Just a thought really, but people rant on about 'who is the quickest' as if it's the be-all and end all in terms of 'who's the best bowler'. Well, we all know that that's a load of crap, but what is pace (and how is it judged)?

This may sound a bit rambled (3 guiness for lunch), but I don't believe that MPH is an accurate guide to pace. For example, I was at Lords last Thursday, and the 'quickest' bowlers (in terms of MPH) were;

Harmison (about 90.5), then Flintoff (89.5), then Jones (88). Now obviously these stats aren't lies, but watching the game bore no resemblence to the stats. Jones looked rapid (his ambling run, and unbelievable shoulder action probably exaggerated this), but the ball seemed to get to the other end faster than Flintoff's. Flintoff/Harmison looked slower (although with higher bounce).

In the West Indies series, according to the Speed ratings, Trescothick bowling was only 2 MPH slower than Hoggard's. That didn't seem right either.

So, while the stats don't lie, does anyone know exactly how they are calculated? To me, they seem to be a misleading assessment of what is actually happening on the pitch.

And another thing, why was Craig White classed as "medium fast", when Gough was classed as "fast". The speed gun regularly showed White as being faster than Gough! Why?