-
Contact the PP Team
Frank ‘Typhoon’ Tyson passes away at age of 85
- Thread starter Stallion__
- Start date
I have made sure that any loss in accuracy is in favor of Tyson. So this is a pretty fair estimate . You can add another 10K if you think Iam biased and it still wont cross 135K.
Speeds of other players (I haven't measured them but just my gut feeling based on what I see )
Trueman : almost same range approx 120K - 125K
Statham : 110K - 120K
Bailey : 110K - 115K
Bedser : 105K-110K
If I were you I would be very proud of what Akhtar has achieved. In fact Iam glad that Akhtar palyed in this ERA and I was able to follow him even though he was playing against my team (Ind) . Cricket needs players like him . Its not easy to bowl that fast and have the control. Don't believe everything that is written about older ERA players. Those accounts are highly prone to exaggeration and hyperbole. I will give you some examples of these erroneous accounts one of these days.
axl100mph
First Class Star
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2015
- Runs
- 3,900
Cant agree with u more
It would be interesting if u did a similar analysis on akhtar's delivery where e yorked boucher in the video shared earlier, particularly coz we dont know the speed
Lets see where he stands when tested by the same method
Again you are trying to measure a quantifiable unit (bowling speed) from a subjective element (batsman's reaction). Just is case, it can be that the batsman is of same standard - playing a 120KM ball like a 150km thunderbolt. For example, I watched few recordings of Viv in 1978-79 - he was pulling Thompson, Garth Le Roux & Lillee on front foot through mid on in their opening spell (I am sure you are aware of that Richards' special shot), like a tennis player hitting a forehand cross-court winner on grass - NOW, there can be 2 explanations of that - either Viv had supernatural eye-sight, reflex & hand-eye coordination; or Thommo, Le Roux, Lillee were just about as fast as Robin Singh............ I can sell both ideas 25 years later, bullying out the then generation. I didn't see Tusker's calculation, neither the photo frames, but have you noticed, before both of those, my estimation was that the ball in the clip is around 125km?
I 'll not go to the speed of fast bowlers in WW II era, but I can analyze the bio-mechanics of fast bowling. In cricket - it's bowled, unlike Baseball, where the ball is thrown with brutal force from shoulder, elbow & body twisting torque. The simple mechanics of fast ball is you generate momentum from your run-up, transform that momentum from your smooth action & follow through - it's almost the same fundamental of a javelin thrower or a triple jumper or pole-vaulter; like fast bowling, these are also extremely rhythmic. Every fast bowler that I have seen in modern era had 2 classical traits - they used to sprint in run-up & had an excellent smooth follow through - in one word, extremely rhythmic. Now, from the action & run-up that I see for Tyson, Truman or Larwood, if they are to generate 130km+ speed, they 'll need unreal power of shoulders. I hope you understand my point from the difference in run-up & action between Tyson, Larwood, Lindwall or Truman and Marshall, Imran or Waquar. That's why, I sometimes get confused - Cyborg exists, human can't generate the claimed speed (I am talking of 140KM, not 170KM) from that run-up & action, without having a shoulders of a Cyborg.........
I have read lot, lot on sports from olden days & I can categorically tell that the way olden days cricketers are glorified, in no other sports, it's remotely done. There are healthy debates between Nicklus-Tiger, Mardona-Messi, Pele - Fat Ronaldo, Cruyff- Playboy Ronaldo, Lever-Macenroe, Borg-Federar, Lendel-Jokovic, Chamberlain-Shak, Jordan - James, Johnson - Kobe................ but in cricket, everything is robbed, even as gross as George Brown of 1920s being as good as the fantastic 4 of 80s, actually better, because he could keep as well & it's written by John Arlott. May be, this is a game played only in handful of countries & actually dying in most places, which allows the monopoly of few & a particular generation. In 80s Linekar chose Leicester City over Leicestershire, 50 years back, Compton chose Middlesex over Arsenal.... it's not surprising to me that a certain period 'll be glorified.
[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
I don't much care for Tyson's legacy so I'm not going to argue with those points.
But I care very much about Fiery Fred's, as I'm sure that you have noticed.
And the thing is, unlike Tyson and to a lesser extent Larwood, Trueman had an absolutely classical action with all the attributes that you describe. That is why Lillee was compared to him at the start of his career.
Everybody......everybody acknowledges that the standard of Yorkshire and Lancashire League and County Championship cricket is lower than it has been for at least 90 years. Trueman was picked up as seriously quick when he and Brian Close were in their teens and before he did his national service (which, incidentally, was another reason why English cricketers until the late 1960s were generally much fitter than their modern successors.
I'm well aware that Trueman at times bowled within himself in the 130s. But when he was on the attack I'm certain that he was in the upper 140s.
I've watched English cricket for 40 years now. And the quickest bowlers that I have seen were John Snow and Bob Willis, by some distance.
I don't much care for Tyson's legacy so I'm not going to argue with those points.
But I care very much about Fiery Fred's, as I'm sure that you have noticed.
And the thing is, unlike Tyson and to a lesser extent Larwood, Trueman had an absolutely classical action with all the attributes that you describe. That is why Lillee was compared to him at the start of his career.
Everybody......everybody acknowledges that the standard of Yorkshire and Lancashire League and County Championship cricket is lower than it has been for at least 90 years. Trueman was picked up as seriously quick when he and Brian Close were in their teens and before he did his national service (which, incidentally, was another reason why English cricketers until the late 1960s were generally much fitter than their modern successors.
I'm well aware that Trueman at times bowled within himself in the 130s. But when he was on the attack I'm certain that he was in the upper 140s.
I've watched English cricket for 40 years now. And the quickest bowlers that I have seen were John Snow and Bob Willis, by some distance.
ChachaCricket
First Class Captain
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2015
- Runs
- 6,123
That's more like it.
Now those are two bowlers you can tell are rapid just by watching them.Ironically, if you go to the John Snow page in Wikipedia it uses double-sized font to describe his "top pace" as being between Statham and Trueman!That's more like it.
That video is really poor quality ... but this is what I get :
The Ball is past the bat in approx 0.4 sec (Best) to 0.43 sec (worst)
Which gives us :
17.68*3.6/0.40 = 159.12KPH (Best Speed)
17.68*3.6/0.43 = 148.01KPH (Worst Speed)
If only we can get the original footage of this clip. I searched but couldn't find any. Its quite possible that Shoaib went past 100MPH in this spell ...
BUMP ... so [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] whats the issue here ?
I've not really followed this thread at all, but I assume (can't find the referenced Akhtar delivery earlier in the thread, possibly a link to a video which has since been deleted?) you're considering that the speed you see on TV is the speed out of the hand and not the average speed.
I still have that video downloaded on my laptop and will post it later but I used that clip as reference point. So a typical ball that was released at 142.8 KPH , pitching on a good length would hit the stumps in 0.56 seconds. (The clip had a reaction time measurement where they showed the time taken by the ball from release till it hits the stumps which came out to 0.56 seconds )
While I don't have a similar footage for Tyson where he has cleaned up a batsman but from the frame-by-frame analysis of a full toss we have a time lapse of 0.52 seconds just to get to the batsman without impeded by the pitch and still got about 1.33 mtrs to travel to the stumps. This is the reasoning and logic I used to arrive at his speed being much lower than 142Ks.
BTW [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] claims that he was the original 100mph bowler which is just sooo obvious even to the casual observer but not for [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION].
Last edited:
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]
I don't want to sound rude, but I'm not going to accept your guesstimates - based upon ancient 2D low resolution images at an unknown angle and distance - over the actual scientific measurements made of Statham and Tyson's speeds using the same technology which measured aircraft velocity.
You must have noticed that time and again I decried Tyson as an inferior bowler to Trueman whose only virtue was pace.
But you tied yourself in absurd knots by claiming that Tyson, Trueman, Statham, Bailey and Bedser all bowled within 15 km/h of one another's speed!
We have seen fewer than five Tyson deliveries on YouTube. His run up is ungainly, which is why his career was so short.
But his action is slingy and I suspect that he chucks - as I yesterday outed Garry Sobers as claiming that Bradman believed that Brian Statham chucked.
I think that the existing footage of Tyson is of a man chucking in the high 140's. And I suspect that we haven't seen his fastest balls, because we all know that Trueman bowled in the high 140's but that the less skilled Tyson was quicker.
I don't want to sound rude, but I'm not going to accept your guesstimates - based upon ancient 2D low resolution images at an unknown angle and distance - over the actual scientific measurements made of Statham and Tyson's speeds using the same technology which measured aircraft velocity.
You must have noticed that time and again I decried Tyson as an inferior bowler to Trueman whose only virtue was pace.
But you tied yourself in absurd knots by claiming that Tyson, Trueman, Statham, Bailey and Bedser all bowled within 15 km/h of one another's speed!
We have seen fewer than five Tyson deliveries on YouTube. His run up is ungainly, which is why his career was so short.
But his action is slingy and I suspect that he chucks - as I yesterday outed Garry Sobers as claiming that Bradman believed that Brian Statham chucked.
I think that the existing footage of Tyson is of a man chucking in the high 140's. And I suspect that we haven't seen his fastest balls, because we all know that Trueman bowled in the high 140's but that the less skilled Tyson was quicker.
kingusama92
ODI Captain
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Runs
- 45,527
- Post of the Week
- 1
After reading this thread, I watched a video of Fred Trueman.
Guy was bowling slower than Debasis Mohanty.
Guy was bowling slower than Debasis Mohanty.
After reading this thread, I watched a video of Fred Trueman.
Guy was bowling slower than Debasis Mohanty.
I suspect that you are referring to this video:
Try reading the comments, from people who attended those matches.
Late career, was bowling off-cutters on a dust bowl, etc etc.
Every English cricket lover over the age of 30 knows that he was the best fast bowler we've ever had.
One last point.
YouTube has a clip from BBC1's "The One Show" from January 2017.
In it, cricket's greatest ever umpire, Dickie Bird, lists Fred Trueman alongside Pele and Muhammad Ali as the greatest ever sportsmen.
Personally I disagree: I think that Malcolm Marshall, whom Bird so often umpired, is the greatest ever cricketer.
But for Dickie to rate Trueman so highly shows where he is in the Pantheon.
This, don't forget, is the man who on his Test debut reduced India to 0-4.
YouTube has a clip from BBC1's "The One Show" from January 2017.
In it, cricket's greatest ever umpire, Dickie Bird, lists Fred Trueman alongside Pele and Muhammad Ali as the greatest ever sportsmen.
Personally I disagree: I think that Malcolm Marshall, whom Bird so often umpired, is the greatest ever cricketer.
But for Dickie to rate Trueman so highly shows where he is in the Pantheon.
This, don't forget, is the man who on his Test debut reduced India to 0-4.
Why would we need HD 3-D images for a simple calculation of capturing start - end timestamps ?
That footage of Tyson is from the same test match which he is famous for.
You also forgot to elaborate on the science behind Tysons speed measurement (because you don't know anything about it other than Tysons own words which make no sense but you would rather believe that than the authentic footage in which it is crystal clear by mere observation that there is noway he is bowling in the high 140K's )
[MENTION=8597]kingusama92[/MENTION] exactly !!
Last edited:
Proactive_
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2017
- Runs
- 1,378
Seriously? This guy is embarrassing himself here. 110 K? That's a speed even the women are crossing regularly in the ongoing WC. How deluded you got to be to give preference to a hilarious YT video analysis than to the measurements taken by renowned Universities. What nonsense.
which "Renowned" university measured all these bowlers ? Do you happen to have any details on the science involved ?
Proactive_
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2017
- Runs
- 1,378
Answer me this - Do you really believe that Statham and Trueman bowled at the same pace or marginally quicker than most of the female bowlers of today? I mean REALLY?
I don't follow Womens cricket at all .... absolutely no idea(Do they even have speed guns ??) . Its not easy to even throw a ball at 120Ks for most people.
Proactive_
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2017
- Runs
- 1,378
Yes they have.. and it really exposes your little calculations and analysis. 110-115k ( which is the speed that you claim Statham to be bowling at) is being breached on a daily basis in the ongoing women's world cup even by bowlers with absolutely un-ideal actions for medium/fast bowling, saying that Statham and Trueman bowled in the vicinity of that.. is quite frankly asinine.
So according to you the guy that you see bowling in this clip is bowling at what speed ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YRM6oQSuyI&t=10
Here is some Womens footage - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmMs43KxDXQ
Does this mean that No seam bowler in mens cricket has bowled in the 110Ks ? this is your reasoning ?
Not going to argue on this one, just sharing observation - do you know that today's top female athletes or swimmers would have won Olympic men's title, in some events even in 60s? Women cricket, still is a joke for me - had I not been active in PP, won't have known that there is a WC is going on. In fact one of my distant relative was BD national player & I didn't know that till she retired. But, women cricket won't be like this, may be 10-15 years later, even in Muslim dominant BD or PAK, then you'll see some of the ladies reaching 130+
Coming to the fast bowlers, I do agree that pacers till 60s were skilled - one reason being, they played/bowled against far inferior batsmen, when it comes to shot making (but, may be with better temperament & defensive mindset), and partially because they bowled with more bowling friendly conditions; but when it comes to speed, it's really difficult to believe that someone with that sort of dibley dobly run-up for 12 yards and bowling action, should reach 130KM.
Before I started to get really deep into cricket, I actually also believed that, Larwood was able to reach at 150KM+ & maintain an average speed of 140KM ............ for 35 overs, in a day of 125 overs in 6 hours, taking 3 minutes/over & 2.5 minutes rest between overs - that actually makes Vic Richardson better than Richi Richardson
. In that regard, these guys like Shoaib or Lee should be shot at head from point blank for their time wasting in showmanship during run-up & follow through.
Last edited:
I didn't forget, but you have to put a footnote as well - India "of 1952"; otherwise, we'll need to mention that George Lohmann took 17/45 in 20 or so overs in 3 hours against SAF of 1889 .... or Syd Barnes took 49 wickets at <8 average in 4 Tests, again - SAF of 1910 .....
Harold Dennis Bird is a Yorkshire man, so you know ....... and he is proving that if he really thinks, Ali, Pele & Trueman should be framed together. By the way, I found him damn average Umpire, when I saw old footage of his games. Cricket's golden rule is that - "batsmen is out not because he is out, rather he is out because on appeal by the bowler, he is adjudicated to be out the Umpire, in good faith & without negligence"
You take out 29 cameras, 3D slow mo tracking, snicko, ultra edge, digital Photo framing at 100 frames/second, heat map, analysis of the decision ..... and you ensure that no one is going to question the integrity of Umpire - then, I do honestly believe that Kumar Dharmasena has a better % of correct decisions than Dickey Bird or Frank Chester. But, I do agree that Bird's integrity can never be questioned, which probably isn't the case for most umpires in history.
The game has moved Junaids, it's not a British monopoly anymore in last 50 years - hence I see a desperate effort from every corner of the empire to glorify that past generation, when Queen's team was a force to reckon. I read a team from Brian Jhonstone (probably, can't recall, written in early 1990s) - all time best ENG XI, and he didn't put Botham in that team (WG was picked at 6), the latest player to make that team was Truman, debuted in 1952. This can happen, when you only have history to boast.
Proactive_
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2017
- Runs
- 1,378
Not going to argue on this one, just sharing observation - do you know that today's top female athletes or swimmers would have won Olympic men's title, in some events even in 60s? Women cricket, still is a joke for me - had I not been active in PP, won't have known that there is a WC is going on. In fact one of my distant relative was BD national player & I didn't know that till she retired. But, women cricket won't be like this, may be 10-15 years later, even in Muslim dominant BD or PAK, then you'll see some of the ladies reaching 130+
Coming to the fast bowlers, I do agree that pacers till 60s were skilled - one reason being, they played/bowled against far inferior batsmen, when it comes to shot making (but, may be with better temperament & defensive mindset), and partially because they bowled with more bowling friendly conditions; but when it comes to speed, it's really difficult to believe that someone with that sort of dibley dobly run-up for 12 yards and bowling action, should reach 130KM.
Before I started to get really deep into cricket, I actually also believed that, Larwood was able to reach at 150KM+ & maintain an average speed of 140KM ............ for 35 overs, in a day of 125 overs in 6 hours, taking 3 minutes/over & 2.5 minutes rest between overs - that actually makes Vic Richardson better than Richi Richardson
Actually, I also don't believe in the anecdotes that there were some super humans bowling at 150 kph average speed in the 40s and 50s but saying that it was 110k is also as much of a joke tbh. I've followed quite a few matches in the ongoing Women's WC, and most of the bowlers easily crossing 110 kph are doing so with an 8 pace run up and a less than efficient action. Hell, even male spinners like Afridi used to touch 125-130k with a 4 pace run up. Saying that Trueman averaged only as much as Afridi at his effort ball and Statham barely clocked more than the women of today is a bit too much to digest TBH.
There is a critical limit in every sports - I am sure many in PP here will reach 110KM+ at their fastest. But, that pyramid narrows down at higher end too fast. There could be thousands of pacers in Bangladesh itself, who'll reach 120KM with their effort ball, but then add 1KM every time, the number will fall drastically - it's just 2 or 3, by the time you reach 140KM+ It's same in every sports - even with stand & deliver bowling, Shoaib can reach 130KM.
Can't tell about Statham's pace, but if today's Ladies can reach 125KM, then Ladies of 1950 would have struggled to reach 100KM for sure - that makes Statham's 125KM definitely fast. Afridi example isn't appropriate, because his faster ones are much, much faster than Fazal Mahmood or Ramakant Deshai. But, it doesn't tell that with a 25 metre run-up, Afridi would reach 150KM.
So again what speed is this guy bowling at according to you ? : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YRM6oQSuyI&t=10
Here is MS Dhoni bowling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjxWYuTMoho
Thats one of the fittest guys you will see in cricket trundling at 110-115Ks similar to the Womens speed.
Proactive_
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2017
- Runs
- 1,378
MS Dhoni? The guy has barely bowled 20 overs in his entire FC career. Bowling fitness is much different from WK fitness or batting fitness. Plus, he is pretty evidently bowling within himself to get proper line and length, obviously not comparable to a female medium pace bowler who is trained to on a regular basis to bowl as fast as she can with proper line and length. STILL, MSD is hovering around 115 kph+ which only reinforces my point.
As for the video, it's inconclusive but they are no way below 125k as you make them out to be. See the ball at 6:40 for instance, that looks like proper 135+.
shaz619
Test Star
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Runs
- 38,609
- Post of the Week
- 7
One thing we all can agree on is that the man has the best alias for sure 
Plenty of bowling in the lower 70Ks ere (Ronnie Irani, Collingwood etc ) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a6QhCLhhMs
Andrew Symonds Bowling in similar range : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8jfZMYJerI
And if you search Ganguly's bowling it will be similar speed and borderline 120K's for Vaas. Let me know if you need more evidence of Men bowling in that range.
Now let the excuses begin.
On_the_up
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2008
- Runs
- 11,913
Not sure you can rely on the time taken for the ball to reach the batsmen from these recordings.
How accurate was the equipment used in those days? All these black and white clips appear as if they are in slight slow motion anyway.
However, going by the way the batsmen are playing the deliveries and where the keeper is collecting the balls, it doesn't seem that quick.
Some real heat (Brian Close is like a rabbit caught in the headlights)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXsfEdJ_G5w
How accurate was the equipment used in those days? All these black and white clips appear as if they are in slight slow motion anyway.
However, going by the way the batsmen are playing the deliveries and where the keeper is collecting the balls, it doesn't seem that quick.
Some real heat (Brian Close is like a rabbit caught in the headlights)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXsfEdJ_G5w
It takes only about 20-25 frames per second to record reasonably good motion picture capable of smoothly replaying that action. Keep in mind that we are not trying to analyze a F1 race or capture speed of a rocket. Such technology was available as early as in the 1920s.
Can I go back a couple of steps here?
Firstly, I am no devotee of speed without skill. I'm well aware that in 1976 Jeff Thomson was measured at 160.6K while Dennis Lillee "only" measured 154.8K, but I would pick Lillee over Thommo every day of the week.
Secondly, [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] seems to have excessive skepticism about anything he hasn't seen on modern film. I trust he does not belong to a religion!
As he mentions, MS Dhoni bowls at 115K, and so do some of the slower women's bowlers, with others regularly bowling at 125K.
Now, Dhoni's fast bowling muscle groups are clearly undeveloped, his body type is wrong for fast bowling, and the biomechanics of his action are about as bad as can be. He is effectively bowling at 115K like any random fit man in his twenties could.
Yet [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] discounts all the actual measurements made before the 21st century - including the afore-mentioned 1976 Lillee and Thomson ones which explain WHY England were hammered in 74-75 and why the West Indies went the same way in 75-76.
Instead [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] has invented the following paces:
Trueman 120-125
Statham 110-120
Bailey 110-115 (I actually almost agree with this - I'd say 112-120)
Bedser 105-110 (again, I'd say 113-129).
It makes no sense at all.
Trueman started bowling at the age of 4, and was a professional all his career, in which he bowled over 100,000 deliveries - more than double what Dale Steyn or Jimmy Anderson have.
Yet [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] thinks that he bowled at the same pace as a woman does now!
I will simply amalgamate what I have written elsewhere.
Fred Trueman had a classical action and in Tests in his twenties bowled between 140 to around 150K. It's a factor of his pre-TV career that most of the surviving footage comes from the twilight of his career, by which measure we would say that Ambrose and McGrath were bowlers in the 120's!
I think that Frank Tyson was a chucker, and that his ungainly action was irrelevant because he hurled the ball almost like a baseball pitcher but with the benefit of some sort of run-up. I think when his arm was straighter he was probably down in the 130s, but that when he was at his fastest he chucked it in the 150s.
I also think that Brian Statham had a straightening of the arm, which was probably illegal. I think he bowled 135-142 with relentless accuracy.
I think Trevor Bailey was a military medium support bowler who operated at 112-120K.
I think that Sir Alec Bedser was the original Vernon Philander, operating at the same maximum speed just under 130K, but that he also bowled around a third of his deliveries as slower cutters in the 112-120 range that Philander has never been able to add to his repertoire because of his action.
Bedser was not posh. He got his knighthood for being supremely skilled, not just a slow trundler. No later bowler has ever reproduced his leg-cutter, which was like a Kumble leg-break but quicker.
Firstly, I am no devotee of speed without skill. I'm well aware that in 1976 Jeff Thomson was measured at 160.6K while Dennis Lillee "only" measured 154.8K, but I would pick Lillee over Thommo every day of the week.
Secondly, [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] seems to have excessive skepticism about anything he hasn't seen on modern film. I trust he does not belong to a religion!
As he mentions, MS Dhoni bowls at 115K, and so do some of the slower women's bowlers, with others regularly bowling at 125K.
Now, Dhoni's fast bowling muscle groups are clearly undeveloped, his body type is wrong for fast bowling, and the biomechanics of his action are about as bad as can be. He is effectively bowling at 115K like any random fit man in his twenties could.
Yet [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] discounts all the actual measurements made before the 21st century - including the afore-mentioned 1976 Lillee and Thomson ones which explain WHY England were hammered in 74-75 and why the West Indies went the same way in 75-76.
Instead [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] has invented the following paces:
Trueman 120-125
Statham 110-120
Bailey 110-115 (I actually almost agree with this - I'd say 112-120)
Bedser 105-110 (again, I'd say 113-129).
It makes no sense at all.
Trueman started bowling at the age of 4, and was a professional all his career, in which he bowled over 100,000 deliveries - more than double what Dale Steyn or Jimmy Anderson have.
Yet [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] thinks that he bowled at the same pace as a woman does now!
I will simply amalgamate what I have written elsewhere.
Fred Trueman had a classical action and in Tests in his twenties bowled between 140 to around 150K. It's a factor of his pre-TV career that most of the surviving footage comes from the twilight of his career, by which measure we would say that Ambrose and McGrath were bowlers in the 120's!
I think that Frank Tyson was a chucker, and that his ungainly action was irrelevant because he hurled the ball almost like a baseball pitcher but with the benefit of some sort of run-up. I think when his arm was straighter he was probably down in the 130s, but that when he was at his fastest he chucked it in the 150s.
I also think that Brian Statham had a straightening of the arm, which was probably illegal. I think he bowled 135-142 with relentless accuracy.
I think Trevor Bailey was a military medium support bowler who operated at 112-120K.
I think that Sir Alec Bedser was the original Vernon Philander, operating at the same maximum speed just under 130K, but that he also bowled around a third of his deliveries as slower cutters in the 112-120 range that Philander has never been able to add to his repertoire because of his action.
Bedser was not posh. He got his knighthood for being supremely skilled, not just a slow trundler. No later bowler has ever reproduced his leg-cutter, which was like a Kumble leg-break but quicker.
On_the_up
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2008
- Runs
- 11,913
At 20 fps, over 0.5s, each frame is worth 10%, so being out by 1 frame introduces a 10% error.
This means 129 could be 140kph+
Also, as far as I can tell, the speed guns these days measure the speed of the ball out of the hand.
https://www.quora.com/In-cricket-matches-how-do-they-measure-the-speed-of-the-delivery
For example, I was once watching Shaun Tait bowling in the KFC Big Bash and the speed-variation was being shown using Hawk-Eye; he had released the ball at around 155 kmph and by the time the batsman played the shot, the ball's speed had dropped down to 110 kmph.
So what release velocity (out of the hand) would an average speed over the length of the pitch of a Tyson delivery (129kph) equate to? touching 160?
The original footage was shot in 24 fps ... the standard for most past of the 20th century
More info :https://vanillavideo.com/blog/2012/history-frame-rates-why-speeds-vary
I am aware of this (Avg vs Rel speed) ... see my post#91 and #70 ( the video has been deleted but you will get the idea )
I see that you have quite conveniently ignored a whole bunch of other bowlers I listed above in post#110 who trundled around in the 105-125K range which is the Womens range ? Incovenient facts much ? or you have some other brilliant theory where you have proven (in your mind) that this range belongs to those with undeveloped fast muscle groups ?
On actual measurements made before the 21st century: How is the search for details on the science used behind these supposedly "Actual" measurements that you claim ?
On skepticism: In which part of the world do you live? Out here in this side of the Pond (a.k.a the correct side) a real Tech education and profession will properly cure anyone with the He-said-she-said-itis. But PLLEEEASE let me know where you live .. you see I need to sell the Taj Mahal because my grand pop claimed he built it and has ownership.
Sorry for the bluntness there but thats how the REAL World works ... if thats not how it works in your side of the Pond (the wrong side) we gotta meet Pronto ... what say ?
and BTW why don't you similarly accept Jack Hobbs as one of the greatest batsman from the past century ... afterall there is no shortage of top accolades from experts. Got stuck now havent you ?
[MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] ...and please clarify if you will accept that bowlers today are faster than from the 50s and 60s if I can prove the same for Aircraft speeds as you claimed many times in the past. Thanks much !
Last edited:
Hello [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] ,
At this point, I'd love you to consider the 1976 West Indies tour of England.
Both teams had been pulverized by extreme pace in Australia in the preceding 18 months. And everyone knew that West Indies now had two express bowlers: Andy Roberts was measured at 157.4K that summer (97.8 mph) while Michael Holding - who was faster - was measured at 153.2K (95.2 mph).
One thing that gets a little bit overlooked is the fact that many players straddle the generations. I don't mean that Sachin Tendulkar can compare Shoaib Akhtar at his fastest to Imran Khan aged 36. I mean that Sachin Tendulkar can compare Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar at each stage of their careers: at their fastest, at their slowest, at their most raw and at their most old.
Back to the West Indies in 1976. England managed to reduce the losing margin to 3-0 - in a very dry summer - because of who they picked in the batting order:
Brian Close, aged 45
John Edrich, aged 39
David Steele, aged 35.
This was no act of lunacy by Tony Greig - unlike his "grovel" remark.
There was a very specific reason for recalling these every old men - and one look at photos of them shows that each looked 10 years older than their age.
They had all played against Fred Trueman. Brian Close had netted with him at Yorkshire from 1949 to 1968. (In fact, Close had played against Tyson for several seasons too).
What this meant was that by picking these three players, Tony Greig was picking men experienced against express bowling, who had the defensive technique to survive against it.
This was actually discussed on Sky's coverage of England v South Africa on Saturday, when David Gower, Michael Holding and Shaun Pollock explained to the audience that in those days batsmen had to have better technique against express pace because a) there was a lot more of it, and b) there were no helmets.
At this point, I'd love you to consider the 1976 West Indies tour of England.
Both teams had been pulverized by extreme pace in Australia in the preceding 18 months. And everyone knew that West Indies now had two express bowlers: Andy Roberts was measured at 157.4K that summer (97.8 mph) while Michael Holding - who was faster - was measured at 153.2K (95.2 mph).
One thing that gets a little bit overlooked is the fact that many players straddle the generations. I don't mean that Sachin Tendulkar can compare Shoaib Akhtar at his fastest to Imran Khan aged 36. I mean that Sachin Tendulkar can compare Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar at each stage of their careers: at their fastest, at their slowest, at their most raw and at their most old.
Back to the West Indies in 1976. England managed to reduce the losing margin to 3-0 - in a very dry summer - because of who they picked in the batting order:
Brian Close, aged 45
John Edrich, aged 39
David Steele, aged 35.
This was no act of lunacy by Tony Greig - unlike his "grovel" remark.
There was a very specific reason for recalling these every old men - and one look at photos of them shows that each looked 10 years older than their age.
They had all played against Fred Trueman. Brian Close had netted with him at Yorkshire from 1949 to 1968. (In fact, Close had played against Tyson for several seasons too).
What this meant was that by picking these three players, Tony Greig was picking men experienced against express bowling, who had the defensive technique to survive against it.
This was actually discussed on Sky's coverage of England v South Africa on Saturday, when David Gower, Michael Holding and Shaun Pollock explained to the audience that in those days batsmen had to have better technique against express pace because a) there was a lot more of it, and b) there were no helmets.
Using maximum velocity, just like we measure bowlers' speed from the hand:
1) I don't believe that the B737 or A320 are as fast as the Convair 880 and 990 which used to fly the same routes.
2) I don't believe that any aircraft is as fast as the Concorde which used to fly from LHR to JFK and BGI.
3) I don't believe that any modern interceptor can attain the same speed as a MiG-25 could 40 years ago.
Why on earth would modern bowlers be faster than ones 40 or even 60 years ago? We haven't had some massive change from amateur to professional status - none of the "gentlemen" were fast bowlers.
I will tell you what I think:
1950s
Trueman bowled at up to 150K
Tyson chucked at up to 155K
Statham chucked at around 142K
Adcock bowled at around 145K
Griffin chucked at around 150K
Gilchrist chucked at around 150K
You then have a period in which chucking is driven out of the game, and only bowlers with minimal extension of the arm were allowed to play. Incidentally, that War On Chucking in the early 1960's would also have driven out of the game not just Shoaib Akhtar but even the likes of Glenn McGrath. If there was any hint of visible straightening of your arm at all, umpires were under orders to throw you out of the game.
Wes Hall played on in the 1960s, and I think he probably bowled in the lower 140s.
You then get to the late 1960s', by which time there are young bowlers coming through who only reached the top because there was no hint of arm extension.
And in the late 1960's I think you have:
John Snow - touching 150K
Bob Willis - into the low 150s briefly, then reducing to the upper 140's to extend his career.
Mike Procter - in the low 150's.
So there is a clear historical reason why the period 1960-1968 saw much slower speeds, back down in the 130's. Trueman was into his thirties, Tyson was retired and chucking had been driven out of the game.
I really really do not give a rats behind about what experts say about ex-players. You on the other hand just don't seem to realize that they cannot be anything but nice to past players. Do you really think they would impartially dissect and lay threadbare any past player on live tv ? How does such a simple thing completely escape you and ow naive can you get?
So again ... why don't you similarly accept greatness of Jack Hobbs who has infinitely more Experts (compared to Bedser or Trueman or Tyson ) rating him as the best there was ( on Wet Wkts no less ) ?
Try and look up how scientific world operates ... check out the excruciating rigor with which they vet any new findings. Instead we have this Bull crap in cricket where fiction is sold as fact and worse there are soo many takers for that crap. Unreal !!
How can you convince yourselves that Bedser is bowling in the high 120Ks and Tyson in the high 140Ks after watching those cringe worthy video clips of them operating in their prime ?
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]
The fastest ball in either side's First Innings in the current England v South Africa Test was 88.6 mph, or 142.6K.
The fastest ball in the Second Innings so far was 92 mph, or 148.1K.
It's impossible to avoid the issue that this is slower than for either side's pace bowlers for fifty years.
Sixties - Snow, Procter
Seventies - Willis, Le Roux
Eighties - Dilley, Donald
Nineties - Malcolm, Schultz
2000's - Harmison, Steyn
Pace bowling is pretty obviously getting slower.
The fastest ball in either side's First Innings in the current England v South Africa Test was 88.6 mph, or 142.6K.
The fastest ball in the Second Innings so far was 92 mph, or 148.1K.
It's impossible to avoid the issue that this is slower than for either side's pace bowlers for fifty years.
Sixties - Snow, Procter
Seventies - Willis, Le Roux
Eighties - Dilley, Donald
Nineties - Malcolm, Schultz
2000's - Harmison, Steyn
Pace bowling is pretty obviously getting slower.
The scientific world accepts the measurements for velocity made in previous decades with earlier technology.
I repeat, why did England recall men aged 45, 39 and 35 to fill three of the top four positions against the (measured, undisputed) 150+K bowling of Holding and Roberts in 1976?
And the answer is because Close, Edrich and Steele had all batted against Trueman, and had developed a technique to do so.
Or put the other way round, why else do you think they did well against Holding and Roberts if not for the experience they had of playing against Trueman, Tyson (in the case of Close) and Snow and Willis.
So if you go ask a scientific body to accept that as a fact they would just be happy with your words and the stmt made by Tyson as evidence ? Is this how you think it works?
Once again when did you actually *PROVE* anything ? Merely reproducing statements does not amount to any proof. If anything you have quite doggedly shied away from commenting about footage of Roberts from the same timeframe as the "Measurements" were done.
Lets settle this one too while we are at it ....
https://youtu.be/uRlyFVCLOr4?t=23m31s
Le Roux top speed 132Ks Proctor 122Ks
Impossible to avoid ehh ?
Similar threads
