Pace Attack Vs. Spin Attack

[Sanz]

Thought of creating a new thread for this :-

4 Great fast bowlers Vs. 4 Great Spinners, Which one will have more success and why ?

For example let's consider a bowling attack of bowlers since the mid 90s :-

Fast Bowlers :- 1. Mcgrath 2. Akram 3. Srinath 4. Vaas
Spinners :- 1. Warne 2. Murali 3. Kumble 4. Saqlain


Which one in your opinion will have more success ?Also tell us why do you think so.

EDIT :- Changed the No. 3/4(fast) bowlers, since members continued to ignore the assumption that Kumble/Saqlain should be considered as good as Warne/Murali.

 

[James_W]

I'd just use Kumble and Saqlain as backup bowlers. That pace attack could kill any side though.

 

[Ikki]

But how do you really answer the question? There are only 20 wickets to take in a Test match. I believe both would do it comfortably.

Disregarding that, I'd say the spin side and not because they're spinners but because I consider them with better match-winners.

 

[slowfinger]

I was just thinking of what time in the game...

 

[slowfinger]

But how do you really answer the question? There are only 20 wickets to take in a Test match. I believe both would do it comfortably.

Take in mind not all the time you get 20 wickets.

 

[Slifer]

Great pacers> great spinners ne day of the week.

 

[Sanz]

I'd just use Kumble and Saqlain as backup bowlers. That pace attack could kill any side though.

I said, for the sake of this discussion, please assume that they both are as good as Warne/Murali. I say this only because There weren't any spinners in Murali/Warne class during that era.

Also as Kaz said, its not about who will kill whom, but who will take more wickets i.e. win their side more matches.

 

[silentstriker]

In this case, the answer is even more clear than usual. Obviously, in my mind that is. I'm sure others will disagree. But I cannot see how an all spin attack would take 20 wickets better than one consisting of McGrath, Ambrose, Donald and Wasim. That four man pace attack is worthy of an all time side, whereas the all time spin attack isn't.

 

[social]

Thought of creating a new thread for this :-

4 Great fast bowlers Vs. 4 Great Spinners, Which one will have more success and why ?

For example let's consider a bowling attack of best bowlers since the mid 90s :-

Fast Bowlers :- 1. Mcgrath 2. Akram 3. Ambrose 4.Donald
Spinners :- 1. Warne 2. Murali 3. Kumble 4. Saqlain

I know that Kumble/Saqlain aren't as good as Warne/Murali, but for the sake of this dicussion, we will assume they are(although it is hard to do so), since it is so rare to get a world class spinner.

Which one in your opinion will have more success ?Also tell us why do you think so.

A better question would be:

4 Great fast bowlers Vs. 4 Great Bowlers including at least one spinner - which attack will have more success and why ?

 

[subshakerz]

Pace attack easily. The fact is that spinners can be neutralized by pitches much easier than pacemen can.

 

[silentstriker]

A better question would be:

4 Great fast bowlers Vs. 4 Great Bowlers including at least one spinner - which attack will have more success and why ?

That's certainly a more interesting question, and I could actually consider the latter depending on the four fast bowlers. But if I could pick any four fast bowlers to build my attack, I'd pick those. WI would not have been as effective with a spinner, even one of Warne quality. Too much emotional release when all of a sudden you started facing a guy that couldn't take your face off.

 

[Ikki]

Take in mind not all the time you get 20 wickets.

Sure, of course. But these attacks? Very unlikely they won't take all 20 wickets given enough time. Especially the spin attack, it has no weakness. If we have a bowler as good as Warne/Murali but is as good as Kumble in India then there are no weaknesses.

Also as Kaz said, its not about who will kill whom, but who will take more wickets i.e. win their side more matches.

Let me also elaborate: the difference in numbers between the two is not that much that one would steal any victory from the other side based on the bowling. But, if it did, I'd be more inclined with the spinners as I regard those men better match-winners.

I mean look at it, even if you had just Murali and Warne. Both can bowl long spells and both can strike quick. You let Murali keep it tight and bowl a lot and bring on Warne when there's a need for a wicket or a change in the game - mentality.

 

[Ikki]

Pace attack easily. The fact is that spinners can be neutralized by pitches much easier than pacemen can.

Not so when talking about Warne/Murali. They can take wickets on anything.

 

[Sanz]

In this case, the answer is even more clear than usual. Obviously, in my mind that is. I'm sure others will disagree. But I cannot see how an all spin attack would take 20 wickets better than one consisting of McGrath, Ambrose, Donald and Wasim. That four man pace attack is worthy of an all time side, whereas the all time spin attack isn't.

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.

Since that is not going to happen here and people, I am going to edit my initial post.

 

[Fusion]

Well, it has to do with the pitch conditions, the type of bowlers, and the opposition. But if I was forced to pick between an attack consisting of 4 great pace bowlers or 4 great spin bowlers, I would go with the former. I think, generally speaking, they will take more wickets than the spin quartet.

 

[Slifer]

Not so when talking about Warne/Murali. They can take wickets on anything.

See Warne in India and the West Indies. And Murali in Australia, India and hell even Zimbabwe, then come again.

 

[Ikki]

See Warne in India and the West Indies. And Murali in Australia, India and hell even Zimbabwe, then come again.

Has nothing to do with surface. They span the ball well. That had more to do with the batsmen they faced. You said the pitch neutralises spinners moreso than pace bowlers. Not true if you are talking simply the pitch.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Great pacers> great spinners ne day of the week.

Agreed.

 

[slowfinger]

Not so when talking about Warne/Murali. They can take wickets on anything.

Hardly so. If you say anything.

 

[slowfinger]

Has nothing to do with surface. They span the ball well. That had more to do with the batsmen they faced. You said the pitch neutralises spinners moreso than pace bowlers. Not true if you are talking simply the pitch.

Try see KP against Warne or Murali, very interesting!