Will Tait break Akhtars world record?

[wfdu_ben91]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Blokes like Steyn, Zaheer & Onions aren't really any quicker on the speed gun than (say) Sami, Broad or Watson but seem to hurry batsmen up more often.

Because the likes of Steyn and co are skiddy bowlers.

[social]

Not a question of "if" but "when" IMO

Lee was consistently quicker than Akhtar and Tait is much quicker again

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by social

Not a question of "if" but "when" IMO

Lee was consistently quicker than Akhtar and Tait is much quicker again

In his heydays Akthar was as consistent as Lee when it came to speeds. His weakness was lack of stamina which engulfed him post 2003, he could hardly bowl 2 overs of express pace at a stretch.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Migara

Mohammed Zahid and Mohammed Akram were much quicker than Akthar or Tait

Have heard much about Zahid and have long since wished there were speedguns in those few games he played before his injuries. But it's news to be about Mohammad Akram - presuming this is the same Mohammad Akram who played a bit for Pakistan then basically became a county player. Amazed if he was once quick enough to split thigh-pads.

That's like Tyson bruising batsmen through pads in 1954/55. Almost without precedent.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Streetwise

Maybe its me that dosent ubderstand then, so I'll ask the question.

What is the difference between being the fastest bowler on record and being the fastest bowler since records begun. Apparently there is a big difference so I'll let you explain.

Being "the fastest bowler on record" isn't the claim that was originally made; it was that he was "on record as the fastest ever", which is quite different and entirely untrue, because no-one will ever be able to be that. We will never in truth know the speeds of bowlers up to the 1960s, we can only guess. We do not even neccessarily always know real speeds of bowlers in the 1970s and 1980s; I'm not entirely sure when reliable recording of speeds (whether on-the-spot or not) begun, but people had certainly been playing cricket for a long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long time before then.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

Because the likes of Steyn and co are skiddy bowlers.

Think there must be more to it than that because Sami & Watson are both fairly skiddy bowlers too and someone who's a back of length bowler like Morne Morkel seems to do batsmen for pace more often than Broad, who's a similar style of bowler of similar rapidity.

[silentstriker]

Based on the World's Fastest bowler competition, Thommo in his prime was in Lee/Tait/Akhtar's league, and might have the record for the fastest delivery. A few others before him might too, so we'll never know for sure.

I think it's entirely clear that the average speeds are going up, but we can't know about the absolute fastest.

[PhoenixFire]

Onions looked much faster than Harmison during the Ashes. Can't remember how fast Harmison was being clocked at though, Onions looks absolutely lightning in real life.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

Onions looked much faster than Harmison during the Ashes. Can't remember how fast Harmison was being clocked at though, Onions looks absolutely lightning in real life.

spillsguinessjpg.

[GuyFromLancs]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Based on the World's Fastest bowler competition, Thommo in his prime was in Lee/Tait/Akhtar's league, and might have the record for the fastest delivery. A few others before him might too, so we'll never know for sure.

I think it's entirely clear that the average speeds are going up, but we can't know about the absolute fastest.

Watching Thompson videos from the 70s, you just know he was lightning, up around the 95 mph mark.

Watching Trueman videos, who claimed himself that he was rapid, I would guess around the 86-88mph mark. Very fast for the 50s but only slightly above average now.

But I remain very cynical about how fast the pre-war players were. Some of them didn't even look like athletes of any kind. With trundling run ups and all. I am betting 75mph was express pace pre-war.

[Richard]

To use the obvious case, Harold Larwood was a superb athlete and everything about all surviving footage of him suggests that he was capable of 90mph at the very least.

There were indeed plenty of bowlers who probably bowled at little more than 75mph-ish in the 1920s, 1930s etc. but the tools required to reach very top speed have not changed and there have been those (never more than the odd few) who have possessed them throughout the time which cricket is as we recognise it now - basically traceable to the last decade of the 19th-century.

[GuyFromLancs]

Originally Posted by Richard

To use the obvious case, Harold Larwood was a superb athlete and everything about all surviving footage of him suggests that he was capable of 90mph at the very least.

There were indeed plenty of bowlers who probably bowled at little more than 75mph-ish in the 1920s, 1930s etc. but the tools required to reach very top speed have not changed and there have been those (never more than the odd few) who have possessed them throughout the time which cricket is as we recognise it now - basically traceable to the last decade of the 19th-century.

Okay, there will have been one-off talents who reached the express heights of today's (say post 60s standards), but any bowler who could bowl 90mph in a reasonably straight line in the 1920s should have a bowling average of less than 10 because some of them batsman looked liked they'd tipped out of the pub.

I just don't believe cricket was played to any kind of professional standard back then.

[jeevan]

Akhtar's 'record' has warts on it.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GuyFromLancs

Okay, there will have been one-off talents who reached the express heights of today's (say post 60s standards), but any bowler who could bowl 90mph in a reasonably straight line in the 1920s should have a bowling average of less than 10 because some of them batsman looked liked they'd tipped out of the pub.

I just don't believe cricket was played to any kind of professional standard back then.

Have you read any accounts and biographies of players? People took the game unbelievably seriously as early as the 1900s - in fact even earlier, but it was a slightly different game they were taking seriously then.

The game was dominated by professionals whose livelihoods depended on the game every bit as much as they do now and to be an amateur in that sort of competition you had to be good - damn good.

[GuyFromLancs]

Originally Posted by Richard

Have you read any accounts and biographies of players? People took the game unbelievably seriously as early as the 1900s - in fact even earlier, but it was a slightly different game they were taking seriously then.

The game was dominated by professionals whose livelihoods depended on the game every bit as much as they do now and to be an amateur in that sort of competition you had to be good - damn good.

I am sorry Richard but I am not convinced. People look at the past through rose-tinted specs. Do you believe in the weight of Bradman's batting average as well?