5 greatest cricketers since Don’s retirement.

[Migara]

Larwood is easily quicker than Imran and Wasim just to set things straight, and quicker than all the WI pacers except Holding as well unless I see something worth looking at from Clarke, He was a freak of speed who was treated as the fastest until Tyson and then Thomson.

Pretty untrue. Imran was pretty fast, but Wasim was north of 150k with ease in his peak. Waqar a yard quicker than anyone up to then barring Thompson and Patterson. Like Voce Wasim and Imran are big tall men than Larwood, hence more bounce too. Although their modus operandi was to hit the base of the stumps, they could dish it at will. Then we come to WI bowlers. There was always one bowler who was faster than Larwood in their hay day. Starting from Holding, Marshall, Clarke, Patterson and Bishop, all were quicker than Larwood at their peak.

Secondly, Larwood in the famed Bodyline got 17 of his 33 wickets either bowled or LBW, Nothing to do with the field, Bumrah got 10 bowled in his big series, Ambrose got like 4. Larwood dismissing Bradman with bowled twice in one series is a boon for him and not a curse for Bradman, considering even old Bradman easily slapped around peak Lindwall, we have seen even mid players reach transcendent levels of short patches (Mitchell Johnson anyone?) and Larwood was a bowler of fairly high class, at his peak too.

Larwood no doubt would have been a quality bowler. But claiming he is way better than Marshall, Imran, Wasim, Garner or Hadlee is just disingenuous.

Now field placements, once again you're very wrong, because Bodyline worked for the likes of William Voce who were very much medium pacers, all you really need was extra bounce and the trick worked, you name medium bowlers but bodyline was a strategy equipped for fast bowlers, not medium bowlers. Now, we literally saw how the restrictions change cricket last match when Siraj was simply knocking the ball to the leg side, you can't do that with bodyline, as one of the five fielders will eventually get the catch

That might work with the average batsman averaging 30 or Siraj, who is basically a bunny. But against Viv, anyone bowling short at fast medium pace, what ever the field is going to go the distance. He has such fast reflexes, he would make room on off and play cuts and upper cuts. Viv was not your orthodox player, he was an innovator. We could have tested the theory if Viv batted more against Bruce Reid, but he was pretty comfortable against Mike Whitney.

what does any pacer of the 70s and 80s pacers have over Bradman that's not leaching off of Larwood's achievements?

Reverse swing to start with, and better seam bowling, overall speed and skill of the fast bowlers improving, and improved fitness allowing hostile stuff to be thrown around for a longer duration.

 

[Migara]

Also, Larwood with Bodyline would destroy Viv, his game has too many leg side strokes with the pulls and hooks, would work if he can clear the field but eventually he'd give a top edge and give out, with 5 or 6 fielders on the leg side tempting for a hook or pull any mistiming is out. Even if he gets 10 pulls off before one bad one he'd still not get to 60-70, and that's with absurd luck considering Larwood is quicker than anyone Viv faced barring Thomson, and Larwood is a lot more accurate and has more movement than Thomson. Can't see him averaging more than 45, likely the same as McCabe, one big innings and then just the cutting and hooking comes back to bite in the ass.

Again, asking a leg side dominant player to be consistently successful against bodyline is no different than asking a human to breathe in space, it just does not work.

Risky assumption. Viv was unorthodox and innovative too. Just don't tell me that ha cannot putt out an upper cut, or a glide over slips or move to off and push or blast it through off is not possible. One or two such strokes, the most important thing in bodyline will take a hit. i.e. accuracy.

Wasim in his hay day was faster than Larwood, no question about that. He is the only fast bowler to trouble Viv with the bouncer. Then we had Aravinda, whom was not in Viv's class as a batsman, but played half a dozen of fastest bowlers in history of cricket, and bounce barrage did nothing to him. Not a single fast bowler managed to hit him on the head, despite playing Akthar, Lee, Zahid, Waqar, Bishop, Donald, Wasim and Imran

You are grossly underestimating mastery of pave by Viv. Just like many underestimate mastery of spin by Sehwag.

 

[Johan]

Pretty untrue. Imran was pretty fast, but Wasim was north of 150k with ease in his peak.

David Frith cites Larwood's top speed in The Fast Men as 156kmph, Frank Foster in the 1930s deemed Larwood's average speed was above 90mph, who cites Wasim as easily 150+ clicks? and even then, Larwood is faster

Waqar a yard quicker than anyone up to then barring Thompson and Patterson.

Viv never faced Waqar, moot point.

Like Voce Wasim and Imran are big tall men than Larwood, hence more bounce too.

They weren't short pitched or leg theory bowlers, though I can see them succeeding in that situation, but sadly they weren't, and I don't see any account of either Wasim or Imran getting steep bounce. It's not quite known how tall Voce was, so no comparison with Wasim or Imran is possible.

Then we come to WI bowlers. There was always one bowler who was faster than Larwood in their hay day. Starting from Holding, Marshall, Clarke, Patterson and Bishop, all were quicker than Larwood at their peak.

Holding Yes, Marshall? Hell No, Clarke? No, Patter? No, Bishop? No, and Holding wasn't just a short pitched spammer too. There's only one bowler in the 1970s faster than Larwood and that's Jeff Thomson, didn't have half his accuracy or skill though.

Larwood no doubt would have been a quality bowler. But claiming he is way better than Marshall, Imran, Wasim, Garner or Hadlee is just disingenuous.

Cricket is not a linear game, Mitchell Johnson was an overall above average bowler, yet he had THAT series against England in 2013-14, a series that even Wasim could not hope to renact, you can't just scale Larwood's achievements to the achievements of those guys because later are more skillful in their other ways, Same way Devon Malcolm took a 9fer and no other pacer has since and he was shite, players are allowed to have their own unqiue achievements dependent on form.

That might work with the average batsman averaging 30 or Siraj, who is basically a bunny. But against Viv, anyone bowling short at fast medium pace, what ever the field is going to go the distance. He has such fast reflexes, he would make room on off and play cuts and upper cuts. Viv was not your orthodox player, he was an innovator. We could have tested the theory if Viv batted more against Bruce Reid, but he was pretty comfortable against Mike Whitney.

Allen didn't bowl any Bodyline, he bowled out swingers at good pace to get wickets. Voce got away with Bowling leg theory because he had the left arm angle, swung it late but most importantly, he got extra bounce due to his action and height, allowing him to get awkward bounce that got him top edge. Larwood we all know, pinpoint accuracy, 150+, swing etc, but Voce was effective with leg theory because of the weird bounce, even if Viv hits two sixes off, he can easily upperedge the last one to one of the 7 fielders at the leg because the bounce of the ball would be different.

Plus, he wasn't some chump, he was a highly skilled bowler who could bowl both inswingers or outswingers, was very accurate and had extra bounce at exchange for pace. Averaged 26 in the most batting friendly era of the game.

Reverse swing to start with.

Has nothing to do with short pitched fast bowling

and better seam bowling,

evidence?

overall speed and skill of the fast bowlers improving,

That doesn't mean anything, average pacer today is faster than the average one in 70s, but that doesn't mean anything when discussing Jeff Thomson, same way it doesn't mean anything when discussing Larwood.

and improved fitness allowing hostile stuff to be thrown around for a longer duration.

Fitness has nothing to do with the ability to bowl leg theory, and both Larwood and Voce were extremely fit and had extremely long and successful first class careers, Thomson was injury prone, Holding was also less durable than those two, therefore less fit and/or biologically gifted.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

It’s hard to compare speeds accurately pre 1999 imo

I thought Akram was a 140 bowler like Bumrah though. Waqar was probably 145.

 

[Johan]

Risky assumption. Viv was unorthodox and innovative too. Just don't tell me that ha cannot putt out an upper cut, or a glide over slips or move to off and push or blast it through off is not possible. One or two such strokes, the most important thing in bodyline will take a hit. i.e. accuracy..

He is not making room to a 150kmph+ rocket from Larwood, and making room to Voce means nothing as he'd move the ball and more important, the bounce would be erratic and unpredictable, Voce wouldn't mind a few hits if Viv is doing what they want, hooking or cutting, he is human, he'd edge one eventually, especially with both express pace and erratic bounce in mix.

Wasim in his hay day was faster than Larwood, no question about that. He is the only fast bowler to trouble Viv with the bouncer. Then we had Aravinda, whom was not in Viv's class as a batsman, but played half a dozen of fastest bowlers in history of cricket, and bounce barrage did nothing to him. Not a single fast bowler managed to hit him on the head, despite playing Akthar, Lee, Zahid, Waqar, Bishop, Donald, Wasim and Imran

Other than Akhtar and Lee, not one of them is faster than Larwood, also pulling and hooking under normal fielding settings and against bodyline setting is different. If you think Viv would be successful against Larwood, Voce and Allen bowling normal bouncer barrages with their separate styles then sure, that's possible, but the argument is about bodyline fielding setting and Aravinda never faced that, moot point to bring him up.

 

[smash84]

Other than Akhtar and Lee, not one of them is faster than Larwood, also pulling and hooking under normal fielding settings and against bodyline setting is different. If you think Viv would be successful against Larwood, Voce and Allen bowling normal bouncer barrages with their separate styles then sure, that's possible, but the argument is about bodyline fielding setting and Aravinda never faced that, moot point to bring him up.

Given how much fitness levels, diets, medicine, and general professionalism of the game had changed in the 50 years since Larwood played, it is very difficult to imagine him being faster than Imran or Wasim. It is possible but doesn't seem plausible.

 

[Johan]

Given how much fitness levels, diets, medicine, and general professionalism of the game had changed in the 50 years since Larwood played, it is very difficult to imagine him being faster than Imran or Wasim. It is possible but doesn't seem plausible.

Well, do you consider Imran to be faster than Bumrah? or Lillee to be faster than Rabada?

 

[smash84]

Well, do you consider Imran to be faster than Bumrah? or Lillee to be faster than Rabada?

I think Bumrah would be similar in pace to Imran, and Rabada may be quicker than Lillee.

 

[smash84]

And Bumrah isn't even one of the faster bowlers going around today (i cbf looking it up).

 

[Johan]

I think Bumrah would be similar in pace to Imran, and Rabada may be quicker than Lillee.

I personally think Lillee is quicker than Rabada, mostly because I think pace largely generates from the core strength, and fluid runup, action and the release of the ball. Fitness/Diet/Medication more connected to allowing someone to have more durablity and take less bodily stress from their action. I reckon the average bowler in 70s was faster than one in 30s by 3-4 kmph and the average pacer of today faster than 70s by 4-5kmph, but overall I don't think there's a wild difference between the top velocity of the fastest bowlers.

 

[smash84]

I personally think Lillee is quicker than Rabada, mostly because I think pace largely generates from the core strength, and fluid runup, action and the release of the ball. Fitness/Diet/Medication more connected to allowing someone to have more durablity and take less bodily stress from their action. I reckon the average bowler in 70s was faster than one in 30s by 3-4 kmph and the average pacer of today faster than 70s by 4-5kmph, but overall I don't think there's a wild difference between the top velocity of the fastest bowlers.

I think diet/fitness/medication/exercise not just allow you to have durability but also to build muscle mass, bone density, and strength. All of these significantly increase core strength. Plus improved training results in better run up and action resulting in just signficantly higher ceiling levels. In the 50 years from 1930s to 1980s those things improved exponentially. There has been marked improvement from 1980s to 2020s as well but the change is probably not as drastic as it was from the 1930s to 1980s. But even then it is significant enough that bowlers like Mark Wood are significantly quicker than a Dennis Lillee.

 

[Migara]

I personally think Lillee is quicker than Rabada, mostly because I think pace largely generates from the core strength, and fluid runup, action and the release of the ball. Fitness/Diet/Medication more connected to allowing someone to have more durablity and take less bodily stress from their action. I reckon the average bowler in 70s was faster than one in 30s by 3-4 kmph and the average pacer of today faster than 70s by 4-5kmph, but overall I don't think there's a wild difference between the top velocity of the fastest bowlers.

Wrong. Top pacers would vary as much as you said, but the support cast is way faster now. Some times lead bowler is not the fastest. There are no medium - fast bowlers playing now. Everyone is fast medium or fast.

 

[Johan]

Wrong. Top pacers would vary as much as you said, but the support cast is way faster now. Some times lead bowler is not the fastest. There are no medium - fast bowlers playing now. Everyone is fast medium or fast.

Chris Woakes literally today.

 

[Johan]

I think diet/fitness/medication/exercise not just allow you to have durability but also to build muscle mass, bone density, and strength. All of these significantly increase core strength. Plus improved training results in better run up and action resulting in just signficantly higher ceiling levels. In the 50 years from 1930s to 1980s those things improved exponentially. There has been marked improvement from 1980s to 2020s as well but the change is probably not as drastic as it was from the 1930s to 1980s. But even then it is significant enough that bowlers like Mark Wood are significantly quicker than a Dennis Lillee.

I don't know, the fastest I think we ever saw was Jeff Thomson and he had a very destructive lifestyle and wasn't exactly relying on diets for his fitness, Chris Tremlett on the hand was a very muscular and clearly fit person and he bowled 130s, definitely seems to me that the action is the biggest element and while the average action of the modern pacer is better than the one of the older pacers, people like Larwood, Lindwall and Trueman had actions that were set as the benchmark forever. Mark Wood is definitely faster than Dennis Lillee but he is a bit of a glass cannon speed merchant who relies on speed while Lillee moreso had speed as one of the many elements for him. Apparently, In 1975 and 1976 there were studies and they gave Jeff Thomson a fastest ball of 160 kmph and Lillee the fastest ball of 154.8 kmph, if the numbers are correct, Lillee is a few kmph behind the fastest from Wood but faster than the modern big three of Bumrah, Cummins and Rabada at his fastest.

I think the gap between 1975 and 2025 would probably be bigger than the one between 1935 and 1975, not just temporally but the second world war downright stopped Cricket and at the very least hampered cricketing developments for a few years, the effective gap of Cricket played between 1935 and 1975 would be around 30 years really while last 50 years have been non stop Cricket, "innovations" and much more rapid commercialisation, plus sports science definitely paced up in developement.

 

[smash84]

I don't know, the fastest I think we ever saw was Jeff Thomson and he had a very destructive lifestyle and wasn't exactly relying on diets for his fitness, Chris Tremlett on the hand was a very muscular and clearly fit person and he bowled 130s, definitely seems to me that the action is the biggest element and while the average action of the modern pacer is better than the one of the older pacers, people like Larwood, Lindwall and Trueman had actions that were set as the benchmark forever. Mark Wood is definitely faster than Dennis Lillee but he is a bit of a glass cannon speed merchant who relies on speed while Lillee moreso had speed as one of the many elements for him. Apparently, In 1975 and 1976 there were studies and they gave Jeff Thomson a fastest ball of 160 kmph and Lillee the fastest ball of 154.8 kmph, if the numbers are correct, Lillee is a few kmph behind the fastest from Wood but faster than the modern big three of Bumrah, Cummins and Rabada at his fastest.

I think the gap between 1975 and 2025 would probably be bigger than the one between 1935 and 1975, not just temporally but the second world war downright stopped Cricket and at the very least hampered cricketing developments for a few years, the effective gap of Cricket played between 1935 and 1975 would be around 30 years really while last 50 years have been non stop Cricket, "innovations" and much more rapid commercialisation, plus sports science definitely paced up in developement.

I think the fastest we ever saw was Shoaib Akhtar and he definitely gained much from improved diet and training. He would have petered out much sooner if he didn't have access to those. Heck even with those things he wasn't very fit let alone what he would be without those. The numbers bear him out to be the fastest ever too.

The second world war stopped things temporarily but so many lessons were learnt during that time that a lot of scientific breakthroughs came into the 1950s and 60s. WW2 actually signficantly improved innovation in post war periods and which is why we saw so much advancement post war. Diets also improved immensely and so did access to medication and medication itself. People in the 1980s didn't have to worry about toe nail infections or even other bacterial infections. In the 1930s those infections could be a death sentence. People had more access to different sorts of dairies and meats along with more variety of fresh produce between in the 1980s than they did in the 1930s. Heck supermarkets really became a thing during the 1950s to 70s. So no, I don't think the difference from 1980s to 2020s is as big as from 1930s to 1980s.

 

[Migara]

Chris Woakes literally today.

That didn't age particularly well

 

[Johan]

I think the fastest we ever saw was Shoaib Akhtar and he definitely gained much from improved diet and training. He would have petered out much sooner if he didn't have access to those. Heck even with those things he wasn't very fit let alone what he would be without those. The numbers bear him out to be the fastest ever too.

The second world war stopped things temporarily but so many lessons were learnt during that time that a lot of scientific breakthroughs came into the 1950s and 60s. WW2 actually signficantly improved innovation in post war periods and which is why we saw so much advancement post war. Diets also improved immensely and so did access to medication and medication itself. People in the 1980s didn't have to worry about toe nail infections or even other bacterial infections. In the 1930s those infections could be a death sentence. People had more access to different sorts of dairies and meats along with more variety of fresh produce between in the 1980s than they did in the 1930s. Heck supermarkets really became a thing during the 1950s to 70s. So no, I don't think the difference from 1980s to 2020s is as big as from 1930s to 1980s.

Oh Right, but I think If Thomson can hit 160kmph with his diet of a shot of Whiskey every morning, I don't think it's that improbable that Larwood with his run-up and similar slingy action can hit 150s as David Frith and Frank Foster thought he did. Brett Lee was pretty consistently fit and he was a similar pace as Akhtar generally so I think Akhtar's lack of fitness must've to do with more than just pace, maybe something with his action.

This is kind of the ceiling and floor conversation, the floor would be elavated by that as it directly connects to the average person but the Fast bowlers who maintained health and had access to a vast variety of food would not really be impacted by the common man having an easier life, I am more thinking of how the modern Cricketers spent so much more time in the gyms, train a lot more and have very strict and proper diets and yet they still aren't faster than the ceiling of the pacemen from the 70s and 80s. If Numbers are to be believed, Andy Roberts hit a number that was higher than even Mark Wood who has hit the highest of any ongoing pacer right now, I really do think the ceiling has stayed about the same while the floor has elavated.

Overall, it's really weird and it's impossible to tell what pace anyone bowled pre 1998 imo, but I did read a study that put Fred Trueman and Frank Tyson to be bowling at 150+, if that's true then Larwood is definitely 150+.

 

[Johan]

That didn't age particularly well

He bowled pretty well today and was the man of the series in the last Ashes, while being Alec Bedser pace in the air and slower off the pitch.

 

[Migara]

He bowled pretty well today and was the man of the series in the last Ashes, while being Alec Bedser pace in the air and slower off the pitch.

Bedser was more of late career Vaas pace, and had many tricks up his sleeve. He had keeper up regularly. That with Woaks will send few keepers to the hospital with broken fingers.

 

[Johan]

Bedser was more of late career Vaas pace, and had many tricks up his sleeve. He had keeper up regularly. That with Woaks will send few keepers to the hospital with broken fingers.

....Woakes had Jamie Smith up to the stumps literally the last test.