What's new

Fastest Bowlers in the History of the Game

btw, people who followed Waqar say his pace was around 145 & his best effort of the day would prolly be 150 & this was when he was at his peak[ first 30 tests or so] .

Rubbish, check 92/93 odi series where the battle of pace was between Wakar and Donald, Wakar demolished Saffers with almost everything above 150 kph
 
I have seen enough of waqar from 89 series and can surely say in his peak he was not more than 142 average,Sami was way quicker than Waqar... Waqar was a legend but not out n out quick except small spells that too PRE-1996

What? I have seen him averaging above 150kph, he was faster than Akram, who himself was a 145 kph bowler
 
Anyone exaggerating thomo is clearly on a high, thomo was a hype, Akhtar was way faster on average than him. Heck Akhtar was still bowling 95mph at the age of 40 (unofficial)
 
Rubbish, check 92/93 odi series where the battle of pace was between Wakar and Donald, Wakar demolished Saffers with almost everything above 150 kph

That was one year, one series. Akhtar, Lee have been operating at 148-155 km/hr for their entire lives.
 
Anyone exaggerating thomo is clearly on a high, thomo was a hype, Akhtar was way faster on average than him. Heck Akhtar was still bowling 95mph at the age of 40 (unofficial)

Thompson was more erratic as well. An avg of 28 when wickets, conditions were more conducive to fast bowling is not that good and in comparison Akhtar has a bowling avg of 24-25 even though for most part he has bowled on dead wickets.
 
Many of the quickest bowlers were never measured.

My guess is:

1. Jeff Thomson (74-76)
2. Harold Larwood
3. Charlie Griffith and Roy Gilchrist
4. Malcolm Marshall (83-85)
5. Michael Holding (75-81)
6. Shoaib Akhtar
7. Shaun Tait
8. Waqar Younis (89-92)
9. Neil Adcock
10. Brett Lee

The two I'd most physically fear would be Charlie Griffith and Roy Gilchrist: those two West Indians loved to maim batsmen.

Both Garry Sobers and Hanif Mohammed say that Gilchrist was the fastest bowler ever. Any guy who brands his wife with a red-hot iron is no pussycat.

You didn't include Roberts, Roberts was faster than both Marshall and Holding.

What Junaids means to say is that in a period of 10 years there were than 3 160+ Fast Bowlers.
But after that there has been nearly 30 years of cricket yet there still hasn't been no one who is as fast as them.
Surely his predictions are way off.
 
Last edited:
I suggest that people watch this video: it starts with Richie Benaud confirming that Lillee and Thommo was the fastest pair he ever watched - and he saw Hall/Griffith, Snow/Willis, Schultz/Donald, Lee/Tait, Marshall/Patterson and Holding/Roberts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cukAdBEpMs

All my life there have been people under 25 who think that they have experienced the golden age of cricket, with science somehow elevating techniques and bodies to their optimum.

I'm sorry, but it's nonsense.

Iain O'Brien recently wrote eloquently on Cricinfo about how attempts to turn fast bowling into a science destroy techniques and careers. I can't think of a single top class "manufactured" fast bowler in my forty years of watching cricket, but I can name countless promising ones whose careers were ruined by having their technique tampered with or by bulking up with muscle in the wrong places.

There are several reasons why fast bowling today is slower than it was in the 1930s, late 1950s and between 1970-1995.

I would list the following factors:

1) Earlier bowlers in many cases had bodies sculpted by hard labour - miners such as Larwood or Trueman had developed their muscles - and especially their buttocks!- down the mines.

2) Earlier bowlers bowled in 25 First Class matches every summer, with an average of 1000 overs per season in spells of 6-10 overs. Modern bowlers do far, far less First Class bowling but much more 20 and 50 overs bowling, which does nothing to harden up their bodies for long spells.

3) Modern coaches tend to make side-on youngsters more front-on, because they think it reduces back injuries. But it also reduces their pace, markedly.

4) One Day and T20 cricket is great for non-cricket lovers to watch, but it has totally ruined modern techniques. That's why all but a few modern players are so massively inferior to their equivalents of even the 1980s. Players like Tendulkar who straddled both eras freely admit this.

5) Modern pitches are horribly bland to cater for the ODI-induced fetish for rapid high scores, and bowlers give up trying to bowl fast and instead go the Philander/McGrath route of accuracy. If we could go back to the good old days when 500 runs across 2 Test innings was a matchwinning total, more bowlers might stick to pace.

I would advise anyone to consult the ICC Test Rankings for batsmen and bowlers for today and for this date in 1986. It will show the chasm in quality that has resulted from the eclipse of the longer game.

The batting rankings have very good players at good points of their careers in quite low places -Gavaskar at 12, Richie Richardson at 16, Botham at 23, Ranatunga at 30, Azharrudin at 42.

Those places today are occupied by Azhar Ali, Misbah-ul-Haq, Asad Shafiq, Brendon McCullum and Dean Brownlie. The decline in world cricket quality could hardly be more plain to see.

The bowling rankings are even more stark!

Abdul Qadir at 11, Wasim Akram at 21, Terry Alderman at 24, Bruce Reid at 28, Courtney Walsh at 30 - all of whom would be top 3 bowlers today.

Yet in 2013, those positions are occupied by Ben Hilfenhaus, Umar Gul, Ryan Harris, Monty Panesar and Nathan Lyon.

QED.
 
Last edited:
^ You are sounding too ridiculous.....Bowler are now faster and have more skills. Some of those pensioners are like you scratch my back and I scratch yours.....

Thanks to Pakistanis for introducing reverse swing / bottle cap effects and doosara. Atleast tests cricket remains exciting after you have seen off new ball...
Regarding pitch and all those crap... Tests cricket have more results now....

Also please stop giving bowling speed results by pointing your speed guns to youtube video....
 
How can Thomson be the fastest Bowler, he is officially the 4th Fastest bowler.
Anyone that says that Thomson was quicker than Tait,Lee and Akhtar is expressing his opinion not a fact.

Thomson is not quicker than Lee IMO an opinion which is also a fact.

And also Thomson played most of his cricket on the lightening quick pitches of Australia making him look more quicker than he really was.
 
And also most of the claims of Thomson being the fastest are from Thomson himself.
 
How can Thomson be the fastest Bowler, he is officially the 4th Fastest bowler.
Anyone that says that Thomson was quicker than Tait,Lee and Akhtar is expressing his opinion not a fact.

Thomson is not quicker than Lee IMO an opinion which is also a fact.

And also Thomson played most of his cricket on the lightening quick pitches of Australia making him look more quicker than he really was.

There wasn't the technology to measure Thommo in the seventies, but watch the film: he was far quicker than those three. In fact, in his era I'd argue that Roberts, Holding and even Lillee at times were quicker than Shoaib, Tait and Lee.
 
There wasn't the technology to measure Thommo in the seventies, but watch the film: he was far quicker than those three. In fact, in his era I'd argue that Roberts, Holding and even Lillee at times were quicker than Shoaib, Tait and Lee.

I have seen his clip about a Million times.
And he doesn't seem quicker than even Tait to me.
Tait against Pakistan in 2010 looked more quicker than Thomson to me.
 
Rubbish, check 92/93 odi series where the battle of pace was between Wakar and Donald, Wakar demolished Saffers with almost everything above 150 kph



Please show some evidence of that.Eye speed guns dont count.

Waqar's fastest was recorded as 153 and Donalds as 152.9.
 
There wasn't the technology to measure Thommo in the seventies, but watch the film: he was far quicker than those three. In fact, in his era I'd argue that Roberts, Holding and even Lillee at times were quicker than Shoaib, Tait and Lee.

You are full of nonsense

On wiki
Competing in a 1978 fast bowling contest that included many of the leading bowlers in the world, Thomson came first with a delivery clocked at 147.9 km/h, ahead of Michael Holding (141.3 km/h) and Imran Khan (139.7 km/h).


How is that close to 180kph, he may have touched 100mph, or maybe fastest ever but I can't seriously believe that he was close to 180kph
 
Last edited:
You are full of nonsense

On wiki



How is that close to 180kph, he may have touched 100mph, or maybe fastest ever but I can't seriously believe that he was close to 180kph

The 1979 competition was not timed out of the hand hence the lower than 150 kph speeds.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nol94jVqCXk

Also keep in mind, and Imran Khan has been quoted on this (as well as having watched the footage), Jeff Thompson was bowling full tosses during the competition whilst almost every other bowler was bowling bouncers.
 
Last edited:
The 1979 competition was not timed out of the hand hence the lower than 150 kph speeds.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nol94jVqCXk

Also keep in mind, and Imran Khan has been quoted on this (as well as having watched the footage), Jeff Thompson was bowling full tosses during the competition whilst almost every other bowler was bowling bouncers.

whatever, I will not believe that he could bowl upto 180kph

Maybe 160kph to 162 is real possibility and realistic
 
Shoaib Akthar >>>>>Thompson as a bowler, whatever the speed is

:akhtar
 
Shoaib Akhtar was the fastest ever, others are pretenders. Not only he has bowled fastest ball ever but was also the must consistent bowler in terms of reaching 155kph+. Others dont even come close. He was still reaching 150kph at the end of his career.
 
Thommo is overated 180k :))), even baseball they don't go higher then 106-108mph and they chuck as well.
 
Morne Morkel broke the previous record of Shoaib Akhtar in an Indian Premier League game vs Royal Challengers Bangalore when he clocked 173.9 kmph on April 16th, 2013, it is yet to be officially cited.
 
You are full of nonsense

On wiki



How is that close to 180kph, he may have touched 100mph, or maybe fastest ever but I can't seriously believe that he was close to 180kph

Thommo had already lost around 20kph when his shoulder was destroyed in a fielding accident three years earlier. Nobody suggests that he bowled as fast ever again.

Secondly, the technology was different to that used today.
 
Many of you ignore that many batsmen played across more than one generation.

Just as Tendulkar started off against Wasim and Waqar and is finishing against Steyn, having played Donald, Shoaib and Lee in between.

Some batsmen from the early to mid seventies didn't finish up until the early nineties. Viv Richards, for example, faced Thommo at full tilt in 75-76 and then Wasim at top pace in 88 and Waqar in 89 and 90. Imran Khan had similar longevity, as did Sunil Gavaskar.

But everyone who played Thommo between 1974-77 is agreed; he was the fastest bowler they ever saw. Now, Colin Cowdrey had started in test cricket in 1954, but finished off against Thommo in 1974-75, and King Viv played Thommo in 75-76 and finished off against Australia in 91.

So at the very least, Thommo was the quickest bowler in the world between 1954 and 1991.

And I find it an insult to the intelligence for anyone to argue that Shaun Tait - who took 5 test wickets in his life, at an average of 60.40 which makes Sami look like Hadlee - was a faster bowler than Thommo. If he was, he might have been selected more than 3 times for his country.
 
Last edited:
Anything before Shoaib is opinion and conjecture. The fastest recorded deliveries were bowled by Akhtar, then Lee, then Tait.
 
Anything before Shoaib is opinion and conjecture. The fastest recorded deliveries were bowled by Akhtar, then Lee, then Tait.


Most believe that waqar was faster than shoab, i must say I have never seen wickets cartwheeling as far as in case of waqar.
 
Most believe that waqar was faster than shoab, i must say I have never seen wickets cartwheeling as far as in case of waqar.

Possibly. And many maintain Thommo was yards quicker.

But those things cannot be proven. The record says Shoaib measured at 161 kph
 
Most believe that waqar was faster than shoab, i must say I have never seen wickets cartwheeling as far as in case of waqar.

Just like Smith said Irfan is one of the fastest he ever faced. They can say what ever they want but Shoaib was faster and better bowler then one trick poney Waqar.
 
Those were the years in which they sustained the highest consistent pace, not speeds!

I'd guesstimate their average speeds during those years as follows, based on what I saw myself (Thomson, Marshall, Holding, Shoaib, Tait, Waqar and Lee) and accounts from players and journalists at the time (Larwood, Griffith, Gilchrist and Adcock).

1. Jeff Thomson (1974-76) - 160-175K


:96:, what on your home made speed gun in your dreams ? Shoib was the fastest ever flat out no one before him and after him yet.. lol @ the ppl also saying Waqar was faster than Shoib....
 
:96:, what on your home made speed gun in your dreams ? Shoib was the fastest ever flat out no one before him and after him yet.. lol @ the ppl also saying Waqar was faster than Shoib....

I watched both Waqar and Shoaib in person many times in their careers. Of course when they played side by side Shoaib was faster than the aged Waqar.

But the 1989-1992 Waqar was almost as quick as the 1998-2004 Shoaib Akhtar, but he was a much more skilled bowler with it, which is why Waqar got 373 Test wickets at 23.56 whereas Shoaib Akhtar took 178 Test wickets at 25.69.

Waqar was ultimately more than twice as good as Shoaib - 373 wickets compared to 178.
 
Last edited:
I watched both Waqar and Shoaib in person many times in their careers. Of course when they played side by side Shoaib was faster than the aged Waqar.

But the 1989-1992 Waqar was almost as quick as the 1998-2004 Shoaib Akhtar, but he was a much more skilled bowler with it, which is why Waqar got 373 Test wickets at 23.56 whereas Shoaib Akhtar took 178 Test wickets at 25.69.

Waqar was ultimately more than twice as good as Shoaib - 373 wickets compared to 178.

I dont ever recall saying Shoib was better than Waqar as a bowler, but speed wise Err noo Waqar at his peak was slower than Shoib let alone faster than him... Rollin our a few Zim & English batsmen of the early 90's seems to have gotten a few Pakistanis carried away.. Shoib has torn apart Steve Waugh's aussie side with his speed which had the real deal bats...
 
What kind of factual evidence do you have that Thomson,Lillee,Holding and Waqar were quicker than Shoaib.
It is your opinion and opinions without facts to back them up hold no weightage at all.

I can even say Kapil Dev was as quick as 150ks, nor can you prove this fact nor can you say this is correct it is just a speculation.

As long as facts are concerned Shoaib is the Fastets bowler to have ever played the game if you have any real fact that can prove me otherwise than feel free to post it.
 
What kind of factual evidence do you have that Thomson,Lillee,Holding and Waqar were quicker than Shoaib.
It is your opinion and opinions without facts to back them up hold no weightage at all.

I can even say Kapil Dev was as quick as 150ks, nor can you prove this fact nor can you say this is correct it is just a speculation.

As long as facts are concerned Shoaib is the Fastets bowler to have ever played the game if you have any real fact that can prove me otherwise than feel free to post it.

The technology upon which your claim is predicated has only existed since around 2000.

And so you dismiss Harold Larwood, the West Indian quicks and Jeff Thomson simply because the technology wasn't around at the time?

Harold Larwood's bowling had such an impact that it effectively separated Australia from England as nations.
 
I dont ever recall saying Shoib was better than Waqar as a bowler, but speed wise Err noo Waqar at his peak was slower than Shoib let alone faster than him... Rollin our a few Zim & English batsmen of the early 90's seems to have gotten a few Pakistanis carried away.. Shoib has torn apart Steve Waugh's aussie side with his speed which had the real deal bats...

You do realize the WI where the best team in the world till 95? Check Waqar's record against them.

West Indies in Pakistan Test Series, 1990/91
3 6 89.0 8 296 16 5/46 9/120 18.50 3.32 33.3 2 0

Pakistan in West Indies Test Series, 1992/93
3 5 98.5 13 384 19 5/104 9/127 20.21 3.88 31.2 1 0 16 Apr 1993 West Indies

It's hard to argue against Shoaib being the fastest ever. I wouldn't be surprised if Waqar of 91 was just as fast if not faster.
Also another guy that doesn't get mentioned is Devon Malcolm he was seriously quick at times.
 
Last edited:
The technology upon which your claim is predicated has only existed since around 2000.

And so you dismiss Harold Larwood, the West Indian quicks and Jeff Thomson simply because the technology wasn't around at the time?

Harold Larwood's bowling had such an impact that it effectively separated Australia from England as nations.

Yes, Thomson was clocked at 160 less than Akhtar.

Your claims of Larwood and Thomson being better than Akhtar are just speculations, whereas if i claim that Akhtar is the quickest bowler than i am not speculating.
 
You do realize the WI where the best team in the world till 95? Check Waqar's record against them.

West Indies in Pakistan Test Series, 1990/91
3 6 89.0 8 296 16 5/46 9/120 18.50 3.32 33.3 2 0

Pakistan in West Indies Test Series, 1992/93
3 5 98.5 13 384 19 5/104 9/127 20.21 3.88 31.2 1 0 16 Apr 1993 West Indies

It's hard to argue against Shoaib being the fastest ever. I wouldn't be surprised if Waqar of 91 was just as fast if not faster.
Also another guy that doesn't get mentioned is Devon Malcolm he was seriously quick at times.

Again for the second time, I am not saying Shoib is a better bowler than Waqar, talking just pure speed. I saw Waqar live in 96 vs WI in Australia; the ODI finals which Pak won and he looked nothing more than medium pace at very best, also saw Shoib live in Melbourne and I can confirm that you could not see the ball once it left his hands. I dont think Waqar was as quick let alone quicker than Shoib at any stage in his career and thats my personal opinion. You can always bring in the injury arguement but end of the day there is no proof waqar clocked Shoibs speed pre injury.. So hands down Shoib Akhtar is the quickest bowler of all time case closed, Lee & SHaun Tait wouldve been closest to Shoib pace wise..
 
Last edited:
Those were the years in which they sustained the highest consistent pace, not speeds!

I'd guesstimate their average speeds during those years as follows, based on what I saw myself (Thomson, Marshall, Holding, Shoaib, Tait, Waqar and Lee) and accounts from players and journalists at the time (Larwood, Griffith, Gilchrist and Adcock).

1. Jeff Thomson (1974-76) - 160-175K
2. Harold Larwood (1932-33) - 165K
3. Charlie Griffith and Roy Gilchrist - 160K
4. Malcolm Marshall (1983-85) - 160K
5. Michael Holding (1975-81) - 155-160K
6. Shoaib Akhtar (1998-2003) - 150-155K
7. Shaun Tait (but only in short spells) - 150-155K
8. Waqar Younis (89-92) - (150K)
9. Neil Adcock (150K)
10. Brett Lee (150K)
How fast were Lohmann or Lindwall? Can you please measure and tell us....
 
More Interesting facts

Debunking Thompson's claim

''my 100 mph delivery was measured at the batsman's end.Today's bowlers are measured as the ball leaves their hand.''

Thompson has brought this up many times..What he's trying to say is that because his ball speed was measured at the batsman's end,therefore it had lost speed over the course of the pitch..Going by his statements,if you calculate the hypothetical speed lost,Thompson wouldve been measured at over 180 km/hr..Thats ridiculous,Right?..Thompson doesnt think so.

This ofcourse has been debunked.We now know that his recorded speed of 160.5 km/hr during Perth speed tests in December.1975 was actually ''Right out of his hand'' and not when it reached the batsman's end.Eddie Smith of Wisden/ESPN CricInfo fame is the most devoted Bowling speed readings collector on the planet.He's also on Twitter by the name of ''Bowling speeds''.He stated that he had talked with the people in Perth that had conducted the tests and they confirmed the speed was actual ''Release speed'' out of his hand and not the horizontal velocity at the batsman''s end.

Unofficial recordings

There are claims about both Zahid and Tait being measured around the 102 Miles/Hour mark in domestic/club games..The speed guns were unofficial and ICC has declined to accept those results.

Actions Reported

Akhtar and Lee..Both eventually cleared.....Tait also came under some opposition scrutiny but never officially reported.

Subjective Opinions

Opinions of former cricketers who've faced these pace men are very dispersed when it comes to ''the fastest ive faced/seen''.
the names that come up the most are Akhtar and Thompson...Lee,Waqar,Zahid,Holding,Roberts,Garner also get mentions

Interesting point, below is the video of the speed test of 1975. Thompson fastest was 147 and avg was 142, holding fastest was 142 and avg 139, imran third with fastest 139 and avg 136.

This video clears few myths:
1. Thompson was not way faster than his peers, he was as fast as Akthar/Lee were to other bowlers of his era.
2. In this test all bowlers are bowling without batsmen. Thompson was most wavered, clearly he was trying to bowl as fast as he can without caring about line length.
3. Thompson vine about these results as tail end of his career and may be after surgery. Akthar had multiple knee surgeries, but still he was able to bowl at 159 in last world cup. You really don't loose ton of speed with time.
4. 70s/80s bowlers were not way faster but at that time, wickets were more bowler friendly, protection gear was much less, bats were small and fields were bigger, that makes them more lethal than today rather than their pace or accuracy. Imagine Akthar/Lee in those days with no limitation on bouncers per over, it would have killed somebody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eym816XG2vc

See a video below back in 1988, when Umpire is stoping Akram from bowling bouncers at NZ in a very close test match. Miadad is arguing why he is not allowed to bowl, umpires did not do the same when NZ was bowling. Imagine if bowlers of 90s/2000s played with same rules, how dangerous they would have being??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CQsFf2DmIQ
 
It's misleading to compare across generations.

Example 1: Imran and Thomson were allowed no straightening of the bowling arm, while Tait and Lee were barely legal with 15 degrees allowed.

Example 2: Thommo was only measured twice, with primitive technology. Akhtar's 160K delivery was the fastest of over 5000 timed deliveries by him.

Also, of course, the current timing technique is biased towards full-pitched deliveries, which travel 5% less far than short-pitched deliveries.

Given the vast differences in available technology and use of it, it is preposterous to crown Shoaib, Lee and Tait as if all their predecessors were slower.

The only way to compare across generations is to ask the batsmen and wicketkeepers whose careers straddled the generations.

And they all give the same answer: Thommo.

I have never, ever heard a cricketer or pundit who watched or played cricket in the 70s or earlier argue that Shoaib, Lee or Tait were the quickest. Because we have seen with our own eyes that they were not. They just bowled more full deliveries which happened to get measured with the technology and technique which were in use at the moment.

I suppose next we will be shown "proof" of Abdur Rehman being the best slow left-armer of all time! After all, there is no measurement of Hedley Verity's loop or spin, so he can't have been as good. And DRS never gave Verity a wicket, so he can't have been that special.

(By the way, any person who didn't know who Hedley Verity was is ineligible to comment on the best / fastest etc of all-time. Because "all-time" means all-time!)
 
Last edited:
For a short period, Thomsom was an all and all tearaway fast bowler, but picked up an injury early in his career and was no longer as quick thereafter as he was before his injury. So unless you just clock a spell or two over a few matches, then Thomson was among the fastest ever.
However, if you want to see a consistently superfast bowler, look no further than Shoaib Akhtar. Period. Any other argument is just for the heck of it.
 
It's misleading to compare across generations.



The only way to compare across generations is to ask the batsmen and wicketkeepers whose careers straddled the generations.

And they all give the same answer: Thommo.

There is not one player in this world whose career straddled Thommo's and Shaoib's.
 
There is not one player in this world whose career straddled Thommo's and Shaoib's.

Sure.

But Colin Cowdrey's career covered Lindwall in the 50s, Hall in the 60s and Thommo in the 70s.

David Gower's covered Thommo through Marshall in the 80s and Waqar in the 90s.

And Mark Boucher covered Waqar in the 90s and then Lee and Tait on the 00s and Cummins in 2011.

Three players. Six decades.

And the only people awarding Lee, Shoaib and Tait all-time accolades are those too young to have watched the earlier pace bowlers.
 
Back
Top