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

[vcs]

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.

Whatever. You have a very cynical way of judging players IMO. Gilchrist a FTB...

 

[aussie]

Whatever. You have a very cynical way of judging players IMO. Gilchrist a FTB...

Gilchrist post his 2005 Ashes failure. Between Pakistan 99/00 to NZ 2005, without a doubt plundered joke attacks on flat decks worldwide. Its just given the rate he scored his rus @ excited people & was better than other FTB from around the world during that timeline.

But in Ashes 05 it was the first time Gilly encountered a quality pace attack & Flintoff was the first bowler after 6 years to expose a technical flaw in his game againts the quicks - with that around the wicket line. That exposure was further conitnued by the Ntini/Nel when AUS played SA in 6 tests in 05/06 as well.

Based on that i've always been of the view that if between 99-05 more quality pace attacks where present & Gilly technical flaw againts the quicks was exposed earlier. Gilchrsit would not have average 60+ as he did for the majority of his career. He may have played the odd the odd destructive innings - but certainly not @ a 50-60+ average.

 

[Jarquis]

Which is heavier, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?

 

[vcs]

Gilchrist post his 2005 Ashes failure. Between Pakistan 99/00 to NZ 2005, without a doubt plundered joke attacks on flat decks worldwide. Its just given the rate he scored his rus @ excited people & was better than other FTB from around the world during that timeline.

But in Ashes 05 it was the first time Gilly encountered a quality pace attack & Flintoff was the first bowler after 6 years to expose a technical flaw in his game againts the quicks - with that around the wicket line. That exposure was further conitnued by the Ntini/Nel when AUS played SA in 6 tests in 05/06 as well.

Based on that i've always been of the view that if between 99-05 more quality pace attacks where present & Gilly technical flaw againts the quicks was exposed earlier. Gilchrsit would not have average 60+ as he did for the majority of his career. He may have played the odd the odd destructive innings - but certainly not @ a 50-60+ average.

Did Bradman measure up to your standards or was he just another FTB who happened to get lucky enough to face poor attacks? The one instance the English bowled Bodyline at him with a quality pacer, his average dropped by 40+ and resulted in Australia losing the Ashes.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Did Bradman measure up to your standards or was he just another FTB who happened to get lucky enough to face poor attacks? The one instance the English bowled Bodyline at him with a quality pacer, his average dropped by 40+ and resulted in Australia losing the Ashes.

Not to forget that Bradman didn't do well against Bodyline in the tour match before the series and missed the first test. Clearly benefitted from not playing the first test and getting to work it out from the sidelines. Not a patch on McCabe, IMO.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Gilchrist a FTB?

 

[Avada Kedavra]

And coming back to the topic,the only reason why you may find more batsmen who would rather face Warne/Murali on a minefield than Ambrose/Waqar/Akhtar @ Perth is because of the fear factor,IMO....fear of getting hit that is.

From a purely cricketing POV,i.e as to which of the two would be harder to score runs off and/or protect your wicket,I still feel that it would depend on the batsman (and the pitch).

 

[Matt79]

Exactly. People might PREFER to face McGrath rather than Brett Lee but that doesn't mean that Lee is a better bowler.

 

[Shri]

Great spinners have a better economy rate compared to great pacers from what I have observed. I might be wrong. Correct me if I am.

 

[silentstriker]

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

I call these people Manan-ites.

I think that's an unfair characterization of my views. If two bowlers average 20 with a strike rate of 50, and one is a spinner while the other is a fast bowler, the spinner may in fact be more valuable due to the higher number of overs he is bowling and/or the variety may he offer the attack. However, when I make that statement, it is with the view that the great pacers almost invariable have better and more complete records than the great spinners. Consider a spin bowler that is merely considered to be good, or very good instead of a great...e.g, Harbhajan Singh vs. a pace bowler who is also considered to be good or very good. I'd say the pace bowler would me more valuable in more conditions.

Exactly. People might PREFER to face McGrath rather than Brett Lee but that doesn't mean that Lee is a better bowler.

I know you weren't saying they do, but I haven't really heard any Test batsman ever saying that. For the obvious reason that they are more likely to lose their wickets when facing McGrath. In the past, the 'scare' factor of extreme pace (e.g, facing Thommo vs. the better but slower Lillee) may may have led a batsman to choose Lillee, even at their expense of their wickets (not that Lillee was slow of course, esp. before his injury), but with today's protective equipment, I'd be surprised if anyone would choose to face McGrath over Lee.

Great spinners have a better economy rate compared to great pacers from what I have observed. I might be wrong. Correct me if I am.

They do. Obviously, an average consists of both strike rate and economy rate, but if I had to choose between two bowlers with an average of X, and all other things being equal, I'd choose the one with the better strike rate than the better economy rate in almost all cases, with very few exceptions.

 

[Matt79]

I love you man.

 

[aussie]

Did Bradman measure up to your standards or was he just another FTB who happened to get lucky enough to face poor attacks? The one instance the English bowled Bodyline at him with a quality pacer, his average dropped by 40+ and resulted in Australia losing the Ashes.

He averaged 50+ in bodyline BTW.

Bradman given he is freak of nature. No analysis would affect it. Although Bradman's post-war era had no quality pace attacks outside of Bodyline 1932 (although his team mates of Gregory/McDonald where ok) for batsmen to face. The fact that he averaged 50 odd given those ridiculous bodyline tacts (which is akin to coming around the wicket a bowling into a batsman arpit over & over) - shows how great he was.

I dont believe he would have averaged 99 if he had played between the 50s-90s where alot of quality pace attacks where present. But its safe to presume he would have still averaged better than all other great batsmen, especially when you think that in the 2000s era where pitches a quality of pace bowling was comparbale to the 30s & 40s - none of the FTBs averaged anything close to 99.

 

[aussie]

And coming back to the topic,the only reason why you may find more batsmen who would rather face Warne/Murali on a minefield than Ambrose/Waqar/Akhtar @ Perth is because of the fear factor,IMO....fear of getting hit that is.

From a purely cricketing POV,i.e as to which of the two would be harder to score runs off and/or protect your wicket,I still feel that it would depend on the batsman (and the pitch).

On a Perth/Sabina Park type bouncy deck or Headingley greentop. Their is strong possibilty that great spinners like Warne, Murali, O'Reilly would not be effective in those conditons. They may be reduced to be containing bowlers, given turn will be minimal.

But even on a Mumbai or Colombo wearing 5th day wicket. Your Marshalls, Donald, Waqar/Wasim, McGrath, Hadlee would be slightly more lethal/devastating than the big spinning deliveries of Warne/Murali, for top batsman to negotiate. Given the reverse swing they can generate @ 90 mph.

 

[Shri]

On a Perth/Sabina Park type bouncy deck or Headingley greentop. Their is strong possibilty that great spinners like Warne, Murali, O'Reilly would not be effective in those conditons. They may be reduced to be containing bowlers, given turn will be minimal.

But even on a Mumbai or Colombo wearing 5th day wicket. Your Marshalls, Donald, Waqar/Wasim, McGrath, Hadlee would be slightly more lethal/devastating than the big spinning deliveries of Warne/Murali, for top batsman to negotiate. Given the reverse swing they can generate @ 90 mph.

The ball should be roughed up on one side and it should be maintained well to get reverse swing. Would it be possible for the spinners to maintain the condition when they can run wild from ball one instead of waiting for 80 overs so that the ball will start to reverse? 4th innings rarely last 80 overs in a real dust bowl. Reverse swing rarely comes into play on dust bowls. Imo of course.

 

[Manee]

As much as I'd like to say that pace > spin, in this case, I'd say that facing a quality spin attack from both ends is more difficult than a quality pace attack. You always feel that playing pace, there are technical changes which can be made to avoid a good deal of dismissals against pace. If you cannot pick a doosra or googly, you are screwed, if you cannot adjust in the split second after it has pitched to the precise amount of spin, you are screwed - with spin, I feel a batsman is in far less control.

 

[aussie]

As much as I'd like to say that pace > spin, in this case, I'd say that facing a quality spin attack from both ends is more difficult than a quality pace attack. You always feel that playing pace, there are technical changes which can be made to avoid a good deal of dismissals against pace. If you cannot pick a doosra or googly, you are screwed, if you cannot adjust in the split second after it has pitched to the precise amount of spin, you are screwed - with spin, I feel a batsman is in far less control.

Ok. Well we would have Wasim & Waqar @ both ends vs Kumble & Harbhajan @ both ends on 5th day wearing tracks.

If you cant predict where the ball is reversing from the W's you will also be very screwed which is shown the dismissals of Clarke & Katch @ Old Trafford 2005. The batsmen would have less time to adjst to that than big turning googlies, dossra's from Kumble/Harbhajan. Plus the W's can also test the batsman back-foot game with well directed bouncers - something Kumble/Harbhajan cant.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Are you saying spinners can't make a batsman play off the back foot?

 

[aussie]

Are you saying spinners can't make a batsman play off the back foot?

No sir:

Plus the W's can also test the batsman back-foot game with well directed bouncers - something Kumble/Harbhajan cant.

You look at how alot of non-subcontinetal batsman play spin when they come to IND/PAK/SRI. Alot of them if they cant read where the ball is from the hand, tend to camp on the back foot & play the spin of the pitch.

This has become a safety option to countering big spinning deliveries, when in the past most non-subcontinental batsmen would be out lunging forward & being caught by the men around the bat. Spinners cant test batsmen on the hook, you would never see a batsmen camping on the back-foot facing quality pace - that would be disaster for them.

 

[Slifer]

Edge pace attack in pace friendly conditions. I took a quick look at the lowest scores of most teams recently (WI 47 all out, Eng 79 and 77 all out etc) and most were effected by fast bowlers in pace friendly conditions. Spinners on occasion can run thru lineups (if spin conditions persisted but no to the extent as fast bowlers

 

[aussie]

Edge pace attack in pace friendly conditions. I took a quick look at the lowest scores of most teams recently (WI 47 all out, Eng 79 and 77 all out etc) and most were effected by fast bowlers in pace friendly conditions. Spinners on occasion can run thru lineups (if spin conditions persisted but no to the extent as fast bowlers

Indeed. I cant recall any instance in history even on raging turners, any quality spin attack bowling out a top team for a sub-100 total. But i'm going to do my homework right now on it.