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

[aussie]

As the thread states, which is/has been more difficult for test bastmen to counter?. I ask this question because when judging great batsmen, especially the many batsmen"Flat track Bullies" of the last 10 years who average 50+. One finds a a very consistent trend of these batsmen doing well againts quality spinners/spin attacks on dustbowles/turner - but thens truggling againts good/very good/great pace attacks on greentops/bouncy decks.

For me facing the pace is always more difficult. The hypotetical example i always give is if a batsmen had to face:

(A): The West Indies 4-prong pace attack of the 70s & 80s on a Perth pitch at is fastest or the former "Fortress Kensington Oval"

or

(B): The Indian spin quarter of the 70s of Chandrasekar/Bedi/Prasanna/Venkat on a sub-continent dustbowl.

Surely task (A) will always be more difficult. A mistake againts those spinners & you can look like a fool. But a mistake againts the Windies 4-prong attack & you can get killed/seriously injured.

 

[Sir Alex]

Good question...

I think facing spinners in a dustbowl is more difficult. It's a "defend, you're gone; attack, you're gone"... Somtimes blind slogging gets runs against pacers

 

[vcs]

Pace, but the difference between the two does tend to get exaggerated.

 

[vcs]

Also, a batsman who thrives against pace and struggles against spin should not be held up as superior to one who hammers spinners and struggles against pace.

 

[kingkallis]

Totally depends on the type of player...

No matter how great, Sehwag would have chosen 2nd one as the toughest of 2.

 

[G.I.Joe]

More batsmen in the history of the game have looked like fools facing spinners than been killed facing pacers.

 

[Jono]

Also, a batsman who thrives against pace and struggles against spin should not be held up as superior to one who hammers spinners and struggles against pace.

Indeed. You see this on CW a lot.

 

[aussie]

Good question...

I think facing spinners in a dustbowl is more difficult. It's a "defend, you're gone; attack, you're gone"... Somtimes blind slogging gets runs against pacers

Although its true extra pace on the ball would indeed assist batsmen in scoring some runs againts a quality pace attack, with as you said "blind slogging", which would result in a few edges down to thrid man, fine leg etc

Thats very marginal & not a valid enough reason to give a quality spinners on a dustbowl more diffcult to be fair.

Great fast-bowlers/pace attacks have the ability to reverse swing the ball. Thus i would think even on crumbling 5th day wicket/dustbowl facing the reverse swing of Malcolm Marshall or Wasim/Waqar @ 90 mph, would be more difficult ever so slightly than facing big turning leg-breaks, googlies, doosra's & off-breaks from Warne/Murali on such a surface. The swing & movement & extra pace would win out..

 

[Cevno]

Also, a batsman who thrives against pace and struggles against spin should not be held up as superior to one who hammers spinners and struggles against pace.

Indeed. You see this on CW a lot.

Agree Completely.

 

[Shri]

Spin is more difficult. Part time pace bowlers have never taken 6 for 9 unlike part time spinners.

 

[Cevno]

Depends on the Batsmen really .Some find it easier to play on a dustbowl and some may find it easier to play on a fast bowlers wicket.

 

[Ikki]

Also, a batsman who thrives against pace and struggles against spin should not be held up as superior to one who hammers spinners and struggles against pace.

Why not? There are many more pacers than spinners. Being better against pace is more advantageous.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Depends on the Batsmen really .Some find it easier to play on a dustbowl and some may find it easier to play on a fast bowlers wicket.

This.

 

[Faisal1985]

A quality pace attack is simply harrassing where as a quality spin attack good still be something a wild slogger can hit out of the ground...

 

[aussie]

Totally depends on the type of player...

No matter how great, Sehwag would have chosen 2nd one as the toughest of 2.

Depends on the Batsmen really .Some find it easier to play on a dustbowl and some may find it easier to play on a fast bowlers wicket.

Expected someone to say the bolded..

Yes you can argue that sub-continental batsmen (like Sehwag) may find playing easier to play spin than lets say a batsman from Australa. For example Justin Langer or Martyn who grew up playing on the bouncy Perth deck. This applies to the idea "Different strokes for different folks".

But at the same time. That doesn't mean players like Martyn or Langer just because they are accustomed to the bouncy deck @ Perth, that if in a hypotetical match-up, if they had to face Ambrose/Walsh/Bishop at their peaks @ Perth, that they would be comfortable facing them at all. They could still struggle - even though they would be more at home againts such bowling - rather than facing Kumble/Harbhajan in India.


Plus i'm not sure how Sehwag based on his career exploits to date would find option (B) easier TBH. He has scored runs againts the best spinners of this era:

- 155 vs Warne @ Chennai 04

- rus vs Mendis & Murali in SRI 08. When nobody could figure out Mendis yet

- Destruction of Saqlain & Murali 04 (although some may argue Saqlain & Murali where already passed their peaks when Sehwag smoked them)

So i'd back him againts top-spinners on a dustbowl/turner. Not againts quality pace at all on a difficult pitch, given his career is loaded with failures in such conditions.

 

[Shri]

Why not? There are many more pacers than spinners. Being better against pace is more advantageous.

Depends on the opposition.

 

[Sir Alex]

Why not? There are many more pacers than spinners. Being better against pace is more advantageous.

Depends on where.. India used to have 3 frontline spinners and one fast bowler till even recently.

 

[vcs]

Why not? There are many more pacers than spinners. Being better against pace is more advantageous.

Yeah, but to take the cliched example of Sehwag, if he bashes the same pacers he struggles against in SA/NZ in India, it tends to get dismissed..

 

[G.I.Joe]

Why not? There are many more pacers than spinners. Being better against pace is more advantageous.

Advantageous does not equate to superior.

 

[aussie]

Indeed. You see this on CW a lot.

Its the truth though, not just on CW, put world over. WHich is why is stated in my introduction:

I ask this question because when judging great batsmen, especially the many batsmen"Flat track Bullies" of the last 10 years who average 50+. One finds a a very consistent trend of these batsmen doing well againts quality spinners/spin attacks on dustbowles/turner - but thens truggling againts good/very good/great pace attacks on greentops/bouncy decks.