Speeds pre-1998

[iamdavid]

This is relevant to the "Thommo reckons he can bowl at 180kph" thread.

I wonder if they'll ever get the technology to be able to look at old film and measure speeds accurately from it? Might happen one day, but I'm technologically inept and couldn't tell you if it's possible or impossible.

In front of me I have the Inside Edge magazine from October 2001, there is a very interesting article on this, I'll quote it...

"Could it be possible that Jeff Thompson's world record of 160.5km/h was broken 40 years before if was set? If mythology is to be believed then the English pace kings, Larwood, Tyson and Trueman were faster again. If Thommo can be trusted, then he bowled much quicker than 160 anyway.

One of the many beauties of cricket is its unchangeability. One of these is that the distance between popping creases has remained unchanged for over a century - 22 yards.
It got us thinking, could a comparison of bowling speeds be made between eras using archival footage of the bowler in stride and at the moment of delivery? Surely by timing the ball from the moment it left the hand to the moment it arrived at the batsman we could obtain an approximate figure.

So given that VHS video works reliably at 25 frames per second, we adapted the sample to kilometres per hour and applied it to the many fast bowlers from different eras of whom action footage still exists.
From the movies we obtained, both Fred Trueman and Frank Tyson were found to bowl at 10 frames, putting them as high at 159.12km/h with an average of 152.63. While Thommo and Ray Lindwall were clocked at 11 frames putting their peaks in the low 150's with an average of 139. Keith Miller and Wes Hall were throwing them down in 12 dazzling frames at an average of 127.3 but the variant between venom was high with each."

They then go on to claim later in the article that "most of Frank Tyson's deliveries on the 1954-55 tour of Australia were too fast for Inside Edge to time".

Interesting, I dont buy into the exact figures being correct, as things like the drag from the old no-ball rule (thus some of the bowlers having a slightly shorter distance to cover), the quality of the footage and other factors would make it extremely difficult to be exact. But in general I think their claims are pretty close to the mark.

Interesting that Trueman appears to have been so sharp, I know he was quick but his name dosent often come up in "quickest ever" debates.

 

[Arjun]

Have pace bowlers been slowing down over the years? We see speed-guns operating and their readings shown on screens, but today's pacers seem a lot less powerful than their counterparts of the past.

 

[Days of Grace]

And bowlers seem to be getting injured more these days too. Too much gym work and not enough 'hard yards', e.g. bowling and bowling and bowling?

 

[Richard]

This is relevant to the "Thommo reckons he can bowl at 180kph" thread.



In front of me I have the Inside Edge magazine from October 2001, there is a very interesting article on this, I'll quote it...

"Could it be possible that Jeff Thompson's world record of 160.5km/h was broken 40 years before if was set? If mythology is to be believed then the English pace kings, Larwood, Tyson and Trueman were faster again. If Thommo can be trusted, then he bowled much quicker than 160 anyway.

One of the many beauties of cricket is its unchangeability. One of these is that the distance between popping creases has remained unchanged for over a century - 22 yards.
It got us thinking, could a comparison of bowling speeds be made between eras using archival footage of the bowler in stride and at the moment of delivery? Surely by timing the ball from the moment it left the hand to the moment it arrived at the batsman we could obtain an approximate figure.

So given that VHS video works reliably at 25 frames per second, we adapted the sample to kilometres per hour and applied it to the many fast bowlers from different eras of whom action footage still exists.
From the movies we obtained, both Fred Trueman and Frank Tyson were found to bowl at 10 frames, putting them as high at 159.12km/h with an average of 152.63. While Thommo and Ray Lindwall were clocked at 11 frames putting their peaks in the low 150's with an average of 139. Keith Miller and Wes Hall were throwing them down in 12 dazzling frames at an average of 127.3 but the variant between venom was high with each."

They then go on to claim later in the article that "most of Frank Tyson's deliveries on the 1954-55 tour of Australia were too fast for Inside Edge to time".

Interesting, I dont buy into the exact figures being correct, as things like the drag from the old no-ball rule (thus some of the bowlers having a slightly shorter distance to cover), the quality of the footage and other factors would make it extremely difficult to be exact. But in general I think their claims are pretty close to the mark.

Interesting that Trueman appears to have been so sharp, I know he was quick but his name dosent often come up in "quickest ever" debates.

Remember you mentioning this to me a good 3 or 4 years ago. Particularly interesting that Tyson was considered to be too fast to time.

 

[silentstriker]

This seems a reasonable estimate. Obviously, with only 25 frames a second, you'll have a pretty high margin of error (ball is released between two frames and passes the stumps between two frames), but you can certainly get a range, such as 140kph-150kph and such.

 

[iamdavid]

Remember you mentioning this to me a good 3 or 4 years ago. Particularly interesting that Tyson was considered to be too fast to time.

Yeah I remember posting about it but not actually being able to find the article to back it up, I also thought Larwood was involved however looking at it now theres no mention of him.

 

[eglezdzdiyd]

Very interesting. You'd think it very possible. i can remember in physics when i was in grade 12 (a few yrs back now), having to look at the effects of spin in regards to tennis and i had a program that could track the speed of the ball. If i could get a program to do it, i'd say they'd be able to get something alot better to give as accurate as possible measure of speed. Was called data logger or something iirc.

 

[andruid]

Have pace bowlers been slowing down over the years? We see speed-guns operating and their readings shown on screens, but today's pacers seem a lot less powerful than their counterparts of the past.

I think its technology exploding the exaggerrations of myth tbh...

 

[silentstriker]

I think its technology exploding the exaggerrations of myth tbh...

Yup. You had the Larwoods, the Typhoons, the Thommos and then the speed guns came and all these mythical men with super-human speeds disappeared. Now you have people who are merely 'very quick'. Coincidence? I think not. I think Tyson or Thommo might very well have been the fastest bowlers ever. It's certainly possible. But 180kph? No chance.

 

[Richard]

Tyson was almost certainly notably faster than standard "fast" (which it'd be logical to assume has always been about 90mph). Thomson might possibly have been too, though possibly only to the level Shaun Tait is.

Also, I don't really think we can say anyone "disappeared" as speedguns have still been around for less than 9 years. The likes of Thomson and Tyson (don't think anyone's ever grouped Larwood with them, think he's always been assumed to be simply fast at a time when most were fast-medium) are once-in-50-years bowlers.

If we're still waiting for the next one in 2100, then maybe we can say speedguns have exploded myths.

 

[Manee]

So given that VHS video works reliably at 25 frames per second, we adapted the sample to kilometres per hour and applied it to the many fast bowlers from different eras of whom action footage still exists.
From the movies we obtained, both Fred Trueman and Frank Tyson were found to bowl at 10 frames, putting them as high at 159.12km/h with an average of 152.63. While Thommo and Ray Lindwall were clocked at 11 frames putting their peaks in the low 150's with an average of 139. Keith Miller and Wes Hall were throwing them down in 12 dazzling frames at an average of 127.3 but the variant between venom was high with each."

Fascinating. I would love to hear the explanations behind why Tyson and Thompson are seen by many as way faster than anything in the modern generation, and yet, timings have not proved such. I presume that a mixture of the action and fast Australian wickets would be an explanation for the latter, but I know little about the former, besides that he had extremely long strides to the crease and bowls himself off his feet - like many modern fast bowlers.

 

[Goughy]

When Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee hit the scene they were quicker than anything from the previous generation and clearly so.

They stood out pacewise from the players I have watched, ranging from Donald to Marshall to Wasim to Waqar to McDermott to Hughes to Ambrose to Walsh etc

Approaching 160 kph and maybe over I think is the mark for the uber-fast. We can tell them as they stand out amongst the crowd of other fast bowlers.

The way that Tyson stood out, Larwood stood out and Thomson stood out. Thomson especially as he stood out at a time when there were fire-breathing fasties across the cricketing landscape.

There are fast bowlers and every now and agan there are those that take it to a new level. I think we can take very late 150s as the cut off and assume that guys like Tyson and Thomson had that as a starting point as did Shoaib Akhtar.

 

[Manee]

Approaching 160 kph and maybe over I think is the mark for the uber-fast.

How fast do you think that perfect nutrition, fitness, natural strength and bowling action can humanly take someone?

 

[Goughy]

How fast do you think that perfect nutrition, fitness, natural strength and bowling action can humanly take someone?

Are you asking what the perfect fast bowling specimen could theoretically bowl given every advantage of training, diet and the perfect action?
Ie what is the human limit to fast bowling?

hmm, its a good question. As mentioned, current speed gun data is only available for a short period of time so its hard to draw conclusions from such a small sample size.

In all honesty I dont know the answer. I doubt we will see anyone bowling 170 kph but then again it only takes 1 and they may be around the corner. Hopefully if they are they are English

 

[Burgey]

Have pace bowlers been slowing down over the years? We see speed-guns operating and their readings shown on screens, but today's pacers seem a lot less powerful than their counterparts of the past.

Thanks for digging up that article IAD.

If fast bowlers are consistently getting slower as the years go by, it would be at odds with almost every other major sport. I know there are differences between all sports, but one of the things which seems to be consistent is that people are running faster, swimming faster, hitting golf balls further and tennis balls harder than they have before.
Of course, with some sports that has to do with technology (ie golf and tennis) but imo it also has to do with training regimes and the rise of professionalism.
So, if guys are not bowling as quick now as they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago, that would seem to be an anomaly compared with the development of other profesional sports.

 

[Richard]

I'd say it's more a case of cricket not being able to progress, as ceilings had already been hit earlier than most sports had hit them.

I find it inconceivable, TBH, that the likes of Larwood - and who knows, maybe the Kortrights and Harencs too - did not bowl at the same sort of speeds - no faster, no slower - as the likes of Lindwall, Trueman, Lillee, Roberts, Waqar, Donald, etc. There's no reason to suspect they wouldn't have. Bowling fast requires two basic things - a fast arm predominantly, and a good run-up and bowling-action (though obviously there's many things which comprise a good bowling-action). Neither of these things are not something which can be improved by the passing of the years.

I'm absolutely no expert on things like swimming and athletics, but it's been noted many times that these are far more "natural" sports than bowling in cricket is. Bowling is very much an out-of-the-ordinary thing, which is why it causes so many injuries. And the requirements to do it have not changed significantly since 1864.

 

[Matt79]

The "people are getting better at sports" argument can be quite misleading - its not surprising that we've not seen much, if any, increase in the very top speeds attained by players, especially since, say, WWII.

Sports where records get reduced drastically tend to be sports that either haven't been established for very long, and in which it is still possible to develop previously unknown techniques that improve upon the norm, or else haven't been treated professionally for very long, eg. women's marathon prior to its inclusion in the Olympics.

In established sports, any improvements are going to be miniscule and incremental. We still see records being broken, but that's in part because of the increasing accuracy of time keeping - it's now possible to judge that someone has shaved 3/100s of a second of the old mark for the 1500m run. In the 100ms, the current world record is approx. 4% faster than what Jesse Owens ran - in old-fashioned shoes, with no starters blocks, on a cinder track.

Fast bowling is like that IMO. The basic technique has been established for a century. There have been people who've been bowling for a living for decades. And we now find that exceptional quick bowlers have unusual Thommo/Tait style actions, or actions that at their most extreme are sometimes questionable like Lee and Akhtar.

What improvements in nutrition, recovery, and injury management have probably done is not improve the very fastest bowlers performance, but reduced the variability between the average speeds of top quicks. Its probably easier with modern coaching, nutrition, etc etc for a bowler with a decent amount of talent to consistently bowl 130+, and in the last 20 years we probably have many more bowlers hitting 140+ than used to be the case. But the exceptional bowlers haven't changed as much.

And this partially answers the question about where have the super-quicks gone. They're still here IMO, but they don't stand out as much anymore because the average internationally is now probably 130+, rather than 120+. Its like Mt Everest being less obvious in the Himilayas (sp? no coffee yet today) than it would be in the Sahara.

 

[Richard]

^^ Best post I've seen for a while that.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, I'd expect nothing more from the 'esteemed' writers at Inside Edge and I know it was only meant to be an ad hoc measurement but the lack of science in the measurements they took makes the whole thing pretty funny. For one, the 25 frames-per-second assumption; whilst correct for VHS, did they also take into account the frame-rate of the original footage before transfer? Doubt it and that would make a HUGE difference. Plus there's parallax error to be taken into account, etc.

The fact they perform their calculations to two SF is pretty funny; there's no way their measurements were accurate enough to justify that. As SS said, a range and associated CI would be more scientifically honest than what they did however, I realise this wasn't meant to be a truly defensible addition to the literature.

 

[Richard]

For one, the 25 frames-per-second assumption; whilst correct for VHS, did they also take into account the frame-rate of the original footage before transfer?

I've often wondered what that actually is on newsreel footage TBH. Have never checked.