low.
Say that to C-grade T'kar fans who compare their man to Richards etc shamelessly. Those men faced such guys on those tracks without even a helmet and no BS 1-bouncer and 2-bouncer per over rules. But back to the topic, how much would you give to the pitches being a factor? I have watched Waqar, Donald, Shoaib, Lee, Bond and now Tait all at their quickest and they have not come even close to hitting the ss on the full, that too on today's much smaller grounds. How much does the pitch account for?
Well Tendulkar has as much talent as any batsman who has played the game and is better than Viv Richards by a mile IMO.
But the fact is that more people have been hit on the head since helmets have been compulsory than there were when no-one wore helmets due to a decline in short ball technique.
People are taking hook shots on more nowadays, but the ducking technique isn't as good nowadays (people take their eyes off the ball too soon),
IMO there is lots of daylight after Richards before getting to T'kar. At his peak I have seen him duck on decent pitches into good-length balls from medium-pace McGrath and get hit by a dozen bowlers on the helmet. The King played on uncovered faster bouncier tracks against faster better greater attacks without helmet and had better ODI avg and SR and close to equal Test avg and better SR. There were no Zim Ken Ban Nam etc then. Viv was the best ever ODI and the second greatest ever bat overall.
Viv didn't have anywhere near the repertoire of genuine shots Tendulkar has. The majority of Viv's shots were slog ... (enter stroke) whereas every shot Tendulkar plays is a "touch" shot.
I give much more credit to players like him, Bradman, G.Pollock, B.Richards to V.Richards who relied on spotting line and length early and having immense timing from ball 1 to V.Richards & Pietersen who get alot of runs (though not all of them) by brute force and ignorance. I've seen club players mis-hit 6's.
Your reply appalls me .... but I guess its not my prerogative to tell you .... and this vid is abt something different. But just one thing - Viv had EVERY shot in the book and many more of his own invention. Afridi/Dhoni and these sloggers of the last two decades wouldnt have lasted an over against the demons of the 70s and 80s on those pitches without helmet or restrictions to protect. Its his eye and his reflexes not 'brute strength' (that works nowadays) that made him the ultimate legend.
Come on, Viv's shots were majority leg side. In terms of stroke play, you can't call someone who is great on 1 side better than someone who can play all around the field with equal value.
By your reckoning, Kevin Pietersen is a better batsman than Tendulkar too.
Both he and Viv have/had the whip/drive through midwicket from outside off stump as their "signature" shot and are great against short bowling (Viv is the best short pitched player ever without question though).
Viv had a quicker eye and better reflexes than all those guys you have mentioned incl Bradman and if you value those qualities theres no way you can speak of him like that. He took his own Roberts, Holdings, Clarkes, Daniels, Marshalls and Pattersons to the cleaners on those pitches in county matches in the WI, Aus and Eng besides the greats from Aus, Eng, Pak, Ind and NZ at the int'l level. The man avg 50 in ODIs with a sr 94 and 62 in Tests with a SR 72 till '84 the end of his prime.
Well, by definition, the better timers have the best eye. I don't see how anyone can say Viv was a better timer of the ball than Tendulkar.
All the bowlers you mention are seamers, Tendulkar is the best player of spin in the history of the game and I've seen many a quality player be bamboozled by spin.
I'm not denying Viv's devasting SR's, but again, I'm talking about stroke play. I don't really care much for the ODI game. It's bat and ball for the most part where hacks can have a career.
I don't disagree Viv was the most DESTRUCTIVE batsman of his era (or possibly of all time. But he slogged a lot of shots. That's perfect for the one-day game, but he often got caught before 100 in the test game due to lack of patience.
He'd probably be in my all time XI but isn't as good a batsman (quality, not stats wise) as the players I mentioned in a previous comment.
ODIis very much a "see ball hit ball" game, not a game of quality of stroke.
Keep in mind that the Kortright, Tyson, Gilchrist and Thomson instances were long before '90 when ropes etc came in. Also there are several instances where the distance at which Marsh and the slip fielders stood behind the wicket for Thommo is pointed out. They stood almost ten yards outside the inner circle. Several players of that era- both Aus and others have mentioned this. No reason to distrust unless we assume they are in a conspiracy theory to belittle the quickest of the 90s and 00s.
Tyson (and Larwood) were actually timed believe it or not, at 89mph.
Neither were full tilt or gave a shit about the test (lol) and the method of timing has to be viewed skeptically, but I suppose they can be classed as official timings.
I don't think there's a conspiracy theory, just a need from the international boards to get 5 full days of cricket for revenue. The groundsmen are put under immense pressure to produce batting strips to ensure 5 days of cricket.
There was a metal sheet ATTACHED to the ball in that test and the whistle produced by it was used to determine the speed. Do you know what kind of drag that would produce on the ball and thus slow it down? Also while talking pace and bounce I believe you agree that the pace would reduce as the bounce increases. Yorkers CAN be quicker than bouncers. The earlier the ball hits the deck as with bouncers the earlier it loses pace and the more it keeps losing pace after bouncing through the air.
Well it wouldn't produce drag if the metal was smooth. It's probably go through the air faster than a cricket ball, but there would be added weight and the technique of speed measurement isn't the most accurate to say the least. Lol.
I personally wouldn't say it was a credible speed at all but it's all the info we have.
I really don't see from the basic laws of physics how that could actually quicken the ball but anyway .......... IMO it was the most unscientific and illogical method ever imagined. Everybody from Waqar to Tait (from early 90s when I started watching cricket) would probably measure < 80 mph using that method.
certainly the fastest bowler ever. Imagine the opening pair of thommo amd Lillie
pufdadie 2 days ago
This is what cricket is all about...thommo was a character that would have put bums on the seat...Its a pity that pitches all around the world are placid,and kudos to the batters there,facing such bowlers without helmet and protection-respect from India
MultiGoliath007 2 weeks ago
The first delivery is simply amazing. You cant even tell when it hits the stumps.
driffter1976 2 months ago
How do they know how fast he was?
stratocaster1986able 2 months ago
those who faced 7ft jamaicans and ruthless aussies, were the real men with balls... bradman et al! ....
.... and when they invented helmets, some pussies thought of banning bouncers.... steyn, jimmy, lee and malinga is all thats left! :(
avindrashiva 4 months ago
@avindrashiva LOL Bradman didn't face the "7ft" Jamaicans. He was in a totally different era. The only great fast bowler he faced was Harold Larwood.
vishuwalker 4 weeks ago
Thomson was a complete psycho, but he made the game interesting and the ball rocketed either towards the stumps or the batsman
TheDavelogan 5 months ago
@TheDavelogan
I think you'll find, Thomson loved to inflict pain on the batsmen. He cared more for hurting the batsmen then getting them out.
MikaelAkerfedltFTW 1 month ago
@MikaelAkerfedltFTW hence why i called him a psycho
TheDavelogan 1 month ago
brutal yorker
Blackhoundrise 5 months ago
unplayable delivery at 0:20
rautrohit 6 months ago
@hamimannn shoaib took steriods champion, your an idiot and your wrong anyway
IsaacWohlsen123 6 months ago
He is a kid compared to Shoaib Akhtar
hamimannn 6 months ago
@hamimannn thomson was THE fastest bowler ever, bar none, back when there were a lot more quality fast bowlers, and pitches weren't made for runs like they are now...this was th greates era of fast bowling ever...holding, roberts, lillee, hadlee, dev, garner, croft, willis, imran khan, marshall...so many quality bowlers who had real pace...before he broke his collar bone, he bowled at 160kmh plus...and he took wickets...lots of em...
knowerzark 3 months ago
he's fast but not that. the thing makes him dangerous is, he get's extra bounce and drift.
ok09mi98 8 months ago
Scary shit, glad i wasn't a pro in those days (or now for that matter).
scargamillo90 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is blatantly obvious that all deliveries are throws or chucksings.Bowling means rotation of the arm there is no rotation of the arm.It is just plain throw or chucking.He just brings the hand from under and throws.It is very obvious.He just flails the hand up so that it would not look like throwing and suddenly without any continuity brings the hand from the hips and throws ina semicircle, no wonder he bowled that many bouncers!
surathisuran 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is blatantly obvious that all deliveries are throws or chucksings.Bowling means rotation of the arm there is no rotation of the arm.It is just plain throw or chucking.He just brings the hand from under and throws.It is very obvious.He just before bowling just flails the arm up so that it would not not look like throwing and without any continuity just bring the hands from the hips and throws.
surathisuran 9 months ago
Even back then, giving the poms hell!.
85Aheadstix 9 months ago
@85Aheadstix: Now you just give us aching sides from laughing at your bowlers! :-p (Gotta rub it in why I can. lol)
rivera213 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
@69Ocker: I'm pretty sure that when Thommo was measured (and clocked 160.45kph) in 1975, he was measured with a high-speed camera during a test match. In 1976 he was timed with a radar though (160.58kph).
Speed guns always take the fastest speed (which is obviously on release of the ball). Thommo would not have & did not hit 160.58kmph at the batsman's end, it was out of the hand.
The ball slows down more than 10% from leaving the batsman's hand to reaching the other end. Hawkeye proves that.
rivera213 9 months ago
This guy is not quicker than Tait
LastKnight85 1 year ago
@LastKnight85 .....You're obviously a knob. Thommo was consistently clocked a 160 even as late as 79 on the World Series Tour of the West Indies and his arm is straight unlike Akhar, Lee or Tait.
neuterallrednecks 1 year ago
@neuterallrednecks
You obnoxious individual. I suggest you learn some manners :) Thommo also clocked 140 mph in one competition, he is not faster than Tait. You have clearly fallen for the "old is gold." Please listen less to old wives' tales and more on fact. He is more or less same speed as the 3 you mentioned.
I stopped taking you seriously when you called Tait or Lee a chucker.
LastKnight85 1 year ago
@LastKnight85 you halfwit No one has been clocked at 140 mph. You're refering to kph. That competition was in 78/9 and the bowling speed measured was the speed of the ball AS IT PASSED THE BATSMAN not out of the hand as it is today, you pillock! Thommo was clocked at around 148 kph, still about 7 kph faster the the nearest bowler, Holding!
Thommo was clocked at 160 out of the hand at Perth against the WIndies, the following year the same.
neuterallrednecks 1 year ago
@neuterallrednecks: Dr Pyke, the man who conducted the "World's Fastest Bowler" test in the late 70's is on record as saying the speeds were out of the hand. :)
Having said that, it was an 8-ball "net" over and no-one really gave a shit. Thommo was post-injury too so obviously not a measure of how quick he was ca 1974-1977.
rivera213 9 months ago
@rivera213 Idk, Both Thommo and Khan agreed it was as the ball passed the bat so you'll have to show me where Pyke said that.
An 8 ball over doesn't matter (when timed in Perth 75 they were also 8 ball overs). Being the Fastest bowler ever and especially the 1st to be timed at 100mph was always an important goal for Thommo.
Drag is dependant also on speed. At circa 100mph drag is significantly reduced.
neuterallrednecks 9 months ago
@neuterallrednecks: It was a reply to an e-mail sent by a person on a forum whoc wanted to clear it up. I can't seem to post the link but search in Google for "Dr Pyke world's fastest bowler" and it'll be on the first page.
I meant they only bowled 1 x 8-ball over each. They didn't bowl a succession of overs to get fully warmed-up, build up a rhythm etc.
rivera213 9 months ago
@LastKnight85 ....as for Tait and Lee, if you watch them whenever a 150kph+ ball is bowled their elbow is bent. That's why they frequently strain their elbows you tard!
neuterallrednecks 1 year ago
@neuterallrednecks
Lol I like the way you go all out to explain why 140mph is an error, to anyone else it seemed an obvious innocent mistake but you pounced on it like your life depended on it! Half wit? I work as a doctor, you probably clean toilets or some other crap job :)
Btw if thommo bowled one at 160 kmph no biggie, Tait/Akhtar/Lee/Sami have all got to there or there abouts. Doesn't prove that thommo is consistanlty faster.
LastKnight85 1 year ago
@LastKnight85 ...Doctor my sphingter!
Thommo bowled at that speed consistently over a 6/7 year period. Lee and Akhar bowled 160kph at altitude.
neuterallrednecks 1 year ago
@neuterallrednecks
alienhunter36 10 months ago
Howthefuckisthaaaaaaat!!!
markzzxx 1 year ago
@rizzi2007 kangeroos r in Australia u fuk
flathy111 1 year ago
chucker!!!!
zaheercy 1 year ago
@zaheercy fucker !!
joetube1988 6 months ago
All upmires from Aussie cricket in the 70's and 80's look like they were umpired by Tony Crafter.
Havencheese 1 year ago
I heard the Aussies are gonna bring him back coz the lot they got now are shit
kingtubbysdub 1 year ago
akhtar in his prime is a notch faster!
rizzi2007 1 year ago
@rizzi2007 fuck off curry muncher akhtar is a fucking cheat
wikwak67 1 year ago
@wikwak67 you fucking english deported criminal/kangaroo go suck a dick and bounce/hop along!
rizzi2007 1 year ago
wow..thommo .one of my favourite bowlers of all time.love him although he broke our cricketer's legs in 1975 worldcup!
labbasira 1 year ago
bring back bouncers to test cricket,for goodness sake look at the helmets etc that players have nowadays
suffern63 1 year ago
Thomson and Lillee made the most difficult fast bowling pair ever: Thommo with raw pace and a ferocity that scared every batsman who ever faced him at his peak and Lillee the vily master with pace to match. To me Lillee is the best fast bowler of all times.
Bareilykobans 1 year ago
probably the best bowling action ever!
gatesrocks 1 year ago
I used to work at Lords cricket ground as a trainee groundsman on the late 70's & early 80's.
The secret to making the stumps fly is dribble a little water into the holes where the stumps go - that was the orders from on high to make a spectacular dismissal even more spectacular.
I can tell you that having seen Jeff Thomson bowl up close & personal in the nets & in the middle he is the fastest I have seen before or since. Shaoib is the closest in pace more recently but Thommo got more bounce.
dukeofoven 1 year ago 3
consider this, have you ever seen footage pre-1985 of stumps being uprooted. it is a common occurance today but i dont think ive ever seen an older bowler do this
lozzag13 1 year ago
that is mean bowling
Blackhoundrise 1 year ago
Who's the batsman? I thought at first it was Geoff Boycott, but I'm not sure...
mmotorway 1 year ago
@mmotorway The first batsman dismissed is the left hander John Edrich. The second to go is the England Captain, Mike Denness. Finally the utterly non-plussed batsman at the end is the allrounder Tony Greig. When interviewed Greig admitted that every single England batsman was scared to face Thomson, and on his own dismissal the ball was totally unplayable and he was quite happy to walk back to the Pavillion in one piece. Totally devastating performance by Thomson, unlikely ever to be equalled.
ds1868 1 year ago
@ds1868 Thanks for that info. You're right, it was an incredible performance.
mmotorway 1 year ago
@ds1868 mate tony grieg barely even saw that ball. completely destroyed by the pace of the delivery, the bowlers today are not in thommos league when it comes to pace, shoaib and brett lee are and were the only 1s in his ball park.
raff23 1 year ago
@raff23 I agree Greig admitted in an interview that he didn't see it and was glad to get back into the Pavillion. I think Thommo is the only bowler to get six byes off his bowling by bowling at the Nursery End at Lords the bouncer cleared Marsh and hit the base of the fence at the Pavillion End. That was 1975 tour of England. I was at that match and never saw the ball when it left Thommos hand when bowling - and that was all on a fairly benign pitch. Quite incredible.
ds1868 1 year ago 3
@ds1868 u have a clip of that ?
AIMANALI 1 year ago
man i wish i could send them down like thommo
brynjones11 1 year ago
Arg... Im trying to get some side shots of this action but i cant find any anywhere, I bowl with a sling action much like this but about 80 km/h off This mans pace. If someone could link a few shots of this action it would be much appreciated.
warror23 1 year ago
@warror23 Have a look at vid " Lillee & Thomson bowling speeds" on you tube for slo-mo shots of both Lillee & Thommos actions. Beware though .. you need a freakishly flexible upper body to master Thommo's action ..many kids in the '70's / 80's injured themselves trying it & that final step before delivery where his right knee ends up almost facing backwards allowing him to 'sling' with a fairly high action is incredibly awkward. Get it right & you'll wreak havoc though...good luck !
everkenz004 1 year ago
@everkenz004 Yeah i don't get my knee like that. I've formed 4 maybe 5 sling actions so far and just yesterday i've made a new one. It is by far the quickest. So far... Thanks for that though i will try avoiding the backwards knee thing, I think I might be to tall to use it without hurting my-self
warror23 1 year ago
Nowadays the owlers are much fasterrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!
Cricketboy3 1 year ago
@Cricketboy3 Are You a Fucking idiot? He is bowling Well over 170km/h. Jeff Thomson is fastest bowler of all time.
warror23 1 year ago
man i just wanna bowl like this guy for gods sake. I try everything and i cant seem to get my action right enough to bowl fast. My action is twisted half front on half side on... i want to bowl side one but sometimes i just land and im front on.
eurodude9999 1 year ago
My friend i wouldn't try too hard, u will end up with a serious back injury by the sounds of it. Thommo, like several special bowlers, just had the type of body which could do that kinda stuff..its all in the genes! I'm afraid if u dont have that type of body and muscle structure, u could try for years n years and still be nowhere near his pace. Sorry to be so blunt but its reality...
cricketluver4life 1 year ago
@cricketluver4life
But..... argh... its sooo fustrating when i drop a ball just slightly short... i play a high grade so the batsmen have unbelieveable eyes, they just rock back and crack it for 4.
eurodude9999 1 year ago
@eurodude9999 Sounds like u r just naturally front on. U should really research bowling actions and pin point the key areas u need to change. Brett Lee has the best action possible to learn from. But if u really wana bowl faster, u need 2 properly understand how bowling works. You should work AS MUCH AS YOU CAN on upper body strength. Trust me it makes a HUGE difference. Get into a routine where u regularly work on the muscles that are used when u are bowling, u will see the difference!
cricketluver4life 1 year ago
@cricketluver4life
i'm currently in the off season ( Australia ) and am working on shoulder, biceps and hamstring muscles. I'm young, so i only use small weights. Also i bowl about twice a month in the off season down at the nets, working on a change of action to more front on. I'm trying a few different things now.
eurodude9999 1 year ago
@cricketluver4life Brett Lee averaged almost 31 in 70+ tests. The best bowling action to learn from would be DK Lillee, or for a front on type bowler, Malcolm Marshall? Mike Procter? Thommo was one out of the box. Lee leaked too many runs for not enough wickets to be put in the same category as those blokes.
baantalingngam 1 year ago
the good old days of Australian cricket, remember them well and with great fondness. Thommo was a legend, and intimidated the batsmen with his style of bowling, great stuff.
ASkywalker1 2 years ago
0:20 is the famous "Sandshoe Crusher".
offrampt 2 years ago
That ball that bowled Greig was 100mph.
It had to be.Damn quick.
The frightening thing about Thommo was in spells he would bowl 135km,140km,then out of the blue bowl a 160km ball.Very,very hard to face.
Legcut 2 years ago
@Legcut
It's amazing how the world's fastest bowlers in the 70's found a little bit extra against Tony Grieg. Lol.
I'm sure Lillie found an extra 5mph. Ha ha.
I think the one which er... "hit" David Lloyd was around 200mph, or at least felt like it.
rivera213 2 years ago
@Legcut especially with that action uhh. Tony faced all of them at their fastest. snow holding roberts lille thomson daniels imran Garth Le rouz etc all at their fastest in the 1970s. as far as speed all reached there peak in there 70s. only imran bowled a couple of spells in te 1980s that might haven been quicker
MrAIMANZUL 1 year ago
Great to see the famous leg-stump yorker which got Tony Grieg - the most devastating delivery of the first test (Brisbane) in that series!!! - final delivery in this vid.
Pilatead30 2 years ago
thornwivans 2 years ago
Thommo wasn't that accurate,"like Lillee" thats why he was so scary ,every ball was a wild card.,,,,,,,,,,,, ah^^ the good old days of cricket
8djm8 2 years ago 14
@8djm8 Thomson was very accurate.........check out the speed test for the fastest bowler in youtube.......Thomson won the prize for the fastest as well as the most accurate bowler...
Khaksaar123 1 year ago
@Khaksaar123 -I'm sorry to disagree but I am aware of the footage you mention-I saw it live and it was a fluke. Jeff himself admits he really didn't have too much idea where the ball was going most of the time. I'm Australian and I saw him at his best in 74/75 and 75 /76 and he was plain scary-but he did tend to spray it round a bit.
Biggus63 1 year ago
He is too fast and accurate. We should also give a thought for the poor batsmen facing this bowling without a helmet !!
rakeshlennie 2 years ago 2
First ball is an absolute cracker
humesy69 2 years ago
Worth trying watching the first 3 balls from the moment the ball hits the pitch to when it reaches the batsman. Is almost impossible to see. Gives an indication of how fast he was
wasslic 2 years ago
asrarulhaq2002 2 years ago
trescothic instead of miandad
drewtheegg 2 years ago
trescothic cant get in englands greatest team???
and where is glen mcgrath? inzamam ponting or dravid or jaque kallis?
harunyahyadotorg 2 years ago
gatesrocks 2 years ago
@gatesrocks Younis Khan?? lmao did'nt you watch the 2011 WC ??
joetube1988 6 months ago
these deliveries dont look like 90mph. the world's fastest bowler right now is mitchell johnson. for his consistent speeds of 90+.
chadsexinton 2 years ago
flintoff bowls 92+
avfc4lifeaidbur 2 years ago
mate you are a fool mitchel johnson is not in thompsons league speed wise, he bowls at a maximum of about 92 and not consistantly, think about the difference in camera technology in those days. peter siddle can bowl just as quick as mitch as can flintof not to mention dirk nannas who is faster and a hell of a lot more dangerous
waynegrovs 2 years ago 15
@waynegrovs johnson bowls around 150 clicks consistently mate
brynjones11 1 year ago
@waynegrovs Jeff was so fast, if he could not bowl them out...
he would just knock them out.
Him and holding broke stumps often...
They put fear in the batsman...
And Thomo never trained much and was a piss head, not like the professionals of today.
All natural talent.
beethovens9th1 1 year ago
sling action at its best... if you can do this you will bowl over 90 mph
Bunyipz 2 years ago
Whilst i certainly do think that our past greats' pace is a bit exagerated, i feel that Thommo would be the fastest. Ian Chappel talks of Thompson in his early days as the fastest he's ever seen. I have no doubt that Chappel's account is accurate. Thommo, whilst not balling every ball above 100 miles,, would ball in short spells and get over that speed on a regular basis.
bjornborg056 2 years ago
you'd think thommo bowled over 100mph at least once in his career.
Sanath340 2 years ago
trundler
richiesking 2 years ago
ive timed them,,and he bowled well over 100 mph..i am sure even over 115 mph
backtoo1989 2 years ago
How did you time them?
There have been a number of people who use methods to clock from video including FPS, stop clock timing etc but no method is accurate.
The only way of finding out how fast they bowled is to go back in time with a credible (and expensive) speed gun and clock them.
No other method works and no human can, ever has or ever will bowl 115mph even with a "throwing" action, sorry that's just some top level BS there.
rivera213 2 years ago
True you can't get accurate readings from archive TV pics as they are only standard fps (25) . However Thomson was timed using High speed cameras ( 200 / 400 / 800 fps ) in 1975 at 99.7mph.This method is very very accurate.The footage still exists & has been re analysed many times since by Uni of WA with the same results .Knowing he was capable of bowling around the 100mph mark is why people speculate about his fastest but 115mph is extremely unlikely & pretty much impossible.
modeechii 2 years ago
I agree with the speeds for Thommo, but there have been a number of "clocked speeds" for bowlers (Tyson, Trueman, Larwood) based on VHS footage which is hilarious. Similar methods produce Larwoods speeds sub-81mph and Trueman's post-90mph when Larwood was an all-out paceman and Trueman a swing bowler. If it were the other way round, it'd be credible.
Thommo, Lillee, Roberts, Holding etc were clocked "live" as it were so their speeds are pretty accurate to 1mph.
rivera213 2 years ago
Lillee was the best but Thommo was the fastest
Sanath340 2 years ago
Some of these balls - I reckon - are over 100 MPH, no doubt. Some could even be 110 MPH. There is no-one else ever as fast. Only Larwood, not Holding.
eddied111 2 years ago
Lol.
How do you come to that conclusion?
I'm a huge Jeff Thomson fan but if people reckon he went over 100mph on regular occassion, they are kidding themselves.
And Larwood? There's almost no quality footage from his time with the correct angles to even guess how fast he bowled. Taking into the account, the fact wickets back then were very fast (which makes the bowler look faster than they were in reality) there's almost no accurate way of finding speed of a bowler.
rivera213 2 years ago
The one time Thomson was accurately timed during play he managed 99.7 & it wasn't during a spell considered outstandingly quick by his standards. It's probably fair to say he is likely to have bowled over 100 a number of times before the injury in 1976/77 but if by 'regular' people mean over after over then no. Some claims made for his pace are ridiculous.
Larwood? we'll never know. The "who's the fastest ever" debate remains a fascinating one because we may never have a conclusive answer.
modeechii 2 years ago
Yeah but there's nothing saying the fastest ball in that spell wasn't actually the fast he's bowled.
Lillee said his fastest delivery of the day (when clocked) by far was, in reality, the slowest by some distance.
I personally feel Thommo bowled an average speed of ca 94mph with some hitting very high 90's pre clavicle injury.
His action is the best for bowling fast & followed the "rules" of fast bowling so there's no doubt in my mind he was faster than Tyson & Larwood by some distance.
rivera213 2 years ago
I take your point though the odds are it wouldn't've been his fastest ever ball. As for Lillee what he actually said was that the delivery he felt he had bowled fastest turned out to be the slowest one timed when the results came through, demonstrating that his pace was more to do with rhythm than effort.
I think we generally agree. I suspect Thommo may have hit 101 ,102 or thereabouts a few times but no more.
modeechii 2 years ago
We agree.
Something up to 165kph/102.48mph was possible considering Thommo's action and strength pre-Injury. I doubt he hit 100mph that often in regards to number of deliveries, but probably more so than any other bowler in history.
180kph/111.8mph (like Marsh said) or 191.59kph/119mph for Tyson however..... no way. That isn't humanly possible and I still LOL everytime I read a comment of that ilk.
rivera213 2 years ago
1 problem which arises with speed debates when a bowler wasn't clocked is that they can pluck any number form the sky and people will believe them.
Tyson once said he thought he could bowl 119mph! Lol
The fact Tyson studied biomechanics seems to get people who don't know about biomechanics themselves agreeing with him just out of ignorance of the subject.
Plus, I don't think his action would be legal today with the slow-motion study etc.
rivera213 2 years ago
I believe that that was clocked after he had had a bad back problem too, so he won't have been quite as quick as he was when he was fully fit..
IdrisDragon1 2 years ago
look at the frogman marsh jumping in celebration in the end..lol
gavaskarvishymare6 2 years ago
Amazing - after the ball pitches on the ground you just can't see it. Easily the fastest bowler ever. And what a bloke too!
Scotness 2 years ago
ARKN06 2 years ago
Nice XI.
I can't really argue with any world XI since there are probably 50 genuine players to choose from!
Warne, Tendulkar & Gilchrist are the only certainties in my team. They are the 3 biggest progressive players I've seen "live" (on TV, but you know what I mean). I've always been skeptical over Muralidaran's action, he has the best stats but I don't know about that action myself.
rivera213 2 years ago
To me only five players ever are indispensable and have to be part of the first XI that is drawn up - BRADMAN being the greatest batsman ever by far; SOBERS being the most talented versatile and greatest allrounder ever; VIVIAN RICHARDS being the most devastating entertaining and feared batsman ever, the greatest ever by far against genuine pace, and the best ever ODI bat by daylight; Lillee and Marshall who were IMO the two greatest superfast bowlers (of fastest great bowlers) ever.
ARKN06 2 years ago
I don't think Bradman was the greatest "by far". His stats and average suggest he was, but stats don't take into account the quality of the bowling said batsman faced.
He had all the shots and is 1 of my favourite batsmen & would no doubt be a top player in ANY era, but being the "greatest by far" is a dangerous statement.
Could you really see him (or anyone) getting a run average of 85 vs Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Warne, Muralidaran etc?
I doubt it very much. Nearer 50-55.
rivera213 2 years ago
Bradman, Richards, Sobers, Hammond, Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock etc were far far far better at peak than T'kar. T'kar btw avg < 40 vs Walsh-Ambrose in the WI and this was when they both were way past their peaks; he avg 36 in Pak vs Pak and SA vs SA; never faced Waqar and Akram in their prime between '90 and '98 either in Pak or in Ind; while his avg in Aus vs Aus is around 54 he avg around 40 vs McGrath and 36 vs McGrath-Warne. This is not counting pitch conditions, protective gear, etc.
ARKN06 2 years ago
I actually think the lack of pace in wickets inhibited Tendulkar.
Touch players rely on pace from bowlers and the wicket, so a slow track timers would need to put more pace on the ball themselves bringing them out of their comfort zone. Funnily enough, I think Sachin would've had a better average in the 70's and 80's than in his own era.
Also, take into account the amount of short bowling Richards faced (which was his forte). I'm not an expert, but would never bowl short to him.
rivera213 2 years ago
As an Indian I think Gavaskar was our greatest batsman ever, Amarnath best player of fast bowling, Vishwanath its most talented bat, and Kapil its greatest, most gifted, and most enigmatic cricketer ever. In terms of talent I think Kapil was second only to Sobers. I dont think T'kar would have handled the 70s and 80s pacers the way Gavaskar did. Gavaskar had all the problems that you can claim for T'kar and he even opened (Viv was 1 down and T'kar 2 down), plus way less money, hype support etc
ARKN06 2 years ago
You must be the only Indian who doesn't think Tendulkar is God himself! Lol.
Playing Devil's advocate, the hype, money and outside stuff in cricket today, especially for Sachin in the advertising hell that is India, adds extra pressure. Cricket is much more of a business now than it used to be and taht adds pressure in itself.
I like Gavaskar alot. Kapil I like, but not as much. He had a great knack of getting wickets with poor deliveries though. I would put him behind Botham & Imran myself...
rivera213 2 years ago
Comment removed
gavaskarvishymare6 2 years ago
Here's my all time XI:
GAVASKAR- best TEST opener ever IMO. Had a great array of shots, great timer, quality batsman. Could watch him all day.
BOYCOTT- Our best batsman of the modern era, would've got 10,000 TEST runs & had close to 30 centuries had he not thrown a hissy fit in the peak of his career. Adds steel to the line-up.
TENDULKAR- Great timer, has no really weak area, great player of spin and has the ability to change roles depending on the match situation. Ideal for No. 3.
...
rivera213 2 years ago
id move tendulkar to five because of his abilty to vhange roles and gilchrist would be behing pollock and viv would be infornt of sobers
mrsamoa69 2 years ago
G.POLLOCK- Great timer. Would've been the best ever test post-Don batsman stats wise. A century every 6 innings (just under). Best left hander ever IMO including Sobers.
RICHARDS- Big Viv. Best player of short stuff I've seen, best leg side player ever & the most destructive player in cricket history bar none.
SOBERS- Er..... not too bad a player. Easily the greatest allrounder ever & I'm a Botham fanboy!
GILCHRIST- Best batting wicketkeeper ever and in the top 3 glovemen ever.
.......
rivera213 2 years ago
WARNE (c)- Best spinner ever imo. Ridiculous turn on the crapest wickets. Has every ball in his armoury & 1 of the greatest cricketing brains ever. How he wasn't ever Aussie captain beats me!
AKRAM or YOUNIS- Sorry, I can't seperate the 2, but the comments apply for both. Great swinger in both directions and both types (regular and reverse). Ridiculous yorker.
LILLEE- Greatest paceman ever imo. If he was managed properly by Australian captains, he would've had 450+ test wickets.
......
rivera213 2 years ago
i'm sorry, but wasim akrams ability to move the ball in any direction, his ability to do it with any type of ball at any point in the match, with one of the shortest run ups and most confusing bowling style made for a fast bowler who was pretty much unplayable. My point is, how can you not consider him to be the best bowler of all time? The amount of swing and movement he got was ridiculous...unplayable.
asrarulhaq2002 2 years ago
and finally:
AMBROSE- Greatest paceman of my watching era imo. Insane bounce and at peak very lively pace. He, along with Joel Garner, were the 2 most "shit your pants" bowlers for a batsman I reckon. So nice off the field though.
OMMISSIONS- Anyone who wasn't/wouldn't be playing tests 1970> due to lack of footage, hence no Bradman (though I've seen a fair amount of footage of him). Bradman wouldn't be too pissed at losing out to Tendulkar and he is a fave of mine.
D'ya like?
rivera213 2 years ago
My dream team (based on who I have seen play) is Tendulkar- greatest technique, Javed Miandad- character, ability, Rahul Dravid-pressure player, Brian Lara, S. Waugh- greatest leader and player under pressure, Imran Khan- great leader and all rounder, W. Akram- best fast bowler OAT, Warne- greatest leggie OAT, W. Younis- swing!, Courteney Walsh- tall, unplayable, Curtley Ambrose- remember how he tore apart India in the W.I, when they needed only about 150 to win a test...
asrarulhaq2002 2 years ago
Thomo was my favourite when i was a kid in the 70's..I mean who else has this great unique action??No one .!He truely was a great fast bowler!!
mickpara 2 years ago
It's pretty easy to clone, but getting a good enough rhythm to bowl anywhere near that speed is tough. You need a lot of suppleness.
rivera213 2 years ago
Woah. Feckin hell, Thommo was quick! Seriously quick! I once saw a video of one of his matches against England and they showed it at real speed instead of viewing speed, and dear lord it was lethal. How fucking scared must batsmen have been facing these close to 100mph deliveries with no helmet....
indiansuperstar 3 years ago
this guy is comfortably the fast bowler ever. considering his fastest ball was 164.5 clicks an hour and back then they measured the speed from where the ball pitched, not out of the hand as they do nowadays
kyleAKAurgod 3 years ago
Sorry mate, but that's just BS. I don't even need to argue physics, how fast it'd have to come out of the hand and whatnot when common sense should tell you it's BS. You wouldn't see the ball from hand to pitch if it were out of the hand 180kmph +/-.
A better question concerning the speed debate is "Was Jeff Thomson the most accurate express pace bowler ever?" in which case the answer is Yes.
Lillee was damn fast and accurate but Thommo was something else.
rivera213 2 years ago
rivera, firstly let me say I'm a huge fan of Thommo - that gentle run up that concludes with the explosive final steps and catapult action to his raw speed, but to say he was the most accurate express pace bowler ever is a tad much.
Take a look at his both his test and 1st class bowling average and compare it with, say, Roberts, Marshall, Garner, Wasim or even Lillee.
And he was very injury prone, probably due to his action.
I'm a cricket and Thommo lover! Don't take it the wrong way!
cquilty1 2 years ago
I have a theory that the top level bowlers bowl up to 95% of their top speed ball after ball (due to the fact they can replicate their action over and over again- a reason why Shoaib can't be considered a truly great bowler IMHO) so that'd put Thommo's ball-after-ball speed around 95mph as opposed to Lillee/Holding/Roberts/Croft who were around 91-92mph. That's a big difference at these speeds and the faster you bowl, the harder it is to control location so that's why I'd pick Thommo personally.
rivera213 2 years ago
Shoaib is lightning fast, but only interested in speed and therefore not that great w/line and length - class batsmen love facing him.
Yes, Thommo was incredibly quick, but would he be in a world 11? If I was the captain (wishful thinking!), I'd put the likes of Garner, Marshall, Hadlee, Lillee, Wasim and even Proctor way ahead of him. Imran and Kapil Dev too?
But let's not forget that Thommo gave Amiss and Fletcher a huge underwear cleaning bill in the '74/'75 series!
Poor guys!
cquilty1 2 years ago
I've tried many a time to make a world XI but have only got it down to about 25 players. Lol.
For me it'd depend on the surface, only Shane Warne & Scahin Tendulkar would be definates from my era.
Thommo wouldn't get in on stats but when he was at his best (Ashes '74/75 to West Indies '75/76) was there any pace bowler more feared?
I'm sure David Lloyd would say no. Lol.
Thommo out bowled Lillee most of the time & people consider Lillee to be THE best fast bowler ever.
I'm a pom btw. Ha ha.
rivera213 2 years ago
cquilty1 2 years ago
I can't really argue with the names in your XI, Procter getting 41 wickets @ 15 was incredible.
But I think the balance is wrong. I know Sobers could and did bowl spin, but I would go for Warne @ 8 and drop a batsman considering Gilly is the WK.
I really can't pick just XI.
I like Joel Garner, but I actually think Holding was the best bowler of the quartet.
Hadlee carried New Zealand throughout his career. He deserved and should've got more test centuries.
rivera213 2 years ago
Yes, after a re-think, Warne would have to be in, but which batsmen to drop? Also, I forgot to put Steve Waugh in the mix.
As for bowlers, other possibles are Andy Roberts, Glenn McGrath, Alan Donald and maybe Larwood?? Holding is definitley a possibility, but Garner is #1 for me for his mind boggling accuracy/height he bowls from.
And Barry Richards would open with Gavaskar, two completely contrasting styles. As for Gilly, there's absolutley no other choice. And I forgot about Lara.
cquilty1 2 years ago
I wouldn't like to be the 1 dropping a batsman, but since it's your XI- you can do the job. Ha ha.
McGrath was annoying, the dude was like a metronome. Insane control.
I haven't see enough footage of Larwood to even hazard a guess at how good he was.
Garner is the ideal type of "at the death" bowler. Man, I wish we had him in our one-day team!
Gilchrist is head and shoulders above every other WK ever too IMO. Most quality batting WK's are poor glovemen (Prior, Sangakarra etc) but he wasn't.
rivera213 2 years ago
Dropping that batsman is nigh impossible! Let me think about it.
Yes, McGrath was an accuracy robot, hence his possible selection in a world XI. Larwood? Aaah, I'm just romanticising as I'm a pom like you living out here in USA.
Just got back from Barbados - went to the 3rd day only. Dull game as you probably know. Batsman's paradise and it ended in a predictable draw.
Garner always got the last over in limited overs games when five runs were needed to win and usually did the biz.
cquilty1 2 years ago
I'd probably drop Barry Richards cos even though he was technically perfect and no doubt would've had a long sucessful test career- he didin't.
That's the only reason I can think of. I know it's poor reasoning but it's the only half-credible argument! Lol.
The whole W.I series was dull barring the final session of the Antigua & Trinidad tests. The W.I were so scared of losing the series, they had the groundsmen produce batting tracks to null our superior bowling. We still should've won 2-1!
rivera213 2 years ago
Here's the thing about fast bowling in my humble opinion.
It's not just about sling the ball down the wicket at 250mph. There's more to it than that. Hate to sound corny, but it's all about thinking, plotting and scheming - almost like a game of chess.
This is what made Lillee a truly great fast bowler. He had more than just pace and, like Holding, as he aged and slowed down, he made up for it with guile and movement.
Ol' Thommo couldn't do this. All or nothing!
cquilty1 2 years ago
For sure, bowling isn't just about speed (Sami proves that! Lol). But I don't think Thommo is the BEST bowler, just the most accurate considering his speed.
It's obviously easier to be accurate the slower you bowl & at the high 90mph level, a difference of 3-4mph is the equivalent of about 10-15mph for medium pacers.
Thommo took 33 wickets @ 17.93 with a42.4 SR in the 74/75 Ashes whereas Lillee took 25 @ 23.84 with a SR of 58.4.
Jeff would've got 40 wickets in the same number of games!
rivera213 2 years ago
OK. I see what you're saying about Thommo.
I've played a fair amount of cricket in my time, but you'd have to pay me a lot of money to face him in his prime!
Wouldn't even see the ball.
Is Shoaib quicker or are they about the same? Hadlee, like Marshall, is a very under-rated batsman.
As for Barry Richards, Proctor and Graeme Pollock, it's a terrible shame we never got to see their full potential on the international stage.
cquilty1 2 years ago
Shoaib is a mystery. When he was at his peak, he was without doubt the most feared seamer in the world- every commentator said it & I agree, but he wasn't able to replicate his action consistently. Thomson at his peak, repeated his action perfectly, so in terms of average speed in a spell- Thommo is fastest (I estimate 95mph) although Shoaib has the official record for fastest single delivery.
Richards, Procter & G.Pollock would be shoe-ins in the South Africa all-time XI. Quality players.
rivera213 2 years ago
Akhtar was a bit quicker and contrary to what most believe, he was extremely accurate for his pace as well. Sending down a yorker at 155 + kph is no easy task, most of the time you can't even work out where the ball has landed until after the batsman's played at it kudos to him, hope we all see him back in action soon
dilogi 2 years ago
Shoaib could be very accurate for sure, but he could also be very inaccurate and didn't have the same level of accuracy as the express bowlers such as Thomson, Lillee, Roberts, Holding etc.
Having said that, Shoaib has come up with as many jaffers (I think the term is "ripper" in Oz?) as any fast bowler I've seen in my time (1994 onwards) including Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose, McGrath, Walsh- especially in ODI's.
rivera213 2 years ago
jeffs fastest was 164.5 i know because there was a documentary on all the fast bowlers
666satansnumber 3 years ago
How/where/when was it timed?
164.5kmph being 102mph is within realms of possibility since he was timed @ 160kmph that has been proven.
Can you remember what the documentary was called?
rivera213 3 years ago
Jeff Thompson was the worlds fastest bowler at over 160mph after he was suspended for 12 months and in his words sitting down and drinking piss for 12 months and not bowling a ball. I remember seeing this on the ABC when I was a kid and all the bowlers and some of the worlds greatest bowlers all agreed, Thomo had slowed down.........."You can see the ball" The WA uni estamated that at full pace, Thomo was bowling at inexcess of 170mp.
kyatt1 3 years ago
I think you mean kph. Even the awesome Thommo wasn't capable of bowling that fast. As a whinging pom I naturally don't like brash Aussies but credit where credit is due. Jeff Thompson was probably the most frightening bowler any batsman's had to face. No wonder Rodney Marsh had trouble with hand and wrist injuries!
Loftier 3 years ago
JA, it was Jeff's accuracy which was scary.
There have been a few bowlers in the same pace bracket as Thomson was (Lee, Tait, Akhtar, Sami etc) but none of those are as accurate at their top speed as Jeff was.
rivera213 3 years ago
Actually, Thommo said that before the "World's Fastest Bowler" competition in 1979. He maxed out @ "only" 147.9kmph (92mph +/-).
When he was clocked in 1975 & 1976, both were just below 100mph. That was Thommo at FULL SPEED though. Whether he could maintain that speed delivery after delivery is very questionable (due to human limitations) but he never bowled faster than that. Maybe 101mph or something when he wasn't timed, but not 5-10mph faster.
He's still 1 of my fave bowlers of all time.
rivera213 3 years ago
In those days, the speed was measured from the batsman's end after the pitch has taken off the initial pace. Today, bowling speeds are measured when it leaves the bowler's hand. So Akhtar's 160 kmph is actually 145, whereas under the same standard, Thommo's 147 is 165.
Chrysalis123 3 years ago 2
So when Thomson hit 99.8mph, Roberts 97.8mph, Lillee 96.2mph and Holding 95.2mph in 1976 you actually think they bowled 109.7mph, 107.5mph, 105.7mph and 104.7mph respectively out of the hand?
Sorry mate but they weren't bowling THAT fast.
If anything the speeds taken in the first 2 experiments in 1975 & 1976 (the results I posted were from '76 when Lillee was healthy) were too FAST but certainly not too slow.
Speed guns/radars take the fastest speed reading regardless of where the object is.
rivera213 3 years ago
Good response rivera213, I agree
dilogi 3 years ago
Why not? Certain things are inexplicable. Why dont Aus and esp WI have the plethora of fast bowlers they did through the 70s and 80s? Its possible that that era was destined to be the greatest for pace. Chappell and Mallet mention in their book that Thommo hit the sightscreen on the full after first bounce on the pitch- this happened at least thrice in the 70s including eyewitness accounts. ONLY Charles Kortright, Frank Tyson and Roy Gilchrist have done that. Shoaib, Lee, Tait dont come close.
ARKN06 2 years ago
I don't disagree that the 70's and early 80's was THE pace era but the Thommo sightscreen hitting instances (which I believe) is more a result of the wicket and trajectory than raw pace though, needless to say, the out of hand speed needs to be ridiculous too.
I highly doubt (actually I'm 99% certain) that Thommo would hit the sightscreen from a full ball on the crappy batsmen utopian wickets of today.
Shoaib would've got the same extreme bounce form the 70's wickets IMO. Tait bowls too low.
rivera213 2 years ago
Say that to C-grade T'kar fans who compare their man to Richards etc shamelessly. Those men faced such guys on those tracks without even a helmet and no BS 1-bouncer and 2-bouncer per over rules. But back to the topic, how much would you give to the pitches being a factor? I have watched Waqar, Donald, Shoaib, Lee, Bond and now Tait all at their quickest and they have not come even close to hitting the ss on the full, that too on today's much smaller grounds. How much does the pitch account for?
ARKN06 2 years ago
Well Tendulkar has as much talent as any batsman who has played the game and is better than Viv Richards by a mile IMO.
But the fact is that more people have been hit on the head since helmets have been compulsory than there were when no-one wore helmets due to a decline in short ball technique.
People are taking hook shots on more nowadays, but the ducking technique isn't as good nowadays (people take their eyes off the ball too soon),
rivera213 2 years ago
IMO there is lots of daylight after Richards before getting to T'kar. At his peak I have seen him duck on decent pitches into good-length balls from medium-pace McGrath and get hit by a dozen bowlers on the helmet. The King played on uncovered faster bouncier tracks against faster better greater attacks without helmet and had better ODI avg and SR and close to equal Test avg and better SR. There were no Zim Ken Ban Nam etc then. Viv was the best ever ODI and the second greatest ever bat overall.
ARKN06 2 years ago
Viv didn't have anywhere near the repertoire of genuine shots Tendulkar has. The majority of Viv's shots were slog ... (enter stroke) whereas every shot Tendulkar plays is a "touch" shot.
I give much more credit to players like him, Bradman, G.Pollock, B.Richards to V.Richards who relied on spotting line and length early and having immense timing from ball 1 to V.Richards & Pietersen who get alot of runs (though not all of them) by brute force and ignorance. I've seen club players mis-hit 6's.
rivera213 2 years ago
Your reply appalls me .... but I guess its not my prerogative to tell you .... and this vid is abt something different. But just one thing - Viv had EVERY shot in the book and many more of his own invention. Afridi/Dhoni and these sloggers of the last two decades wouldnt have lasted an over against the demons of the 70s and 80s on those pitches without helmet or restrictions to protect. Its his eye and his reflexes not 'brute strength' (that works nowadays) that made him the ultimate legend.
ARKN06 2 years ago
Come on, Viv's shots were majority leg side. In terms of stroke play, you can't call someone who is great on 1 side better than someone who can play all around the field with equal value.
By your reckoning, Kevin Pietersen is a better batsman than Tendulkar too.
Both he and Viv have/had the whip/drive through midwicket from outside off stump as their "signature" shot and are great against short bowling (Viv is the best short pitched player ever without question though).
rivera213 2 years ago
Viv had a quicker eye and better reflexes than all those guys you have mentioned incl Bradman and if you value those qualities theres no way you can speak of him like that. He took his own Roberts, Holdings, Clarkes, Daniels, Marshalls and Pattersons to the cleaners on those pitches in county matches in the WI, Aus and Eng besides the greats from Aus, Eng, Pak, Ind and NZ at the int'l level. The man avg 50 in ODIs with a sr 94 and 62 in Tests with a SR 72 till '84 the end of his prime.
ARKN06 2 years ago
Well, by definition, the better timers have the best eye. I don't see how anyone can say Viv was a better timer of the ball than Tendulkar.
All the bowlers you mention are seamers, Tendulkar is the best player of spin in the history of the game and I've seen many a quality player be bamboozled by spin.
I'm not denying Viv's devasting SR's, but again, I'm talking about stroke play. I don't really care much for the ODI game. It's bat and ball for the most part where hacks can have a career.
rivera213 2 years ago
I don't disagree Viv was the most DESTRUCTIVE batsman of his era (or possibly of all time. But he slogged a lot of shots. That's perfect for the one-day game, but he often got caught before 100 in the test game due to lack of patience.
He'd probably be in my all time XI but isn't as good a batsman (quality, not stats wise) as the players I mentioned in a previous comment.
ODIis very much a "see ball hit ball" game, not a game of quality of stroke.
rivera213 2 years ago
Keep in mind that the Kortright, Tyson, Gilchrist and Thomson instances were long before '90 when ropes etc came in. Also there are several instances where the distance at which Marsh and the slip fielders stood behind the wicket for Thommo is pointed out. They stood almost ten yards outside the inner circle. Several players of that era- both Aus and others have mentioned this. No reason to distrust unless we assume they are in a conspiracy theory to belittle the quickest of the 90s and 00s.
ARKN06 2 years ago
Tyson (and Larwood) were actually timed believe it or not, at 89mph.
Neither were full tilt or gave a shit about the test (lol) and the method of timing has to be viewed skeptically, but I suppose they can be classed as official timings.
I don't think there's a conspiracy theory, just a need from the international boards to get 5 full days of cricket for revenue. The groundsmen are put under immense pressure to produce batting strips to ensure 5 days of cricket.
rivera213 2 years ago
There was a metal sheet ATTACHED to the ball in that test and the whistle produced by it was used to determine the speed. Do you know what kind of drag that would produce on the ball and thus slow it down? Also while talking pace and bounce I believe you agree that the pace would reduce as the bounce increases. Yorkers CAN be quicker than bouncers. The earlier the ball hits the deck as with bouncers the earlier it loses pace and the more it keeps losing pace after bouncing through the air.
ARKN06 2 years ago
Well it wouldn't produce drag if the metal was smooth. It's probably go through the air faster than a cricket ball, but there would be added weight and the technique of speed measurement isn't the most accurate to say the least. Lol.
I personally wouldn't say it was a credible speed at all but it's all the info we have.
rivera213 2 years ago
I really don't see from the basic laws of physics how that could actually quicken the ball but anyway .......... IMO it was the most unscientific and illogical method ever imagined. Everybody from Waqar to Tait (from early 90s when I started watching cricket) would probably measure < 80 mph using that method.
ARKN06 2 years ago