Thommo - how quick was he?'

[express bowling]

9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

As i said, i can see how an expert, who has experience playing a guy who was not measured consistently(A) and another guy (B) who was measured consistently, can compare A to B and then B to C (C is also measured consistently but never faced them), to conclude if A is faster/slower than C. I don't see where the flaw in that process would be.

 

In practical terms, it'd mean cricketers who debuted in the late 70s/early 80s and played till mid-late 90s

 

 

1.  Thing is, even Waqar's speeds were measured very rarely  in his best years.  Speed information between 1990 and 1998 are still very sketchy and incomplete.

 

Just one series is not enough as we see regularly nowadays how speeds of pacers vary from year to year and even series to series.

 

2. The experts do not always speak the truth even though they may know the facts better than us.  Like we are seeing in the video above that Imran is saying that the keeper was standing near the boundary when Thommo was bowling.  They may want to talk up their era or create a spectacular effect regarding an era with limited tv coverage and information.

 

3. Recalling the relative speeds of 2 pacers which a person has played 6 to 10 years apart on different pitches and at different levels of their own capability and with different quality protective gears ... may not be that easy.

 

While we all agree that Thomson and Holding were 2 of the quickest pacers of their era.... it is next to impossible to gauge the speeds at which they bowled, day-in and day-out.

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

1.  Thing is, even Waqar's speeds were measured very rarely  in his best years.  Speed information between 1990 and 1998 are still very sketchy and incomplete.

Yes but it was done consistently for some series. So we can say how quick Wqar was for certain series.

 

Quote

Just one series is not enough as we see regularly nowadays how speeds of pacers vary from year to year and even series to series.

 

2. The experts do not always speak the truth even though they may know the facts better than us.  Like we are seeing in the video above that Imran is saying that the keeper was standing near the boundary when Thommo was bowling.  They may want to talk up their era or create a spectacular effect regarding an era with limited tv coverage and information.

 

Which is why i said, 'consensus opinions'. I don't believe that all experts are liars. 

Quote

3. Recalling the relative speeds of 2 pacers which a person has played 6 to 10 years apart on different pitches and at different levels of their own capability and with different quality protective gears ... may not be that easy.

 

While we all agree that Thomson and Holding were 2 of the quickest pacers of their era.... it is next to impossible to gauge the speeds at which they bowled, day-in and day-out.

they didnt play them one-off. they played them consistently,over the years, on virtually all types of surface.

I also think, that we have no reason to doubt the fact that Holding was a unique bowler who could maintain his pace over the course of the day/5-days better than any other pacer. 1. we have expert testimony precisely stating that and 2. it makes sense- man was probably the best pure runner in cricket history, is touted as one of the best actions ever for a fast bowler and thus, we can see why he would effortlessly maintain his pace through the day if his base mechanics are so exponentially strong.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Muloghonto

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Did the same experts face Fleming or were they also watching ? 

Show me which expert who's faced fleming, said Fleming was quicker than McGrath.

 

 

It was the other way round

 

Batsmen who actually played were surprised that Klusener clocked much quicker speeds than Donald and Fleming clocked quicker speeds than McGrath

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

It was the other way round

 

Batsmen who actually played were surprised that Klusener clocked much quicker speeds than Donald and Fleming clocked quicker speeds than McGrath

I am yet to hear a batsman who's faced them, say that. 

And thats pretty incredible claim, because as i said, if you think a pro athlete in a sport involving a moving ball- any sport- soccer, football, cricket, baseball, tennis, table tennis, squash etc- cannot tell if ball A is faster than ball B, the overwhelming majority of the time, you'd be 100% wrong.

 

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

It was the other way round

 

Batsmen who actually played were surprised that Klusener clocked much quicker speeds than Donald and Fleming clocked quicker speeds than McGrath

to be fair, donald lost pace quite fast (after entering int'l cricket) for a number of reasons, and zulu was quite pacy towards the beginning of his career - he bowled straight and fast.

[express bowling]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes but it was done consistently for some series. 

 

Was it ?    As far as I know by following real time and hunting for data later ...

 

Waqar clocked a quickest of 153 k in one series ... most balls 135 k to 148 k range

 

The 2nd data from a Sharjah series is strange .... quickest of 138 k and average of 131 k.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Which is why i said, 'consensus opinions'. I don't believe that all experts are liars. 

 

Is there any consensus opinion about relative speeds of Holding at his peak and Waqar at his peak  ?

 

I could not find any.  I will be happy if you find it for me.

 

Only thing I knew always and could find later was ....  both were considered among the quickest of their respective eras in their peak 4 or 5 years.

 

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

they didnt play them one-off. they played them consistently,over the years, on virtually all types of surface.

 

 

Not when we are considering batters who have played both Holding at his peak and Waqar at his peak.

 

Such a batter may have played Holding at his peak for 3 test series but Waqar only once.

[Vijy]

Just now, express bowling said:

 

Was it ?    As far as I know by following real time and hunting for data later ...

 

Waqar clocked a quickest of 153 k in one series ... most balls 135 k to 148 k range

 

The 2nd data from a Sharjah series is strange .... quickest of 138 k and average of 131 k.

 

 

 

Is there any consensus opinion about relative speeds of Holding at his peak and Waqar at his peak  ?

 

I could not find any.  I will be happy if you find it for me.

 

Only thing I knew always and could find later was ....  both were considered among the quickest of their respective eras in their peak 4 or 5 years.

 

 

Not when we are considering batters who have played both Holding at his peak and Waqar at his peak.

 

Such a batter may have played Holding at his peak for 3 test series but Waqar only once.

this is very implausible, since holding was at his fastest about 15 years before waqar. you also have to account for the batsmen who played both slowing down with age.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

Was it ?    As far as I know by following real time and hunting for data later ...

 

Waqar clocked a quickest of 153 k in one series ... most balls 135 k to 148 k range

IIRC he was consistently clocked in the ENG-PAK series (the super controversial one) and the one in the early 90s where the two Ws went to New Zealand and destroyed them.

 

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

The 2nd data from a Sharjah series is strange .... quickest of 138 k and average of 131 k.

Not surprised. Sharjah. 40C pitch temperature would do that in alien conditions. Or maybe he was having an off series. 

 

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

 

Is there any consensus opinion about relative speeds of Holding at his peak and Waqar at his peak  ?

What i've heard/read from the experts is that if you were to take 3 bowlers of the late 70s/80s and call them the fastest, day in, day out, it'd be Holding, Thommo and Hogg. Imran was apparently inconsistent with his speeds, which would make sense given his batting workload and his injury concerns. 

 

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

I could not find any.  I will be happy if you find it for me.

 

Only thing I knew always and could find later was ....  both were considered among the quickest of their respective eras in their peak 4 or 5 years.

 

 

Not when we are considering batters who have played both Holding at his peak and Waqar at his peak.

 

Such a batter may have played Holding at his peak for 3 test series but Waqar only once.

Ok  but these players also played county cricket as well as ODIs and also have seen them over many, many matches. If its 1-2 matches, i'd give you the point, but if a batsman has faced these guys multiple times in their careers spanning multiple formats/series, i think their opinion is fairly bullet-proof, when there is consensus amongst said experts.

 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Vijy said:

this is very implausible, since holding was at his fastest about 15 years before waqar. you also have to account for the batsmen who played both slowing down with age.

15 years ? I'd say its closer to 10-12 years but thats nitpicking i suppose. Waqar was at his fastest from 89-94 i believe. Holding from 74-80. Players like Gooch, Border, etc. span both these periods. 

[express bowling]

9 minutes ago, Vijy said:

to be fair, donald lost pace quite fast (after entering int'l cricket) for a number of reasons, and zulu was quite pacy towards the beginning of his career - he bowled straight and fast.

 

It was the 1996 series when Donald was still clocking upto 148 k and still considered very fast.

 

But Klusener clocked upto 154 k and Srinath upto 156 k in that series.

[Vijy]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

15 years ? I'd say its closer to 10-12 years but thats nitpicking i suppose. Waqar was at his fastest from 89-94 i believe. Holding from 74-80. Players like Gooch, Border, etc. span both these periods. 

yes, but border was quite old when he faced waqar in pomp. and most batsmen experience decline in reaction times, etc. it can make the bowlers look faster than one would expect. similarly, I feel that gooch was too raw when he faced holding in his prime.

[Vijy]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

It was the 1996 series when Donald was still clocking upto 148 k and still considered very fast.

 

But Klusener clocked upto 154 k and Srinath upto 156 k in that series.

donald was around 26 when SA resumed cricket. In '96, he was around 30. I believe that he was about 4-5 kmph faster on average at his fastest than in '96. but, at least in my mind, there is no doubt that sri was the fastest bowler from both sides in that series. even in 99 'wc, he was amongst the top 2-3 imo.

[express bowling]

8 minutes ago, Vijy said:

this is very implausible, since holding was at his fastest about 15 years before waqar.

 

I would say 9 years

 

8 minutes ago, Vijy said:

you also have to account for the batsmen who played both slowing down with age.

I have accounted for that .... and that is one of my points

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

I would say 9 years

 

I have accounted for that .... and that is one of my points

yes, 15 is too much, but I'd say more about 11-12 years.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

16 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

It was the 1996 series when Donald was still clocking upto 148 k and still considered very fast.

 

But Klusener clocked upto 154 k and Srinath upto 156 k in that series.

 

If my memory serves me right Donald was clocked in at 152.9ks in the 90s. It was in England may be.

[Vijy]

Just now, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

If my memory serves me right Donald was clocked in at 152.9ks just after SA returned. It was in England may be.

could be in england. I know he certainly clocked 150+ at least a few balls in his career.

[express bowling]

3 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

 

If my memory serves me right Donald was clocked in at 152.9ks just after SA returned. It was in England may be.

 

Yes ... it was around 1991 or 1992.

[Vijy]

Just now, express bowling said:

 

Yes ... it was around 1991 or 1992.

closer to his peak as expected.

[Rightarmfast]

30 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

IIRC he was consistently clocked in the ENG-PAK series (the super controversial one) and the one in the early 90s where the two Ws went to New Zealand and destroyed them.

 

Not surprised. Sharjah. 40C pitch temperature would do that in alien conditions. Or maybe he was having an off series. 

 

What i've heard/read from the experts is that if you were to take 3 bowlers of the late 70s/80s and call them the fastest, day in, day out, it'd be Holding, Thommo and Hogg. Imran was apparently inconsistent with his speeds, which would make sense given his batting workload and his injury concerns. 

 

Ok  but these players also played county cricket as well as ODIs and also have seen them over many, many matches. If its 1-2 matches, i'd give you the point, but if a batsman has faced these guys multiple times in their careers spanning multiple formats/series, i think their opinion is fairly bullet-proof, when there is consensus amongst said experts.

 

Could you tell me the speeds he clocked in the series and how many such deliveries were measured? Could you also provide me a link to those links?

[Malcolm Merlyn]

 

 

How fast is this @3.18