Pace or Swing?

[Mike23]

Who would you face/have in your line up - pacers who bowl at above 145 klicks (eg:-Brett Lee) or natural swingers of the ball who bowl below 130 klicks (eg:-Chaminda Vaas) ? Pacers bowl a lot of jaffas whereas swingers tend to get a lot of nicks.

 

[TumTum]

Most of the time I will have a pace bowler in my team. Because swing bowlers always struggle when there is no swing on offer.

 

[Aussie Team]

Mostly in my team pace bowler at above 145 klicks are there..

 

[War]

A quick bowler who has a solid combination of pace & swing would be preferable for most teams for sure.

 

[Mike23]

A quick bowler who has a solid combination of pace & swing would be preferable for most teams for sure.

Yes i agree, but if you didn't have that luxury which of the two would you pick - pacers or swingers?

 

[Varun]

I think both are important to have in a bowler, but if I'd have to choose one, I would choose pace because high pace can generate swing but a high swing cannot generate pace.

 

[sami ullah khan]

It all depends on the condition. If there is grass on pitch, moisture in the air and pitch is damp, I will love to have a pollock in the ranks. If the pitch is brazen and hard, pace is what I will be after.

 

[angryangy]

Could easily take your pick of bowlers who can bowl fast and swing the ball, there's no need for ones who aren't even fast-medium.

 

[Dabi]

I'd go with swing. A bullet straight pace bowler is easier for the batsmen to hit and nothing more. No international really feels uncomfortable against 90 mph balls (as long as they are straight) these days anyway.

 

[pcfan123]

^ What Dabi said. Unless you are hitting 95 consistently, no world class batsman is going to suffer against a straight ball. A little movement in the air and its a whole new ball game.

 

[King Pietersen]

I didn't know the 2 were mutually exclusive tbh.

 

[War]

Yes i agree, but if you didn't have that luxury which of the two would you pick - pacers or swingers?

Depends on the conditons & the overall strength of the attack. If as you suggested if its Brett Lee between Ashes 2001 to Ashes 2005. Who was basically a 145 kmph bowler who was gun barelll straight who hardly ever swung the ball. He was a very poor test bowler in most conditions during that period - even if he had a helpul bouncy deck.

Australia where able to carry him since they had the likes of McGrath/Gillespie/Warne to compensate for his ineffectiveness. So in such an attack the 90 mph bowler could be risked if he the 90 mph didn't have pace+swing.



But then you have Matthew Hoggard before 2006. Who was your 130 kmph swing bowler, who basically only effective on greentops. On flat decks before 2006 he was useless given he lacked real pace & couldn't reverse swing the ball.

So overall as i metioned before when chosing the 145 kmph or 130 kmph bowler you have to take the strenghts of your bowling attack & match conditions before you choose either. Its not that simple as one or the other.

 

[Dare]

Most of the time I will have a pace bowler in my team. Because swing bowlers always struggle when there is no swing on offer.

But then pace struggles when there isn't much pace in the pitch. Mike used Lee and Vaas as examples and I would take Vaas out of the two. When there was swing Vaas would exploit it when there wasn't any swing Vaas would use his line and length and off/leg cutters to get batsman out.

 

[TumTum]

But then pace struggles when there isn't much pace in the pitch. Mike used Lee and Vaas as examples and I would take Vaas out of the two. When there was swing Vaas would exploit it when there wasn't any swing Vaas would use his line and length and off/leg cutters to get batsman out.

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.

 

[pcfan123]

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