Who was faster on average – Michael Holding or Ollie Robinson?

[Johan]

The officially measured speeds of these bowlers is almost identical, obviously Holding has an unfair advantage as he is bowling as fast as he could for like 10-12 deliveries and he's obviously sacrificing accuracy for speed, and Robinson's sample size is of hundreds of balls and is actually trying to get wickets. so who do you reckon would be faster over career in actual games?


82.9 Mph = 133.4 kmph

 

[Johan]

kind of wild how Fidel Edwards was almost a yard or so quicker than Holding.

 

[sayon basak]

The full story, however.

 

[Johan]

The full story, however.
View attachment 47555

This study doesn't actually have any real evidence of existing, we've no idea how it was done if it was even done, I'm referencing the 1979 study, where we know how it was done, who did it and we have footage of.

the only time we find real footage...we realise that everyone in 70s/80s was just medium pace like Woakes and Robinson with Jeff Thomson alone reachkng Brydon Carse speeds, truth is, there were no fast bowlers before Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee.

 

[sayon basak]

This study doesn't actually have any real evidence of existing, we've no idea how it was done if it was even done, I'm referencing the 1979 study, where we know how it was done, who did it and we have footage of.
View attachment 47557

the only time we find real footage...we realise that everyone in 70s/80s was just medium pace like Woakes and Robinson with Jeff Thomson alone reachkng Brydon Carse speeds, truth is, there were no fast bowlers before Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee.

Oh not again. What made you upset this time?

 

[Johan]

Oh not again. What made you upset this time?

I just stumbled upon the video, and genuinely, they look really slow on the eyetest compared to modern day pacemen. I actually think currently in England we got like 20 bowlers faster than Holding, 2/3 of them being massively, massively faster than Holding.

 

[sayon basak]

I just stumbled upon the video, and genuinely, they look really slow on the eyetest compared to modern day pacemen.

Fair tbh. They were fast, but don't think Carse is a fair competition really. Ellyse Perry is a fair comparison tho.

 

[Johan]

Fair tbh. They were fast, but don't think Carse is a fair competition really. Ellyse Perry is a fair comparison tho.

Yeah Carse massively faster than Holding, 140s vs 130s gap really.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

This study doesn't actually have any real evidence of existing, we've no idea how it was done if it was even done, I'm referencing the 1979 study, where we know how it was done, who did it and we have footage of.
View attachment 47557

the only time we find real footage...we realise that everyone in 70s/80s was just medium pace like Woakes and Robinson with Jeff Thomson alone reachkng Brydon Carse speeds, truth is, there were no fast bowlers before Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee.

So all quickers before the 90s apart from Thomson at best, are like medium pacers in today’s standards.

 

[Johan]

So all quickers before the 90s apart from Thomson at best, are like medium pacers in today’s standards.

before the 2000s, Yeah, like Michael Holding was a Chris Woakes without Wobble seam.

 

[sayon basak]

So all quickers before the 90s apart from Thomson at best, are like medium pacers in today’s standards.

They are spinners by today's standards. Ecclestone bowls faster than them.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

before the 2000s, Yeah, like Michael Holding was a Chris Woakes without Wobble seam.

Gosh! Peer Review made them sound like terrifying with pace.

 

[Johan]

Gosh! Peer Review made them sound like terrifying with pace.

Yeah it's just a lot of hogwash, modern New Zealand team would crush the 70s/80s West Indies team

 

[Johan]

This one is hilarious ngl

 

[shortpitched713]

I'm a guy who generally believes newer players are getting better, faster stronger. But taking these at face value as comparable to modern speedgun measurements is way too extreme on that side of the spectrum.

 

[Johan]

Hmmm maybe true, Robinson seems yards quicker on the eye test

 

[shortpitched713]

There's only one way this thread ends up going Johan.

You troll old timer "pace" supporters, and we end up looking at frame by frame "measurements" of Frank Tyson bowling supposedly 158, and then suddenly we're in a **** slinging festival.

I don't take the accuracy of any measurements used before the 90s modernized speed guns as valid. You can't compare between different methodologies.

 

[Johan]

There's only one way this thread ends up going Johan.

You troll old timer "pace" supporters, and we end up looking at frame by frame "measurements" of Frank Tyson bowling supposedly 158, and then suddenly we're in a **** slinging festival.

I don't take the accuracy of any measurements used before the 90s modernized speed guns as valid. You can't compare between different methodologies.

you have no approx speeds for Hall/Holding/Lillee/Marshall kind?

 

[shortpitched713]

If you've ever actually tried to verify some of old time frame data nonsense, you get a good idea of the min and max and how the proponents of it are trying to trick you. Usually they spuriously remove 1 frame from the count, and it makes a huge difference to the final speed.

Still Tyson and Trueman seem likely to have been capable of bowling in the mid 140s kph back in the 50s. You mean to tell me that every single one of the bowlers above with the exception of Thommo are bowling significantly slower by the 70s? Child please.

 

[shortpitched713]

you have no approx speeds for Hall/Holding/Lillee/Marshall kind?

No, but if you wanted you could get the roughest of estimates just by comparing footage, even using a spurious methodology. Said methodology would prove these figures wrong quite easily, imo as they're not even in the right ballpark.

The reason for that could be anything from poor tech to conditions not allowing for a good measurement. But I think if we're saying these are the actual max speeds accurately measured for these bowlers it's just wrong.

And one might wonder, why even allow players to be thus slandered with lowball estimates of speed? But the thing is before that time no one even knew or cared what the precise speeds of fast bowling actually were. The whole point of the exercise in 1979 was to compare relative speeds between the bowlers of the time, and that's what people cared about contemporaneously and what the measurement could actually fairly do. Turns out Thommo pretty comfortably won that dick measuring contest. But I don't use those numbers, except possibly to compare between those players between one another at that specific time only.