Is bowling in ODI cricket a joke? Jeff Thomson thinks so...

Hitman

Test Debutant
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Runs
13,300
This was said by Jeff Thomson a long time ago, in 2005. But that was an explosive statement by him, had me in stitches .......

The complete article -

Link: http://www.espncricinfo.com/wctimeline/content/story/145968.html

Jeff Thomson has angrily rejected calls for Brett Lee's promotion to the Test side against New Zealand at Christchurch tomorrow. Thomson said Michael Kasprowicz had done the "hard yards", and deserved to retain his place in the most contentious selection issue of the tour.

The debate will rumble for another day after Australia delayed naming their team until they had another look at the Jade Stadium pitch tomorrow morning. Ricky Ponting said Lee had a strong claim, but the form of the three other fast bowlers meant they did not deserve to be dropped.

"All those guys deserve their spot in the side, and we've got Brett, who's been outstanding on this tour and right through the VB Series as well," Ponting said. "At the moment Brett has a bit of a psychological edge over some of the NZ batsmen. So there's all those things you have to consider. I know if I was in their side and looked at a team sheet and saw his name wasn't on it I would be reasonably relieved at this stage of the tour."

Thomson told the Brisbane Courier-Mail that the decision was easy: "Lee's bowled well in one-day games against a team of no-hopers. One-day cricket is a joke. Kasper has done the hard yards, done nothing wrong. An idiot can get wickets in one-day cricket."

Thomson said Lee was dropped because he "doesn't do the job" in Tests, and he was not impressed with his limited-overs performances. "Why should he get picked again? It's not as if he is taking a bagful of one-day wickets. If Brad Hogg, Andrew Symonds and Darren Lehmann take wickets in one-day cricket then what does that tell you about bowling in one-day cricket?"

Clive Lloyd this week rated Thomson, who had 200 victims in 51 Tests, a more intimidating proposition for batsmen than Lee, but Justin Langer said that his team-mate would scare the New Zealand batsmen. "There's always some sort of fear factor," observed Langer. "You know in the back of your mind that even if you have a great day you've got to put up with some bruises and aggression, and you've got to be quite strong to get through that."

Stephen Fleming has confirmed that he will open, filling the gap left by Mark Richardson's retirement after the Australia home series, and has given himself the job of blunting Australia's attack. Fleming said he was under pressure after a poor one-day series, where he was a regular target of Lee, but was confident he could give his side a strong start.


Truth by told, he does make a lot of sense. Sanath Jayasuriya has more than 300 ODI wickets, Sachin Tendulkar has more than 150 ODI wickets and Sourav Ganguly has more than 100 ODI wickets.

Neither one of those men have even 100 wickets in Test cricket. What's your opinion on Jeff Thomson's statement. Do you think he has a point? I'm very much in his favor.
 
A doctor calling an engineer's job as "worthless".

A specific counter arguement can be, steyn, a legend in test. Okish bowler in odi. Or more specifically, philander. Leave the job to pros. No one is better or lesser here.
 
Last edited:
A doctor calling an engineer's job as "worthless".

A bowler is a bowler. He just puts into place the significance of bowling in ODI cricket. Let's be honest, what he said makes a lot of sense. A lot of players gift their wickets in ODI cricket in an attempt to improve the RR, but in Tests a bowler has to earn every wicket, no player gift their wicket.
 
In Tests a bowler has to out-think the batsman, it demands lot of skills and discipline, but I think he's being a bit harsh.

Jayasurya has a decent average for a spinner as he was an all rounder, but both Tendulkar-Ganguly were partnership brokers/part timers and they got their wickets at an awful average simply because of the amount of games they played.
Brett Lee on the other hand has 380 wickets @ -25 average so there's obviously a difference between him and the other names.
 
In Tests a bowler has to out-think the batsman, it demands lot of skills and discipline, but I think he's being a bit harsh.

Jayasurya has a decent average for a spinner as he was an all rounder, but both Tendulkar-Ganguly were partnership brokers/part timers and they got their wickets at an awful average simply because of the amount of games they played.
Brett Lee on the other hand has 380 wickets @ -25 average so there's obviously a difference between him and the other names.

That's a main point. A lot of players gift their wickets in ODI cricket due to the pressure of increasing the RR, but that doesn't happen in Tests. A bowler has to deceive a batsman to get his wicket in Tests.
 
To put Bret Lee's ODI career in perspective, these are the ODI bowlers who average less than 25 (with +200 wickets)

odiu.png


(best SR too)
 
An idiot can get wickets in Test Cricket too as long as the pitch is helping.
 
He is half right. There is a lot of cheap wickets in ODI's especially in the death overs.
 
He is half right. There is a lot of cheap wickets in ODI's especially in the death overs.

Absolutely! Lots and lots of cheap wickets.

P.S. If any Pak fan thinks this is a knock on Wasim Akram, it is not. Wasim has more than 400 Test wickets at an average of less than 24. That easily makes him a great of the game. The debate is about cheap wickets in ODI cricket, which is a fact. What else can explain the number of wickets that Jayasuriya, Tendulkar and Ganguly have in their respective ODI careers.
 
Last edited:
Partially true, you can get a lot of cheap wickets in ODIs when batsmen have too many wickets to spare and try to hit out.
 
Yes there are cheap wickets in ODI cricket, but the discipline is the same.

If you have the talent, you will succeed in both forms of the game.

The selctors clearly felt Brett Lee had it in him to succeed in Tests, having displayed some of it in ODIs, so they picked him.

Whether Kasprowicz was bowling well in test cricket or not...if there is someone the selectors think is better than what is currently there, then they have the right to make the changes. Its what they are paid to do.

Similary, there are a lot of bowlers that are picked in ODIs as ODI specialists. They don't have the ability to play well in test cricket, and hence are not considered. Xavier Doherty was an example. Australia only used to pick him for the short forms of the game.
 
Absolutely! Lots and lots of cheap wickets.

P.S. If any Pak fan thinks this is a knock on Wasim Akram, it is not. Wasim has more than 400 Test wickets at an average of less than 24. That easily makes him a great of the game. The debate is about cheap wickets in ODI cricket, which is a fact. What else can explain the number of wickets that Jayasuriya, Tendulkar and Ganguly have in their respective careers.

I am an Ajmal fan, but he will be a lot more effective if he bowl in the midle overs and take wickets instead of taking wickets at the end of the innings.

Malinga is a perfect example of bowlers who take a lot lot of cheap wickets at the end.

3 wickets at the top or in the midle overs can reduce the total of about 50-100 runs

3 wickets at the death will at most reduce the total of 20 runs and often it is not even as much.
 
Whilst his words were perhaps a touch aggressive, he does have a point. There's a reason why many part-time bowlers are successful in ODIs but relatively ineffective in Test cricket.

The argument is taken even further when you include T20 cricket.
 
Re: Is bowling in ODI cricket a joke? Jeff Thomson thinks so....

Let's not completely downplay ODI wickets here.

Does that mean Saqlains contributions in ODIs shouldn't be rated?

Lee is an underrated bowler in ODIs. However he did have the tendency to choke when it came to crunch situations. And bowl those 'accidental' Beamers to the face.
 
Umar gull, RP Singh,Rana Naved, Ishant Sharma prime exampels
 
I think it takes a different skill set.

IIRC, Mudasser Nazar took more ODI wickets than Imran Khan.
 
A bowler with the best strike rate in ODI cricket(With 200 or more Wickets)doesnt know how to bowl?

Yah right Mr. Thompson
facepalm.gif


Brett was named Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2006 and then ''Test Cricketer of the Year'' in 2008
 
Last edited:
A bowler with the best strike rate in ODI cricket doesnt know how to bowl?

Bung was a mediocrity in the gold standard format - test cricket - so I agree with Tommo. He was a luxury bowler, tolerated by CA because McG was at the other end.
 
Lee was good in his own in roughing up average batsmen. He had a job and he made a decent fist of it. 300 odd wickets at 30ish is not bad. In someways, one could say he was a perfect complement to the metronomy of Pigeon and Dizzy.
 
Bung was a mediocrity in the gold standard format - test cricket - so I agree with Tommo. He was a luxury bowler, tolerated by CA because McG was at the other end.

Someone with more 300 wickets in either format of the game can hardly be regarded as "a luxury''.

And he actually didnot play alongside Pigeon for the majority of his career.McGrath retired after the 06-07 Ashes(He and Warne werent there for the 04 India series either).Lee spearheaded the Aussie attack after that.
 
Last edited:
Until Johnson, Lee was the worst bowler to take 200 test wickets.

Very average test bowler. Though his pace did complement McGrath and Warne nicely.

Gillespie was a significantly better bowler.

Thommo is fond of the hyperbole but he does have a point.
 
Taking wickets consistently in test cricket is the real deal. Umar Gul is a prime example that good T-20 and decent ODI bowling skills does not translate into being a good bowler in test cricket.
 
Contrary to popular notion,Brett lee was at his most successful in Test Cricket after Mcgrath and Warne retired..so the ''feeding off McGrath/Gillespie/Warne theory'' is nothing but hogwash.

to quote Wiki

Following the retirements of Warne and McGrath, Lee rose to the challenge and was awarded the Man of the Series in the inaugural Warne-Muralidaran Trophy, a two-Test series against Sri Lanka in late-2007. In his first series as bowling spearhead reaped 16 wickets at an average of 17.5. This was achieved by bowling 5 km/h slower to improve accuracy. In the following series Lee took 24 wickets at 22.58 in four Tests against India. In this series he overtook Jason Gillespie to become Australia's 5th highest wicket taker. His consistent efforts saw him rewarded with the Man of the Series Award for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, 2007–08. He capped off the season by winning the Allan Border Medal, the award given to the player adjudged Australia's best international cricketer of the past year.
 
In ODI cricket, bowlers have to deal with a lot more difficulty such as having fielding restrictions, powerplays, etc. Its also easier for opposition batsmen to just see out your best bowler because of the restriction on number of overs allowed. ODI cricket demands a different skill-set than test cricket and bowlers who have been successful in both formats deserve to be called greats of the game.
 
Taking wickets consistently in test cricket is the real deal. Umar Gul is a prime example that good T-20 and decent ODI bowling skills does not translate into being a good bowler in test cricket.

The reverse also holds true in many cases.
 
If taking wickets in the Odis an easy task then why do so many Test Greats struggle to take wickets in limited overs ?

Nathan Brackan for example was a much better Odi bowler compared to likes of Steyn and Asif. If he can get cheap wickets then what stops Steyn and Asif from doing the same ?
 
Contrary to popular notion,Brett lee was at his most successful in Test Cricket after Mcgrath and Warne retired..so the ''feeding off McGrath/Gillespie/Warne theory'' is nothing but hogwash.

to quote Wiki

Following the retirements of Warne and McGrath, Lee rose to the challenge and was awarded the Man of the Series in the inaugural Warne-Muralidaran Trophy, a two-Test series against Sri Lanka in late-2007. In his first series as bowling spearhead reaped 16 wickets at an average of 17.5. This was achieved by bowling 5 km/h slower to improve accuracy. In the following series Lee took 24 wickets at 22.58 in four Tests against India. In this series he overtook Jason Gillespie to become Australia's 5th highest wicket taker. His consistent efforts saw him rewarded with the Man of the Series Award for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy, 2007–08. He capped off the season by winning the Allan Border Medal, the award given to the player adjudged Australia's best international cricketer of the past year.

One swallow doth not make a summer.

Also I wouldn't take performances against India and Sri Lanka in Australia as greatly indicative of skill.
 
Lee was in very great form that ODI series.
Kapsrowicz averaged 40 in that Test series playing ahead of Lee, seeing how good Lee was bowling, i am sure Lee would have been much more effective against Newzealand during that Test Series than Kapsrowicz.
It's the manner in which you get wickets in ODI that matters.
If you get the Batsmen out by bowling a very good ball than you should be a success in Test cricket but if you get wickets when the Batsmen throws his wicket away than you are more than likely to fail at the Test Level.
Many of Lee's wickets that tour were simply because the deliveries were too good and not because the NZ batsmen threw their wicket away, Lee should've been played in the Test as well seeing how good he was bowling.
 
well if odi bowlers get cheap wicket then in no way do they come cheaper in T20!!!! .... yes test bowler is a different story... the batsmen wont gift their wickets so you have to take them. out smart the batsmen , make him uncomfortable... bcz the regular stuff wont work as the batsmen has no pressure of the scoreboard.
 
One swallow doth not make a summer.

Also I wouldn't take performances against India and Sri Lanka in Australia as greatly indicative of skill.

If you go by that approach(devaluing stats against SC teams on Aus/SA wickets),then im sure even the Likes of Mcgrath,Donald,Pollock would end up with pretty average stats

And No,that wasnt one swallow,he was named 2008 Test Cricketer of the Year by CA.
 
Last edited:
If you go by that approach(devaluing stats against SC teams on Aus/SA wickets),then im sure even the Likes of Mcgrath,Donald,Pollock would end up with pretty average stats

And No,that wasnt one swallow,he was named 2008 Test Cricketer of the Year by CA.
One good year.

The system isn't that great either. We use it in the football and it often comes up with dodgy results.
 
You can get cheap wickets in test matches also. The wickets you get on green tops and dust bowls are some what cheap, you get them not because you out think the batsman, rather the batsman is clueless.

ODIs are rarely played on such wickets, they tend to be flattish, it is not easy to get wickets in ODIs as many think, during the first 35 overs.
 
Thommo bowled very fast, but only has an test average of 28, which is nothing extraordinary for his times where so many bowlers had sub 25.
 
I believe the reason he said this was because he was extremely bitter that he himself could not perform in ODIs. To prove this he was included in Cricinfo's list of bowlers who performed well in test matches but performed horribly in ODIs.
 
Disagree completely. Takes two different types of skillset to be successful in either one.
 
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4nlfLfeF9ow" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm sure Mudassar Nazar or Ganguly could have done it.
 
Brett Lee is widely regarded as the fastest bowler Australia has produced(This is ofcourse arguable) . Thompson is the guy he replaced and the latter might have a little grudge against him.

And also the fact that Thompson was pretty average in ODIs might have something to do with it.
 
Last edited:
Brett Lee 2002 to 2005 was the simply the best sight in World Cricket IMO.I also preferred watching Lee over Akhtar..im a big fan of the latter but Lee was the true athlete..his run up and action was all about rhythm and grace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH3EdnJyhKQ
 
Last edited:
Brett Lee is widely regarded as the fastest bowler Australia has produced(This is ofcourse arguable) . Thompson is the guy he replaced and the latter might have a little grudge against him. And also the fact that Thompson was pretty average in ODIs might have something to do with it.

Good point, formers players quite oftenly have a grudge against players they perfomed badly against or ones who replaced them.
 
Hes not wrong, yes you have to have some talent and skill but due to the nature of the odi game many wkts are gifted in search of runs and not necessarily ''taken''

and just because your great in one format doesnt necessarily mean you ll be as prolific in another ala gul
 
Last edited:
It's one side of the story. Test Cricket, ofcourse is a different skill and a more difficult skill but its unfair to say that ODI cricket bowling is a joke. Why isn't Steyn successful in the shorter format as he is in Test Cricket?
 
Re: Is bowling in ODI cricket a joke? Jeff Thomson thinks so....

I reckon if Lee was handled a little better (bowling workload) he could have become Australia's best allrounder since S Waugh.
 
Someone with more 300 wickets in either format of the game can hardly be regarded as "a luxury''.

He was against England! He played a massive role in our 2005 win. While he was on, the scoring rate kept ticking over nicely.
 
Last edited:
When you look at the careers and most wickets of bowlers like Lee and Malinga, and then compare them to the fame and reputation they enjoy, one can only agree with this statement.
 
Brett Lee is widely regarded as the fastest bowler Australia has produced(This is ofcourse arguable) . Thompson is the guy he replaced and the latter might have a little grudge against him.

And also the fact that Thompson was pretty average in ODIs might have something to do with it.

Not in Australia.

The fact that Kasprowicz was a Queenslander however...
 
So the Karachi syndrome exists in Australia too...

If anything we're worse.

It's often said that when a players gets his baggy blue cap (for NSW) he gets a baggy green in a paper bag as well.
 
If anything we're worse.

It's often said that when a players gets his baggy blue cap (for NSW) he gets a baggy green in a paper bag as well.
Yeah, heard Victoria and NSW get preferential treatment. Karachi demands preferential treatment and whines when it doesn't get it
 
Yeah, heard Victoria and NSW get preferential treatment. Karachi demands preferential treatment and whines when it doesn't get it

Victoria doesn't.

Warne, Pattinson and Siddle are the main players of note that they've selected recently.

NSW is a bit wierd because NSW is easily the best producer of talent in Australia (with the brief exception of WA for a few decades).

But of the 17 man squad to tour India (including Bird) there are 10 New South Welshmen.
 
Interesting...So,folks in Australia believe Thommo at his prime was unarguably faster than 2003-2005 Lee and pre 2003 Akhtar?

Every Australian who watched Thommo bowl before his should injury believe he was unarguably faster than Lee.
 
He was against England! He played a massive role in our 2005 win. While he was on, the scoring rate kept ticking over nicely.

Michael Vaughan disagrees:akhtar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akzs7g3meK4

He rattled you guys in ODIs throughout his career...65 wickets at an Average of 23 and Strike rate of 29.

In tests though,i accept he didnt have a good time on most occasions..When you look at his stats against individual nations,he has his 2nd worst average against England in Tests (2nd only to Bangladesh,Yes you read it right.Bangladesh) at 39.9.
 
Last edited:
Every Australian who watched Thommo bowl before his should injury believe he was unarguably faster than Lee.

Didnt know that..Always thought it was bit of a contention with some saying Thompson and some Lee.

Anyways..i've only seen Thompson on old tapes and youtube..and without any speed guns,its kind of impossible to tell who was faster
 
I would tend to disagree. This is a totally wrong perception by most cricket experts. In ODIs you are tend to get cheap wickets in the death overs, but like many said, ODIs demand a completely different set of skills. You have to watch a match to really judge how well a bowler has bowled. One could say in the opposite about test crickets, some of the bowlers have such great stats especially thanks to their preying on tail-enders.

Its not easy to succeed in ODIs as many might think. This is one format where you need to be an expert in bowling on a good line and length, with a bit swing in the beginning. And in the death,you need to change your lengths and start bowling yorkers or the sudden bouncer...including change of pace in between.
 
Victoria doesn't.

Warne, Pattinson and Siddle are the main players of note that they've selected recently.

NSW is a bit wierd because NSW is easily the best producer of talent in Australia (with the brief exception of WA for a few decades).

But of the 17 man squad to tour India (including Bird) there are 10 New South Welshmen.

Come to think of it, the Australian situation is the exact opposite of the Karachi Syndrome. NSW(and from what I've heard from other Australians, both here and ones I've known, Victoria too) is resented by the rest of the country because their players dominate the national squad but the players are actually good. Over here, Karachi is resented(which is putting it mildly. Up north, they're strongly disliked for their misplaced sense of entitlement) for their whining over their players not getting picked, disregarding the fact that their players suck royally(with the exception of Asad Shafiq who's in the side and Fawad Alam, the only Karachi player who got a raw deal).
 
Come to think of it, the Australian situation is the exact opposite of the Karachi Syndrome. NSW(and from what I've heard from other Australians, both here and ones I've known, Victoria too) is resented by the rest of the country because their players dominate the national squad but the players are actually good. Over here, Karachi is resented(which is putting it mildly. Up north, they're strongly disliked for their misplaced sense of entitlement) for their whining over their players not getting picked, disregarding the fact that their players suck royally(with the exception of Asad Shafiq who's in the side and Fawad Alam, the only Karachi player who got a raw deal).

Victoria is exactly like Karachi.
Always whinging that players like Cameron White don't get selected.

They're resented because of that.

NSW is represented because they're massively over represented in terms of population.

It also doesn't help that all the national media is dominated by Melbourne and Sydney.

Though to be fair to NSW they do consistently produce very good players.
 
He was particularly very jealous of Lee in 2005 because of Lee's speeds and people rating Lee to be faster than him.
 
I think overall Brett Lee has had a more successful career than Jeff Thompson. For one he has more ODI wickets for sure at a better average and he has also got more Test Wickets. Though this article is like 7-8 years old and we dont really know what Brett Lee's stats were at the time but in this particular series he was in awesome form and should have been selected on merit in the test team.
 
I remember Thompson's comments questioning the legality of Lee's action very well too...I cant find the exact quote but it was somewhere on the lines of ''Does not always look great from the front''...This was in sharp contrast to Dennis Lillee who immediately came to the front in support of Brett.

Perhaps because Lee was mentored and trained by Lillee ,mentioned him much more than Thommo as his inspiration when talking to the media and always turned towards him for help has a part to play in this?..Just a crazy idea
 
I remember Thompson's comments questioning the legality of Lee's action very well too...I cant find the exact quote but it was somewhere on the lines of ''Does not always look great from the front''...This was in sharp contrast to Dennis Lillee who immediately came to the front in support of Brett.

Perhaps because Lee was mentored and trained by Lillee ,mentioned him much more than Thommo as his inspiration when talking to the media and always turned towards him for help has a part to play in this?..Just a crazy idea

Thommo also earns extra cash as one of many "rent a quotes".

When journos want a quick story they approach Thomson or Neil Harvey
 
Is bowling in ODI cricket a joke? Jeff Thomson thinks so....

Thommo also earns extra cash as one of many "rent a quotes".

When journos want a quick story they approach Thomson or Neil Harvey

Or Rodney Hogg
 
I remember Thompson's comments questioning the legality of Lee's action very well too...I cant find the exact quote but it was somewhere on the lines of ''Does not always look great from the front''...This was in sharp contrast to Dennis Lillee who immediately came to the front in support of Brett.

Perhaps because Lee was mentored and trained by Lillee ,mentioned him much more than Thommo as his inspiration when talking to the media and always turned towards him for help has a part to play in this?..Just a crazy idea


Thompson was jealous of Lee's Success and him even being rated by some to be faster than him.
 
Thompson was jealous of Lee's Success and him even being rated by some to be faster than him.

How do you know this?

And seriously nobody in Australia who saw them both rated Lee as faster.
 
How do you know this?

And seriously nobody in Australia who saw them both rated Lee as faster.

It's just what i feel.
Well officially Lee is clocked at 161 while Thompson is clocked at 160.45.
 
It's just what i feel.
Well officially Lee is clocked at 161 while Thompson is clocked at 160.45.

Yeah but everyone in Australia who watched Thommo bowl believe him to be the faster bowler.

They didn't time every ball back then.

Lee also very rarely got over 160.
 
Yeah but everyone in Australia who watched Thommo bowl believe him to be the faster bowler.

They didn't time every ball back then.

Lee also very rarely got over 160.

Lee bowled fast throughout his career.
Where as Thompson got considerably slower after his injury.
Lee enjoyed more success and a longer career than Thompson and officially Lee is faster than Thompson.
 
Lee bowled fast throughout his career.
Where as Thompson got considerably slower after his injury.
Lee enjoyed more success and a longer career than Thompson and officially Lee is faster than Thompson.

Possibly true but Australians don't think that way.
 
Yeah but everyone in Australia who watched Thommo bowl believe him to be the faster bowler.

They didn't time every ball back then.

Lee also very rarely got over 160.
I dont believe there has ever been a fast bowler in World Cricket who's bowled consistently at 160 and over.Thompson,Lee or Shoaib..


Also its the same old mantra again..Where we glorify past Sportsmen beyond how good they 'actually' were..We,Pakistanis do the same...''Waqar in his prime was as fast as Shoaib'' or the way we now portray ''Amir as the 2nd coming of Jesus''.

Fact is Shoaib and Brett lee have been measured to be faster than what Thompson managed.

The top 5 Fastest balls bowled in Cricket History

1. Shoaib Akhtar = speed-161.3 kmph/100.2mph, in 2003 world cup against England at Durban.

2. Brett lee = speed-160.8kmph in 2005 series against Newzealand at Napier.

3. Shaun Tait = speed-160.7kmph, in 2010 series against Pakistan at Melbourne.

4.Jeffery Thompson = speed-160.4kmph, in 1975 against West indies at Perth.

5. Andy Roberts = speed-159.5kmph, in 1975 against Australia at Perth.
 
Thomson's deliveries (during those times) were timed at the batsman's end of the pitch (by which time the ball has slowed), whereas today's bowlers are timed just after they release the ball out of their hand. Thomson would have easily clocked way faster than both Lee and Akhtar if today's technology were used to measure him at his peak.
 
I dont believe there has ever been a fast bowler in World Cricket who's bowled consistently at 160 and over.Thompson,Lee or Shoaib..


Also its the same old mantra again..Where we glorify past Sportsmen beyond how good they 'actually' were..We,Pakistanis do the same...''Waqar in his prime was as fast as Shoaib'' or the way we now portray ''Amir as the 2nd coming of Jesus''.

Fact is Shoaib and Brett lee have been measured to be faster than what Thompson managed.

The top 5 Fastest balls bowled in Cricket History

1. Shoaib Akhtar = speed-161.3 kmph/100.2mph, in 2003 world cup against England at Durban.

2. Brett lee = speed-160.8kmph in 2005 series against Newzealand at Napier.

3. Shaun Tait = speed-160.7kmph, in 2010 series against Pakistan at Melbourne.

4.Jeffery Thompson = speed-160.4kmph, in 1975 against West indies at Perth.

5. Andy Roberts = speed-159.5kmph, in 1975 against Australia at Perth.

Wasn't Tait clocked 161.2 against England?
 
Thomson's deliveries (during those times) were timed at the batsman's end of the pitch (by which time the ball has slowed), whereas today's bowlers are timed just after they release the ball out of their hand. Thomson would have easily clocked way faster than both Lee and Akhtar if today's technology were used to measure him at his peak.

This and not all of his deliveries were timed.
 
Wasn't Tait clocked 161.2 against England?

Yup you're right..My bad..it was actually 161.1..so that makes him No.2 ahead of Lee.

Edit:Just found out why the 161.1 wasnt listed on some sites...There some controversy attached to it.The same bowl was measured at 156 by the hawkeye technology at the ground..the 161.1 was from the Sky Channel speed gun
 
Last edited:
Back
Top