From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cricket Portal Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability Fast bowling is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Categories and templates: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

[edit] Fast bowling classification

I always believed Medium Fast was quicker than Fast Medium, is this the case or is it not? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of subjectivity in these definitions, but generally fast-medium is thought of as faster than medium-fast. --Robert Merkel 07:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A Cricinfo profile was cited as a source for "medium-fast" being quicker than "fast-medium"; however, there is no consistency in Cricinfo's use of the two terms. For example, Ewen Chatfield, Albie Morkel, and Graeme Labrooy are referred to as both "medium-fast" and "fast-medium" bowlers in their profiles. The only source I can find that addresses this distinction directly is the RSC faq, which classifies fast-medium above medium-fast. The FAQ is generally well-respected, but unfortunately it doesn't meet WP:RS. I can't find any sources that state that "medium-fast" is faster than "fast-medium". --Muchness 07:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly I believe that fast-medium is faster than medium-fast — although I don't have a reference immediately, and I may even have originally got that idea from the r.s.c. FAQ many years ago. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I had that idea too, but then someone pointed out what the terms meant. Say you have two general levels, fast and medium, fast medium would be the faster end of medium while medium fast would be the middle part of the fast level. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 09:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I had always thought that FM was quicker than MF. I looked in the 2006 Playfair Cricket Annual. Both terms are used for categorising players, but it doesn't say which is faster! There seem to be a lot more players described as FM than as MF. Looking at the entries for Sussex players, for instance, Kirtley, Lewry and Martin-Jenkins are all given as FM, but Naved-ul-Hasan is given as MF. If anyone is familiar with those bowlers, they might be able to work out which category is faster. JH 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Hadlee has this to say about these two types of pace bowling in his book Cricket: The Essentials of the Game:

Fast Medium — A bowler who usually has more control than the fast bowler but can bowl a quicker ball that can take the batsman by surprise. He may have the ability to swing the ball in the air or cut the ball off the pitch.

Medium Fast — A bowler who tends to bowl within his limits and therefore in long spells. To achieve this he has developed some good skills and many variations – swing, seam, slower, faster balls.

--Muchness 11:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the first term takes precedence, so that FM is faster than MF and MS is faster than SM. It in contrary to nomral use of English however - as the adjective normally goes first, so one would simply linguistically think that FM is medium bowler who is a bit fast, whereas MF is a fast bowler who is a bit medium. Certainly if you compare Sreesanth and Pathan, Pathan is MF and SS is FM, so I'm sure FM is faster. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok here guys i will clear this up here is how it goes - fast, fast medium, medium fast, medium but one thing that really bugs me is that some bowlers who were quick 2 years ago and now are bowling barely 130 are still labeled as fast!!!, for example makhaya ntini

[edit] Misleading introduction

This may be a stable article with a lot of good information, but the opening sentences are just not accurate. The contrast with fast/pace bowling is NOT spin bowling but slow bowling. And fast bowling and slow bowling are not the TWO approaches, because that leaves out medium-pace. Countless bowlers are neither fast bowlers nor spin bowlers: in fact, that's probably numerically the largest group of bowlers in the game.

Spin bowling is properly contrasted with seam bowling, but I see a distinction is made which contrasts seam with swing. Bizarre. "Seam bowler" is a perfectly good term for a swing bowler. Few seam bowlers never attempt to swing the ball.

I don't want to change anything without discussion, because these confusions are structural. But people need to take a look.KD Tries Again 19:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)KD

My first thought on reading the introduction was exactly the same thing. Arnold, Ealham or (god help us) Boycott were not spinners but certainly not fast. This is too big, complex and (for the most part) good an article for a quick fix though. Epeeist smudge 06:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] physique

I am very interested in what desirable human dimensions assist speed.I think this is a very relevant discussion for the game of cricket. From the "world's fastest bowler competition in the 70-80's the best correlation with speed was the distance the arm moved during the action so longer arms were advantages if you assume basic centripetal acceleration(I am not certain if this was what I heard but think so). Shoaib and Lee who are the quickest of today are not exactly tall compared with the average international fast bowler and I can't find Jeff Thompson's height who also was one of the game's quickest.This also extends to javelin where below average height Zelezny(6'1 or 185cm holds the record). In my local competition there are players who generate great speed of all heights and arm lengths but I feel the technique varies between taller and shorter players i.e shorter guys have a power action and can only bowl shorter spells where taller guys generate similar pace easier and can bowl longer spells. Also I am very interested in Wasim Akram's dimensions but get extremes of 6'1-6'6. My guess is he is about 6'2 to 6'3. Gooogen 15:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)