[War]

As the thread states, which is more difficult for a bastman 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.

[Lee1981]

Being im a novice cricketer i have to go with the pace attack, when im batting spinners dont bother me that much but as soon as someone bowls quick at me its like im swotting flies, pace is my big downfall, so if had to face the west indies boys id have to run a mile.

[Robelinda]

One might be more physically damaging but both can get you out first ball with a ripping delivery.

[War]

Originally Posted by Robelinda

One might be more physically damaging but both can get you out first ball with a ripping delivery.

But shouldn't the threat the batsmen could be physically damaged, make the overall task facing a quality pace attack on difficult pitch - more taxing than facing a quality spin attack on a dustbowl?.

[King Pietersen]

Impossible question to definitively answer. It depends entirely on the batsman. Some players thrive against extreme pace, some find it very difficult; some players thrive against quality spinners, some find it difficult. Different strokes for different folks.

[Robelinda]

Originally Posted by War

But shouldn't the threat the batsmen could be physically damaged, make the overall task facing a quality pace attack on difficult pitch - more taxing than facing a quality spin attack on a dustbowl?.

You answering your own question then! Obviously the threat of death overrides the spin threat of being dismissed!

[War]

Originally Posted by King Pietersen

Impossible question to definitively answer. It depends entirely on the batsman. Some players thrive against extreme pace, some find it very difficult; some players thrive against quality spinners, some find it difficult. Different strokes for different folks.

I expected someone to say this & i dont totally agree.

Yes you can argue that sub-continental batsmen may find playing easier than lets say a batsman from Australa. For example Justin Langer or Martyn who grew up playing on the bouncy Perth deck.

But at the same time. That doesn't mean Martyn or Langer just because they are accustomed to the bouncy deck @ Perth, means 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.

[Cricketman]

Even if they struggled for that initial period, if they stuck it through those maybe 10-12 tricky overs, conditions are likely to ease. It seems that the ball stops swinging more quickly as the years go by. Plus, with all the protection batsman have these days, the element of fear is long gone.

Take Ricky Ponting for example. He can slam the fastest of bowlers through the covers in a flash, or plonk himself on the backfoot to dispatch a bouncer over midwicket for a big six. But put him in Indian conditions, against even mediocre (in comparison to the quartet) spinners like Harbhajan, and he averages a mere 20 odd.

It all depends on the batsman. With all the protective gear though, the element of fear that an Ambrose/Holding etc would have held has certainly gone down.

[War]

Originally Posted by Robelinda

You answering your own question then! Obviously the threat of death overrides the spin threat of being dismissed!

The threat of being injured is the mental & tempermental aspect of batting. Since to do well againts a quality pace attack, batsmen need to have a combination of:

- Good technique: A batsmen with least technical flaws is likely to survive/score runs more often againts a quality pace attack in testing conditions. More often than a batsmen with many technical flaws.

- Good temperament: Since you dont want to look intimidated/scared againts the pace. Since if the batsman is, a rash shot will come.

- Mentally strong: Which would aid in good shot selection in the event that the batsman is at the crease for a long period & is struggling to score.


Againts the quality spin the batsman is never scared/intimidated. Even if the bowling is tough & the ball is turning a mile on a dustbowl.

[Robelinda]

Well yes, all of that is obvious.

I'm curious, what answer are you expecting to hear from people?

[rahuldravidfan]

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

[Gazza]

I've got no qualms about facing pace, but I look like a complete ████████ against spin.

Pace is easier to defend, the ball coming on to the bat. It's easier to attack as well, seeing as you don't have to go as hard at the ball as you do to a spinner.

[Mark]

Id rather face the Indian spinners than the Windies fearsome foursome.

[Howsie]

Quality pace. Imagine opening the batting and lasting through the onslaught of the first two bowlers and then having to go through it all again, you just wouldn't be able to win.

Wouldn't imagine there would be too many batsmen in the world that would want to go up against four 90mph+ no matter how badly they play spin.

[Gazza]

Would you rather face 10-20 overs of fierce pace bowling, or be back in the pavillion after five because of impossible spin.