Fast bowling- What a shame!

B Lee is the ONLY fast bowler in the world who can consistently bowl at 90 mph+. No one knows when Shoaib or Tait will play a test match again so they don't count.

So why don't we see FAST bowlers any more? Is it too uncool to bowl fast?

Bowling stocks are in a pretty sad state the world over at the moment. In fact lets be real Cricket itself is going through a funny phase, as it often is. But we'll see how things turn out.

Excuse me. Dale Steyn and Morne Morkel can rev it up to over 90mph consistently.

Naeem you don't get it.

This is a veiled sook about figjam not playing.

Until last year, so could Freddie and GBH.

Bond must be close as well.

Fidel Edwards, Jerome Taylor and Daren Powell versus Mitchell Johnson and Brett Lee on some quickish pitches was a refreshing contest. That was only months ago.

For once in their lifetimes, India have one or two that go above 90.

taipan wrote:Bond must be close as well.

Aye.

What's the point in whazzing it in at 90mph continuously these days?

The specifically prepared batsman-friendly feather-beds today would only break a bowler's
physique, heart and resolve if he were to pound in 90 to 120 times a day
hurling the ball in continuously at that speed!

What IS a much better option is to have that 90mph missile as your shock ball,
once maybe twice an over (as BLee does) - a bouncer or the yorker - a bit of
chin music and/or toe twitching stuff to work the batsman over.

I've noticed that Bung's now 84-96mph. He used to be about 90-96. Think Cooleys had a word, being as Bung's 31. He's a better bowler due to a more consistant line and length. That's what's required.

Merlin wrote:What's the point in whazzing it in at 90mph continuously these days?

The specifically prepared batsman-friendly feather-beds today would only break a bowler's
physique, heart and resolve if he were to pound in 90 to 120 times a day
hurling the ball in continuously at that speed!

What IS a much better option is to have that 90mph missile as your shock ball,
once maybe twice an over (as BLee does) - a bouncer or the yorker - a bit of
chin music and/or toe twitching stuff to work the batsman over.

Indeed. If the relative success of McGrath, Pollock and to a lesser extent Hoggard compared to Lee and Harmison is any indication line, length and intelligence at 80mph+ will always beats short, wide crap at 90mph+.

Lee, Malinga, Tait, Steyn, Morkel, Edwards, Taylor, Ishant, Flintoff......It aint all bad.

The featherbeds mentioned, the frequency of international cricket too. Giving little recovery time (esp the back-to-backs).

You'd think modern fitness regimes would help to alleviate that. Sometimes it's as if they make it worse. Fast bowlers shouldn't be pounding on a daily basis. Well, at least not their hips and ankles.

Look how many of the above have had injury problems when bowling at top speeds (90 mph + ) sooner or later - sometimes chronic. Was always a professional hazard of fast bowling - never more than in the last 5-10 years.

As mentioned above, what's the advantage of bowling at 100 mph if you get more wickets at 82? Souped-up adrenaline rushes and a lust for glory only go so far.

I am much happier about seam bowling stocks these days than I was a couple of years ago. Plenty of promising seamers coming through from all countries.

International cricket has become like county cricket in England - there's just no downtime, no real break between games, so fast bowlers are being killed off - or they're "pacing themselves" for the long, arduous days ahead.

What can you do?

Dello wrote:International cricket has become like county cricket in England - there's just no downtime, no real break between games, so fast bowlers are being killed off - or they're "pacing themselves" for the long, arduous days ahead.

What can you do?

Load of bollocks. Back in the day, they used to bowl more overs.

Don't make me take your stars away.

Only a few like Fiery Fred and Frank Tyson were fast fast though. And what happened to The Typhoon. ...?

Whereas Fred had to keep engineering spats wih ' toffs to get dropped.

Also the CC featured shorter, three-day games on uncovered pitches. Shorter innings. 150-200 all out (like Lancs - some things never change) rather than 580-3 declared. ....

Henry wrote:Lee, Malinga, Tait, Steyn, Morkel, Edwards, Taylor, Ishant, Flintoff......It aint all bad.

consistently over 90 mph?
Superman, Ishant, Taylor etc may bowl ONE ball in the entire spell at over 90 mph. In the recent tests vs SL Ishant's fastest spell was about 135-142 while Fred's fastest ball of the last 2 tests was around 88 mph. Morkel and Steyn bowl at around 87 mph...so if these are the world's fastest bowlers then they really need some carrots.

Dello wrote:Don't make me take your stars away.

How vindictive is that?

This weirdo bar is ok. There's no ranking. Does this mean I've got 'Uptown Top Ranking'? Wow. Never achieved that in real life.

It means Dello thinks you're flip-floppy.

PlanetPakistan wrote:

Henry wrote:Lee, Malinga, Tait, Steyn, Morkel, Edwards, Taylor, Ishant, Flintoff......It aint all bad.

consistently over 90 mph?
Superman, Ishant, Taylor etc may bowl ONE ball in the entire spell at over 90 mph. In the recent tests vs SL Ishant's fastest spell was about 135-142 while Fred's fastest ball of the last 2 tests was around 88 mph. Morkel and Steyn bowl at around 87 mph...so if these are the world's fastest bowlers then they really need some carrots.

Do you realise how rare 90mph+ bowlers are?

Speed guns weren't around in the 80s, but i'll wager that Holding, Roberts, Marshall and Garner all bowled a typical spell in the 84-88mph range, only typically touching 90mph for the occasional ball. It was their accuracy, and other attributes (steepling bounce, swing, rhythm) that made them so effective.

Only a few bowlers in history - e.g. Tyson, Malcolm, Thomson, the young Donald, young Waqar, Gilchrist? could (probably) bowl a spell consistently over 90mph. And even then this made some of them wildly inaccurate.

Gary 111 wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:

Henry wrote:Lee, Malinga, Tait, Steyn, Morkel, Edwards, Taylor, Ishant, Flintoff......It aint all bad.

consistently over 90 mph?
Superman, Ishant, Taylor etc may bowl ONE ball in the entire spell at over 90 mph. In the recent tests vs SL Ishant's fastest spell was about 135-142 while Fred's fastest ball of the last 2 tests was around 88 mph. Morkel and Steyn bowl at around 87 mph...so if these are the world's fastest bowlers then they really need some carrots.

Do you realise how rare 90mph+ bowlers are?

Speed guns weren't around in the 80s, but i'll wager that Holding, Roberts, Marshall and Garner all bowled a typical spell in the 84-88mph range, only typically touching 90mph for the occasional ball. It was their accuracy, and other attributes (steepling bounce, swing, rhythm) that made them so effective.

Only a few bowlers in history - e.g. Tyson, Malcolm, Thomson, the young Donald, young Waqar, Gilchrist? could (probably) bowl a spell consistently over 90mph. And even then this made some of them wildly inaccurate.

You are telling me that Holding was as quick as Anderson- sorry i don't buy that.

Both of the 2 Ws were 90 mph+ before 1995. Zahid, M Sami, Shoaib bowled at well over 90 mph+ now PAK don't have a single 90 mph+.

Fact that Lee( age of 30+) is by far the world's fastest bowler shows how slow these "youngsters" are. Its a real shame TBH.

PlanetPakistan wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

PlanetPakistan wrote:

Henry wrote:Lee, Malinga, Tait, Steyn, Morkel, Edwards, Taylor, Ishant, Flintoff......It aint all bad.

consistently over 90 mph?
Superman, Ishant, Taylor etc may bowl ONE ball in the entire spell at over 90 mph. In the recent tests vs SL Ishant's fastest spell was about 135-142 while Fred's fastest ball of the last 2 tests was around 88 mph. Morkel and Steyn bowl at around 87 mph...so if these are the world's fastest bowlers then they really need some carrots.

Do you realise how rare 90mph+ bowlers are?

Speed guns weren't around in the 80s, but i'll wager that Holding, Roberts, Marshall and Garner all bowled a typical spell in the 84-88mph range, only typically touching 90mph for the occasional ball. It was their accuracy, and other attributes (steepling bounce, swing, rhythm) that made them so effective.

Only a few bowlers in history - e.g. Tyson, Malcolm, Thomson, the young Donald, young Waqar, Gilchrist? could (probably) bowl a spell consistently over 90mph. And even then this made some of them wildly inaccurate.

You are telling me that Holding was as quick as Anderson- sorry i don't buy that.

Both of the 2 Ws were 90 mph+ before 1995. Zahid, M Sami, Shoaib bowled at well over 90 mph+ now PAK don't have a single 90 mph+.

Fact that Lee( age of 30+) is by far the world's fastest bowler shows how slow these "youngsters" are. Its a real shame TBH.

Sorry - but that just plainly wrong.

Firstly, Brett Lee is probably physically the finest fast bowler ever - no-one has ever bowled as fast as him allied to his incredible fitness (will run in all day) and has played many matches with relatively few injuries - Tyson, Thomson, Waqar - their bodies were a mess at Lee's age because of injuries. Not saying Lee was better (has lacked a cricketing brain for most of his career) but day in day out he was faster.

Secondly, Shoaib didn't always *bowl*, and how many matches did he miss through injury? How many matches did Zahid play full stop? And Sami - bowled the occasional ball well over 90 mph+, but his average spell wasn't as fast as you make out. Plus it was sprayed all over the play. Sami has never been good enough to play international cricket.

Thirdly, Mikey Holding was such as great bowler because of his wonderful easy rhythmical approach. As a young tearaway e.g. Oval '76, yes he was probably quicker than Anderson - but for the most part of his career in the 80s an average spell would be 84-88mph. Just much more accurate than Anderson (without the legside filth), bit more bounce (higher at the point of delivery), and the fact he was so loose limbed and rhymical makes it hard for the batsman to pick up the line and length of the ball early, whereas Jimmy Anderson's jerky and non-repeating action gives them a significant clue before the ball is bowled. So yes, Anderson is as quick as Holding was, but its not all about pace - its about what the ball does, not how fast it does it.



Its amazing the effect speed guns have had on judging bowlers. But great bowlers - e.g. McGrath, never seem to give the batsman any time to react. I've often seen McGrath hit batsmen with bouncers and have them late on a shot - despite the speed guns claims that Collingwood bowls at roughly the same pace, i've never seen him do this. So you would think from watching Holding that he was lightning fast, because he was so good, ditto Curtly Ambrose, in reality they were both high 80s, whereas Devon Malcolm would have been mid 90s for many of his spells. Its just that they were better than Malcolm.