Pace in the past

[hendrix]

as in you don't bowl a spell of shot putting. You have 3 goes to nail it.

Heaps of bowlers take their first 3 balls as pretty much a warmup.

Anyway:
1965 winning shot put: 21.52
2112 winning shot put: 22.31.

not really a massive increase, despite all the additional professionalism and biomechanics.

 

[Riggins]

Same as the difference between an average bowling speed of 150 vs. 156. Massive difference.

 

[hendrix]

and those records are despite pretty lax doping regulations. The WR holder who competed in the 80s and 90s was repeatedly caught doping, took a short ban, and came back. Muscle doesn't just disappear when you come off steroids. Those rules are ridiculous.

There are outcries because Alex Rodriguez is receiving a year-long ban despite repeatedly, and cynically, doping. Barry Bonds pretty much lived on steroids. The virtues of professionalism and modern sport science aren't easy to distinguish from the advantages gained from taking performance enhancing drugs.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

as in you don't bowl a spell of shot putting. You have 3 goes to nail it.

Heaps of bowlers take their first 3 balls as pretty much a warmup.

Anyway:
1965 winning shot put: 21.52
2112 winning shot put: 22.31.

not really a massive increase, despite all the additional professionalism and biomechanics.

My comment about increasing speeds is more about the average speed of bowlers on the whole rather than just those near the top. As the speed of the average bowler increases, the difference between regular guys most batsmen face in the nets and genuine fast bowlers decreases hence today's lack of menacing fast bowlers. In the past the difference between Larwood or Tyson and your typical net bowler would've been far larger, so facing these guys would've been a far scarier prospect.

 

[hendrix]

My comment about increasing speeds is more about the average speed of bowlers on the whole rather than just those near the top. As the speed of the average bowler increases, the difference between regular guys most batsmen face in the nets and genuine fast bowlers decreases hence today's lack of menacing fast bowlers. In the past the difference between Larwood or Tyson and your typical net bowler would've been far larger, so facing these guys would've been a far scarier prospect.

OK, I don't disagree with this.

 

[Riggins]

wait what's your point?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

wait what's your point?

Agreeing with the notion that pace is a relative notion so objectively knowing if the fast bowlers of old times were fast by today's standards is irrelevant

 

[steds]

as in you don't bowl a spell of shot putting. You have 3 goes to nail it.

Heaps of bowlers take their first 3 balls as pretty much a warmup.

Anyway:
1965 winning shot put: 21.52
2112 winning shot put: 22.31.

not really a massive increase, despite all the additional professionalism and biomechanics.

Winning shot puts of what? And are those the years? Impressive precognition if so.

 

[Riggins]

Agreeing with the notion that pace is a relative notion so objectively knowing if the fast bowlers of old times were fast by today's standards is irrelevant

I meant @ hendrix #43.

To your post though, I totally agree. Also, I think it's naive to think there wouldn't be the same natural increase in athletic capabilities with respect to absolute pace that there have been in basically every other sport.

 

[Flem274*]

There's been a huge shift in mentality around bowling now as well. With conditions being so favourable to batsmen these days there is a big push to get guys bowling as fast as possible. Back when pitches and rules were more balanced teams played your Ewen Chatfields' and co all the time. Medium pace has become a lot harder to bowl in the modern game. It's 130+ or gtfo with very few exceptions.

 

[hendrix]

Winning shot puts of what? And are those the years? Impressive precognition if so.

lol, sorry, world champs. meant to be 2012

I meant @ hendrix #43.

my point is that absolute pace hasn't increased significantly from 50 years ago, and that advantages in terms of professionalism, diet and biomechanics are frequently overstated.

I would say that pace has increased dramatically from 100 years ago, but that has nothing to do with any of those factors, it's simply due to the conditions in which players played the game.

 

[Riggins]

Based on your definition of significant, you're probably correct.

 

[hendrix]

put it this way: I have no reason not to believe that Tyson wasn't just as quick if not quicker than Akhtar. The argument that Akhtar and Tait "must be quicker because biomechanics! professionalism! all sports have got better!" is silly to me.

 

[Red]

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

 

[wellAlbidarned]

put it this way: I have no reason not to believe that Tyson wasn't just as quick if not quicker than Akhtar. The argument that Akhtar and Tait "must be quicker because biomechanics! professionalism! all sports have got better!" is silly to me.

I'd disagree with this. Objectively, I have little doubt that akhtar was quicker. However I'd take a guess that relative to their peers Tyson would've been quicker which is the main measure of meaningful pace.

 

[centurymaker]

News reporter was like "Brett and Akhtar have bowled marginally faster but that was on South African decks"

how does bowling on SA decks make any difference lol

 

[Top_Cat]

Because it has less atmospheres, dummy!

 

[hendrix]

I'd disagree with this. Objectively, I have little doubt that akhtar was quicker. However I'd take a guess that relative to their peers Tyson would've been quicker which is the main measure of meaningful pace.

Tyson has been measured at 142KPH, wearing 3 sweaters, with metal plates attached to the ball.

Given that mid 140s was the standard pace of Akhtar and Tait and they only occasionally, on very fast wickets cranked it up to 160, I really don't see why we shouldn't believe the likes of Benaud. I also think that Thompson probably ramped it up to this speed on occasion as well.

 

[Red]

When you see Tait bowling, and watch footage of Thommo or Tyson, it's hard to believe Thommo or Tyson couldn't have it the pace Tait did from time to time. All three have similar actions.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Akhtar is naturally quicker due to the kink he has.