• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Twenty20 - favours whom?

Whom does the twenty20 game favour more?

  • Batsmen

    Votes: 23 71.9%
  • Bowlers

    Votes: 3 9.4%
  • Equal for both

    Votes: 6 18.8%

  • Total voters
    32

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
BoyBrumby said:
Batters, no question.

Bowlers are essentially cannon fodder in 20/20.
So then the team with the better batting wins every time then irregardless of how good the bowling is? I think not.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
yes the batters have the better of it. but there were some awesome bowling performances last year. Mascerenhas, Hollioake spring to mind. Also the spinners seem to have a very good time, Dinesh Mongia had an economy rate of 4, that is good for OD cricket! If you actually look at the statistics and scorecard you'll see a great deal of success amongst the bowlers.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you said bowling AND fielding compared to batting I think that would be a better comparison. After all if you were to compare bowling & batting at Test level you would have to say batting was more important because it's one half of the game (ignoring relatively minor things like runnings between the wickets, speed of running etc.) whereas fielding and bowling are intertwined.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
Bowlers who still swing and do stuff with the ball get their rewards- its not that heavily tilted
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Scaly piscine said:
So then the team with the better batting wins every time then irregardless of how good the bowling is? I think not.
To be fair that isn't what I said.

If a fast-medium bowler bowls a good length ball on or just outside off he's very likely to be carved away; in tests or FC games it would be a good ball. 20/20 certainly makes bowlers think, but to be successful they have to completely overhaul their normal game whereas batters can be successful playing legit cricket shots.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
A length ball (off-stump or just outside) is still effective especially in the first few overs because there will always be a little bit of movement possible as the ball never gets older than 20 overs, so you've always got a new or newish ball which in turn helps the batsmen to play shots as well of course (and hopefully none of that "oh the ball is discoloured could we have a new one" after about 40 overs in your average ODI). Obviously you mix in different lengths towards the end of the innings, if you kept bowling the same length (whatever length that was) it would get hit away eventually. It will be interesting to see how teams cope with the pressure - you'll get your fair share of close games and it only takes a couple of 4s or a couple of dots for the pressure to switch between bowler and batsman.
 

Link

State Vice-Captain
yeah i have to agree with the batting, have to say that the bowlers are pretty much cannon fodder, as it was mentioned before
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Someone's voted for bowlers! There's always one, eh?

Come on, who was it? Tell the rest of the class! We can wait all day...it's your time you're wasting, not mine... :D
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Scaly piscine said:
If you said bowling AND fielding compared to batting I think that would be a better comparison. After all if you were to compare bowling & batting at Test level you would have to say batting was more important because it's one half of the game (ignoring relatively minor things like runnings between the wickets, speed of running etc.) whereas fielding and bowling are intertwined.
Eh? Bowling is more important than batting at test level, because bowling wins matches. You can score 900 in 100 overs and still fail to win a test match, if you can take 20 wickets however your batting only has to be good enough to give your bowlers something to work with.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
This twenty-over game favours nobody in its current form. Batsmen get a licence to play far too many bad shots in an innings and get their strategies totally wrong, while bowlers' confidence is shot, being hit for so many, making them bowl defensively. However, if they made the pitches more bouncy (a lot more) and used tennis balls, the faster bowlers can be encouraged to bowl fast and attack the batsmen, while the outfielders should try harder to stop balls from going far.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
FaaipDeOiad said:
Eh? Bowling is more important than batting at test level, because bowling wins matches. You can score 900 in 100 overs and still fail to win a test match, if you can take 20 wickets however your batting only has to be good enough to give your bowlers something to work with.
No if you can't score 400 regularly in the first innings of a game on your typical Test pitch then you're in trouble, also good bowling needs good fielding - one half of the game is batting and the other half is bowling AND fielding so it should be obvious which discipline makes up the largest part...
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Scaly piscine said:
No if you can't score 400 regularly in the first innings of a game on your typical Test pitch then you're in trouble, also good bowling needs good fielding - one half of the game is batting and the other half is bowling AND fielding so it should be obvious which discipline makes up the largest part...
The point is that in test cricket it is the bowling which wins matches, not the batting. It doesn't matter how good your batting is, you will never win if you cannot take 20 wickets, good batting gives your bowlers more to work with. In 50 over one day cricket, this is not the case, in fact it is perfectly possible to win consistently without having a bowling lineup capable of bowling the opposition out, simply by restricting the run rate. In this sense, batting is more important than bowling in one day cricket.

In a 20 over match this phenomenon (which in my view diminishes the value of truly talented bowlers somewhat) is vastly more noticable, as the ability to take wickets is basically irrelevant, and the job of bowlers is simply to stop the batsman from scoring for all of 24 deliveries and then to go and field. 24 yorkers from a quick bowler, or even better 24 straight, flat medium pacers from a batsman who can hit the ball hard and field well to cut down the boundaries. The traditional role of the bowler as a wicket taker is gone, hence it is a batsman's game.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bowling doesn't win you any Test matches if your fielders drop the catches and your batsmen always have your bowlers under pressure with their poor scores (look at England in the 3rd Test, it didn't matter how well they bowled, batsmen threw it away with an awful first innings score - pitches don't usually offer enough for you to slice through a team like England did in the 4th Test, 2nd innings so you're basically relying on your opponent throwing wickets away). You will lose every Test with that setup, you will draw mostly and win a few with strong batting because the pressure of a big score will have an effect on your opponent's batting or the pitch will have worn out or there'll be enough in the pitch to start with.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Arjun said:
This twenty-over game favours nobody in its current form. Batsmen get a licence to play far too many bad shots in an innings and get their strategies totally wrong, while bowlers' confidence is shot, being hit for so many, making them bowl defensively. However, if they made the pitches more bouncy (a lot more) and used tennis balls, the faster bowlers can be encouraged to bowl fast and attack the batsmen, while the outfielders should try harder to stop balls from going far.
No one is ever going to use tennis balls.
 

Top