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

[vcs]

The NZ pitches in 2002-03 were worse and even more unfit for cricket if you want to go down that route..

 

[aussie]

Affixing a few more scorecards where spinners dismantled opposition :

2nd Test: Sri Lanka v New Zealand at Colombo (SSC), Dec 6-9, 1992 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Average spin attack vs average NZ batting line-up. This doesn't count since the criteria is qualty spin attack spinning out a good/veyy good/top batting line-up pm a turner/dustbowl.

]url=http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63053.html]3rd Test: India v Australia at Delhi, Nov 28-Dec 2, 1969 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com[/url]

2nd Test: Sri Lanka v New Zealand at Galle, Jun 3-7, 1998 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

3rd Test: India v South Africa at Kanpur, Apr 11-13, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com


(Oppn runs les than 125)

Loverly These 3 are perfect (although Kanpur 08 which i saw live isn't exaclty a quality spin attck, given that Sehwag was in the wickets - it was definately a turner). But i'd still back a quality pace attack would would have the ability to reverse swing the ball in such conditons to be equally or potentially more devasting in such conditions.

 

[Sir Alex]

If the Mumbai pitch was terrible, so was this

2nd Test: New Zealand v India at Hamilton, Dec 19-22, 2002 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Although I don't reckon both of them as terrible, just two very good bowling surfaces.

 

[Sir Alex]

Average spin attack vs average NZ batting line-up. This doesn't count since the criteria is qualty spin attack spinning out a good/veyy good/top batting line-up pm a turner/dustbowl.





Loverly These 3 are perfect (although Kanpur 08 which i saw live isn't exaclty a quality spin attck, given that Sehwag was in the wickets - it was definately a turner). But i'd still back a quality pace attack would would have the ability to reverse swing the ball in such conditons to be equally or potentially more devasting in such conditions.

And on a wet sodden pitch, I'd back Chandra/Barnes/O reilly to run through a lineup just like Ambrose and Walsh too...

Fact is spinners have run through established lineups, whenever they've had the chance and an assiting wicket.

And you're seriously shortselling Sehwag there. I'd regard him as one of the top 5 offies in the world.

 

[Migara]

Average spin attack vs average NZ batting line-up. This doesn't count since the criteria is qualty spin attack spinning out a good/veyy good/top batting line-up pm a turner/dustbowl.

I am little gutted to find that Warnaweera in full flow not regarded as a part of a quality attack. Warnaweera at his best was intimidating than any spinner currently playing.

 

[Sir Alex]

I am little gutted to find that Warnaweera in full flow not regarded as a part of a quality attack. Warnaweera at his best was intimidating than any spinner currently playing.

Haha really, Warnaweera was a talent never fully utilised imho.

And the NZ attack may not look glamourous.. but it certainly wasn't popgun. Crowe/Wright/Jones/Rutherford/Harris/Parore weren't mugs either.

In fact, out of the top 5 run scores in that series, 4 were NZers.

 

[Prince EWS]

And you're seriously shortselling Sehwag there. I'd regard him as one of the top 5 offies in the world.

I love Sehwag's bowling more than pretty much anyone but that's taking it a bit far. If he devoted all his attention to it then maybe, but as it stands he's a useful allrounder at best. Assuming you're talking about right armers only, Swann, Ajmal, Mendis, Randiv, Shillingford and Powar are all definitely better and that's just bowlers I've actually seen - I'm sure there are probably a host in Sri Lankan and Indian First Class cricket who are better too - Senanayake for example.

 

[Sir Alex]

I love Sehwag's bowling more than pretty much anyone but that's taking it a bit far. If he devoted all his attention to it then maybe, but as it stands he's a useful allrounder at best. Assuming you're talking about right armers only, Swann, Ajmal, Mendis, Randiv, Shillingford and Powar are all definitely better and that's just bowlers I've actually seen - I'm sure there are probably a host in Sri Lankan and Indian First Class cricket who are better too - Senanayake for example.

Nah only RABs

Swann
Ajmal
Harby
Randiv
Sehwag

After that likes of Shillingford etc..Sehwag isn't your average piechucker who gets a break because bats tend to relax against him. On the contrary he is as good as any other orthodox spinner, and indeed"earns" his wickets. Agreed there might be a few better than him playing domestic cricket, but till they don't play test cricket and perform there, hard to consider them, isnt it??

 

[Prince EWS]

Agreed there might be a few better than him playing domestic cricket, but till they don't play test cricket and perform there, hard to consider them, isnt it??

DWTA strongly. Test cricket is not the only level of cricket worth considering, otherwise I could say that Chris Martin was amongst the world's top 200 batsmen, and that Pujura couldn't be considered better than him as he hadn't played Test cricket yet.

If you want to say you consider Sehwag as one of the top five off spinners in Test cricket at the moment, that's a fair enough position (you're only really saying he's better than Hauritz, Shillingford, Botha, Mahmudullah and a stack of part-timers), but I find it very hard to believe he's one of the top five in the world, as big a fan of his bowling as I'm sure everyone on this forum will confirm I am.

 

[aussie]

Define "acceptable" turning pitch....and please differentiate that Mumbai pitch and a raging turner as you said...

As i said all the other Mumbai test pitches i;ve seen:

- vs SA 2000

- vs AUS 01

- vs ENG O6

Where acceptable turners. Mumbai 04 wasn't.

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.

I dont know where you have gotten the idea that ICC kille such anything. I've seen a few acceptable turners in the sub-continent since the Mumbai 04 distaster.

- Mumbai 05 vs ENG, Kanpur 08 (which you mentioned)

While i'm 100% sure they have been many other test in the last 6 years with alll nations, all over the world. Where most 5th day deteriorate to the level where quality spinners can come into their own. This list would be endless.

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.[/QUOTE]

Well one of the reason the Laxman/Sachin partnership went to so well (the only period of that test where the batsmen sligjtly domianted), was because the quicks where bowling * AUS in Hauritz didn;t have a spinner comparable to IND 3 man spin attck.

It was fairly obvious ATT as early as day 2 when AUS 1st innings began that pitch was playing poorly. Their was 5th day spin on day 2 by IND spin tro. As i said given Mumbai's already reputation as guaranteed tuner with its unique red soil etc - poor conditions in city ATT, which made pitch preparation terible. Made the Mumbai 04 pitch even worse - thus it was a horrible bitch under ICC regulations,

The NZ pitches in 2002-03 were worse and even more unfit for cricket if you want to go down that route..

Nah. Those NZ 2002/03 conditons where comparbale to recent AUS vs PAK in ENG conditons - which is the ultimate pace-bowler friendly condtions. Plus of course ICC regulations doesnt consider greentop conditons to ever be a bad test wicket - which would be OTT.

 

[Sir Alex]

DWTA strongly. Test cricket is not the only level of cricket worth considering, otherwise I could say that Chris Martin was amongst the world's top 200 batsmen, and that Pujura couldn't be considered better than him as he hadn't played Test cricket yet.

If you want to say you consider Sehwag as one of the top five off spinners in Test cricket at the moment, that's a fair enough position (you're only really saying he's better than Hauritz, Shillingford, Botha, Mahmudullah and a stack of part-timers), but I find it very hard to believe he's one of the top five in the world, as big a fan of his bowling as I'm sure everyone on this forum will confirm I am.

I should've added International test bowlers tbh, and that I thought was a given in such discussions.

 

[aussie]

And on a wet sodden pitch, I'd back Chandra/Barnes/O reilly to run through a lineup just like Ambrose and Walsh too.

And Underwood too. But this is a poor point.

Why do you think uncovered wickets aren't in existance today, because it gave bowlers especially any spinner who can extra any turn an unfair advantage over batsmen. This is why coveres are used to cover when rain falls in cricket over the alst 40 years consistently worldwide. Come on now..

 

[Sir Alex]

I dont know where you have gotten the idea that ICC kille such anything. I've seen a few acceptable turners in the sub-continent since the Mumbai 04 distaster.

- Mumbai 05 vs ENG, Kanpur 08 (which you mentioned)

Because the dumbheads at ICC does **** like this:

ICC warns BCCI over poor pitch quality in Kanpur - Express India

Nah. Those NZ 2002/03 conditons where comparbale to recent AUS vs PAK in ENG conditons - which is the ultimate pace-bowler friendly condtions. Plus of course ICC regulations doesnt consider greentop conditons to ever be a bad test wicket - which would be OTT.

And Mumbai 04 was perfect spin bowling condition..

Fact that ICC doesn't consider greentops = dustbowls is their biggest failure on this front. And why spinners are dying out.

 

[Sir Alex]

And Underwood too. But this is a poor point.

Why do you think uncovered wickets aren't in existance today, because it gave bowlers especially any spinner who can extra any turn an unfair advantage over batsmen. This is why coveres are used to cover when rain falls in cricket over the alst 40 years consistently worldwide. Come on now..

Well it has more merit than a suggestion that a fast bowler can reap wickets on a dustbowl with reverse swing.

 

[aussie]

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.

Your hypotetical scenario of 5 spinners playing in a test would never happen. So lets keep it in realms of likely test match scenario my friend.

Obviously in most test in most condionst teams would pick 4/5 attack which would include 1 spinner excpet when they play in the sub-continent, when two would play.

Obviously also in test cricket the roles of spinners & quicks are different. A spinner use in test match unless he is playing on a sub-continental dustbowl, usally would come on the 4th & 5th days of a match when the pitch begins to deteriorate right?. But Warne, Murali & (maybe O'Reilly as well) are the only spinners in the games history who had the unique ability to be effective from day 1 when the pitch is still solid - instead of just when the pitch begins to deteriorate. This is why they are rated so highly (some people even reckon Murali is greatest bowler of all-time because of this).

Theirfore generally unless the spinner is Warne, Murali or O'Reilly, batsmen wont have to worry about a spinner being a threat to them until the 4th or 5th days of a test unless its on a dustbowl that they are playing on. The fast bowlers on day's 1-3 (especially day 1) would be expected & entrusted by their captains to be main wicket-taking options.


You dont have to use the Windies 4 prong vs IND spin quarter as the example here to judge the entire pace vs spin argument. You can use min examples of quality pace vs spin & still as i've shown before as still prove pace is more difficult. I.e Waqar & Wasim vs Kumble/Harbhajan as i've explained before:

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.

 

[Jarquis]

I should've added International test bowlers tbh, and that I thought was a given in such discussions.

In a discussion in which you say "world"?

 

[Shri]

Nah. Those NZ 2002/03 conditons where comparbale to recent AUS vs PAK in ENG conditons - which is the ultimate pace-bowler friendly condtions. Plus of course ICC regulations doesnt consider greentop conditons to ever be a bad test wicket - which would be OTT.

Batsmen scored lesser than what was scored in the Mumbai pitch in one of those NZ test matches. The away team and home team failed to cross hundred in the 1st innings of said test. How is it in any way better that that Mumbai pitch is beyond me. Will get the scorecard I am talking about in a moment.

Here:

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64021.html

 

[G.I.Joe]

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.

That's because:

(a) Genuine turners are much much more rare than genuine greentops
(b) Pacers open the bowling, and instances of spinners opening the bowling ahead of any pacers in the team are very very very very rare.

 

[Debris]

No; it just suggests that good fast bowlers are more common than good spinners.

But this comes back to one of two things, either it is easier to bowl pace or pace is harder to face? The number of batsmen who can bowl spin quite well would indicate spin is not harder to bowl so I still think it comes back to pace being harder to face.

 

[Prince EWS]

But this comes back to one of two things, either it is easier to bowl pace or pace is harder to face? The number of batsmen who can bowl spin quite well would indicate spin is not harder to bowl so I still think it comes back to pace being harder to face.

No, I completely disagree with the logic here. Neither is intrinsically harder to face - it is just rarer to come across spinners of a very high quality. A bowler of quality X is of the same quality of another bowler of quality X, regardless of the method the bowlers choose. I feel like I'm stating the obvious there, but something being rarer does not make it easier to contend with.