Pace in the past

[hendrix]

Akhtar is naturally quicker due to the kink he has.

Tait doesn't have this kink and is the same speed.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

But Tait couldn't sustain it like Akhtar.

 

[hendrix]

Noone can sustain it. When has Akhtar sustained 160kph balls?

Has he bowled a 160kph spell in test match cricket? I don't think so.

Obviously Akhtar is a much better bowler than Tait.

 

[Red]

Tait always fascinated me. Just had this sort of dawdle up to the crease, and then everything just went ballistic in his delivery stride. He didn't have much natural rhythm at all.

 

[Top_Cat]

Still say concentrating on short forms was the death of Tait. Had no problem bowling big spells for SA in Shield cricket, just didn't go flat out all day. Concentrating on nothing but teh sp33d broke him, as it would Akhtar had Akhtar done so.

 

[Red]

Ever face him anywhere TC?

 

[the big bambino]

that would be true towards the end of his career for sure but even then he could crank it up into the mid 90s

Thought him better latter in his career. His average for the 90s was in the mid 30s.

 

[the big bambino]

cricket is different though. These guys have been professional for far longer than rugby players.

Some of the athletic development simply isn't applicable to cricket either. Ethiopians destroying marathon in a few minutes doesn't mean anything in the cricket world, and neither does juiced up sprinters or weightlifters setting world records (or baseball players, for that matter). American sport records can pretty much be written off since the 80s due to the prevalence of drugs, and then where else is this overwhelming improvement in human capabilities? Diet? Training? Sorry, but people have understood for a very long time that eating well and training hard is good for you.

As for sport science and technique coaching, I don't think it's that applicable to cricket that we would have seen massive overall improvement. Sure, mastering an ultra-efficient clean and jerk requires immense technical adjustment - but that's a one-off, all or nothing movement. Bowlers bowl long spells during which they gain "rhythm", through which they naturally adjust their actions towards maximal efficiency.

But I agree with the rest of your points. I doubt we've ever had anyone bowl much faster than 160kph. And yeah, Thompson's having a laugh.

Agree with this. It is reasonable to equate cricket with other sports, note the improvement and extrapolate the same about cricket. In contradiction though we've had about 40 years of bowling speeds now and they seem to be about the same. Neither was Larwood a freak of his time. He is just the most famous and since the spotlight (rightly) shines on him people then believe he was the only fast bowler around. There were others with the fastest possibly being Eddie Gilbert whom Bradman rated yards quicker than Larwood in his famous burst at Brisbane. That's some heat. Gilbert was also a small man and I think this counts against the modern physique argument which says men weren't built to bowl fast in the past. I can count off about 20 names of tall fast men in the 30s with Durston and Allom being the largest. They'd be big units even now. Remember too a lot of English fast men like Larwood, Voce and Copson and I think Barratt were miners. Read Perkins book on Larwood and realise what hard work that was. Much harder manual labour than what a modern worker could do. They were strong enough and big enough to bowl with heat even if you assume a big physique is a necessary condition to bowling fast which is atleast arguable.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Tait always fascinated me. Just had this sort of dawdle up to the crease, and then everything just went ballistic in his delivery stride. He didn't have much natural rhythm at all.

Tait fascinates me, because in my earlier, fitter, and 4 stone lighter days - I bowled with a similar ethos and style to Tait. Slow run up and unleash hell. That action now sends an unmanageable pain down my shoulder and arm.

I remember Tait coming into the test side in 05. He took a bit of punishment owed to his inaccuracy, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't admire his style.

 

[Daemon]

Bowling actions also understated here imo. Someone like Pattrick Patterson didn't have that 'load up' sort of action that Tait and Akhtar have, can imagine it must be harder to face him if they were hypothetically bowling at the same pace.

 

[smash84]

Bowling actions also understated here imo. Someone like Pattrick Patterson didn't have that 'load up' sort of action that Tait and Akhtar have, can imagine it must be harder to face him if they were hypothetically bowling at the same pace.

wasn't this stated earlier in the thread

 

[Daemon]

wasn't this stated earlier in the thread

My bad, haven't actually read the whole thread

 

[silentstriker]

I like the fact that my old posts can now win arguments in CC without me having to be here.

 

[fredfertang]

I like the fact that my old posts can now win arguments in CC without me having to be here.

evidence of falling standards

 

[smash84]

 

[Manee]

I was here on this night. The buzz around the ground was like an unbelievable surge when everyone realized how quick he was bowling.

I don't think anyone has ever bowled a lengthy spell at this pace. A spell at 160kph would run through any opposition, imo.

 

[Manee]

Tait always fascinated me. Just had this sort of dawdle up to the crease, and then everything just went ballistic in his delivery stride. He didn't have much natural rhythm at all.

I think a long delivery stride is a goldmine for pace if it is used properly.

 

[Manee]

Had no problem bowling big spells for SA in Shield cricket, just didn't go flat out all day.

What was he bowling? 130s or 140s? His FC record seemed good but he just looked so rubbish when he played Tests.

 

[Top_Cat]

Wasn't at his pace peak as yet (we're talking up to his mid-20's) but was noticeably quicker than Dizzy at a time when Gillespie would have been bowling low/mid 140's on a regular basis. I'm guessing though as, being Shield games, they weren't being clocked.

My opinion, the pressure of being the hit man for Australia just didn't agree with him. Tait is obviously a terrifying bowler but, personality-wise, he's not like Lee. More of a slow burner and emotional, used to like to leave the knock-out ball in reserve only if you piss him off*, didn't get off being the bully like Lee did. So when he was picked to do that for the Test side, just wasn't a good fit. I think he can do it in short bursts for T20 because, no matter how serious it gets sometimes, T20 is still fun cricket. Tests are serious stuff and not everyone suits that sort of long-form stuff.

*The Drop once got under his skin in a OD match. Tait was bowling quick enough but then let go a ball that Drop didn't even get his hands up in time for; rebounded so hard off his helmet that it landed one-bounce into the hands of fine leg. Was just so much quicker than anything else he'd let go.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ages ago I looked at his AO record but couldn't remember the pertinent numbers so just had another look;

92 wickets, avg 24.03, bowled roughly 18 overs per innings. Would have been some long-ish spells in there too, don't remember too many instances of him bowling balls-out for 2 overs and then banished until it starts reversing.

Those are great numbers for an out-and-out speed merchant on a deck like AO. Think he just responded better to having knockabout blokes like Lehmann, Blewwy and Gillespie in the side/as skipper. Once he get into the Test side and it's all oh-so-srs, just not his bag I think.