When will we have an express fast bowler?

[King Tendulkar]

YADAV YADAV YADAV YADAV YADAV YADAV YADAV :yay:

[rkt.india]

YADAV YADAV YADAV YADAV YADAV YADAV YADAV :yay:

Yadav is a fast bowler, but not express by any means.

[Muloghonto]

Yadav is a fast bowler' date=' but not express by any means.[/quote'] he is actually starting to get there, which shouldn't be surprising, since he is just getting into his physical peak. Yadav has bowled a couple of spells in the IPL that consistently were in the 145-147 zone. If he can translate that into a 5 over burst instead of a 2 over one in the IPL, he should be considered in the express category, as Lee, Akhtar etc. didnt bowl much faster than that for the whole spell, usually in the 148-152 zone for their peaks.

[rkt.india]

he is actually starting to get there' date=' which shouldn't be surprising, since he is just getting into his physical peak. Yadav has bowled a couple of spells in the IPL that consistently were in the 145-147 zone. If he can translate that into a 5 over burst instead of a 2 over one in the IPL, he should be considered in the express category, as Lee, Akhtar etc. didnt bowl much faster than that for the whole spell, usually in the 148-152 zone for their peaks.[/quote'] Only Lee, Akhtar and Tait have been real express bowlers in last decade, bowlers who could touch 155 kph and lot of deliveries over 150K. I think he can do that because I have rarely seen him go all out. No one bowls whole spell over 150K but an express bowler is certainly one who can bowl such overs. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH3EdnJyhKQ]Brett Lee FASTEST OVER SEEN IN NEW ZEALAND 2005 - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKWM84pADPE]Fastest Ball - Shaun Tait 100.1 mph (161.1km/h) ==HD== - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNHFcDSxQf8]Shaun tait fires a BULLET at Craig Kieswetter and bowls him HD - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XtmMVqEbMg]Shaun Tait Knocks OUT AB Devilliers - YouTube[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRQ-S4LFGzg]Shaun "The Wild Thing" Tait - Very Fast Over vs Pakistan MCG T20 2009/10 HD - YouTube[/ame]

[Muloghonto]

Only Lee, Akhtar and Tait have been real express bowlers in last decade, bowlers who could touch 155 kph and lot of deliveries over 150K. I think he can do that because I have rarely seen him go all out. No one bowls whole spell over 150K but an express bowler is certainly one who can bowl such overs.

1. As i said, the difference between the likes of Akhtar/Lee/Tait/Hayward(he was super fast too) and the likes of Marshall & Holding was that there was no respite from them- they bowled their entire spells in the 147-150 zone. Lee has had some 3-4 over spells where they hit those kind of pace but not a genuine spell of 6-10 overs at a trot. If I were to follow your criteria fastidiously and declare that only those who averaged 147-150kph for the whole match, then it is easily no contest, Michael Holding, followed by Malcolm Marshall win. 2. Touching 155kph is not the real criteria for being express pace. Averaging in the 94-96mph zone is far more important than bowling at 92-93 and tossing in a few superfast ones. Note how Mohammed Sami had this ability far more than Akhtar and Lee- he could actually bowl at 95mph average speed for 5-6 overs in a row. 3. Once you start averaging 147kph+, you are in the express pace category. From this point on, what makes you deadly or nasty versus 'comes fast and goes to the boundary faster' is down to length and bounce. Had you watched cricket in the 1980s, you'd know that someone like Colin Croft, who probably averaged 145-147 or thereabouts, was heck of a lot nastier to face than Akhtar, since Croft pretty much always bowled at your head & neck if he wasnt bowling in the corridor to get you to drive and get a nick.

[rkt.india]

1. As i said' date=' the difference between the likes of Akhtar/Lee/Tait/Hayward(he was super fast too) and the likes of Marshall & Holding was that there was no respite from them- they bowled their entire spells in the 147-150 zone. .[/quote'] You dont need to write false things to praise them. Yes they were good no doubt, but that is a bit exaggeration. First thing is I dont how can you be sure they clocked 147-150 when there was no speed gun available there. From naked eyes, even 130kph looks pretty quick if you watch live in a stadium. Marshall anyway was not an express bowler. He was pretty much the same pace as Yadav and Steyn. Holding was certainly quicker than Marshall. He could bowl at express pace and I consider express pace at or over 150-155K. Lee, Akhtar, and Tait bowled at that pace in matches. Holding and Thommo could bowl at that pace too. Lillie for a brief period before his back injury. I am yet to see a video of Marshall where he seemed to be bowling at 155K. Fast bowling like fast sprinting of 100 meter dash or can be compared to run of a cheetah, the fastest animal. Even for sprinter like Bolt, it is impossible to maintain speed for long run that is why running time continues to increase as the running distance increases. Fast bowling is very much the same. Pace is bound to come down in a long spell for every fast bowler. Though a bowler can have a rest and then come out and again bowl at same in late in the day. Most bowlers do that, not just Holding and Marshall. Look at Johnson, he can bowl at the same pace at the end of the day too which he bowled in his first spell. Same for Dale Steyn or Morne Morkel. It is all about assessing the moment. I disagree about your comment that any bowler can bowl 20-25 overs in a day at 147-150K, any bowler, it is not just about Holding or Marshall or not to demean them as they were great bowlers but any bowler. Even a bowler who can bowl 155-160 will have most balls in low 140s range. One can bowl one or two overs at max at his highest speed. There is a reason why Bolt cannot run at the same speed for 1000 meter distance but for only 100 meters. Shoaib Akhtar is a bowler who I have seen clocking 155 plus in test matches in the middle of a long innings but in a short spell. Those bowlers were similar too. Any bowler who will bowl a long spell is bound to slow down. But ability to bowl at 155k is what I am talking about whenever needed which Lee, Akhtar and Tait could do that in this decade. Thommo, Lillie and Holding did that in 70s.

[rkt.india]

Had you watched cricket in the 1980s, you'd know that someone like Colin Croft, who probably averaged 145-147 or thereabouts, was heck of a lot nastier to face than Akhtar, since Croft pretty much always bowled at your head & neck if he wasnt bowling in the corridor to get you to drive and get a nick.

Regarding this point, if batsmen did not have helmet in this era, you would have said the same thing about Akhtar. Akhtar had one of the fastest and most accurate bouncers because they will come at your face. He has broken through so many batsmen even with helmets. Imagine what could he have done with batsmen without helmet. here is Colin Croft. He does not look express at all. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xZTZbEQDAs]Colin Croft bowling in England 1980 - YouTube[/ame] This is what you call quick. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNjxWB2TXrI]Shoaib Akhtar 5/99 vs Australia at Perth | 2004 - YouTube[/ame]

[Muloghonto]

You dont need to write false things to praise them. Yes they were good no doubt, but that is a bit exaggeration. First thing is I dont how can you be sure they clocked 147-150 when there was no speed gun available there. From naked eyes, even 130kph looks pretty quick if you watch live in a stadium.

Maybe your eyes are broken, from the stadium i can easily tell Vinay Kumar and Shoaib Akhtar's speed apart.

Marshall anyway was not an express bowler. He was pretty much the same pace as Yadav and Steyn.

Marshall was as fast as anyone and the fastest consistently through his spells. Plenty of batsmen have said that.

Holding was certainly quicker than Marshall. He could bowl at express pace and I consider express pace at or over 150-155K. Lee, Akhtar, and Tait bowled at that pace in matches. Holding and Thommo could bowl at that pace too. Lillie for a brief period before his back injury. I am yet to see a video of Marshall where he seemed to be bowling at 155K.

Given that you believe in nonsensical psuedo-science stuff to makeup your mind on what is fast and what isnt, i am not surprised. You want a video to judge how fast they bowled based on how you judge how far the wicketkeeper is standing from the pitch. In an era where there is no standardized camera angle, trying to do what is practically impossible to do ( guess how far the wicketkeeper is from the stumps). Sorry, it means nothing to me. I will go with the opinion of those who faced them as well as those who faced the newer crop. People like Neil Fairbrother have noted that Marshall was faster than Wasim and over the entire spells, even faster than Waqar and Fairbrother has played against both.

Fast bowling like fast sprinting of 100 meter dash or can be compared to run of a cheetah, the fastest animal. Even for sprinter like Bolt, it is impossible to maintain speed for long run that is why running time continues to increase as the running distance increases. Fast bowling is very much the same. Pace is bound to come down in a long spell for every fast bowler.

Not when the bowlers we are talking about are supremely fit. Some bowlers, like McGrath, Pollock, Marshall, Holding, Walsh could bowl at their normal speeds all day and FYI, I've seen both Marshall and Walsh bowling up to 15 overs in a trot- thats more than any bowler I've seen do in the last 15 years who is not a spinner. The norm is for the pace bowler, whatever his pace, to drop in pace as he gets tired near the end of a 6 over spell, but there are the rare ones who have so much stamina that they can bowl 12-15 overs on the trot and as such, when mostly used in 6-8 over spells, they do not tire much. Marshall & Holding happened to be the fastest of that type of bowlers but really, whether you get tired from fast bowling or not is a function of the economy of your action and your stamina. Marshall's routine was to run 10km a day and do 400 situps in the off season, everyday. For guys like those, i assure you, maintaining their best speeds for 6-8 overs is not a problem.

Though a bowler can have a rest and then come out and again bowl at same in late in the day. Most bowlers do that, not just Holding and Marshall. Look at Johnson, he can bowl at the same pace at the end of the day too which he bowled in his first spell. Same for Dale Steyn or Morne Morkel. It is all about assessing the moment.

but it wasnt the same for McGrath till he got old- a young mcGrath bowled at the 135-140 kph range the entire frigging day, for 20+ overs when he had to. Same goes for Pollock. There is a lot more to fast bowling than you think.

I disagree about your comment that any bowler can bowl 20-25 overs in a day at 147-150K, any bowler, it is not just about Holding or Marshall or not to demean them as they were great bowlers but any bowler.

Well, you can disagree all you want, but when you factor in that a) you havnt seen either Marshall or holding bowl and b) those who have faced them, consistently say that they were the fastest bowler to consistently bowl at express speeds, your opinion means for squat.

Even a bowler who can bowl 155-160 will have most balls in low 140s range. One can bowl one or two overs at max at his highest speed. There is a reason why Bolt cannot run at the same speed for 1000 meter distance but for only 100 meters. Shoaib Akhtar is a bowler who I have seen clocking 155 plus in test matches in the middle of a long innings but in a short spell. Those bowlers were similar too. Any bowler who will bowl a long spell is bound to slow down.

Yes, bowlers will average below that realistically because bowlers bowl the slow ball every now and then. But the idea of running 100m speeds for 1000m is not the same as bowling at top gear. This is like saying the guys who can go flat out for the 800m run can easily do 50 40m dashes all day and not lose speed. And if you think Akhtar's bowling speeds were similar to those of Marshall, what can i say, except that you are being ignorant and arrogant about stuff you have not seen and do not know of. You probably havnt seen Courtney Walsh power through 15 overs in a strech either. Doesnt mean it is impossible and i assure you he wasnt bowling at agarkar speed near the end of it all. Any bowler who is capable of bowling 10-12 overs on the trot is quite easily capable of bowling 6-8 at full throttle. This is a lost art today, but doesnt mean it didnt exist.

[rkt.india]

Regarding Sami bowling quicker than Akhtar, please show me that. Star Cricket was showing Pak vs WI match of 2004 CT and Akthar was clearly 3-4 miles quicker than Sami. Sami was hitting around 145-147 while Akhtar was hitting 152-154 easily.

[FischerTal]

^ rkt has just found out what happens when you question ICF's oldest phenomenon :phehehe:

[Muloghonto]

Regarding this point, if batsmen did not have helmet in this era, you would have said the same thing about Akhtar. Akhtar had one of the fastest and most accurate bouncers because they will come at your face. He has broken through so many batsmen even with helmets. Imagine what could he have done with batsmen without helmet.

You as usual, spout a whole bunch of baloney. What makes the batsman fear the most is not the bouncer but the perfume ball- a ball bowled so close to you and at the perfect shoulder height that you can 'smell the leather' as it passes through. Against batsmen without helmet Shoaib wouldn't have been any more effective than the average fast bowler of the 70s & 80s, because Shoaib does not have the control of line and length to consistently put 5 balls whirring past your nose with the sixth designed to poleaxe your head. he is the 'all over the map' bouncer kinda guy.

here is Colin Croft. He does not look express at all.

Doesnt matter what it looks to you from funky camera angle. As i said, your idea of how fast someone was is to take video analysis from an era where there is no consistent camera angle and use parameters that are bogus (like comparing how far the wicketkeeper is standing, which with variable camera angles you have no basis in knowing).

[rkt.india]

Maybe your eyes are broken, from the stadium i can easily tell Vinay Kumar and Shoaib Akhtar's speed apart.

I am not talking about comparison between two bowlers. I am talking about two bowlers like Vinay kumar and B Kumar are bowling of similar pace and you have not seen them before and dont actually already what pace they bowl, you will find it hard to assess what pace they are bowling. I give you an example. I watched Karntaka vs Haryana Ranji trophy match live ion Mysore in 2006-2007 season. Vinay Kumar and NC Aiyappa were bowling for Karnataka. I had never seen Vinay bowling before that and did not what speeds he bowl and you would not believe he looked quite quick. People who were watching were saying that, but actually when he was measured on live speed guns, it turned out he barely bowls at 130K. So, it is not right to say one bowled at 150K just seeing by naked eyes until one is measured on speed gun.

[rkt.india]

You as usual' date=' spout a whole bunch of baloney. What makes the batsman fear the most is not the bouncer but the perfume ball- a ball bowled so close to you and at the perfect shoulder height that you can 'smell the leather' as it passes through. Against batsmen without helmet Shoaib wouldn't have been any more effective than the average fast bowler of the 70s & 80s, because Shoaib does not have the control of line and length to consistently put 5 balls whirring past your nose with the sixth designed to poleaxe your head. he is the 'all over the map' bouncer kinda guy.[/quote'] Please show me where did these bowlers did that. BTW, You dont need to bowl 5 balls past you nose in an over. It gets predictable and batsmen is ready for that. If a bowler will bowl with such predictability now, he will be treated with utter disdain. One fast accurate ball is enough to put doubts in batsmen's mind and then vary the length. As I said, Shoiab has hit so many batsmen even with helmet, let alone talking about batsmen without helmet. Whatever camera angle, you see, fast bowling looks fast. Actually, with such angles, it should even look quicker to eyes. You are talking like you yourself was mapping the pace of these bowlers. Your words cannot be taken seriously until you produce evidence of that. You are a bit too much obsesses with past while cricket was completely different on those days to what it is now.

[King Tendulkar]

Well he may not be express as in 100 mph. But he is defo very very fast, regularly getting balls at 90 and just over. Couls be massive for India this. Finally we have a bowler who puts fear in to oppo

[rkt.india]

^ rkt has just found out what happens when you question ICF's oldest phenomenon :phehehe:

What it is?

[Muloghonto]

I am not talking about comparison between two bowlers. I am talking about two bowlers like Vinay kumar and B Kumar are bowling of similar pace and you have not seen them before and dont actually already what pace they bowl' date= you will find it hard to assess what pace they are bowling. Well, I've seen marshall on ground, I've also seen Akhtar. They look pretty indistinguishable over their spells as far as speed goes. But they do look faster than Donald, both of them and Donald was seriously fast as well. You should be able to tell apart bowlers who are doing 88-90mph average speed to those doing 94-95mph average speed. Remember, these guys (Akhtar, Marshall,etc) bowled with several other fast guys and when an old Kapil came around to bowl at Vinay Kumar speeds, it was pretty easy to see how much faster the WI quartets were and who were the faster ones amongst them. I will refer you to the west indies folks on this one: Patrick Patterson. Fastest WI bowler in the 1985-onwards period, probably as fast as Waqar Younis at his peak (Patto was faster than a young Bishop, who was seriously fast). Yet those who faced him, often said that after you see off the first 2-3 overs, Patto was not as fast and compensated for it by bowling more bouncers/short stuff. The part you are failing to appreciate, is that the idea of who is the fastest has two variations: who bowls the fastest balls now and then versus who is consistently the fastest guy bowling through and through. This varies significantly from bowler to bowler and its not a matter of 'faster the bowler, the more tired they get' nonsense, it is simply a matter of stamina, which varies immensely between fast bowlers. I can tell you this much (and feel free to ask sports doctors about this if you dont believe me) but if a fast bowler was fit enough to post almost professional level 5K times, his 'bowling speed', whatever it is, would not vary more than 5% or so through an entire spell of 8-10 overs. Yes, nobody are that 'running fit' these days. But in the old days, that is all that most pacers did- run, run and run some more. As i said, it was well known that Marshall ran 5-10k everyday in the offseason. Holding ran 3 miles everyday and kept up his training which IIRC was world class 400m times in his youth. Some guys, as far as stamina goes, are just freaks. McGrath was a freak like that too, he lost it when he got old (everyone does really- well, except Walsh, the uber freak) but in his youth, McGrath could bowl all day at the same speed. You just didnt notice it since his speed wasnt eye-popping. But if you think Akhtar is the ideal 'speed demon', it just means one thing- you have never really seen what speed demonery is really like. I dont blame you either, after the mid-late 90s, the number of genuinely fast AND hostile pacers declined significantly and it still hasnt recovered. Speed demonery is not about hucking in a dozen or so blinders and then puffing away to the boundary ala Akhtar, then comming back for spell #2 without those blinders. Its about bowling at sustained speeds and Akthar simply did not have the fitness for it. Lee didn't either, but while Lee might've had the stamina, the Aussies never really let him bowl a lot in a trot because of his ankle injuries IIRC. Either way, neither Lee or Akhtar are what I'd call epitome of express fast bowlers. I'd take Marshall, Holding, Clarke from what I've seen as quite easily, the best of the true express bowlers, bowlers who are consistetly bowling well at 94-95mph the whole fricking day.

Wait a minute...so you do admit then that Marshall, Akhtar, etc. are 'similar pace'...thats what I've been saying the whole way around! I don't know why you cant tell the fact that Umesh is faster than Bhuvi from the stands or that Umesh and Mitchell Johnson are kinda the same speed these days. I dont think its that hard to tell that apart. As i said,factor in what batsmen who've faced them say and thats gotto mean a lot.

[Muloghonto]

croft looks like starc or morkel type of pace to me in this video ' date='maybe he could bowl even quicker since almost every body who played cricket at that time says these guys were very fast.[/quote'] hello, different frame rate & camera angle make a difference.

[rkt.india]

MPeople like Neil Fairbrother have noted that Marshall was faster than Wasim and over the entire spells' date=' even faster than Waqar and Fairbrother has played against both.[/quote'] I never said Wasim and Waqar were express bowlers. Waqar was quicker than Wasim for sure. For me, Johnson is faster than what Wasim was.

[rkt.india]

hello' date=' different frame rate & camera angle make a difference.[/quote'] What frame rate? Frame rates are same even now than what they were back then.

[Muloghonto]

Please show me where did these bowlers did that. BTW' date=' You dont need to bowl 5 balls past you nose in an over. It gets predictable and batsmen is ready for that. If a bowler will bowl with such predictability now, he will be treated with utter disdain. [/quote'] :haha::haha::haha: If you think that there are more than maybe 5 batsmen in the world who can deal with 5 consecutive 95mph balls whizzing past their nose, you are dreaming. Besides, it was a metaphor. Nobody bowls 5 balls in the exact same spot unless its in the channel. It's more like bowling 2-3 every over which are fast pin-point accuracy bouncers. Akhtar did not have that. He had a leather surprise bouncer but he was not a 'bouncer bully' because he simply couldnt keep it tight enough. Its easier to hit batsmen when they have a helmet on than when they dont. Think about it for a second. Then ask anyone who's seen the transition from the helmetless to the helmeted era. What angles make it look quicker and why ? Again, stop trying to talk about stuff you do not understand- i do not appreciate a dishonest conversation. I can tell that you actually do not know why guaging distances and speeds from variable camera angles and differing frame-rates and stuff is incorrect. So now, please dont pretend to tell us what should look quicker from what angle or not. Well i'd put more weight in the opinion of people who've seen the era they are talking about as opposed to a kid who simply assumes 'newer is better and what is possible or not is dictated by my far inferior sample space from being a young kid who hasnt seen much cricket'. That would be logical, wouldn't you say ? PS: I know how cricket was different in the 80s to how they are now. I was there to watch it. Did you watch it or is this another 'video based knowledge from watching 10 30 minute videos online' ?