Does a high MPH = pace

[Captain Applehead]

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?

[Statto]

I believe some of the speed rating comes down to how short the ball pitches as these tend to lose more speed when bouncing. I would imagine tresco bowled a lot fuller than Hoggard so the ball would lose less pace. I too am confused about some classifications, mainly flintoff who is classed as rfm but has been bowling at 87-90 mph for the last year and has the same rating as hoggard (75-84)

[Rachael]

Apparently someone wrote in to TMS with an enquiry along similar lines a few years back. I believe the quest was "why do Ambrose and Walsh continue to be classed as fast bowlers when they routinely bowl low 80s".

Just as the read the question out one or other of the bowlers (probably Ambrose) cut someone in half with a ball 10 mph faster than anything he'd been serving up prior to that... and the retort was something along the lines of "that's why".

Seems to me that under normal conditions any fast bowler who is any good will do better by dropping the pace a little (to something like Hoggard pace) and concentrating on control / variation.. and just saving that extra bit for shock value... but that presumes that when slowing slightly there's enough control / variation to make them dangerous.

Exception: doesn't seem to apply when the ball is reverse swinging as that seems pretty well dependent on 90+mph deliveries.

[Goatman]

mph isnt a stat. Its calculated by a light-doppler system I think, and is accurate to within a couple of mph. Theres nothing clever going on, its just the same as seeing how far the ball has gone in a second and dividing the measured distance by the time (hense, with correction for scale, miles per hour).

I agree with the speed rating problem, and that pace isn't everything, but if a ball goes from one end of the track to the other at 90mph and another does it at 88, then it is the 90mph one that is fastest. It doesn't matter which one seemed to get to the other end of the pitch fastest:- thats propbably all down to the action, as you say. If you drive from point A to point B at 88mph on a bicycle, and I do it at 90 in a car, you'll certinaly feel like your going faster but that doesn';t mean I won't get there first!

[Goatman]

Sorry - thats come out very tetchy sounding. I seem to be developing a bit of RSI in my "picking" hand, which is the equivalent in my line of work to a bowler getting the yips and I am not having a good day.

Apologies, all.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Apparently someone wrote in to TMS with an enquiry along similar lines a few years back. I believe the quest was "why do Ambrose and Walsh continue to be classed as fast bowlers when they routinely bowl low 80s".

Just as the read the question out one or other of the bowlers (probably Ambrose) cut someone in half with a ball 10 mph faster than anything he'd been serving up prior to that... and the retort was something along the lines of "that's why".

Rachael,

That is correct RE: Ambrose in his last years, but was that the same when he was 25 the age of Harmison and Jones?

I know he wasn't the quickest at that time (Bishop and Patterson were) but I can guarentee that he was bowling high eighties at that time.

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Apparently someone wrote in to TMS with an enquiry along similar lines a few years back. I believe the quest was "why do Ambrose and Walsh continue to be classed as fast bowlers when they routinely bowl low 80s".

Just as the read the question out one or other of the bowlers (probably Ambrose) cut someone in half with a ball 10 mph faster than anything he'd been serving up prior to that... and the retort was something along the lines of "that's why".

Seems to me that under normal conditions any fast bowler who is any good will do better by dropping the pace a little (to something like Hoggard pace) and concentrating on control / variation.. and just saving that extra bit for shock value... but that presumes that when slowing slightly there's enough control / variation to make them dangerous.

Exception: doesn't seem to apply when the ball is reverse swinging as that seems pretty well dependent on 90+mph deliveries.

Jones was bowling reverse swing the other day and yet never got higher than about 89 mph. In fact, Jones only started to reverse it after his pace slowed.

[Captain Applehead]

Originally Posted by Goatman

if a ball goes from one end of the track to the other at 90mph and another does it at 88, then it is the 90mph one that is fastest.

Nowthen, I'm not a statistician, while you obviously are. Could I just ask a couple of questions please.

1) The quote above. Is 'speed' purely about how long it takes to get from one end to another, or how fast the ball is travelling? I know this sounds the same, but Flintoff bowls from higher in the air than Jones, and the ball bounces higher after it pitches. Therefore a Flintoff delivery actually travels further through the air to reach the batsman than a Jones delivery. If 'speed' is the pace of the ball through the air, then this may explain why Jones looks 'faster' to the naked eye (i.e. the balls 'gets to the other end' quicker, because it travels a shorter distance (and the batsman seems more hurried)

2) Which measure of speed (of those listed in 1)) is the best to apply to bowlers. Personally, I think it's about how quick it get to the batsman, rather than 'air speed'.

Does this make any sense?

Your expertise in this matter would be greately appreciated.

Captain.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

There arent many 90+ bowlers who do swing it much anyway. I thought jones looked could anyway sunday morning.

I think if looks quick it helps ie if thunders in and bowls 90 plus next time he thunders in you'll still be expecting 90 plus, even though it might only be low 80s

[Goatman]

CA

Once again, sorry for the tone of my first reply. Bad day. I'm not really a statistician, but I do use 'em a lot. mph is a paramenter, rather than a stat, which means it is a direct measurement, not an indenct measurement and far more reliable as a consequence. Virtually all the criticisms of stats are not really valid for a measurement like mph. It might sound like splitting hairs, but it does make a difference.

1) Good question. If the distance travlled is very different you are right. I'd say the height difference - which seems to us to be such a big deal - is not large enough in terms of inches to make much difference. I can't do imperial, so I'll do guessy metric. If the pitch is 20m long (it doesn't matter in this case, as I'll use the same for both and this is about right), fred is 1.90 tall and Jones is 1.80 tall (sounds right?) that makes the diefference in the "distance to point of pitch" (gimme a sec...) only just over 10cm. It'll get to, what 2/3 of that ehhight (chest) by the batsman, so the totla difference in distance is 15cmish. Not much. I'd say that given my estimates here are about right (Does anyone know where we can get thier heights from?), it IS airspeed that counts.

2) Yes, it should be how quick it gets to the batsman I think, though it looks to me having had a breif crack above that that'll large be dependant on initial airspeed - these triangles are very elongate, and the trajectrory doesn't seem to have as much impact as you might think.