Pace or Swing?

[TumTum]

Vaas average has to be taken with a bit of salt, he did play in the SC after all.

Compare it to Wasim Akram. Vass didn't have the pace Akram had, hence his average.

 

[Dare]

Vass and Lee are the wrong choice. Vass was a great Lee isn't in his class.

How can they be wrong choices when one relied on pace and the other on swing/seam. Thats what the thread is about.

Anyways Vass' Test bowling average shows he also got put to the sword a few times.

When you look at his averages in each country he did really amazing in Sri Lanka which says allot about his ability to bowl on wickets that are barely suited for pace. His worst numbers are in England where you would expect a bowler like him to dominate.
His number at home and away from it are much different, yea he did get put under the sword but he also did great where many haven't. Its not easy for a pace bowler to take 14 wickets in a test in the subcontinent thats why only 2 men have done it.

Pace ALWAYS >>>>>> Swing. Like KP said most good swing bowlers over the years have had good pace as well.

No pace isn't always better then swing. Look at the pace bowlers that are most successful in the subcontinent and you will see that allot of them arent out and out pace bowlers. Walsh, Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee they weren't bowlers that could get you out with just pace alone they relied on movement of the ball in the air or of the pitch. They weren't slow bowlers but they didn't rely on just pace, all 4 could move the ball at will.
I will say that swing without much pace can prove infective but if a bowler is bowling 150+ but just straight from hand to keeper he will be easier to hit than a bowler that is making the ball move 4 out of 6 times.

 

[TumTum]

But what you don't understand dare is that it is rare to see a swing bowler swing a ball. However a pace bowler always has pace.

You could say pace bowlers will find it difficult on SC surfaces, but the exact same can be said for swing bowlers, as the batsmen will re-adjust to any swing because of the slow pace and bounce.

Tell me one good swing bowler that bowled in the 130s. (except Vass)

There are "great" bowlers that had just pace, and both pace and swing.

Slow swing is just stupid.

 

[pcfan123]

Dare has a new Avvy

 

[rahuldravidfan]

Pace with swing

 

[sami ullah khan]

I don't know a successful fast bowler who could not swing the ball. All the great pacemen have had the ability to swing the ball. Waqar Younis for example could not swing the new ball in his early years but he was still swinging the old ball like a boomerang. Over the years he had to learn to swing the new ball as he lost pace.
Most young quick bowlers realize the value of swing later in their career.

 

[angryangy]

Vaas' record at home tends to be greatly misunderstood. Sri Lanka is generally one of the most difficult countries for batsmen, quite different from the mainland of the subcontinent. Although the pitches aren't quick, accurate seamers can often expect to get uneven bounce and good cut off the surfaces. In only the last year, we saw Younus Khan take wickets with his medium pace.

Vaas bowled miles more successfully in Sri Lanka than in England, South Africa or Australia, where conditions are supposed to favour seamers more. You can't use conditions as an excuse if the conditions you want offer only detriment. Surely a "great" swing bowler would have taken wickets with a Duke. The one good match Vaas had in any of those three regions was on a very Sri Lankan wicket at Darwin that was won by Australia in 3 days.

On the topic of "straight bowling", I think it is too theoretical. A fast bowler of quality should be able to hit the seam just as a swing bowler of quality should be able to bowl a little faster than 130 kph. Without limits, pace is surely more important to a Test quality seamer. A 120 kph swinger won't make the side unless he bats. However, having a little bit of each is where it becomes a contest and is what people are surely imagining when they compare the two.

 

[Dare]

Tell me one good swing bowler that bowled in the 130s. (except Vass)

A good majority of them. What speeds did McGrath bowl for the majority of his career? You look at Dale Steyn these days and while he has the ability to get to 150 he tones it down to high 130 low 140 to get that swing and control it. Wasim, McGrath, Pollock all bowled in that area of speed from what I have seen in videos but they all had the ability to bowl faster instead they settled for less speed more swing/seam.

But what you don't understand dare is that it is rare to see a swing bowler swing a ball. However a pace bowler always has pace.

The good swing bowlers in the history of the game swung the ball almost at will in their careers.

There are "great" bowlers that had just pace, and both pace and swing.

Well the same can be said on the other side, there are/were good swing bowlers that had pace. The bowlers that ended up being most successful in history are the ones that had both.

Dare has a new Avvy

Had to change it up a bit, nothing wrong with Cuddy.

 

[TumTum]

McGrath wasn't a genuine slow swing bowler. That's my point.

 

[Cricketdude]

McGrath wasn't a genuine slow swing bowler. That's my point.

Mcgrath said "The first ball of the new ball swings, and thats it."

 

[Owzat]

Compare it to Wasim Akram. Vass didn't have the pace Akram had, hence his average.

Wasim could move the ball at pace, and played his Tests in a very much changing era

1985-2002 Wasim Akram - 104 Tests, 414 wickets @ 23.62
1994-2009 Chaminda Vaas - 111 Tests, 355 wickets @ 29.58

If you consider Vaas played up until recently and pitches are much flatter and batting records broken with regular ease, than even back when Wasim retired bowling was easier. No doubt Wasim was a better bowler, but if you factor in bowling averages getting higher these days then the gulf that should be there isn't. One other potential factor is the increase in LHBs, not sure if that is perceived or actual which is why I'm calling it "potential"



re the original question, ideally you'd want both. Throw in a left-armer in your three man pace/seamer attack and a spinner with variety and a part-time spinner of a different nature and you'd have as perfect attack as you could hope for. Sometimes England try to put in variety, but you have to offset that against quality ie a left-armer is not necessarily better than a right-armer just because he's a lefty, just as a leggie or SLA (Panesar) isn't neccessarily better than an offie (Swann)

 

[angryangy]

The good swing bowlers in the history of the game swung the ball almost at will in their careers.

That's a load.

 

[shravi]

Vass and Lee are the wrong choice. Vass was a great Lee isn't in his class.

Anyways Vass' Test bowling average shows he also got put to the sword a few times.

Pace ALWAYS >>>>>> Swing. Like KP said most good swing bowlers over the years have had good pace as well.

TumTum with the averages again...

 

[TumTum]

TumTum with the averages again...

Wickets / Runs Conceded
Runs / Dismissals

Cricket's #1 tool

 

[pcfan123]

Wickets / Runs Conceded
Runs / Dismissals

Cricket's #1 tool

Hmm I was under the impression that Yuvraj was crickets #1 tool.