Michael Holding to Geoff Boycott, 1981

The 'Fastest over ever bowled'? See also my mini-site on this at http://stevelitchfield.com/holding/index.html

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• cricket
• michael
• holding
• fast
• bowler
• bowling

[goozoo49]

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.

[stevelitchfield]

@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!

[InParticularNobody]

my granny could've done better, wi' a stick of rooooooobarb.

[jr280188]

@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.

[ihamoitc2005]

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

[allamericandiner]

@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!

[CaptainHurricane]

@InParticularNobody  What a dickhead comment.

[daddycarty]

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.

[cockywatchman1976]

@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

[ihamoitc2005]

@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.

[omkarashish]

@goozoo49 no technology required to predict you are a dumb a**

[lestephenois1]

I'd pay a fortune just to have seen that action in person, that is incredible control, rhythm and beauty all in one.

[Dilmah82]

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!!!

[cockywatchman1976]

@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