Are modern pacers significantly weaker than pacers from 1920-30s?

[AlizeeFan]

I deny it.

I think it reasonable to state that that Larwood was at 85-90 mph. Lindwall too, whom Bradman would have faced in Shield cricket where he averaged 94. Miller a bit less, perhaps Anderson/Broad speed.

As for scrutiny of technique, they did that by watching the player play. Hence fast leg-theory was deployed against Bradman.

It's a known fact that faster bowlers are more injury prone and bowlers cut down speed to bowl longer in career. Spinners tend to play much longer than pacers.

Whenever teams play 5 match series, commentators start talking about how difficult will it be for bowlers who bowl long spells even if that series is spread over more than 1 month and each series is separated by 2 months or more gap.

As I previously pointed out in Bradman thread that Larwood used to bowl in county season for 3-4 months.

For ex -

1. He played for 60 days of cricket out of 80 days of county season in 1925
2. During those 60 days he played 20 FC matches of 3 days each.
3. Most of the matches had 1 day gap, so he was practically bowling after every 2nd or 3rd for 80 days. This is almost similar to playing a 2 months long test match.
4. He bowled 2863 deliveries during this season.

How is it practically possible for a pacer to bowl at speed of 85-90mph and yet bowl day in day out in matches such long spells and for so many days without getting injured or tired.

Why are modern pacers (1970-2010s) are getting injured so often even though they bowl half number of balls spread over entire in different formats even though many of them are not even fast?

Are modern bowlers way too weak?

Is there any instance of modern bowlers (1970s onwards) matching such workload and still able to bowl above 80mph)?

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Excellent Thread

 

[nighthawk23]

I want to see these mythical speed guns from the 1920s and 30s.

A real reason might be that bowlers nowadays have more lean muscle due to the focus on weight training and fitness. More muscle also puts you at risk for more injury.

 

[troodon]

Bowlers in 60's and even in 70's were trundling. Seen enough videos on Youtube.

Can't even imagine how much the 20's and 30's bowlers be trundling

 

[bujhee kom]

How can we know the speeds of guys from the 20s/30s when we havent seen them? The B/W footage is patchy and they do not appear quick. Cricket from the 1970s entered a professional era where standards are much, much higher.

 

[Bilal7]

Not sure about weaker. However, humans have generally become less tougher as the decades have gone on. You won't see anyone bowling with a caste these days or battling through pain in order to win a test match.

 

[bujhee kom]

Bowlers in 60's and even in 70's were trundling. Seen enough videos on Youtube.

Can't even imagine how much the 20's and 30's bowlers be trundling

The likes of Lillee, Thomson, Willis, Snow, Imran Khan and the WI quicks (Roberts, Croft etc) were FAST. But definitely before the war was a different world.

 

[AlizeeFan]

If anyone claims that a random club bowler from 1920s and 30s could bowl at 150 kph, then it's certainly believable. There is no reason why they couldn't bowl at those speeds. There is evidence that human body is capable of doing so and it's not even extreme limit.

But if someone says that bowlers could bowl at same speeds as modern pacers after playing cricket like daily 9-5 job for 3 months, then it's sounds highly unbelievable when we see modern bowlers trundling in 3rd session of day or last day of tests. By the time teams go to 5th test of a long tour players get injured even with enough breaks. Yet to see that human body is capable of doing so.

Believing that they used to bowl at fast speeds feels like they had some kind of strength potion that would encourage them to bowl fast knowing that they are in for long haul of 3 months. Here we have modern pacers who drop pace in test matches.

Here is what happened to Siddle when he tried to bowl quick even on day 5

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...rica-2nd-Test-south-africa-tour-of-australia/

They are probably not even bothered about over rate. This match was played after 9 day gap from first test and overs bowled in a day is 90 these days. They bowled 148 overs in last session.

On the other hand, bowlers from 1920s used to bowl 120-130 overs in a day. It looks like Siddle who is considered a workhorse would have been on stretcher if he was doing same thing in a day and God knows what would have happened if he was told that he has to bowl same 2 days later again.

 

[MMHS]

They were more durable, because of the set standard. If bowling at 110KM can earn you reputation of fast bowler, I am sure our Soumya can bowl 3500 balls/season - fast, hostile, relentless.

On "unplayable, sticky dogs", these guys allowed JB Hobbs averaging close to 60 with his "technique" - either parallel universe exists or I have to say, cricket was at street level .....

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

All sports have overly romantised views of the past, and cricket is probably worse

Personally I feel there is no point in comparing who was better but In terms of player fitness and strength the current lot are obviously the best

 

[Chrish]

Not all wickets they played were sticky. Iirc 10% of games Bradman played on sticky

Also doubt Hobbs or anyone averaged 50 or above on sticky. He was considered master since he was so good on them as relative to his peers. Headley for example averaged 39 or something on some sticky innings and that was seen as the sign of greatness

 

[Tusker]

All sports have overly romantised views of the past, and cricket is probably worse

Personally I feel there is no point in comparing who was better but In terms of player fitness and strength the current lot are obviously the best

This. What I don't understand is how soo many people just don't understand such a simple and obvious thing.

 

[Cric1234]

Larwood was bowling full speed against Australia and got injured unlikely he went all out in FC.
Miller and Bedser had a body and build better than most modern bowlers which means in some ways they are weaker.

 

[Junaids]

Larwood was measured five or so years ago by an Australian university by triangulating points at the ground and playing the video at the original speed.

They were surprised that he only measured in the high 140's.

BTW, don't forget that historically all bowlers had a rest day after 3 days, which is part of the reason why modern bowlers are so much slower than those of the 70's and 80's.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Larwood was measured five or so years ago by an Australian university by triangulating points at the ground and playing the video at the original speed.

They were surprised that he only measured in the high 140's.

BTW, don't forget that historically all bowlers had a rest day after 3 days, which is part of the reason why modern bowlers are so much slower than those of the 70's and 80's.

Pacers from 70s-80s were weakest bunch if you go by the stories of bowlers of 20s and 30s. When WI started fielding quicks, over rates dropped to 70-80 in a day which was sometimes half of the overs bowled by pacers from 1930s.

Take Michael Holding for example - he could bowl only 51k deliveries in his 17 years of career compared to Larwood's 58k in 14 years, that too when Holding used to have 3-10 days between FC matches, playing whole year instead of squeezing everything in 4 months and allowed to bowl low over rates. Holding sounds like a very weak fast bowler.

Dennis Lillee bowled 50k overs with conditions similar to Holding in 18 years. Kapil bowled 53k in 18 years. Willis bowled 53k in 15 years. Imran bowled 74k in 22 years. Hadlee probably bowled similar numbers in his 19 years of career.

None of them come even close to Larwood as depicted in stories.

 

[jeetu]

Pacers from 70s-80s were weakest bunch if you go by the stories of bowlers of 20s and 30s. When WI started fielding quicks, over rates dropped to 70-80 in a day which was sometimes half of the overs bowled by pacers from 1930s.

Take Michael Holding for example - he could bowl only 51k deliveries in his 17 years of career compared to Larwood's 58k in 14 years, that too when Holding used to have 3-10 days between FC matches, playing whole year instead of squeezing everything in 4 months and allowed to bowl low over rates. Holding sounds like a very weak fast bowler.

Dennis Lillee bowled 50k overs with conditions similar to Holding in 18 years. Kapil bowled 53k in 18 years. Willis bowled 53k in 15 years. Imran bowled 74k in 22 years. Hadlee probably bowled similar numbers in his 19 years of career.

None of them come even close to Larwood as depicted in stories.

Larwood did indeed bowled 58,027 deliveries. From footage it did look like he had the ability to reach around 90km/hrs top speed. I have a feeling most older bowlers bowled at reduced pace to avoid injury. Larwood himself got injured when Jardine forced him to bowl quick consistently during bodyline series.

 

[Cric1234]

Larwood did indeed bowled 58,027 deliveries. From footage it did look like he had the ability to reach around 90km/hrs top speed. I have a feeling most older bowlers bowled at reduced pace to avoid injury. Larwood himself got injured when Jardine forced him to bowl quick consistently during bodyline series.

Indeed he bowled 55mph average speed.

 

[Junaids]

Fred Trueman made it quite clear that in his books that in easy county matches he coasted, working on his swing and seam, but in Tests he cranked it up quicker, and in important county matches too.

I think Larwood was probably the only pre-war 140+ bowler.

Post-war, everything became professional, and speeds went up. In fact, the two things which later brought speeds back down were:

1. Loss of the Test rest day,
2. The importation of coaches from sports like rugby league, bringing with them hopelessly unsuited bulking-up gym routines, which have ruined careers from McDermott through to Ryan Harris.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Fred Trueman made it quite clear that in his books that in easy county matches he coasted, working on his swing and seam, but in Tests he cranked it up quicker, and in important county matches too.

I think Larwood was probably the only pre-war 140+ bowler.

Post-war, everything became professional, and speeds went up. In fact, the two things which later brought speeds back down were:

1. Loss of the Test rest day,
2. The importation of coaches from sports like rugby league, bringing with them hopelessly unsuited bulking-up gym routines, which have ruined careers from McDermott through to Ryan Harris.

Fred Trueman was one of the fittest bowler of his time. I remember reading about him in a magazine article in 2002 where he had mentioned that he was injured once he was a teenager, but never after that. He played FC cricket for 20 years and bowled over 100k deliveries in those 20 years.

 

[kingusama92]

85-90 MPH?



In every sport, athletes get stronger, fitter, and better but somehow cricket is different.

 

[Cric1234]

85-90 MPH?



In every sport, athletes get stronger, fitter, and better but somehow cricket is different.

How many players are there now fitter and stronger than Miller or Bedser?
How many bowlers have a smoother action than Larwood?
How many spinners are better than Laker and O'reilly currently?

 

[Cric1234]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WwL1VOBG6Vo

Larwoods action in slow motion as smooth as anyone in history but didn't bring him too much success in tests.

 

[kingusama92]

How many players are there now fitter and stronger than Miller or Bedser?
How many bowlers have a smoother action than Larwood?
How many spinners are better than Laker and O'reilly currently?

You tell me.

I wasn't born in 1920.

If you watch the video of Larwood, he seems to be bowling slower than Debasis Mohanty.

 

[Aman]

85-90 MPH?



In every sport, athletes get stronger, fitter, and better but somehow cricket is different.

Exactly, I'll be stunned if any of them could get past 125. If you see some of highlights from back then, their run up and actions were a mess. No way they could realistically bowl anything over that, consistently anyway.

 

[Cric1234]

You tell me.

I wasn't born in 1920.

If you watch the video of Larwood, he seems to be bowling slower than Debasis Mohanty.

It's in slow motion to analyse his action the rest isn't the batsman was unable to continue.

 

[Junaids]

85-90 MPH?



In every sport, athletes get stronger, fitter, and better but somehow cricket is different.

Wrong.

Look at men's and women's track and field.

Records have generally barely changed in 50 years.

And the only ones which have are attributable either to drugs or to increased height - think of the stride length of Usain Bolt.

Bob Beamon's 1968 long jump and Flo-Jo's 1988 200 metres have hardly been touched and never even been approached respectively.

Fast bowling relies on a side on technique. Modern bowlers are so bulked up in the gym that they can't get side on. The results are there for all to see - slower pace and endless injuries.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Wrong.

Look at men's and women's track and field.

Records have generally barely changed in 50 years.

And the only ones which have are attributable either to drugs or to increased height - think of the stride length of Usain Bolt.

Bob Beamon's 1968 long jump and Flo-Jo's 1988 200 metres have hardly been touched and never even been approached respectively.

Fast bowling relies on a side on technique. Modern bowlers are so bulked up in the gym that they can't get side on. The results are there for all to see - slower pace and endless injuries.

But are modern 200 m athletes slower than marathon runners of 1920s? Claiming that 1920s bowlers were as fast as modern one suggests the same.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Wrong.

Look at men's and women's track and field.

Records have generally barely changed in 50 years.

And the only ones which have are attributable either to drugs or to increased height - think of the stride length of Usain Bolt.

Bob Beamon's 1968 long jump and Flo-Jo's 1988 200 metres have hardly been touched and never even been approached respectively.

Fast bowling relies on a side on technique. Modern bowlers are so bulked up in the gym that they can't get side on. The results are there for all to see - slower pace and endless injuries.

Those examples are not much comparable to fast bowling. Bowling fast in a test match consistently can be compared more to longer races, marathon.

If it was just a competition of bowling quickest delivery, then like I said in first post someone bowling 150-160 kph from 1920s would have easily been believable.

 

[Rightarmfast]

Not sure about weaker. However, humans have generally become less tougher as the decades have gone on. You won't see anyone bowling with a caste these days or battling through pain in order to win a test match.

Humans might have become weaker, however professional athletes have become better and fitter. Performances have become much better. So, if we go by that,there's no reason why bowlers from 20;s and 30's were quicker from the ones now.

 

[Adil_94]

no modern pacers have access to much better diets sports science nutrionists state of the art gyms. Professional athletes nowadays are fitter and stronger as well due to increased professionalism. Look at the fielding standards nowadays much improved.

You take those guys straight out of the 20s and 30s and they will be club level cricketers compared to modern cricketers.

 

[Junaids]

no modern pacers have access to much better diets sports science nutrionists state of the art gyms. Professional athletes nowadays are fitter and stronger as well due to increased professionalism. Look at the fielding standards nowadays much improved.

You take those guys straight out of the 20s and 30s and they will be club level cricketers compared to modern cricketers.

No offence, but this post is incorrect almost from start to finish.

From the mid-1970's cricketers were full-time professionals with unlimited gym access.

The irony is that there are LESS high-quality bowlers developing coaching methods than for sixty years. The so-called science of bowling coaching is almost entirely driven by people specialising in rugby or football, with the result that the body of Ryan Harris or Pat Cummins was designed for tackling a rugby winger, not bowling fast.

Hence their injury-ruined careers.

Fielding has not improved due to fitness but, like tailend batting, because there has been a concerted attempt to address weaknesses.

 

[kingusama92]

It's in slow motion to analyse his action the rest isn't the batsman was unable to continue.

Not that video.

There are others on YouTube.

 

[kingusama92]

Wrong.

Look at men's and women's track and field.

Records have generally barely changed in 50 years.

And the only ones which have are attributable either to drugs or to increased height - think of the stride length of Usain Bolt.

Bob Beamon's 1968 long jump and Flo-Jo's 1988 200 metres have hardly been touched and never even been approached respectively.

Fast bowling relies on a side on technique. Modern bowlers are so bulked up in the gym that they can't get side on. The results are there for all to see - slower pace and endless injuries.

The 100M record was 10.4 in 1921.

The SLOWEST time in Rio's 100M final was 10.06.

This means every athlete in that final would have destroyed the 100M world record holder in 1921.

 

[Junaids]

The 100M record was 10.4 in 1921.

The SLOWEST time in Rio's 100M final was 10.06.

This means every athlete in that final would have destroyed the 100M world record holder in 1921.

I totally agree.

I've said in this thread that Larwood - who has been scientifically measured in the 140's - was the only pre-WW2 bowler that fast.

But my point is this. From the 1970's onwards not only have athletics speeds barely changed (for people shorter than 6'4), verified measured bowling speeds have reduced.

 

[Tusker]

I totally agree.

I've said in this thread that Larwood - who has been scientifically measured in the 140's - was the only pre-WW2 bowler that fast.

But my point is this. From the 1970's onwards not only have athletics speeds barely changed (for people shorter than 6'4), verified measured bowling speeds have reduced.

There exists no "Scientific" measurement of Larwood. ... atleast not per google. At best it would be some fanciful romanticism gone horribly wrong by usual Bradman fanatics out there. If there was one there is a good reason why it isnt published because it might attract large amounts of ridicule.

 

[bujhee kom]

I'm sorry but [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is being ridiculous. Athletes have come on leaps and bounds and all evidence suggests that pre war cricketers were a comparative joke WRT modern players. These old white players he champions who apparently had magical abilities were in actuality amateurs who would be horribly exposed by even the worst modern internationals.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] you talkin bout 1970s but sports science and nutritionists have improved players overall fitness n strength.

the 20s and 30s bowlers were trundlers most of them.

jesse owens in 1936 was a world champ running 10.4 secs in 100m that time has now been surpassed even by collegiate athletes in the u.s.

ofc there is a limit to our bodies and how far we can push them in terms of sports and athleticism. 100mph may be our limit as humans atm. just like a human couldnt military press a plane over their head even if they are the worlds strongest man. or run 100m in 5 seconds.

 

[AlizeeFan]

There exists no "Scientific" measurement of Larwood. ... atleast not per google. At best it would be some fanciful romanticism gone horribly wrong by usual Bradman fanatics out there. If there was one there is a good reason why it isnt published because it might attract large amounts of ridicule.

This is what some believe

However, that is only half the story. Tyson also revealed that he had neither warmed up, nor changed his clothes prior to the test. "We bowled in two or three sweaters," he commented, "and I cannot vouch for the length of our run-ups."

Tyson also recalls how attempts to measure Harold Larwood had produced wildly differing results: "Larwood, for instance, was measured by high speed photography at between 90 and 130mph! I sincerely hope I did reach 119 mph, and the odd ball might have done so. We shall never know"

Those speeds are in mph and kph.

 

[CricFan2012]

No way.

Modern pacers have an easily accessible diet that aids them, videos, coaching from around the world, passion with world cups, trophies to win.

They did not have all of this back then. It's an impossible conclusion.

 

[JaDed]

If with that run up and bowling action they were bowling 140-150, then all I can say is remarkable.

 

[Cric1234]

No way.

Modern pacers have an easily accessible diet that aids them, videos, coaching from around the world, passion with world cups, trophies to win.

They did not have all of this back then. It's an impossible conclusion.

That's why the likes of Miller and Bedser were physically superior than most modern day bowlers evidence suggests other things to what people think.
Larwood and Lindwall both bowled over 140kph at times it's been tested and proven maybe they were biased in testing I'm not sure.
You can't knock out batsmen with 70mph bouncers they have to be over 80mph to get the pace and bounce that's needed.

 

[Cric1234]

I'm sorry but [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is being ridiculous. Athletes have come on leaps and bounds and all evidence suggests that pre war cricketers were a comparative joke WRT modern players. These old white players he champions who apparently had magical abilities were in actuality amateurs who would be horribly exposed by even the worst modern internationals.

It would be interesting to know which modern day batsmen would excel on sticky or rain affected wickets on modern day green tops and turners they fall like a pack of cards to different bowlers.

 

[R0H1T]

[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] you talkin bout 1970s but sports science and nutritionists have improved players overall fitness n strength.

the 20s and 30s bowlers were trundlers most of them.

jesse owens in 1936 was a world champ running 10.4 secs in 100m that time has now been surpassed even by collegiate athletes in the u.s.

ofc there is a limit to our bodies and how far we can push them in terms of sports and athleticism. 100mph may be our limit as humans atm. just like a human couldnt military press a plane over their head even if they are the worlds strongest man. or run 100m in 5 seconds.

Say no more

 

[AlizeeFan]

That's why the likes of Miller and Bedser were physically superior than most modern day bowlers evidence suggests other things to what people think.
Larwood and Lindwall both bowled over 140kph at times it's been tested and proven maybe they were biased in testing I'm not sure.
You can't knock out batsmen with 70mph bouncers they have to be over 80mph to get the pace and bounce that's needed.

When?

You can certainly knock out players with 70 mph bouncers. Not every pacer bowls 85 mph in club cricket. Most of the bowlers in FC cricket cricket are around 70-85 mph mark. A level below they bowl at 65-75 mph in club cricket.

 

[AlizeeFan]

It would be interesting to know which modern day batsmen would excel on sticky or rain affected wickets on modern day green tops and turners they fall like a pack of cards to different bowlers.

Modern day batsman would fail against modern day bowlers on sticky or rain affected wickets. But they will succeed against pacers of 1920s and 30s. Spinners not sure.

 

[Cric1234]

When?

You can certainly knock out players with 70 mph bouncers. Not every pacer bowls 85 mph in club cricket. Most of the bowlers in FC cricket cricket are around 70-85 mph mark. A level below they bowl at 65-75 mph in club cricket.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c_wA0QIsM7o

Here is a women's cricket match the English bowler takes a wicket with a ball exactly 70mph if you really think Larwood was bowling around that speed and could have batsman hopping and flooring them when getting hit then we are watching 2 different things.

 

[R0H1T]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c_wA0QIsM7o

Here is a women's cricket match the English bowler takes a wicket with a ball exactly 70mph if you really think Larwood was bowling around that speed and could have batsman hopping and flooring them when getting hit then we are watching 2 different things.

This is what you said ~

You can't knock out batsmen with 70mph bouncers they have to be over 80mph to get the pace and bounce that's needed.

It's factually incorrect, try facing a 70mph bouncer, from any female cricketer flush on the head without a helmet, let's see whether that knocks you out or not.

 

[Sidilicious]

I totally agree.

I've said in this thread that Larwood - who has been scientifically measured in the 140's - was the only pre-WW2 bowler that fast.

But my point is this. From the 1970's onwards not only have athletics speeds barely changed (for people shorter than 6'4), verified measured bowling speeds have reduced.

In correct again. Lets take the example of 100m for a start. In 1970s, the 100m final winning time was usually around 10s. In every decade that has improved, and the winning time for this decade is 9.63.

As for short/long athletes debate, earlier no one thought an athlete with a long leg would be able to run as fast as one with a long leg. With modern sports science and nutrition that does not hold true anymore. So tall athletes or not, people have gotten faster, and the times will keep on dropping.

As for Bob Beaman's jump in the 68 olympics, it was a one off and was significantly helped by external factors such as tails wind and altitude. During the same olympics a lot of other records were broken, a lot more than a normal normal olympic. If you remove that one jump, the average long jump distance of top 8 athletes has generally improved.

So, I might agree with you that one or two athletes from that era might have matched the bowlers from the later era, but in general the bowling has gotten faster and better since then.

 

[Cric1234]

This is what you said ~
It's factually incorrect, try facing a 70mph bouncer, from any female cricketer flush on the head without a helmet, let's see whether that knocks you out or not.

You're right but my point was more about the difficulty in playing bouncers 70mph wouldn't work on any decent batsman too much time to line up and play them it wouldn't make them duck and weave like a faster bouncer.

 

[AlizeeFan]

You're right but my point was more about the difficulty in playing bouncers 70mph wouldn't work on any decent batsman too much time to line up and play them it wouldn't make them duck and weave like a faster bouncer.

Depends on what is standard of "decent batsman".

 

[Tusker]

This is what some believe
Those speeds are in mph and kph.

Yup I have discussed that with [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] about 2 yrs ago ...

a lot of people actually believe that good old Tyson was a 160K+ bowler over here

Gotta love the English press.