Spinners

[Vcassano]

At my level the spinners are so poor so you can just hammer them with relative ease. I hate teh medium pacers though...

 

[zreh]

What is so dificult about it to you? I love playing spinners, easy to get under the ball and loft it, or just block it.

come play the spinners in my premier division, u'll see y theyre so hard to play. I know me being an Indian, i shud hammer them, but what can i say, im different

let me face a akhtar over a murli anyday

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I've faced bowlers who chuck the ball and spin it.
Seriously, what is hard? They are slower than pace men. Might get some bounce, but that is it. The spin can be easily negotiated with.

 

[Madsalty]

I think spinners are much more usefull than they have been in the past. This is because pace is easier to play by simply allowing the pace to do the work and thus there isn't the pressure of playing the shots. Spinners on the other hand can often give th batsman too much time to think about the shot and this can often result in late shots, or poor shots which will ultimately result in wickets.

Personally when i don't think about the shot i am going to play spinners become easy to hammer and i like playing them, but when i become conciensious of what i'm doing, towards the end of an innings, i tend to get cramped up and play poor late shots.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Hehe, it's all about know-how. As a kid I only played spin, so attacking spinners come naturally. Timing is easy. But pacers, THERE is a problem!!

Also, pitches are more batter friendly, and only assist spinners towards the end and seamers don't get any help (Apart from some reverse-swing). So that is a big factor.

 

[Madsalty]

I agree throughout my childhood i only ever played pace

 

[wolf]

Us spinners are just more talented. Face it.

 

[angryangy]

But they do take longer to get wickets in term of strike rate.

Only as a general observation, though. It is increasingly being proven that it is not necessarily the modus operandi. Modern, attacking spinners such as Warne, Murali or MacGill have quite good strike rates (MacGill edges out a host of legendary pacemen, like McGrath, Imran Khan and Lillee).

Mind you, just look at best innings figures. You will see names like Laker, Murali, Kumble, Abdul Qadir, Gupte, Tayfield and Mailey. In fact, of the 15 bowlers who have taken 9 or 10 wickets in an innings, 11 of them were spinners. A spinner might be more likely to take many wickets quickly, but it would seem he is just as likely to play a minor role.

 

[A_Whitey]

MacGill has a better record than Warne when they've played together, not sure about when he's played on his own though.

 

[Kshitiz_Indian]

well i can bowl both spin and pace, but i personally believe that pace bowlers are more like ly to get a wicket on their own , whereas spinners have to be more depended on catches.

 

[surendar]

well i can bowl both spin and pace, but i personally believe that pace bowlers are more like ly to get a wicket on their own , whereas spinners have to be more depended on catches.

well it depends on the way u bowl and trick the batsman....Spinners have the advantage of doing tricks to batsmen....Best example is murali and Warne!!!

I think Kumble(according to me, he is a medium pace leg spinner ) is also other great spinner who gets many wickets in bowled's and LBW's!!!

Also it depends on the condition of the pitch...

 

[MUFC1987]

well i can bowl both spin and pace, but i personally believe that pace bowlers are more like ly to get a wicket on their own , whereas spinners have to be more depended on catches.

I agree actually. As a spinner it's hard to get an LBW for example due to the ball turning and you normally need a batsman to be playing agressively to be able to bowl him. I do find that more mishits come off of spinners though, which is always useful when you try to break a partnership, especially in low level cricket.