Pace Attack Vs. Spin Attack

[silentstriker]

Jeez, Did I not say that because of the lack of other world class spinners in the league of Warne/Murali, we will just assume that Kumble/Saqlain are world class.

I apologize - I missed that. My vote would be unchanged even in that case. You should put someone better than Srinath though, to make it fair. .

 

[Ikki]

Hardly so. If you say anything.

I'm talking about pitches you'd get all around the world. Not a pitch made out of honey.

 

[Ikki]

Try see KP against Warne or Murali, very interesting!

Warne's taken KP's wicket numerous times.

Besides, what does that have to do with the pitch?

 

[Richard]

Seam > spin.

4 top-class seamers > 3 top-class seamers and a top-class spinner.

Simple as, for my money. Seamers have more at their disposal than do spinners. This is why the best seamers are pretty much always better than the best spinners, and the good seamers are without fail quite a bit better than the good spinners.

 

[nightprowler10]

Definitely the pace attack. As others have mentioned, the pace attack won't primarily depend on the surface of the pitch, rather their pace. Take into account the Lahore Test between India and Pakistan in '06 where the teams were playing on an absolute road. Pacers still picked up wickets whereas spinners got hit for 4 sixes in an over.

 

[FRAZ]

I have seen teams winning without even having a proper spinner in their team . Imagine giving spinners the new ball to bowl ....

 

[Sanz]

I apologize - I missed that. My vote would be unchanged even in that case. You should put someone better than Srinath though, to make it fair. .

I knew your reply wouldn't change, Srinath > Saqlain As a test bowler. Anywyas, Please feel free to edit the post and replace Srinath with another bowler or suggest a bowler. How about Gillespie ?

 

[adharcric]

Depends on the conditions, opposition, pitch, etc. Offer me a quality four-prong pace attack and a quality four-prong spin attack with no previous knowledge of the external factors and I'd definitely take the pace attack. Going further, I'd opt for a 3 pace, 1 spin attack if I didn't know anything about the external conditions and could select any composition.

 

[Sanz]

I have seen teams winning without even having a proper spinner in their team . Imagine giving spinners the new ball to bowl ....

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63067.html
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63078.html



India have a lot of test matches without a half decent fast bowler.

Needless to say a lot of Pakistanis for long have considered Kapildev a spinner

 

[adharcric]

Seam > spin.

4 top-class seamers > 3 top-class seamers and a top-class spinner.

Simple as, for my money. Seamers have more at their disposal than do spinners. This is why the best seamers are pretty much always better than the best spinners, and the good seamers are without fail quite a bit better than the good spinners.

Not quite. That's only true because playing conditions favor seamers over spinners more often than not. If cricket was only played on turners in the subcontinent, you'd be inclined to say that spinners are just plain superior to seamers. Yes, to an extent you're right that seamers are less reliant on the conditions and thus are generally the superior option but it's not quite as simple as that. Probability comes into it so I'd definitely go for 3-1 over 4-0. Thoughts?

 

[Richard]

Going further, I'd opt for a 3 pace, 1 spin attack if I didn't know anything about the external conditions

How often does that happen though? You can almost always tell if you're going to need a spinner. And on the larger majority of the occasions when a (normal) spinner won't be effective, you pick all-seam, for my money.

 

[social]

Not quite. That's only true because playing conditions favor seamers over spinners more often than not. If cricket was only played on turners in the subcontinent, you'd be inclined to say that spinners are just plain superior to seamers. Yes, to an extent you're right that seamers are less reliant on the conditions and thus are generally the superior option but it's not quite as simple as that. Probability comes into it so I'd definitely go for 3-1 over 4-0. Thoughts?

Save your breath

 

[Sanz]

Definitely the pace attack. As others have mentioned, the pace attack won't primarily depend on the surface of the pitch, rather their pace. Take into account the Lahore Test between India and Pakistan in '06 where the teams were playing on an absolute road. Pacers still picked up wickets whereas spinners got hit for 4 sixes in an over.

Such isolated cases can be made for spinners as well :-

For example this test :-

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/64062.html

Besides the 2006 Lahore test you are talking about, Kumble did pick up 2 wickets. which is one more than Pakistani pacers did and one less than Indian pacers did.

 

[adharcric]

How often does that happen though? You can almost always tell if you're going to need a spinner. And on the larger majority of the occasions when a (normal) spinner won't be effective, you pick all-seam, for my money.

Well yeah, it's a larger majority so I'm going with 3-1 and not 2-2. Of course you can almost always tell if you're going to need a spinner - we're talking about how often that happens and I'd say it's definitely often enough to warrant a lone spinner in a four-man attack.

 

[Sanz]

Well yeah, it's a larger majority so I'm going with 3-1 and not 2-2. Of course you can almost always tell if you're going to need a spinner - we're talking about how often that happens and I'd say it's definitely often enough to warrant a lone spinner in a four-man attack.

Ambrose+Akram+Mcgrath+Donald

Or

Akram+Mcgrath+Murali+Warne

Tell me which one you would take ?

 

[adharcric]

Ambrose+Akram+Mcgrath+Donald

Or

Akram+Mcgrath+Murali+Warne

Tell me which one you would take ?

Tough one. I'd actually take Ambrose-McGrath-Murali-Warne (that's still 2-2) over the four-seam attack simply because Murali and Warne are clearly better than Akram and Donald, in my opinion. So far, I've been assuming that you offer four seamers and four spinners of roughly equal quality in making my arguments.

 

[Ikki]

Tough one. I'd actually take Ambrose-McGrath-Murali-Warne (that's still 2-2) over the four-seam attack simply because Murali and Warne are clearly better than Akram and Donald, in my opinion. So far, I've been assuming that you offer four seamers and four spinners of roughly equal quality in making my arguments.

Well, that is also an argument. However, Richard and Manan have been saying that even that 4-prong attack is superior.

As I said earlier, it is very close and it does not hinge on whether you are talking about pace or spin but who are better match-winners. Any combination of 2 attacks made within the top 20 bowlers of all time are going to be close facing each other. You have to be kidding to consider otherwise.

 

[Richard]

Not quite. That's only true because playing conditions favor seamers over spinners more often than not. If cricket was only played on turners in the subcontinent, you'd be inclined to say that spinners are just plain superior to seamers. Yes, to an extent you're right that seamers are less reliant on the conditions and thus are generally the superior option but it's not quite as simple as that. Probability comes into it so I'd definitely go for 3-1 over 4-0. Thoughts?

Exactly - these days there are not enough spin-friendly conditions to make spin a viable option most of the time. In the days of uncovered wickets, such conditions were far more widespread and the best spinners were often every bit as good as the best seamers. That's not true any more, however.

That said, if I had the choice to put Anil Kumble or Bishen Bedi or Eripalli Prasanna into an attack to replace one of Waqar Younis, Anderson Roberts, Wesley Winfield Hall and Brian Statham - or Courtney Walsh, Ian Bishop, Jason Gillespie and Ian Botham - (and I've deliberately not picked any of those I rate as the very, very best seamers, I've gone for some merely-excellent ones) on a spin-friendly pitch there's no way I'd even remotely consider doing so. Even merely-excellent seam-bowlers are miles ahead of merely-excellent spinners.

You'd have to get into a situation of a spin-friendly pitch and some merely-very-good seamers (such as Angus Fraser, Terry Alderman or Garth McKenzie) for me to consider even a top-of-the-general-standard-tree spinner (ie, not Grimmett, Warne etc.) being added in.

My seam > spin theorem only applies, it must be stressed, to the era of covered wickets.

 

[Richard]

Well yeah, it's a larger majority so I'm going with 3-1 and not 2-2. Of course you can almost always tell if you're going to need a spinner - we're talking about how often that happens and I'd say it's definitely often enough to warrant a lone spinner in a four-man attack.

I say you pick the spinner on the minority occasions you need one, and leave the spinner out on the majority occasions you don't.

There's nothing saying you can't change your team. You're not forced to pick the same team every game as conditions change.

 

[Richard]

Murali and Warne are clearly better than Akram and Donald, in my opinion.