Which is scarier: pace or bounce?

As the title suggest, which of these two would get more wickets if you could just have one. Obviously a combination of both is the most preferable.

bounce i would say, consisent line and length you can get used to however bounce can make it awkward for batters

Depends on the batsman - someone like Gavaskar (as a short man) coped with bounce resonably well by getting out of the way, but anyone can be vulnerable to a great fast and straight delivery.

Against taller batsmen, I'd argue that bounce is more effective - the batsman's longer arms make it more difficult to avoid, and taller players (I'm thinking of Flintoff as one example, Hick as another) tend to wait on the front foot at bit so they can utilise their reach and nullify movement from a length/back of a length ball, so is not well positioned for something a bit shorter that really climbs.

dummy_half wrote:Against taller batsmen, I'd argue that bounce is more effective - the batsman's longer arms make it more difficult to avoid, and taller players (I'm thinking of Flintoff as one example, Hick as another) tend to wait on the front foot at bit so they can utilise their reach and nullify movement from a length/back of a length ball, so is not well positioned for something a bit shorter that really climbs.

But a fast swinging yorker is effective agaist tasll men more than short....

In all fairness bounce is easier to play. If you can trust the bounce, you can leave on length.

Sheer pace is the most frightening aspect of cricket. No one likes a rapid bowler trying to smash them in the head.

I would have to say that sheer pace would be the toughest to face.

Pace is probably the scariest, bounce the most difficult to play against, but neither mean anything without the most important attribute - accuracy

MR. scotland27 wrote:As the title suggest, which of these two would get more wickets if you could just have one. Obviously a combination of both is the most preferable.

Depends on the wicket and who is bowling. A tall fast bowler like Joel Garner would get more wickets on a wicket with uneven bounce and a bowler who relies on sheer pace like Michael Holding would get more wickets on a flat wicket with less bounce as he can use his ability to generate extreme pace through the air to get batsmen out.

Sheer Pace is useless unless it is accompanied by either swing or bounce.Similarly bounce without pace is not too threatening.However a good swing bowler can get wickets even if he bowls at medium pace.Mohammad Asif and Matthew Hoggard are prime examples.
So for me neither pace nor bounce it is swing/reverse swing bowling which is the most difficult to play.
However Bounce is more scary for a batsman particularly if there is uneven bounce.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:Sheer Pace is useless unless it is accompanied by either swing or bounce.Similarly bounce without pace is not too threatening.However a good swing bowler can get wickets even if he bowls at medium pace.Mohammad Asif and Matthew Hoggard are prime examples.
So for me neither pace nor bounce it is swing/reverse swing bowling which is the most difficult to play.
However Bounce is more scary for a batsman particularly if there is uneven bounce.

Sheer pace isn't useless alone as Michael Holding showed V England at the Oval in 1976 where the wicket in that test match was flat as a pancake and there was no ounce of cloud cover to assist the pace bowlers with swing bowling.

Pace or Bounce ................... Bass or Pounce !


Generally quick bowling never undid me as I had a good eye and good reactions.
Tbh , bowling at that level was only in the 70 - 80 range. Nothing too fast.

Uneven bounce was my downfall, any injuries were because a ball took off or kept low unexpectedly.

As a batsman myself, I find myself get more worried about pace truth be told.

I find that i have good reactions and dont find pace hard to deal with. So bounce, with pace.

example, i would prefer to face an 80 mph skiddy bowler than a 75 mph tall bowler.