Pace and Hype

[Vilander]

Imran's fastest 139 in a fast bowling competition, i mean that slower than Vinay Kumar, Mohit sharma,Bhuv kumar etc who all have hot 140+ in match conditions...its pathetic..laughable. Waqar was in range of Yadav,Aaron so fast. Akthar was express. No one else. Bye bye paks

[renjith]

no that is not. Nowhere speeds are measured at batsman's end. It is frivolous to do that. If Thomson was clocked 160KPH in 1976 at  batsman's end, it means his release speeds were at least anywhere between 180-190 KPH which is impossible.

Thompsons fastest in that competition was 147. Adding 10% will make it 162. Quite believable speed for one who is considered as the fastest ever by many.

[express bowling]

Thompsons fastest in that competition was 147. Adding 10% will make it 162. Quite believable speed for one who is considered as the fastest ever by many.

In 1975 and 1976, when he was at his quickest , Thomson may have bowled a fastest of around 160 k occasionally.

But, in 1979, he had lost a lot of pace after injury. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by express bowling

[rkt.india]

Thompsons fastest in that competition was 147. Adding 10% will make it 162. Quite believable speed for one who is considered as the fastest ever by many.

no you lose at least 20-30 KPH when ball meets the batsman, not 15. You will have to add 20KPH at least. IN 2008, a comparison was made between Brett Lee and Ishant,, a similar pace delivery both pitched around the same area, at 141KPH, Brett Lee lost 30 KPH and was reaching at 111 KPH at the batsman, while Ishant lost 20 KPH and was reaching at 121 KPH at the batsman. 

[Rightarmfast]

I remember that comparison you are talking about. They were comparing Lee's and Ishant's speed as Ishant was a rage in Australia that time.

[Singh bling]

@ singhbling

Study the articles below. What do you have to say about the discrepancy of about 9.5 k in Lillee's fastest ball in the 1975 competition  ?   He supposedly claimed in his book that he bowled a fastest of 148.5 whereas his actual fastest was 139 k.              

 

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/120260.html

On that one day in Perth, Jeff Thomson had recorded release speeds on 200/400 frames per second photosonic cameras of 159.49kph and 160.45kph (99.7mph), less than 0.3mph short of the magical 100mph mark. In fact, two men considered in the 'Fastest Ever' category, Michael Holding (148.54kph) and Andy Roberts (150.67kph) were both 10kph slower than Thomson on that day and an unwell Dennis Lillee (139.03kph) was 20kph slower. As an interesting side point, Jeff Thomson was also recorded by conventional radar the following year at 160.58kph to win a 'fastest bowler' competition.

 

 

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283875.html

1975 Study

The following speeds were measured at the WACA ground in Perth in December 1975, using "very accurate high speed cameras" and reported in the book "The Art of Fast Bowling" by DK Lillee, pp 27-30.

 

Player	Kph	Notes
Jeff Thomson	160.45
Jeff Thomson	160.45
Andy Roberts	159.49
Michael Holding	150.67	age 22
Dennis Lillee	148.54

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjkBNxKZOE8

According to above video Lille was measured separately 148 and 154 by university of WA .But in match Lille was measured fastest as 139.7

[HippoSucks]

Most Australian pitches of that era were very fast and bouncy....especially WACA, which was really fast and bouncy right till  2000.

Don't forget...in that era very few people had the opportunity to watch TV telecasts, telecasted matches often had just one camera or maybe two ...which did not give a correct impression of speed often , there were no speed guns, bowlers were bowling bodyline because of inadequate protective gear and no limitation on bouncers, 

With most people listening to radio....commentators were far more influential than nowadays.

Fast bowlers in those days were those who could hit the batsmen on the body ....often because they had bounce and bouncy wickets....not necessarily because of high release speeds.

 

 

Most people I've talked to or read about who lived through the 1970s said that the pitches in Australia in that decade were generally flat and bounceless. That's one of the reasons why they rate Lillee so highly despite not playing much in Asia.

The lack of telecasts those days is a valid point, but many experts who were able to watch those matches agree with it too (including those not from Australia).

[Singh bling]

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/threads/how-is-bowling-speed-measured.75642/

Whether on TV, or just for coaching purposes, it's done with radar guns. At the ground, the intention is to measure the ball out of the hand and there is usually at least one back up radar, in case of an obviously false reading.

The concept behind radar is that of hitting solid objects with radio waves; like how we see objects depending how light interacts with them, the results of radar can produce a range of data about the target. The classic application was to find the location of something such as an aircraft, but to many motorists and a fair few sports-people, radar guns are a more familiar device. Radar guns measure speed via the Doppler effect. The best example of the Doppler effect is the sound of a car or train zooming past; approaching objects shorten wavelengths (and sounds coming from the sound higher pitched), while objects leaving the observer increase wavelengths (and the pitch lowers). A radar gun bounces radio waves off an object and simply measures the difference.

However, to say a radar gun measures speed is a little non-specific. Precisely, a radar gun measures the component of an object's velocity that is either coming towards or going away from the radar gun. In other words, a radar at deep square leg is unable to read much of the speed on the ball. So the best spot is directly behind or in front of the bowler (in case you're a leadfoot wondering how this applies to you, then yes, the same can be said of police using radar). Of course, we know that bowlers bowl from a variety of positions on the crease and equally bowl a variety of angles down the pitch, so the science tells us that the best readings are probably still up to a mile quicker or slower than the actual speed. As for the worst readings, well I wouldn't say 10mph is out of the question.

Speed can also be measured by cameras. Hawkeye does all its tracking via six strategically placed cameras. By modelling the complete physical behaviour of the ball, Hawkeye can produce instantaneous speeds for the ball across the whole length of a delivery. It was also through cameras that some of the earliest observations of pace bowling were made of Thomson, Lillee, Holding and Roberts at the WACA in 1975.

What is important to remember is that some comparisons might be a bit meaningless. Different conditions will make a difference; the air is much thinner in high places such as Johannesburg, meaning reduced air resistance (same rules apply off the bat, mind you). In other words, take it all with a grain of salt. It's never lab conditions and if the reading looks odd, bear in mind that it may well be. Of course the reverse is also true; if someone looks insanely fast, they probably are and you may as well just enjoy not being the guy facing it.

 Its interesting to note that radar speed guns used today are not so reliable ,I don't think Akhtar was measured with high speed camera's , that makes Thomson's 160 more accurate than Akhtar's 161

[renjith]

no you lose at least 20-30 KPH when ball meets the batsman, not 15. You will have to add 20KPH at least. IN 2008, a comparison was made between Brett Lee and Ishant,, a similar pace delivery both pitched around the same area, at 141KPH, Brett Lee lost 30 KPH and was reaching at 111 KPH at the batsman, while Ishant lost 20 KPH and was reaching at 121 KPH at the batsman. 

could be true.

but adding 20-30 kph will make those values improbable.

thompson himself said original values from that competition are not comparable to current ones.

conclusion I can make is those original measurements from that competition are useless and should not be used for any sort of serious comparison.

[express bowling]

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/threads/how-is-bowling-speed-measured.75642/

Whether on TV, or just for coaching purposes, it's done with radar guns. At the ground, the intention is to measure the ball out of the hand and there is usually at least one back up radar, in case of an obviously false reading.

The concept behind radar is that of hitting solid objects with radio waves; like how we see objects depending how light interacts with them, the results of radar can produce a range of data about the target. The classic application was to find the location of something such as an aircraft, but to many motorists and a fair few sports-people, radar guns are a more familiar device. Radar guns measure speed via the Doppler effect. The best example of the Doppler effect is the sound of a car or train zooming past; approaching objects shorten wavelengths (and sounds coming from the sound higher pitched), while objects leaving the observer increase wavelengths (and the pitch lowers). A radar gun bounces radio waves off an object and simply measures the difference.

However, to say a radar gun measures speed is a little non-specific. Precisely, a radar gun measures the component of an object's velocity that is either coming towards or going away from the radar gun. In other words, a radar at deep square leg is unable to read much of the speed on the ball. So the best spot is directly behind or in front of the bowler (in case you're a leadfoot wondering how this applies to you, then yes, the same can be said of police using radar). Of course, we know that bowlers bowl from a variety of positions on the crease and equally bowl a variety of angles down the pitch, so the science tells us that the best readings are probably still up to a mile quicker or slower than the actual speed. As for the worst readings, well I wouldn't say 10mph is out of the question.

Speed can also be measured by cameras. Hawkeye does all its tracking via six strategically placed cameras. By modelling the complete physical behaviour of the ball, Hawkeye can produce instantaneous speeds for the ball across the whole length of a delivery. It was also through cameras that some of the earliest observations of pace bowling were made of Thomson, Lillee, Holding and Roberts at the WACA in 1975.

What is important to remember is that some comparisons might be a bit meaningless. Different conditions will make a difference; the air is much thinner in high places such as Johannesburg, meaning reduced air resistance (same rules apply off the bat, mind you). In other words, take it all with a grain of salt. It's never lab conditions and if the reading looks odd, bear in mind that it may well be. Of course the reverse is also true; if someone looks insanely fast, they probably are and you may as well just enjoy not being the guy facing it.

 

 Its interesting to note that radar speed guns used today are not so reliable ,I don't think Akhtar was measured with high speed camera's , that makes Thomson's 160 more accurate than Akhtar's 161

I was aware of the technology used for speed guns using radar guns. 

What is new to me is how hawk-eye measures speeds using multipe high speed cameras . Was not aware of that. 

One interesting thing about hawk-eye speeds , using high speed cameras, is that .... they are typically higher than TV speeds by 2 kph  to  4 kph  as far as the fastest deliveries of pacers are concerned.  I have pointed this out multiple times on this forum ...and wondered why that is happening. Today we got the answer. 

It seems that the error of the radar guns regarding some really fast deliveries are usually on the lower side, that is they give lower readings by around 3 k on an average. Today's fast bowlers then, could be clocking about 3 kph higher for their fastest deliveries, which we are unaware of if we watch radar gun readings while watching TV. 

As I have always said...to understand the actual speeds of bowlers...what is important is to study the speed ranges of the non-slower deliveries in actual match conditions across many many innings.

I agree that if a bowler looks really fast then he probably is...and among the older lot .....only Thomson, Holding and Roberts looked very fast ....whereas there are many many modern pacers who have bowled after 1999 who have looked really quick.

[express bowling]

Most people I've talked to or read about who lived through the 1970s said that the pitches in Australia in that decade were generally flat and bounceless. That's one of the reasons why they rate Lillee so highly despite not playing much in Asia.

The lack of telecasts those days is a valid point, but many experts who were able to watch those matches agree with it too (including those not from Australia).

Australian pitches always had lots of bounce and good pace, especially WACA .  Something to do with the nature of their soil.  

By flat, people mean lack of seam movement and the bounce is very true ....which may have been the case in the '70s.  

Just consider yesterday's WACA pitch. Everyone is calling it flat as the bowlers were not getting any seam movement and the bounce was very true. ....but there was a lot of bounce. A pacer like Hazlewood , bowling 130 k to 136 k, had quite a few deliveries which just flew and thudded into the gloves of the keeper. Happened with some of Umesh's deliveries too....although the pitch was flat.

I rate Lillee very highly too as a bowler with great skill, aggression and wicket taking ability.... His speed was a different issue altogether.

[Singh bling]

I was aware of the technology used for speed guns using radar guns. 

What is new to me is how hawk-eye measures speeds using multipe high speed cameras . Was not aware of that. 

One interesting thing about hawk-eye speeds , using high speed cameras, is that .... they are typically higher than TV speeds by 2 kph  to  4 kph  as far as the fastest deliveries of pacers are concerned.  I have pointed this out multiple times on this forum ...and wondered why that is happening. Today we got the answer. 

It seems that the error of the radar guns regarding some really fast deliveries are usually on the lower side, that is they give lower readings by around 3 k on an average. Today's fast bowlers then, could be clocking about 3 kph higher for their fastest deliveries, which we are unaware of if we watch radar gun readings while watching TV. 

As I have always said...to understand the actual speeds of bowlers...what is important is to study the speed ranges of the non-slower deliveries in actual match conditions across many many innings.

I agree that if a bowler looks really fast then he probably is...and among the older lot .....only Thomson, Holding and Roberts looked very fast ....whereas there are many many modern pacers who have bowled after 1999 who have looked really quick.

As written in above article Radar guns could be faster or slower depending on air. , may be hawk eye is faster where the air is not so thin.Btw did Lee or Akhtar were measured with Hawk eye?

[express bowling]

As written in above article Radar guns could be faster or slower depending on air. , may be hawk eye is faster where the air is not so thin.Btw did Lee or Akhtar were measured with Hawk eye?

I know. just stating that I have observed overs the years that in most places the radar gun readings of the fastest deliveries are typically slower than hawk-eye fastest deliveries by around 3 kph. ...and pointed it out on this forum.

What happened with those Shoaib deliveries, whether they were faster or slower, I don't know and I don't care.

I am more interested in day to day speed ranges of pacers in actual matches.

[express bowling]

As written in above article Radar guns could be faster or slower depending on air. , may be hawk eye is faster where the air is not so thin.Btw did Lee or Akhtar were measured with Hawk eye?

We will find hawk-eye speeds of all modern quicks and many are clocking fastest of 153 k or 154 k there.

[Rightarmfast]

In any event, Shoaib was quick. I would stretch my neck out and say he was faster than Thompson, as against what thompson wants others to believe

[express bowling]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2015-16/engine/match/895807.html?view=hawkeye

Umesh Yadav's fastest delivery is being shown as 91 mph yesterday or 146.4 kph  by hawk-eye

TV showed a fastest of 142.0 kph

Edited January 13, 2016 by express bowling

[express bowling]

In any event, Shoaib was quick. I would stretch my neck out and say he was faster than Thompson, as against what thompson wants others to believe

Shoaib retained his speed for a longer period too.

[Singh bling]

Josh Hazzlewood fastest 97mph ,Lyon fastest 84.5 , something is not right

[Shivaji bhonsle]

Jeff Thompson looks seriously quick in whatever videos I have watched.

He must have been as quick as Akthar.

[Rightarmfast]

Josh Hazzlewood fastest 97mph ,Lyon fastest 84.5 , something is not right

I agree with you here. But you never know. I have seen Ishant bowling faster than his normal pace when bowling alongside Umesh and Aaron to match their pace. Also seen Zaheer bowling much faster in 2003 when Nehra was bowling 90mph at will. It could also be that Starc's speed prompted him to. But such high speed of 96mph is  a little over the top.