At what age do quick bowlers tend to decline?

[four_or_six]

Something I've been wondering recently, and also coming out of some other discussions on here:

The success of McGrath at age 35/36 - has it shown that nowadays fast bowlers are fitter and start to decline later, or was McGrath a freak of nature?

Edit: I am talking about a rule of thumb here, I know it won't apply to all but I'm trying to get a general idea.

 

[Richard]

McGrath was certainly an exception to the norm - not only was he one of the best seamers ever seen but his bowling-action was absolutely perfect to resist many of the problems that most seamers tend to experience with age.

I'd say that a seam bowler would generally expect to be at his best from the ages of perhaps 27-30 (as opposed to a batsman at perhaps 30-32) and could hope to go on being "up to standard" at the level he's been playing at until the age of 34-35 or so.

There are all sorts of variants to take into account though: calibre and type of bowling-action; and all sorts of things to do with style of bowling.

People like McGrath and Curtley Ambrose were still among the best in the business at 36; someone like Allan Donald, who was in my view better than both at the age of 28-29, had a broken body by then. Donald's action was all about power, and his strengths were multi-faceted and he relied on them all to be as good as he was. Though McGrath and Ambrose were far from one-dimensional, their skillset honed-in on two essential things: accuracy and seam-movement. These things do not diminish greatly with age (accuracy negligable; seam-movement obviously not at all) so they were able to retain their excellence for longer.

The simple fact of the matter, though, is that all players can go on for longer now as a) pay is better and b) sports medicine is unrecongiseable for what it was even 20 years ago, never mind 50.

 

[biased indian]

At what ago do quick bowlers tend to decline?

 

[four_or_six]

At what ago do quick bowlers tend to decline?

Sorry, typo.

 

[Goughy]

Different types of quicks with different histories with different personalities decline at different times.

The 'athletic' quicks with a history of injury pronenesss (sp?) and a stable homelife will fade as the body cannot cope with the explosive pressures like it did before the wear and tear and the pain of bowling can become more than it is worth.

I include the likes of Donald, Gough and Waqar in the 'athletic' quick category

The 'lever' quicks that avoid injuries can go on forever. The body is under far less explosive pressure and the the action and run up are not based on being dynamic.

'Lever' quicks include Ambrose, McGrath, Walsh

Injury avoidance is key to all though. Injuries pile up on each other and make the body unbalanced and cause more injuries. However, if injuries are avoided then the body has 20 years of fast bowling conditioning to draw upon. A 39 year old quick can be stronger and more suited to fast bowling than a 19 as they have dedicated their life to that end.

Many decline as they are just not as hungry as before and the pain of fast bowling just isnt worth it as much. They have aready accomplished a lot and would rather spend time with the family than training and the agony of fast bowling around the world. Fast bowling is a young mans game as much for the required hunger and desire to ignore pain than it is physically.

 

[GotSpin]

McGrath was certainly an exception to the norm - not only was he one of the best seamers ever seen but his bowling-action was absolutely perfect to resist many of the problems that most seamers tend to experience with age.

I'd say that a seam bowler would generally expect to be at his best from the ages of perhaps 27-30 (as opposed to a batsman at perhaps 30-32) and could hope to go on being "up to standard" at the level he's been playing at until the age of 34-35 or so.

There are all sorts of variants to take into account though: calibre and type of bowling-action; and all sorts of things to do with style of bowling.

People like McGrath and Curtley Ambrose were still among the best in the business at 36; someone like Allan Donald, who was in my view better than both at the age of 28-29, had a broken body by then. Donald's action was all about power, and his strengths were multi-faceted and he relied on them all to be as good as he was. Though McGrath and Ambrose were far from one-dimensional, their skillset honed-in on two essential things: accuracy and seam-movement. These things do not diminish greatly with age (accuracy negligable; seam-movement obviously not at all) so they were able to retain their excellence for longer.
.

You did see McGrath weaken a bit towards the end of his career. Ankle injuries seemed to have a significant impact.as old age caught up with him

 

[Woodster]

I include the likes of Donald, Gough and Waqar in the 'athletic' quick category

The 'lever' quicks that avoid injuries can go on forever. The body is under far less explosive pressure and the the action and run up are not based on being dynamic.

'Lever' quicks include Ambrose, McGrath, Walsh

Consequently aren't the three bowlers mentioned first (perhaps barring Gough) quicker bowlers in their pomp than the following three, therefore much more energy must go into each delivery.

I agree that the Amby, Walsh and McGrath were almost effortless bowlers and certianly looked under far less strain than the others but there are very batsman that put any of those in the fastest bowlers ever faced category, despite them certainly being quick enough to gain attention.

 

[Briony]

If you're taller and don't rely on pace as much but more accuracy and the ability to generate bounce you have greater longevity. McGrath is a perfect example of this.All bowlers lose speed as they reach their early 30s though.

 

[Matt79]

Question said "start to" decline, so I opted for 30-31 as a rule of thumb. It's an exceptional case where there's no deterioration at all from there, and otherwise, the variable is how sharply the decline kicks in.

 

[Goughy]

Consequently aren't the three bowlers mentioned first (perhaps barring Gough) quicker bowlers in their pomp than the following three, therefore much more energy must go into each delivery.

I agree that the Amby, Walsh and McGrath were almost effortless bowlers and certianly looked under far less strain than the others but there are very batsman that put any of those in the fastest bowlers ever faced category, despite them certainly being quick enough to gain attention.

Lets expand a little

- Athletic- Steyn, Wasim, Lee, Larwood, Sreesanth, Ntini
- Lever- Harmison, Morkel, Munaf, Garner, Nel, Caddick
- Combination- Flintoff, Thomson, Shoaib, Fidel Edwards, Holding.

Athletic are the fast, strong athletes
Lever are those that have an elongated bowling arm arc. Either through long limbs or action.
Combination are, obviously, those that combine both.

Im not sure its easy to say which group is quickest but the 'Lever' group may not possess the express pace of the others.

 

[Woodster]

Lets expand a little

- Athletic- Steyn, Wasim, Lee, Larwood, Sreesanth, Ntini
- Lever- Harmison, Morkel, Munaf, Garner, Nel, Caddick
- Combination- Flintoff, Thomson, Shoaib, Fidel Edwards, Holding.

Athletic are the fast, strong athletes
Lever are those that have an elongated bowling arm arc. Either through long limbs or action.
Combination are, obviously, those that combine both.

Im not sure its easy to say which group is quickest but the 'Lever' group may not possess the express pace of the others.

It's not easy depicting which category creates the quicker bowlers, and for every rule there is normally an exception or two. An interesting look at the various styles though.

 

[Woodster]

Also, the question suggests what age do quick bowlers decline ? Does this mean performance-wise or pace-wise? If the pace declines, it then depends on the cleverness of the bowler to adjust his style and skills to be equally effective depsite losing some nip, and employing alternative tactics to remove the batsmen.

 

[Top_Cat]

Different types of quicks with different histories with different personalities decline at different times.

The 'athletic' quicks with a history of injury pronenesss (sp?) and a stable homelife will fade as the body cannot cope with the explosive pressures like it did before the wear and tear and the pain of bowling can become more than it is worth.

I include the likes of Donald, Gough and Waqar in the 'athletic' quick category

The 'lever' quicks that avoid injuries can go on forever. The body is under far less explosive pressure and the the action and run up are not based on being dynamic.

'Lever' quicks include Ambrose, McGrath, Walsh

Injury avoidance is key to all though. Injuries pile up on each other and make the body unbalanced and cause more injuries. However, if injuries are avoided then the body has 20 years of fast bowling conditioning to draw upon. A 39 year old quick can be stronger and more suited to fast bowling than a 19 as they have dedicated their life to that end.

Many decline as they are just not as hungry as before and the pain of fast bowling just isnt worth it as much. They have aready accomplished a lot and would rather spend time with the family than training and the agony of fast bowling around the world. Fast bowling is a young mans game as much for the required hunger and desire to ignore pain than it is physically.

They might be stronger in the muscular sense but joint degradation (irreversible, obviously) would play its part. You might have stronger shoulders and arms as you get older but if the stuff connecting it to the rest of you is weaker, as it is with age, you won't be bowling quickly.

Ligaments are nature's big joke, I reckon. If you somehow manage to preserve them, they'll still stiffen as you get older anyway. And if you rip them, they'll never repair 100% and will still degrade anyway.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Joke of a thread.

"When do induvidually different musuclar dynamics deteriorate beyond repair?"

Yeah great call.

 

[four_or_six]

Joke of a thread.

"When do induvidually different musuclar dynamics deteriorate beyond repair?"

Yeah great call.

 

[Precambrian]

80% fast bowlers find the going difficult after 32.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It seems, from my entirely unscientific observations, to happen at a slightly later age now than was the case twenty years ago when I first started following the sport seriously. This could be down to better medical care and improved fitness generally or (especially in the case of English quicks) the fact that they now play a lot less cricket.

Brett Lee's an interesting case study for a bowler's peak/decline. In the 18 months until the India tour he'd been in (by general consensus) the form of his career, but since then has fallen away from his peak of excellence (NZ wickets notwithstanding). At 32 (IIRC) are we inclined to see it as a blip in form or is it the beginning of the end?

 

[Manee]

I predicted at the beginning of the India tour that it was the beginning of the end as his body appears to finally be limiting his action, but was shouted down, as is anyone who makes anything but a statistically based judgement.

 

[four_or_six]

It seems, from my entirely unscientific observations, to happen at a slightly later age now than was the case twenty years ago when I first started following the sport seriously. This could be down to better medical care and improved fitness generally or (especially in the case of English quicks) the fact that they now play a lot less cricket.

Brett Lee's an interesting case study for a bowler's peak/decline. In the 18 months until the India tour he'd been in (by general consensus) the form of his career, but since then has fallen away from his peak of excellence (NZ wickets notwithstanding). At 32 (IIRC) are we inclined to see it as a blip in form or is it the beginning of the end?

Yeah, Brett Lee and Stuart Clark were one of the main reasons I was thinking about it. I was thinking something around 32ish, although as has been pointed out it obviously depends on the bowler.

 

[Richard]

Different types of quicks with different histories with different personalities decline at different times.

The 'athletic' quicks with a history of injury pronenesss (sp?) and a stable homelife will fade as the body cannot cope with the explosive pressures like it did before the wear and tear and the pain of bowling can become more than it is worth.

I include the likes of Donald, Gough and Waqar in the 'athletic' quick category

The 'lever' quicks that avoid injuries can go on forever. The body is under far less explosive pressure and the the action and run up are not based on being dynamic.

'Lever' quicks include Ambrose, McGrath, Walsh

Yeah, that's basically a more exemplificated-on way of saying what I was essentially trying to say.