• 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.

A fast bowler's physical peak vs his intellectual peak?

Kirkut

State Captain
Which one would be harder to face? One example would be Wasim Akram who hit his physical peak from 1992-1994 where he was at his fastest, and in the year 1999 he lost some speed but compensated it with the ability to set up a batsman on any pitch (we all remember that ball to Dravid in 1999 Chennai test).

Hadlee is another example who shortened his run up after experience gained in county games and transformed into an all time great by peaking in his 30s.
 

Red Hill

The artist formerly known as Monk
Smarter over faster in a fairly superficial way I reckon.

Playing pretty low grade cricket as I do, I'd much prefer to face the 20 year old who's pretty quick over the 40 year old who knows the tricks.

Tricks over quicks.
 

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pretty weird question imo. Depends on way too many things. It's never as clear cut as choosing one or the other.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I wouldn't always put it as a physical v intellectual peak per say. If a bowler has more speed earlier on in his career say and is taking wickets, doesn't mean that he is not wise. Later, more than wisdom, it is about being able to adopt to physical limitations which crop up with age. Some can do it while others can't depending on the type of bowling action, type of bowler, physical state and other dynamics.
 

harsh.ag

Hall of Fame Member
At his intellectual peak, a fast bowler should be teaching 14 year olds how not to screw up the cross seam fwiw.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Ranges on the bowler. Take Shaun Pollock at his physical peak circa 99-2000 ahead of him with more experience around 2005 everyday. Waqar too (although he was more injury hampered rather than just aged).

However I'd take Zaheer with more experience later in his career but far slower, because he just knew his game and how to work batsmen out.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
McGrath was the exception. While speed is not every thing, I would rather have Steyn than Bhuvneshwar Kumar in my team, thanks.
Me too, but you could take 15km/h off Steyn and he'd still be a very dangerous bowler. Take his accuracy and swing away and you've got nothing.
 

Swingpanzee

International Regular
Just to chip in and add my take on things - I think OP is not asking "Accuracy vs pace". It's a bit hard to deduce what he actually means by "intellectual peak" - but it may not necessarily imply only accuracy.

When I read the title the first bowler I had in mind was Zaheer - a much faster bowler in his early years but not possessing the guile and knowledge of how to attack various batsmen's specific weaknesses. Obviously accuracy is a major part in this but i think if this thread develops into a "sheer-pace vs accuracy" then it may be simplifying things a bit.

Didn't really articulate it that well, hopefully some of you get what I meant :D

The obvious answer to this would be that it's harder to face a cunning bowler who's in his physical prime.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I think pace is underrated tbh, not over rated. While obviously you don't want a player spraying it all around whether he bowlers at 150 or 120 km/h, that extra pace, with a certain level of accuracy is always more than welcome. Would I have Bhuvneshwar Kumar ahead of Varun Aaron right now? Absolutely. Would I have Bhuvneshwar Kumar ahead of Kyle Abbott? Not really except in more helpful conditions to swing, possibly. Having said that, I thought Kumar was bowling in nice rhythm in the Ranji game, and I could posssibly take him ahead of Abbott. It is such a tricky thing. :)
 

Flem274*

123/5
There is no way pace is underrated considering even respected commentators and hardcore fans often watch the speed gun more than they watch the game.

It's more useful to land the ball on a penny with late swing at 150kph than it is to do it at 130kph, but a mediocre 150kph bowler is less valuable than the good 130kph bowler and even a world class 130kph bowler can be better than a world class 150kph bowler (i.e. Glenn McGrath).

Short version - it's better to be good at bowling than bad at bowling.
 

Kirkut

State Captain
Just to chip in and add my take on things - I think OP is not asking "Accuracy vs pace". It's a bit hard to deduce what he actually means by "intellectual peak" - but it may not necessarily imply only accuracy.

When I read the title the first bowler I had in mind was Zaheer - a much faster bowler in his early years but not possessing the guile and knowledge of how to attack various batsmen's specific weaknesses. Obviously accuracy is a major part in this but i think if this thread develops into a "sheer-pace vs accuracy" then it may be simplifying things a bit.

Didn't really articulate it that well, hopefully some of you get what I meant :D

The obvious answer to this would be that it's harder to face a cunning bowler who's in his physical prime.
Yes. You can say this thread is closer to Hadleesque brains vs Akhtarsque brawns.
 

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
I guess we have to ask what it means to bowl 'intellectually'. To me it implies at least some preference of accuracy over pace, in that hitting the right channels and bowling to a plan is mentally more difficult than just hurling it down as fast as possible. Even though there's a place for that, of course.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
This is a Rather pointless question isnt it...its obviously a combination. Close the thread.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This is a Rather pointless question isnt it...its obviously a combination. Close the thread.
That's a copout answer tbh.

I'd say the question here is like asking whether say, the young tearaway DK Lillee who took 8/29 is better than a post injury slower but smarter Lillee. It obviously varies from bowler to bowler but the one in peak shape is definitely an immense asset.

And he did say physical peak vs intellectual peak. So I can't see how people are saying with such ease that the smarter guy is better. Ask yourself if a pre injury Waqar circa 1991-1995 or Shoaib of 99-02 bowling at their peak is any worse than McGrath bowling his best spell. They're not.
 
Last edited:

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
It depends on the batsman.

I'm quite defensively sound but somewhat offensively lacking, so I'd rather face a bowler who might spray a few loose ones in an over than a guy who I simply can't score off.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
I saw that the thread creator had less posts than me and therefore knew he had to cop it sweet
 

Top