Must be hacked.
-
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.
Best of the best - pacers vs bats vs spinners
- Thread starter subshakerz
- Start date
ataraxia
International Coach
Very SENA-centric comment
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well yeah, and it should be. What are the comparative records of non-SC countries winning there compared with SC countries winning elsewhere?
The latter is as rare as hen's teeth. And a decent part of that is because of their historical reliance on spinners, which not only rendered/ renders their attacks toothless, but screwed their batsmen over because they historically struggled to deal with pace. SENAC (adding Carribean to the usual acronym) countries have gone to the SC and won with pace-centric attacks far more often than SC countries have won in SENAC countries. I don't know how that can point to anything in a general sense other than very good/ great pace bowlers being more useful than very good/ great spinners.
Ashwin and Jadeja, for example, are fantastic bowlers but for many years India carried only one of them in the side in SENA countries. They tend to both play nowadays, but I think that has more to do with Jadeja's batting going through the roof than anything else, such that even if he bowls less overs he's making decent runs anyway.
There's obviously a place for both styles of bowling, and ideally you want to strike a balance. But if I'm having to choose only one of these really elite players to have in a team which is going to go all over the place to play, I'll take the ATG pacer.
The latter is as rare as hen's teeth. And a decent part of that is because of their historical reliance on spinners, which not only rendered/ renders their attacks toothless, but screwed their batsmen over because they historically struggled to deal with pace. SENAC (adding Carribean to the usual acronym) countries have gone to the SC and won with pace-centric attacks far more often than SC countries have won in SENAC countries. I don't know how that can point to anything in a general sense other than very good/ great pace bowlers being more useful than very good/ great spinners.
Ashwin and Jadeja, for example, are fantastic bowlers but for many years India carried only one of them in the side in SENA countries. They tend to both play nowadays, but I think that has more to do with Jadeja's batting going through the roof than anything else, such that even if he bowls less overs he's making decent runs anyway.
There's obviously a place for both styles of bowling, and ideally you want to strike a balance. But if I'm having to choose only one of these really elite players to have in a team which is going to go all over the place to play, I'll take the ATG pacer.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well obviously my comment is a general one rather than specific, because TOTAB would and should be first chosen in any side.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Its an interesting question because just by definition, its far harder to find a great spinner than a great pacer and even more than a great batsman. Conversely, batting is something pretty much everyone has to do in the game and fast bowlers have more tools to get batsmen out than spinners in most conditions.
Its pretty silly IMO to rank aspects of the game when all of them combined is really what makes the game itself, ultimately.
Its pretty silly IMO to rank aspects of the game when all of them combined is really what makes the game itself, ultimately.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Glad you understand fingerspin is THE form of bowling compared to hacks like fast bowlers and wrist spinners.
kyear2
International Coach
I agree to a certain extent, and it is close, but you do need to take 20 wickets to win, and fast bowlers seems to have been the driving force behind most great and even good teams. .
With that being said, in football, the ultimate team sport (IMHO), there's still some positions that are unquestionably more important. QB >> DE >\= LT > WR >\= CB, the rest lag far behind.
Thanks. I was on the old forum a few years back but not a prolific poster.2/3s of the 3/4s of the remaining overs are usually bowled by other quicks though.
@kyear2 is correct. All the best sides since basically WW2 who have dominated test cricket have had at least very good pace attacks. An attack like that gives you stability across different conditions because it's less conditions-reliant. If you have to rank these skills in importance, as the OP asked, how can it not be the skill set which is generally the most adaptable across all conditions which is the most important?
A great pacer will do a job on any type of surface. You only have to look at the records of guys like Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee etc to see that's the case. The same can't be said for even the greatest post-war spinners. Murali and Warne each have pretty big flaws in their records compared with the top pace bowlers.
As for top batsmen, obviously they're really important too, but at best in this sort of contest I'd have them on par with a spinner, or even a bit behind.
Welcome to the forum btw. Hope you enjoy it here
A single great pace bowler alone doesn't make a very good pace attack. He needs at least another good pace bowler to share the load and then others who can keep things tight. If he has ineffective bowling partners then that's about 75% of of the bowling overs in the day that the opposition batters can cash in.
A single great spinner with ineffective bowling partners will able to bowl more overs, so opposition batters will have only 60% of bowling overs to cash in. Basically you get more for your money with a great spinner.
Great spinners may struggle on some pitches and even against some batsmen, but over the course of a long career no other player in the team will be as important to a teams fortune than the spinner.
kyear2
International Coach
I get your point, but if that were true Sri Lanka would have been world beaters.
Have there been any great spinners that were the alpha bowlers in the team? Even Warne was McGrath's running mate. I understand, but disagree on this one.
Coronis
International Coach
That literally has nothing to do with his post lol. He said a great spinner with an ineffective support cast was more valuable than a great pacer with an ineffective support cast.
i.e in a four man attack: if you have 3 **** bowlers and an ATG bowler, the great spinner has more value because he can bowl more overs than the great pacer - meaning the batsmen face a higher level of bowling for a higher percentage of the innings
And there are plenty of spinners who have been the alpha bowler in their team.
Slifer
International Captain
Basically Hadlee vs Murali then. And Hadlee pretty much made sure NZ were undefeated at home in the 80s and Pakistan aside, he did well everywhere. Murali dominated at home and did well away but was horrible in Australia and India.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Hadlee only toured Pakistan once (in 1976 when he was lucky to be in the NZ team). He didn't go on the 1984 tour and had retired a few months before the 1990 tour.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think that's true at all, for a few reasons.
eg. in most conditions you can sit on a great spinner and score of the other bowlers more easily than a great pacer. This is because generally speaking spinner relies on batsmen getting out playing shots more so than a quick does.
Changes when you get to a subcontinental dustbowl but that cricket doesn't count anyway
You've done a far better job explaining what I meant. Thanks
This would be the closet thing to a real world example.
I wouldn't argue that Murali was a better bowler than Hadlee, but Murali was more important and did more for his team as a bowler. On average he bowled 30% more overs per innings than Hadlee and took 3.5 wickets per innings vs Hadlees 2.9
Honestly it depends what your team needs most. I would say current England would be best served by a Murali/Warne level spinner. Pakistan would probably be helped most by a McGrath/Marshall/Hadlee level quick, India by a middle order bat of the Lara/Richards tier, and Australia by a Hobbs/Hutton level opener. Therefore, I don't think there's a correct answer to this question.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah I don't think so. Murali had Vaas and in Sri Lanka some half decent spinners that could use the conditions to be dangerous. Hadlee had less support
Murali bowled more overs and took more wickets on average pet innings for his team. You can't argue that he didn't do more for his team as the facts show he did.
Hadlee had solid if unspectacular support. Lance Cairns, Chatfield, John Bracewell all averaged around 30 or less at home with the ball and were good at keeping things tight.
Vaas is better than them, but after him there wasn't much else in the Sri Lankan bowling stocks. Dilhara, Zoysa, Wickramasinghe, Malinga were all liabilities. The only other decent spinner was Herath and he and Murali only played 15 Tests together.
Coronis
International Coach
Wasn’t my opinion anyway, I was just trying to explain what the post actually said.
Again I believe the post is assuming equally crap bowlers available to both hypothetical sides.