The overhyped obsession with pace in Cricket

[BouncerGuy]

In the world of cricket, pace has often been glorified as the ultimate weapon for bowlers. However, it's important to recognize that speed isn't the only factor that determines a bowler's effectiveness. Many bowlers with less pace have excelled by mastering other essential skills such as accuracy, movement, and tactical acumen.

For instance, Mohammad Abbas has shown that even without express pace, his precision and ability to move the ball off the seam make him a formidable opponent. Similarly, bowlers like Vernon Philander and Glenn McGrath have had illustrious careers relying on their impeccable accuracy and subtle variations rather than sheer speed.

It's time we broaden our appreciation for the art of bowling and acknowledge that pace is just one piece of the puzzle.

Feel free to add more examples or thoughts on this topic.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Pace is extremely important in Test cricket. Attacks that bowl a high percentage of deliveries above 85 mph are the ones that are truly elite.

It's a myth that you need express bowlers. And it's equally a myth that you don't need pace.

 

[mominsaigol]

In the world of cricket, pace has often been glorified as the ultimate weapon for bowlers. However, it's important to recognize that speed isn't the only factor that determines a bowler's effectiveness. Many bowlers with less pace have excelled by mastering other essential skills such as accuracy, movement, and tactical acumen.

For instance, Mohammad Abbas has shown that even without express pace, his precision and ability to move the ball off the seam make him a formidable opponent. Similarly, bowlers like Vernon Philander and Glenn McGrath have had illustrious careers relying on their impeccable accuracy and subtle variations rather than sheer speed.

It's time we broaden our appreciation for the art of bowling and acknowledge that pace is just one piece of the puzzle.

Feel free to add more examples or thoughts on this topic.

Mcgrath and Pollock are outliers.

A 145KPH to 150KPH bowler is difficult to play unless you're another outlier like rauf

 

[cricketjoshila]

Mohammad Abbas needs supportive pitches to take wickets. At 125kph he will get slaughtered.

McGrath and Philander were at least 10ks faster.

Even the best swing and seam bowlers need to be 130 plus to be effective.

The SA team he took a 6 fer against, didn't have one batsman avging 40.

Let's not hype.

145 plus pacers in test are the rarest species.

 

[Farabi]

Pace is extremely important in Test cricket. Attacks that bowl a high percentage of deliveries above 85 mph are the ones that are truly elite.

It's a myth that you need express bowlers. And it's equally a myth that you don't need pace.

Mohammad Abbas needs supportive pitches to take wickets. At 125kph he will get slaughtered.

McGrath and Philander were at least 10ks faster.

Even the best swing and seam bowlers need to be 130 plus to be effective.

The SA team he took a 6 fer against, didn't have one batsman avging 40.

Let's not hype.

145 plus pacers in test are the rarest species.

This thread isn’t about whether pace is important—we all know it is. It isn’t about what “elite” is. That’s pretty obvious too.

The real question for Pakistan and India is how to make the best of the less-than-ideal options in our systems. For example:
- Pacers who are quick but lack skills.
- Pacers who are skillful but not quick.
- Skillful bowlers who don’t have the height advantage (South Asians tend to be shorter than their SENA counterparts).

Among these not-quite-elite options, the debate is:

1. Do we back raw pace, regardless of domestic performance? The logic being, “pace is pace, yaar,” and in the classic Pakistani mindset: “If they have pace, they can always learn the rest on the job.”

2. Or should we ignore the pace and simply prioritize the most consistent and prolific wicket-takers? Wicket-taking at low pace is often a good proxy for skill, control, and variation.

That’s the crux of the debate. It’s about making hard choices among less-than-ideal options. Everyone knows what elite looks like, and that’s a waste of everyone’s time.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

This thread isn’t about whether pace is important—we all know it is. It isn’t about what “elite” is. That’s pretty obvious too.

The real question for Pakistan and India is how to make the best of the less-than-ideal options in our systems. For example:
- Pacers who are quick but lack skills.
- Pacers who are skillful but not quick.
- Skillful bowlers who don’t have the height advantage (South Asians tend to be shorter than their SENA counterparts).

Among these not-quite-elite options, the debate is:

1. Do we back raw pace, regardless of domestic performance? The logic being, “pace is pace, yaar,” and in the classic Pakistani mindset: “If they have pace, they can always learn the rest on the job.”

2. Or should we ignore the pace and simply prioritize the most consistent and prolific wicket-takers? Wicket-taking at low pace is often a good proxy for skill, control, and variation.

That’s the crux of the debate. It’s about making hard choices among less-than-ideal options. Everyone knows what elite looks like, and that’s a waste of everyone’s time.

I don't agree that you should pick bowlers of skill alone if they don't have a minimum standard in terns of pace.

Id always back 85 mph bowlers to become fitter and more accurate than those bowlers who are domestic bullies against questionable batters.