Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah
I
I meant to say is that raw speed can be one of the qualities of a good bowler but having raw speed alone doesn't make one (or a pre-requisite to be) a quality bowler; hence the association of raw speed with quality of bowler is wrong.
How many winning games was a fast bowler involved with (but also look at their avg)?
I can only see 3 from the top 10 who consistently bowled 145+, most others had their best career when they actually slowed down.
|
...and you can make any comments to change the argument to suit you, bhai.
Fact is, if you can bowl 150 kph plus, you are a pretty special bowler, not some random chump who doesn't know what he is doing. If you understand biomechanics you would know this.
I fully understand you are trying to make the age old argument of 'slow down bowl a line and length' in general. My stance is if you can bowl excess speeds you are LIKELY to be a quality bowler. If you can only bowl 128 then you are not, unless you have amazing control, swing, movement etc etc etc.
If the Bangladesh attack all bowled in excess of 150 kph (like West Indies did in the 1980s) then it would be a completely different bowling attack to now and would forever alter how Bangladesh was perceived in the world.
Case closed.