Do today's bowlers bowl too fast?

[stephen]

The thought has occurred to me over the last few years on more than one occasion that modern bowlers are perhaps bowling five kms faster than they should. McGrath, certainly the most successful quick of the last decade bowled between 130 and 140 kms, occasionally getting marginally higher in this timeframe. However, he was so ridiculously accurate and moved the ball off the pitch.

Most other bowlers were faster than McGrath during this time, regularly staying over the 140 kph mark.

I just re-watched the "worlds fastest bowler" competition from the 70s. This competition had such greats as Lillee, Imran, Hadlee, Roberts and Croft. All of these bowlers were recorded as slower than today's bowlers. They all peaked around 140 (except for Thompson) and averaged in the mid 130s. Thompson was the fastest and he peaked at 147, with an average of 142.

I am wondering if the increase in speeds that we see today have had the dual effect of reducing accuracy and swing. Certainly the physics of swing gets severely effected by the speed of the ball. If so do you think it would be better for bowling coaches to focus more on accuracy than speed, or is it just that modern pitches are too flat and we don't have as genetically good fast bowlers any more?

Or alternatively, is it just that increased professionalism has helped batsmen more than bowlers? Or is it something else?

 

[stumpski]

Well, it would seem fairly self-evident that reducing pace leads to greater control, and more movement through the air or off the wicket, though if you can bowl at 95 mph I reckon you don't have to worry too much about cut or swing - just concentrating on bowling straight will often be enough. And there is a special thrill, for the spectator, if not for the batsman, at watching someone running in and hurling it down at such speed.

Most bowlers do reduce their pace over time though, don't they? How many have there been who were bowling as fast at 33 as they were at 23?

 

[oitoitoi]

Well I also think that the speedos at matches are very generous, usually not 100% accurate by any means. Waqar used to swing it round corners and he was quick enough.

I think fast bowlers are asked to bowl too much these day so they're rarely at their physical peak and giving 100% for fear of injury. Flat pitches haven't helped, but the best quicks were able to take that out of the equation.

 

[Goughy]

Its actually a very interesting question. Im not sure I know the answer, but Im convinced there are guys that are forced to add 5-10 kph do the detriment of their overall effectiveness as a bowler. Others, of course, are less affected.

 

[King Pietersen]

The figures are a little different in the other 2 earlier Fastest bowler competitions.

1975 Study:

Jeff Thomson- 160.45k's
Andy Roberts- 159.49k's
Michael Holding- 150.67k's
Dennis Lillee- 148.54k's (was ill at the time)

1976 study:

Jeff Thomson- 160.6kph (99.6 mph)
Andy Roberts- 157.4kph (97.8mph)
Dennis Lillee- 154.8kph (96.2mph)
Michael Holding- 153.2kph (95.2mph)
Wayne Daniel- 150.8kph (93.7mph)
Bob Willis- 145.9kph (90.7mph)
Alan Ward- 139.2kph (86.5mph)
John Snow- 138.7kph (86.5mph)

 

[rivera213]

The World's Fastest Bowler competition speeds weren't really representative of how fast those bowlers bowled in a match situation.

It was a few balls in a net situation.

Holding, Thomson, Lillee, Roberts all hit 90mph+ in matches pretty easily I reckon. Of course, the bouncier faster wickets of the 70's and 80's made the ball seem faster cos it got to the batsman quicker than today's wickets, but out of the hand all of those were capable of bowling 95mph+.

Nowadays, you don't have anyone bowling that fast. Mitchell Johnson, Dale Steyn, Fidel Edwards and Lasith Malinga are the fastest in terms of average speed*, but none of those bowl more than around 145kmph (90mph). The odd ball up to around 150kmph (93mph) and in Johnson's case more than the odd ball but generally the 70's and early 80's was the era of speed.

I'm skeptical about the speed gun used for the 1976 test. Speed guns, if inaccurate, read faster than the actual speed but nevertheless all of the top bowlers would've hit over 90mph. I'm confident of that.

I'm also skeptical of the high-speed camera method of testing. I don't know much about this apart from the fact Dennis Lillee said they were "very accurate". Ha ha.

As for the point of the topic. Malinga bowls his best @ 138-140kmph (86-87mph) he gets 99% of the deliveries on target. Johnson is at his best bowling around 142kmph (88mph). Steyn is the only 1 who is at his best bowling @ 90mph and suffers when his pace isn't up there.

The wickets nowadays don't exacty lend themselves to speedy bowling so bowlers have had to adapt, develop a clever slower ball & work more on accuracy and moving the ball sideways.


* Shaun Tait can bowl a few overs at the begin of a match/spell at silly speeds (150-158kmph/93-98mph) but then tail off and bowl as low as 135kmph (84mph) so it's hard to gauge a genuine average speed for him.

 

[Debris]

Speed certainly has less value than it used to. Protective equipment has pretty much removed the fear factor that the really quick bowlers used to have.

I would say that they are only bowling too fast if they are losing control. Even Glenn McGrath had to keep up his speeds a bit, he was much more lethal at 135km/h than he was at 130. And I think the loss of speed crippled Shaun Pollock's bowling at the end as well.

 

[Richard]

It's really not possible to "bowl too fast". The quicker you can propel the ball out of your hand, the better, obviously. However, as far as bowling abilities are concerned, really-quick (140 kph +) pace comes down the list - that is, there are other things more important than the ability to do this. One (the ability to move the ball sideways) can be learnt by a good pupil and taught by a good coach; the other (height) is entirely down to genes (and to a very small extent nurture at a young age). Really-fast pace merely accentuates these weapons, it's no use in itself (unless you can consistently bowl 155 kph +, which no-one has ever managed to do for more than a year or two - Tyson in '54/55; Thomson in '74/75 and '75/76; Holding in '76; possibly odd others).

Either way, the biggest reason for the lack of successful seam bowling in recent times is the pitches and lack of quality, not trying to bowl too fast.

And as for the bowlers in the 1970s, the simple truth is no-one really knows exactly how quick they were - we can only guess. The studies of the time were not comparable to modern speed measurements.

 

[roseboy64]

One can also point to the fact that today's cricketers play far more than they did back then.

 

[Richard]

More at the international level, sure, but more in terms of pure days on the park? Very much not. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[aussie]

More at the international level, sure, but more in terms of pure days on the park? Very much not. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The intensity & regular adaptation of skill levels. To play tests, ODI's & T20s, definately takes more out of players than those of the 70s who may have played alot of cricket also but only FC & old style OD cricket.

 

[rivera213]

Really-fast pace merely accentuates these weapons, it's no use in itself (unless you can consistently bowl 155 kph +, which no-one has ever managed to do for more than a year or two - Tyson in '54/55; Thomson in '74/75 and '75/76; Holding in '76; possibly odd others).

This isn't a rant at you, just in general but I've used your quote.....

I don't think anyone- especially Tyson has bowled an average speed of 96mph for a sustained period of time. I don't know how you can come to that conclusion personally.

A quote from Richie Benaud (which is who most people mention when talking about Tyson) doesn't equal proof just like Rod Marsh's BS about Thommo bowling 180kph (when it's been proven he didn't bowl anywhere near that, even with speed guns which probably read faster than in reality) doesn't cut it.

Tyson was possibly the fastest in his day during a burst (akin to Shaun Tait) but the uncovered pitches making the wickets much more bowler-friendly resulted in the ball reaching the batsman VERY quickly. Even those bowling 80mph would look fast. Some bowlers rated as "fast" on CricInfo or wherever would in reality (today with accurate speed guns) be "Fast-Medium".

I don't think Tyson during his peak would be 1 of these, but his action wasn't 1 which easily produced speed. With Thomson, Shoaib, Malinga or Tait's actions it's easy to see how they generate(d) their pace (I may invest in a speed gun and clock myself using those actions one day and provide a "case study") but Tyson (even with that long run-up and intense follow-through) didn't have the action to make it physically possible to bowl at that speed. He'd have had to have an abnormality (like Shoaib's elbow) to generate pace in the low-90mph range ball after ball, let alone 96mph+.

Thommo, I'd estimate, bowled an average speed of around 94mph at his peak (though would've wained off as the day went on). His lack of pace was predominantely down to his collarbone injury. He was never the same after that. You see in footage a quite noticable difference. I'd say ca 5+mph on average.

Shoaib was bowling post-150kph (93mph+) for the years 1999-2004 with some up in the high 150kph and earl 160kph range. I know the use of steroids may have helped but I honestly don't know when he started (and IF he started) using them since the results weren't that conclusive IIRC.

Holding's max speed was around 95-96mph (Colin Croft mentioned he and Michael were "clocked" @ 97mph but no proof equals no clocking IMO, plus Colin didn't mention HOW they were clocked), average speed I'd reckon 90-92mph (1976-1981, ignore the World's Fastest Bowler results since they don't replicate a match situation and adrenaline, full out bowling etc). On the wickets of the 70's and 80's, that was easily enough considering the height he bowled from and accuracy he had.

Lillee and Roberts I'm sure bowled 90mph+ for many years along with Holding. Lillee until he started to exhaust, Roberts in the 70's

Marshall and Donald at absolute peak consistently bowled @ 90mph I reckon, as did Shaun Pollock at the begin of his career.

Either way, the biggest reason for the lack of successful seam bowling in recent times is the pitches and lack of quality, not trying to bowl too fast.

Yeah definitely agree.

And as for the bowlers in the 1970s, the simple truth is no-one really knows exactly how quick they were - we can only guess. The studies of the time were not comparable to modern speed measurements.

Yeah and if anything the studies of 1975 & 1976 read FASTER than in reality.

Common sense and knowledge of the human body would suggest none of the bowlers in the 2 mid-70's studies bowled that fast ball after ball (if even at all).

 

[Richard]

The intensity & regular adaptation of skill levels. To play tests, ODI's & T20s, definately takes more out of players than those of the 70s who may have played alot of cricket also but only FC & old style OD cricket.

I'm not suggesting otherwise for a second - intense Test cricket at the current regularity with little to no domestic cricket is considerably more draining than what was being played in the 1960s and 1970s.

Simply pointing-out than in pure terms of days on the park, players actually play less now, not more.

 

[Richard]

This isn't a rant at you, just in general but I've used your quote.....

I don't think anyone- especially Tyson has bowled an average speed of 96mph for a sustained period of time. I don't know how you can come to that conclusion personally.

A quote from Richie Benaud (which is who most people mention when talking about Tyson) doesn't equal proof just like Rod Marsh's BS about Thommo bowling 180kph (when it's been proven he didn't bowl anywhere near that, even with speed guns which probably read faster than in reality) doesn't cut it.

It's not just those quotes from Benaud. Apart from the fact that others said much the same thing, there's also hard evidence - Tyson bruised batsmen through their pads in that 1954/55 series. You can say padding was less good then than it is now, but nonetheless, other bowlers still didn't bruise batsmen through it, nor has that ever happened before or since. Tyson could easily have been freakishly fast in that series.

However, that's all it was. Of course he wouldn't have bowled at an average speed of 96 mph for years on end - that's essentially impossible. However, I do think it's likely he was consistently up and over 95 mph in that one series - ie, he'd have bowled 10-15 deliveries over said pace in a 6-over spell, with some up at 98-99 (maybe even 100-101) mph. Something along those.

Tyson in that one series, same as Thomson in those couple in the mid-'70s, same as 1 or 2 others down the years, probably pushed the boundaries a bit further than the general. I think we're seeing Shaun Tait do the same thing again at the present time. Tait is, sustainedly, a decent bit quicker than Shoaib Akhtar or Brett Lee. Both (in their heyday, which has now passed) had to put every sinew into even bowling 95-96 mph - Tait can do it seemingly without particularly extraordinary effort. So thus he tends to bowl a fair few deliveries at such a speed in a spell.

As for Tyson's bowling-action, you must surely be kidding? It's one of the ultimate power-packed actions you'll ever see. And everything about it was sound - Tyson indeed has gone on to become a biomechanist himself. His action was smooth, and like a blur - it was over before you'd even registered it starting.

 

[rivera213]

Bob Willis is 1 notable person who has said they STILL play too much cricket.

 

[rivera213]

It's not just those quotes from Benaud. Apart from the fact that others said much the same thing, there's also hard evidence - Tyson bruised batsmen through their pads in that 1954/55 series. You can say padding was less good then than it is now, but nonetheless, other bowlers still didn't bruise batsmen through it, nor has that ever happened before or since. Tyson could easily have been freakishly fast in that series.

However, that's all it was. Of course he wouldn't have bowled at an average speed of 96 mph for years on end - that's essentially impossible. However, I do think it's likely he was consistently up and over 95 mph in that one series - ie, he'd have bowled 10-15 deliveries over said pace in a 6-over spell, with some up at 98-99 (maybe even 100-101) mph. Something along those.

You seem to be ruling out the wicket completely which is the biggest factor in the speed the ball arrived to the batsman at in those days (and even nowadays as you see speeds in the 90mph range.

The padding was so ridiculous back then that even if guys like Flintoff bowled at you (around 87mph) you'd get bruises. I have been bruised on the legs using cheap ****ty pads which are probably still better quality than the "best" in the 50's.

Also, whilst other bowlers didn't bruise the legs of opposition batsmen, it doesn't mean that Tyson was bowling ridiculously fast- it just means he was the fastest of the bowlers on show. If he was bowling @ 90mph and others around 85mph, that'd probably be enough of a difference on those wickets. Remember they had cracks the size of the Amazon back in that era.

Tyson in that one series, same as Thomson in those couple in the mid-'70s, same as 1 or 2 others down the years, probably pushed the boundaries a bit further than the general. I think we're seeing Shaun Tait do the same thing again at the present time. Tait is, sustainedly, a decent bit quicker than Shoaib Akhtar or Brett Lee. Both (in their heyday, which has now passed) had to put every sinew into even bowling 95-96 mph - Tait can do it seemingly without particularly extraordinary effort. So thus he tends to bowl a fair few deliveries at such a speed in a spell.

I don't think Tait is pushing any boundaries. He bowls a few overs of 150kph+ and then tails off. He isn't anywhere near as consistent as Shoaib I vividly remember bowling 145-155kph right through the first spell of bowling in a test or the full 10 overs of a ODI.

Tait by the end of a ODI will be bowling 138kph is whihc is far below what he can do in an opening spell (up to 158kph).

As for Tyson's bowling-action, you must surely be kidding? It's one of the ultimate power-packed actions you'll ever see. And everything about it was sound - Tyson indeed has gone on to become a biomechanist himself. His action was smooth, and like a blur - it was over before you'd even registered it starting.

Not kidding at all.

Whilst any action the bowler gathers rhythm from can allow you to bowl 90mph (there's no bluprint for bowling very fast apart from move everything in the same direction), Tyson's was a lot of arm and he wasn't built like Tait who completely muscles the ball through to the batsman (and subsequently has suffered shoulder injuries). To even bowl 1 delivery at 95mph with Tyson's action yet alone a number in a row would be near impossible.

Tyson got his arm through very fast fro sure, but the body stays pretty still whilst doing it whereas someone like Thomson used his body at the same time.

Biomechanist or not, it's extremely doubtful Tyson bowled anywhere near the speeds people say. The fact he knows about that subject doesn't mean he can put it into action.

If you see slowed-down versions of Jeff Thomson's action, it'll be the most impressive display of putting the whole body into an action on delivery you'll ever see. He archs back SO much (you won't believe how supple the man was) then gets his arm through the action insanely fast it'd be more of a surprise if he didn't bowl fast.

The slowed down vid everyone has seen of Tyson's action is impressive, and whilst I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of bowling very fast, I very much doubt it.

* Also any full speed footage around of Tyson will be faster than in real life. Exactly like all the footie films from eras gone by so don't be fooled by that either (if you are/were).

 

[Son Of Coco]

I always thought the old speed gun readings underplayed the bowlers speeds, not erred in their favour. And I remember reading that Thommo turned up a little under the weather to one of them and had 2 warm up balls before being tested Not sure if that's true or not.

 

[Evilhoopler]

Bowlers are too fast, look at tait, gets hammered at international level

 

[Son Of Coco]

Bowlers are too fast, look at tait, gets hammered at international level

I think you're confusing 'fast' with 'inaccurate'.

 

[BoyBrumby]

They had proper bowlers back then, with actions you could set your watch to. Not like these new-fangled bowlers today, with their fifteen degrees of flexion, internet porn & their knives. All riddled with disease too, probably. Some of them aren't even English, FFS!