• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Best ever medium pacer?

albo97056

U19 Cricketer
you could atleast compare to see who was quicker, say mcgrath or larwood for instance by doing a simple split screen like on modern coverage.. whichever reached the batsman first (for a yorker obviously) would be quicker, speed through the air is fairly constant.... I mean you can see that hoggard is slower than mahmood that way.. and thats only a 5mph difference
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Larwood was 5'8" and McGrath is 6'6"

Makes a big difference to trajectory and speed off the wicket
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
has to be a Kiwi, Gavin Larsen, Nathan Astle or Chris Harris, for proper medium pacers.. Not sure what their records are like though..

McGrath isn't a medium pacer! Thats as silly as calling Gilchrist an all rounder because he keeps wicket!
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Thats as silly as calling Gilchrist an all rounder because he keeps wicket!
Off-topic, but:
I would call Gilchrist an allrounder as, when in form, he performs in two separate disciplines at a standard that would merit his selection for each alone, ie. he'd be selected as a batsman if he didn't keep wickets, and he'd be selected as the keeper even if he was only an average bat. That's the definition I use for allrounder. The keeper is the only position where you could be selected because of your fielding skills, so I don't see why a keeper who's a good enough bat can't be classed as an allrounder. I'd put Andy flower, and Sangakkara in the same category.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Matt79 said:
Off-topic, but:
I would call Gilchrist an allrounder as, when in form, he performs in two separate disciplines at a standard that would merit his selection for each alone, ie. he'd be selected as a batsman if he didn't keep wickets, and he'd be selected as the keeper even if he was only an average bat. That's the definition I use for allrounder. The keeper is the only position where you could be selected because of your fielding skills, so I don't see why a keeper who's a good enough bat can't be classed as an allrounder. I'd put Andy flower, and Sangakkara in the same category.

I agree. My definition of an all rounder is that you can make a test-standard team separatly in at least two capacities (out of bowling, batting, keeping).

Of course, then Flintoff would be only a mediocre all rounder as he can make any team with the ball, but he'd have a hard time making teams with his bat alone.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
On a sidenote. Don't you just love scientific accuracy.

"The methods of measurement are different. Harold Larwood in the 1920s had the speed measured by high speed photography and his speed was recorded as between 70mph and 130 mph."
http://thatscricket.oneindia.in/inte...ranktyson.html

In other breaking news it has just been discovered that I measure somewhere between 5ft and 7ft tall.
Another side-note; that's not scientific accuracy but measurement accuracy. One can only work with the data one has available and in that case, cameras would have been a pretty awful way to measure speed to the error margin blows out, hence the large range of possible speeds.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Top_Cat said:
Another side-note; that's not scientific accuracy but measurement accuracy. One can only work with the data one has available and in that case, cameras would have been a pretty awful way to measure speed to the error margin blows out, hence the large range of possible speeds.
I only included the statement as I thought it was funny that someone even thought giving such such a conclusion was worth the paper it was written on.

I mean its such a wide margin that it was a pointless exercise and proved nothing
 

albo97056

U19 Cricketer
why is it if something happened a long time ago, people discredit it. Why cant someone who played 70 years ago have bowled as fast as someone today... theyre all human! People have some sort of superiority complex about themselve and how great everything is today.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
How do you time something moving at 96 mph over 22 yards using a stopwatch?

96 mph is 46.933333 etc. yards a second, if my quick calculation is correct (which it probably isn't). That's an awful short time to react.
 
Last edited:

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
why is it if something happened a long time ago, people discredit it. Why cant someone who played 70 years ago have bowled as fast as someone today... theyre all human! People have some sort of superiority complex about themselve and how great everything is today.
It's not that we don't believe people could have bowled quick in those days; we're just questioning the actual reading because those of us in science (or used to be, anyway) know that measurement tools of any real validity were non-existant back then.
 

Top