Talk:Fast bowling

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.

• But when I watched the profiles of Iain O'Brien (New Zealand) & Steven Finn (England) talking about their bowling classifications, the former says fast-medium, the latter said medium fast, but on average, they bowl at about the same speed, though Finn's quicker deliveries are touching 145kph, and O'Brien never got to 140.Nbagigafreak (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

There is a subtlety here because we are actually describing two slightly separate things - the method the bowler employs in attempting to get the ball to move from a straight trajectory, and the speed he achieves whilst doing so.

There are almost without question two distinct methods of bowling - seam bowling and spin bowling. The variation in speed in spin bowlers is small - between 40mph to 70mph, the variation in speed of seam bowlers is much larger - all the way from amateurs bowling at 50mph up to Brett Lee at 100mph.

So the distinction is between seam bowling (of which swing bowling is just one particular weapon) and spin bowling. The classification of bowling speed shoud be kept separate - although the correlation should obviously be mentioned. A fast bowler is simply a bowler who bowls over 85mph, and is by necessity a subset of seam bowlers, because it is biomechanically impossible to bowl spin at this velocity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.98.2 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Assistance to fast bowlers

The introduction to the article states that Pakistan has produced fast bowlers because of pitches in Pakistan which assist them. How is that true? India and Pakistan are known for producing batting pitches that are never helpful for fast bowlers. The greener pitches in England and Australia are more suited for fast bowlers. Is there a source for this claim? Inf fg (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The batsman on the end of the delivery was Nick Knight who tamely guided it into the leg side. This is quoted from main text. All cricket fans have knowledge as to the pace at which pace bowlers such as Brett Lee and Shoab Aktar can bowl. The fact that Nick Knight played and made a shot of a ball travelling at this speed should not be downplayed in the main body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.152.126 (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Strike Bowler Definition

The definition used of strike bowler is incorrect - a strike bowler is simply a bowler employed by his captain to pick up wickets at the possible expense of giving up runs - this quality is what is measured by "strike rate". It has nothing to do with the velocity the bowler bowls - an aggressive spinner could easily be described as a strike bowler. Of course, there may be a correlation between strike rate and bowling velocity, but that is by the by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.98.2 (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Support this entirely, I'll edit the paragraph under the "Strike Bowling" heading, but I haven't read all the way through yet to see if this mistake has been repeated GGdown (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Military Medium

Can we have a seperate wiki page on Military Medium Bowlers,the ones who bowl in the low and mid 120's sometimes reaching 130 kmph.There are quite a lot of them in recent times like Darren Sammy,Praveen Kumar,Sohail Tanvir,Trent Copeland etc.They were quite common in the 80's and 90's as well.

Spin bowling should not be in classifications of fast bowling table

I am amazed that spin bowling is listed in the classifications of fast bowling table. Spin bowling is completely different to pace bowling in that spinners walk or slowly trot in off a short run-up when they bowl, and their method of attack is to use finger or wrist actions to get the ball to spin as much as possible, this includes their grip on the ball. Pace bowlers run or jog in off a medium to long run-up; like spin bowlers the way they grip the ball is important but pace bowlers use little or no finger/wrist movement - speed and bounce are their main weapons. As people suggested in the fast bowling classification discussion above, there are such things as slow-medium and slow pace bowling. (I don't think there is medium-slow but I could be wrong) - both should be added. Spin bowling is often incorrectly called slow bowling but even though spin bowlers are usually slowers their bowling style is a different one altogether - a different discipline - to pace bowling. Furthermore, most spinners have a faster delivery, or in some cases their usual or stock delivery that is falls in or not far above the medium pace bowling range. So, not only should spin bowling not be in this table as it is a different discipline to pace bowling, but as this table describes what speed a bowler bowls on average to be classified as fast, fast medium, etc. spin bowling can't fit in neatly above, between, or below any of the pace bowling categories,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.16.17 (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Top five fast bowlers" section needs an update; Warne Murilitharan, and Kumble were spinners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.10.5 (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Current fast bowlers

Does this section really add anything to the article? It takes up a large amount of space, and by its very nature, its bound to be both subjective and constantly out-of-date as bowlers come and go. In my view, its unencyclopaedic and should be removed. Py0alb (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think maintenance and subjectivity are the key issues. It's being updated at the moment, but given the effort required it could go out of date quickly. More importantly though the criteria for inclusion are unclear, it's not clear what this 'index' relates to, and the methodology behind how the Cricinfo works out the speeds are unclear. It's an interesting tidbit, but are they really accurate? Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It is currently up to date for all entries sourced from cricinfo. 192.195.83.162 (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Surely it should be moved to List of current fast bowlers in international cricket? BoJó | talk 14:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

sounds fair to me. 192.195.83.162 (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

where on cricinfo is the listing of average speed in last match (as that seems to be the inclusion / sorting methodology)? I'd support removing the table Spike 'em (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Follow the link that says HawkEye in the scorecare. The URL looks like this http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-england-2016-17/engine/match/1034817.html?view=hawkeye

Click on Bowl Speed icon.

This list is clearly not being kept up to date. A quick check on the last England v India Test has bowlers that should be on the list. Spike 'em (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The list seems to be up to date. which bowlers do you see registered as Fast or average above 140kmph/87mph are not listed? The ODI/T20 series is yet to start and Test series did not have any bowlers from either side in either of those categories in their last match. Only Umesh Yadav went above that mark (140kmph/87mph) in few of his matches, such as 5th test first innings, but not in his last innings.192.195.83.162 (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jake Ball averaged 83.9 and top speed of 90.8, which over a Test innings is better that half of the bowlers on this list. I think you need to use an entirely objective measure of average / top speed, not a subjective measure of whatever the person who input the players details onto cricinfo thought 3 years ago.Spike 'em (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Today's ODI: Jake Ball bowled about half his deliveries at 85mph+ (26 in a 10 over spell). On list are Andile Phehlukwayo with a 9 over spell with 1 delivery above 85 and Michael Cummins who had a 4 over spell with 7 deliveries above 85. It is complete rubbish. Spike 'em (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mohammed Amir has played 7 internationals since the one listed for him. Up to date? Spike 'em (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

By the measures being applied here, 3 of the top 5 Fast bowlers in each of the Tests/ ODI and T20I lists above this table would never have appeared within it (McGrath, Anderson, Dev, Vaas, Pollock, McGrath again, Gul, Broad & Kulasekara). Fast-medium is a part of Fast bowling. Either include all of them or ditch this table. Spike 'em (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Its not about the top bowlers, its about the fastest bowlers, either for real (with sourced data), or assumed by an authority such as CricInfo. McGrath was actually Medium Fast, since he rarely bowled faster than 135 kmph. Unfortunately CricInfo decided to list Andile Phelukwayo as fast and he clearly is not even Medium-Fast, same with Junaid Khan, and many others. And many Fast Medium bowlers, such as Shannon Gabriel, Umesh Yadav, Chris Morris, who regularly bowl more than 140kmph, with Shannon Gabriel currently one of the fastest, are not listed as Fast Medium so they lose out whenever they are 139.9kmph. I agree this list is not most justified, but there are the criteria which keep this list limited, else it is difficult to maintain the list when more than 3 series are running at the same time. Also EagleEye/VirtualEye has got contracts to all NZ and Aus games, and while they show speed data on Television, they do not provide it to either CricInfo or ICC. Which results in multiple players having played matches in these countries to not be updated with latest speed data and players such as Lockie Ferguson who is possibly the fastest bowler at this time misses out on having even a single sourced listing. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have changed requirement to appear on the list be last innings average speed in excess of 135km as this is a figure better than half the players on this list. Also these figures require hawkeye, which only covers certain countries, so I've made it clear where players are on the list based on a different match to their last one. Spike 'em (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the best I can, probably missed out some players who should be on there. List was clearly not up to date; I had to change 11 out of 34 players on there. HOWEVER: I think this whole list is WP:OR and even my changing the qualification average speed to appear on the list is entirely arbitrary Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is possible to maintain list with such large set of players that include Fast-Medium, Medium-Fast and Medium that are below 140 kmph. Many players listed as Medium regularly bowl at an average of 134kmph (Bhuvneshwar Kumar) and many listed as Fast would bowl around 132kmph. Listing players who are Fast but bowl at 132kmph is useful as it shows how ridiculous sometimes CricInfo's assumption about a players bowling speed is and hopefully they will change or better, will create a list of their own and rate players according to that. Many players have been bowling under 135kmph for many months but suddenly start bowling at 140+ such as Dale Steyn(unfortunately his last match data is not available since it was created by EagleEye/VirtualEye). 69.181.193.136 (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of talk pages is to discuss changes, not to disregard them and revert back to out of date information because you don't like what I've done. WP:OWN Spike 'em (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of your calculations are wrong. Hardik Pandya 84.5 is not 140+kmph. 192.195.83.162 (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

For maintainability and exclusivity the list has to be only for genuine 140+ mph average bowlers. The only other considerable criteria could be some authority such as CricInfo declaring them as Fast, which still keeps it limited and maintainable.

Cant have every 135+ mph bowler in this list and maintain regularly. The person who changed the criteria to hugely expand the scope has himself not made any updates since then. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

ditch the table if you think its too difficult to maintain. What is so special about 140? Players at 135+ average ARE fast bowlers. Cricinfo categorisations are meaningless, as the player at the top of this list is classified by them as fast-medium.Spike 'em (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

do you even know about cricket? I agreee cricinfo categorizations are meaningless but they do present as a standard source since 1990s. This table has to be exclusive and maintainable. 135+ average is nothing special that needs mention in a long table. 140+ average is special and rare. Ideally all genuine Fast bowlers need to bowl around that to be counted. Else they are Fast Medium. I hope we are on the same team trying to provide useful and updated information to the people. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What bullshit. 135 gets you halfway up the table. There is no reason to keep players off just because you think it makes things difficult to maintain. The whole thig is junk, and I continue to think it has no place here. Spike 'em (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you be taking the responsibility to update the table everytime a bowler crosses 135+? 69.181.193.136 (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You say "I agreee cricinfo categorizations are meaningless" but continue to use it as the overriding source of players. I was also the last person to update the table. If you keep removing the 135, I will keep reverting the table. Spike 'em (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

How many bowlers data did you update in last one week for 135+?

sounds like you are taking it personally and not really trying to provide information. Would you be willing to stand up and update the information everytime a bowler crosses 135+? 69.181.193.136 (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I think that the criteria you are using are meaningless. I will update the table whenever I feel like it, I am making no promises. 02:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You understand that this list is not about English bowlers. Are you going to add 135+ bowlers from every country? So every 135+ bowler from Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe is going to be there after your updates? You need to take responsibility of what you expect to see. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll update the list with any players I see who should be on there whenever I see fit. I make no guarantee that I will get everyone on there. If you impose a limit of 140 then you'd only have 4 players on the list. Spike 'em (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The idea is to follow some criteria but make sure that is complete, so that anyone who reads the list knows that this is definitive within that criteria. If we cant guarantee and it is hit and trial it loses its point. As a reader I would rather want to see a complete list of 4 than an incomplete list of 30, 69.181.193.136 (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And I would wonder why the player who should be in 13th place on a list of bowlers is not there in favour of someone significantly lower down just because 2 unknown people have different views on what makes a "fast" bowler (and have never seen cricinfo change their categorisation, even when players get faster or slower through their careers) Spike 'em (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is unfair, and cricinfo needs to update their listing more often, such as average of last 10 matches or something list them according to that, but unfortunately it does not. I have myself been putting efforts to create a website that would list players bowling speed for every match, last 10 matches, last one year or any criteria, and list their average (and max) but havent got time to work on that. Last one year I have been updating this list every 3rd day or whenever a match happens. I understand that only top 10 are useful and rest of the players listed fast on cricinfo dont really deserve that specially Andile Phulwayo who is currently averaging just hair above 125kmph. But at least with a criteria it is possible to be complete. And the bowlers you expect to see will show up whenever they cross 140 which happens not very often for bowlers who are not that fast, some bowlers who have been showing on and off in the 140+ are Umesh Yadav, Chris Jordan, Chris Morris, Chris Woakes did briefly. Shannon Gabriel has always been there and with the recorded data he is currently the fastest, although Lockie Ferguson is possibly faster than him. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I do appreciate the work you have done to clearly list players whose data is not available due to EagleEye/VirtualEye not publishing their data. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Also this list is not just about the India vs England series. There are multiple series going on at this time. All of the players in those series who qualify the speed criteria need to be added after converting their mph speed to kmph. Also deleted or commented as soon as they fall out of that. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This whole list is over-reliant on WP:OR. I am under no obligation to add other players or keep the list upto date: I went through the list last month and checked all the players on the list and I will do as little or as much as I see fit. You claim to update the list every 3 days, but I made those changes on 19th Jan and between then and yesterday, the only thing you did was to revert out my changes. If you want to make the list easier to manage, then split it out in to a separate article called list of current bowlers by speed and add an absolute criteria of either most recent match average or most recent match fastest delivery. Forget about using cricinfo it is too inconsistent. Spike 'em (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I stopped doing my changes since last week, since you had been reverting my changes, and all my efforts going down the drain. I added new fast bowlers such as Lungi Ngidi and Dane Peterson and they went away. When I came back, first thing I needed was the names of those players back and some consistency in the criteria. Cricinfo is the only source that reliably provides data received from HawkEye. It seems having a separate page may be a better option but as long as there is no criteria it will stay as WP:OR what it is now. I was also waiting to see if you are going to come back and stick around or were just enthusiastic for a while about your country's bowlers names being up there. When you had the responsibility you did nothing with it until I came back and updated everyone's data. 192.195.83.162 (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to believe me, just go check all last 300 change lists yourself. The data is all there for you to figure out yourself. Are you willing to have that commitment for the sake of information? Or you only take action when it involves your people or who you are a fan of? 192.195.83.162 (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Look, there is no question about commitment, any editor on wikipedia can edit as little or as much as they want. I think the whole premise behind the list is flawed. I make no apologies about being an England supporter, but if I see another player who should be on the list then I will add them. I am not going out of my way to check scorecards on a regular basis, but clearly you weren't either as some of the information was a year out of date when I did check through the table. The main point is that there should be a clear objective measure of what should put someone on the list. Cricinfo's designation of a bowler as fast / fast-medium / medium-fast is subjective, not objective, so should not be used. If you want to cut down the list to a higher speed, then fine, but do it on that alone, don't bring the cricinfo rating into it. Spike 'em (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

can you point out which one of the information was 1 year out of date? if it was about some bowlers who have been inactive since last one year, I marked them red but didn't remove them, since they were not retired or ruled out from making a comeback. I didnt want to delete and then look for their data again. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

And as a suggestion, get yourself a login, then we can see if I'm arguing with one person or 2 Spike 'em (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is my login. I would like to be an admin. Nihits (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I have created a List of current fast bowlers with top 10 in various categories, using objective data. If you want a full list of anyone who is a fast bowler, I'd suggest a simple list, with no other data, or do it using categories. Not quite finished, and may cut it down to top-5. Will move to main space and remove list on page if people think it looks ok. Spike 'em (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

great job. create a new page. also add capability to sort by every/most columns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.136 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Following ESPN Cricinfo redesign, I can't find any links that show the Hawkeye data. Is this the nail in the coffin of this list? I've updated the List of records above with the wickets / averages, but can't do for top / average speed anymore. I also notice that Shannon Gabriel has been removed from the list, any reason for this? Spike 'em (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems ICC has this data in their match centre e.g. Eng v SA

I have gone ahead and updated my previous list and moved it to main article space to replace the list that was here. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Unsourced material may be challenged and removed"

I really expected a decent article about fast bowling, a fundamental topic in cricket, and this "effort" is appalling. The same applies to swing bowling, inswinger and outswinger (I can't face any more). I don't believe the issues, especially the lack of sources, will be addressed. I seriously think this should have all unsourced material stripped out and be reduced to a basic stub so that someone who knows and understands the subject can rebuild it using some accredited source material. Terrible. BoJó | talk 10:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)