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

[marc71178]

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.

One thing to consider is that with the effort involved, it's definitely not uncommon for spinners to bowl 20-30 over spells, which pacemen can't. Therefore you don't need 4 spinners in a side.

 

[Debris]

One thing to consider is that with the effort involved, it's definitely not uncommon for spinners to bowl 20-30 over spells, which pacemen can't. Therefore you don't need 4 spinners in a side.

In that case, why not take in an extra batsman.

 

[aussie]

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

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

Well given i saw that test. I disagree with ICC's & Arthurs view of that pitch. SA batsmen where just exposed on a proper genuine turner.

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.

Mumbai 04 was not perfect SB conditions. The pitch played as bad as any uncovered wicket affected by rain, that where present for the majority of the first 60 years of 1900s.

It is not logical for greentoops to be considered bad test pitch. How can you underprepare a pitch by allowing a fair amount of grass to be on the pitch?

That can't happen, you have the let field grass grow on the entire playing surface, which obviously would never happen.

Plus by no means are spinners dying out. We just have the emergence of Randiv - Swann has brought new life to ENG spin (the best offie since the 1970s) - Ajmal is finally showing is ODI/T20 form in tests. Obviously with Murali & Warne, Kumble retired the greatest period of spin bowling in test history is gone - but good spin is certainly still around.

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

Huh?. Firstly the majority the great fast-bowlers who had success in the sub-continet had the ability to reverse-swing the ball on wearing sub-continent wickets.

Facing 90 mph reverse swing a la Wasim/Waqar @ their peak or Flintoff/Jones Ashes 05 on a wearing wicket is just difficult batting conditions. Facing Barnes/O'Reilly/Underwood on a uncovered wicket - is an unfair advantage to bowlers (which is why UCWs have been have ceased to exist). Two totally uncomparable things.

 

[aussie]

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:

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

The quicks utilized the conditions brillantly that is why the both batting lineups struggled. Plus i have seen similar conditions to that test before:

- 1st day of 2005 Ashes

- 1st day 2004 2nd test with AUS & SRI @ Kandy

- Headingley 2000

- Darwin 2004

That's because:

(a) Genuine turners are much much more rare than genuine greentops

It is rarer. But only ever AUS & ENG tour to IND & SRI that i have seen in over a decade of watching cricket, a genuine turner has always been present in almost all those series.

Not any sub-100 totals where caused by those spin attacks.

(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.

Just rare. Not very very very very rare. Every series i have seen AUS & ENG play in IND & SRI in my time of watching cricket, i recall a spinner opening the bowling @ some point in almost each series.

 

[marc71178]

Funny that - first series in recent times I looked at, and not one spinner opened in any of the 3 Tests.

 

[Shri]

The quicks utilized the conditions brillantly that is why the both batting lineups struggled. Plus i have seen similar conditions to that test before:

And the spinners who took wickets in that Mumbai test kept it simple and bowled straight - thereby utilizing the conditions brilliantly, which was why both batting line ups struggled. Hauritz for example, who played as the main spinner was not that successful compared to other spin bowlers in that test. So, its not like every bowler to get a bowl did well in that match, the ones who bowled with common sense were successful.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Sorry, but the equivalent seamer of Mumbai would be not played on, because it would be an old fashioned sticky. For example, South Africa playing Australia at the MCG in 05/06, where they held up play because the pitch was a bit wet after being over-watered.

 

[Shri]

The batsmen should grow a pair then. Sissies.

 

[Debris]

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.

I am now finding it difficult to distinguish between quality and difficulty to face in your arguments. It seems to me that you are finding the rare spinner with greater talent and comparing them with pace bowlers of lesser talent. I would say that from my point of view there are no spin bowlers in the top 5 bowlers overall so I think we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Matt79]

Don't understand how you're finding EWS argument hard to follow tbh.

 

[Debris]

Don't understand how you're finding EWS argument hard to follow tbh.

I was being polite and trying very hard not to say that his argument was complete rubbish. Now you have forced me to say it.

 

[aussie]

Sorry, but the equivalent seamer of Mumbai would be not played on, because it would be an old fashioned sticky. For example, South Africa playing Australia at the MCG in 05/06, where they held up play because the pitch was a bit wet after being over-watered.

Exaclty.

I was being polite and trying very hard not to say that his argument was complete rubbish. Now you have forced me to say it.

HAA...ye would have to agree with you here sir.