rkt.india Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 The word that sums you u up is dheet. Ek fata raag diye jaa rahe ho? Lets see. a) Clarke clearly is a big lad with a smooth run up and delivers at brisk pace, even though commentators suggest he is not at his sharpest. b) At the time of the video his spells reads as 7-4-7-0. In every sense better than his counterparts that read holding, croft and garner. c) His career average of under 28 would beat any Indian fast bowler's career stats hands down. The issue that I have is how fans like you increasingly lose their cricketing marbles and use videos to extend their own agenda rather shamelessly. The owner of the video - Rob who happens to visit this website by the way - has clearly created this for the likes of those who didnt see these players and/or enjoy watching them. Even Clarke rambling in to bowl is well appreciate by them, like me. You on the other hand look for a 10 second flying stumps video. Fair enough. But dont make yourself look stupid to caste judgement on whether Clarke was a fast bowler or like a Madan Lal...everyone, aside from certain Indians like you, will most likely laugh at you. Aage tum khud samajhdhaar ho barkhurdaar...:winky: So you think everything they churned out was gold. Think about it as well Why I am not questioning likes of Marshall, Holding, Roberts, Garner because they were the bowlers who are deserved to be called greats, but saying whoever is coming from WI on those days was good as any is just ignorance. You are talking as If someone else is bowling on this video and it is not brisk at all.
thongale Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 yaar even Jacob Oram' date=' Nuwan Zoysa, Pankaj Singh, John Hastings have strong shoulders and are big man but it does not mean they are fast bowlers. Body size, big shoulders dont make a bowler fast. It is bowlers' bowling action as well as the fast twitch fibers which in combination make them fast. Even bowlers who have fast twitch fibers but poor bowling action cannot bowl fast due to their poor basics.[/quote']Patrick Patterson says Hi.
rkt.india Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Patrick Patterson says Hi. Did you even understand my point? I said big build, strong shoulders are not a guarantee to be a genuine fast bowler. They are non-factors. More than build it is bowling action and fast twitch fibers which are responsible of bowling fast. Otherwise, 5 feet 7 inch Tino best Fidel Edwards would not have been bowling 90 mph plus. Pattrick Patterson was fast. I dont deny that and he has good action.
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 If you understand fast bowling. A bowler cannot bowl fast unless he has a decent bowling action as well as the fast twitch. Both things in combination make a bowler fast. While Sylvester Clark's bowling action is seriously flawed. Oh yes - I very much understand fast bowling. I played cricket at a level where I could easily bowl 130kmph when I was 15. There's lot more to what you suggest being a fast bowler. Mike Procter, Sohail Tanvir also say HI btw.
rkt.india Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 Oh yes - I very much understand fast bowling. I played cricket at a level where I could easily bowl 130kmph when I was 15. There's lot more to what you suggest being a fast bowler. Mike Procter, Sohail Tanvir also say HI btw. But are Procter and Tanvir fast? No. Tanvir could have bowled faster if he had a good bowling action. Same with Procter who was a bit quicker. Bowling 135K is not fast and it was their unusual bowling action which works form them. As you said there is lot more that lot more is natural gift to one like Aamir, Cummins who can bowl fast as such a young age that is that lot more to fast bowling and they can bowl fast with that gift because they also have good bowling action. If bowlers with crap bowling actions could have bowled fast, then coaches would not have been working on them to refine them and there was no need to have biomechanics and Ian Pont is just wasting his time developing different ways of teaching fast bowling to his trainees. Remember even Dale Styen was not that fast initially as he too had a bit of a flaw in action, but after working with Pont on his action, he gained pace. People cannot understand simple basic things. A bowler cannot become consistent 90 mph bowler with flawed actions, however, strong or big built one is.
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 But are Procter and Tanvir fast? No. Tanvir could have bowled faster if he had a good bowling action. Same with Procter. Bowling 135K is not fast. As you said there is lot more that lot more is natural gift to one like Aamir, Cummins who can bowl fast as such a young age that is that lot more to fast bowling and they can bowl fast with that gift because they also have good bowling action. If bowlers with crap bowling actions could have bowled fast, then coaches would not have been working on them to refine them and there was no need to have biomechanics and Ian Pont is just wasting his time developing different ways of teaching fast bowling to his trainees. Remember even Dale Styen was not that fast initially as he too had a bit of a flaw in action, but after working with Pont on his action, he gained pace. People cannot understand simple basic things. A bowler cannot become consistent 90 mph bowler with flawed actions, however, strong or big built one is. As I've said earlier, First Order Logic doesn't work else with a good bowling action Dilhara Fernando would've been one of the fastest bowlers around. I would contest on Mike Procter but let that point aside. How's Lasith Malinga bowling fast? There's just no logic and there will always be outliers. Sylvester Clarke has a quick shoulder action. An Ajit Agarkar with a quick shoulder, round arm action could bowl at 135 kmph. Imagine what a Clarke would do. Dale Steyn not fast initially? What?!! There was no appreciable difference. He may have made a 5-8kmph gain in face, from 144 to 150kmph and that's it.
rkt.india Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 As I've said earlier' date= First Order Logic doesn't work else with a good bowling action Dilhara Fernando would've been one of the fastest bowlers around. I would contest on Mike Procter but let that point aside. How's Lasith Malinga bowling fast? There's just no logic and there will always be outliers. Sylvester Clarke has a quick shoulder action. An Ajit Agarkar with a quick shoulder, round arm action could bowl at 135 kmph. Imagine what a Clarke would do. Dale Steyn not fast initially? What?!! There was no appreciable difference. He may have made a 5-8kmph gain in face, from 144 to 150kmph and that's it. What Dilhara is not fast? He is one of the two fastest bowlers Srinlanka has ever produced. He has bowled over 150K. It is his fitness which has not let him play too many matches. Just watch his bowling on his come back in Australia last time SL played ODIs in Australia. He was faster than Malinga clocking 150+. Regarding Styen, Steyn gained about 10 K of pace after working with Pont, a guy who used to bowl high 130s to low 140s has bowled up to 155 K after that stint with Pont and then you didn't understand my point fully. I had said one needs a good bowling action as well as natural ability and good fitness to bowl fast. Only one thing does not cut it. I can say Procter was an exception because his other aspects were good. He had a long and smooth fast runup and did bowl decently quick with that unusual action if not very fast and that unusual action helped like it helps Tanvir too but Tanvir is slower. In all WI bowlers likes Robers, Holding, Marshal, Croft, Garner, Holding was the fastest and second best test bowler after Marshall. Though the fastest WI bowler I have seen was Ian Bishop.
Ultimate_Game Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 What Dilhara is not fast? He is one of the two fastest bowlers Srinlanka has ever produced. He has bowled over 150K. It is his fitness which has not let him play too many matches. Just watch his bowling on his come back in Australia last time SL played ODIs in Australia. He was faster than Malinga clocking 150+. Regarding Styen, Steyn gained about 10 K of pace after working with Pont, a guy who used to bowl high 130s to low 140s has bowled up to 155 K after that stint with Pont and then you didn't understand my point fully. I had said one needs a good bowling action as well as natural ability and good fitness to bowl fast. Only one thing does not cut it. I can say Procter was an exception because his other aspects were good. He had a long and smooth fast runup and did bowl decently quick with that unusual action if not very fast and that unusual action helped like it helps Tanvir too but Tanvir is slower. In all WI bowlers likes Robers, Holding, Marshal, Croft, Garner, Holding was the fastest and second best test bowler after Marshall. Though the fastest WI bowler I have seen was Ian Bishop. I would give my vote to Patrick Patterson when he broke into the West Indian team in mid 80s.
retterimp Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 voted for marshall, mcgrath and steyn. crap i just realized we could choose more options, would have voted for ambrose as well. akram gets picked cause he was the best left arm fast bowler. he would definitely get picked for the versatility he has in his armory. but i dont think he was efficient enough in taking wickets as some others in the list to be amongst the top in all time greats. Though he is certainly the most 'watchable' fast bowler for me, he makes you believe that bowling is more an art than a science, which is why not everyone can be a master at it.
Crookbond Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 I would give my vote to Patrick Patterson when he broke into the West Indian team in mid 80s. :agree: I was just about to post that. Btw - Have you heard his story with Don Bradman? A fanciful story from Michael Henderson on Don. Absolute Gem. Nevertheless, I think I have a beauty. It was told to me by the great Australian batsman, Dean Jones, who positively swore on the head of his daughter it happened, and I have since been told that Merv Hughes also confirms its truth. The scene is set at a Test match between Australia and the West Indies at Adelaide Oval back in February 1989. These were the days when the Windies were the greatest power the cricketing world had ever seen, the days when they used to select 11 fast bowlers in the team and a 12th man who was a fast bowler just to be on the safe side. And it was into just such a furnace that the young bowler Mervyn Hughes walked - with bat in hand. Figuring fortune favoured the brave, Hughes wielded the willow like an axeman his axe, and somehow - after snicking fortutiously, connecting full-bloodedly, and missing entirely - he finished the day's play at 72 not out. The tradition in Test cricket is that the batting side take a few beers into the fielding side's dressing-room afterwards, but not on this evening. Instead, Merv took an ice-box full of bottles, so keen was he to give the men of the Windies the full blow-by-blow account of every run he'd made. So it was that half an hour later, Jones - who himself had contributed 216 - and Hughes and several other Australian players were in the Windies dressing-room, when a sudden hush fell upon the gathering. They looked to the door and there was Sir Donald Bradman himself, being ushered into the room by several South Australian cricket officials. The Don had expressed a desire to meet this mighty team, and now here he was. For the next 15 minutes or so, the great man was introduced to the visiting players, with each West Indian standing up well before Sir Donald got to their position on the bench. Then, when their time came, they warmly shook his hand and had a few words. This all proceeded splendidly until Sir Donald got to the last man on the bench, Patrick Patterson - the fastest bowler in the world at that time. So the story goes, not only did Patterson not stand, he simply squinted quizzically up at the octogenarian. Finally, after some 30 seconds of awkward silence, Patterson stood up, all two metres of pure whip-cord steel of him, and looked down at the diminutive Don. "You, Don Bradman!?!" he snorted. "You, Don Bradman?!?! I kill you, mun! I bowl at you, I kill you! I split you in two!" In reply, Sir Donald, with his hands on his hips, gazed squarely back at Patterson and calmly retorted: "You couldn't even get Merv Hughes out. You'd have no chance against me, mate!" :hysterical:
carnish Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 My Team Till Now 1.Greenidge 2.Hayden 3.Dravid 4.Sachin 5.Lara 6.Kallis 7.Flower 8.Imran 9.McGrath 10.Ambrose
ChanaLal Posted June 30, 2012 Posted June 30, 2012 What Dilhara is not fast? He is one of the two fastest bowlers Srinlanka has ever produced. He has bowled over 150K. It is his fitness which has not let him play too many matches. Just watch his bowling on his come back in Australia last time SL played ODIs in Australia. He was faster than Malinga clocking 150+. Regarding Styen, Steyn gained about 10 K of pace after working with Pont, a guy who used to bowl high 130s to low 140s has bowled up to 155 K after that stint with Pont and then you didn't understand my point fully. I had said one needs a good bowling action as well as natural ability and good fitness to bowl fast. Only one thing does not cut it. I can say Procter was an exception because his other aspects were good. He had a long and smooth fast runup and did bowl decently quick with that unusual action if not very fast and that unusual action helped like it helps Tanvir too but Tanvir is slower. In all WI bowlers likes Robers, Holding, Marshal, Croft, Garner, Holding was the fastest and second best test bowler after Marshall. Though the fastest WI bowler I have seen was Ian Bishop. After reading this, isn't Pont the best coach India could employ? Pont should either be MRF lead coach or BCCI lead coach for pace bowling if it's true he helped Steyn. Steyn is the world's best. Sorry to say but What is Joe Dawes going to do?
rkt.india Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 I would give my vote to Patrick Patterson when he broke into the West Indian team in mid 80s. You must watch Ian Bishop's spell to Robin Smith in 1990. It was certainly consistent 150K plus bowling by Bishop. The footage I have seen of both the bowlers, I have found Bishop the fastest. I say this considering their bowling actions as well. Patterson had a start stop action and was not very powerful while Bishop's action was more powerful. [ame= and Walsh target Robin Smith - YouTube[/ame]
Crookbond Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 Bishop's "powerful" action led him to back injuries. :headshake:
rkt.india Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 Bishop's "powerful" action led him to back injuries. :headshake: :agree: If he had not bowled that fast he would not have got back injury. Injuries always happen to genuine pacers Tait, Lee, Actor, Thomson all suffered.
Ultimate_Game Posted July 1, 2012 Posted July 1, 2012 :agree: I was just about to post that. Btw - Have you heard his story with Don Bradman? :hysterical: Yup I had read this one sometime back along with Richards "you know what the ball looks like, go find it" and a few others :haha: You must watch Ian Bishop's spell to Robin Smith in 1990. It was certainly consistent 150K plus bowling by Bishop. The footage I have seen of both the bowlers, I have found Bishop the fastest. I say this considering their bowling actions as well. Patterson had a start stop action and was not very powerful while Bishop's action was more powerful. If you look at the top WI bowlers of 80s everyone was fairly quick and depending on a match or a spell anyone could bowl faster than the others. Once you go above 90 mph and especially near 95 mph it really doesn't matter whether you bowl at 95, 96 or 97 mph. Batsmen would have a tough time nevertheless and I doubt they would find it any easier to face a 95 mph thunderbolt compared to a 96-97 mph one.
rkt.india Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Yup I had read this one sometime back along with Richards "you know what the ball looks like, go find it" and a few others :haha: If you look at the top WI bowlers of 80s everyone was fairly quick and depending on a match or a spell anyone could bowl faster than the others. Once you go above 90 mph and especially near 95 mph it really doesn't matter whether you bowl at 95, 96 or 97 mph. Batsmen would have a tough time nevertheless and I doubt they would find it any easier to face a 95 mph thunderbolt compared to a 96-97 mph one. When I talk about Holding and Bishop the fastest of them, I take their bowling actions into consideration as well. They all were fast no doubt, but likes Roberts, Marshall etc. were in 88-90 mph bracket while I could say looking at the videos that Holding and Bishop were in 90-95 mph bracket. This I say because of their bowling actions and Holding and Bishop had the best bowling actions to bowl fast.
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