The answer to the question all cricket fans wanted to know...

I'd have bet on a Thomo/Holding 1-2.

Comparison with Marshall would have been interesting.

Steve

I wonder if Shoaib Akhtar is faster than Jeff? And to think that Viv Richards used to bat without a helmet - rather him than me.

Another question - is Richie Benaud the luckiest man alive? He gets paid to watch and talk about the game he loves, and hasn't experienced the phenomenon we call 'winter' since he was a boy!

Good one, Mark.

I used to love watching Thommo as a boy and always thought that he was the fastest around.

I hadn't seen that video before but interestingly a quick conversion from km to miles show that Thommo's 147.9 km/h is 91.9 mph.

Having a quick Google just now I've dug up this.

Pitchers in baseball routinely throw above the 90-mph mark, in excess of all but the fastest of the bowlers shown, and with generally greater accuracy. Different ball, yes, different purpose, possibly, but why haven't any bowlers adopted a more pitcher-like delivery? Perhaps there are strict guidelines about allowed delivery motions?

Genuine question from someone who was fascinated by (but understood very little about) cricket during his holidays in the UK.

Jayd

That would be termed 'chucking' in cricket parlance and would be illegal. The arm must be kept straight during the rotation leading up to the release of the ball.

Regards

Mark

Ahh, thanks. I knew there must be something to it - the bowling motion looks so unnatural (no offense intended; many baseball pitcher have a pretty unorthodox delivery as well).

All adds to cricket's charm, eh?

Hi Jayd

The other thing regarding accuracy is in cricket you don't always bowl straight at the wicket - you often try to make the ball swing away so that the batsman plays it with the edge of the bat and it goes to a player just behind the stumps - wicket keeper or slips.

And sometimes a fast bowler slips in a slow one - hoping the batsman will play too soon a give a catch.

I know that is the not the case in the competition Mark has linked to, but it may influence the style of some bowlers.

As you say it all adds to the charm - bit like facing a delivery from Courtney Walsh in his prime.

ATB Rotf

I don't understand baseball at all - I'm afraid. I've only seen one innings and there wasn't a single run scored - in fact I don't think anybody managed to hit the ball. Is that usual? I expected to see lots of home-runs, maybe 20 or so - but it didn't happen

quote:

I've only seen one innings and there wasn't a single run scored -

Obviously never watched cricket when G Boycott played. He'd go days without scoring (well it seemed like days).

Howard

When England required 400 in a day against India (second test), Geoff's advice was go for it - he claimed that's what he would've done.

I remember Chris Tavare scoring a hundred in a test - there wasn't much time left in the match after his innings ended. I did once see Brian Hardy of Essex bat for 4 hours and score two runs, and he was reluctant to take those - didn't bother turning up the next day when he completed his 10.

Point I didn't understand about baseball is I thought nobody hitting the ball was not good for the crowd, but I was wrong. They and the American commentator were very excited about it - I think he called it a Shut Out and they said it was the pitchers third. It was then I thought ... I'm not going to get this. BTW where's the wicket?

ATB Rotf

quote:

BTW where's the wicket?

Or in this case a target.
It's a box from knee to shoulder the width of the home plate.
We had the game explained to us during our US tour in 1980 which coincided with the Worlds Series. We enjoyed the game much more after that.
I still prefer to watch MLB over football(especially PL) or cricket.
MLBs saving grace is that the game is usually finished in your own lifetime.

Howard