-
Contact the PP Team
[VIDEO] Jeff Thomson bowled in the high 150s (158, 159, 160kph) on a consistent basis
- Thread starter AlizeeFan
- Start date
Gabbar Singh
Test Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
- Runs
- 15,550
So he was quicker than Shoaib? That's hard to believe.
It's a matter of record that in 1976:
Jeff Thomson was measured at 160.6K
Dennis Lillee was measured at 154.8K
Source: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283875.html
Jeff Thomson was either the fastest or second fastest bowler that I have ever seen - the other being Sylvester Clarke who was measured at 101 mph (163K) at Johannesburg in the 1980's.
Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee could get the odd ball in that range, although Shoaib, like Clarke,had a questionable action.
Jeff Thomson was measured at 160.6K
Dennis Lillee was measured at 154.8K
Source: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283875.html
Jeff Thomson was either the fastest or second fastest bowler that I have ever seen - the other being Sylvester Clarke who was measured at 101 mph (163K) at Johannesburg in the 1980's.
Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee could get the odd ball in that range, although Shoaib, like Clarke,had a questionable action.
Blitz
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Runs
- 7,464
- Post of the Week
- 2
Those studies aren't accurate and have not been verified or accepted by the ICC. They're essentially looking at those old videos, and estimating the pace, which is nigh on impossible to get right.
I just find it difficult to think a bowler from the 70s, could match the bowlers of the 2000s.
Every single sport that requires anything physical, such as most things at the athletics, the records from the 70s were long beaten, and succeeded, simply because people due to sport science that came in the mid 90s, have got stronger, faster, better.
The fact that in the last 20 years when we've been able to calculate speeds accurately, and only 4-5 balls, (not bowlers) have ever crossed the 160 mark, are we to believe a 70s bowler was bowling that regularly, and was going upto the 170 mark?!
Sorry, but you are completely and utterly wrong on almost every count.
Firstly, the measurements from the 1970s were done by radar speed guns at the time, using the same technology used for measuring the precise speed of other projectiles.
Secondly, the ICC has no process for "verifying or accepting" the speed of deliveries. There is no such thing.
Thirdly, sport science in cricket has served only to slow down the bowlers. In Australia it is dominated by people trained in Rugby league, with the result that bowlers from Craig McDermott (1986-1990) to James Pattinson have bulked up, lost the ability to run through their action side-on, and have lost pace.
Fourthly, it is complete nonsense to say that all athletic records are massively improving. The Long Jump record of Bob Beamon from the 1968 Olympic Games has been beaten once in history - by 5 cm (8.95 m compared with 8,90 m). And even that record was set in 1990 and has yet to be broken.
The same is true of the women's 200 m, which remains intact from 1988. And even the men's 100 m world record of 9.79 seconds from 1988 has been beaten by only 2 men who have never failed drug tests.
Don't delude yourself into thinking that the records of the 1970s -Thommo's 160.6K or Lillee's 154.8or Andy Roberts' 159.49 were somehow measured by a person watching YouTube on a laptop.
Quite the contrary - that is the silly little habit of people desperate to deny science who have a need to claim that current bowlers are the fastest ever (which is usually part of a narrative to show that Kohli and Smith et al are the GOAT batsmen).
Shoaib and Lee hit their fastest in 2000-2005 era since then no nobody has come close to those speeds barring Mitch for a 6 month period it has already been over 10 years if bowlers were getting faster with time 10 years time period was enough to dethrone them but it has not happened. Guys like Viv and Alan Border undisputed call Thommo as the fastest and these guys did get to face Marshall, Wasim, Donald, Peak Waqar but they reckon they were all slower then Thommo do you reckon Wasim, Waqar, Marshall, Donald are anything slower then current modern day bowlers?
So the reason why they haven't been accepted as official records is because ........ ?
.......there is no such thing as an official bowling speed record!
Wrong !! There is .... and thats why you see Shoaib Akhtar being mentioned as the leader of the speed pack. You can keep denying it all you want but that is the truth.
The other piece of circumstantial evidence is the same guys ( Thommo, Holding, Lillee, Roberts etc ..) were measured just 3-4 yrs later and all of them were considerably below their speeds supposedly measured in 1975/76.
most of these balls are post 76 after injury this was the time when he was terrifyingly quick.
Actually I have never met anyone old enough to have watched Thommo, Roberts, Clarke and Holding who thinks that Shoaib was the leader of anything other than his own fan club.
So tell me about this "official speed record". What is the "official" pace of Thomson from 1976 if it is not 160.6?
What is the "official" pace of Roberts from 1975 if it is not 159.4?
What is the "official" pace of Waqar Younis from either 1990 or 1991?
Let me guess. It's an "official" record in which the qualification is a measurement using twenty first century technology and footage.
So its the "official" 21st century record.
Most of the deliveries were bowled in coloured clothing. But he'd lost 20K by then because of his shoulder injury.
So if you think Thommo was bowling in the 150's in a yellow shirt, you are effectively accepting that in 74-75 and 75-76 he reached the 170's.
Robert
Test Star
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Runs
- 37,604
- Post of the Week
- 1
The other thing about Thommo was that he got extraordinary lift from that javelin action. Though just six feet tall, he got Garner-like bounce.
Slog
Senior Test Player
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2015
- Runs
- 28,984
- Post of the Week
- 1
The technology in those times were not reliable at all. 100mph could well be 9mph
He was FAST, absolute lightning in his first 2/3 years - might be at his fastest in that '74-75 Ashes. Won't go for absolute number, but I'll take him as the fastest ever 6 pacers that I have seen live or in footage
Shoaib, Lee, Zahid, Thompson, Holding & Waquar probably is my order, but won't claim anything.
Many people rates Sylvester Clarke faster than Holding (Not only [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]), while Jeff Doujon had kept against all of them at their fastest (apart from Roberts), and he reckons, sometimes in 1985-86 with his effort ball, Pat Patterson was the fastest that he had ever kept. Len Pascoe himself was extremely fast, so was Hogg, but I think, DK Lillee before the stress fracture was the 2nd quickest ever among Aussies before late 90s.
Shoaib, Lee, Zahid, Thompson, Holding & Waquar probably is my order, but won't claim anything.
Many people rates Sylvester Clarke faster than Holding (Not only [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]), while Jeff Doujon had kept against all of them at their fastest (apart from Roberts), and he reckons, sometimes in 1985-86 with his effort ball, Pat Patterson was the fastest that he had ever kept. Len Pascoe himself was extremely fast, so was Hogg, but I think, DK Lillee before the stress fracture was the 2nd quickest ever among Aussies before late 90s.
Last edited:
I have clicked that link several times - it's hard to keep focus on such script, which reads David Lawrence at 125KM, while Bob Willis at 146KM
Desi
First Class Star
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2007
- Runs
- 4,012
It's probably foolish and subjective to make the claim he was consistently 160s with the potential for 170s. Likely amongst the top of the fastest who have ever lived, which in itself is an extraordinary accomplishment.
ahhhh what a impartial bunch of people to rely on. And I suppose one of these days you are going to tell us how you were capable of measuring speed using naked eyes when you were in the single digits agewise and be able to recall that mentally and compare to Shoaibs speed 25 yrs later and arrive at the difference between the two?
Same rules apply to every player.
No comment on why Thommo, Holding, Roberts etc clocked much lesser just 3-4 yrs later. ?
Last edited:
I have done that for Tyson who according to [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] is just as fast if not more. Naturally it didn't go down well with Junaids who used some red herring like using 2d footage for speed measurement.
No, you can't.
Because 2D footage from an unmeasured angle means that we don't know the height at which the ball hits the bat, the position at which the bowler releases the ball, the location of the camera or anything else.
When an Australian university tried to do it for Harold Larwood, the best they could do was say that he was roughly in the 140's for the deliveries tested.
The technology was inadequate in the 1970's?
When, unlike now, it allowed NASA to send people to the Moon and back.
When, unlike now, it allowed British Airways and Air France to carry passengers at twice the speed of sound.
There is not even the flimsiest basis to say that 1970's technology for measuring the speed of projectiles was somehow inaccurate. You are just making that up to suit your argument.
The issue with sensitive and accurate velocity measuring technology from the 1950's to the 1990's was not accuracy.
On the contrary, nobody questions the speed of the Apollo spacecraft, the Boeing 707 or the DC-8. Everyone accepts that the Convair 990 Coronado had a faster maximum speed than the 21st century Boeing 787.
The problem was that velocity measuring technology was expensive, not widely available and could not easily be deployed in match conditions. Very similar to the situation TODAY with testing for illegal actions.
So Jeff Thomson was measured at 160.6 but not in a match.
To me, that says "well clearly he could and did bowl that pace in matches."
Zaz
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Runs
- 18,336
I very much doubt anybody in the history of cricket has bowled in the 170s
No doubt thommo was extremely quick 90 mph plus at his peak but i doubt he bowled faster than lee or akhter st their peaks
What youve got to take into account is in those days aussie/caribbean pitches were extremely quick a lot more faster n bouncier than now Also batsman had to face these guys without helmets and adequate protection
All this added probably made him and the likes of holding etc a lot more faster mentally n difficult to face than a shoaib or lee 25 yrs later on the dead modern day pitches when batsman had trees for bats n were dressed like medieval soldiers
No doubt thommo was extremely quick 90 mph plus at his peak but i doubt he bowled faster than lee or akhter st their peaks
What youve got to take into account is in those days aussie/caribbean pitches were extremely quick a lot more faster n bouncier than now Also batsman had to face these guys without helmets and adequate protection
All this added probably made him and the likes of holding etc a lot more faster mentally n difficult to face than a shoaib or lee 25 yrs later on the dead modern day pitches when batsman had trees for bats n were dressed like medieval soldiers
Below is Shoaib Akhtar bowling on Indian wickets back in 1999, bounce, carry and pace he was unreal for those wickets... Thomo was fast, so was Akhtar, there is no reason(based on evidence and data) for me to believe Thomo was significantly faster or even faster then Akhtar...Akhtar was bowling in India where as Thomo in AUS, there is a big difference...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PEVgjZaIs4o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PEVgjZaIs4o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Last edited by a moderator:
Chief Destroyer
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- May 21, 2016
- Runs
- 10,763
Len Pascoe - the human radar gun.
If he really was bowling over 160, there would be plenty of videos of him beating batsmen before they could even bring their bat down.
If he really was bowling over 160, there would be plenty of videos of him beating batsmen before they could even bring their bat down.
kingusama92
ODI Captain
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Runs
- 45,518
- Post of the Week
- 1
KingKhanWC
World Star
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 50,455
What is it with Aussie fans going back decades to claim their cricketers were better, faster etc?
Speed gun technology was questionable even in the late 90's , it was not accurate at all in the 70's.
At best he looks 145k to me.
Akthar had a very rare action, along with his strong physique and a long fast run up, he was the one bowler to touch 100kmh. There may never be a faster bowler and there certainly wasn't one before.
Speed gun technology was questionable even in the late 90's , it was not accurate at all in the 70's.
At best he looks 145k to me.
Akthar had a very rare action, along with his strong physique and a long fast run up, he was the one bowler to touch 100kmh. There may never be a faster bowler and there certainly wasn't one before.
Abdullah719
T20I Captain
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2013
- Runs
- 44,825
Dunno about Thomson but look at the Indians jumping around on the back-foot in this video...
This is why Shoaib was my first choice in the 'most exciting cricketers' thread.
He was quick, with a slingy action, which on harder AUS wickets looked even faster. At this level, it's really tough to differentiate 159KM with 161KM.
One point I should mention that Thompson's fastest ball was clocked in a pace competition, where each bowler was supposed to bowl few (6 probably) balls. This was not in match condition, hence there was no front foot restriction - to me that's worth 5KM speed at least. Any pacer, if allowed to put his front foot at will, he should add few yards of pace. Second point is, this one from Holding's mouth (but can't recall when I heard) - every bowler bowled like match, that's on length, Thommo was the last to bowl (they designed it in a way that percived faster bowlers come later so that almost every round mileage is improved) and he bowled 6 beemers, that's ball crossing the wicket (measuring distance) at full without frictional loss of one bounce.
Still, I think he was quickest before 90s, definitely the fastest bowler in 70s, which had 3 other extremely fast bowlers - Roberts, Lillee & Holding. I believe, Lillee was the first man to cross 140KM in history, in 1970 Ashes - before that, lots of hot air & then reputed BBC commics exposing bluffs like - "Here comes Harrold Larwood, England's express man, bowling extremely fast at 70 miles per hour .................."
Just one small correction.
Jeff Thomson's "competition winning delivery" was the SLOWEST delivery ever recorded by him, 147.9K in the 1979 competition.
But this was three years after his shoulder reconstruction surgery, in the middle of a six month ban from all cricket, and he had come straight from a drunken lunch according to Kerry Packer himself.
Thommo was measured three times before his shoulder injury, at 160.45, 160.45 and 160.6.
[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
I am shocked by your suggestion that Dennis Lillee was the first man to hit a speed of 140K.
Firstly, it makes no sense. Why would Larwood, with a body hardened down the mines, not be physically able to reach those speeds?
Why would Trueman, a 365 day per year professional, somehow be stuck bowling at a lower pace - and why would Sobers and Kanhai both say that Lillee in the early 1970's bowled at a similar pace to Trueman in 1957?
Secondly, what does that say about the aviation and military technology of the 1950's, which measured Tyson and Statham, or the advanced analogue technology of the 1970's which allowed the first regular speed tests?
Planes and rockets and ordinance travelled at precisely the speeds recorded, yet you are saying that cricket balls for some reason were exempt from the laws of physics and could not be accurately measured?
Why?
For the record:
1) I believe the Australian university analysis of Larwood footage which placed him in the 140's.
2) I believe the New Zealand Aeronautical College testing which placed both Statham and Tyson in the 140's, but I recognise that both had arguably illegal actions.
3) I believe the 1975 and 1976 studies in scientific conditions - using multiple cameras to confirm release and impact position distances and angles - which measured Thomson at 161, Roberts at 159, Lillee at 155 and Holding at 153.
4) I have reservations about the 1979 competition which recorded everyone as > 10K slower than the 1975 and 1976 studies. It's there on YouTube: there is one camera, no ability to measure and factor in different release points or to do so with impact points. It allows a relative comparison or ordering of the bowlers' speed, but anyone with A Level Physics can see that the speeds are invalid because of the deficiencies that I have just listed.
I am shocked by your suggestion that Dennis Lillee was the first man to hit a speed of 140K.
Firstly, it makes no sense. Why would Larwood, with a body hardened down the mines, not be physically able to reach those speeds?
Why would Trueman, a 365 day per year professional, somehow be stuck bowling at a lower pace - and why would Sobers and Kanhai both say that Lillee in the early 1970's bowled at a similar pace to Trueman in 1957?
Secondly, what does that say about the aviation and military technology of the 1950's, which measured Tyson and Statham, or the advanced analogue technology of the 1970's which allowed the first regular speed tests?
Planes and rockets and ordinance travelled at precisely the speeds recorded, yet you are saying that cricket balls for some reason were exempt from the laws of physics and could not be accurately measured?
Why?
For the record:
1) I believe the Australian university analysis of Larwood footage which placed him in the 140's.
2) I believe the New Zealand Aeronautical College testing which placed both Statham and Tyson in the 140's, but I recognise that both had arguably illegal actions.
3) I believe the 1975 and 1976 studies in scientific conditions - using multiple cameras to confirm release and impact position distances and angles - which measured Thomson at 161, Roberts at 159, Lillee at 155 and Holding at 153.
4) I have reservations about the 1979 competition which recorded everyone as > 10K slower than the 1975 and 1976 studies. It's there on YouTube: there is one camera, no ability to measure and factor in different release points or to do so with impact points. It allows a relative comparison or ordering of the bowlers' speed, but anyone with A Level Physics can see that the speeds are invalid because of the deficiencies that I have just listed.
What was the reason for Holding, Roberts and others to also clock slower than their speeds in 1976 ?
FreakCricket
First Class Player
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2014
- Runs
- 2,634
Those initial deliveries seems like 135 at best to me, shoaib is way faster.
None of these speed's were measured in match condition - Channel Nine didn't have speed gun installed during matches, therefore that front foot disclaimer remains valid. And the beemer one, but I don't know.
Tell me one example of his speed where couple of umpires were watching his front foot & bowling height respectively. Otherwise, these stunt shows doesn't attract me much - I am little bit of a marketing guy, I have little knowledge of how media is used to hype their product in such cases. If we don't have any authorized speed record, there is not much difference for me between these private channel speed contest & guts feelings of Typhoon Tyson bowling at 170KM from 12 step run-up.
Even so, I do agree he was fastest in 74-75, as you can see in my earlier post; hence net-off that front foot issue, I give another say 7-10 KMs with that 147.9KM.
Regarding the technology of measuring speed, I really find some of your logic disturbing. Boeing 787 is slower than Concord not because suddenly modern technology went behind & these days they can't produce that speed. Rather, this is because a commercial aircraft operates at most cost effectively & safe at optimum speed - they calculated that speed with 3D aerodynamics which happens to be slower than Concord, that had a poor safety record. Another classic example is fighter jet - the latest US multi-role state of the art 5th generation military aircrafts are F-22 Raptor & F-35 Lightning - respectively they have top speed of Mach 2.2 & 1.7 .......... in 1970, Russian's introduced Foxbat (MIG - 25), which had a maximum speed of Mach 3.2. Now, please don't tell that Lockheed Martin couldn't put that speed in their $125bn project.
Muhammad10
T20I Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2013
- Runs
- 6,284
He doesn't appear to be bowling much quicker than 90MPH in the video in the OP. Not that I'm disputing whatever speeds of his were recorded in those days, but he doesn't look quite as pacy as Akhtar, Lee, Zahid, et al. to the naked eye, in my opinion.
We have discussed it in many other posts, I won't go there. Labron James or David Robinson could have kept couple of such miners in their pocket & forget after few minutes - that doesn't mean they'll reach 170KM; fast bowling doesn't work that way. And, I have no interest about what Sobers said - I am still waiting for your response regarding his assessment of his 1966 team vs Lloyd's 84 team.
Since you asked me, one of my relative was Bangladesh National batsman in 1980s, and he tried to convince me for his whole life that our GM Nowsher Price (another lefti pacer), was as fast as Wasim Akram ... based on his 4/5 balls he faced against Wasim. That's level of expectation - now his nephew, a fringe player, who has played few overs of Vaas in club cricket, smiles behind his uncle when his uncle tells that story. No disrespect, neither comparison, but for Sobers & Kanhai, it's a depiction of what their memory said - Truman was fastest in 1957, Lillee in 1971 - both must the at similar pace.......
I asked you several times, you avoided to response - one for the last time : you are a doctor - how it's possible for Truman or Tyson to bowl 18 overs/hour and 29 overs/day in a 110 over playing day, having less than 3 minutes rest between overs & 12-14 steps run up? For Larwood, take those figures to 20, 35 & 125 respectively.
Planes & rocket speed are measured in a scientific way that's explainable - 2000 years back, Romans used to measure their Chariot speed from the time (measured by a precision sand clock) taken between 2 spots of known distance ....... 200 years back, Steam engine speed was measured by the RPM X radius - every given time, either way result won't vary by even 1% ....... we are talking about bowling speed of same bowler measured in 5 years gap with 10% deviation here & there ......
I think, we should leave this argument here - I'll never be able to convince you that cricket skill is subjective, you can convince me that 200 years back when cricket was played in Sussex, Kent's village, every team had a batsman with the skill of Lara & bowling skills of Wasim or Warne - I won't argue on that, it's qualitative, may be.... But, you lost credibility, when you tried to bully with Tyson's 170KM .... after that epic footage - time & distance are universal unit, it was same in 2000 years ago as well. For me, I put it respectably - Maurice Tate or Syd Barnes didn't reach to WK earlier than what today's top ladies does - may be Larwood could have hurried them a bit more.
[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
I think I'm clear that Tyson was mainly fast-medium but could chuck a very fast ball.
But Tyson is before my time. Thomson is not.
This is a Jeff Thomson thread, and two things seem to be happening:
1. People are refusing to accept his scientifically recorded speeds in the 160's.
2. People are judging him on footage taken after his shoulder injury - which occured before coloured clothing was introduced into cricket.
It would actually be more accurate to judge Thomson's pace by this:
Look at the height at which Rod Marsh has to take the last few deliveries. That is serious heat.
I think I'm clear that Tyson was mainly fast-medium but could chuck a very fast ball.
But Tyson is before my time. Thomson is not.
This is a Jeff Thomson thread, and two things seem to be happening:
1. People are refusing to accept his scientifically recorded speeds in the 160's.
2. People are judging him on footage taken after his shoulder injury - which occured before coloured clothing was introduced into cricket.
It would actually be more accurate to judge Thomson's pace by this:
Look at the height at which Rod Marsh has to take the last few deliveries. That is serious heat.
Incidentally, the batsman in the clip above was Dennis Amiss.
Eighteen months later in the Oval Test he scored 203 in the match in which Michael Holding took 8-58 and 6-90.
So the batsman is no bunny. He scored 203 against Holding and Roberts the same summer that they were formally measured bowling at 153.2 and 157.4K respectively.
Eighteen months later in the Oval Test he scored 203 in the match in which Michael Holding took 8-58 and 6-90.
So the batsman is no bunny. He scored 203 against Holding and Roberts the same summer that they were formally measured bowling at 153.2 and 157.4K respectively.
I know he was fast, extremely fast through-out career, probably fastest in that 1974-75 series. I read something on that either from Mike Denness or Dennis Amis, but can't recall much. But, from that footage, how can you tell if he is 155km or 165km? He was flat out fast for sure - fastest ever, don't know; but not for me. Also, please remember that wickets at SCG, WACA, Gabba, Edbaston or Oval were extremely fast in 70s - which'll have it's impact on the trajectory.
Here is footage analysed frame-by-frame which could not separate out Thomson in 1975-76 from Shoaib Akhtar's fastest ever delivery.
Of note, there is extensive detail of how the 1975 speed tests were done, including the notable comment
"To those who claim "that old technology wasn't as accurate" the Photo-Sonics cameras they used took frames at up to 500 per second controlled by a digital phase locked loop. So they were VERY accurate and very expensive."
"He was measured, VERY ACCURATELY, at 160.45kph (or 99.79mph) during the Perth test match. That was his release speed, NOT the speed at the batsman's end. The University of Western Australia set up a high speed cine camera aligned to the bowling crease at each end of the pitch. They measured many deliveries from Thomson, Lillee, Roberts and Holding. Thommos two fastest deliveries were 160.45kph and 159.49kph. Roberts was 2nd quickest and the fastest they measured was 150.67kph. Holding's fastest was 148.54kph. Lillee was ill and nowhere near his best. So Thommo was, on that day in Perth, in a different league to the others."
Here is the comparison:
Of note, there is extensive detail of how the 1975 speed tests were done, including the notable comment
"To those who claim "that old technology wasn't as accurate" the Photo-Sonics cameras they used took frames at up to 500 per second controlled by a digital phase locked loop. So they were VERY accurate and very expensive."
"He was measured, VERY ACCURATELY, at 160.45kph (or 99.79mph) during the Perth test match. That was his release speed, NOT the speed at the batsman's end. The University of Western Australia set up a high speed cine camera aligned to the bowling crease at each end of the pitch. They measured many deliveries from Thomson, Lillee, Roberts and Holding. Thommos two fastest deliveries were 160.45kph and 159.49kph. Roberts was 2nd quickest and the fastest they measured was 150.67kph. Holding's fastest was 148.54kph. Lillee was ill and nowhere near his best. So Thommo was, on that day in Perth, in a different league to the others."
Here is the comparison:
This is really good job, appreciated. That's why both are in my fastest ever list - and that's why, I still believe, Cricket started to become a serious pro sports in late 60s, early 70s. Before that, it was more fun ..... before WW2, it was almost ....
So now that you all know that the 1975-76 Perth Test recordings of Jeff Thomson were filmed by the University of Western Australia using 500 frames per second Photo-Sonics High Speed Instrumentation Cameras developed for NASA and the US Air Force, do you still discount his fastest recordings in that match of:
160.45
159.49
If you do disagree, could you please list which features of the Photo-Sonics instrumentation system you dispute, and what your sources are for doing so?
I have to say for my part that I have somewhat changed my mind on Jeff Thomson.
I think I was wrong to attribute to him speeds of 170 or above. I think I need to stick to what was proven and measured using reputable technology.
That means that I now accept that he primarily operated in the 155-160 range at his peak, and that there is no record of him bowling faster than 160.6K, which is 0.7K slower than Shaoib Akhtar's fastest recorded delivery.
Then again, Shoaib had thousands of deliveries measured for speed, in dozens of matches. Thommo had less than 100 measured, in 1 match.
160.45
159.49
If you do disagree, could you please list which features of the Photo-Sonics instrumentation system you dispute, and what your sources are for doing so?
I have to say for my part that I have somewhat changed my mind on Jeff Thomson.
I think I was wrong to attribute to him speeds of 170 or above. I think I need to stick to what was proven and measured using reputable technology.
That means that I now accept that he primarily operated in the 155-160 range at his peak, and that there is no record of him bowling faster than 160.6K, which is 0.7K slower than Shaoib Akhtar's fastest recorded delivery.
Then again, Shoaib had thousands of deliveries measured for speed, in dozens of matches. Thommo had less than 100 measured, in 1 match.
Thanks, but I have to say "yes and no".
I have clearly moved my position in today's thread. As I wrote a few minutes ago, now I accept that Thommo was proven to be operating at less than 1K slower than Shoaib Akhtar's fastest delivery. I am no longer making claims about how much faster he might have operated, I'm saying:
"Jeff Thomson was measured in the only match in which he was ever measured as bowling at 160.45. This is consistent with other recordings of him that year and the year before in non-match conditions when he was recorded to bowl at 160.6 and the same 160.45. I think the technology - Photosonics high-speed cameras recording 500 frames per second - and methodology are now accepted by all parties - including myself - as valid and accurate."
But then comes the sting in the tail.
Thommo did not have the "benefits" of modern diet or training - although he was a champion javelin thrower. So what is the basis for arguing that 15 years earlier Fred Trueman and Neil Adcock did not bowl at least in the mid-140's, which is to say 15K slower than Thomson?
And if they did not, WHY did they not?
weren't you against this method of frame by frame measurement
To quote your post#23 above in this very thread:
This is the same method that I did for Tyson more than a year ago except that I posted each frame as a separate image .
ahmedwaqas92
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Runs
- 10,582
- Post of the Week
- 4
There is so much science happening in this post...It's unbelievable !!
You are confusing two separate themes in my post.
First and foremost, the technology for the actual speed measurement of 160.45 (not the 160.6) is now in our public domain and I think beyond dispute. We now know beyond any reasonable doubt that Jeff Thomson did bowl at 160.45K in the 1975-76 Perth Test (in which Roy Fredericks hit 169 against him!).
I don't think there can be any credible dispute of the 160.45 speed now that we know what the equipment was, how it was set up, who the manufacturer was and who was operating it. It has gone from being a claim to being a fact.
Secondly, the frame-by-frame comparison game doesn't generate a velocity. I don't claim that the Shoaib v Thomson frame comparison produces a valid speed. I say only what the person who posted it on YouTube says - it shows that the Thomson ball in question was so similar in velocity to Shoaib Akhtar's fastest ever ball that any difference in speed is within the margin of error.
[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] , I have clearly changed my positions in response to your arguments and the evidence before us.
I no longer make claims for what people might have bowled. I simply restrict myself to "the fastest measured Jeff Thomson delivery was the same speed as the fastest ever measured Shoaib Akhtar ball - 161K."
In reality, this isn't a black and white Donald Trump world. There are just shades of grey.
Incidentally, on that topic, I don't know if you have noticed me change my Frank Tyson opinion too. I actually give the credit for my Tyson change to you, but you are so set upon Absolute Victory that I'm not sure that you even notice the degree to which I have been persuaded.
I accept now that Tyson when bowling with a clean action was fast-medium, with an inefficient and ungainly action. I base this upon the measurement of his speed at 142K in Wellington in scientific conditions. That suggests to me a fast-medium bowler by modern standards who was trying to maximise his speed in test conditions.
But I think that the basis of his "Typhoon" reputation almost certainly came from illegally chucked deliveries. How else could a man with such a lousy action be viewed as quicker than a man with as fluent an action as Trueman? To me, the only answer - and one which fits with what we know of the 1950's - is that he chucked his faster balls.
Last edited:
This one explainable as well. Every sports has an improvement curve - which isn't flat. For example, take Bangladesh or Afghans - in last 5-6 years, the way these 2 teams have improved, at this rate by 2025, these 2 should be top 2 sides in world. But, that doesn't happen, because after a certain level, that increment comes to almost standstill. For exactly that same reason, we are not discussing why after 15 years of Thommo, Waquar wasn't bowling at 175KM & now Strac at 200KM.
Now, going backwards from Thommo, or more precisely from early 70s, the game was at the initial stage of modernization - coming to a certain level, just like BD or AFG (don't ever think that I am comparing Truman with Mashrafee or Laker with Nabi) - that progression was stiff in it's first 20 years (frankly speaking, cricket before WW2 was a joke for me - don't want to be disrespectful, but I have seen better cricket in club level than what old footage of 1920s & 30s Ashes shows, but I won't go there - those greats are still legends of the game).
Coming back to your question - again, it's the narrow pyramid at the top, once you have reached a certain level. From early 50s to early 70s, game changed in forward direction too fast - then settled at highest level for 3 decades, until idiots started to devalue the game - something similar we have seen in football, but without that self destruction like cricket. Starting just 20-25 years earlier than cricket, because soccer is more global game, we have seen the same rapid progression in soccer as well. You can see the footage of Italy of 1934, Hungary of 1954 & Brazil of 1970 - at that rate, every team today should have few Messi & Ronaldo on their bench.
So yes, I am convinced to myself, that, Truman never reached 140KM - may be 136KM sometimes - which was blown out of proportion, thus the way legends created. In fact, I would have been surprised, if I could have convinced myself, thinking that Truman or Lindwall was faster than Azhar Mahmood. But, as I have said many times - no disrespect; for 1950s batsmen, Truman was what Lille to Viv, Marshal to Border, or Wasim to Lara.
I'd just like to say that this thread highlights everything that is good about PakPassion.
It takes a major point of cricketing history which isn't even Pakistani, features a robust debate, incorporates scientific evidence sound enough for a courtroom, and then some of the major contributors amend their views on the basis of the arguments and evidence provided.
Oh, and even the people taking opposing views like each other and respect each other!
It's absolutely terrific.
It takes a major point of cricketing history which isn't even Pakistani, features a robust debate, incorporates scientific evidence sound enough for a courtroom, and then some of the major contributors amend their views on the basis of the arguments and evidence provided.
Oh, and even the people taking opposing views like each other and respect each other!
It's absolutely terrific.
True - both of us are probably too old to spend so much time here; but I find more fun here than, what you call socialization .....
This is a wonderful post. But I disagree with your nomination of the 1970's as when cricket had its great leap forward.
The first cricket book I ever got was "Cricket: The men and the game" by Tony Greig, which was released in May 1976, just before the West Indian series started. I got it for my seventh birthday!
In the book, Tony Greig made clear that he was about to recall Brian Close (aged 45) and John Edrich (aged 39) to open the batting, and he was going to do so because they had experience of batting against the pace of Trueman a dozen years earlier, whereas high-scoring younger county batsmen like Graham Barlow or even Mike Brearley did not.
Fred Trueman's career is ancient history now. But to the man plotting in 1976 to do better against Holding and Roberts than against Lillee and Thomson, he thought the way to do so was to recall batsmen who had experience with Trueman a dozen years earlier.
That tells me that the tipping point with fast bowling wasn't the early seventies, it was probably the early fifties.
My dad has seen both of them bowled live with naked eyes. Even though he is from 70s era and would argue to death that how awesome 70s era was and how great the players of that era were He has admitted that shoaib was quicker. I would trust his words more than anything just the sheer love for the game he has.
Last edited:
First off there are no "Victors" so to say in this debate ... to me its just great pleasure to be able to find someone that can partake in such a narrow topic. Very few people have the patience to go thru such painful analysis. So thanks for indulging with us unbelievers !
Secondly you have perhaps missed my post in that Tyson thread where I explained the basis. The basis was essentially a footage where Shoaib clean bowled Dravid with a ball bowled at 142Ks and they happened to show the time lapsed from Release till it hit the stumps. It was 0.56 Seconds IIRC. I used that as a basis to calculate approximately how much time elapsed between Tyson releasing the ball and it reaching the batsman it was almost the same time for 1.22+ meters less !. Sadly youtube took down that clip but I did save it on one of my laptops !! Will find it one of these days.
Don't worry, I completely believe you about Tyson!
We all have a degree of bias and wishful thinking, and I fully admit to my own.
You and I still disagree on minor details, but you have certainly got me to amend my beliefs about past bowlers.
I always knew that Thomson was express, because I saw him discomfort quality batsmen, even as late as the 82-83 Ashes, by which time I was into my teens.
Too many English - and West Indian - batsmen who straddled the generations have talked of Trueman's pace for me to discount it. The likes of Sobers and Kanhai lasted until Lillee (and Thomson in the case of Kanhai) and so I interpret that as meaning that Trueman really was well into the 140's. At least.
Which leaves me with the problem of Tyson. I never saw him bowl. He looks absolutely awful in the footage you have posted. The only way that I can reconcile that with what we know about Trueman is to attribute Tyson's reputation for pace to the well-known prevalence of chucking in the fifties.
How can it be (1950s)? The world went to self destruction for 3 decades (there was no war between 1920 to 1937, but you know how Europe or it's colonies were shedding blood in that entire period). It was the 50s, that probably started the continuous flourish of sports, art, culture across globe. USA was less impacted by the war, hence we see a tremendous growth in Hollywood, starting from 30s - Europe went 50 years back for those 2 wars & Yanks took the space to come to global leadership. Had Nepolean or Hitler not messed with Russian winter, probably today we would have written these blogs in French or German.
Cricket is a British game, which suffered most in 40s, because of the turmoil in British empire, not only from war. It's not cricket only, if you analyze other major sports - ENG/Britain had 2 bank decades - no great tennis player after Perry, not many golfer or athlete. Britain was one of the top sports nation till 1930s - it hardly won any gold medal at London (48) or Helsinki (52); English football team got knocked by Yanks in 1950 WC ..... that invincible of 1948 is another propaganda rubbish - Bradman's team blew a war torn England & it's Counties. People glorifies that 1948 team because of Bradman, but similarly after WW1, AUS hammered ENG 5-0 in 1920-21 Ashes. That ENG team after WW2, for 5-6 years, even lost to WI & India.
In that regard, I do have lots of respect for Truman, Laker, Compton, May, Dexter, Grevany, Barrington, Statham or Cowdray - but, they just started the rebirth of cricket, which is an English dominant game. Had that English generation not been there, cricket probably would have been an extinct game by now, or a niche sports like lawn bowling or lacrosse or Polo. It reached the mature stage after 20 years starting from 1950s - and, it reached it's zenith by those 2 wonderful teams of WI & AUS .... and those top class, extremely skilled, professional & dedicated cricketers of that golden generation for 3 decades till it went to the vultures.
[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION]
I disagree with your characterisation of the 1970's as the Great Leap Forward for ball sports.
For football, the single biggest leap was Uruguay's 1924 and 1928 Olympic victories, which led to the creation of the World Cup, and it was no coincidence that Argentina was the other finalist in 1930.
The 1974 and 1978 World Cups - the first two I watched - were actually a step backwards. The second big leap had been when Real Madrid put together Puskas, Di Stefano and Kopa in the mid-50's.
England may write the English language history of football, but it has always been a second rate footballing power.
As for cricket, the biggest loss in World War 2 was Hedley Verity, whose career was over. But this was not a trench warfare conflict. The reason why Keith Miller suddenly went from a batsman bowling 120K pies to a genuine fast bowler was because there wasn't much else to do in the Air Force during the day when off duty but play sport.
I think Cricket had two big leaps forward. They are the end of WW2, and Packer in 1977.
Since Packer, I think fielding and tail end batting has improved, but batting and bowling have gone backwards, as people pay more attention to limited overs conditions so that batsmen have weak defences and bowlers don't know how to get people out when they aren't attacking the bowling.
I disagree with your characterisation of the 1970's as the Great Leap Forward for ball sports.
For football, the single biggest leap was Uruguay's 1924 and 1928 Olympic victories, which led to the creation of the World Cup, and it was no coincidence that Argentina was the other finalist in 1930.
The 1974 and 1978 World Cups - the first two I watched - were actually a step backwards. The second big leap had been when Real Madrid put together Puskas, Di Stefano and Kopa in the mid-50's.
England may write the English language history of football, but it has always been a second rate footballing power.
As for cricket, the biggest loss in World War 2 was Hedley Verity, whose career was over. But this was not a trench warfare conflict. The reason why Keith Miller suddenly went from a batsman bowling 120K pies to a genuine fast bowler was because there wasn't much else to do in the Air Force during the day when off duty but play sport.
I think Cricket had two big leaps forward. They are the end of WW2, and Packer in 1977.
Since Packer, I think fielding and tail end batting has improved, but batting and bowling have gone backwards, as people pay more attention to limited overs conditions so that batsmen have weak defences and bowlers don't know how to get people out when they aren't attacking the bowling.
Junaids is not an aussie.
Railu Katta
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2016
- Runs
- 733
It's all false. He's bowling around 145k max.
Last edited by a moderator:
How did he manage to fool the 500 frames per second Photo-Sonics cameras?
And given that his speed was identical to Shoaib Akhtar's fastest ever delivery in the frame by frame comparison, how did Shoaib fool his cameras into recording 161 instead of 145?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well anyone with common cricket sense knows Shoaib was the fastest bowler ever. Naked eye, speed guns, a lot of batsman have Said Shoaib akhtar was the fastest. My friend meet Imran khan and he asked This question to him in 2010. Imran Said. Shoaib is the fastest he had seen in the air.
thanks so its basicallly bw thompson and shoaib.......
Read Reply 44!
I have just picked up one fascinating fact!
Shoaib Akhtar and Jeff Thomson were both shown in the frame-by-frame video comparison in TV footage recorded at 25 frames per second, which is what generated Shoaib's measurement of 161.3K.
But when the University of Western Australia measured Jeff Thomson using Photo-sonics military grade cameras, they actually filmed him at 500 frames per second, so with 20 times the sensitivity and accuracy of the technology used for Shoaib's delivery.
And yes, I am aware that Thommo was 0.85K slower than Shaoib on those measurements!
There's a 1960's Photo-sonics on sale on eBay for $295, but it hasn't worked for years!
Shoaib Akhtar and Jeff Thomson were both shown in the frame-by-frame video comparison in TV footage recorded at 25 frames per second, which is what generated Shoaib's measurement of 161.3K.
But when the University of Western Australia measured Jeff Thomson using Photo-sonics military grade cameras, they actually filmed him at 500 frames per second, so with 20 times the sensitivity and accuracy of the technology used for Shoaib's delivery.
And yes, I am aware that Thommo was 0.85K slower than Shaoib on those measurements!
There's a 1960's Photo-sonics on sale on eBay for $295, but it hasn't worked for years!
Last edited:
I've found an advert for the cameras used - I think - in the 1970's speed tests. They are so accurate that you can still rent them for US$2,200 per day!
And the comments above are correct. It really does film at up to 500 frames per second, i.e. with 20 times the accuracy and sensitivity of modern measurements.
Here's the advert!
..................................................................................................................................
Photo-Sonics Actionmaster-500 (aka Photosonics 16mm-1PL) and Angenieux 12-120 Lens
Description:
This standard 16mm camera was Photo-Sonics' most popular high-speed instrumentation film camera, originally launched in 1969. This camera is fitted with a reflexed front with Arri standard mount carries the Angenieux 12-120 lens and a rotatable viewfinder, making an excellent hand-held or shoulder-supported high speed 16mm film camera. The camera is a compact, self contained system, needing only external power. The camera comes with either a 'pistol grip' or 'shoulder pad-pistol grip' combination giving on/off camera control. Speed is accurately controlled by a digital phase-locked servo system, ranging from 10 to 500 fps. Built to a high standard with ruggedised components, it is suitable for use in harsh environments. Film magazines (200' & 400') are simple to load and are easily swapped a within a few seconds. The image is remarkably steady: there are two pulldown arms and two pins slide into film perforations holding the film steady, while a rotating shutter opens. That is, the mechanism is a pin registered movement, (aka 'intermittent film movement').
photo-sonics actionmaster 500 1PL
Features List:
Frame Rate = 10 to 500 frames in 3 seconds, infinitely variable 20 to 500 fps and selectable in two frame increments
Drive Motor = Single, permanent, magnet type
Power = 115VAC, ±10V, 50-400 Hz, 5A surge & 3A continuous 28VDC, ±4V, 24A surge & 12A continuous
Film Transport = Intermittent, single pulldown arm with two pins and two register pins
Shutter = Variable shutter ranges from 7.5° to 160° opening; fixed 90° shutter is optional
Timing Lights = Two LEDs, one on each side of the film outside picture area
Weight = Camera - 6 lbs, 200-Foot Magazine - 5 lbs (with film), 400-Foot Magazine - 8 lbs (with film)
Magazines = 200' daylight loading, 400' daylight loading
Rates:
£1300 equipment (day rate) & £375 per 10 hours for operator (inc. travel time). Operator overtime hours would be charged at time-and-a-half.
And the comments above are correct. It really does film at up to 500 frames per second, i.e. with 20 times the accuracy and sensitivity of modern measurements.
Here's the advert!
..................................................................................................................................
Photo-Sonics Actionmaster-500 (aka Photosonics 16mm-1PL) and Angenieux 12-120 Lens
Description:
This standard 16mm camera was Photo-Sonics' most popular high-speed instrumentation film camera, originally launched in 1969. This camera is fitted with a reflexed front with Arri standard mount carries the Angenieux 12-120 lens and a rotatable viewfinder, making an excellent hand-held or shoulder-supported high speed 16mm film camera. The camera is a compact, self contained system, needing only external power. The camera comes with either a 'pistol grip' or 'shoulder pad-pistol grip' combination giving on/off camera control. Speed is accurately controlled by a digital phase-locked servo system, ranging from 10 to 500 fps. Built to a high standard with ruggedised components, it is suitable for use in harsh environments. Film magazines (200' & 400') are simple to load and are easily swapped a within a few seconds. The image is remarkably steady: there are two pulldown arms and two pins slide into film perforations holding the film steady, while a rotating shutter opens. That is, the mechanism is a pin registered movement, (aka 'intermittent film movement').
photo-sonics actionmaster 500 1PL
Features List:
Frame Rate = 10 to 500 frames in 3 seconds, infinitely variable 20 to 500 fps and selectable in two frame increments
Drive Motor = Single, permanent, magnet type
Power = 115VAC, ±10V, 50-400 Hz, 5A surge & 3A continuous 28VDC, ±4V, 24A surge & 12A continuous
Film Transport = Intermittent, single pulldown arm with two pins and two register pins
Shutter = Variable shutter ranges from 7.5° to 160° opening; fixed 90° shutter is optional
Timing Lights = Two LEDs, one on each side of the film outside picture area
Weight = Camera - 6 lbs, 200-Foot Magazine - 5 lbs (with film), 400-Foot Magazine - 8 lbs (with film)
Magazines = 200' daylight loading, 400' daylight loading
Rates:
£1300 equipment (day rate) & £375 per 10 hours for operator (inc. travel time). Operator overtime hours would be charged at time-and-a-half.
KingKhanWC
World Star
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 50,455
I know he's English living in Australia but my point still stands.
We know how Aussies think.
McGrath - Best Pacer
Warne - Best Spinner
Bradman - Best bat
Gilchrist - Best WK
Any I missed?
Jeff Thomson's measured speed was 160 kmph or there abouts. In those days it was not possible to measure the pace in live matches. It is generally believed that in real matches he may have clocked faster than the speeds that he got recorded in "lab" conditions.
Hitman
Senior T20I Player
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Runs
- 17,345
Nothing wrong with the highlighted three in my opinion. Would you disagree?
KingKhanWC
World Star
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 50,455
I only agree with Warne. Bradman was the best in his era only. Gilchrist was a great batsmen but not the best with the gloves.
kingusama92
ODI Captain
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Runs
- 45,518
- Post of the Week
- 1
Gilchrist was no mug with the gloves. Revolutionized the position forever.
Just like your assessment of Bradman, keepers who couldn't bat were the best in their eras.
KingKhanWC
World Star
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 50,455
Im was just looking at his keeping. Boucher, Sanga and Dujon were better imo.
And some people are jealous of the Australian payers compared to theirs.
Specialisttailender
Tape Ball Captain
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2017
- Runs
- 1,081
Australians and English hype their players, not gonna believe this.
KingKhanWC
World Star
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 50,455
Not me. Id rather have Akram, Imran, Waqar, Anwar, Saqlain, Mushy etc. It can be argued who was better or not but I love the excitement and flare of Pakistan players. Wouldn't change it.
Proactive_
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2017
- Runs
- 1,378
I'm pretty sure Thomson must have touched 170 in his prime.. what a legend!
The_Odd_One
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2015
- Runs
- 8,950
Each and everyone of these players have a valid claim to those titles.
KingKhanWC
World Star
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Runs
- 50,455
Sure but there is no actual barometer to measure or confirm who is the best . It's all opinion based and stats dont tell you the story in any sport esp cricket.
On_the_up
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2008
- Runs
- 11,913
A 50 year old Dennis Lillie bowling to the 1999 Pakistan touring side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_1ei9FJPQI
The first wkt (Ghulam Ali) is actually caught by his son (Adam) at fine leg
The score card from the match.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/15759/scorecard/271712/ACB-Chairman's-XI-vs-Pakistanis-
Lillie had figures of 8-4-8-3
Dread to think what he'd done to them in his pomp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_1ei9FJPQI
The first wkt (Ghulam Ali) is actually caught by his son (Adam) at fine leg
The score card from the match.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/15759/scorecard/271712/ACB-Chairman's-XI-vs-Pakistanis-
Lillie had figures of 8-4-8-3
Dread to think what he'd done to them in his pomp.
Last edited:
Similar threads
