Fastest over EVER bowled in test cricket history

[HMas]

YouTube - Shoaib Akhtar v Ricky Ponting (" Fastest Over Ever Bowled " - Langer)

 

[Athlai]

Fastest over ever RECORDED in Test Cricket History.

 

[Maximus0723]

and that's after chucking and taking roids...

 

[Krishna_j]

How about a certain over bowled in Sabina Park in 1981 ?

 

[silentstriker]

Don't think they had speed guns there.

 

[Migara]

Come on Akthar is quicker than Holding (Of course I agree with drugs business. But Holding also extended it more than 5º, so a chuck under old law). Jeff Thompson's "box inside-out" turning over to lloyd would have been a good candidate too.

 

[aussie]

YouTube - Shoaib Akhtar v Ricky Ponting (" Fastest Over Ever Bowled " - Langer)

Hvae vague memory of this Akhtar spell. Akhtar was sharp in the entire series though.

The fastest overs i think i have ever seen in this. Live or highlights (can't remember speeds):

- Donald to Atherton 98

- Akhtar to NZ, Karachi (i think) in 2002

- Aktar to Waugh, Lee, Gilchrist 2002 (Colombo)

- Akhtar to Tendulkar, Dravid, Kolkotta 2000

- Johnson 1st over vs SA in Durban last month

 

[Richard]

Come on Akthar is quicker than Holding

By 1981, he probably was (ie, Akhtar for most of his career was quicker than Holding in 1981 was). But the Holding of 1976, before his most serious injury, might very well I think have been as quick as Shoaib.

Of course we'll never know for certain, because there were no speedguns in his day. But I reckon Holding and Thomson of the mid-'70s were probably as quick as the like of Akhtar and Tait today.

And Frank Tyson in that one series in '54/55 might have been a bit quicker still. Or he might not.

 

[Goughy]

The only thing I can say with any degree of certainty is that Akhtar is the fastest I have seen since I started following cricket in the mid-late 80s.

 

[trapol]

There you go again Richard...speaking absolute rubbish.

I am going to keep harrassing you whilst you continue to make up opinion. Holding quicker than Akhtar? Youre dreaming....

Have you spoken to anyone, who is impartial about this or again are you just offering what you think and expect everybody to take it as the way it is

I have asked this very question to a former 80s NZ Test batsman and he said none, thats right NONE of the Windies bowlers of the 70s and 80s were quicker than todays Windies bowlers. They were just considerably better bowlers

I believe him, because unlike most, he doesnt have a prejudice towards his day being better than everybody elses and he was honest enough to be honest.

Now, i could be wrong here and indeed you have spoken to others about this. If so i would hope that you could mention thats its not just your opinion because, as youve probably gathered, not many hold your opinion in such high regard

 

[silentstriker]

Players frankly are really bad at judging pace, especially differences of 5-6mph. I remember right after the introduction of speed guns, players were shocked as some of the bowlers they thought were express turned out to be mid eighties. It seemed that way because of their action, or because of their other characteristics, they were simply harder to face.

They may have been faster, they may not. I'd say not, but I'm sure as heck not going to take players words for it. To listen to some of the players, every leg spin bowler they faced was 200mph and fast bowlers were breaking mach III.

 

[zaremba]

There you go again Richard...speaking absolute rubbish.

I am going to keep harrassing you whilst you continue to make up opinion. Holding quicker than Akhtar? Youre dreaming....

Have you spoken to anyone, who is impartial about this or again are you just offering what you think and expect everybody to take it as the way it is

I have asked this very question to a former 80s NZ Test batsman and he said none, thats right NONE of the Windies bowlers of the 70s and 80s were quicker than todays Windies bowlers. They were just considerably better bowlers

I believe him, because unlike most, he doesnt have a prejudice towards his day being better than everybody elses and he was honest enough to be honest.

Now, i could be wrong here and indeed you have spoken to others about this. If so i would hope that you could mention thats its not just your opinion because, as youve probably gathered, not many hold your opinion in such high regard

Whoah! Take a deep breath.

To maintain that Holding in the 1970s was as quick as Akhtar (and if you read Richard's post you'll see that he didn't claim Holding was faster than Akhtar) is not ridiculous. Not sure I'm in a position to judge either way (in fact I'm sure I'm not) but it's not outside the realms of possibility. Holding was bloody quick.

 

[steve132]

I didn't see Frank Tyson in 1954-55 in Australia, but those who did are convinced that he was the fastest bowler ever.

The fastest I have seen were (in chronological order) Hall, Thomson, Holding and Shoaib. I don't know if there is anyone who can provide a definitive judgment on their respective speeds.

 

[Richard]

Players frankly are really bad at judging pace, especially differences of 5-6mph. I remember right after the introduction of speed guns, players were shocked as some of the bowlers they thought were express turned out to be mid eighties. It seemed that way because of their action, or because of their other characteristics, they were simply harder to face.

They may have been faster, they may not. I'd say not, but I'm sure as heck not going to take players words for it. To listen to some of the players, every leg spin bowler they faced was 200mph and fast bowlers were breaking mach III.

Yeah, speed out of the hand and ease of reaction are not the same thing. Too many former high-level players have a tendency to regard the "quickest" as those who were hardest to sight, or those who lost least pace off the pitch. But the speed out of the hand is what's given on guns and is the only thing the bowler truly has in his command.

Of course, shortest reaction time is far more important than quickest.

 

[Richard]

There you go again Richard...speaking absolute rubbish.

Wrong.

I am going to keep harrassing you whilst you continue to make up opinion. Holding quicker than Akhtar? Youre dreaming....

No, I'm not.

Have you spoken to anyone, who is impartial about this or again are you just offering what you think and expect everybody to take it as the way it is

I've not actually spoken as such - not held a conversation - but I have read and listened.

I have asked this very question to a former 80s NZ Test batsman and he said none, thats right NONE of the Windies bowlers of the 70s and 80s were quicker than todays Windies bowlers. They were just considerably better bowlers

I believe him, because unlike most, he doesnt have a prejudice towards his day being better than everybody elses and he was honest enough to be honest.

That's frankly ridiculous. It is perfectly possible that Edwards and Lawson (no-one else) were as quick as the likes of Roberts, Marshall, Garner, Croft, Clarke, etc. (notice - not Holding) but to suggest they were quicker makes precisely zero sense. There is no way one person's view on this is of the remotest relevance. Not a single other person has ever made that suggestion when I've been observing, for starters. For seconds, every other person who has talked of the majority of West Indian quicks of the '70s and '80s says they were quick. Only Holding was ever said to be insanely quick (Shoaib\Tait sort of speed) but no-one thought they were below fast.

And no-one who has played for West Indies of late has been anything other than fast (ie, 92-93 mph at best). This we know beyond question.

If anyone could actually provide a remotely cogent reason why the likes of Roberts and Marshall were not 90mph merchants I'd like to hear it. Not one person has ever done so to me before now.

And everyone who faced Michael Holding in 1976 has spoken of how he was occasionally simply too quick. So quick you couldn't lay bat on him, even deliveries that didn't move a smidgen. For a top-class batsman, this requires pace in the high 90s. 92-93 mph - doesn't cut it, top-class batsmen can still play this easily with no sideways movement. After '76 Holding was never, quite, this quick again - again, every account I've heard has suggested this, including the bowler himself. Similar to how Thomson was never as quick after '76/77 as he had been for the couple of years up to then (again, every account suggests this).

The trouble is that most accounts of Holding tend to centre on his time with Roberts, Garner and Croft, and later Marshall, Garner and Baptiste\Walsh\Patterson. Because this was the time when the West Indian pace quartet was active, and the time which has easily most fame. In '76 there were only a couple of occasions where there was a quartet of them (and the other two were Wayne Daniel and Vanburn Holder, whose fame is nowhere near so considerable). Also, '76 is now quite a while ago, and to get accounts of that you need to do a bit of looking around yourself, rather than using the stuff you're spoon-fed. I can do this; not everyone can.

Holding's best year was '76. Of course he was still magnificent thereafter, but in '76 he was truly special. And he was quick. About as quick as anyone - maybe bar Frank Tyson - has ever been.

Now, i could be wrong here and indeed you have spoken to others about this.

As I say, I haven't engaged others in conversation, but I have listened.

If so i would hope that you could mention thats its not just your opinion because, as youve probably gathered, not many hold your opinion in such high regard

Actually they do, a hell of a lot of people in fact - you just don't yourself, so therefore you'd prefer it if others didn't. However, I, unlike you, actually know a hell of a lot about the posters on this site, so therefore your inexperienced and ineducated comments are of no significance to me.

 

[Richard]

I didn't see Frank Tyson in 1954-55 in Australia, but those who did are convinced that he was the fastest bowler ever.

The fastest I have seen were (in chronological order) Hall, Thomson, Holding and Shoaib. I don't know if there is anyone who can provide a definitive judgment on their respective speeds.

I think the sensible thing is to assume that each of Hall, Thomson, Holding and Shoaib (and Shaun Tait - who seems to be neglected quite often, perhaps because of the brevity of his appearances) pushed the boundaries about as far as it's realistically possible to go. There is no reason, I don't think, to assume that any of them were quicker than one another. I reckon they were all capable of just about breaking the 100mph barrier at their quickest. And Tyson, well, maybe he might have been that phenomenal physical specimin who could do what no other has ever been able to.

Tyson's speeds in Australia in '54/55 are no mere matter of conjecture, and of Benaud and Bradman (among others) 's whims. Tyson brused batsmen through their pads in that series. Yes, pads in those days were not quite so hi-tech as they became later, but nonetheless, no other bowler, before or after, has ever done this - at least, not as more than a one-off freak (I remember Brendom McCullum suffering a displaced kneecap courtesy of Jason Gillespie as a result of a not-especially-quick ball that just happened to hit the wrong angle and the wrong spot).

It's very conceivable to me that Tyson, in that one series only, went further than anyone else has ever gone on the speed barometer. It's a real shame his day occurred long before speedguns.

 

[oldmancraigy]

If you want to get a little impartial about the Holding thing, the speed to take would be the top speed he clocked in a 'speedsters bowloff' in 1978: which was 141.3kmh (Imran Khan just behind him on 139).

Now we can get all romantic about it and talk about where that speed was measured (bowlers hand, mid pitch or at the batsman) and what the relative speed "must" have been - but in the end that's not overly useful is it? Because it doesn't provide any empirical evidence.
(reportedly it was measured towards the batsmans end)

But what we CAN deduce from that 1978 "bowloff" is that we shouldn't bother talking about Michael Holding because he was whipped by an injured Jeff Thomson - who clocked 147.9kmh to finish miles in front.
When I say "injured" I refer to the dislocation of his right collarbone (1976) after which those who faced him said he never bowled as fast again.

Prior to the collision (1975) he had twice been clocked over 160 in a test match by a radar gun - again, reportedly this was at the batsmans end (according to those present and those measuring) - but if true that would seem ridiculously quick...

Anyway - all this does is remove Holding from discussion, but promotes Thomson (pre-1976) as a candidate for the 'fastest over ever bowler'

 

[trapol]

Well said Craigy

Richard, was merely pointing out that often players are 'blinkered' by their own era and cant see past it. What was refreshing about this discussion was that he was able to say look, these windies bowlers were incredible bowlers, but they werent arent werent any quicker than todays mob. incidentally that was in the days of Reon King and the like. Now i fully realise he couldnt bowl and comparing them as bowlers is crazy.

Im also not saying that King and co are quicker they are not but all he is trying to say is that these guys have been put up on a pedestal when in fact pace wise they shouldnt be but as bowlers of course.

BTW it is commonly accepted that Sylvester Clarke was the uickest and nastiest of that crop. I have spoken to many international batsman from different countries and they all say that. Incidentally he wasnt as good a bowler as the other lot but was the quickest.

Last point, players never play92-93mph bowling with ease even if there is never any movement. That is **** quick in everbodies language

 

[silentstriker]

(reportedly it was measured towards the batsmans end)

By whose report? I keep hearing it, but I can never find a source of any reliability.

Anyway - all this does is remove Holding from discussion, but promotes Thomson (pre-1976) as a candidate for the 'fastest over ever bowler'

Yea, even if it was measured out of the hand, he was certainly quicker pre-injury, and probably pushed mid-high one-fifties then and would probably in contention with Shoaib.

If it is indeed measured at the batsman's end, or averaged, then he would certainly have been the fastest of all time. However, I'm a bit doubtful this is the case, as I said, I can't find any actual source on that.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Well said Craigy

Richard, was merely pointing out that often players are 'blinkered' by their own era and cant see past it.

Yeah - I was trying to help his argument a little with the very few figures out there.