Deleted_User_1 Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 This 90 mph is overrated even for the bowlers from the 70s - 80s. I bet you most of the the ilks of Lillee, Holding, Marshall, Garner, Roberts, etc bowled in the mid to high 80s. Bowling 90 mph constantly is not easy. Remember there was fast bowling competition in 1979 and besides Thommo no other bowler touched over 90 mph. And this was a short spell and folks were going all out. Thommo was probably the only bowler in his heyday who was quick in test like Tait is. Remember, there was no laser gun back then and just because a ball looks fast does not mean it is over 90 mph. However, it is a fact that the mid-70s to late 80s produced the best bunch of quality pace bowlers.
rkt.india Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 This 90 mph is overrated even for the bowlers from the 70s - 80s. I bet you most of the the ilks of Lillee, Holding, Marshall, Garner, Roberts, etc bowled in the mid to high 80s. Bowling 90 mph constantly is not easy. Remember there was fast bowling competition in 1979 and besides Thommo no other bowler touched over 90 mph. And this was a short spell and folks were going all out. Thommo was probably the only bowler in his heyday who was quick in test like Tait is. Remember, there was no laser gun back then and just because a ball looks fast does not mean it is over 90 mph. However, it is a fact that the mid-70s to late 80s produced the best bunch of quality pace bowlers. Yeah that is what I want to say too..whenever I see the footage of those bowlers and bowlers like Lee, Bond, Akhtar, Tait apart from Thomson no one back then looks as quick as these bowlers now...don't know what the fuss is about that those bowlers were quick...maybe pitches at that time world wide were more bowler friendly then they are now...Thommo was surely 150K bowler back then
Manny_Pacquiao Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Steyn is more of a 85 - 88mph bowler. He rarely goes above 90. in the india test series, steyn was always in the 132-138 range. only occasionally did he crank it up to 145+ that clearly doesnt fit michael holding's description of 90 mph and above. but steyn does bowl consistently quick in ODIs. morkel is even faster.
vamos_rafa Posted March 8, 2011 Author Posted March 8, 2011 Add to that the fact that only raw pace cant really disrupt a batsman from playing well. You need to have the guile to trouble batsman. There are very few days when a bowler can run through a side, with top class batsman, on the basis of sheer pace. Its too hyped up IMO.
rkt.india Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Add to that the fact that only raw pace cant really disrupt a batsman from playing well. You need to have the guile to trouble batsman. There are very few days when a bowler can run through a side' date=' with top class batsman, on the basis of sheer pace. Its too hyped up IMO.[/quote'] Morkel ran through Indian batting in first innings in Centurian with sheer pace and bounce..Johnson ran through SA in in last SA tour to Australia taking 8 wickets in a few overs spell...there are several instances though pace always needs accuracy to be effective and get many wickets and if you are pacy you can be effective even on flat tracks with some accuracy...its all about accuracy..if Pace is accurate, it can trouble any batsman, anywhere...wayward pace can get some stick from any batsman, anywhere
vamos_rafa Posted March 8, 2011 Author Posted March 8, 2011 ^ RKT, I am not saying that raw pace does not lead you to wickets. It does but with that you do need some guile or accuracy. Remember the plight of Shaun Tait when he played against us in the Perth test? He's one of the fastest bowlers around but is nothing but a liability in test match cricket. MJ's pace is always right up there but how many times does he get the same number of wickets as he got in the scenario that you mentioned? That's what I am trying to suggest that, with pace you either need to be very accurate(like Morkel is) or need to be having the ability to swing it around.
rkt.india Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 ^ RKT' date=' I am not saying that raw pace does not lead you to wickets. It does but with that you do need some guile or accuracy. Remember the plight of Shaun Tait when he played against us in the Perth test? He's one of the fastest bowlers around but is nothing but a liability in test match cricket. MJ's pace is always right up there but how many times does he get the same number of wickets as he got in the scenario that you mentioned? That's what I am trying to suggest that, with pace you either need to be very accurate(like Morkel is) or need to be having the ability to swing it around.[/quote'] I said the same above...If a genuine pacer bowl accurate, he will be effective. In accurate bowlers don't survive much like Sami..You mentioned Tait. Tait's problem is not accuracy..that was just one off test for him. His problem is fitness. Look at his ODI record...his average is 22-23...He was second highest wicket taker in 2007 WC even on slow pitches in WI...Munaf is an accurate bowler still he is not even half as good as Tait..Its very rare that a genuine quick bowler will be completely useless.. Most of the genuine pacers are good in one or the other format, for example Lee, Johnson, Malinga, Tait, Shoiab, Steyn, Morkel, Kemar Roach, Shane Bond, Flintoff, etc. These are the genuine fast bowlers we have seen in recent times..They may not be playing in all formats but whatever they are playing they all are good. Only Sami who I can say has not been good, others all have been good for their respective teams. Genuine pacers will have bad days, but when they have good days they are match winners...same like some of our batsman like Sehwag, Yusuf, etc. likes of Sehwag is a rare breed, genuine pacer is a rare breed too...
vamos_rafa Posted March 8, 2011 Author Posted March 8, 2011 I said the same above...If a genuine pacer bowl accurate, he will be effective. In accurate bowlers don't survive much like Sami..You mentioned Tait. Tait's problem is not accuracy..that was just one off test for him. His problem is fitness. Look at his ODI record...his average is 22-23...He was second highest wicket taker in 2007 WC even on slow pitches in WI...Munaf is an accurate bowler still he is not even half as good as Tait..Its very rare that a genuine quick bowler will be completely useless.. Most of the genuine pacers are good in one or the other format, for example Lee, Johnson, Malinga, Tait, Shoiab, Steyn, Morkel, Kemar Roach, Shane Bond, Flintoff, etc. These are the genuine fast bowlers we have seen in recent times..They may not be playing in all formats but whatever they are playing they all are good. Only Sami who I can say has not been good, others all have been good for their respective teams. Genuine pacers will have bad days, but when they have good days they are match winners...same like some of our batsman like Sehwag, Yusuf, etc. likes of Sehwag is a rare breed, genuine pacer is a rare breed too... I think we are stating the one and the same, so ALL IZZ WELL :--D
Ranvir Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Umar Gul has been bowling fast, he was consistantly bowling over 90mph today.
panesarv Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Zaheer Khan, Malinga, Brett Lee are excellent bowlers as well!
CG Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 Morkel ran through Indian batting in first innings in Centurian with sheer pace and bounce..Johnson ran through SA in in last SA tour to Australia taking 8 wickets in a few overs spell...there are several instances though pace always needs accuracy to be effective and get many wickets and if you are pacy you can be effective even on flat tracks with some accuracy...its all about accuracy..if Pace is accurate' date=' it can trouble any batsman, anywhere...wayward pace can get some stick from any batsman, anywhere[/quote'] Bro pace is usless with out movement. Morkel ran through indian batting not only because of pace but the because the ball seamed and on flat pitches in india he was average,Johnson did so well in perth or sa because even though his seam position is worst on current bowlers that day he got it right also it was swinging in perth due to freemantle doctor.international batsman expect a few do not bother about pace its the combination of pace and movement which bothers them.
rkt.india Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 @cricket_god but if bowler has pace and he can swing he is most dangerous..But you can have both and can still spray it, maon thing is accuracy with pace is troubling and a genuine pace who hits the devk will mostly get seam movement..
Jersey #10 Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 Lee + Tait ~ Steyn + Morkel? Two of the best pairs
Stuge Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 how about Malinga? .. he fast and his yorkers are lethal
Ashraful_Rox Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 Shoaib Akhtar bowls at 145kph+ Umar Gul 141 kph+ Kemar Roach 150+ Brett Lee 145+ Shaun Tait 150+ They are all faster than Steyn.
Kriterion Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Shoaib Akhtar bowls at 145kph+ Umar Gul 141 kph+ Kemar Roach 150+ Brett Lee 145+ Shaun Tait 150+ They are all faster than Steyn. Umar Gul is not faster than Steyn...Gul rarely bowls near 90 mph...he is a 135k bowler who can every now and then cross 90 mph.
ravishingravi Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 Shoaib Akhtar bowls at 145kph+ Umar Gul 141 kph+ Kemar Roach 150+ Brett Lee 145+ Shaun Tait 150+ They are all faster than Steyn. Understand OP and its context. Firslyt Gul is not faster than Steyn. Secondly, which of the other bowlers remains fit through the year and plays as many games as Steyn.
Raghav_12 Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 This 90 mph is overrated even for the bowlers from the 70s - 80s. I bet you most of the the ilks of Lillee, Holding, Marshall, Garner, Roberts, etc bowled in the mid to high 80s. Bowling 90 mph constantly is not easy. Remember there was fast bowling competition in 1979 and besides Thommo no other bowler touched over 90 mph. And this was a short spell and folks were going all out. Thommo was probably the only bowler in his heyday who was quick in test like Tait is. Remember, there was no laser gun back then and just because a ball looks fast does not mean it is over 90 mph. However, it is a fact that the mid-70s to late 80s produced the best bunch of quality pace bowlers. The thing is till now there has been no consistency in the way speed guns measure speed, so we don't know exactly if somebody is bowling at 155 or 157. Measurement of bowling was even more inconsistent in 70's or so. That's why based on one off study I won't believe that only Thommo was 90 mph bowler. Also, there was another study done in that time (late 70's) and there Thommo was found to be bowling at 100 mph. Few of other bowlers were around 95 mph, easily. But as I don't know how reliable speed measuring was in that time, I won't say that Thommo was definitely 100 mph bowler, still I believe that Holding, Roberts, Lille all were 90 mph bowler. And so would have been Marshall. Pl see attached video where bowling speed of pacers in late 70's were analyzed. In btw who was considered to be fastest among WI pacers? I think it was Holding. GjkBNxKZOE8&feature=related
siccric Posted March 10, 2011 Posted March 10, 2011 It's true though, Steyn is the only effective pacer in international test cricket. There are quite a lot of good ODI pacers though.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now