Were The bolwers in the 70s and 80s really faster than mordern bolwers

[SciD]

I Dont Know Anything But Curtley Ambrose Could Bowl Fast. Seriously.

 

[Animator!]

I think as a general rule. There were more bowlers who could hit late 80's early 90's a lot more than there are now. However I think in this current era we have more bowlers who can bowl exceptionally quick.

 

[manee]

I think as a general rule. There were more bowlers who could hit late 80's early 90's a lot more than there are now.

I disagree, I just think that these sorts of bowlers were more troublesome for batsman twenty years ago than now - so they made their international teams more readily. For example, in India alone, there is RP Singh, Sreesanth and Zaheer Khan who can hit 88mph in the Indian team but even outside it, there is Rakesh Patel and Shivastava who can touch that sort of pace and India is renouned for having LOW stocks of fast bowlers.

 

[Animator!]

Yes, but that can easily be outweighed by the fact that in 70's and 80's the West Indies alone had around 15 bowlers who reached 90+ and only around 5 of them ever played Test Cricket.

 

[khan31]

well that is the only real evidence I can find. It clearly shows that the speedsters of the late 70s werent that quick.

 

[Gilly Fan]

So how did Geoff Thompson get to 160kph?

 

[harishankar]

I think we get the impression of speed of olden days (50s and early 60s) cricket because we see those old cinema-scope movies where the frames move very quickly and it appears that the bowlers are speeding up to the wicket and hurling missiles.

 

[Cricket_god]

I disagree, I just think that these sorts of bowlers were more troublesome for batsman twenty years ago than now - so they made their international teams more readily. For example, in India alone, there is RP Singh, Sreesanth and Zaheer Khan who can hit 88mph in the Indian team but even outside it, there is Rakesh Patel and Shivastava who can touch that sort of pace and India is renouned for having LOW stocks of fast bowlers.

sreesanth and rp have hit 149.5 means 92 miles

 

[angryangy]

THIS POST IS IMPERIAL FRIENDLY
160 kph = 99 mph
150 kph = 93 mph
140 kph = 87 mph
130 kph = 81 mph

Speed guns measure the speed from the point of release from the bowler's hand, not the average speed of the ball during its entire journey from bowler's hand to batsman's bat. So a bouncer or a short ball wouldn't be registered as a slow ball.

Nevertheless, a full ball should spend a fraction more time in the bowler's hand. It benefits from more acceleration and therefore should be on average a faster delivery out-of-the-hand.

So how did Geoff Thompson get to 160kph?

Aside from Thomson being in his post-shoulder period (in fact, several of those players were either past or before their best efforts), the technique used to measure speed is different to the speed gun method now used and widely regarded to have underestimated the pace of each bowler, albeit probably serving to rank them fairly.

It contradicted observations produced in match and reported in the book, The Art of Fast Bowling (Lillee, Dennis/Brayshaw, Ian; 1977; Collins).

It was in the 75-76 summer that Thomson was clocked at 160.45 kph, with high-speed cameras said to be more accurate than modern radar (but apparently much slower to produce a reading).

At the 2nd Test at the WACA in late 1975, the readings were as follows;

Jeff Thomson 160.45 kph
Andy Roberts 159.49 kph
Michael Holding 150.67 kph
Dennis Lillee 148.54 kph

Somewhat ironically, Roy Fredericks pulverised Lillee and Thommo that game, scoring 169 in 145 balls as the team made 585 in only 95.4 (8 ball) overs.

A second study was conducted in controlled conditions the following year.

Jeff Thomson 160.6 kph
Andy Roberts 157.4 kph
Dennis Lillee 154.8 kph
Michael Holding 153.2 kph
Wayne Daniel 150.8 kph
Bob Willis 145.9 kph
Alan Ward 139.2 kph
John Snow 138.7 kph

It might be worth pointing out that bowlers such as Gough and Gillespie have been gauged at 150, not that they hit it consistently like Lee or Akhtar, so we are still faced with limited evidence.

I think as has been said, that in those times being fast was a lot more important to success. The current Australian team might be able to pick 3 genuinely fast bowlers of the style of the 70s era, but less than 5 years ago, the focus was on McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz, with none of them hitting 150 kph, pretty much all three of them relying on their height, accuracy and movement off the seam. It was effective, too effective for any young firebrand to crack through and Lee meanwhile was famously noted as the world's best paid waiter, acting as 12th man on an astonishing sequence of series.

 

[Cricket_god]

THIS POST IS IMPERIAL FRIENDLY
160 kph = 99 mph
150 kph = 93 mph
140 kph = 87 mph
130 kph = 81 mph


Nevertheless, a full ball should spend a fraction more time in the bowler's hand. It benefits from more acceleration and therefore should be on average a faster delivery out-of-the-hand.


Aside from Thomson being in his post-shoulder period (in fact, several of those players were either past or before their best efforts), the technique used to measure speed is different to the speed gun method now used and widely regarded to have underestimated the pace of each bowler, albeit probably serving to rank them fairly.

It contradicted observations produced in match and reported in the book, The Art of Fast Bowling (Lillee, Dennis/Brayshaw, Ian; 1977; Collins).

It was in the 75-76 summer that Thomson was clocked at 160.45 kph, with high-speed cameras said to be more accurate than modern radar (but apparently much slower to produce a reading).

At the 2nd Test at the WACA in late 1975, the readings were as follows;

Jeff Thomson 160.45 kph
Andy Roberts 159.49 kph
Michael Holding 150.67 kph
Dennis Lillee 148.54 kph

Somewhat ironically, Roy Fredericks pulverised Lillee and Thommo that game, scoring 169 in 145 balls as the team made 585 in only 95.4 (8 ball) overs.

A second study was conducted in controlled conditions the following year.

Jeff Thomson 160.6 kph
Andy Roberts 157.4 kph
Dennis Lillee 154.8 kph
Michael Holding 153.2 kph
Wayne Daniel 150.8 kph
Bob Willis 145.9 kph
Alan Ward 139.2 kph
John Snow 138.7 kph

It might be worth pointing out that bowlers such as Gough and Gillespie have been gauged at 150, not that they hit it consistently like Lee or Akhtar, so we are still faced with limited evidence.

I think as has been said, that in those times being fast was a lot more important to success. The current Australian team might be able to pick 3 genuinely fast bowlers of the style of the 70s era, but less than 5 years ago, the focus was on McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz, with none of them hitting 150 kph, pretty much all three of them relying on their height, accuracy and movement off the seam. It was effective, too effective for any young firebrand to crack through and Lee meanwhile was famously noted as the world's best paid waiter, acting as 12th man on an astonishing sequence of series.

is the speed gun more accurate?

 

[ivanvdm15]

unless they were chuckers i don't think they are faster than modern bowlers.

 

[manee]

Aside from Thomson being in his post-shoulder period (in fact, several of those players were either past or before their best efforts), the technique used to measure speed is different to the speed gun method now used and widely regarded to have underestimated the pace of each bowler, albeit probably serving to rank them fairly.

It contradicted observations produced in match and reported in the book, The Art of Fast Bowling (Lillee, Dennis/Brayshaw, Ian; 1977; Collins).

It was in the 75-76 summer that Thomson was clocked at 160.45 kph, with high-speed cameras said to be more accurate than modern radar (but apparently much slower to produce a reading).

At the 2nd Test at the WACA in late 1975, the readings were as follows;

Jeff Thomson 160.45 kph
Andy Roberts 159.49 kph
Michael Holding 150.67 kph
Dennis Lillee 148.54 kph

A second study was conducted in controlled conditions the following year.

Jeff Thomson 160.6 kph
Andy Roberts 157.4 kph
Dennis Lillee 154.8 kph
Michael Holding 153.2 kph
Wayne Daniel 150.8 kph
Bob Willis 145.9 kph
Alan Ward 139.2 kph
John Snow 138.7 kph

Yet another quality post - brilliant!

This is thoroughly interesting that cameras which have been seen to be more accurate than those of today have produced those readings. I would be interested to see the similarity or difference in the readings if both cameras were pointed at one bowler bowling one delivery.

Having seen the bowlers bowl in clips, I find it hard to believe that Daniel could touch 150.8kph with the falling away in his action. However, it makes perfect sense to me that Dennis Lillee could bowl 154.8kph simply because of his long, quick run up and picture perfect side on action action and follow through.

An interesting tidbit is that Michael Holding bowled in 2001 for Sky on the speed gun and whilst Botham and Willis clocked in the mid 70s mph range (as would be expected), Holding hit 86mph (138.4kph).

Although I have not seen him bowl, I can imagine Willis cranking it up too, you just have to hear him on Sky Sports to realise that he has a lot of pent up anger inside.

unless they were chuckers i don't think they are faster than modern bowlers.

Care to elabourate?

I Dont Know Anything But Curtley Ambrose Could Bowl Fast. Seriously.

I'm not sure about that, I believe he had more bounce and control than raw pace.

Here is an analysis of his action I did on another site.

Curtley Ambrose

Run Up:

He has a good rhythmic run up but could perhaps have benefited from longer strides to the crease. His run up is not express sprinting and although it is fine to jog briskly to the crease, it is no coincidence that Shoaib Akhtar, Brett Lee and Shaun Tait who have all held positions as the fastest bowlers in the world all sprinted in to the crease.

Jump:

He has a fantastic jump to the crease which keeps him in control whilst making good ground. The jump could be longer with a faster run up though.

He ends the jump with a high front knee ready to pound onto the pitch. This is the perfect example for strength based fast bowlers and is a main component of Andrew Flintoff's action.

Arms during gather:

The forearm aims toward the target in a unique way which allows a front on action with perfect control against the left hander and right hander alike. The bowling arm is kept in front of, yet close to the body which means that the weight is going forward but the posture remains strong.

The bowling arm stretches back and this is one of the neglected principles of fast bowling. It gives him tremendous leverage. The combination of leverage and his incredible strength was the reason he could bowl it at approximately 85mph.

Release:

Very high arm which gives the bounce off the wicket. Good wrist position which is always behind the line of the ball. Ambrose always hits the pitch hard and combined with his bounce and leverage is the reason for his largely unrivalled record.

Follow Through:

The head falls away in the action, much like the lion share of fast bowlers and I think this accounts for his lack of frightening pace against the left hander but he has managed to account for these flaws to a great extent.

He fails to throw his upper body at the batsman with the full ball and it is an extremely flawed way to do this as it can lead to terrible back injuries but allows him to bowl the ball exactly where he wants.

The arms follow through well and he completes the action with the arms well.

The legs do not follow through well and, like Glenn Mcgrath, this loss of pace comes at a return of bounce off the wicket as he stands upright throughout the action.

Overall:

The action results in fine accuracy and good bounce but many flaws reduce the pace of the big man. However, brilliant use of leverage manages to get him up to a fast-medium pace.

 

[RoboRocks]

I would of thought that Holding was quicker than Daniel due to what Manee said since Holding had one of the most purest run up and action that has been seen. He must of been quick to take 14 wickets in 1977 at The Oval on a dry pitch.

I didn't think Lillee bowled as fast as that. I thought he bowled 145 kph (89-90mph) since he's not reffered to as the "speed demon" like Thomson is.

Andy Roberts is interesting, 159.49kph with the angle he is able to create during delivery will be very hard to face.
I would like to of seen Colin Croft's speeds since his angle which so wide of the crease its nearly off the pitch so anything over 150kph would be task to even survive since the ball is always coming in at you.

 

[Cricket_god]

I would of thought that Holding was quicker than Daniel due to what Manee said since Holding had one of the most purest run up and action that has been seen. He must of been quick to take 14 wickets in 1977 at The Oval on a dry pitch.

I didn't think Lillee bowled as fast as that. I thought he bowled 145 kph (89-90mph) since he's not reffered to as the "speed demon" like Thomson is.

Andy Roberts is interesting, 159.49kph with the angle he is able to create during delivery will be very hard to face.
I would like to of seen Colin Croft's speeds since his angle which so wide of the crease its nearly off the pitch so anything over 150kph would be task to even survive since the ball is always coming in at you.

With ahigh arm action it is difficult to get that kind of speed,i think if there
speeds were measured with the mordern speed guns they would be in the 145-150 range

 

[aussie1st]

The only measure we have is the speeds recorded as Angy showed. Doesn't seem to be any clear difference in pace. Also I can't see how medium pacers would trouble some of the batters in the past. So by that logic I would say there isn't much of a difference.