• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Debris

Debris

International 12th Man
I can think of a few dominant all-pace attacks but cannot think of a dominant all-spin attack. This suggests that spin needs some assistance from pace bowlers. Pace>spin.

Particularly now that reverse swing has made pace bowlers effective on spinning wickets.
 
T

tooextracool

International Coach
Debris said:
I can think of a few dominant all-pace attacks but cannot think of a dominant all-spin attack. This suggests that spin needs some assistance from pace bowlers. Pace>spin.
Click to expand...
Spin is particularly reliant upon the surface. Pacers on the other hand are pretty much all purpose. This is why teams rarely pick more than one spinner outside the subcontinent, even if they are really good because quite frankly they're only really as good as the surface they are playing on. This is why pacers have better averages.
 
G

GameGod

Cricket Spectator
To compare the Indian spin quartet to the West Indian pace quartet of the 1970-1980s is a ludicrous. The West Indians had Malcolm Marshall (Top 5 Pace Bowlers of All-Time), and also Joel Garner, Andy Roberts and Michael Holding (all among the Top 20 Pace Bowlers of All-Time); later, substitute Garner, Roberts and Holding for Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh and Ian Bishop (who are equally as capable pace bowlers). Conversely, none of the Indian spinners on that list are among the Top 20 Spin Bowlers of All-Time. Therefore, it's not really the same - unfortunately, a spin attack which resembles in strength the West Indian pace quartet has never been assembled, therefore this comparison is unfair.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
GameGod said:
To compare the Indian spin quartet to the West Indian pace quartet of the 1970-1980s is a ludicrous. The West Indians had Malcolm Marshall (Top 5 Pace Bowlers of All-Time), and also Joel Garner, Andy Roberts and Michael Holding (all among the Top 20 Pace Bowlers of All-Time); later, substitute Garner, Roberts and Holding for Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh and Ian Bishop (who are equally as capable pace bowlers). Conversely, none of the Indian spinners on that list are among the Top 20 Spin Bowlers of All-Time. Therefore, it's not really the same - unfortunately, a spin attack which resembles in strength the West Indian pace quartet has never been assembled, therefore this comparison is unfair.
Click to expand...
I suppose the obvious response to this is "but is it possible to assemble a spin attack that resembles the WI4 in strength at all?"
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Spark said:
I suppose the obvious response to this is "but is it possible to assemble a spin attack that resembles the WI4 in strength at all?"
Click to expand...
Well what if you had Murali, Warne, O'Reilly and.. another Murali? The fact that it hasn't happened and probably never will just proves it's exceedingly hard to come by; not that it'd be easier to bat against if it did.

Are good fast bowlers more common than good spinners? Absolutely, without question. But that's not what's being asked.
 
Debris

Debris

International 12th Man
GameGod said:
To compare the Indian spin quartet to the West Indian pace quartet of the 1970-1980s is a ludicrous. The West Indians had Malcolm Marshall (Top 5 Pace Bowlers of All-Time), and also Joel Garner, Andy Roberts and Michael Holding (all among the Top 20 Pace Bowlers of All-Time); later, substitute Garner, Roberts and Holding for Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh and Ian Bishop (who are equally as capable pace bowlers). Conversely, none of the Indian spinners on that list are among the Top 20 Spin Bowlers of All-Time. Therefore, it's not really the same - unfortunately, a spin attack which resembles in strength the West Indian pace quartet has never been assembled, therefore this comparison is unfair.
Click to expand...
And does this not suggest that pace is more difficult to face?
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
GameGod said:
To compare the Indian spin quartet to the West Indian pace quartet of the 1970-1980s is a ludicrous. The West Indians had Malcolm Marshall (Top 5 Pace Bowlers of All-Time), and also Joel Garner, Andy Roberts and Michael Holding (all among the Top 20 Pace Bowlers of All-Time); later, substitute Garner, Roberts and Holding for Curtly Ambrose, Courtney Walsh and Ian Bishop (who are equally as capable pace bowlers). Conversely, none of the Indian spinners on that list are among the Top 20 Spin Bowlers of All-Time. Therefore, it's not really the same - unfortunately, a spin attack which resembles in strength the West Indian pace quartet has never been assembled, therefore this comparison is unfair.
Click to expand...
I wasn't really comparing the two in terms of man vs man quality TBH.

The example of the Windies 4-prong on a Sabina Park/Bridgetown/Perth/Headingley type pitch is the ULITIMATE example in test history of a quality pace attack in test conditions.

WhIle the Indian spin quartet is the ultimate example of lethal spin attack on a dustbowl/turner in test history.


Which overall as you said if i was indeed comparing man to man quality - the WI quicks would win & why facing the quicks was more difficult for top-quality batsmen. Since there has been no spin attack comparable to WI pace attack in terms of man to man quality comparison.

But even if use recent examples of:

Waqar & Wasim or McGrath/Gillespie or Donald Pollock vs Kumble/Harbhajan or Saqlain/Mushtaq. Those quicks combos would still be more difficult to face in most conditions.
 
Last edited:
G

GameGod

Cricket Spectator
aussie said:
I wasn't really comparing the two in terms of man vs man quality TBH.

The example of the Windies 4-prong on a Sabina Park/Bridgetown/Perth/Headingley type pitch is the ULITIMATE example in test history of a quality pace attack in test conditions.

WhIle the Indian spin quartet is the ultimate example of lethal spin attack on a dustbowl/turner in test history.


Which overall as you said if i was indeed comparing man to man quality - the WI quicks would win & why facing the quicks was more difficult for top-quality batsmen. Since there has been no spin attack comparable to WI pace attack in terms of man to can quality comparison.

But even if use recent examples of:

Waqar & Wasim or McGrath/Gillespie or Donald Pollock vs Kumble/Harbhajan or Saqlain/Mushtaq. The quicks would still be more difficult to face.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you gave hypothetical examples as if the Indian spin quartet was the spinning equivalent of the West Indian pace quartet, simply because they are both the best of their kind. While I appreciate what you're trying to do, the West Indian quartet is packed with super-elite pace bowlers; for whatever reason, spin bowlers tend to be more spread out over teams than that. Instead of comparing the West Indian quartet to the Indian quartet, why don't you try creating a list of your top 5 pace bowlers and then top 5 spin bowlers of all-time, and then imagine teams being put in to face them. I know we haven't got concrete statistics for how this would turn out, but unfortunately it just isn't fair to use the Indian spin quartet as your example when you're using the West Indian pace quartet - it just isn't an equal premise.

Try, perhaps, these for your top 5:

Pace Attack: Dennis Lillee, Malcolm Marshall, Wasim Akram, Glenn McGrath, Richard Hadlee
Spin Attack: Mutthiah Muralitharan, Shane Warne, Sydney Barnes, Bill O'Reilly + 1 other of your choice (e.g. Jim Laker, Anil Kumble, etc.)

Do you still think the pace quintet would be significantly harder to face? I would rate them about equally; obviously, the pace bowlers would take wickets faster and the spin bowlers would slow down the scoring a lot. Depending on the team, the run totals should be about the same, in my opinion.
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Sir Alex said:
4th Test: India v Australia at Mumbai, Nov 3-5, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
Click to expand...
Well yes techncally thats one statistically. But that should be ignored that given how terrible that Mumbai pitch that year was for obvious reasons. Mumbai is known for being a turner & i've seen that in all matches i've seen from the wankhede stadium (vs SA 2000. AUS 2001, ENG 2006 + plus ODIS vs AUS 01 & 06 & ENG 02) - turn & spinners taking wickets.

But the 04 test pitch was spinning overly extravagant come the last day (which also ICC regulations a overly turning pitch is poor test pitch). So along with Kingston 98, Mumbai 04 was one of worst test pitches in recent memory.
 
Sir Alex

Sir Alex

Banned
aussie said:
Well yes techncally thats one statistically. But that should be ignored that given how terrible that Mumbai pitch that year was for obvious reasons. Mumbai is known for being a turner & i've seen that in all matches i've seen from the wankhede stadium (vs SA 2000. AUS 2001, ENG 2006 + plus ODIS vs AUS 01 & 06 & ENG 02) - turn & spinners taking wickets.

But the 04 test pitch was spinning overly extravagant come the last day (which also ICC regulations a overly turning pitch is poor test pitch). So along with Kingston 98, Mumbai 04 was one of worst test pitches in recent memory.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah when it turns square = it is poor logic.:dry: Then can u tell me what is a raging turner?8-)

Frankly it was one of the most bowler friendly wickets produced ever in the history of the game.
 
Sir Alex

Sir Alex

Banned
Sir Alex

Sir Alex

Banned
Spark said:
Yeah, but come on. 6-9.
Click to expand...
Aren't there instances of part time medium pacers having a field day on a favorable wicket??

M Clarke bowled well that day, credit where due... He bowled a good straight line and the pitch took care of the rest.
 
Last edited:
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Sir Alex said:
Oh yeah when it turns square = it is poor logic.:dry: Then can u tell me what is a raging turner?8-)

Frankly it was one of the most bowler friendly wickets produced ever in the history of the game.
Click to expand...
Every other Mumbai (Wankhed stadium) test pitch or ODI ptich since i started watching cricket in mid 90s that i've seen (& probably in test history) is an acceptable example of perfect sub-continent turner. The Mumabi 04 pitch given the poor conditions in IND circa 04 season with monsoons etc made pitch preparation poor for the groundsmen - thus one of the worst test pitches in recent history was displayed.

As i said before. ICC regulations suggest an overly tunring ptich is a bad test wicket & Mumbai 04 was the perfect example of that.
 
Sir Alex

Sir Alex

Banned
aussie said:
Every other Mumbai (Wankhed stadium) test pitch or ODI ptich since i started watching cricket in mid 90s that i've seen (& probably in test history) is an acceptable example of perfect sub-continent turner. The Mumabi 04 pitch given the poor conditions in IND circa 04 season with monsoons etc made pitch preparation poor for the groundsmen - thus one of the worst test pitches in recent history was displayed.

As i said before. ICC regulations suggest an overly tunring ptich is a bad test wicket & Mumbai 04 was the perfect example of that.
Click to expand...
Define "acceptable" turning pitch....and please differentiate that Mumbai pitch and a raging turner as you said...

Also ICC killed such pitches forever.. now instead of such raging turners, all we have are flat low slow pitches which is actually killing all interest in watching cricket. Unless the home team has a series to save/win.

There were 200+ scores twice in that Mumbai 04 match, which also suggests it was hardly your 99vs102vs105vs93 kind of pitch. Fact is spinners bowled well, batsmen generally didn't arse to work them out, and had you watched how Laxman and Sachin played in the second innings, you'd not be saying this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top