Role of fast bowlers more important - Waqar

[War]

World Cup 2011: Role of fast bowlers more important - Waqar | Cricket News | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo

This topic needs it own thread given that many people before this world cup felt spin would be more important than pace. So IMO good to see Waqar stating the real truth.

 

[Rehan_24]

Its indeed is that Fast bowlers role is very important in every other place, but on the other hand, these wickets are also a nightmare for fast bowlers. Such high scoring games and good batsmen are thrasing fast bowlers all over the place. But yeah, Waqar is right in his own point as well.

 

[aussie1st]

Too early to say fast bowling has been more important than spin. The fast bowling has destroyed the minnows but that would happen on any pitch. Of the test nations so far only the Aussie v Kiwi match saw pacemen dominate. SA v WI was spin dominated, Pakistan v SL again spin dominated. India v England was a high scoring one where a paceman took 5 wickets and another went for 90 runs. In England's shock loss to Ireland, Swann stood out as the best bowler.

 

[Rehan_24]

Right, but pace has an important role as Akhtar bowled out their Key Batsman Jaywardene. At this point I feel that Aussies have genuine pace attach. Lee and Tait thats very deadly provided Tait adjusts his line length a bit.

 

[War]

Too early to say fast bowling has been more important than spin. The fast bowling has destroyed the minnows but that would happen on any pitch. Of the test nations so far only the Aussie v Kiwi match saw pacemen dominate. SA v WI was spin dominated, Pakistan v SL again spin dominated. India v England was a high scoring one where a paceman took 5 wickets and another went for 90 runs. In England's shock loss to Ireland, Swann stood out as the best bowler.

In the IND vs ENG again no high quality 90 mph quick of the level of Lee, Steyn, Malinga was present though. Just a set a average/decent medium pacers, which on such a road pitch they where always going to go the distance.

PAK vs SRI game was indeed dominated by spin sort of us. But PAKs attacked looked far more threatening with Akthar & Gul being their, while SRIs attack seriously missed Malinga's pace.

The SA vs WI game especially when SA where bowling id say Steyn/Morkel & Tahir/Botha peterson all bowled well as unit on that pitch. No specific still style seemingly was superior.

 

[aussie1st]

Spin was definitely the pick in the SA v WI game. The top 7 of WI were dismissed by spinners. Steyn and Morkel were economical but Steyn only got his wickets against the tail.

Of course the role of pace is going to be more important than spin the way Waqar is describing. As very few teams will play 3 specialist spinners so of course they will more than likely bowl 30 overs worth of pace. But in terms of who has been more effective in the big games so far, that would be spin. There is room for both though, Pakistan and SA have the best of the attacks in terms of spin/pace balance. Australia need more from Krejza and Smith.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

impossible to answer right now, tournament hasn't gone on long enough to show any patterns. Right now all we can do is creatively interpret a few results to agree with us

if fast bowling gets pumped about and spin bowling dominates you can just say fast bowling is more important because if the fast bowlers were better they'd have won.

and if fast bowling takes all the wickets and the spinners get hammered you just say fast bowling is more important because it won them the match.

both of these scenarios have happened so far.

Not wanting to be harsh, but this is a rubbish topic War, all he says is 30 of 50 overs are pace so it's more important, and that's blatantly not true either, almost every team has brought means to bowl 30 overs, or even more, of spin. SA bowled 29 overs of spin at the windies. India 30 at england. Pakistan 26 at sri lanka.

then the rest of the article is about malinga getting reverse swing. which is sod all to do with anything.

 

[War]

Spin was definitely the pick in the SA v WI game. The top 7 of WI were dismissed by spinners. Steyn and Morkel were economical but Steyn only got his wickets against the tail.

Yes the spin ended up with most wickets, but as you said Steyn & Morkel where economical this i saw it as everyone complimented each other well. It wasn't a situation where the Tahir/Botha/Peterson looking wayyy more threatening than Steyn/Morkel.

Of course the role of pace is going to be more important than spin the way Waqar is describing. As very few teams will play 3 specialist spinners so of course they will more than likely bowl 30 overs worth of pace. But in terms of who has been more effective in the big games so far, that would be spin. There is room for both though, Pakistan and SA have the best of the attacks in terms of spin/pace balance. Australia need more from Krejza and Smith.

30 overs of high quality pace. Which only AUS, PAK, SA can definately call upon in this tournament (SA only 20 technically). Look @ SRI for example, losing Malinga will certainly be a bigger blow for them than losing Murali ATM as it showed vs PAK.

AUS technically may need more from Krejza especially. But even so if the 3 main quicks bowl to potential (along with hopefully Nannes coming over at some stage), Krejza role along with Smith/Dussey should become redundant.

 

[Paki007]

Still Pakistan playing with two frontline seamers

 

[War]

impossible to answer right now, tournament hasn't gone on long enough to show any patterns. Right now all we can do is creatively interpret a few results to agree with us

if fast bowling gets pumped about and spin bowling dominates you can just say fast bowling is more important because if the fast bowlers were better they'd have won.

and if fast bowling takes all the wickets and the spinners get hammered you just say fast bowling is more important because it won them the match.

both of these scenarios have happened so far.

Not wanting to be harsh, but this is a rubbish topic War, all he says is 30 of 50 overs are pace so it's more important, and that's blatantly not true either, almost every team has brought means to bowl 30 overs, or even more, of spin. SA bowled 29 overs of spin at the windies. India 30 at england. Pakistan 26 at sri lanka.

then the rest of the article is about malinga getting reverse swing. which is sod all to do with anything.

It not solely based on this tournament. Its based on knowledge of what Indian conditions in ODIs play like, since many people where claiming before the tournament started the ball was going to spin everywhere. While i said that based on all of AUS winning ODI series in IND over the last decade (98, 2001, TVS Cup 2003, 2006 Champions trophy, 2007 ODI seres, 2009 ODI series) - flat batting beauties like what we have seen in Bangalore in this world cup generally shows up. AUS won all those ODI series on the strenght of its cutting edge pace attack mainly.

Secondly when Waqar was talking about the 30 overs the quicks would bowl in general in a ODI. I didn't read it as him referring to matches that have occurred in this world cup so far. I read it as him making a general synopsis of a hypothetical scenario, of what would occur with teams if the have the right amount of quality quicks in their XI.

Fact is if the pitches in India continue to be flat all over like Bangalore. In the power-play & death overs only the teams who have high quality quicks who can bowl yorkers are going to be able to keep batting quiet (which is related to to part of the article which talks abt Malinga's reverse swing bowling, since of course Steyn, Lee, Tait, Gul, Riaz can also do that) - not those who are spin dependent. No spinner in this world cup has Saqlain Musthaq of the 1990s death over/power-play over bowling skills for example (Vettori the closest & maybe Murali although he is passed his best).

----------

Still Pakistan playing with two frontline seamers

Ye i've been sort of surprised they have sticked with the same attack that brought them success in NZ, which would mean Riaz coming back in for Reham. But if you have a quality spinner like Ajmal/Rehman esepcially in India/SC, just in case you should pick him.

The role of Razzaq is sort of preventing PAK from picking 3 front-line quicks (Akhtar/Gul/Riaz) + the main spinner (Ajmal or Rehman) also.

 

[sami ullah khan]

Role of genuine quick bowlers is far too important to be ignored. Fast bowlers can be very hard to handle at death especially when the ball tends to reverse. Wasim and Waqar won Pakistan loads of matches on flat tracks of subcontinent so its no surprise that Waqar has stressed the point.

 

[aussie1st]

Look @ SRI for example, losing Malinga will certainly be a bigger blow for them than losing Murali ATM as it showed vs PAK.

Given SL have another spinner in reserve to call upon that would be a given. If Australia had Warne in their side then you would say he would be a bigger loss than Tait/Lee/Johnson because Australia have fast bowling cover but no spinner comes close.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I'm not really sure one way or the other tbh, I just think that Waqar wasn't saying anything anyone could agree with or use to back them up because he was talking a lot of rubbish.

Pace bowlers won't win this world cup imo, captains that can make best use of the batting power play will.

 

[Rehan_24]

I was listening to Great Imran Khan today, and He was of the view that as the time will progress, The Pitch will start to suit even more to spinners due to heavy sun shine in the Month of March. I guess Spinners do have a more important role here, but one cant ignore the genuine pace of Akhtar, Lee and Tait

 

[War]

I was listening to Great Imran Khan today, and He was of the view that as the time will progress, The Pitch will start to suit even more to spinners due to heavy sun shine in the Month of March. I guess Spinners do have a more important role here, but one cant ignore the genuine pace of Akhtar, Lee and Tait

Ahh thats a good & interesting point by Imran. Since to be fair all those AUS ODI series wins India between 1998-2009 was during the months October-Novemeber (except for 2001). So maybe he is unto something about how conditions in March may assist spinners more.

But yes of course pace - quality pace to be specific will have a major role to play even if that happens, especially during the death overs & power-play overs.

----------

Given SL have another spinner in reserve to call upon that would be a given. If Australia had Warne in their side then you would say he would be a bigger loss than Tait/Lee/Johnson because Australia have fast bowling cover but no spinner comes close.

SRI dont have a quality spin replacement for Murali. Mendis/Herath work better as compliments to the great man.

Look @ SRI attack today vs AUS. If they maintain that 3 spinner policy for the rest of that tournament, but lose Malinga to injury & have Kulasekera or Fernando as the only quick. That attack would look farrr less potent.


If AUS had Warne sure he would be major lost that losing one of the quicks. But unlike a team like SRI, id have more confident that AUS can beat teams without Warne, by depending on their quicks - than SRI if they lose Malinga.

----------

I'm not really sure one way or the other tbh, I just think that Waqar wasn't saying anything anyone could agree with or use to back them up because he was talking a lot of rubbish.

Pace bowlers won't win this world cup imo, captains that can make best use of the batting power play will.

And teams with quality quick bowlers (since no spinner in general is safe option to bowl in the power-play overs) to bowl good yorkers in the P-Play overs is the only way to cripple good batting sides in those overs.