Why is it viewed as more important

[centurymaker]

2. Ideally you can have one, but the WI literally won everywhere with fast bowlers, so how can you say a team can't. They went into India in '83 and dominated.

3. How is it a pace bias when pace has dominated the landscape since the end of the war and it's infinitely less conditions dependant than spin

So not true. Fast bowling is also conditions dependent!

India/Pakistan/SL/Bangladesh can have pitches that can make ATG pacers almost redundant. They can either be highways with no assistance for pacers or sharp turning tracks where fast bowlers are only required to take the shine off the ball.

So Idk where you are getting the idea that pacers are infinitely less conditions dependent? The whole game of cricket is conditions dependent.

 

[Bolo.]

So not true. Fast bowling is also conditions dependent!

India/Pakistan/SL/Bangladesh can have pitches that can make ATG pacers almost redundant. They can either be highways with no assistance for pacers or sharp turning tracks where fast bowlers are only required to take the shine off the ball.

So Idk where you are getting the idea that pacers are infinitely less conditions dependent? The whole game of cricket is conditions dependent.

Quicks have pace, bounce, movement off the deck, and movement in the air as major threats. It's not often that none of these are around for the course of a game for a bowler with all the tools.

Spinners only really have movement off the deck.

You can't doctor swing away. You can make spin so vicious that it becomes less relevant, and prepare non-abrasive surfaces to stop (some) reverse but that's about it.

 

[smash84]

I am amazed at some of the arguments I am reading.

WI 80s Team and Aus 00 team also didn’t have Bradman. So , now we don’t need Bradman in ATXI team too if we don’t need bowling all rounder.

This post really points out the absurdity of kyear2's arguments.

And also making slip fielding as batting and bowling equivalents.

 

[reyrey]

2. Ideally you can have one, but the WI literally won everywhere with fast bowlers, so how can you say a team can't. They went into India in '83 and dominated.

Kapil on his own almost took as many wickets as all the Indian spinners combined in that series. He had the best bowling average in that series too, better than even the WI bowlers. Maybe the pitches just weren't that spin friendly.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Kapil on his own almost took as many wickets as all the Indian spinners combined in that series. He had the best bowling average in that series too, better than even the WI bowlers. Maybe the pitches just weren't that spin friendly.

They probably weren't. India didn't even have that many good spinners in those years to take advantage of turning decks.

 

[centurymaker]

Quicks have pace, bounce, movement off the deck, and movement in the air as major threats. It's not often that none of these are around for the course of a game for a bowler with all the tools.

Spinners only really have movement off the deck.

You can't doctor swing away. You can make spin so vicious that it becomes less relevant, and prepare non-abrasive surfaces to stop (some) reverse but that's about it.

Spinners use drift in the air to deceive batters like pacers use swing. They can use flight and get the ball to dip. They can use variations in spin. They use variations in pace. They aren't solely only reliant on spin off the deck.

As for pacers, there's generally no seam in India. Bounce tends to be on the lower side so bouce is also not much of a factor. Pitches lack pace so pace is also not that effective unless the specific pitch has nice pace and carry which you see more of nowadays mainly because India too have good pacers. Swing doesn't last more than a half dozen overs while reverse is dependent on abrasiveness of pitch as well as the outfield.

On the typical low and slow turners, pacers are only making up the numbers more often than not.

Kyear had said that pacers were infinitely less conditions dependent but thats false. They need pitches to have pace & bounce or seam or conditions to aid swing. When conditions don't provide that, they really struggle as we have seen in the SC.

 

[centurymaker]

They probably weren't. India didn't even have that many good spinners in those years to take advantage of turning decks.

Yeah, the spin quartet had retired by the end of 1979 and India was in serious transition bowling-wise.

 

[centurymaker]

Ftr England also won in India in 1984.

 

[Sunil1z]

No one has milked victory in IND in 80s more than Kyear 2 . His entire hypothesis of playing in IND is based on a Test series win 41 years ago .

 

[Bolo.]

Spinners use drift in the air to deceive batters like pacers use swing. They can use flight and get the ball to dip. They can use variations in spin. They use variations in pace. They aren't solely only reliant on spin off the deck.

As for pacers, there's generally no seam in India. Bounce tends to be on the lower side so bouce is also not much of a factor. Pitches lack pace so pace is also not that effective unless the specific pitch has nice pace and carry which you see more of nowadays mainly because India too have good pacers. Swing doesn't last more than a half dozen overs while reverse is dependent on abrasiveness of pitch as well as the outfield.

On the typical low and slow turners, pacers are only making up the numbers more often than not.

Kyear had said that pacers were infinitely less conditions dependent but thats false. They need pitches to have pace & bounce or seam or conditions to aid swing. When conditions don't provide that, they really struggle as we have seen in the SC.

Major weapons. Stuff like flight and drift are handy, but without something off the deck in addition, a spinner is seldom going to be too threatening. Quicks also have other more minor weapons.

There's a reason why the best touring quicks in the SC have outperformed the best touring spinners, despite being nominally less suited to conditions. And most cricket is played outside the SC.

 

[Sunil1z]

Major weapons. Stuff like flight and drift are handy, but without something off the deck in addition, a spinner is seldom going to be too threatening. Quicks also have other more minor weapons.

There's a reason why the best touring quicks in the SC have outperformed the best touring spinners, despite being nominally less suited to conditions. And most cricket is played outside the SC.

How is this calculation done ?
4 Asian sides and 4 SENA sides .
WI produce both type of pitches .

 

[Bolo.]

How is this calculation done ?
4 Asian sides and 4 SENA sides .
WI produce both type of pitches .

England have hosted nearly as many tests as the entire SC has if you want to count tests.

If you want to count countries, Ireland, Zim, and WI are outside the SC. Can ignore the UAE and just call it Pak

 

[centurymaker]

Major weapons. Stuff like flight and drift are handy, but without something off the deck in addition, a spinner is seldom going to be too threatening. Quicks also have other more minor weapons.

There's a reason why the best touring quicks in the SC have outperformed the best touring spinners, despite being nominally less suited to conditions. And most cricket is played outside the SC.

Drift or flight are not minor weapons.

As for the bolded part, touring quicks only outperform the touring spinners because usually the touring spinners have been of serious low quality.

More often than not when touring teams have come with good spinners, they have clearly outperformed the pacers.

Lyon & O'Keefe vs Cummins Starc Hazlewood
or Lyon & Murphy or Swann and Panesar

Even the English noob spinners were more effective than the distinguished English pacers in the recent series.

 

[Sunil1z]

England have hosted nearly as many tests as the entire SC has if you want to count tests.

If you want to count countries, Ireland, Zim, and WI are outside the SC. Can ignore the UAE and just call it Pak

What has pace vs spin got to do with England playing from 1880s ?
Since you are counting Ireland, I am counting Afghanistan.

 

[centurymaker]

England have hosted nearly as many tests as the entire SC has if you want to count tests.

If you want to count countries, Ireland, Zim, and WI are outside the SC. Can ignore the UAE and just call it Pak

Wow including Ireland and Zimbabwe who hardly play tests. Well then you seem to be forgetting Afghanistan, who happen to play their home tests in SC or UAE

 

[Xix2565]

They need pitches to have pace & bounce or seam or conditions to aid swing.

Famously noted by WTC winning captain and ATG bowler Pat Cummins in a famous documentary chronicling the Australian side post Sandpaper. I believe it's called The Test, and the specific episode being Episode 4 of the first season. Perhaps some people should rewatch it for such obvious nuggets of wisdom from the one true saviour of Australian cricket.

 

[Bolo.]

Drift or flight are not minor weapons.

As for the bolded part, touring quicks only outperform the touring spinners because usually the touring spinners have been of serious low quality.

More often than not when touring teams have come with good spinners, they have clearly outperformed the pacers.

Lyon & O'Keefe vs Cummins Starc Hazlewood
or Lyon & Murphy or Swann and Panesar

Even the English noob spinners were more effective than the distinguished English pacers in the recent series.

Flight and drift are not major weapons in relation to swing. How many wickets have you seen go down to each (without additional pitch assistance).

The visiting spinners tend to outperform the visiting quicks when given assistance by pitches (ie. the opposite of the point you are trying to make). On flatter pitches, swing and cutter bowlers tend to outperform.

 

[Bolo.]

What has pace vs spin got to do with England playing from 1880s ?
Since you are counting Ireland, I am counting Afghanistan.

Wow including Ireland and Zimbabwe who hardly play tests. Well then you seem to be forgetting Afghanistan, who happen to play their home tests in SC or UAE

Afghanistan, who haven't played a home test, and play in countries we are already counting?

Anyway, this is dumb. No matter how you slice things, more cricket is played outside the SC. And If this were not true, quicks from the ROW have had more success in the SC than SC spinners have had in the ROW. This is true at any comparative level- looking at just the top guys, or lower.

 

[Sunil1z]

Afghanistan, who haven't played a home test, and play in countries we are already counting?

Anyway, this is dumb. No matter how you slice things, more cricket is played outside the SC. And If this were not true, quicks from the ROW have had more success in the SC than SC spinners have had in the ROW. This is true at any comparative level- looking at just the top guys, or lower.

Quicks had more success because SEA countries in general have been better at cricket than Asian countries.

IND won in NZ ( 1969 ) , WI and ENG 1971 with a spin attack.

When England were rubbish in 90s , Mushtaq Ahmed used to torment them with spin in their home . Harbhajan nearly won IND test series in SA in 2010/11 if not for Kallis heroics in 3rd innings.

 

[centurymaker]

And now Sena don't provide pitches that assist spin in any way particularly when SC teams are touring. And thats perfectly fine but it doesn't mean spinners haven't been good there in the past.