Pace or Swing?

[TumTum]

Oh come on he didn't have the pace to trouble the batsman, it was his swing that got them.

Who? Yeah Vaas didn't have much pace. But do you think Akram could have gotten most of those wickets if he didn't have the pace? Especially if you consider that most of Akram's and Waqar's wicket taking balls were yorkers.

 

[Sahil 7]

Who? Yeah Vaas didn't have much pace. But do you think Akram could have gotten most of those wickets if he didn't have the pace? Especially if you consider that most of Akram's and Waqar's wicket taking balls were yorkers.

Ya Because Of His Yorkers And reverse swing They Got Most Wickets

 

[Mike23]

His swing and reverse swing wouldnt of been as deadly without his pace.

Yeah no doubt but what i'm trying to say is that he didn't generate a lot of pace like say a Lee or Johnson but he definitely did have pace.

Mike23 added 2 Minutes and 6 Seconds later...

Who? Yeah Vaas didn't have much pace. But do you think Akram could have gotten most of those wickets if he didn't have the pace? Especially if you consider that most of Akram's and Waqar's wicket taking balls were yorkers.

I was talking about McGrath. But do you think Akram could have gotten most of those wickets if he only had raw pace? This could go on for days.

 

[TumTum]

I was talking about McGrath. But do you think Akram could have gotten most of those wickets if he only had raw pace? This could go on for days.

Mate I agree with you, because you have just canceled out an example for your own point :laugh

What I am trying to say is that ALL successful swing bowlers also had pace, there has also been MANY bowlers that have been successful by pace alone. But there has NEVER been a successful swing bowler that didn't have the pace.

Therefore Pace > Swing.

 

[Mike23]

Ok fine you win, but you cannot say that Pace > Swing. A bowler will have to have both in his armoury to be lethal. There might have been bowlers that have been successful by pace alone, but that was at the pre-historic era :sarcasm.Modern day cricket requires both!

 

[Sahil 7]

Ok fine you win, but you cannot say that Pace > Swing. A bowler will have to have both in his armoury to be lethal. There might have been bowlers that have been successful by pace alone, but that was at the pre-historic era :sarcasm.Modern day cricket requires both!

Ya Agree With You

 

[-D-S-B-]

Yeah I agree with what you guys mean, because it is usually the swing bowlers that have performed in England (like Hilfenhaus). But you have to consider that the English batsmen are pretty good against pace.

But then in places like Aus and SA where there is hardly any swing, hit the deck bowlers have performed the best.

Well there you go, no need to discuss. TumTum has found the answer. You have basically said it depends on the surface and environment, and I agree with that. Swing bowlers perform where there's swing and maybe the pitch a tad slow, whereas quicks are more successful on 'quicker' decks.

Check The Spell Hilfenaus Spell Is Wrong . It Is hilfenhaus :laugh

Absolute fail! You can't correct someones grammar with an awful sentence like that. You need to fix your own grammar first mate.

 

[Sahil 7]

Well there you go, no need to discuss. TumTum has found the answer. You have basically said it depends on the surface and environment, and I agree with that. Swing bowlers perform where there's swing and maybe the pitch a tad slow, whereas quicks are more successful on 'quicker' decks. FML I'm fixing my quote now

Absolute fail! You can't correct someones grammar with an awful sentence like that. You need to fix your own grammar first mate.

Thanks

 

[-D-S-B-]

Hai

 

[Sahil 7]

Hai

What

 

[-D-S-B-]

Fine then, Bai.

 

[Sahil 7]

Fine then, Bai.

This is not a hai bai tread

 

[TumTum]

In Japanese, Hai means Yes.

 

[Sahil 7]

Thanks

 

[Dabi]

I don't understand the people who say pace is greater. Give me one bowler in the last 10-15 years, who was good but couldn't swing or seam it. Akhtar was deadly because he swung it, without swing he's useless. Same for Lee, Bond, Tait, etc. They all swing it.

McGrath wasn't a swing bowler, he was a seamer but he didn't have pace, yet is one of the best bowlers of all time. Same for Pollock; these days you have Asif.

Pace may have been a weapon 25-30 years ago because there weren't a lot of genuine pace bowlers so because of a lack of experience facing them, they were more potent. Nowadays every other guy can touch 90. That is seriously no criteria for success at the international level. Tino Best comes to mind.

Kulasekara, Praveen Kumar, Bracken, these guys are good / very good ODI bowlers and they don't have pace. How many bowlers have just pace (no swing or seam) but are successful?

P.S: accuracy plus a bit of movement (seam or swing) is the greatest weapon in international cricket these days.