PDA

View Full Version : At what speed should a delivery be considered Fast?


couger
February 16, 2005, 05:51 PM
Is there a measuring stick for Fast Bowling. I mean at what speed would you consider someone to be a Fast Bowler, Fast medium bowler and so on. Does ICC have any published guidline on this?

Zephaniah
February 16, 2005, 05:59 PM
Upto 130 kmph - Medium Pace
Consistent 130-135 kmph - Medium fast.
Consistent 135-140 kmph - Fast medium
Consistent 140+ kmph - Genuine Fast
Consistent 150+ - Express

Edited on, February 17, 2005, 6:52 PM GMT, by Zephaniah.
Reason: spelling!

Sham
February 16, 2005, 08:27 PM
No one really bowls at 150+. The quickest bowlers can bowl at above 150, but their average speeds tend to be in the high 140s. I think if a bowler bowls at an average speed of around 140 (87.5mph), he is considered fast. Between 128/130 (80/81 mph) and 140 is fast medium, and below that is medium fast. Or atleast thats how it seems that the television networks classify them! Anyone bowling at over 85 mph is pretty rapid by international standards!

cisco-guy
February 16, 2005, 08:28 PM
Consistent 160+ - Thunderbolt :)

Shoaib Akhtar of Pakistan sent down the fastest delivery ever recorded in cricket: a 161.3 Kph or 100.2 mph thunderbolt, the second time he has broken the 100 mph barrier, standing alone as the 100 mph man of cricket, while Brett Lee of Australia followed him closely at 160.7/99.8 mph -- frustratingly close but not across the 100 mph mark.

couger
February 16, 2005, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Zephaniah
Upto 130 kmph - Medium Pace
Consistant 130-135 kmph - Medium fast.
Consistant 135-140 kmph - Fast medium
Consistant 140+ kmph - Genuine Fast
Consistant 150+ - Express

Is this your opinion or do you have source where you got it from?

couger
February 16, 2005, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Sham
No one really bowls at 150+. The quickest bowlers can bowl at above 150, but their average speeds tend to be in the high 140s. I think if a bowler bowls at an average speed of around 140 (87.5mph), he is considered fast. Between 128/130 (80/81 mph) and 140 is fast medium, and below that is medium fast. Or atleast thats how it seems that the television networks classify them! Anyone bowling at over 85 mph is pretty rapid by international standards!

I know what you mean, at least I'm familisr with this type of classification. But often on TV someone would be called Fast Medium but he'd be bowling faster than the guys listed as Fast. What I'm confused about is that there seem to be no consistency in this.

couger
February 16, 2005, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by couger
Originally posted by Sham
No one really bowls at 150+. The quickest bowlers can bowl at above 150, but their average speeds tend to be in the high 140s. I think if a bowler bowls at an average speed of around 140 (87.5mph), he is considered fast. Between 128/130 (80/81 mph) and 140 is fast medium, and below that is medium fast. Or atleast thats how it seems that the television networks classify them! Anyone bowling at over 85 mph is pretty rapid by international standards!

I know what you mean, at least I'm familisr with this type of classification. But often on TV someone would be called Fast Medium but he'd be bowling faster than the guys listed as Fast. What I'm confused about is that there seem to be no consistency in this.

For instance in the 1999 worlds cup fastest average speed acheived was by Pakistan's Shoab Aktar and a very close second was India's Srinath yet he was never call a fast bowler while guys acheiving lesser speed WERE called fast.

cricket_pagla
February 17, 2005, 09:09 AM
160km or 100mile should be consider as fast:ninja::karate::up:

couger
February 17, 2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by cricket_pagla
160km or 100mile should be consider as fast:ninja::karate::up:

Oh wow.....you so smart.

Tintin
February 17, 2005, 09:29 AM
>> India's Srinath yet he was never call a fast bowler while guys acheiving lesser speed WERE called fast.

According to Eddie James Smith, who has written a number of articles on bowling speeds in cricinfo, Srinath was clocked 157 kmph against Zimbabwe in 1996-97, and was possibly the fastest bowler in the world for a period of time. Sadly we tend to go too much by apperances. Otherwise we wouldn't still be calling McGrath a fast bowler.

Fazal
February 17, 2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Tintin
Srinath was clocked 157 kmph against Zimbabwe in 1996-97, and was possibly the fastest bowler in the world for a period of time.

Srinath was that fast? I never realized that.

offcutter
February 17, 2005, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Tintin
>> India's Srinath yet he was never call a fast bowler while guys acheiving lesser speed WERE called fast.

According to Eddie James Smith, who has written a number of articles on bowling speeds in cricinfo, Srinath was clocked 157 kmph against Zimbabwe in 1996-97, and was possibly the fastest bowler in the world for a period of time. Sadly we tend to go too much by apperances. Otherwise we wouldn't still be calling McGrath a fast bowler.

I know what you mean. There's a perception out there, especially among the western media that only certain countries produce genuine fast bowlers and they dish out undue accolades to bowlers from those countries.

I was wtching a game a few years ago between SA and SriLanka. Dilhara Fernando was consistenly bowling at 140+ KmPH and Shaun Pollock was hovering around 130 or so. Yet the comentators continously kept describing Fernando a Fastish Medium bowler and Pollock a fast bowler (these days Pollock IS called a medium pacer or fast medium blr).

offcutter
February 17, 2005, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by cricket_pagla
160km or 100mile should be consider as fast:ninja::karate::up:

By this method, there has been only one fast bowler in the world in recorded history.

reverse_swing
February 17, 2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Fazal
Originally posted by Tintin
Srinath was clocked 157 kmph against Zimbabwe in 1996-97, and was possibly the fastest bowler in the world for a period of time.

Srinath was that fast? I never realized that.


yup brother. After Kapil Dev`s retirement, he finally found his much deserved place in the side. He had to wait inexorably long for Kapil Dev to retire before becoming a regular in the side. At the beginning of his career he was a mediocre bowler but my personal opinion is after 97 he rediscovered himself and was immensely enjoying his cricket at the stodgy end of his career.

Edited on, February 17, 2005, 3:31 PM GMT, by rezwan1977.