is this the Fastest?

[War]

Yea i saw it live. Faulty speed gun as others have already said.

 

[Fenil]

Lol, are you kidding me? Based on pure bowling ability, Shoaib was always ahead of Lee. At his peak, Akhtar could lead a quality Test attack on his own. Lee couldn't.

But in ODI, I agree. Lee was a far better bowler than Akhtar.

I wouldn't say that. I would just say that Lee did a better job of keeping himself fit and out of trouble than Akhtar did. On his day, Akhtar was up there with the most devastating bowlers in history.

I think the key was that Lee kept himself fit consistently and thats where Shoaib failed to catch up. Had Shoaib been fit for all these years that he has played, who knows, he might have had better figures than Lee.

 

[ferg512]

Why all the hate for Sami?? lol. He could be pretty deadly when he wanted to, he was really inconsistent though he could have been quite a good bowler with the pace he got.

 

[Fenil]

Sami was definitely a fast bowler and a good bowler too on his day but wasn't the fastest of all and thats what the questions is asked in the thread.

 

[cricket_icon]

shoaib is officially the fastest of all. the only bowler to ball over 100mph if im not mistaken. did it twice, or once if you agree that the speed gun was not working properly first time round and shoaib did it again holding up two fingers. hahaha we need characters like that again.

 

[Fenil]

Shoaib did touch 100mph only once. It was 100.2 or probably 100.3 mph. He's the only bowler to do that.

 

[sifter132]

Lol, are you kidding me? Based on pure bowling ability, Shoaib was always ahead of Lee. At his peak, Akhtar could lead a quality Test attack on his own. Lee couldn't.

But in ODI, I agree. Lee was a far better bowler than Akhtar.

To be fair to Lee, he lead the Aussie attack very well for a couple of years after McWarne. By that time he'd learned how to control himself a bit more. For too many years he bowled the bouncer/yorker combo far too often. I still say that his injury pre-2009 Ashes was huge for Australia.

Lee was far more consistent in ODIs but they were both about the same explosiveness.


And speaking of Brett Lee, there was a ball he bowled in 2000/01 vs WI that clocked 161kph. But it was debunked in this article:
The myth of Lee's 100 mph delivery | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Don't get me wrong, both were brilliant bowlers. It's just that whenever someone asks who was the better, I have always been of the opinion:

Akhtar > Lee in Tests
Lee > Akhtar in ODI's.

 

[Aoun13]

To me Lee was a complete bowler but Shoaib was more popular due to his X factor.
Shoaib was actually the only bowler who just concentrate on bowling fast while Lee mostly bowl accordiing to situations that's why I agree with Papa_Smurf.

Shoaib was once on the right track when he played against England in Pakistan under inzamam but lack of fitness ruin his career.

But for fitness I will never say that it was due to shoaib's on fault. He was disable and he can not do anything with his fitness.
So it is a miracle for him that he was even able to play for that long even with all these issues.

 

[Fenil]

I think Lee was better bowler because he had better control over line and length and led the Aussie attack brilliantly, especially in ODIs. On the other hand, on his day Shoaib Akhtar could run through any batting line-up but tend to get wayward more often than not. Also, he isn't able to bowl long or even regular spells like Lee. Shoaib needs to rest every 3 odd overs otherwise his pace will go down while this is not the case with Lee which makes Lee a better bowler for me.

 

[sami ullah khan]

While stats may not always paint the right picture, Shoaib does average better than Lee in test cricket.

 

[Fenil]

This is not the fastest. This is a speed gun error.