What is more difficult: Facing a quality pace attack or Facing a quality spin attack?

[Paki007]

I Don't think you can easily defend some really quick deliveries easily.Quick bowling creates such terror that a batsman almost dies before the the bowl is released

 

[War]

Good post sir. But still some area's i dont really agree with.

To some extent I agree. On the other hand how often do players face quality spinners on a helpful wicket compared to even relatively quick bowlers on a wicket helpful to them? I think the answer is in most cases that batsmen will generally be more used to facing quicker bowlers than spinners of any quality in their respective helpful conditions so I'd vote for the spinners given that would cause them problems of inexperience as well as the inherent difficulty posed.

I'm not sure this is a valid or fair enough reason to give the "quality spinners" the edge. Even though as you suggested, the true fact that batsmen may be more accustomed to facing a quality pace attack on a helpful track more often than a quality spin attack on a dustbowl.

For example lets use Justin Langer. Before 2004 he definately falls into the category of a batsmen who encountered difficulty of inexperience on a sub-continent tour playing spin - given he was brought up on the bouncy Perth deck. But at the same time i highly doubt if Langer had to face a quality pace-attack @ Perth like the Windies 4-prong, that would have been more difficult for him than facing spinners in India - even though he his accustomed to batting @ Perth.

Maybe the fact is that West Indies and their four pronged attack were so famous in the 70s and 80s that people think that makes pace the more difficult proposition. Don't get me wrong, I doubt it was fun but I would think that the pure pace itself wasn't so much the problem as most should know that you can get runs off pure pace by the ball hitting the bat and racing to the boundary. The problem would be not getting out and not getting hurt, whereas with spin you would have to time or get power in a shot more so the score would also not be ticking over, with the physical threat more or less removed as compensation.

Although its true extra pace on the ball would indeed assist batsmen in scoring some runs againts a quality pace attack, than a quality pace attack, if the batsmen is struggling to score runs & rotate the strike.

But thats very marginal to be fair. I would think if the fast bowlers are in top spell on a helpul deck, they would be equally hard to score runs off. You take the example of Ambrose 7-1 @ Perth 1992 vs Harbhajan's spells vs Australia 2001. Equally destructive, tested the batsmen technically equally (but in different ways of course). The big difference was the intimidatory factor & physical threat Ambrose spell carried.

And maybe the key swinger (excuse the pun) for me would be movement. Pace in itself can be a threat, but movement can be the killer. If the ball is turning, which you'd expect it to under the circumstances of turning wicket and QUALITY spinners, then the ball should be moving and with variation and control enough supplied by quality spinners that the batsmen would be struggling to leave anything, getting full face on most balls and knowing where the ball would be at point of intended contact to play scoring strokes with any safety whatsoever.

Yea you hit they key point here. All quality bowlers should have swing whether conventional or reverse. That tops any quality spinner even if its off Warne/Murali quality.

Since for example again, i would think even on crumbling 5th day wicket facing the reverse swing of Malcolm Marshall or Wasim/Waqar @ 90 mph would be more difficult ever so slightly than facing big turning leg-breaks, googlies, doosra's & off-breaks from Warne/Murali on such a surface.

The aussies had Warne who was perhaps the key factor in their success and his absence perhaps the cause of their decline - albeit not a massive one. He took FORTY wickets in 2005, not particularly a series for spin, but he caused the England batsmen problems.

Our English batsmen have a traditional weaknes againts spin to be fair. That was one of the reasons why even Australia's pace attack was crap during the Ashes, Warne was able to keep up a one-man show.

Ok there is no such thing as a quality pace attack anymore since West Indies went into terminal decline, but I don't recall pace bowlers destroying England so much. I can think only of Alderman who took 41 wickets in 1989 who wasn't pure pace anyway and that over six Tests, even the mighty Malcolm Marshall only managed 35 in 1988. Those aren't full sets of the respective attacks on favourable wickets, but an example of the respective feats of just one quality bowler and even in 80/81 Garner, Holding and co didn't break 30 wickets against England at home. Sure you might expect the wickets more evenly split, but with 80-100 wickets on offer you'd expect them to be all pushing 20+ which they weren't (all)

All true. But i recall under Tony Greig & Tony Lewis during the 70s England winning in India to be fair againts the Indian great spin quartet. I would still wager that the England batsmen regardless of their traditional weakness to spin - found facing the Windies 4-prong greats more difficult
to face in the 70s & 80s.

Also i think its harsh to saw there was no quality pace attack since the Windies went into decline.

Australia with McGrath/Dizzy/Kasper/McDermott/Hughes/Reifell/Clark/Lee. Hilfenahuas/Siddle/Johnson/Clark in the 09 Ashes.

South Africa throughout the 90s. Then you had Ntini/Steyn/Morkel/De Wet in recent times.

England between 2004-2005 with Hoggard/Harmison/Jones/Flintoff. Plus we had Gough/Caddick/White/Cork in early 2000s & late 90s.

Plus Wasim/Waqar for the majority of the 90s.

 

[sami ullah khan]

I will happily take on a pace attack if it includes Nehra, Parveen kumar and Tinu Yohannan .

 

[ZoraxDoom]

The thing with a quality spin attack though is that they play great mind games. When Warne bowls, the difficulty isn't only in how much the ball spins or his accuracy, but how he could make you think the ball will do one thing but make it do something else, and how he'd set you up for a trap without you even knowing it. Same with Murali.


Bedi, Warne, Murali and let's say Bill O Reily in tandom would be a nightmare, just for the mind games involved in facing them all.

 

[angryangy]

Look at the way Lara or Tendulkar would play Warne or Muralitharan and compare with how they handled McGrath or Pollock. Quality pace, not necessarily express pace, is generally what gets to good batsmen most frequently.

The reasons why have probably been covered. Mostly, it's about the ability to create a deviation and give the batsman no time to adjust. Cricket's laws favour little deviations too, rather than big ripping deliveries. A fast moving ball also travels further off the edge, so fielders can stand back and take more comfortable catches. Also, one thing that no spinner can do is test a batsman on the hook. Quality pacemen can exploit back foot weakness as well as front foot weakness, something that has created problems for several otherwise promising Test careers.

 

[War]

Look at the way Lara or Tendulkar would play Warne or Muralitharan and compare with how they handled McGrath or Pollock. Quality pace, not necessarily express pace, is generally what gets to good batsmen most frequently.

The reasons why have probably been covered. Mostly, it's about the ability to create a deviation and give the batsman no time to adjust. Cricket's laws favour little deviations too, rather than big ripping deliveries. A fast moving ball also travels further off the edge, so fielders can stand back and take more comfortable catches. Also, one thing that no spinner can do is test a batsman on the hook. Quality pacemen can exploit back foot weakness as well as front foot weakness, something that has created problems for several otherwise promising Test careers.

Excellent points raised sir. I think you have potentially ended this discussion...

 

[Bhargav]

i personally think pace bowlers are bit more difficult to face...

 

[angryangy]

Excellent points raised sir. I think you have potentially ended this discussion...

only delayed it by 3 months...

 

[playkid12]

weird

 

[War]

only delayed it by 3 months...

Ha ye..

 

[War]

A olddd digg thread here, but i think Sanjay Manjrekar brings up a very accurate point about the threat of injuries a high quality fast bowlers brings to batsmen that Johnson showed in the Ashes.

This tactic was virtually lost during the recent Flack track bully bats era of 2000-20010 (well a large part of it), when many batsmen had inflated 50+ averages:

Sanjay Manjrekar: The difference the threat of injury makes | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[playkid12]

There is no 'easier.' This is something that entirely depends on the individual. Some batsmen really like the ball coming onto the bat with pace because it leaves the bat with as much pace. Some batsmen like spin because they can read it tremendously well. Pace has the extra intimidation factor since injury is a real possibility, but it's also very taxing on the bowler. Spinners can go on for longer spells and maintain their threat longer.

There is no real answer to this, it entirely depends on the batsman. Historically, subcontinental teams fare better against spin and non-Asian teams fare better against pace. And the reason for this is simply that they grew up facing what they're good against.

I've always believed that spin is a more cerebral task. Spinners tend to be described as 'ingenious' and spinning is described as a 'craft.'
I've also always believed that pace bowling requires a more athletic physique in terms of height and musculature, and that they're the true athletes of cricket.

Among the best bowlers in the past 20 years have been Shane Warne and Mcgrath. I'm sure if you'd ask the batsmen of the world who they'd rather face, it'd be split right in the middle.

 

[War]

There is no 'easier.' This is something that entirely depends on the individual. Some batsmen really like the ball coming onto the bat with pace because it leaves the bat with as much pace. Some batsmen like spin because they can read it tremendously well. Pace has the extra intimidation factor since injury is a real possibility, but it's also very taxing on the bowler. Spinners can go on for longer spells and maintain their threat longer.

There is no real answer to this, it entirely depends on the batsman. Historically, subcontinental teams fare better against spin and non-Asian teams fare better against pace. And the reason for this is simply that they grew up facing what they're good against.

The suggestion of it entirely depending on the individual is a old argument & its been proven before, not to be the case. So to avoid repeating myself:

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/1740494-post7.html

I expected someone to say this & i dont totally agree.

Yes you can argue that sub-continental batsmen may find playing easier than lets say a batsman from Australa. For example Justin Langer or Martyn who grew up playing on the bouncy Perth deck.

But at the same time. That doesn't mean Martyn or Langer just because they are accustomed to the bouncy deck @ Perth, means that if in a hypotetical match-up, if they had to face Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop at their peaks @ Perth, that they would be comfortable facing them at all. They could still struggle - even though they would be more at home againts such bowling - rather than facing Kumble/Harbhajan in India.

Pace may also be more taking on a bowler physically, but a high quality pace attack would generally rout a batting line-up so fast - as we just saw in the recent Ashes or the Windies in the 70s/80s - the bowlers would not be physically drained.

I've always believed that spin is a more cerebral task. Spinners tend to be described as 'ingenious' and spinning is described as a 'craft.'
I've also always believed that pace bowling requires a more athletic physique in terms of height and musculature, and that they're the true athletes of cricket.

Among the best bowlers in the past 20 years have been Shane Warne and Mcgrath. I'm sure if you'd ask the batsmen of the world who they'd rather face, it'd be split right in the middle.

McGrath never tested a batsman physically, which is what Manjrekar is saying in his article.

As another poster had mentioned in this thread in previous years - part of the intimidating/injury factor certain 90-95 mph quicks bring to the equation that no high quality spinner can compare - is the ability to test a batsman back foot game on the hook.

Being poor against spin never ended much tops batsmen career's - it may just have caused them to not be judged favourably as all-round batsmen. Bu being poor versus quality pace has ended many batters careers in test history.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I can't be bothered reading every post here but it's obviously pace.

india during the fab 4 period pretty much owned every spinner they came accross, I think Adams did well there once but that's pretty much just because of his weird action. murali and warne bowled their, unquestionably the best two spin bowlers ever, murali once had them knots, but the rest of the time both those players came up short. these were supposed to be spinners pitches too.

I don't think a batting line up has existed that could cope with top pace bowlers in helpful conditions so well and if they did they would be practically unbeatable.


I'm very pro-spin, I love watching it, I think it's the more artful of the two types of bowling and that's why I watch cricket, however, part of the reason it works is because of it's variety and contrast to pace, people attacking it wrecklessly etc. (see graeme swann's tendency to get first over wickets) but that's misjudgement on part of the batsman, not the sheer difficulty of playing it.

the one caveat I'd have is, if you were talking about chasing a target, you'd maybe pick spinners on a spinning pitch than fast bowlers on a seamer because playing spin gets harder in those conditions were playing fast bowling gets easier. there's also the factor it's harder to get spin away for boundaries making the going slow and ruthless.

pound for pound though, pace.

 

[sifter132]

I can't be bothered reading every post here but it's obviously pace.

Yep, completely right. In a vacuum, with no other factors at play, pace is more difficult. You just have to look at historical strike rates:

Doing a quick poke around on Statguru, 62 spinners have taken 100+ Test wickets and only 8 have strike rates below 60. For quicks, 99 have taken 100+ wickets and 56 of them have strike rates below 60.