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

[Ikki]

Depends on the opposition.

Depends on where.. India used to have 3 frontline spinners and one fast bowler till even recently.

Well, precisely. Most of the opposition you're bound to face in the world will have more pacers than spinners. Collectively there are more pacers than spinners. Even in terms of quality, there are comparatively better pacers than spinners. We've been blessed in this era but for the most part spinners didn't get much better than Chandra who are really quite below the likes of Warne and Murali.

As for the question of the thread, there hasn't been a spin attack like the Windies pace quartet. You'd need something like Warne-Murali-Kumble-Saqlain to compare IMO.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Expected someone to say the bolded..

Yes you can argue that sub-continental batsmen (like Sehwag) 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. This applies to the idea "Different strokes for different folks".

But at the same time. That doesn't mean players like Martyn or Langer just because they are accustomed to the bouncy deck @ Perth, 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.


Plus i'm not sure how Sehwag based on his career exploits to date would find option (B) easier TBH. He has scored runs againts the best spinners of this era:

- 155 vs Warne @ Chennai 04

- rus vs Mendis & Murali in SRI 08. When nobody could figure out Mendis yet

- Destruction of Saqlain & Murali 04 (although some may argue Saqlain & Murali where already passed their peaks when Sehwag smoked them)

So i'd back him againts top-spinners on a dustbowl/turner. Not againts quality pace at all on a difficult pitch, given his career is loaded with failures in such conditions.

Kumble/Harbhajan on the kind of pitches the Australians have been playing on in India (other than that Mumbai wicket) is not the corresponding spin version of Amvrose/Walsh/Bishop at their peaks in Perth. Murali/Kumble/Harbhajan on that Mumbai wicket wouuld be more like it.

 

[Ikki]

Advantageous does not equate to superior.

Who is more use to your side? It's a no-brainer for the most part. Differentiating and saying it is not a matter of "better" works to a point. In the end, you want more runs against as many opponents as possible.

 

[Shri]

Haha now wait a minute. How many great innings have we seen in the 90s by batsmen against great bowling attacks on green tops without them giving away chances?

 

[Cevno]

Well, precisely. Most of the opposition you bound to face in the world will have more pacers than spinners. Collectively there are more pacers than spinners. Even in terms of quality, there are comparatively better pacers than spinners.

As for the question of the thread, there hasn't been a spin attack like the Windies pace quartet. You'd need something like Warne-Murali-Kumble-Saqlain to compare IMO.

But i thought the question was what was more difficult to face in respective helpful conditions?

Warne murali etc... are tough on every conditions like their pace counterparts but even ordinary spinners are tougher to play on a dust bowl than a ordinary pace bowler is on a perth wicket or even a green top.

 

[Shri]

But i thought the question was what was more difficult to face in respective helpful conditions?

Warne murali etc... are tough on every conditions like their pace counterparts but even ordinary spinners are tougher to play on a dust bowl than a ordinary pace bowler is on a perth wicket or even a green top.

I said that too. Clarke's 6 for in Mumbai for example.

 

[vcs]

If Sehwag gets a 300 against Steyn/Ntini on a flat Chennai, people call it a flat-track bullying knock. If Steyn gets a 7-for on a green Durban pitch, it is hailed from the rooftops. Just sayin'....

 

[Ikki]

But i thought the question was what was more difficult to face in respective helpful conditions?

Warne murali etc... are tough on every conditions like their pace counterparts but even ordinary spinners are tougher to play on a dust bowl than a ordinary pace bowler is on a perth wicket or even a green top.

Great Pacers on green-top > ordinary Spinners on dustbowl.

Whilst even ordinary spinners can take advantage of those conditions, I think you need guys like Warne or Murali to really disgrace the batting line-up.

 

[Sir Alex]

Blame ICC who made dustbowls a thing of the past. That is why modern spinners have struggled. Give Harby Mumbai 04 dustbowls and he'll average in the lower 20s...

 

[Teja.]

If Sehwag gets a 300 against Steyn/Ntini on a flat Chennai, people call it a flat-track bullying knock. If Steyn gets a 7-for on a green Durban pitch, it is hailed from the rooftops. Just sayin'....

Yeah, in. There's a reason none apart from Bradman could rack up such huge scores at such a high pace. It's impossibly hard to do! All of the three Sehwag 290+ scores deserve to be hailed as some of the greatest Innings' seen in Test cricket history.

Adding to that, two of those knocks resulted in Innings' victories.

 

[Shri]

Great Pacers on green-top > ordinary Spinners on dustbowl.

Whilst even ordinary spinners can take advantage of those conditions, I think you need guys like Warne or Murali to really disgrace the batting line-up.

No, a bowler like Clarke or Border is more than enough on a real dust bowl.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Who is more use to your side? It's a no-brainer for the most part. Differentiating and saying it is not a matter of "better" works to a point. In the end, you want more runs against as many opponents as possible.

So that means that a batsman who plays 70% of his cricket on the subcontinent averaging 70 and averaging 20 in the 30% of games that he plays elsewhere is superior to one who plays 50% of his games in Country 'X' that has wicked uber-seaming pitches, averaging 40 and 50% of his games elsewhere, averaging 50.

 

[aussie]

Kumble/Harbhajan on the kind of pitches the Australians have been playing on in India (other than that Mumbai wicket) is not the corresponding spin version of Amvrose/Walsh/Bishop at their peaks in Perth. Murali/Kumble/Harbhajan on that Mumbai wicket wouuld be more like it.

Not really. Kumble/Harbhajan as duo made india invisible @ home for years (intially Kumbke by himself). Give Kumble/Harbhajan/Karthik a dustbowl like a Mumbai wicket (2004 vs AUS). They would still be super difficult, you dont need Murali to partner Kumble/Harbhajan to equate the difficulty of facing the windies 4-prong @ Perth.

Since even the currently even if AUS play Bollinger/Hilfenhaus/Johnson/Siddle on a bouncy deck, they would be just as facing 4-prong if they bowl to potential. Only thing that may give the windies an edge is the intimidatory factor given the reputation.

Even if you dont like the AUS pace attack compariosn. You can have SA in the 90s with Donald/Pollock/De Villiers/Kallis/Klusener:

2nd Test: South Africa v Pakistan at Durban, Feb 26-Mar 2, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

As for the question of the thread, there hasn't been a spin attack like the Windies pace quartet. You'd need something like Warne-Murali-Kumble-Saqlain to compare IMO.

Put the Indian quartet on the 70s on a dustbowl & they would be just a lethal as those 4 together.

Joke spinners like Chauhan/Joshi/Raju/Chandana in the past on a dustbowl where made to look world-class againts AUS. Just because of the surface.

As i said above the slight edge an attack of Warne-Murali-Kumble-Saqlain may have would be the intimidatory factor, due to the repuation. But actual output would be equally similar.

 

[aussie]

No, a bowler like Clarke or Border is more than enough on a real dust bowl.

Yep. Just like how ordinary bowlers like Sharma, Sreesanth & RP Singh can suddenly look lethal on a greentop.

 

[tooextracool]

Really no point comparing the pace bowling quartet from the 70s to a current spin bowling attack. i think it is a different ball game today with helmets and protection than it was back then and few players are really afraid of being seriously hurt on the cricket field.

With that being said, I would think given the opportunity, most players would much rather face the pacers on a green top than the spinners on a minefield. Spinners dont really tire, essentially they can bowl 30-40 overs on the trot from both ends and with close in fielders you really have no respite.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Not really. Kumble/Harbhajan as duo made india invisible @ home for years (intially Kumbke by himself). Give Kumble/Harbhajan/Karthik a dustbowl like a Mumbai wicket (2004 vs AUS). They would still be super difficult, you dont need Murali to partner Kumble/Harbhajan to equate the difficulty of facing the windies 4-prong @ Perth.

Ah, so what you're saying is that two excellent spinners on a proper turning track is the equal of three excellent pacers at Perth. We have an answer, thread can be closed.

 

[Ikki]

No, a bowler like Clarke or Border is more than enough on a real dust bowl.

Maybe on an occasion but I am talking overall. Even the Indian spin quartet above didn't average/strike wickets that low on their dustbowls at home. Compare their figures at home to Hadlee's at home or Marshall's at home.

Even with that line of reasoning it says more about the conditions than the quality between spin and pace attack which is what this thread is addressing.

So that means that a batsman who plays 70% of his cricket on the subcontinent averaging 70 and averaging 20 in the 30% of games that he plays elsewhere is superior to one who plays 50% of his games in Country 'X' that has wicked uber-seaming pitches, averaging 40 and 50% of his games elsewhere, averaging 50.

I said... "It's a no-brainer for the most part. Differentiating and saying it is not a matter of "better" works to a point. In the end, you want more runs against as many opponents as possible."

I probably should have added as well, "as many countries or instances as possible".

Even on the subcontinent teams have as many, if not more, pacers in their teams as spinners. So if a batsman is averaging 70 he probably isn't doing that against spinners alone which makes your hypothetical unlikely.

 

[aussie]

If Sehwag gets a 300 against Steyn/Ntini on a flat Chennai, people call it a flat-track bullying knock. If Steyn gets a 7-for on a green Durban pitch, it is hailed from the rooftops. Just sayin'....

If would be though. The 319 in Chennai was definately on utter road. No questions.

iF Steyn 7 for on a durban greentop & Sehwag scored a run a ball 200 in a Indian score of 300. That double Sehwag scored would be worth more than the 319 because for a batsman to be considered really quality he needs to score againts a quality pace attacks in testing conditions instead of just on roads. Since thats the only time when a fast-bowler/pace attack (Dale Steyn) is in his/their "domain" (Durban greentop) Thus dominating him/the attack in his/their "domain" (a bowler friendly deck or conditions) is worth more than dominating the fast-bowler/attack good/great/world-class on a road.

 

[Ikki]

With that being said, I would think given the opportunity, most players would much rather face the pacers on a green top than the spinners on a minefield. Spinners dont really tire, essentially they can bowl 30-40 overs on the trot from both ends and with close in fielders you really have no respite.

Having a 4 pronged attack like the WIndies makes that point much less relevant. They'd probably bowl you out much faster anyway.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I said... "It's a no-brainer for the most part. Differentiating and saying it is not a matter of "better" works to a point. In the end, you want more runs against as many opponents as possible."

And batsman A is doing a better job than batsman B in that respect.

I probably should have added as well, "as many countries or instances as possible".

As long as we're adding clauses of convenience at will, let's also add 'against as many types of individual opponents as possible'.

Even on the subcontinent teams have as many, if not more, pacers in their teams as spinners. So if a batsman is averaging 70 he probably isn't doing that against spinners alone which makes your hypothetical unlikely.

So the subcontinental batsman is doing well. Noted for future reference