Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Playing pace bowling or playing spin? Any particular reason?
Not really. There are some examples of the other way around. What it depends on is how you are brought-up, and how you build your technique. Overwhelmingly it is indeed true that the type of bowling you face more often as your game comes into its own will tend to be the one you end-up most proficient against, but that is not absolutely neccessarily the case. Nor is it remotely neccessarily the case that every subcontinental will face more spin and every Aussie\Brit\SAffie\Kiwi\WIndian will face more seam.Depends on where you are brought up.. In the subcontinent, you face spin a lot. So facing fast bowlers is tougher and the converse is true for an Aussie or an Englishman..
Well no, not really, because then you aren't actually equally good at both, are you?If you're equally good at both - which in any case is pretty much impossible and certainly impossible to unequivocally quantify - then facing top-quality seam on a bouncy, seaming, uneven deck with a new ball is harder in my book than facing top-quality spin on a bouncy, turning, uneven deck with a 40-odd-over-old ball.
Kumble split Nayan Mongia's mouth open when bowling once iirc. Wore a helmet after that.Playing fast bowling is harder. It requires an extra element in courage.
A mistake against a spinner can make you look silly, a mistake against a fast bowler can put you in hospital (I think Ive taken that line from Danny Green).
That's not true at all. You were just more likely to be physically injured. Staying at the crease and scoring runs wasn't any easier.Playing pace.
Facing the Windies 4-prong at the Kensington Oval at its peak was harder than facing the Indian spin quartet of Chandra/Bedi/Prasanna/Ventak on a sub-continent dustbowl.
And here I was thinking about naming my kid after you, the grumpy one.A question doesn't have to have a definite answer to generate an interesting debate. It's just a shame that the recent batch have been a pile of bat droppings.
G.I.Joe said:Thats probably because the WI bowlers were better bowlers than the spin quartet, full stop. Not because they were pacers and the spin quartet were spinners. You only need to see the contemporary batsmen make fools of themselves on genuine turners against average spinners.
That's not true at all. You were just more likely to be physically injured. Staying at the crease and scoring runs wasn't any easier.
Well, then Sultan Zarawani had better take his bat and go home. He's obviously playing the wrong game. When we're talking of a sport that has had at its highest level, for the majority of its history, batsmen batting without adequate protection, then a comparison of skills involved in negotiating the variety of bowling on offer takes precedence over the probability of getting hurt. When Ponting walks out to bat, he's thinking about where his runs are going to come from, not about which hospital he'd prefer gaining admission into.As aformentioned by Goughy "A mistake against a spinner can make you look silly, a mistake against a fast bowler can put you in hospital". That courage factor alone makes scoring runs & surving againts qaulity pace attack that slightly more difficut than facing a quality spin attack in difficult conditions.
Take a recent example of AUS in IND 2001 compared to Ashes 05. AUS batsmen although they where exposed techincally in both series. Scoring runs in IND 01 was that slight easier than facing/scoring runs vs the English pace attack.