A tribute to Jimmy

[Arthur Crabtree]

I don't think it's something that can definitely be quantified. It's a spectator sport and an element of theatre comes into it, and the time in our lives when these things happen. And our own personality.

First series I saw was the WI pace attack of '76 against a pretty grey and flabby England batting line up. So the excitement and flair and loose limbed nonchalance of Holding made a big impression. But maybe knocking over England back then wasn't such a big deal. I know his stats aren't quite top notch, but still very good. And he lost a few of his peak years to Packer.

I respect the way Anderson adapted his game to conditions which didn't naturally suit him, and presume it took a lot of dedication to get there. Sort of like an anti-Botham, who had a lot of natural talent but decided it was cooler not to care.

To me, Anderson was a bit of a grinder. And Steyn was more of a firework display. And that spectacle has an emotional impact. I don't mind admitting that some of my position is influenced by how Anderson played the game at times. Like the incident v India at TB. Years of watching him sledge with his hand over his mouth.

Similarly, maybe I stuck McGrath down at ten because he was a real ********. I come to these things with an agenda.

For most of their careers, Broad and Anderson were pretty comparable. Anderson went up another level towards the end, so I want to value the work that went into that that in my appraisal. Steyn faded away. Anderson never really did, which is unusual.

[sussexpob]

I don't think it's something that can definitely be quantified. It's a spectator sport and an element of theatre comes into it, and the time in our lives when these things happen. And our own personality

Have you never noticed that the commonly accepted list of fastest/great pace bowlers starts when the first baby boomers reach adulthood and co-incidentally ends when the last do?? In an era of decline popularity of football, and a sudden dominance of this age group in society, it just so happens that all the legends were born in that period... and not, you know, just the fact the majority of fans of cricket nowadays source their nostalgia from that era.

Debates about bowling speed are all you need to know to show that. Its the same in baseball... everyone before speedguns came around were of course quicker than everyone now based on the "trust me bruv, I was there" metric. Of course, they then in baseball standardised the measurements for pace using equipment from 2005, accepting that it might be less accurate than in the future but using the same speed gun would at least provide relativity... Every single year since, the average speed of fast pitches has increased.... and why wouldnt it? People are quicker, stronger, fitter... arguing that someone in 1980 was quicker than in 2024 is utterly foolish.

So yeah... that theatre stuff ends up being inequitable. Holding was nicknamed "Whispering Death" and Anderson was a grinder..... yet I would bet my life on the fact that Anderson at his quickest was quicker.

Teleport a Fast Medium bowler from 2024 to 1970, and he'd be Thommo.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I don't think that baby boomer idea fits. The bowlers I've most heard called the fastest are from the noughties. Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar prominently, maybe add Shaun Tait, even Steyn. Bond, to make a five. Maybe he was earlier. I don't think there are bowlers around now who get rated as quick as those. Not with a lot of overs behind them. Throwing might have been a factor.

The bowlers of the 70s-80s who are rated really quick aren't the celebrated ones. Few think Thommo was one of the greats of his time, just that no one liked facing him. Lillee became better as he reduced his pace. Hadlee was a very technical bowler. Marshall was quick but not for long. The real quicks burned out, like Wayne Daniel or Colin Croft, or got injured.

But pace was more a part of Holding's resources than it is for Anderson. He was a bit of an outlier in the history of the game, a decent track athlete who could bowl.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I didn't use the 'theatre stuff' to suggest I'm right, but to admit I'm partial. I like being stimulated. Don't we all?

[sussexpob]

I didn't use the 'theatre stuff' to suggest I'm right, but to admit I'm partial. I like being stimulated. Don't we all?

I don't deny the point in general, but what we consider as something worthy to be considered "theatre" has changed according to nostalgia bias between generations. You say for instance that Hadlee was not that quick, but read any bio of his career and they all tell you he was a tearaway in the 70s in his youth. The Wisden entry of his dismantling of England at the end of the 70s when NZ won their first ever test vs England references the pace and hostility in his bowling prominently. Yet, a few months later in proper testing conditions he bowled 7 balls under 80mph. He is listed as fast and at the time was considered fearsome..... he was, in actual fact, a medium pacer from the measurable data we have.

If you go back to that period of 75 to 89, very few successful pace bowlers are not listed as "fast" and very few of them would have cricinfo profiles that do not list some adjective to describe their lethal speed. Malcolm Marshall is described as "wickedly fast". That's how we remember that era. Proper fast, fast bowlers throwing lightening bolts. The "theatre" element becomes automatic. The whole era is romantically remembered for periods of extremely deadly fast bowling, extreme pace... the likes we don't get anymore.

The fact is, there is nothing that really backs this up other than nostalgia. We discussed this recently, but I went and found Lillie's book afterwards to check the actual source material, and the 1975 WACA test figures really don't pass the sniff test. There is a huge discrepancy between release speed from one camera and the opposite crease speed registered on arrival at the batter. Thommo's near 100mph thunderbolt was registered as the same speed as Holding's quickest ball (90mph) when it got to the batsman, so unless this is a freak of nature moment where physics changed, the test is obviously not right. Amusingly, Lillie referenced the fact that Thommo had an agreed ball where he would put one down just for the speedo as an extreme effort ball... Thommo thought it was the quickest ball he ever bowled, the camera registered it as the slowest ball in the match.

The much quoted 1976 test which ranked all those bowlers well in excess of 95mph does not seemingly exist and seems to be an accepted legend. The test is often attributed to Davis and Penrose of WA University, but the paper cited was released in 1976 with reference to earlier tests in 1974, and does not give any actual data or methodology on speed. Some cite Dr Frank Pyke as the source of the testing, but nothing in his academic history from the University exists from 1976 with reference to cricket. Weirdly, these are sometimes quoted in academic studies using small soundbites from other articles, but there are no citations to the source material. The 1979 tests, the most sophisticated ever done, ranked all the bowlers being a lot slower. Holding was mid 80s at his physical career peak, at the very quickest. Amusingly, loads of these bowlers all claim to have clocked 95 mph plus in fantasy net testing without giving evidence. And loads of them (Tyson, Lillie, Roberts, Holding, Croft, Thommo) are on record saying when they were tested properly, their lack of speed was down to illness or not being fit. Well aside from Thommo, who claims he was drunk. Some of those tested were not quick at all. I have read that Joel Garner for instance was clocked at his peak in the high 70s. Proctor was apparently deadly quick, but registered only medium pace.

And that's really the problem. You will watch documentaries about pace bowling where large sections are dedicated to Thommo, but in a test which did not require him to worry about his front foot, accuracy or any of that, and was only how quickly can you throw it at your fastest, he barely got passed 90mph for one ball. Even Lillie suggests these tests are not really reflective of pace in matches, because the bowlers were lobbing high full tosses around to crank up the pace.

All in all, you get a reality where someone like Holding will be remembered for being a vicious pace merchant, and video's of him peppering Brian Close will be shown for years and years into the future as confirmation of that. Meanwhile, I don't think I have ever saw a replay of Anderson's spell against NZ in 2008 replayed to show how quick he was at his peak. Anderson threw down a prolonged spell of hostile bowling where he first whacked Jacob Oram on the head with a bouncer over 90mph, then smashed out Daniel Flynn's front teeth with another (literally, Flynn ended up in hospital having to have most of his teeth removed because the ball has loosened most of them). But by 2008, there was nothing particularly special about that.

You end up with an impossible criteria for modern players to be judged by. They do what people of the past do, and its nothing special. They perform as well as those in the past, but they didn't do it in the right way. It wasn't sexy enough..... so in a literal sense, they cannot win.

[sussexpob]

I don't think that baby boomer idea fits. The bowlers I've most heard called the fastest are from the noughties. Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar prominently, maybe add Shaun Tait, even Steyn. Bond, to make a five. Maybe he was earlier. I don't think there are bowlers around now who get rated as quick as those. Not with a lot of overs behind them. Throwing might have been a factor

I would argue its inaccurate perceptions. If we take bad data to say that people were bowling 10-15 mph quicker than they actually were to the point speedguns came in, then of course there is an illusion that pace bowlers are slowing down. I think the reality is they have increased across the 90s to the 00s, after that you reach a threshold of sorts, but that is understandable.... why would anyone with the capability of bowling high 90s do much of that now? The money involved with playing T20 Franchise cricket and keeping yourself fit to do it is too much to go hunting speed gun readings.

Tait played 2 tests and nearly retired due to injury. Lee had many injuries. Shoaib played 40 odd tests in a 15 year career. Bond was legendarily unfit. Even Steyn didn't play many tests at the end (11 in his last 4 years) because he broke down after 30.

And then we have the modern quicks. Archer is never fit. Wood is never fit. Nortje has only played 19 tests. Lockie has played 1 test. Umran Malik has hardly played any matches. Coetzee only 3... Mayak Yadav doesn't play FC cricket.

Extreme fast bowlers nowadays wouldn't bother with FC cricket. They will crank it up for 4 overs in Franchise leagues and make money

[Arthur Crabtree]

Reply to earlier post...

Maybe down to the medicine of the time, but all those bowlers you mention were quick for a period and then got injured and developed into different bowlers. Hadlee was said to be faster before I saw him in '78, but he became a very good medium fast bowler, as did Lillee. The West Indians slowed down too, though new quicker bowlers would emerge. Bishop was supposed to be fast, but got injured almost immediately.

Pitch and weather will effect how quick a player looks. Nothing makes you look faster than knocking the stumps over. But Holding is remembered foremost for taking 14 wickets on a flat Oval track in the heatwave of '76. And without the benefit- at least knowingly- of reverse swing. And looked memorably quick without any help from the conditions.

But if- as a late boomer- I pick the fastest I saw, it would be Shoaib Akhtar, around thirty years later. He threw quite a few of them, but he was very swift. I don't think all the bowlers were quicker the 70-80s, but there were fast bowlers around then.

I don't think it's a great period of superfast bowlers in Test cricket now, compared with the 70s/80s. or the noughties.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The argument that pace bowlers are faster now in the way sprinters are hit a snag when Broad claimed to be faster than Holding. It feels a bit simplistic. The theory convinced Broad he must be faster. But it often seems bowling very quick isn't gaining you much. History is strewn with the wreckage of superfast bowlers who never did much. Len Pascoe. Devon Malcolm. Nantie Hayward. Is it worth it? Maybe bowlers now think the injury risk of bowling very fast makes it not worth it.

The demands of bowling fast are far more diverse than being a sprinter. But if they are faster now, then how much? If Holding bowled 90- average- and Mark Wood bowls at 91- average, then the difference in pace is so small, that it is negligable in the context of all the other skills a bowler has to call upon. And if fast bowling is going to get ever quicker, then bowlers today must be faster than Lee and Shoaib, as well as Holding and Marshall.

[sussexpob]

I think the conspicious absence of reverse swing until the 1980s when Imran Khan stacked on pace to be an out and out pace bowler and then other bowlers who were in the mid to high 80s came along and started doing it as standard. I think this is a very good indication of pace, because are we really to have believed that cricket existed for 100s of years with bowlers conventionally trying to swing the ball, but no one ever noticed reverse swing until so late? There is no technical change required, a worn ball will reverse if given enough use and roughness.

We do know now that the ball reverses when turbulent air comes off the ball at certain speeds. Its hardly a co-incidence, is it? As we come to the modern day, suddenly the ball behaved differently. Its a sensible conclusion to assume that until the 1980s, no one had bowled quick enough to generate this mysterious discovery, because for 200 years people had been bowling to extract normal swing.

The same fluid dynamics that create reverse swing could also explain they sudden perception of speed in the 1970s. At around the late 70mphs into the early 80s, a cricket ball undergoes what is known as a drag crisis. The airflow patterns around the ball completely change as airspeed reaches a certain threshold (im not an expert, I think its from laminar to turbulent airflow), which leads to a very stark drop in drag co-efficient and resistence against the ball.

The net effect is, after those speeds the ball disprportionately travels to the batsman quicker than the release speed. I believe this occurs between 78-85 ish mph, after which the airflow changes once again and drag factor increases. At a certain point, a 1-2 mph increase in bowling speed would manifest as much more. Drag accounts for a huge loss in speed over 22 yards, say 40 ish percent. In a drag crisis you might find that is only 35%... so for 1mph extra welly from the bowler, the batsman gets 5mph extra on his bat. One witnessing this threshold being passed would assume the bowler delivering these balls was operating at speeds far in excess as usual, but the release speed would have barely changed.

This drag effect is also the reason why reverse swing only appears at certain speeds. Just before the drag crisis speed is reached you get a peak, which is why so many medium pacers are able to reverse the ball. Ravi Bopara was the biggest reverser I can remember..... it also explains thy Nawaz is credited with the discovery... his bowling speed was clocked at 78.9 mph, which is absolutely perfect speed for lower threshold reverse. After that, you have to get up to around 140 km/h/87mph before you come out the other side of the drag crisis, and the same happens again (although I believe the ball starts to generate turbulence from various parts of the ball which aid reverse at higher speeds after this).

Inside that black hole of 80-87mph ish, the ball requires all sorts of freak events to reverse. And to get the ball to reverse under 78mph range also requires a lot of freak stuff (like specific wind directions creating forces on the ball at specific speeds and what not).

I would posit the theory that most bowlers until you get to Akram and Younis were nowhere near 90mph. If anyone after uncovered pitches started keeping the ball drier went over 86mph, theyd have reverse swung the ball. The fact they didn't tells me they couldnt have bowled that quick

[Arthur Crabtree]

The did used to get reverse swing, what they used to call- in the language of the time- going Irish. But the didn't know why it was happening and didn't prep the ball to bring it about.

Sarfraz tried to bowl it, but then he gouged the ball, so it still wasn't quite what happens now for reverse swing.

[sussexpob]

The did used to get reverse swing, what they used to call- in the language of the time- going Irish. But the didn't know why it was happening and didn't prep the ball to bring it about.

Sarfraz tried to bowl it, but then he gouged the ball, so it still wasn't quite what happens now for reverse swing.

I think a lot of that element of the history of the game is folkloric. Nawaz played with a guy, who played with a guy, who played with the guy who really invented it type stuff. I get the sense that there is an immediate period before reverse swing is found where anyone swinging the old ball has been post-fact assumed to have been reversing it, but I think a lot of that is to do with the fact that throughout cricket history its not really until the post-war that bowlers start to really swing the ball a lot. Before that you get the sense swing is an after-thought to cutting the ball or seaming it, and while you encounter references on a lot of bowlers using swing, no one really lingers on it.

That changes with Trueman, who is the first bowler who is defined by his ability to swing it both ways. Even if guys like Voce could also.

[Slipstream]

Think that Anderson was good at reverse-swinging the ball. Better than the current bowlers. Also at hiding the ball while doing it. One year in Australia he did it and the following year all their fast bowlers were hiding the ball to an extent. Changing the ball from the left hand to right hand but none of the could hide the ball at the last minute before bowling it.

Wasim Akram believes that Anderson bowls better reverse-swing than anyone.

[andy]

Apparently he wants to make a comeback in white ball cricket...i really hope he dosen't and that he just calls it a day properly

[Slipstream]

Apparently he wants to make a comeback in white ball cricket...i really hope he dosen't and that he just calls it a day properly

He was fooled watching the 100, seeing bowlers getting swing, thinking I could do that but in the franchises it will be murder. Who would pick a 42/43 year old without proven experience? Maybe he could play another year for Lancs in 2025.

[sussexpob]

Spent one day watching Homes under the Hammer and thought sod this