Fast Bowling

[Ian Pont]

Originally Posted by tiger1000
You talk alot about speed, people ask alot about why BD can't produce 150+ Fast bowlers - Surley that has to do with their genes and physical capability - obviously I don't know anything close to what you know about bowling, but I have talk to many fitness trainers and coach's of other sports (mainly MMA and Boxing), most things I get is that Explosive Power is down to what you are born with - With correct technique you can add a small percentage to this and you are able to use more of your muscles, but it would still would be dictated by what you are born with - in cricketing terms does that mean a 135 bowler can never exceed 145, to touch one 150 you need to be naturally able to bowl over 140 without too much difficulty?

Fitness trainers of boxing/MMA (who have degree's to back up their knowledge (I cant remember the exact degree)) say that most normal people only use about 25% of their muscle capacity or Strength when they want to fully use it due to lack of technique, most professional athletes use only 50-60%, with improved technique they can improve on their powers, but a average strength person will never be as naturally gifted in this department as a Powerfull person and even with training and technique you wont be able to match the powerfull athletes - I want to know how much of this actually translates into cricket?

I know alot of power is natural because from experience in boxing you can get guys in perfect shape - but couldn't punch through a wet paper bag, then you get guy's with a wiry skinny frame, who are not that fast nor do they have very good technique, but a clean punch could switch your lights off

Without getting into a huge amount of detail you need to be clear on a few things.

1. Fast bowling is a process, and like any process it can be learned
2. No one is 'born' anything. All skills we develop are from seeing, learning and doing
3. What is 'natural' can be changed if you practice it a different way enough times
4. Humans jump higher, throw further, hit harder, run faster - all by learning how to
5. It is useful to have an athletic, strong frame to bowl fast. But it isn't the most important thing
6. Some people have different inherent abilities, but that doesn't stop anyone from being a successful fast bowler
7. A capacity to 'learn', have a passion for fast bowling and a big heart, are as important as anything

I have bowlers who have increased speed 15-20 kph from learning the right biomechanical way to bowl. With the correct help and knowledge, any bowler can make themselves faster. Just as long as the seven points above are understood.

The issue really is, can coaches understand how to teach speed? Those that don't know how to coach pace, believe pace is all natural. If this was true then in other sports like swimming, running and throwing, coaches would have nothing to do.

[Ace of BD]

Originally Posted by Ian Pont
Without getting into a huge amount of detail you need to be clear on a few things.

1. Fast bowling is a process, and like any process it can be learned
2. No one is 'born' anything. All skills we develop are from seeing, learning and doing
3. What is 'natural' can be changed if you practice it a different way enough times
4. Humans jump higher, throw further, hit harder, run faster - all by learning how to
5. It is useful to have an athletic, strong frame to bowl fast. But it isn't the most important thing
6. Some people have different inherent abilities, but that doesn't stop anyone from being a successful fast bowler
7. A capacity to 'learn', have a passion for fast bowling and a big heart, are as important as anything

I have bowlers who have increased speed 15-20 kph from learning the right biomechanical way to bowl. With the correct help and knowledge, any bowler can make themselves faster. Just as long as the seven points above are understood.

The issue really is, can coaches understand how to teach speed? Those that don't know how to coach pace, believe pace is all natural. If this was true then in other sports like swimming, running and throwing, coaches would have nothing to do.

The best statement ever coach!!!

[tiger1000]

Originally Posted by Ian Pont
Without getting into a huge amount of detail you need to be clear on a few things.

1. Fast bowling is a process, and like any process it can be learned
2. No one is 'born' anything. All skills we develop are from seeing, learning and doing
3. What is 'natural' can be changed if you practice it a different way enough times
4. Humans jump higher, throw further, hit harder, run faster - all by learning how to
5. It is useful to have an athletic, strong frame to bowl fast. But it isn't the most important thing
6. Some people have different inherent abilities, but that doesn't stop anyone from being a successful fast bowler
7. A capacity to 'learn', have a passion for fast bowling and a big heart, are as important as anything

I have bowlers who have increased speed 15-20 kph from learning the right biomechanical way to bowl. With the correct help and knowledge, any bowler can make themselves faster. Just as long as the seven points above are understood.

The issue really is, can coaches understand how to teach speed? Those that don't know how to coach pace, believe pace is all natural. If this was true then in other sports like swimming, running and throwing, coaches would have nothing to do.

2- I don't really agree with this, did guys like Brian Lara not have great natural gifts, How did George Foreman hit harder than Joe louis - Louis had the greatest technique of them all in punching.

4- Humans don't actually hit harder (in terms of punching) - there hasn't been a harder puncher than ernie shavers in 30 years

the point you are making is hard work can get you anywhere and that's good to tell school kids, but I believe pure special talent will get you there, Hardwork will help you mantain and improve on it.

I got a quesiton on the bowlers who bowled 15-20 faster, how much was it due to pure technique, how much was due to them not understanding their body correctly -hence not using the all the correct muscle's they have.

Obviously in bowling alot has to do with technique, but you can't ignore the fact some are born with natural gifts, surely you've come across a guy who doesn't have the build or technique but is able to bowl much quicker than what is expected.

Alot of my knowledge comes from combat sports, I do understand the fact it may not relate into cricket.

When I played cricket (U-16) I was much quicker than most, I wasn't nessecarily big nor did I practice more - everyone I played with played most of the year around, I played infrequently, I also didn't put in extra effort I just released it with ease and it came out fast - now people with same build - maybe bigger/better shape put in more effort couldn't get the same speed - just not U-16, in club cricket guys that were in early 20's couldn't get the speed I could get, I didn't practice day and night

[Ian Pont]

Originally Posted by tiger1000
2- I don't really agree with this, did guys like Brian Lara not have great natural gifts, How did George Foreman hit harder than Joe louis - Louis had the greatest technique of them all in punching.

4- Humans don't actually hit harder (in terms of punching) - there hasn't been a harder puncher than ernie shavers in 30 years

the point you are making is hard work can get you anywhere and that's good to tell school kids, but I believe pure special talent will get you there, Hardwork will help you mantain and improve on it.

I got a quesiton on the bowlers who bowled 15-20 faster, how much was it due to pure technique, how much was due to them not understanding their body correctly -hence not using the all the correct muscle's they have.

Obviously in bowling alot has to do with technique, but you can't ignore the fact some are born with natural gifts, surely you've come across a guy who doesn't have the build or technique but is able to bowl much quicker than what is expected.

Alot of my knowledge comes from combat sports, I do understand the fact it may not relate into cricket.

When I played cricket (U-16) I was much quicker than most, I wasn't nessecarily big nor did I practice more - everyone I played with played most of the year around, I played infrequently, I also didn't put in extra effort I just released it with ease and it came out fast - now people with same build - maybe bigger/better shape put in more effort couldn't get the same speed - just not U-16, in club cricket guys that were in early 20's couldn't get the speed I could get, I didn't practice day and night

I don't claim to have all the answers, but coaching fast bowling for 19 years has given me a deep insight into the human psyche.

What is fact is that humans learn everything in life and are not 'imprinted' with a skill. Clearly some learn faster than others, some have better aptitude for retain complex information and some seem to 'like' a skill more than someone else. But basically, a combination of the points I made covers it all.

As a coach, I developed with the ECB's 5 part "success" pie chart that has the following compartments: technical, tactical, physical, mental and lifestyle. Each is interactive upon the other and each has an importance is developing world class cricketers. Put simply, a player who demonstrates high scores in all areas is likely to be hugely successful. A player weak in some areas, not likely. England currently sits at number 1 in Test cricket.

There will always be someone unique who is prolific even when doing things 'incorrectly'. There will always be someone just 'has what it takes' by not seemingly learning it the conventional way. We cannot cater for the oddities in the world and there will always be some who appear not to practice yet become terrific players. But they are not the benchmark we seek. Those that disprove the rule don't make the guidelines any less true.

Fast bowling is never definitive. However, you can learn the process and skills you need to be the best version of yourself. Otherwise a coach is just a waste of time.

I am guessing that a brilliant surgeon, wonderful lawyer or genius racing driver share the relative fundamentals for their chosen profession, of many of the points I originally made. There will always be people who don't fit the mold. And the world is more interesting due to them.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Ian Pont

Rubel bowled a ball at 149 kph in the WC in 2011 against West Indies. He is a reluctant fast bowler though. Often his speed will be around 135 kph so I feel he does the minimum required in his training and whilst he does what he is told to do, the point about desire is that it comes from inside you. My personal view is Rubel, if he chose to be, could be a seriously quick fast bowler. It might just all be a bit too hard work for him. He's a great lad and always happy and smiling. But underachieves when he has more to offer. I am hoping his injury gives him the chance to build up and come back stronger, keener and with a huge passion for pace.

Coach, I saw a replay of that 149 k delivery, and my first impression was it was probably a speed gun error since it seemed so random. I know Rubel is capable of such a speed, but its probably his absolute fastest effort ball. It would be great if I am wrong.

Rubel did hit 148k in England during the WT20 warm up matches in 2009.

[tiger1000]

Originally Posted by Ian Pont
I don't claim to have all the answers, but coaching fast bowling for 19 years has given me a deep insight into the human psyche.

What is fact is that humans learn everything in life and are not 'imprinted' with a skill. Clearly some learn faster than others, some have better aptitude for retain complex information and some seem to 'like' a skill more than someone else. But basically, a combination of the points I made covers it all.

As a coach, I developed with the ECB's 5 part "success" pie chart that has the following compartments: technical, tactical, physical, mental and lifestyle. Each is interactive upon the other and each has an importance is developing world class cricketers. Put simply, a player who demonstrates high scores in all areas is likely to be hugely successful. A player weak in some areas, not likely. England currently sits at number 1 in Test cricket.

There will always be someone unique who is prolific even when doing things 'incorrectly'. There will always be someone just 'has what it takes' by not seemingly learning it the conventional way. We cannot cater for the oddities in the world and there will always be some who appear not to practice yet become terrific players. But they are not the benchmark we seek. Those that disprove the rule don't make the guidelines any less true.

Fast bowling is never definitive. However, you can learn the process and skills you need to be the best version of yourself. Otherwise a coach is just a waste of time.

I am guessing that a brilliant surgeon, wonderful lawyer or genius racing driver share the relative fundamentals for their chosen profession, of many of the points I originally made. There will always be people who don't fit the mold. And the world is more interesting due to them.

I agree with most of what you said in this post, It's just another case of Nature vs Nurture - I just feel they both have huge impact, as a estimate I believe Nature gives About 35-40% obviously you think Nearly all of it for most comes from Nurture.

[TigerEz]

This thread is causing a lot of problems at ICF....

[Sohel]

With a mesomorphic body type coming from a pretty athletic family on my father's side, I was seen as an athlete with way above average ability in high school and through college in terms of both power and endurance. I ran the 400m, 800m, 1500m, 3k, 5k, 10k, sculled and played soccer and ice hockey well with minimal practice. I was always focused on my studies and used that as an excuse to underachieve. Then as a business professional at age 30, I became a decent tube surfer and that led to middle distance triathlon. I HAD to work very hard for that through an endless training and active rest program between bi-monthly races, and guess what? My times on the track and performance on the ice, the water and the field were better than ever more than 6 years after college! I have no regret, but know now what I may have achieved had I worked harder. I could have represented Bangladesh or the USA in the 3-5k and sculling for sure if I had the sense.

Now at 45, the neglect over the past 6 years and caught up with me, and it will take years before I can even look at myself again without becoming profoundly disappointed. But I'm looking forward to the end of my procrastination and doing what I must.

What I'm trying to say is this: there's nothing mutually exclusive about nature versus nurture because both are deeply related when it comes to really accomplishing something in a competitive environment, and then sustain it over a period of time. Sachin Tendulkar practices harder than anyone else as if he has no talent. The result is there for all to see. That way, nurture is certainly more important.

Anyway, please accept my apologies for talking about myself and relating my personal experiences to illustrate a point I believe in. It is downright embarrassing to talk about the past now that I'm the Mayor of Moob City, Bangladesh.

[BengaliPagol]

^^I have an ectomorphic body type. Will that help me become a natural athlete like you?

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by BengaliPagol
^^I have an ectomorphic body type. Will that help me become a natural athlete like you?

Ectomorphs are built for endurance, and with proper training, can excel at longer distance events. My weakest event in OD triathlon was the 40k bike followed by the 10k run with the 1.5k swim being the strongest. It will naturally be the opposite for you. My SD (750m swim, 5k run, 20k bike) triathlon times were the best by far perhaps because the shorter distances were more suited to my body type back then. The ectomorphs whom I raced with, guys who beat me regularly at OD distances, usually could not do nearly as well in the shortest version. Then again, they could also do the LC (1.9 swim, 21.1k run, 90k bike) and UD (3.8k swim, 42.2k run, 180k bike) triathlons I never could.

Anyway, there are always exceptions to the perceived rule. For example, in Sadarghat and elsewhere in Bangladesh, I see our ectomorphs bearing incredible loads for 8 hours straight in the heat, dust and pollution. That's superhuman strength and ability if you ask me.

[BengaliPagol]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR
Ectomorphs are built for endurance, and with proper training, can excel at longer distance events. My weakest event in OD triathlon was the 40k bike followed by the 10k run with the 1.5k swim being the strongest. It will naturally be the opposite for you. My SD (750m swim, 5k run, 20k bike) triathlon times were the best by far perhaps because the shorter distances were more suited to my body type back then. The ectomorphs whom I raced with, guys who beat me regularly at OD distances, usually could not do nearly as well in the shortest version. Then again, they could also do the LC (1.9 swim, 21.1k run, 90k bike) and UD (3.8k swim, 42.2k run, 180k bike) triathlons I never could.

Anyway, there are always exceptions to the perceived rule. For example, in Sadarghat and elsewhere in Bangladesh, I see our ectomorphs bearing incredible loads for 8 hours straight in the heat, dust and pollution. That's superhuman strength and ability if you ask me.

Im a natural long distance runner. That explains it because im not a natural sprinter.