View Full Version : Brett Lee the speed King.
P0RT P0WER
2 Mar 2003, 17:37
Brett Lee's speed.
Lee has become the second cricketer to officially break the 100m/ph mark.
Its the quickest he has ever bowled, clocking one ball at 160.6km and a no ball at 160.7.
Im tipping he will break Shoaib's record tonight, my guess is 161.2 km.
He has certainly become extremely consistant with his speed during the last few matches. I get the feeling he's gunna crack it this match, if not the next one.
crudbucket
2 Mar 2003, 19:51
Now if he could only start taking a wicket or two !!!!!!!
Well with andy talking all the wicket this game he may not get a chance to get the speed this game.lol.:D
Kenny_01
2 Mar 2003, 20:58
Originally posted by crudbucket
Now if he could only start taking a wicket or two !!!!!!!
Lee was unlucky not to get 2 wickets. One was a definite caught behind, and I thought there wasn't any bat in that LBW shout? Also a dropped catch in there.
red+black
2 Mar 2003, 21:02
Originally posted by P0RT P0WER
Brett Lee's speed.
Lee has become the second cricketer to officially break the 100m/ph mark.
Its the quickest he has ever bowled, clocking one ball at 160.6km and a no ball at 160.7.
Im tipping he will break Shoaib's record tonight, my guess is 161.2 km.
Incorrect. 160.7 km/h = 99.85435 mph
Assuming the radar only goes to one decimal place, to achieve 100 mph, a ball would need to be clocked at 161.0 km/h.
161.0 km/h = 100.04076 mph
I dont think breaking speed records is important as Lee has shown whenever he bowls up around 155-160 kph he never takes wickets and tonight was a classic example where he bowled quick but was also very expensive and didnt take a wicket.
red+black
2 Mar 2003, 21:12
agree Shiva, 100%
bulldogs1
2 Mar 2003, 21:17
Yeah, line and length, NOT.Originally posted by shiva25
I dont think breaking speed records is important as Lee has shown whenever he bowls up around 155-160 kph he never takes wickets and tonight was a classic example where he bowled quick but was also very expensive and didnt take a wicket. :rolleyes:
Kenny_01
2 Mar 2003, 22:16
Originally posted by shiva25
I dont think breaking speed records is important as Lee has shown whenever he bowls up around 155-160 kph he never takes wickets and tonight was a classic example where he bowled quick but was also very expensive and didnt take a wicket.
Lee didn't have the greatest of games, but his bowling at the death was very good. Great control. Even at the start of the innings, it's not like he was straying them everywhere, just probably a tad short.
Bulldog1954
3 Mar 2003, 00:59
I'm getting sick of Brett Lee. He is good, but I am sick of the media and everyone rabbiting on about him because he is fast. Against Namibia I reckon I heard and read more crap about Brett Lee then McGrath, despite McGrath taking 7 wickets. On the front of the Age today was a heading about "Lee and co" referring to our bowling attack. Yet it is McGrath and now Bichel who are taking the wickets
Originally posted by Bulldog1954
I'm getting sick of Brett Lee. He is good, but I am sick of the media and everyone rabbiting on about him because he is fast. Against Namibia I reckon I heard and read more crap about Brett Lee then McGrath, despite McGrath taking 7 wickets. On the front of the Age today was a heading about "Lee and co" referring to our bowling attack. Yet it is McGrath and now Bichel who are taking the wickets
I don't know what mdia you have been paying attention to but the only player I heard mentioned after the Namibia match was Glenn McGrath. Of course you will hear about Brett Lee, he is a marketable commodity, but what does it matter who does what?
The key to Australian success is they are a TEAM. This means if one person fails the next person steps up. Namibia saw McGrath succeed, the English match saw Bichel and Bevan step up, the Pakistan match saw Symonds, etc.
Each player in that team has at some stage stepped up and delivered a match wimming performance and we should be proud of our team. I'm not sick of Brett Lee, I am glad we have him and the Poms don't.
I too am sick an tired of Lee.I would like to actually see Lee bowl at 160kph and actually take a wicket. Raving on about his speed is overated as he never takes wickets when he bowls that fast.
Mcgrath bowls at only 135kph but consistantly puts it in the right spot to take wickets regularly proving that you dont have to be fast to be lethal.
El Scorcho
4 Mar 2003, 15:39
Originally posted by shiva25
I too am sick an tired of Lee.I would like to actually see Lee bowl at 160kph and actually take a wicket. Raving on about his speed is overated as he never takes wickets when he bowls that fast.
Mcgrath bowls at only 135kph but consistantly puts it in the right spot to take wickets regularly proving that you dont have to be fast to be lethal.
McGrath also keeps his arm straight..........
dogboy23
4 Mar 2003, 18:15
Its all very well bowling lightning pace and half track **** to Namibia but his performance against England was just stupididty on that pitch.The ball was sitting up and asking to be hit.He has been bowling much better lately when he has been getting the ball up and letting it swing but he went back to believing his own publicity against the poms which IMO has been his worst enemy since he came back into the team.
manmountain
4 Mar 2003, 19:02
He is an empty-head. If we could somehow put Glenn McGrath's head on his body, he might muster up the brain power to realise that any decent batsmen will take you to the cleaners if you bowl half-track rubbish.
Originally posted by shiva25
I too am sick an tired of Lee.I would like to actually see Lee bowl at 160kph and actually take a wicket. Raving on about his speed is overated as he never takes wickets when he bowls that fast.
Mcgrath bowls at only 135kph but consistantly puts it in the right spot to take wickets regularly proving that you dont have to be fast to be lethal.
Amazing isn't it... two of the best bowlers in the world, McGrath and Pollock, bowl usually in the low 130s, maybe high 120s for Pollock. Really says something about putting it in the right spot, rather than going hell for leather.
Also, it's a bit odd how bowlers are perceived through their respective pace. McGrath is viewed as a "fast" bowler at 135 because he's aggressive, gets bounce from his height and length and because he opens the bowling and takes wickets. Caddick is generally no quicker or slower on average, yet is regarded by many as a workhorse/toiler who bowls a sound pace without being quick. Craig White and Andy Flintoff on the other hand, are viewed as medium pacers, even though they vary their pace a lot and probably bowl more balls at 140-142 than McGrath.
Despite perceptions of blokes being really fast, since Ch 9 have introduced the speedo thing for their coverage, it's only a few blokes that I've seen clock over 150km/h (which I consider the barrier between fast and express) : Akhtar, Lee, Gillespie, Harmison. Would have been interesting to see Donald, Akram and Wayne Holdsworth at their peak.
Not trying to make a point really, just saying it's interesting how these blokes are viewed. :)
Another point is the differnce between those last few km per hour...
One of the ABC commentators over the weekend (I forget who but he was an ex-cricketer), said there is little difference among the higehr echelon of quick bowlers. Wouldn't be a noticeable differnce between say 152km/h and 160km/h. So what's the point of trying to bowl at breakneck speed, straining for that extra yard, when it might have an adverse effect on accuracy and placement?
i think i would notice the difference in pace, it is interesting though, when lee and ahktar for that point bowl at that great pace they are either too full or too short. From the limited footage i have seen of Thompson who bowled at the same pace as these two it would seem that he bowled a much better length on more occasions. Of course he loved to bowl them short as well, i really don't think that Lee or Ahktars pace really concern the top batsmen due to their length.
EagleBlue
4 Mar 2003, 20:41
Originally posted by acuguy
i think i would notice the difference in pace, it is interesting though, when lee and ahktar for that point bowl at that great pace they are either too full or too short. From the limited footage i have seen of Thompson who bowled at the same pace as these two it would seem that he bowled a much better length on more occasions. Of course he loved to bowl them short as well, i really don't think that Lee or Ahktars pace really concern the top batsmen due to their length.
As well as the fact that batsman have the comfort of Helmets, chest guards, arm guards etc. these days. In Thommos day they had nothing (well no helmets anyway)
Originally posted by EagleBlue
As well as the fact that batsman have the comfort of Helmets, chest guards, arm guards etc. these days. In Thommos day they had nothing (well no helmets anyway)
I dont think these blokes are anywhere near thommo's pace.
Check out some old footage and watch when he bowled someone how the stump would quite often cartwheel nearly back to the keeper and/ occasionally break. Awesome!
I havent seen that from Shohab or Blee .
Thommo could also make the ball rear at the batsmens throat from a length consistantly. Exciting to watch as lots of wickets , lots of runs scored .
Originally posted by RIPPER_46
I dont think these blokes are anywhere near thommo's pace.
Check out some old footage and watch when he bowled someone how the stump would quite often cartwheel nearly back to the keeper and/ occasionally break. Awesome!
I havent seen that from Shohab or Blee .
Thommo could also make the ball rear at the batsmens throat from a length consistantly. Exciting to watch as lots of wickets , lots of runs scored .
mate, even i can rip the stump out of the ground with more regularity than brett lee. says nothing about me being quicker though. it all depends on the hardness of the pitch and how solidly the stumps are packed down. ive seen shane warne knock stumps out of the ground.
a flawed tool for measuring different speeds.
Simon_Nesbit
5 Mar 2003, 07:59
Something that irks me, especially regarding the speeds.
Commentators claim, "The fastest bowler of all time". How on earth can they tell that? The fastest recorded, yes I'll grant that, but consider this:
When Thommo was timed at 99.xx (whatever it was) MPH, it was worked out using a freeze-frame style camera, dividing the time it took for the ball to travel FROM HAND TO BATSMAN (crease), and converting into MPH.
These days, they measure the speed out of the hand. Now unless they use to play in an air-less vacuum, the ball would slow down constantly whilst travelling down the pitch. Therefore, the actual release speed would have been much, much higher.
(Not sure at those extremes, but personally, I was 'clocked' (radar gun) at 130 km/h, yet the video reproduction, multiplied out to 120km/h (nearly 10% difference!!!). So if the same principle applies, you would think Thommo would be recorded at about 108mph using today's technology.
As a side note, Thommo's particular delivery was a bouncer!. Anyone who knows their physics or maths can tell you that would slow the delivery down further. By far the quickest route from Bowler's hand to Batsman's crease is the yorker. Maybe only 2-3 MPH, but certainly a change.
He was actually timed quicker during that test, (or perhaps same equipment, but different day), however it was not under 'scientific' conditions, and was ignored.
Also, (I can't confirm this), apparently the area where they tested only had a 10m run-up, (one of the West Indians (Garner?) complained in some interview that he wasn't in rhythm to bowl, hence his low (90! MPH) speed.
He also mentioned that one of the pakistani's bowled in a suit! (now that I'd like to see).