Rmf/rfm?

[gtbunbury]

I've always taken RMF to be the faster of the two, simply from the structure of the terms:

Medium fast, as in: he is a bowler of medium fast pace. The pace he bowls is medium level of fast.

Fast medium, as in: he bowls a fast medium pace. The pace he bowls is fast for a medium bowler.

Some take it as the last term being what they bowl occasionally, whereby fast medium is a fast bowler who occasionally slows to medium and medium fast the other way round, but this strikes me as a strange way of classifying.

[dontask]

how come then RMF seem to be able to bowl longer spells than RFM

[Cyril Washbrook]

Paul has it - this has been an issue of some dispute for quite a while, but in the end it's not important so long as we know which way round they are.

[Scritty]

Well...

We have it as RMF faster than RFM.

Why?

That's not always been the case though. The 2d version of the game had a much longer run up for RFM than RMF

RFM had the same run up as RF
RMF had the same run up as RM

Used to get a lot more "beaten for pace" wickets with RFM than RMF as well (in the comments).

I think they were swapped about the time of ICC3.

I don't care which was it is as long as I know.

An MPH or (KPH) in the ball tracker screen would be good though


Paul

[Imager36]

I would just say that a RMF was a swinger and RFM was a seamer. Just my tuppence.

[Sureshot]

Well...

We have it as RMF faster than RFM.

Why?

Right Fast Medium

Right Medium Fast

It's a group classification, but it works backwards, so RMF is: he's in the medium range of being a fast bowler.

RFM: He's in the fast range of a medium bowler.

How we deal with it. Be that right or wrong is very much down to your own opinion. Personally, I think we have it right. Having spoken to other data people for other games (sports management) they agree with me.

[MarksNotts]

The way I see it is as ;

RFM ; Is a fast bowler, who is of a medium pace.

RMF ; Is a medium bowler, who bowls fast.

I would say that RFM is quicker.

That is correct!!!

[Simbazz]

The way I see it is as ;

RFM ; Is a fast bowler, who is of a medium pace.

RMF ; Is a medium bowler, who bowls fast.

I would say that RFM is quicker.

[Tiresias]

Cheers MarksNotts! That's a relief, otherwise my selection process for the first 10 years of the game would have been completely wrong.

[MarksNotts]

This is the correct designation,

Classification of fast bowlers Type mph km/h
Fast 90 MPH + 145 KM/H +
Fast-medium 85 to 89 MPH, 136 to 145 KM/H
Medium-fast 80 to 85 MPH, 128 to 136 KM/H
Medium 70 to 80 MPH, 114 to 128 KM/H

although i believe ICC2008 has this the wrong way round....as RMF seem to be quicker in the game than RFM, which is incorrect.

[Tiresias]

Right: This could be me being a gormless twonk, but is right arm medium-fast (RMF) slower, or faster, than right arm fast-medium (RFM)?

If it's slower, then surely several players in ICC 2008 - Stuart Broad, for example - have been mislabelled as RMF when in fact they're faster than that.

Apologies if this has been pointed out before but the bugs thread is so long nowadays I couldn't be bothered reading the whole thing. Does anyone know whether or not this is right?