Who is the fastest bowler in the world today?

Henry wrote:Thommo.

Talking of Thommo, Greg Chappell's who's not one for hyberbole, is convinced that he was bowling at 170 kms before the Alan Turner-induced injury based on watching him close up and comparing him with what he sees of today's bowlers close up. He said that he was recorded at 160 ks on equipment which was sub-standard and known to underestimate and believes that had he been measured on today's equipment, he would have registered around 170. If you listen to Thommo nowadays though, he is inclined to suggest that he was bowling closer to 190.

Finn bowled quite fast today

Red wrote:

Henry wrote:Thommo.

Talking of Thommo, Greg Chappell's who's not one for hyberbole, is convinced that he was bowling at 170 kms before the Alan Turner-induced injury based on watching him close up and comparing him with what he sees of today's bowlers close up. He said that he was recorded at 160 ks on equipment which was sub-standard and known to underestimate and believes that had he been measured on today's equipment, he would have registered around 170. If you listen to Thommo nowadays though, he is inclined to suggest that he was bowling closer to 190.

Didn't GSC say that Suresh Raina was a once in a generation type player?

He isn't wrong, is he? Just turned out to be in the negative sense.

I can't understand how he came to the conclusion that speed would have increased, there's equally a great chance that Thommo bowled 150 but got recorded as 160. Error in technology does go both ways and I can't see anyone be 170 fast when Akhtar, Lee and Tait like players barely touched 160.

JGK wrote:

Red wrote:

Henry wrote:Thommo.

Talking of Thommo, Greg Chappell's who's not one for hyberbole, is convinced that he was bowling at 170 kms before the Alan Turner-induced injury based on watching him close up and comparing him with what he sees of today's bowlers close up. He said that he was recorded at 160 ks on equipment which was sub-standard and known to underestimate and believes that had he been measured on today's equipment, he would have registered around 170. If you listen to Thommo nowadays though, he is inclined to suggest that he was bowling closer to 190.

Didn't GSC say that Suresh Raina was a once in a generation type player?

Maybe he's right, he would be the worst in this generation at playing bounce in test matches wouldn't he? - once in a generation perhaps.

Seriously though Raina's only a judgement call but he is not one for making big statements as a rule. His Thommo call was based on seeing generations of bowlers close up. Also when Thommo was clocked at 160 it was after his shoulder had been wrecked and all from his era say that he was never the same bowler after the injury. A few years back I managed to get a video of quite extensive highlights of all the tests from the 1974/5 series and he looks bloody fast, even compared with Lillee. Chappell said he's the only bowler he ever knew not to have to pitch the ball that short to have it spit disconcertingly at the batsman such was his pace. And he maintains the sandshoe crusher that bowled over Greig in the Brisbane test was maybe the quickest ball he had ever seen.

Put the speed guns away and measure them on fast capture photography. No-one (or organisation) will do it because you'll find out Thommo was a couple of yards quicker than anyone.

Bradman wrote:Put the speed guns away and measure them on fast capture photography. No-one (or organisation) will do it because you'll find out Thommo was a couple of yards quicker than anyone.

Phurt. Larwood was quicker.

There's no doubt Thommo was fast. Most likely the fastest ever. But relapse points make a big difference to relative quickness. From what I've read, Thommo was one of the hardest toick up the release of the ball because his delivery started from behind his back. So Thommo may have played faster than he was in raw terms.

Alternatively, in Ed lCowans book he said that Brett Lee gave a very good sight of the ball which made him a lot easier to play despite his pace.l

... relapse points?

I think Thommo would rate as the fastes bowler I've witnessed - maybe the young Macca would be a close second.

As for the fastest ever - who knows, it's probably between Thommo, Tyson and Larwood.

shoaib

Shoaib? You're having a laugh. Weak as piss.

Bradman wrote:Put the speed guns away and measure them on fast capture photography. No-one (or organisation) will do it because you'll find out Thommo was a couple of yards quicker than anyone.

I don't trust the technology either - for some reason bowling speeds in ODIs (white ball) seem to me to be quicker than in tests (red ball). I don't think that it's anything to do with bowlers holding themselves back in tests either.

The One wrote:shoaib

Only if he chucked it.

Hmmm, didn't Richie say it was Ernie Jones? Didn't Altham say Kotze was faster than Jones and that Kortright was faster than Kotze? I'm going for Kortright, on that basis alone.

lardbucket wrote:Shoaib? You're having a laugh. Weak as piss.

lol. sure. you old codgers carry on about how back in your day the women were prettier, the men were stronger and life was better

I think essentially that Shoaib could be taken as the fastest bowler by fact. Speed guns are accurate nowadays and he bowled a 100MPH ball. It would be quite silly to argue the toss as it's there for all to see. However, to not acknowledge the older players who came from a time before accurate speed guns and add them into the debate is just as silly IMO. It also smacks of a lack of knowledge, as well.

taipan wrote:

Bradman wrote:Put the speed guns away and measure them on fast capture photography. No-one (or organisation) will do it because you'll find out Thommo was a couple of yards quicker than anyone.

Phurt. Larwood was quicker.

Word .... Larwood ... shame he's dead, so he doesn't count.

I'd go Steyn today ...

Bent-arm Shoaib was quick, but ... he did bend his elbow a tad when delivering his quicker ball.

Merlin wrote:

taipan wrote:

Bradman wrote:Put the speed guns away and measure them on fast capture photography. No-one (or organisation) will do it because you'll find out Thommo was a couple of yards quicker than anyone.

Phurt. Larwood was quicker.

Word .... Larwood ... shame he's dead, so he doesn't count.

I'd go Steyn today ...

Bent-arm Shoaib was quick, but ... he did bend his elbow a tad when delivering his quicker ball.

Tell me, how do you KNOW that Larwood was the quickest ever bowler?

Basil wrote:

Tell me, how do you KNOW that Larwood was the quickest ever bowler?

I read about it ... t'was well documented at the time ...and I have my old man's word for it ... who DID see him bowl.

NB. Unless one has actually witnessed / seen a fast bowler, htf can anyone say for certain that
a was quicker than b who was quicker than c and so on.
And purleeese, let's leave speed guns out of the debate - they've oft been proven to be misleading.

PS - So, just to clarify .... I wasn't around when Larwood bowled - so all I have to go on were the words written at the time/spoken later about his "ferocious" speed. That's good enough for me.

Next ....?

Merlin wrote:

Basil wrote:

Tell me, how do you KNOW that Larwood was the quickest ever bowler?

I read about it ... t'was well documented at the time ...and I have my old man's word for it ... who DID see him bowl.

NB. Unless one has actually witnessed / seen a fast bowler, htf can anyone say for certain that
a was quicker than b who was quicker than c and so on.
And purleeese, let's leave speed guns out of the debate - they've oft been proven to be misleading.

PS - So, just to clarify .... I wasn't around when Larwood bowled - so all I have to go on were the words written at the time/spoken later about his "ferocious" speed. That's good enough for me.

Next ....?

Well, your previous comment read like a statement set in stone. Glad you're actually agreeing with me!

My previous comment was my opinion of Larwood's speed based upon the explanations I offered.

Don't exactly know what I'm supposed to agree with you on though?!!

Merlin wrote:My previous comment was my opinion of Larwood's speed based upon the explanations I offered.

Don't exactly know what I'm supposed to agree with you on though?!!

Basically that it's well nigh impossible to pass judgement on which bowler is the fastest ever.

And even today it is impossible.

I have serious doubts about Aussie speed gums.

taipan wrote:And even today it is impossible.

I have serious doubts about Aussie speed gums.

Their speed guns are pretty crap too!