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

[aussie]

Two of the BEST explanations of why facing quality pace is more diffiicult that i've heard recently are these:

Definately facing quality pace. Imagine opening the batting and lasting through the onslaught of the first two bowlers and then having to go through it all again, you just wouldn't be able to win.

Wouldn't imagine there would be too many batsmen in the world that would want to go up against four 90mph+ no matter how badly they play spin.

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.

Struggle to see how anyone can disagree with those TBH. Potential thread closing POVs.

 

[honestbharani]

Two of the BEST explanations of why facing quality pace is more diffiicult that i've heard recently are these:






Struggle to see how anyone can disagree with those TBH. Potential thread closing POVs.

Why are we taking quality players as the criteria? Is it like the majority of the batters around are quality players or what?

 

[vcs]

The first of those two quotes doesn't even make any specific point, just a lot of general hand-waving.

 

[aussie]

hmmm.. why should it not work the other way? Sehwag dominates Steyn on flat tracks.. So Steyn is Sehwag's bitch till he dominates him on a flat track.......

Average/poor batsmen & very-good/great batsmen have been able to score runs againts quality pace-attacks on roads/flat-ptiches. But 95% of the time (the next 5 % is the freak occurances) in test history, MAINLY only top-class batsmen have been able to score runs/hundreds againts quality pace attacks in bowler friendly conditions. It is proven historically for a batsman to be considered really quality/great 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 is in his/their "domain". 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.

Please dont make me have to make a list proving this.


On a side note though. Its disappointing that this thread is turning into a Sehwag debate. This is not a dig at Indian posters so all dont take it that way, but i find a stark double standard with CW IND posters on this topic. When Ponting had his struggles in IND 98 & 2001 averaging 12, over the years posters would vehemently claim Ponting can't play spin on turners well - no issue (although it was always exaggerated). Yet we have Sehwag who averaged 14 in SA & it is said he cant play quality pace in testing conditons it always draws controversey. Why is this so???

 

[aussie]

FTR, When Steyn was bowling the spell of his life(7-49 IIRC) in Kanpur, and eight Batsman could not make it to double digits, Sehwag scored a brilliant counter-attacking century.

Yes he did. As i think i said before in this thread, in that innings & recent hundreds vs Malinga in SRI. I have definately seen an improvement in Sehwag's technique when facing inswingers & area where bowlers like Steyn (06/07, 08/09), Hoggard 05/06, Asif 05/06, Taylor 06, McGrath/Dizzy 04/05, Bond 01/02 have exposed in the past.

Steyn & Malinga this year have tried to attack him their & Sehwag is playing those deliveries slightly better, which was shown in that brillaint hundred when Steyn took that 7 for. Which argues well potentially for when he tours SA year end & has to deal with conditons where the ball will be moving far more alarmingly that the pitches he faced Steyn & Malinga in sub-continent this year.

 

[aussie]

Why are we taking quality players as the criteria? Is it like the majority of the batters around are quality players or what?

We are talking about quality players. Did you not read the opening post:

As the thread states, which is/has been more difficult for test bastmen to counter?. I ask this question because when judging great batsmen, especially the many batsmen"Flat track Bullies" of the last 10 years who average 50+. One finds a a very consistent trend of these batsmen doing well againts quality spinners/spin attacks on dustbowles/turner - but thens truggling againts good/very good/great pace attacks on greentops/bouncy decks.

The first of those two quotes doesn't even make any specific point, just a lot of general hand-waving.

Its been very specific.

An example of quote one would be Rikcy Ponting. I'm sure if you asked Ponting what was more difficult to face between:

(A) the England attack in the 2005 Ashes

(B) Conquering his past demonds on the 2008 Indian tour

I'd be surprised if he didn't say facing the England attack was tougher.

An example of quote 2 in which in relation to the last sentence "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.

would be Grame Hick, Ramprakash, Bevan, Kambli, Hookes, Yuvraj, Matt Elliot, Hayden post 2005 Ashes, Bill Ponsford, Cook, Jaffer (along with alot of other Indian openers in test history), John Dyson, Tim Robinson, Dippenaar etc etc etc.

I know of no batsmen in test history who on the basis of struggles againts quality spin have had their careers ended or cut short. Like what being exposed by quality has done to many.

 

[aussie]

And Michael Clarke will average 1.5...

Think it's a fair point though, that there's definitely been a bit of an over-correction following that pitch.

Nah. That Mumbai 04 pitch was a shocker without a doubt, for whatever reasons as i've heard ATT seasonal conditions in Mumbai that year affected pitch preparation.

I have sen few other tests @ Mumbai (Wankhede) over the years:

- vs SA 2000
- vs AUS 2001
- vs ENG 2006

Although the Wankehe stadium with its unqiue red soil is know to be a big turner. the 04 Mumbai test pitch played totally outrageous compared to those other 3 tests i saw at least.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

On a side note though. Its disappointing that this thread is turning into a Sehwag debate.

It's a thread started by aussie,what do you expect

This is not a dig at Indian posters so all dont take it that way, but i find a stark double standard with CW IND posters on this topic. When Ponting had his struggles in IND 98 & 2001 averaging 12, over the years posters would vehemently claim Ponting can't play spin on turners well - no issue (although it was always exaggerated). Yet we have Sehwag who averaged 14 in SA & it is said he cant play quality pace in testing conditons it always draws controversey. Why is this so???

Sehwag scored a ton in his debut innings in SA against Ntini/Pollock and averaged 50 or close to it from the top off my head in that series.Ponting's best series in India came on his third(fourth tour if you want to be pedantic) and even then he averaged only in the 30s.....Not neccessarily saying Sehwag's Sobers' equal at playing pace,just pointing out that equating the two cases is patently ridiculous.

As for the topic,it really depends on the batsman and the pitch to state the obvious.

 

[G.I.Joe]

What are we still arguing about? It was [/thread] when aussie showed how 2 spinners on a turning track are the equal of three quicks at Perth. He's even quantified it. The spinners are 50% tougher to face.

 

[weldone]

If you ask the Indian and Pakistani batsmen of the 70s and 80s, they won't blink before choosing the first one (on greentops) as more difficult.

If you ask the English, Saffie and West Indian batsmen of the 90s, they won't blink before choosing the second one (on minefields) as more difficult.

But the fact is that a quality pace attack is much much much (I hope I've typed 'much' enough times) more common than a quality spin attack. So, a batsman who is good against pace and pathetic against spin gets away most of the times. And because they get away there are so many of them who are/were regulars in their non-minnow test sides, and resulted in a few champion spinners being tagged 'undoubtedly the best ever' by many...

 

[Debris]

Pace easily. The general lack of pitches which really favour pace bowlers has made us forget a bit how difficult they are to face. As hard as Murali or Warne could be to face, you just have to go back and look at Ambrose on a nasty seamer to realise it is no contest as to which a batsman would pick.

 

[GIMH]

I agree with whoever it was that said it depends on the player.

My least favourite CWism is that pace is more valuable than spin.

 

[Uppercut]

I agree with whoever it was that said it depends on the player.

My least favourite CWism is that pace is more valuable than spin.

Do people think that?

It doesn't matter how you get the wickets obviously. I think people just mean that there tends to be more effective fast bowlers around than there are effective spinners.

 

[aussie]

Sehwag scored a ton in his debut innings in SA against Ntini/Pollock and averaged 50 or close to it from the top off my head in that series.Ponting's best series in India came on his third(fourth tour if you want to be pedantic) and even then he averaged only in the 30s.....Not neccessarily saying Sehwag's Sobers' equal at playing pace,just pointing out that equating the two cases is patently ridiculous.

- Firstly Sehwag debut ton in 2001/02 was not againts a quality SA attack. One good bowler in Pollock does not make an entire attack good. I've said this over & over on CW.

I remember that Test well and the deck offered a decent bit in the opening session-and-a-bit, hence Pollock (who was by then only capable of bowling really well on seaming decks no longer flat ones) and co. reduced India to 60-odd for 4. Tendulkar played superbly for 20 overs or so to coast that out, Sehwag played really well for about 5-6 overs to do likewise. They then both made spectacular hay when the deck flattened-out, which it did and remained thus for the rest of the game. You compare that 2001/02 SA to the 2006/07 SA attack in which he averaged 14 for the series & the gap in quality was immence.


Plus its not just the 06/07 tour to SA. Their was the ENG tour to IND 05/06, where ENG encountered some unusually pace-bowler friendly & Sehwag averaged 19 (Hoggard owning Sehwag with inswingers) or vs NZ 2001/02 when he averaged 10. Fact is Sehwag has never been tested consistendly over an entire series againts quality pace in pace-bowler friendly much, the few times he has he has failed miserably. Its mostly been one-off test spread out over different series over many years.

Secondly players develop differently. Its fairly obvious if you have followed Ponting's career that he was a totally different batsman in 2008 when he conquered is IND demonds compared to 2001 & 1998 when he failed.

Between 1995/96-2000/01. Ponting was just a good young batsman, who was not totally settled in his game againts all bowlers. When he moved to # 3 in the 2001 Ashes (starting from the Headingley), from 2001-2009 Ponting evolved into the great batsman that he known as today. Plus overall as i said before Ponting failures in IND & struggles vs spin has always been slightly overstated given that between his two failures in IND 98 & 01, he dominated Murali & a mystery type Herath in SRI 99/00 when all other AUS batsmen struggled averaging 84. Sehwag has no series equivalent to to Ponting in SRI 99/00, againts quality pace in test conditions anything comparable to that.

As for the topic,it really depends on the batsman and the pitch to state the obvious.

There is nothing obvious about that, its just your opinion. Many other posters in this thread have chosen facing pace as being tougher.

 

[aussie]

What are we still arguing about? It was [/thread] when aussie showed how 2 spinners on a turning track are the equal of three quicks at Perth. He's even quantified it. The spinners are 50% tougher to face.

I never said anything close to that. I even corrected my statement initially for you & you never responsed to the post. But instead you have returned to make your self difficult with this below the belt statement, in attempt to either draw a negative/insulting from me towards you. Such posting is never productive & i refuse to get involve in any flame wars with any of you..

 

[vcs]

- Firstly Sehwag debut ton in 2001/02 was not againts a quality SA attack. One good bowler in Pollock does not make an entire attack good. I've said this over & over on CW.

I remember that Test well and the deck offered a decent bit in the opening session-and-a-bit, hence Pollock (who was by then only capable of bowling really well on seaming decks no longer flat ones) and co. reduced India to 60-odd for 4. Tendulkar played superbly for 20 overs or so to coast that out, Sehwag played really well for about 5-6 overs to do likewise. They then both made spectacular hay when the deck flattened-out, which it did and remained thus for the rest of the game. You compare that 2001/02 SA to the 2006/07 SA attack in which he averaged 14 for the series & the gap in quality was immence.


Plus its not just the 06/07 tour to SA. Their was the ENG tour to IND 05/06, where ENG encountered some unusually pace-bowler friendly & Sehwag averaged 19 (Hoggard owning Sehwag with inswingers) or vs NZ 2001/02 when he averaged 10. Fact is Sehwag has never been tested consistendly over an entire series againts quality pace in pace-bowler friendly much, the few times he has he has failed miserably. Its mostly been one-off test spread out over different series over many years.

Secondly players develop differently. Its fairly obvious if you have followed Ponting's career that he was a totally different batsman in 2008 when he conquered is IND demonds compared to 2001 & 1998 when he failed.

Between 1995/96-2000/01. Ponting was just a good young batsman, who was not totally settled in his game againts all bowlers. When he moved to # 3 in the 2001 Ashes (starting from the Headingley), from 2001-2009 Ponting evolved into the great batsman that he known as today. Plus overall as i said before Ponting failures in IND & struggles vs spin has always been slightly overstated given that between his two failures in IND 98 & 01, he dominated Murali & a mystery type Herath in SRI 99/00 when all other AUS batsmen struggled averaging 84. Sehwag has no series equivalent to to Ponting in SRI 99/00, againts quality pace in test conditions anything comparable to that.



There is nothing obvious about that, its just your opinion. Many other posters in this thread have chosen facing pace as being tougher.

Shall we discount all the attacks Ponting and Gilchrist flayed in SA between 2001 and 2006? Ponting didn't do too well in SA once he had to play Steyn, did he? See, you're not the only one who can play that game.

 

[weed wizard]

pitch makes a bowler

Yes itz all in the pitch.
A green top, a new dukes, windy condition, tall fast bowler 6'5 , bending his back. Well you need nerves. A lot of it.

Otherwise a dusty, crumbling, damp pitch with humid atmosphere, a spinner wil flourish.
Hence it all depends on the track.

 

[aussie]

Shall we discount all the attacks Ponting and Gilchrist flayed in SA between 2001 and 2006? Ponting didn't do too well in SA once he had to play Steyn, did he? See, you're not the only one who can play that game.

We certainly can. Good runs Ponting scored againts/in SA would be 97/98 (Donald/Pollock) & 2005/06 (Ntini/Nel at their peak) & 2008/09 (Steyn) where he averaged over 40-50 in all series basically (except the tour to SA 09 where he was in the high 30s IIRC). The 2001/02 was joke SA attacks shouldn't count.

Same with Gilly, just that he doesn't have any runs againts quality pace-attacks in his career. I am one of the few that see's Gilly as one of the prestime FTB of the last decade, regardless of his greatness.

 

[GIMH]

Do people think that?

It doesn't matter how you get the wickets obviously. I think people just mean that there tends to be more effective fast bowlers around than there are effective spinners.

Nope, I've seen it posted from a few people that good pacers are always more valuable than good spinners

 

[Matt79]

I call these people Manan-ites.