-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Fast Bowlers dying is a myth
- Thread starter twiy
- Start date
GotSpin
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's because Tait is utterly useless when he bowls more than two overs in a row.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Name 30 best batsmen of all-time, and there will be at least 4 of them playing currently - Sachin, Ponting, Dravid, Kallis...if not more...
Name 30 best fast bowlers of all-time, and there will be maximum one name there from the current crop - Dale Steyn.
Not that good fast bowlers are dying, but that if everything goes the way it is, that might be the case 10-15 years down the line.
Name 30 best fast bowlers of all-time, and there will be maximum one name there from the current crop - Dale Steyn.
Not that good fast bowlers are dying, but that if everything goes the way it is, that might be the case 10-15 years down the line.
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
It's always been the case that batsmen will last longer in the game than fast bowlers. I think the 80s was an uncommonly dense period of great bowlers - but it was the aberration, not the time since. Batting against the quicks has got easier with helmets and body protection, and the limit on bouncers and hostile bowling that is allowed now - that's why we get tailenders sticking around more.
These factors, plus a trend towards 5 day pitches, mean that we need to cut today's crop a bit of slack in general when comparing them to their predecessors. I'd agree that of the current lot, Steyn is the only guy at the moment who looks on course to be an all time great, but there are plenty of good bowlers about. Johnson and Bollinger have shown enough to be counted as good. Johnson's promise has been blighted by inconsistency, and the jury remains out on just where he'll end up sitting. Asif and Aamer are very good bowlers. The English seems to have a pretty good stream of quicks to select from.
And its not like guys in recent times aren't having careers of decent length. Guys who have recently retired include real veterans like McGrath, Vaas, Pollock, and also guys who had good long careers (for fast bowlers) like Lee, Gillespie, Flintoff, Gough. Ntini has lasted a helluva long time. Even Akhtar and Bond, while obviously missing a lot of cricket, were on the scene for a long time. And some fast bowlers being injury prone and missing a lot of cricket isn't really a new development.
Massive storm in a teacup for mine. Yeah, they're playing more cricket. They're also being supported by better medical science, training, recovery etc than ever before. And more of the cricket is limited over stuff where they're bowling a set number of overs in a day, and rarely on consecutive days.
These factors, plus a trend towards 5 day pitches, mean that we need to cut today's crop a bit of slack in general when comparing them to their predecessors. I'd agree that of the current lot, Steyn is the only guy at the moment who looks on course to be an all time great, but there are plenty of good bowlers about. Johnson and Bollinger have shown enough to be counted as good. Johnson's promise has been blighted by inconsistency, and the jury remains out on just where he'll end up sitting. Asif and Aamer are very good bowlers. The English seems to have a pretty good stream of quicks to select from.
And its not like guys in recent times aren't having careers of decent length. Guys who have recently retired include real veterans like McGrath, Vaas, Pollock, and also guys who had good long careers (for fast bowlers) like Lee, Gillespie, Flintoff, Gough. Ntini has lasted a helluva long time. Even Akhtar and Bond, while obviously missing a lot of cricket, were on the scene for a long time. And some fast bowlers being injury prone and missing a lot of cricket isn't really a new development.
Massive storm in a teacup for mine. Yeah, they're playing more cricket. They're also being supported by better medical science, training, recovery etc than ever before. And more of the cricket is limited over stuff where they're bowling a set number of overs in a day, and rarely on consecutive days.
stumpski
International Captain
They're playing more international cricket. Darren Gough bowled about 44,000 balls in first-class cricket, Fred Trueman, who retired around the same age, about 99,000. And 'Fiery' was considerably less injury-prone than the Dazzler. Obviously players have to dive around in the field far more than they did in the Fifties, but it's not clear to me why a bowler is more likely to be injured playing Test cricket or ODIs than in the County Championship.
Sir Alex
Banned
5 vs 4 days? (25% extra effort in that itself) Travel/different conditions taking a toll? Having to put in 100% every moment in test matches? Better standard of cricket = better efforts? Pressure?
3 day cricket in the era of Trueman, Bedser, Statham etc.
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, but I think the 'not putting 100% in domestic cricket' argument is utterly without merit. These guys are competitive beasts, and they have set actions - can't see any long term international holding back in a FC match. And a biomechanics will tell you that when you compromise your action in an effort to bowl with less effort that you're likely to do something that tweaks an injury.
The diving thing is massively overstated as well as a cause of problems for bowlers. It makes them sound like they're diving around like a troop of trapeze artists. How often per ODI do you reckon a bowler would dive? How many dives equate in risk terms to an extra 10 overs in a day (for a typical ODI vs a day in the field for FC?). Players actually train diving etc now and do it in a much safer way than they did in the 80s for instance.
The only argument of merit I can see is the impact on recovery of having to travel. But I think that is offset by the reduced workload of ODIs as compared to FC/Tests.
The diving thing is massively overstated as well as a cause of problems for bowlers. It makes them sound like they're diving around like a troop of trapeze artists. How often per ODI do you reckon a bowler would dive? How many dives equate in risk terms to an extra 10 overs in a day (for a typical ODI vs a day in the field for FC?). Players actually train diving etc now and do it in a much safer way than they did in the 80s for instance.
The only argument of merit I can see is the impact on recovery of having to travel. But I think that is offset by the reduced workload of ODIs as compared to FC/Tests.
Woodster
International Captain
There are fast bowlers out there, but few genuine quicks that can currently be classed as top performers. Dale Steyn is both quick and an excellent bowler, and Morne Morkel is working hard to join him in that elite band.
Kemar Roach is raw, but has excellent potential, while Fidel Edwards is yet to fulfill his true potential yet, injuries have certainly not helped here.
A number of other bowlers mentioned in this thread may be brisk but cannot be classed as genuine quicks. Tait is quick, but unable to play any form of cricket that requires him to bowl a spell of more than a few overs, Brett Lee is no longer in Test cricket, ditto Shane Bond and Shoaib.
The quality is currently not there, and the out and out quicks may ultimately prefer the shorter forms, less workload and generally more cash!
Kemar Roach is raw, but has excellent potential, while Fidel Edwards is yet to fulfill his true potential yet, injuries have certainly not helped here.
A number of other bowlers mentioned in this thread may be brisk but cannot be classed as genuine quicks. Tait is quick, but unable to play any form of cricket that requires him to bowl a spell of more than a few overs, Brett Lee is no longer in Test cricket, ditto Shane Bond and Shoaib.
The quality is currently not there, and the out and out quicks may ultimately prefer the shorter forms, less workload and generally more cash!
Faisal1985
International Vice-Captain
But you can't compare a batsman's cricketing life with a bowler's. Fast bowling is a lot more physically demanding then batting. That is why you have bowlers leaving the circle earlier then batsmen. I.e. Sachin and Waqar...debuted in the same test...(if i am not wrong)...Waqar impressed and left...Sachin is still in and still impressing...
As far as the myth we are talking about...fast bowlers dying or class fast bowlers dying are two different things...
I feel the argument is regarding quality fast bowling. Because a bowler's life is less then that of a batsman the cycle of new bowlers coming in and making an impression and leaving is shorter. Right now i feel we are at the beginning of that cycle where the young fast bowlers are there but will take time to develop into class bowlers...in 3-5 years if you have the likes of Amir injury free and bowling at capacity then you have a good half a dozen brilliant bowlers...
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Stop making yourself look stupid when you talk about FC cricket.
GotSpin
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's funny how wrong someone can be in one short sentence
A great way to summarize and put things into perspective. It is true that the psyche of the batsman has changed because of better protection equipment and laws on number of bouncers etc. No way would some of the current batsmen in the world feel comfortable and confident if it wasn't for helmets, modern gloves/pads and equipment. With the knowledge that a hit on the head wouldn't be lethal, it is easier to get in line with the ball than it is with knowing that the very next delivery you could be brain damaged/paralyzed/dead. Fast bowlers of the 80s put fear into the batsmen, fear causes the mind to clog up and make mistakes. But how can there be fear with the comfort of knowing that the bullet shall not kill but scratch.
There are a lot of factors involved in making people believed that fast bowlers are less and far in between, it just isn't true, there are so many bowlers bowling above 90mph, and I think this is more than even in the 80's and 90's where you had maybe 10 bowlers touching that pace. Today there are bowlers in first class teams bowling those speeds for every country, apart from Bangla, NZ, India?? Pace is there and thriving , but the balance has been lost between bat and ball dramatically.
Last edited:
tooextracool
International Coach
Bowlers are probably bowling faster in this era than in previous eras for 2 reasons:
1) the obsession with speed - With the advent of a reliable speed gun not to mention the contests across the world for finding the fastest bowler in the country and what not, lets face it, speed is king.When bowlers like Finn and Anderson were bowling at a touch above 80mph they were sent back for strength training and rigorous muscle exercises so that they could get their pace up closer to 90 mph. Same thing with Irfan Pathan. Lets face it, this would not have happened in previous eras.
2) Flatter pitches - Given the dearth in bowler friendly conditions, it is imperative to have speed in order to have any chance to succeed. Facts are that the only way to take wickets on certain pitches is that either you need to be as accurate as McGrath or you need to bowl 90mph. The odds are that if someone like Anderson played in the 70s and 80s, he would be one of the best bowlers around. Similarly, one wonders how well the likes of Lillee would have done in this era.
Seems to me like thats a logical consequence. Bowlers are bowling faster because that is what is required and expected from them in this day and age and it is also the answer to why they are getting injured more often.
subshakerz
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Jacknife
International Captain
If Hilfenhaus was touching 94mph, the speed gun was broken.
Debris
International 12th Man
Wind assisted
Faisal1985
International Vice-Captain
A very good post.
The question that must arise however is, whether speed=class...obviously not. So if you bend the question a bit are "quality fast bowlers dieing a myth?" and when i say quality, meaning test level bowlers who can bowl long spells without running out of fuel or without a significant decrease in their effort bowls..
I think its just a matter of time before young fast bowlers i.e Amir, Roache...go on to become the precise class that we have seen...