Top 10 Spinners With Best Strike Rates in Test Cricket | Ashwin Best in Last 100 Years

[CricketBuffOne]

Have a look at these 10 spinners with the Best Strike Rates in Test Cricket. 
Know who is the most lethal spinner ever in terms of strike rate. Enjoy!
 

 

[tweaker]

Not knowing about Peel,Blythe & Briggs

 

[CricketBuffOne]

23 hours ago, tweaker said:

Not knowing about Peel,Blythe & Briggs

 

tweaker, I am so glad I could share something new with you.:) I am myself learning a lot while creating these videos.

Thanks for your continuous appreciation and encouragement!

 

[tweaker]

If possible post about highest speed bowled in the test matches.

We know about Akthar,Lee,Bond but there may be surprise...a bowler we don't know about.

[CricketBuffOne]

14 minutes ago, tweaker said:

If possible post about highest speed bowled in the test matches.

We know about Akthar,Lee,Bond but there may be surprise...a bowler we don't know about.

Tweaker, I myself have been wanting to create this video for a long time but I haven't come across an authentic source yet. As soon as I find one, will create this video without further delay.

[tweaker]

16 hours ago, CricketBuffOne said:

Tweaker, I myself have been wanting to create this video for a long time but I haven't come across an authentic source yet. As soon as I find one, will create this video without further delay.

[mishra]

hmm. Old is gold. Top part of list is all new for me.

[express bowling]

On 10/17/2016 at 5:17 PM, CricketBuffOne said:

Tweaker, I myself have been wanting to create this video for a long time but I haven't come across an authentic source yet. As soon as I find one, will create this video without further delay.

I don't think you will find any authentic source of very high speeds before 1990.   There are some figures available but the only video evidence I found of olden days was the 1979 competition where the top speeds were 147.9  k by Thomson and 141.3 k by Holding.  No other pacer could even touch 140 k.  That included Imran, Roberts, Lillee, Croft etc.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPDW7hj1yfs

 

 

[Muloghonto]

7 hours ago, express bowling said:

I don't think you will find any authentic source of very high speeds before 1990.   There are some figures available but the only video evidence I found of olden days was the 1979 competition where the top speeds were 147.9  k by Thomson and 141.3 k by Holding.  No other pacer could even touch 140 k.  That included Imran, Roberts, Lillee, Croft etc.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPDW7hj1yfs

 

 

Two different measurement systems. The 1979 competition measured bowling speeds not out of the hand, it was pre-bounce speed, which is 10-12% slower than the release speed from the hand.

This is why you will see Thompson bowling at 141.3, when the modern speed guns for same deliveries would list it at 155-156 kph. 

[express bowling]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Two different measurement systems. The 1979 competition measured bowling speeds not out of the hand, it was pre-bounce speed, which is 10-12% slower than the release speed from the hand.

This is why you will see Thompson bowling at 141.3, when the modern speed guns for same deliveries would list it at 155-156 kph. 

 

No...it  was clearly explained that the speed  in the 1979  competition was being measured  at the bowler's end.

Edited October 19, 2016 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

Just now, express bowling said:

 

No...it  was clearly explained that the speed was being measured  at the bowler's end.

Speed being measured at the bowlers end doesnt mean it is out of hand speed. As i said, if you think the fastest bowlers of the 70s bowled at the same pace as Ishant, it'd mean you do not understand the measurement criteria.

 

A cricket ball loses 10-15% speed between leaving a bowler's hand and pitching, due to air resistance. it loses a further 25-30% speed after bouncing, so end result is, if you measure it mid flight (which was the case of 1979), you will get speeds 10-12% slower than release speed, if you measure it at batting end, it would be 35-40% slower.

 

[express bowling]

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Speed being measured at the bowlers end doesnt mean it is out of hand speed. As i said, if you think the fastest bowlers of the 70s bowled at the same pace as Ishant, it'd mean you do not understand the measurement criteria.

 

A cricket ball loses 10-15% speed between leaving a bowler's hand and pitching, due to air resistance. it loses a further 25-30% speed after bouncing, so end result is, if you measure it mid flight (which was the case of 1979), you will get speeds 10-12% slower than release speed, if you measure it at batting end, it would be 35-40% slower.

 

I know all about the reduction in speed  after pitching part.

 

Show me evidence of what you are saying.....that is the speed was measured after pitching in 1979.

 

Do you think it  was possible to play 155 k pacers without helmets and bad quality protective gears ?  Not every batsman had the technique of a Gavaskar or the ability of a Richards,  If what you are  saying were true, there would have been lots of dead and near dead batsmen in the '70s.

 

Ishant  is quicker than most '70s pacers....much better protective gear,  better fitness of batsmen,  much better bats,  2 bouncer rule and flatter pitches have reduced the fear factor of fast bowlers  drastically.

Edited October 19, 2016 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

I know all about the reduction in speed  after pitching.

 

Show me evidence of what you are saying.....that is the speed was measured after pitching in 1979.

 

Do you think it  was possible to play 155 k pacers without helmets and bad quality protective gears ?  Not every batsman had the technique of a Gavaskar or the ability of a Richards,  If what you are  saying were true, there would have been lots of dead and near dead batsmen in the '70s.

 

Ishant  is quicker than most '70s pacers....much better protective gear, better fitness of batsmen, better bats, 2 bouncer rule and flatter pitches have reduced the fear factor drastically.

1. See the interview of Kerry Packer and other players, as well as media people. The radar was set up to record speeds through the air

2. yes, it was possible to play fast bowlers without helmets. Thats what SunnyG did. Its not like fast bowlers today bowl any faster- infact they bowl slower in general because they are not as fit and also have less incentive to bowl super-fast. 

3. Lot more batsmen got their stuff broken in the pre-helmet era and it was pretty common. Mari Contractor almost died. Mohinder Amaranth got concussed a few times. Mike Gatting lost a piece of his nose. Chris Old nearly died on the field. 

4. Ishant quicker than most 70s pacers....lol. You have no idea then what you are speaking about. Ishant wouldn't be in the top 15 fastest bowlers of the 70s.

 

[express bowling]

32 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. See the interview of Kerry Packer and other players, as well as media people. The radar was set up to record speeds through the air

2. yes, it was possible to play fast bowlers without helmets. Thats what SunnyG did. Its not like fast bowlers today bowl any faster- infact they bowl slower in general because they are not as fit and also have less incentive to bowl super-fast. 

3. Lot more batsmen got their stuff broken in the pre-helmet era and it was pretty common. Mari Contractor almost died. Mohinder Amaranth got concussed a few times. Mike Gatting lost a piece of his nose. Chris Old nearly died on the field. 

4. Ishant quicker than most 70s pacers....lol. You have no idea then what you are speaking about. Ishant wouldn't be in the top 15 fastest bowlers of the 70s.

 

Bhai ...as  I  said...not every batsman was SMG.   There were many ordinary batsmen in that era playing with poor quality bats and no helmets.  If they had to play 155 k pacers on green tops without any limitation on the number of bouncers...there would have been a couple of dead batsmen every match.

 

Most bowlers of the current era are faster than the '70s and '80s  bowlers.   I have seen most '80s bowlers from the stadium too and they did not look faster than pacers nowadays.  In every sport, speeds and timings have improved  significantly from the '70s.  Why would it not happen in cricket ?

 

If  the batsmen had to play Ishant, Shami, Aaron and Umesh without helmets, on a green track, with '70s bats, with '70s pads, gloves etc,  with 6 bouncers per over allowed....then you would have had a basis for comparison of their relative speeds  to the '70s pacers.

 

The batsmen nowadays also have the luxury of practicing against bowling machines, setting the speed to 95 mph or  90 mph.  Collingwood was explaining this aspect one day. This  makes it much easier to tackle genuine pace nowadays.  They practice with the bowler wearing an external long bowling arm to practice playing bounce from tall bowlers.  All this did not happen in the '70s and '80s.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

39 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Bhai ...as  I  said...not every batsman was SMG.   There were many ordinary batsmen in that era playing with poor quality bats and no helmets.  If they had to play 155 k pacers on green tops without any limitation on the number of bouncers...there would have been a couple of dead batsmen every match.

 

Most bowlers of the current era are faster than the '70s and '80s  bowlers.   I have seen most '80s bowlers from the stadium too and they did not look faster than pacers nowadays.  In every sport, speeds and timings have improved  significantly from the '70s.  Why would it not happen in cricket ?

 

If  the batsmen had to play Ishant, Shami, Aaron and Umesh without helmets, on a green track, with '70s bats, with '70s pads, gloves etc,  with 6 bouncers per over allowed....then you would have had a basis for comparison of their relative speeds  to the '70s pacers.

 

The batsmen nowadays also have the luxury of practicing against bowling machines, setting the speed to 95 mph or  90 mph.  Collingwood was explaining this aspect one day. This  makes it much easier to tackle genuine pace nowadays.  They practice with the bowler wearing an external long bowling arm to practice playing bounce from tall bowlers.  All this did not happen in the '70s and '80s.

 

 

1. No, there wouldn't be a couple of 'dead batsmen every match'. Not every bouncer hits you smack on the artery on the side of your head and kills you intantly. But as i said, it *WAS* common-place to get hit in the body/face/neck/elbow/hands, etc. every match for SOMEONE (often one or two actually) every single match. I don't see what's so controversial about that, everyone who saw pre-helmet cricket attests to that.

 

2. No, most bowlers are not faster. Most bowlers bowl at a comparable to slightly higher average bowling speed than before, yes. But bowlers don't bowl blazingly fast for extended periods/careers anymore in as much numbers, simply because there is no incentive to it. Back then there were pitches where 90mph out swinger at good-length was unplayable. Period. Like, you end up with 25-10-55-2 kind of figures simply by showing up sometimes. Now, those pitches are gone. So just bowling one or two things really fast doesnt pay-off anymore either. As such, why on earth you think a fast bowler would go 'golly, this pitch is made for a truck. I know, i will just bowl as fast as i can and hope to dazzle everyone with speed', unless he has like 5-6 different ASSETS to throw at you.
In terms of speed & bounce, there was a superior quality in pre-helmet days in general (and early helmet days too, the response isn't immediate, its a generational delay usually for any fundamental change in mechanics of sports). 

What we have today, is bowlers who in general have more control. 

 

3. If you put Ishant,Shami, Aaron, Umesh against the West Indies of the 70s and 80s, they'd look like Sri Lanka vs West Indies from those times (if any even happened). Predict 400+ in 9 out of 10 first innings score. Same really, if they played vs Australia. 

These bowlers are far overrated if you think they are good enough to be called a 'good bowling attack' by 1970s-80s standard. India back then were considered a crappy bowling attack in terms of fast bowling attack and we had bloody Kapil Dev. 1 Kapil Dev is worth more than all of Umesh-Araon-Shami-Ishant in my eyes, thank you very much. 

 

[express bowling]

47 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. No, there wouldn't be a couple of 'dead batsmen every match'. Not every bouncer hits you smack on the artery on the side of your head and kills you intantly. But as i said, it *WAS* common-place to get hit in the body/face/neck/elbow/hands, etc. every match for SOMEONE (often one or two actually) every single match. I don't see what's so controversial about that, everyone who saw pre-helmet cricket attests to that.

 

2. No, most bowlers are not faster. Most bowlers bowl at a comparable to slightly higher average bowling speed than before, yes. But bowlers don't bowl blazingly fast for extended periods/careers anymore in as much numbers, simply because there is no incentive to it. Back then there were pitches where 90mph out swinger at good-length was unplayable. Period. Like, you end up with 25-10-55-2 kind of figures simply by showing up sometimes. Now, those pitches are gone. So just bowling one or two things really fast doesnt pay-off anymore either. As such, why on earth you think a fast bowler would go 'golly, this pitch is made for a truck. I know, i will just bowl as fast as i can and hope to dazzle everyone with speed', unless he has like 5-6 different ASSETS to throw at you.
In terms of speed & bounce, there was a superior quality in pre-helmet days in general (and early helmet days too, the response isn't immediate, its a generational delay usually for any fundamental change in mechanics of sports). 

What we have today, is bowlers who in general have more control. 

 

3. If you put Ishant,Shami, Aaron, Umesh against the West Indies of the 70s and 80s, they'd look like Sri Lanka vs West Indies from those times (if any even happened). Predict 400+ in 9 out of 10 first innings score. Same really, if they played vs Australia. 

These bowlers are far overrated if you think they are good enough to be called a 'good bowling attack' by 1970s-80s standard. India back then were considered a crappy bowling attack in terms of fast bowling attack and we had bloody Kapil Dev. 1 Kapil Dev is worth more than all of Umesh-Araon-Shami-Ishant in my eyes, thank you very much. 

 

1.  We are not talking about instant deaths here.  Head injuries often lead to deaths after some time.

 

2. Bowlers use high pace in the air nowadays to beat the super fit batsmen, trained against bowling machines and armed with super bats.  What has reduced is the use of the bouncer, partly due to helmets and partly due to the 2-bouncer rule.

 

3.  We are just talking about release speeds  and risk of physical injury here....not good bowling or good bowling attacks.   I don't doubt it that the WI  quartet of the '70s  and  '80s were much better bowlers than our quartet now.

 

I  find it hard to understand  why some people don't  agree that  without helmets, with bad quality bats, bad quality protective gears, no bowling machine to practice with, juicier pitches, 6 bouncers allowed, lesser fitness of batsmen,   etc.   any pacer would  feel more physically threatening  and  hostile !  

 

Even a 135 k delivery is actually very quick and very threatening without helmets and with bad bats ....especially to batsmen who have not practiced against bowling machines  or many such bowlers day in and day out.

Edited October 19, 2016 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

1.  We are not talking about instant deaths here.  Head injuries often lead to deaths after some time.

 

3.  We are just talking about speeds  and risk of physical injury here....not good bowling or good bowling attacks.   I don't doubt it that the WI  quartet of the '70s were much better bowlers than our quartet now.

 

I  find it hard to understand  why some people don't  agree that  without helmets, with bad quality bats, bad quality protective gears, no bowling machine to practice with, juicier pitches, 6 bouncers allowed, lesser fitness of batsmen,   etc.   any pacer would  feel more physically threatening  and  hostile !  

 

Even a 135 k delivery is actually very quick and very threatening without helmets and with bad bats ....especially to batsmen who have not practiced against bowling machines  or many such bowlers day in and day out.

1. Dude, head injuries don't always lead to instant deaths. or else i'd be dead many times. I don't think you realize what it means to play as a goalie in ice hockey, especially in the 80s and 90s.  If you think that every time a cricket ball hits you in the head at 90mph, you die, then you really haven't seen, played or talked to anyone about that experience. 

 

2. And the WI quarter were much faster too than the current squad of anyone.

 

3. I am not talking about feeling more physically threatening and hostile. Obviously they do feel more hostile and threatening. But by that corollary, batsmen back then were also better at playing the short ball/body ball than they are today -with much, much weaker bats, if i may add. I am simply pointing out, that bowlers back then bowled faster, in general, because it paid off to bowl faster with just 1 or 2 tricks in the bag on a pacy wicket. 

 

4. Batsmen not practicing against bowling machines doesnt mean the end of the world. You forget, in the semi-professional era, it wasn't hard to find legions of Sunday-leage bowlers willing to bowl at you all day long, either. What, you think people like Sobers, Richards or such didnt find bowlers to bowl at them all day long ? 

Batsmen who grew up against fast bowling without helmets and guard, were much better at playing the body ball than batsmen today are. That much, is obvious from their stances in the first place. 

[express bowling]

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Dude, head injuries don't always lead to instant deaths. or else i'd be dead many times. I don't think you realize what it means to play as a goalie in ice hockey, especially in the 80s and 90s.  If you think that every time a cricket ball hits you in the head at 90mph, you die, then you really haven't seen, played or talked to anyone about that experience. 

 

2. And the WI quarter were much faster too than the current squad of anyone.

 

3. I am not talking about feeling more physically threatening and hostile. Obviously they do feel more hostile and threatening. But by that corollary, batsmen back then were also better at playing the short ball/body ball than they are today -with much, much weaker bats, if i may add. I am simply pointing out, that bowlers back then bowled faster, in general, because it paid off to bowl faster with just 1 or 2 tricks in the bag on a pacy wicket. 

 

4. Batsmen not practicing against bowling machines doesnt mean the end of the world. You forget, in the semi-professional era, it wasn't hard to find legions of Sunday-leage bowlers willing to bowl at you all day long, either. What, you think people like Sobers, Richards or such didnt find bowlers to bowl at them all day long ? 

Batsmen who grew up against fast bowling without helmets and guard, were much better at playing the body ball than batsmen today are. That much, is obvious from their stances in the first place. 

 

1.  Being hit on the head at 155 k  would have sometimes caused  deaths or near deaths.  Not a question of always.  

 

2. You don't have any evidence...nor does anyone else. They were more physically threatening due to the lack of helmets etc.  and them bowling more bouncers as a result.  They were also very good bowlers and knew how to make proper use whatever  pace and bounce they had. Bowled the right deliveries in the right direction.

 

3.  And  I  am pointing out that even today it pays to bowl really fast....to beat the super fit batsmen on super flat wickets armed with super bats,   It is just that the bowling style has changed and there are not that many bouncers.  We see lots of super-fast good length and pitched up deliveries now.

 

I  don't think you realize how quick 155 k is.....Mitchell Johnson,  who everybody agrees was  really quick, had difficulty touching 152 k in that Ashes series when he terrorized the English batters with helmets and made a couple of them retire mid-series.  He bowled very few 150 k deliveries even.

 

All this is old is gold syndrome.

 

Anyway....I have to sleep now....goodnight.

Edited October 19, 2016 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

1.  Being hit on the head at 155 k  would have sometimes caused  deaths or near deaths.  Not a question of always.  

 

2. You don't have any evidence...nor does anyone else. They were more physically threatening due to the lack of helmets etc.  and them bowling more bouncers as a result.  They were also very good bowlers and knew how to make proper use whatever  pace and bounce they had. Bowled the right deliveries in the right direction.

 

3.  And  I  am pointing out that even today it pays to bowl really fast....to beat the super fit batsmen on super flat wickets armed with super bats,   It is just that the bowling style has changed and there are not that many bouncers.  We see lots of super-fast good length and pitched up deliveries now.

 

I  don't think you realize how quick 155 k is.....Mitchell Johnson,  who everybody agrees was  really quick, had difficulty touching 152 k in that Ashes series when he terrorized the English batters with helmets and made a couple of them retire mid-series.  He bowled very few 150 k deliveries even.

 

All this is old is gold syndrome.

 

Anyway....I have to sleep now....goodnight.

Bhai, i don't want to go into the 'old is gold' mode or the 'newer the better' mode. 

Suffice to say, I've watched cricket for long enough & talked to cricketers enough to know what is what. 

Some things, the old people did better, somethings, the newer players do better.

For eg, older batsmen were in general better at protecting their bodies & playing off the pitch. New-age batsmen MURDER any width given at all (whereas old time folks would leave wide ball on good length all day long) and pick balls out of the hands better. 

They also deal with yorkers far better.

On the other hand, old time batsmen had far better defence. You had plenty of 'two stroke wonders' who will putter to 100 ball 21 because they got the cover drive & pull shot, everything else is block or leave. 

 

Back then everyone wanted to bowl as fast as possible, because it paid off to bowl fast, scare batsmen & get cheap wickets if you find a length where the ball takes off and batsmen hop like bunnies. Now, the faster you bowl, the faster it goes to the boundary. You need control, movement, variation to keep the batsmen guessing. 

For bowlers, i think in the two categories (fast and spin), it is as such:

today, fast bowlers in general are slower, because it doesnt pay to try to bowl fast on batsmen-friendly wickets. You are better off if you operate at 90% your top spell-speed, don't try too many things and keep it tight. Ie, McGrath-mode. 

But they do have better control in general and they do have better variation. Used to be back in the day, bowlers like Terry Alderman could rely on loopy out swingers all day long or Wes Hall could bowl 90mph + all day long and get wickets not doing much else.

 

For spinners, i think variations + control has become the key, whereas back in the day, control & traps were the key. 

 

I don't believe in 'back then all players were worse than todays' or 'todays players all suck against pace' type of arguments. Its different mechanics to different equipment and it is natural that back then, cricketers would be better at somethings playing on juicer pitches and worse on some things. 

 

I do think that there are certain generations in sports that are 'once-in-a-lifetime' mode. Don't matter how much fitter & coached bowlers today are, there has never been a bowling attack with as much raw pace, bounce, control & decent movement as the West indies quartets of the late 70s and early-mid 80s. Just like no-matter how much fitter Sidney Crosby or Ovechkin are, they are not as good as Lemieux or Gretsky. 

So i see great eras in sports as something not linear, there are high eras and low eras as far as talent & achievements go. It doesnt just get uniformly better and better, except for maybe, in soccer.

 

[express bowling]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Bhai, i don't want to go into the 'old is gold' mode or the 'newer the better' mode. 

Suffice to say, I've watched cricket for long enough & talked to cricketers enough to know what is what. 

Some things, the old people did better, somethings, the newer players do better.

For eg, older batsmen were in general better at protecting their bodies & playing off the pitch. New-age batsmen MURDER any width given at all (whereas old time folks would leave wide ball on good length all day long) and pick balls out of the hands better. 

They also deal with yorkers far better.

On the other hand, old time batsmen had far better defence. You had plenty of 'two stroke wonders' who will putter to 100 ball 21 because they got the cover drive & pull shot, everything else is block or leave. 

 

Back then everyone wanted to bowl as fast as possible, because it paid off to bowl fast, scare batsmen & get cheap wickets if you find a length where the ball takes off and batsmen hop like bunnies. Now, the faster you bowl, the faster it goes to the boundary. You need control, movement, variation to keep the batsmen guessing. 

For bowlers, i think in the two categories (fast and spin), it is as such:

today, fast bowlers in general are slower, because it doesnt pay to try to bowl fast on batsmen-friendly wickets. You are better off if you operate at 90% your top spell-speed, don't try too many things and keep it tight. Ie, McGrath-mode. 

But they do have better control in general and they do have better variation. Used to be back in the day, bowlers like Terry Alderman could rely on loopy out swingers all day long or Wes Hall could bowl 90mph + all day long and get wickets not doing much else.

 

For spinners, i think variations + control has become the key, whereas back in the day, control & traps were the key. 

 

I don't believe in 'back then all players were worse than todays' or 'todays players all suck against pace' type of arguments. Its different mechanics to different equipment and it is natural that back then, cricketers would be better at somethings playing on juicer pitches and worse on some things. 

 

I do think that there are certain generations in sports that are 'once-in-a-lifetime' mode. Don't matter how much fitter & coached bowlers today are, there has never been a bowling attack with as much raw pace, bounce, control & decent movement as the West indies quartets of the late 70s and early-mid 80s. Just like no-matter how much fitter Sidney Crosby or Ovechkin are, they are not as good as Lemieux or Gretsky. 

So i see great eras in sports as something not linear, there are high eras and low eras as far as talent & achievements go. It doesnt just get uniformly better and better, except for maybe, in soccer.

 

 

I have seen the West Indian quartet bowl.  I have seen Malcolm Marshall bowl at his peak.  Infact, I was so influenced that  I  tried to emulate his diagonal run-up.  He was one of the best bowlers that ever will be.  BUT  he was not as quick as a Mitchell Johnson.  I  know it...I have followed Marshall so closely when I was young.   And Johnson usually bowled 140 k to 150 k.....not  155 k. ...  155 k deliveries were bowled by Shoaib Akhtar at his peak, that too on occasions and the WI quartet was nowhere near that fast. Only Patrick Patterson at his peak would come close.

 

Without any tools to measure speed regularly in those days...stating specific speeds like Wes Hall bowling 90 mph+ speeds all day does not have any basis. It is you just making up some figures.  All you can say is he was  fast  compared to his era....and I think you have never seen Hall bowl....maybe a couple of old videos.

 

Top batsmen of that era were better at protecting their body....but not the average or  bad  batsmen were not that adept.

 

I  am pointing out that even today it pays to bowl really fast....to beat the super fit batsmen on super flat wickets armed with super bats,   It is just that the bowling style has changed and there are not that many bouncers.  We see lots of super-fast good length and pitched up deliveries now. 

 

Let us not confuse the ability to bowl good, well directed bouncers  with more frequency with bowling  faster.  The quality and bounce  of the pitch and accuracy of the delivery play a large part in the bouncers looking hostile.  Also, let us  not confuse good bowling with fast bowling.   The famous WI quartet were some of the best bowlers that ever will be but not the fastest. By their own admission. Patterson and Bishop were faster.

 

In a nutshell.....don't  state specific speeds from the '60s , '70s and '80s without any data being available. We will never know what speeds they bowled at, day in and day out.