Jump to content

Green Track Awaits Team India at Sabina Park


Recommended Posts

Steep bounce off the deck and bouncy pitches create an illusion of pace, especially for tall bowlers.  These did not generally bowl at the speeds that you mention.  There is no evidence of them doing so.

 

I remember one tour of  Zimbabwe by India....there were no speed guns...and everyone thought that  tall Unadkat was bowling quicker than short Shami.

They didnt bowl at those speeds because you think so?There are commentaries from that era which say otherwise.

And i want to know who is the everyone who said that Unadkat is faster than Shami.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

He was 38 at that time and not fit.

Mcgrath at his fastest when he made his debut was a 90mph bowler before he cut down his run up and pace to become a great seam bowler.

Both Ambrose and Walsh were 140-145ks with Bishop being in 150s.

Lolz... Nobody ever called Walsh fast, not even the West Indians. He was around 128-135. He was around the same pace as Venkatesh Prasad. Perhaps, he might have touched 137-140 on rare occassions. 

Curtley Ambrose at his fastest may have been 145. 

 

Talk of hype!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

Mcgrath was 90MPH when he started his career in early 90s.He later became a line length seam bowler.Most commentators of that time also said the same.

Bishop was as quick as Waqar and Donald at his peak so he was a 150k bowler and not 145-150k.

Walsh was 140-145ks So was Ambrose.

You seem to have substracted 5ks off all their speeds.

Mcgrath was not a 90mph bowler. His fastest in his younger years would be around 142-143. It was Jason Gillespie who was fast, around 145-150 at times. Whereas Mcgrath was fast medium to medium fast. It was the same strategy acquired by all teams then. South Africa had Donald and Pollock, with Pollock being the medium fast bowler, Pakistan had Waqar and Wasim, with Wasim being fast medium and India had Srinath and Prasad with Prasad being medium fast!

Link to comment

These wickets are pointless as far the competition is concerned. Because there is no competition with a team who has Jason Holder as their captain. I just hope the bowler wreck havoc! And we go on to make a big score after the bowling annihilation. Should shut a lot of critics.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

They didnt bowl at those speeds because you think so?There are commentaries from that era which say otherwise.

And i want to know who is the everyone who said that Unadkat is faster than Shami.

Show me some evidence of these bowlers bowling at the speeds that you mention.  Every fast-medium bowler can occasionally bowl a couple of deliveries at 145 k. 

 

Bishop and  Patterson  were the really quick Windies bowlers of that era.

 

There were many commentators who did not think that these pacers were 90 mph ones. Some commentators are really biased when they see a tall or big  pacer who hails from a country known for producing fast bowlers.  Even in the last test match,  Manjrekar kept on repeating that Brathwaite and Holder had the body to bowl at 90 mph ( whereas the top bowling coaches say that  speed in the air depends on fast twitch muscles, flexibility of the bowler, ability to transfer the momentum of the run-up into the delivery, wrist action and release , having a proper bowling action etc. and having a strong body definitely does help but  does not guarantee pace. ). In the last test match between England and Pakistan, the commentators were praising the English seamers' pace but they were bowling 80 mph to 87 mph.

 

A lot of myths were busted when speed-guns were regularly used from 1999. The commentators were surprised to see that the innocuous Damien Fleming was bowling quicker than Glenn McGrath.  Merv Dillon of WI, who was thought to be very quick at that time, had difficulty going beyond 141 k. 

 

The bouncer was thought to the " quickest type of delivery " before speed-guns were regularly used.  Next came the yorkers. ( Consequently, the players and commentators thought that the pacers who bowled a lot of good bouncers were much quicker than the bowlers who  did not try that delivery often ).  But it was seen, with regular speed-guns, that the quick looking bouncers registered speeds which were similar to any other delivery by the same bowler. Sometimes, the fastest ball was  a harmless looking low delivery outside the off-stump.

Edited by express bowling
Link to comment
3 hours ago, rkt.india said:

i think his fastest in U19 WC was 147 and not 143.  and his comparison with Walsh is chalk and cheese. Walsh was never a genuine fast bowler but more of a work horse who could bowl decent pace spells here and there but was mostly medium fast to fast medium, never really being seen as fast.

You are mad if you think Walsh was not a genuine fast bowler. 

Walsh was not the quickest, but he was quick and bouncy enough to be considered one of the best fast bowlers to've ever played the game. Not  elite, but very close to it.

What you call 'getting bounce' is a matter of vertical component of velocity and if you think 'fast bowling' is 'horizontal component of velocity only', thats missing half the pie and akin to saying a burger is a slab of charred ground meat.


I've seen Walsh enough to know he had the ability to hurry the batsman at the top level with regularity, with same frequencies as someone like Dale Steyn could. Note, i said 'hurry'. Walsh's limitation wasn't speed. It was his variation: Walsh was a towering, natural in-swing bowler who bowled a mean inswinger. But his out swinger was non-existent for much of his career and while he was adept at getting the ball to hold its line, he was not very good at straightening it either.


The unique action of Walsh (where he derived most of his speed from an unique hip-snap and jump timed perfectly, meant he could operate at 85-90% of his 'consistent top speed spells' for the whole damn day. That, was his undeniable greatness: a big towering dyed in the red fast bowler, who was very accurate (not quite McGrath-Ambrose-esque but more so than Waqar for example) but who had the stamina of a spinner. 

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

He was 38 at that time and not fit.

Mcgrath at his fastest when he made his debut was a 90mph bowler before he cut down his run up and pace to become a great seam bowler.

Both Ambrose and Walsh were 140-145ks with Bishop being in 150s.

Bishop was capable of hitting 150's in the early part of his career no doubt,but then injuries made him a 135K bowler towards the end but still yes was express pace when he started.

 

Walsh was never 140+,he was 130-138 at best but he could crank up to 140+ once in a while or an odd surprise delivery......just like Steyn bowls 135-145 mostly in helpful condition but occasionally crank it up to 150 when it required or the ball is reversing.

 

Ambrose was 140ish in his prime but was mostly 135ish bowler for later part of his career.

 

What made Walsh and Ambrose lethal was their length. Simple funda,A half volley bowled at 150K is easily hittable,but you bowl at 135 and get steep bounce and bowl at the length they did,it looks more lethal..SImilarly even if someone like Binny gets in a perfect yorker at 125k and hits the batsman on his toes,it can still break his toes..if you don't play it cautiously a 135 awkward bounce ball can break your fingers and they did it all day which is what made them dangerous.

 

In terms of pace they were not that quick.....similar with Wasim,he was a 135ish bowler but if you cannot read him,he could hurt you or get you out.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You are mad if you think Walsh was not a genuine fast bowler. 

Walsh was not the quickest, but he was quick and bouncy enough to be considered one of the best fast bowlers to've ever played the game. Not  elite, but very close to it.

What you call 'getting bounce' is a matter of vertical component of velocity and if you think 'fast bowling' is 'horizontal component of velocity only', thats missing half the pie and akin to saying a burger is a slab of charred ground meat.


I've seen Walsh enough to know he had the ability to hurry the batsman at the top level with regularity, with same frequencies as someone like Dale Steyn could. Note, i said 'hurry'. Walsh's limitation wasn't speed. It was his variation: Walsh was a towering, natural in-swing bowler who bowled a mean inswinger. But his out swinger was non-existent for much of his career and while he was adept at getting the ball to hold its line, he was not very good at straightening it either.


The unique action of Walsh (where he derived most of his speed from an unique hip-snap and jump timed perfectly, meant he could operate at 85-90% of his 'consistent top speed spells' for the whole damn day. That, was his undeniable greatness: a big towering dyed in the red fast bowler, who was very accurate (not quite McGrath-Ambrose-esque but more so than Waqar for example) but who had the stamina of a spinner. 

 

 

Again....Walsh was not express,he could get this awkward bounce at a nagging length at 135ish....that is more lethal than a 150k full pitched delivery.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Garuda said:

They weren't express quick like Holding and Marshall but they generated steep bounce and they werent bowling in the 130s. Probably 140. 145k is 90m so 140k is high 80s in mph. They were quick enough and hurried the batsmen and generated steep bounce of good length. Batsmen when they saw the fuller length tried to get forward but the bounce made them uncomfortable and hit them in the gloves or nicked to the keeper. A bit like Mcgrath. Anyone who saw Mcgrath in his prime knew he wasnt express but he wasnt slow either. And oh the bounce. Ambrose was twice that of him. Walsh would be the workhorse who bowled into the wind and kept it tight for long spells.

Yes, the specialty of the WI quicks between 1975 and 2000 was the steep bounce that they got.  Even a short pacer like Marshall could get the ball to climb up from just short of good-length when he tried to do so.  It was probably because they practiced playing cricket on the beaches where getting the ball to bounce even normally was an achievement and they learnt the techniques to do it.

 

The McGraths and the Ambroses definitely had sufficient pace for their bowling style.  Even 135 k to 140 k spells from a really tall, bouncy pacer, who knows how to rear the ball up from short of good length, can be more hot to handle than a short pacer bowling low deliveries at 145 k.  (  Remember Md. Sami of  Pakistan  ?   :giggle: )

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Yes, the specialty of the WI quicks between 1975 and 2000 was the steep bounce that they got.  Even a short pacer like Marshall could get the ball to climb up from just short of good-length when he tried to do so.  It was probably because they practiced playing cricket on the beaches where getting the ball to bounce even normally was an achievement and they learnt the techniques to do it.

 

The McGraths and the Ambroses definitely had sufficient pace for their bowling style.  Even 135 k to 140 k spells from a really tall, bouncy pacer, who knows how to rear the ball up from short of good length, can be more hot to handle than a short pacer bowling low deliveries at 145 k.  (  Remember Md. Sami of  Pakistan  ?   :giggle: )

Yes,lot of such examples.....Tino Best is probably one of the most consistent 145-150 bowlers I have seen since Lee and Akhtar but totally useless because a)he is wayward and b) his length is not correct.

 

Wahab Riaz is another guy..not as quick as Best but still pretty fast but probably the easiest Pakistani bowler in their current line up

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, maniac said:

Again....Walsh was not express,he could get this awkward bounce at a nagging length at 135ish....that is more lethal than a 150k full pitched delivery.

Again, express or not, is not exclusively determined by the way modern speed gun readings work. The process of the reading gun sacrifices vertical velocity to determine horizontal velocity (i.e., the configurations of it). If you mean thats what many people, including experts think means 'fast bowler', sure. But thats not how it works and plenty- if not most world class batsmen and the best judge of such attributes, beg to also differ with your speed-gun related rating on who is fast and who is not.

 

It's always struck me odd that there are so many 'experts' who make speed gun readings the end-all, be all of it, without actually delving or knowing exactly what the speed gun is doing, in relation to what is the result you want. 

 

The batsman's reaction field, is a 3-d field. If the job is to strike an object, whilst not get hit (notice the said batsman is 150-200 cms tall), then the velocity of the ball in the x, y and z field are of equal relevance.  (z field is not always present, since it represents the 'moving away or into you, factor, which is absent when a delivery is ram-rod straight, i.e., it has length and height only). 

 

if the ball is moving towards the batman (which is the entire point of the game of cricket), then the speed of the ball in all three factors contribute to the net, aggregate velocity of the ball, which a batsman reacts to. This, velocity, is the real 'speed' of a bowler. In the case of the speediest bowlers, it is one who can get steep bounce AND move the ball (very rare, but try one DK Lillee) at the best possible quotient.


ofcourse, its possible to have a guy who is such a demon for the distance component (i.e., your 'speed' of the speed-guns) that the other two don't always matter- for example, Shoaib Akhtar or Waqar Younis in the early 90s bowling yorkers at 150+ all the bloody time. 
But to limit the discussion to that only, is ridiculously restricting the actual definition of the word 'speed', perhaps simply because it requires 'more work than one wants to undertake' in most cases, to foment an analysis.

 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Yes, the specialty of the WI quicks between 1975 and 2000 was the steep bounce that they got.  Even a short pacer like Marshall could get the ball to climb up from just short of good-length when he tried to do so.  It was probably because they practiced playing cricket on the beaches where getting the ball to bounce even normally was an achievement and they learnt the techniques to do it.

 

The McGraths and the Ambroses definitely had sufficient pace for their bowling style.  Even 135 k to 140 k spells from a really tall, bouncy pacer, who knows how to rear the ball up from short of good length, can be more hot to handle than a short pacer bowling low deliveries at 145 k.  (  Remember Md. Sami of  Pakistan  ?   :giggle: )

Bounce is also 'pace' really. Infact, the physics to it clearly indicates that the speed of the 'pace' and 'bounce' is the same bloody thing.

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Again, express or not, is not exclusively determined by the way modern speed gun readings work. The process of the reading gun sacrifices vertical velocity to determine horizontal velocity (i.e., the configurations of it). If you mean thats what many people, including experts think means 'fast bowler', sure. But thats not how it works and plenty- if not most world class batsmen and the best judge of such attributes, beg to also differ with your speed-gun related rating on who is fast and who is not.

 

It's always struck me odd that there are so many 'experts' who make speed gun readings the end-all, be all of it, without actually delving or knowing exactly what the speed gun is doing, in relation to what is the result you want. 

 

The batsman's reaction field, is a 3-d field. If the job is to strike an object, whilst not get hit (notice the said batsman is 150-200 cms tall), then the velocity of the ball in the x, y and z field are of equal relevance.  (z field is not always present, since it represents the 'moving away or into you, factor, which is absent when a delivery is ram-rod straight, i.e., it has length and height only). 

 

if the ball is moving towards the batman (which is the entire point of the game of cricket), then the speed of the ball in all three factors contribute to the net, aggregate velocity of the ball, which a batsman reacts to. This, velocity, is the real 'speed' of a bowler. In the case of the speediest bowlers, it is one who can get steep bounce AND move the ball (very rare, but try one DK Lillee) at the best possible quotient.


ofcourse, its possible to have a guy who is such a demon for the distance component (i.e., your 'speed' of the speed-guns) that the other two don't always matter- for example, Shoaib Akhtar or Waqar Younis in the early 90s bowling yorkers at 150+ all the bloody time. 
But to limit the discussion to that only, is ridiculously restricting the actual definition of the word 'speed', perhaps simply because it requires 'more work than one wants to undertake' in most cases, to foment an analysis.

 

I am not a science guy so I will skip the science part but here is how I look at it.

 

I have admitted that Walsh and Ambrose were lethal due to the bounce they extracted from an Awkward length due to their height,consistency and skill... Md.Irfan from Pak is half a foot taller than Ambrose of all people and a he bowls at a similar pace to Ambrose which is 135ish most times ...and maybe a couple of clicks faster than Walsh.At times his length is pretty unplayable as well and but that is too far in between because most batsman easily negotiate him 90% of the time even though he will beat you once in a while,he is not at the same level obviously.

 

Similarly on a minefield of a pitch or a dustbowl,Kumble becomes the most dangerous bowler and I have seen him break fingers and hurt batsman....Would you call him an express bowler too?

 

I attribute that to skill rather than speed.

 

Simple apples to apples a perfect yorker bowled by Brett Lee or an Akthar is more likely to hurt you than a Malinga one....Physically aside I also mean the reaction time to negate it. It is just that Malinga is consistent with that type of a delivery that he has a higher probability of delivering the perfect yorker.

 

The reaction time to Wasim,Ambrose,Walsh might be relatively less because their skills levels are high and the batsman is on his toes guessing what next...while as someone like Wahab Riaz might bowl the same length over and over again at 10 clicks faster for the batsman eyes to get set.

 

Another example.....I have been to baseball batting cages in the USA where I have easily smacked 80mph baseball pitches after maybe missing the first 1 or 2 once my eyes got set....but if I have a decent club level spinner bowling me a 60mph flighted delivery I might miss it 9/10 times or even hurt my self if I get into an awkward position....that doesn't make 60mph faster than 80mph....now the same spinner bowls a similar delivery at 80mph I will have no shot whatsoever.

 

No one questions the greatness or skills of Walsh or AMbrose but in terms of pace they would no way be called express pace or even Right Arm Fast,they were Right Arm Fast Medium at best and with Walsh towards the end Right Arm Medium Fast or even Right Arm medium

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Again, express or not, is not exclusively determined by the way modern speed gun readings work. The process of the reading gun sacrifices vertical velocity to determine horizontal velocity (i.e., the configurations of it).

 

What you are saying maybe a problem with radar guns using Doppler effect but should it be a problem with high-speed cameras ( used by hawk-eye )  too ?    From cursory reading about how it works, it did not seem so.

 

They usually give very similar readings.

 

I am not a physicist and if there are any  on this forum, with good concept of how both methods work, it would be a nice read.

Link to comment

Chalo bhai now that the topic has drifted from Sabina Park conditions to bowling speeds, let's get to conclusion.:cantstop:

 

Intimidation is always psychological, so we must not give too much importance to speeds. A classic example would be Daryl Cullinan who did ok against fast bowlers but got his confidence shattered when facing Warne.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...