I'm browsing my Christmas present: the Daily Torygraph book of cricket... and have already come across a gem. 12st October, 1984: Sebastian Faulks on Ted Dexter's bid to find find a 'proper' fast bowler. He says of Dexter It seems "young men were invited to enter through forms distrubuted in pubs". One of six recruited at Edgbaston was David Dismore, who could "run 60 yards in under 7 seconds and bowl a ball nine[ty] yards off a couple of paces" (my guess at the "ninety rather than nine: they were apparently looking for folk who could get the ball 70+ yards before it bounced - which is perhaps why they ended up trialling a javelin thrower).

Dexter's juvenile idiocy is perfectly captured by a simple quote about the above-mentioned Dismore: "If he can get it that far the muzzle velocity must be tremendous".

No wonder English cricket then entered a bleak period that culminated in Fraser missing tours in favour of lesser guys with greater pace and Bicknell noting that the England management would have rejected Pollock as "too slow"!

ps. Are Ern and Ted Dexter really one and the same?

Isn't that sort of thing still happening? Some time ago I came across an article about a show in India like "Search for a Star" but the concept was to find the quickest bowler in India (not the best new singer). I think a similar concept was done in the UK recently. I'll see if I can find those links.

Update:
More ...

More ...

If you like quick bowling you might enjoy this Youtube video: World's Fastest Bowler Competition - 1979

I recall reading this tosh at the time and being disgusted that {a} the fool had been able to get as far as he had in cricket without developing a sounder grasp of cricket; and {b} that the ECB publicised such nonsense. I also refected, briefly, that this country's cricketing future really would look grim if there were even the slightest truth in what he said.

I've absolutely relished Mahmood's subsequent disappearance as much as I've delighted in Hoggard becoming the most accomplished England bowler of his generation and in Sidebottom emerging as such an excellent new-ball partner

ps. I have it on good authority that the ECB coaches now ingrain a distinction between "spin" and "pace" bowling instead of between "spin" and "seam" bowling: a folly that merely encourages juvenile outlooks. It's all very well saying that the coaches and players know what they mean... but conflating "seam" and "pace" downgrades the skills and crafts involved and and is just downright irresponsible given that youngsters are already prone (as Mahmood illustrates) to idolise one dimensional speedsters over craftsmen whose skills and craft are far, far greater.

Rachael, history shows that fast bowlers are just as effective as good swing bowlers because they can get batsmen out in different circumstances than a swing bowler or line-and-length bowler. They can have the batsman playing on when the batsmen is "beaten for pace". They can be bowled with a fast yorker. They can can get LBW decisions with a full-toss or "toe crusher". They can get a top edge from a mis-timed pull shot. They often produce catches from attempted cut shots because it's hard for a batsman to play the ball down or judge the bounce correctly. These are just a few types of dismissals unique to fast bowlers.

I forgot to mention that Reverse Swing has become a big weapon for fast bowlers. It has been responsible for many wickets. The other delivery which is often overlooked is the "slower ball" which has fooled many a batsman and taken wickets.

The first thing a bowler needs is a good action: not one that generates pace... but one that's simple enough to be eminently repeatable (even when things are not working)... one that gives them a chance of bowling an intended line even if the length may stray... one with the bowling arm reaching as high as possible, without the non-bowling arm dropping too early, without the head falling away or some such other failing.... and one that has potential for adding both a stock ball that shapes one way AND a variation that goes the other way.

After gaining that initial impression the coach should surely be looking for wrist position: if it's as promising as Pathan's was you take note... as that bodes very well indeed. It suggests that in due course you might add swinging the new ball either way, splitting the fingers to deliver slower balls with the disguise of Fernando, switching to cutters at the drop of a hat and so on.

Now of couse... if some hits the jackpot on the above AND (as Pathan did) has the mechanics and physique to add a yard or two of pace you have a potential Lindwall on your hands... but you have something special even WITHOUT that pace.

Sadly... most don't hit the jackpot on the above... and that's where, in desperation, you might look for pace: not because it's a sensational asset... but because bowling at 90+ does allow even a fairly crude bowler like Flintoff (who'd be a nothing bowler at steady 84-85mph) to partially hide deficiencies and to overcome lack of promise.

That's the bit Mahmood get's wrong: the best thing about his bowling was always the natural action and wrist position rather than the pace... and whilst he needed to develop "technique and control"... what always excited was the potential for guile.

I still have high hopes for Mahmood.... but I really do see Mahmood's biggest obstacle being himself: he really does need to get his head around what's helped Hoggard become England's no 1 bowler and start applying himself to following Sidebottom's lead rather than talk tosh about bowling fast!

ps. Your examples of where bowling with pace might lead to wickets highlights it's failings: all a batsman need do to avoid getting "beaten for pace" on the cut or pull is forget playing square of the wicket to the new ball - no-one plays the pull to a ball that's low enough to hit the stumps and no one SHOULD try the cut to a ball straight enough to hit the stumps... so why not just let the damn thing go through? The yorker might be less avoidable... but if you are set to defend (with a low backlift and low hands) it's no big deal for a top-level batsman: the folk who get into trouble (aside from tail-enders) are the guys who set themselves up to play expansively - which ain't required.

If batsmen played the way you suggested (not play square of the wicket shots) you have unwittingly endorsed the selection of fast-bowlers to dry up the runs. The reality is that batsmen play square of the wicket shots to fast bowlers because straighter deliveries are bowled back of a length to prevent batsmen driving and using the pace of the ball to get easy boundaries.

You're reading what you wanted to read rather than what I wrote... That said... before fast draining, hard wearing loams under covered wickets undermined the very basis of the game (the pitch) the batsmen did NOT (by and large: there were exceptions) see scoring square of the wicket as a major part of Test cricket... which was not a problem as with the odds favouring the bowlers far more than they do today, seamers generally fancied their chances of getting wickets. Rather than wanting to dry up runs (leading to stalemate) the seamers wanted to get the batsmen playing at the ball so that they could beat the bat and effect a dismissal: they tended to pitch the ball up far. far more than most bowlers do today... and to positively invite the drive.

The result was attractive (often free-scoring) cricket based on surviving good balls and punishing bad ones... and all with a straight bat.... but that doesn't mean no-one scored square of the wicket. What it did mean was that such shots were mostly played against the older, softer ball.... most commonly when the attack was tired after a wearing day on a pitch with limited bounce and carry.

Sadly, such attacking bowling (as with attacking glovework) appears to have died forever with the covering of the wickets... and now, when pitches DO demand such bowling.... only very old-fashioned bowlers like Vaas seem to thrive... and only very old-fashioned batsmen like Jayawardene seem able to counter them.

Rachael, do you think the modern bat might also have something to do with the reluctance of bowlers to pitch it up? For example, Gilchrist smashing 102 not out from 59 balls against England in Perth (3rd Test, 2006). Even if pitches were uncovered the modern bat can get boundaries with a mere flick.

That certainly doesn't help... but do you really think Gilchrist would have played the same way if he'd been facing Trueman on a greentop with the ball being swung both ways and seaming off the pitch? Moreover... whilst the ridiculous sweet spot would ensure edges had the legs to reach the boundary... do you think he could have controlled the direction and trajectory of the ball? I doubt he'd have survived long with ANY bat.

The modern batsman with a game perfectly suited to playing against that sort of bowling is Jayawardene... who gave a masterclass in battling that sort of bowling last time Sri Lanka toured England. I'm not sure what sort of bat he used... but I don't think it would have made much difference to him.

ps. The shortness of the grass on the outfield is just as bad as the modern bat: the days of fielders standing a chance of chasing a ball down are long gone.

Yes Ted Dexter was an Englishman who was fed up to the back teeth with the wishy washy bowling that England served up compared with teams like Australia and the West Indies.
He wanted a bowler like Lillee or Thompson, or Marshall or Holding - NOT a Fraser or a Bicknall who were really first change bowlers.

Can you deny that England looked to have a better attack with players like John Snow?, one of the few moments of Glory when Devon Malcolm ripped through nine South African batsmen?, no medium pacer is ever likely to do that.

In the so called Bothams Ashes, when England had that famous win at Headingly (was it 1981?), well even with Bothams efforts England were only 130 runs in front, just made defeat look more respectable.

But then Bob Willis took 8 Aussie wickets in one of the most hostile spells of bowling ever to be seen in England, and Australia lost that series.

In 2005 the pace of Simon Jones, Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison proved to much for the Aussie's again, and due to the England pace attacks efforts, the ashes once again were reclaimed.

Australia were at their best with the pace duo of Lillee and Thompson.

West Indies were at their best with Marshall/Holding/Walsh and hostile bowlers the like of Ambrose and Garner, and before that the like of Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith.

For South Africa - Alan Donnald amongst others.

New Zealand had Bond, and Hadlee was no medium pace slouch.

Pakistan had Imran Khan, Shoaib, and Waqar - not to mention Wasim Akram.

England had - Larwood (ashes winner) - Willis (ashes winner) - Harmison/Jones/Flintoff (ashes winners), not forgetting Trueman and John Snow.

And Devon Malcolm was one of the few England bowlers ever to scare the Windie's batsmen.

Question is: Was Dexter (or me) right to go in search of a genuine fast bowler, when the evidence of superiority of fast bowling against medium pace bowling - is so overwhelming.

Worth a look, Bob Willis taking his 8 wickets at Headingly in 1981.YouTube - Bob Willis 8 for 43 v Australia (Headingley 1981)

__________________
Ern