rkt.india Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Where do you get the idea that Ambrose was not a 90mph bowler ? Late 80s to mid 90s Ambrose was as fast as Steyn which is express speed and average of 90mph. Walsh was far faster than Cameron Cuffy or Nixon McLean. Also, Pankaj may be able to crank out 140kph once in a while but he seems more like a 130-135kph bowler over the entire spells, walsh was a good yard faster than him. You have no idea about the speeds of the bowlers you are talking about since you are too young to've seen them at their prime. Even likes of Steyn, Morkel, Johnson struggle to clock mid 90s and you are making Ambrose was mid 90s bowler. They both did not have the kind of bowling actions to be bale to clock that much of an high speed.
Muloghonto Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Even likes of Steyn' date=' Morkel, Johnson struggle to clock mid 90s and you are making Ambrose was mid 90s bowler. They both did not have the kind of bowling actions to be bale to clock that much of an high speed.[/quote'] Read again. I said late 80s to mid 90s Ambrose, ie, Ambrose from late 1980s to mid 1990s was definitely in the low 90mph category. Ambrose and Walsh had the kind of bowling action that was so economical on their bodies that they could clock those speeds all day long.
Muloghonto Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Pankaj is 6'5"-6". He is taller than Ishant. He sure doesnt look taller than Ishant. Do you have any comparative pics of Pankaj ?? He seems like 6'2 to 6'3 to me.
saneindian Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Ambrose was bowling 139-140 in 1999-2000 IIRC. That was towards the end of his career. Surely he was 145+ at times in the early to mid 90s. Was not an out and out express bowler by any means but could bowl quick if he wanted
Vijy Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Ambrose's action was so fluid that his pace appears to be less than what is actually was. Having said that, I don't think he was an out-and-out quick bowler. I see him as someone like Steyn , except perhaps being 2-3 kms slower. He made up for it with his control and bounce of course.
rkt.india Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 He sure doesnt look taller than Ishant. Do you have any comparative pics of Pankaj ?? He seems like 6'2 to 6'3 to me. They are almost a same height, but I guess Pankaj is an inch taller than Ishant. Look at who short Venky looks in front of the two and once we used to think consider Venky very tall when he used o play.
Muloghonto Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Ambrose's action was so fluid that his pace appears to be less than what is actually was. Having said that' date=' I don't think he was an out-and-out quick bowler. I see him as someone like Steyn , except perhaps being 2-3 kms slower. He made up for it with his control and bounce of course.[/quote'] Ambrose's fluid & flowing action, along with Walsh's highly economical and unique 'hip snap' action meant that they spent so little extra energy bowling at their desired speeds that they could keep bowling at those speeds all day long. Ie, you are correct- Ambrose probably was 2-3kms slower than Steyn at his peak. But Steyn does bowl the occasional looseners/slow overs at low 130s kph, Ambrose's slowest over would be much faster than that. People here do not really know fast bowling or fast bowlers and they do not realize one simple fact: If bowler A bowls at 90mph, well how much 'energy' does this guy give to get to those speeds ? Are they giving their 110% on bowling fast, like Shoaib Akhtar did or are they giving their 80% effort towards speed and 20% towards control & variations, like Ambrose did ? There is a reason why bowlers like Ambrose, Walsh, Garner, heck, even Caddick and a young McGrath could 'turn on the speeds' when the mood got to them : these guys did not spend as much energy bowling at their top speeds as someone like Waqar, Akhtar, Lee did. So when they wanted to bowl really really fast, they could do so and scare the crap out of batsmen. On the matter of Ambrose, I see little to choose from between Ambrose & McGrath. McGrath was slightly slower, got less bounce but moved the ball both ways a bit. Ambrose was slightly faster, got more bounce and had a great away swinger but not much of an inswinger. Both could bowl on a penny all day long and that is where their real skill lay- ultimately because both of them had such a fluid & easy action that they could generate 135-145kph without really trying hard.
rkt.india Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Ambrose was bowling 139-140 in 1999-2000 IIRC. That was towards the end of his career. Surely he was 145+ at times in the early to mid 90s. Was not an out and out express bowler by any means but could bowl quick if he wanted That is what I said Walsh 135-140 and Ambrose a bit quicker than him.
rkt.india Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Are they giving their 110% on bowling fast, like Shoaib Akhtar did or are they giving their 80% effort towards speed and 20% towards control & variations, like Ambrose did ? Shoaib Akhtar at his 100% bowled 150-155KPH, even at the age of 35. Not everyone can be Shoiab, Thomson, Lee in terms of pace. These are rare commodities.
Muloghonto Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 That is what I said Walsh 135-140 and Ambrose a bit quicker than him. okay, if you mean when they were 37-38 year old, sure. If you mean back in the early 90s or late 80s when that clip is from, you are patently incorrect, both Ambrose and Walsh were consistently 142-145kph bowlers who could crank it up to probably to 150 kph on certain days but not much more than that.
Muloghonto Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Shoaib Akhtar at his 100% bowled 150-155KPH' date=' even at the age of 35. Not everyone can be Shoiab, Thomson, Lee in terms of pace. These are rare commodities.[/quote'] Not everyone tried to be Shoaib, Thommo or Lee either. You seem to think that bowling as fast as possible is actually something all fast bowlers do. They do not. Many fast bowlers would rather not give 100% on the speed. Besides, none of those bowlers you mentioned had a particularly economical action. Lee looked fluid but he gives much, much more effort on his speed than someone like Ambrose or Walsh did.
rkt.india Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Not everyone tried to be Shoaib' date=' Thommo or Lee either. [b']You seem to think that bowling as fast as possible is actually something all fast bowlers do. They do not. Many fast bowlers would rather not give 100% on the speed. Besides, none of those bowlers you mentioned had a particularly economical action. Lee looked fluid but he gives much, much more effort on his speed than someone like Ambrose or Walsh did. No, I do not think that. I know more than that. :winky: Regarding Lee and Akhtar, any bowler who bowls at that pace will have to put more effort than other bowlers that is why their careers last less longer than others. Even Dennis Lillie could only play 70 odd tests, Lee 70, Thommo and Holding even less.
rkt.india Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 okay' date=' if you mean when they were 37-38 year old, sure. If you mean back in the early 90s or late 80s when that clip is from, you are patently incorrect, both Ambrose and Walsh were consistently 142-145kph bowlers who could crank it up to probably to 150 kph on certain days but not much more than that.[/quote'] Walsh at 38 was 120-125KPH. There is a clip of Bishop and Walsh together of 1990 and Walsh is considerably slower than Bishop.
Muloghonto Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Walsh at 38 was 120-125KPH. There is a clip of Bishop and Walsh together of 1990 and Walsh is considerably slower than Bishop. Err no, Walsh was not a 125kph bowler. Walsh in his last series bowled at 80-81mph, which is over 130+kph. He was significantly faster than that in his youth. Bishop was seriously fast in his youth- he was faster than all but Patrick Patterson before his stress fractures, so yeah, Walsh was a bit slower than Bishop. Again, you have no case, all you are going by is how they 'look' on tv, instead of actually watching them bowl in person or talking to people who've played them. I've already explained to you in the past that trying to extrapolate speeds from tv is a fool's quest and scientifically wrong. Looks like you forgot that lesson. Not to mention, how fast one appears has a lot to do with how their action also looks. walsh & ambrose looked slower than they were because their actions were so effortless. Bishop was faster but not by much but he put a lot more back into it, so it looked much faster.
Muloghonto Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 No, I do not think that. I know more than that. :winky: Regarding Lee and Akhtar, any bowler who bowls at that pace will have to put more effort than other bowlers that is why their careers last less longer than others. Even Dennis Lillie could only play 70 odd tests, Lee 70, Thommo and Holding even less. Holding, Thommo, Lillee all had 10-12 year careers. They'd have had 15-20 more tests if they had played more test cricket back then, which they didnt. Lee was a lot more fragile than Thommo, Holding or Lillee. Anyways, thread back to Pankaj. He doesnt seem to have the extreme height of Walsh or Walsh's speed & bounce. But to ask Pankaj to be Walsh is a tall order- thats like asking him to be the best ever Indian fast bowler ( Walsh was better than Kapil). He doesnt have to be half as good as Walsh to be given a chance and he deserves a chance because of his domestic performances.
rkt.india Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Err no, Walsh was not a 125kph bowler. Walsh in his last series bowled at 80-81mph, which is over 130+kph. He was significantly faster than that in his youth. You need to know you maths. 80 mph is 128KPH.
vvvslaxman Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 I have seen Walsh live in chennai during 1997 odi series. Among the tall bowlers bowled Srinagar looked the quickest. From side view his balls were invisible.
rkt.india Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Anyways, thread back to Pankaj. He doesnt seem to have the extreme height of Walsh or Walsh's speed & bounce. But to ask Pankaj to be Walsh is a tall order- thats like asking him to be the best ever Indian fast bowler ( Walsh was better than Kapil). He doesnt have to be half as good as Walsh to be given a chance and he deserves a chance because of his domestic performances. What more height you need Pankaj is 6'5"-6" same height of Walsh. Ambrose was 6'7" and Garner was taller at 6'8" similar to Tremlett, Steve Finn, and Boyd Rankin as they all are around 6'7" to 8". Full name Courtney Andrew Walsh Born 30 October 1962 (age 51) Kingston, Jamaica Height 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m) Batting style Right-hand batsman Bowling style Right-arm fast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtney_Walsh
rkt.india Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 I have seen Walsh live in chennai during 1997 odi series. Among the tall bowlers bowled Srinagar looked the quickest. From side view his balls were invisible. I first saw Vinay Kumar at Gangotri Glades in 2006 in Ranji trophy when not many people knew about him and he looked really fast, only to see him live clocking 130K. :cantstop:
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