'If you're under 6ft you won't make it as a fast-bowler'
When and from where did this meme (I call it that becauses thats what it is) begin exactly?
Dale Steyn and Malcolm Marshall are unquestionably the two most effective and versatile fast bowlers of all-time and are both around 5 ft 10. They should be the first two names down on any all-time XI doubt either one of them is above 180cm. Waqar, who I rate above Wasim, was short too.
The historical evidence seems to suggest the complete opposite of what is held true. Shorter men seem to trouble the stumps more and are effective everywhere, whereas taller men I would argue become floaty and the ball holds up in the air on flatter decks.
Please tell me, where did this idea that quick bowling is a 'taller man's game' come from?
There are two main sides to this: FACTS and REASONS.
I am 50 years old. I have been watching Test cricket since 1975, And here are the FACTS:
FACTS
1. In 45 years of watching Test cricket, I have seen 3 fast bowlers shorter than 6 feet tall make successful careers.
2. Those three bowlers had the following heights:
Malcolm Marshall 5'11
Ryan Harris 5'11
Dale Steyn 5'10 - and he became ineffective when his median pace fell under 143K.
3. There are no bowlers shorter than 5'10 in that list. There is nobody who is 5'9 whatsoever, let alone 5'8 1/2 like Naseem Shah. (I stood next to Naseem Shah at the hotel in Adelaide, although I couldn't communicate with him. He's a little under 5'9.)
4. The same is true of football goalkeepers. In my lifetime two goalies shorter than 6'0 have had a top career: France's Fabien Barthez and Ipswich Town's Paul Cooper, both of whom - like Marshall and Harris - are 5'11 tall.
5. It is therefore a fact that anyone arguing that a fast bowler or goalkeeper shorter than 5'10 can play at the highest level in the modern game is making it up.
They are creating an argument based on what they would like to be the case rather than on FACTS. The evidence that you can be a top goalie or Test fast bowler if you are less than 5'10 tall is precisely the same as the evidence that you can be a top goalie or fast bowler if you are female, or have one leg, or are a gerbil.
6. Sadly there is increasing evidence - much of it from Pakistan - that the shorter you are the more you will struggle. Mohammad Amir has the same skills and pace as Wasim Akram. But he is 5'11 1/2 compared with 6'3.
REASONS
The OP talks about hitting the stumps. And unwittingly he has hit on the reason.
Compare Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis in the West Indies in 1992-93. Waqar was more destructive and faster, and took more wickets. But Pakistan, as always, could only compete if it was a low-scoring series.
Any fast bowler in Tests needs to do the same job - get 5 balls per over aimed at the top of off-stump. But as the grass died and the bounce dulled, Waqar had to bowl 6 inches fuller than Wasim to hit the top of off-stump. If Wasim pitched up to three inches too short or too full or too wide the batsman still couldn't play an attacking stroke because his length was still stifling. But when Waqar pitched the ball one inch too wide or too full or too short he either bowled a half-volley which was driven to the boundary or a long-hop which was cut or pulled. And Brian Lara and Desmond Haynes could and did take the first two Tests away from Pakistan in less than a session of batting.
Test cricket is a really hard game for fast bowlers after the ball goes soft and loses its shine. That means overs 20-80 with a Kookaburra and 40-80 with a Dukes ball.
And only two solutions have been found in my lifetime. Either tamper with the old ball to make it reverse, or pack your team with giants to keep the scoring rate down.
Think back to the First Test in Brisbane last November. Not when Pakistan was bowling, but when they were batting.
On Day 1 Pakistan reached around 65-0 at lunch. But Australia nowadays prefer an attack of Starc (6'6), Hazlewood (6'5) and Cummins (6'4). Justin Langer explicitly acknowledges that Pattinson (6'1) is more skilful but is only a reserve because he is shorter and cannot dry up the scoring rate the same way.
Pakistan reached 75-0 after 37 overs, but Australia after lunch had gone into "giant quicks drying up the scoring rate" mode and couldn't buy a run. Azhar Ali had looked fairly sound against full-pitched attacking bowling, but once the quicks shortened their length by another 2 inches after lunch he was suddenly reduced to edging and playing and missing because at his age he couldn't judge whether to go forward or back.
Pakistan lost 4 wickets in the next 10 overs, but they also only scored 11 runs.
I don't know where I stand on Naseem Shah. He has the finest bowling action of any Pakistani that I have ever seen - better than Wasim Akram, better than Imran Khan. It's just mesmerising.
But as I stated earlier, only 3 quicks in my 50 years have made it at a height shorter than 6'0. And none of them were as short as Naseem Shah.
Shaheen Shah Afridi has a fraction of Naseem Shah's skill. But even on an off-day - and we all have them - he will still be 6'6 tall and trouble every batsman. Shaheen can bowl a spell at 135K and still challenge the batsman. Naseem can't.
Naseem Shah is almost 10 inches shorter and he will never be able to survive on a bad day like Shaheen or Hazlewood or Cummins by relying on bowling a difficult length even when he's a bit out of sorts. He's going to have to be at his best every single day, every single spell. And whereas McGrath and Wasim and Hazlewood and Cummins can endure after their pace falls from 144K to 134K because their height remains the same, Naseem will be like Dale Steyn, reliant on maintaining his pace well into the 140's to keep troubling the batsmen.
