Should have read not as effective.
Should have read not as effective.
Hutton | Hobbs | Bradman* | Richards^ | Tendulkar | Sobers5^ | Gilchrist+ | Khan3 | Marshall1 | Warne4^ | McGrath2
Sutcliffe | Gavaskar* | Headley | Chappell^ | Lara^ | Kallis5^ | Knott+ | Hadlee3 | Ambrose2 | Lillee1 | Muralitharan4
Greenidge | Richards^ | Ponting^ | Pollock | Hammond^ | Worrell5* | Waite+ | Akram3 | Steyn1 | Holding2 | O'Reilly4
Morris | Simpson^ | Sangakkara | Weekes^ | Border*^ | Walcott+ | Faulkner5 | Laker4 | Trueman1 | Garner3 | Donald2
He looks really quick in the footage I've seen.
There's a DVD called "The Cricket Archives" that has some footage of him. He looks as quick as anyone from the modern era
I seem to remember seeing a short TV clip years ago about how they did an early form of speed test on him. It was fairly complicated. From memory it involved a side-on camera and him bowling against a wall with markings on it. The testers estimated his fastest ball during the test was 98 mph. No references I am afraid, just a faulty memory. But perhaps you can find the clip on YouTube?
PS, Just checked and Wikipedia references the speed tests on their page for Larwood, but doesn't provide much detail.
Based on my keen eye for guessing speed based on grainy footage, and numerous interviews conducted with myself, i'm of the honestly held opinion that he was in the upper 80s, climbing up to the 92 mark. Meaning I'd put his range in the 88-92 mark. Very quick in the days when it was commonly assumed a moustache was more important than head protection.
Although, I also believe that in being in this "genuinely quick, even by today's standards" zone; he was an exception. And about 10mph quicker than your average fast bowler of the era.
Last edited by GuyFromLancs; 04-11-2013 at 04:18 AM.
World XI Since 1990 -
1. Gooch 2. Dravid 3. Ponting 4. Tendulkar 5. Lara 6. Kallis 7. Gilchrist 8. Akram 9. Warne 10. Ambrose 11. McGrath
This wasn't Larwood at his fastest iirc from his biography I read a few month back he'd been injured and lost a bit of pace.
I think with Larwood people forget hew wasn't just quick he was an excellent bowler to boot.
There is some film of Larwood bowling in 1930 (when he wasn't at his best) as well as 32/33 (when he was) - Lol himself, as well as everyone else in a position to judge, agreed he bowled faster in 32/33 than at any other time
I think that Larwood would be classified as really fast in any era. But does anyone know whether he was able to swing the ball at pace? Lindwall had an identical action to Larwood and was well known for his late out-swinger and in-swinging Yorker. Was Larwood able to do the same?
The reason I ask is that Bradman reckoned that Farnes was a better bowler than Larwood "because he moved the ball off the wicket better." Is the observation that Larwood really didn't 'do much' with the ball, accurate?
He had a renowned breakback, but that apart was a bit too quick to swing it much
Larwood used to bowl outswing in England at pace. He struggled to do the same in Aus. Of course Bodyline was designed because Bradman was 'yellow' but it was equally because the shine went off the new ball so quickly in Australia.
I have no issue with believing Larwood bowled 90 mph. He was in a different category of pace compared to anything before and until Tyson blew on to the scene.
I also have no issue with anyone doubting him. He was doubted throughout his early career as being too small and too weak. If his contemporaries doubted him then it is natural for people to doubt him 80 years later. However, he happened to be an exceptional athlete, tough and blessed with an action that developed massive amounts of torque.
Last edited by Goughy; 05-11-2013 at 05:09 PM.
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)
Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net
From what I remember as part WA university investigation into fast bowling in
the 70's, they looked at the speeds of past fast bowlers (Larwood, Lindwall, Tyson etc)
using film. The peak speeds calculated for all three was in the 92 - 95 (Larwood got the 95).
It is quite likely all three bowled faster on other days that where not filmed. Basically there bowling speeds where
very similar to a lot of modern Fast bowlers (Steyn, Lillee, Marshal etc).
The University identified several factors related to speed including:
- The distance the bowler carried the ball through is hugely important the longer the better. Tall bowlers have an advantage here. Also Jeff Thomsons action carries the ball through a longer arc than the normal conventional bowling action.
- Storing energy in the body.
- Jeff Thompson almost threw his arm back which would store energy in the body.
- Aktar had a lot of flex in his elbows which may have helped him.
- Keeping the front knee straight or braced during bowling. Keeping the front knee straight will stop the bodies forward motion and allow you to bring the arm over faster. This also has a big issue with it - have you ever jumped in the air and landed with you legs straight - it tends to hurt.
But keeping the knee straight/braced puts a huge strain on the body, the heavier the bowler is the bigger the strain.
Bowlers who rely on pure pace all the time tend to have very short careers (e.g. Tyson, Jack Gregory).
McGrath on the hand runs through the crease ==>> a lot of give at the knees. McGrath was not that quick but had very few injuries (except when he stepped on the cricket ball).
I suspect the difference between Steyn bowling at 140kmph and 150kmph is the bracing
of the knee.
For raw pace using a convetial action, tall wiry bowlers (e.g. Brett Lee or Micheal Holding) have an advantage.
But shorter guys can have a slightly heavier build which would help compensate.
I would think that Thomson / Holding / Lee / Aktar where probably slightly faster
than Larwood, but it would be at most 5mph.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)