Haha.
Although it would be interesting to get a breakdown of his wickets between his offies and mediums.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Best Medium Pace Bowler Of All Time?
- Thread starter chargers 09
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Haha.
Although it would be interesting to get a breakdown of his wickets between his offies and mediums.
chargers 09
Premiership Player
- Thread starter
- #27
Don't think people know the difference between a medium pace power and medium fast.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Paul Rofe.
Gavin Larsen.
End thread.
End thread.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
I've been deceived by his run up
- Jan 13, 2001
- 15,903
- 6,945
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Man City
Vaas was never fast, not sure if he topped 135km/h at any stage of his career.
For mine medium pace is sort of 110-130kmh. Spinner bowl fast balls in the high 90s.
How fast was Sobers?
- May 5, 2006
- 62,814
- 70,179
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Nathan Bracken?
He tended to bowl anywhere from about 115-140. I consider him a fast bowler because he could bowl at 135-140 but he had most of his success in ODI cricket bowling 120s to 130s.
He tended to bowl anywhere from about 115-140. I consider him a fast bowler because he could bowl at 135-140 but he had most of his success in ODI cricket bowling 120s to 130s.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
He did everything from spin to medium fast
Botham was a medium pacer
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- May 6, 2007
- 42,359
- 25,812
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspurs, Melbourne Vixen
He was mainly picked as a batsmen though.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,654
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
Mark Ealham
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
and a very handy one too
If they can bowl over 130 they are not a medium pacer.
It's tempting to say Barnes, but we have little idea of how fast he bowled. He certainly wasn't renowned for his pace, but for how he could get the ball to swing, seam and turn. Wilfred Rhodes called him medium pace, while Harry Altham said he was appreciably quicker than medium, but no-one who played with him questioned that he was the greatest.
It's tempting to say Barnes, but we have little idea of how fast he bowled. He certainly wasn't renowned for his pace, but for how he could get the ball to swing, seam and turn. Wilfred Rhodes called him medium pace, while Harry Altham said he was appreciably quicker than medium, but no-one who played with him questioned that he was the greatest.
Last edited:
130 km/h pace is not that hard to achieve so to me it is only medium pace.
For professional cricketers 130km/h pace is not quick.
I reckon you got to class someone bowling 140 to 145 km/h fast medium
Someone that can bowl upwards of 155 km/h express pace and 145 to 155 km/h a genuine fast bowler
125 to 140 km/h to me is medium pace
Terry Alderman, Chaminda Vass, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Adam Dale, Steve Waugh and Shane Watson type pace.
There would be a lot of club cricketers that can bowl that pace range but their skills not up with these talented cricketers.
Being easy to achieve does not change the definition, and your categories leave too little room for distinction between them. If professional cricketers don't find anything under 130 a challenge, and you're using 4 different categories within 25 km/h over 130, there's little point in having the distinctions at all.
- May 10, 2004
- 24,853
- 5,691
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Pistons/Hammers/Sri Lanka/The Exers
Poms had a few back in the 70's and 80's that were pretty handy.... Chris Old, John Lever and Mike Hendrick to name a few.
Those distinctions fairly common for cricketers that play the game often. Armchair experts maybe not get it so much. I can see this.
That's a great way to approach a discussion, just fob off anyone who disagrees with you as an armchair expert, without knowing at all whether they have played the game or whether they understand that even small differences in pace can be felt by the batsman.
The OP has said that his defininition is well under 130, so that's the kind of bowler we should be discussing.
Actually a great way to approach a discussion is actually think about the thread title in this case and then contemplate what those players are worth discussing. Try it and name some names of best of all time and really think what all time means. Really ponder on it.
C'mon, I know if you really think about it for more than two seconds you can add something worthwhile of players you seen in a few decades of watching and compare with great names from the past.
