Pace and Hype

[Rightarmfast]

Malcolm Marshall in this video didnt look so quick. The first ball was medium pace around 130'ish. The other deliveries looked a bit quicker than that. Still looks like 135-138 stuff to me.

Imran has never looked express to me. Even in this video, he looks more of a 135ish bowler than a 150 bowler. Thats my take. What are your views?

[express bowling]

Malcolm Marshall in this video didnt look so quick. The first ball was medium pace around 130'ish. The other deliveries looked a bit quicker than that. Still looks like 135-138 stuff to me.

Imran has never looked express to me. Even in this video, he looks more of a 135ish bowler than a 150 bowler. Thats my take. What are your views?

Exactly. Marshall,  in this video, is bowling fast-medium. He may have bowled quick at other times but not here.

If we consider that  Pakistan is playing on a bouncy Australian pitch in the above  video....Imran is looking 130 k to 140 k in this match. The other pacers are even slower than this.

[express bowling]

 

 

 

Another Youtube video of Marshall

This is Marshall at his peak pace.

Edited January 4, 2016 by express bowling

[express bowling]

in the above video, it seems like Marshall is bowling 135 k to 145 k or thereabouts. 

[Rightarmfast]

Thanks! You stole my words :) Actually I had posted the same speeds as a reply, however, ICF site had some problem and didnt post my reply. He looked to me to be hovering around 145'ish on some deliveries. Did not look 150+ though. Looks to be troubling the batsmen due to awkward bounce he is generating, not pace. 

Atleast our speed calibrations are not so different, so I think we are pretty close to his actual bowling speed :))

[Trichromatic]

Except McGrath and Pollock, all top pacers of last 20 years were easily faster than regular 130s bowler. Take Ryan Harris for ex he was always in high 130 and averaged around 140. 

So, I guess any bowler who was considered fast could be easily bowling between 140 to 150 range.

[express bowling]

Except McGrath and Pollock, all top pacers of last 20 years were easily faster than regular 130s bowler. Take Ryan Harris for ex he was always in high 130 and averaged around 140. 

So, I guess any bowler who was considered fast could be easily bowling between 140 to 150 range.

 I don't think anyone is disputing that there there have been many bowlers in the past who have bowled 140 k  to 150 k during their peak  years when they were genuinely fast. 

There have been claims of Thompson bowling 175 k at will and Marshall bowling 155 k + throughout the day in  test matches for multiple years etc. which seem ridiculous.     

Speedguns have been regularly used for the last 17 years starting from 1999. In this period we have seen ....

1 )  There are lots and lots of bowlers who bowl fast ( 135 k to 150 k ) for one or two seasons and then slow down to 130 to 142 k range.  If such a bowler is a successful one , very good at bouncing the ball and have the advantage of bowling frequently on lively tracks.... then they often develop the reputation as fast bowlers even though they rarely bowl 140 to 150 k later in their careers. Good examples would be Gillespie, Ntini , Gough, Finn  etc.

In the days of " no regular speed guns " this phenomenon must have been far more common.

2) We have seen only 2 express bowlers ( 145 k to 160 k ) in test matches in the last 17 years......so they are not that common. Also...they have bowled express for only about 4 years each....so, express bowling does not sustain for long. Claims of the "70s and '80s having 7 or 8 express bowlers at the same time seems over the top.

3) in the pre 1999 days.....Tall , successful pacers  who got steep bounce and had the advantage of bowling regularly on bouncy or lively tracks and came from countries known for fast bowlers..... were classified as " fast " even if they bowled 130 k to 140 k  Good examples are McGrath , Pollock, Merv Dillon. This must have happened with other bowlers in the past too. 

 

Edited January 5, 2016 by express bowling

[rkt.india]

my only problem is when ex-cricketers say, look at how many tearaway fast bowlers were there in the past and we dont have any right now and the argument falls flat when even India have quite a few genuine fast bowlers which we never really had. Cricket has changed. Pace alone isnt that much an important factor now than how it was in 70s and 80s when batsmen played without much protection even without headgear. Batsman are playing far more fearlessly.

[express bowling]

Thanks! You stole my words :) Actually I had posted the same speeds as a reply, however, ICF site had some problem and didnt post my reply. He looked to me to be hovering around 145'ish on some deliveries. Did not look 150+ though. Looks to be troubling the batsmen due to awkward bounce he is generating, not pace. 

Atleast our speed calibrations are not so different, so I think we are pretty close to his actual bowling speed :))

I was looking at many videos of top pacers of the past from 1970 to 1990....one thing that was very impressive about them was the consistent and sharp bounce that most of them generated while being accurate.  West Indian pacers practiced bounce by bowling with cricket balls on sandy beaches where the ball stays very low.

I agree...it was bounce more than pace which was fearsome in that era and created their reputation. 

With no limitations on the number of bouncers per over till the mid-80s and inadequate headgear and other protection....top pacers resorted to continuous bodyline bowling. Top fast bowlers of the modern era, even if they are very quick, usually bowl good length, around off stump punctuated by few bouncers. The style of bowling has changed a lot.

Edited January 5, 2016 by express bowling

[express bowling]

my only problem is when ex-cricketers say, look at how many tearaway fast bowlers were there in the past and we dont have any right now and the argument falls flat when even India have quite a few genuine fast bowlers which we never really had. Cricket has changed. Pace alone isnt that much an important factor now than how it was in 70s and 80s when batsmen played without much protection even without headgear. Batsman are playing far more fearlessly.

The West Indian and Australian pacers of that era were bowling bodyline over after over on bouncy tracks in the videos I saw. That created their reputation as tearaway quicks even if they were bowling 135 k to 145 k or even lesser. Whereas we have seen Harris, Steyn etc. pitch the ball up most of the times even when they are bowling quick.

With all the protective gear nowadays and flatter pitches in general, bodyline bowling needs much higher pace to succeed....also, the 2 bouncer rule is a huge impediment to bodyline bowling these days.

Edited January 5, 2016 by express bowling

[Trichromatic]

Btw, I think bouncer limit should be removed. I doubt that bowlers can bowl 6 bouncers whole day but the freedom will add a new dimension to their efforts.

[rkt.india]

Btw, I think bouncer limit should be removed. I doubt that bowlers can bowl 6 bouncers whole day but the freedom will add a new dimension to their efforts.

yes, at least in tests.

[Rightarmfast]

I think the only disadvantage of having no limit on bouncer is negative bowling. Say a team required 10 runs off the last 30 mins of a test. The opposition can just keep on bowling bouncers and not give the batsman a chance. Sri Lanka and Australia have been masters in negative bowling.

[rkt.india]

I think the only disadvantage of having no limit on bouncer is negative bowling. Say a team required 10 runs off the last 30 mins of a test. The opposition can just keep on bowling bouncers and not give the batsman a chance. Sri Lanka and Australia have been masters in negative bowling.

bowling bouncers cannot be a negative cricket but aggressive. Umpires always have a choice to no-ball or wide them if they are going too high or too wide. You can score runs on bouncers if you have the ability.

[express bowling]

Btw, I think bouncer limit should be removed. I doubt that bowlers can bowl 6 bouncers whole day but the freedom will add a new dimension to their efforts.

I would like that in tests too.

[Trichromatic]

I think the only disadvantage of having no limit on bouncer is negative bowling. Say a team required 10 runs off the last 30 mins of a test. The opposition can just keep on bowling bouncers and not give the batsman a chance. Sri Lanka and Australia have been masters in negative bowling.

As if bowling bouncers is easy. You err in length and any decent batsman will smack you. It is physically taxing and requires lot of accuracy. 

[express bowling]

Bounce and seam movement have been very very  potent tools in test matches for the last 55 years. We Indians have only started using them with regularity from 2014. ( Srinath , and to some extent Prasad , did it in the '90s though )

Indians have liked swing and pace more than bounce and seam movement.

But, it is far easier for a tall bowler to bowl accurately if he goes for bounce and seam movement rather than trying to swing the ball. 

[express bowling]

Joel Garner is one of my most favourite bowlers of all time. I saw him for only 3 years or so before he retired.

I think he is the bounciest bowler to have played test cricket. Bowled at good pace and was super accurate.

Just look at the bodyline bowling that happened in his era. West Indian fast bowlers were given shorter spells and told to bang the ball in and aim at the batsmen's body. It helped that they played 4 such bowlers and hence shorter and all out spells were possible.

Here is Youtube video of Garner bowling on a bouncy green top with great carry.....

 

Edited January 5, 2016 by express bowling

[Rightarmfast]

Nasty deliveries. A few of them were 145ish

[express bowling]

Batsmen of the '70s and '80s did not have bowling machines to practice against. They were much slower in terms of body movement compared to modern batsmen too. The bats they used were far inferior and  they did not have adequate protective gear

As a result ....In most of these old videos , the technique used by top international batsmen against short balls was horrible really.