• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Bowling styles (RF, RMF...)

Mingster

State Regular
I'm confused with these.

Cricinfo seems to name everyone fast-medium when clearlythey are not, while Channel Nine seems to have it bang on.

Here's my version, it would help if you could include some examples:

Fast (145+) - Bond, Lee, Shoaib

Fast-medium (135-145) - Butler, Gillespie, Zaheer, Williams

Medium-fast (125-135) - Oram, Agarkar, Pathan, Mills, Cairns, Styris

Medium (125-) - Harvey, Bangar, M Walker, Symonds
 

BlackCap_Fan

State Vice-Captain
Off spinner,Leg spinner and SLA/SRA:Vettori,Warne,Kaneria, Muralitharan.

just a few.

Would tuffey be Medium fast or fast medium?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
F, FM, MF and M (and indeed S) is always open to change and misreading.
LA, RA, wristspin and fingerspin is all much simpler.
 

Neil Pickup

Request Your Custom Title Now!
And more to the point, which way round are MF and FM?

Logically, MF should be faster than FM as in MF, medium is the adjective of fast (slightly mediumer-than-fast) and in FM, it's slightly faster-than-medium.
 

Armadillo

State Vice-Captain
Neil Pickup said:
And more to the point, which way round are MF and FM?

Logically, MF should be faster than FM as in MF, medium is the adjective of fast (slightly mediumer-than-fast) and in FM, it's slightly faster-than-medium.
Y..E..S
 
Neil Pickup said:
Logically, MF should be faster than FM as in MF, medium is the adjective of fast (slightly mediumer-than-fast) and in FM, it's slightly faster-than-medium.
He's right there.
 

Salamuddin

International Debutant
IF Fast-medium is taken to be quicker than medium-fast (as seems to be the case on tv), then AA should be in the fast-medium category.

In the Sydney test, AA sent a ball down at 146 km/hr and he's often over the 140 km'hr mark in short spells in odi's and occasionally tests.
 

twctopcat

International Regular
I see what you mean but medium-fast tries to define those bowlers in the medium to fast bracket (i.e 80-85mph), whilst the fast-medium tells of those bowling slower than fast(85-90ish mph). It is just a method of distinguishing two different brackets of the 80-90mph range, useless and trivial i know, as some bowlers can cover this entire range, depending on their mood (caddick sometimes:P ).
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Neil Pickup said:
And more to the point, which way round are MF and FM?

Logically, MF should be faster than FM as in MF, medium is the adjective of fast (slightly mediumer-than-fast) and in FM, it's slightly faster-than-medium.
True, but until everyone agrees it's impossible to change it.
 

Top