Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 113

Thread: Twenty20 Is A Batsman's Game: Fallacy or Fact?

  1. #1
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360

    Twenty20 Is A Batsman's Game: Fallacy or Fact?

    In last years Twenty20 comp in England about 35 bowlers had averages of 20 or under. Looking at the stats quickly looks like a wicket fell every 2 overs.

    Why is it considered that the bowlers have nothing to play for in this form of cricket when the bolwers ultimate reward is gained about 4 times faster than in ODI, and for a lower average?

    It would appear to me from watching the game that bowlers with the required skills of variation, line and length suited to conditions do seem to get the rewards, so why is there a perception that its a batsmans game??
    rave down, hit the ground


    MSN: djjacksono@hotmail.com

  2. #2
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,748
    It's a batsman's game because the bowlers bowl defensively and the batsmen bat aggresively. Their averages are lower because of the lower number of overs.

    In ODI cricket, similar thing happens, except the bowlers always bowl defensively and the batsmen switch back and forth between aggressiveness and pseudo-defensiveness.

    Test cricket is where you can have both sides bowling and batting in all different ways depending on player/situation etc.
    Last edited by silentstriker; 16-02-2007 at 01:18 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  3. #3
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    It's a batsman's game because the bowlers bowl defensively. Their averages are lower because of the lower number of overs.
    why are averages lower because of the lower number of overs?

  4. #4
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Swervy View Post
    why are averages lower because of the lower number of overs?
    Because the batsmen are more aggressive as they only have 20 overs to get as many runs as they can. So they lose their wickets, and its not because its an aggressive type of bowling. Sure, it can be smart defensive bowling, but hardly aggressive. And most wickets that fall would never have happened in Tests if the batsman had a lot more time.


  5. #5
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,287
    They are forced to attack more.

    Anyway, I've never subscribed to the theory that any game is bowler/batsman orientated. Just the goalposts are moved as to what is a good performance and what is not IMO.
    MSN - tomhalsey123@hotmail.com

    Manchester United FC: 20 Times

    R.I.P. Sledger's Signature, 2004-2008

  6. #6
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Because the batsmen are more aggressive as they only have 20 overs to get as many runs as they can. So they lose their wickets, and its not because its an aggressive type of bowling. Sure, it can be smart defensive bowling, but hardly aggressive. And most wickets that fall would never have happened in Tests if the batsman had a lot more time.
    so the bowlers are having more success without having to attack. Surely an arguement actually tending to a more bowler friendly game???

  7. #7
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey View Post
    They are forced to attack more.

    Anyway, I've never subscribed to the theory that any game is bowler/batsman orientated. Just the goalposts are moved as to what is a good performance and what is not IMO.
    yeah, I am more that way inclined on the matter

  8. #8
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Swervy View Post
    so the bowlers are having more success without having to attack. Surely an arguement actually tending to a more bowler friendly game???
    Nope, because if they attack their figures will be worse.

  9. #9
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Nope, because if they attack their figures will be worse.
    anything to back that up???

  10. #10
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Swervy View Post
    anything to back that up???
    Simple watching of the format. Look at how many attack and how many defend.

  11. #11
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Simple watching of the format. Look at how many attack and how many defend.
    but in fact you have no evidence to suggest that if bowlers had a more attacking line the figures would be worse. Common sense would suggest in fact that a more attacking line would indeed lower a bowlers strike rate, wouldnt it???

  12. #12
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Who gives a flying **** about bowling-averages? Any fool can get wickets in a 20-over game - Joe Club Bowler would do.

    Equally, who gives a flying **** about batting-averages? No-one with any sense has ever claimed Twenty20 is batsman's game - just a game for bat to dominate ball.

    Which, in a game where a scoring-rate of 7-an-over is good for the fielding-side, it categorically does.

    That's far larger than the difference between good scoring-rates in the First-Class and one-day games: 3-an-over and 4-an-over respectively.

    Twenty20 is a game for batting. Bowlers are just there to be thumped, and inevitably pick-up a wicket or three in the process sometimes. Batsmen are not there to score big runs, but to score them quickly.

    Twenty20 marginalises the individual side of the game, one of the reasons I find it so boring.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  13. #13
    International Captain Swervy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    An Aussie with a Lancashire accent living in Keighley,West Yorks
    Posts
    7,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Who gives a flying **** about bowling-averages? Any fool can get wickets in a 20-over game - Joe Club Bowler would do.

    Equally, who gives a flying **** about batting-averages? No-one with any sense has ever claimed Twenty20 is batsman's game - just a game for bat to dominate ball.

    Which, in a game where a scoring-rate of 7-an-over is good for the fielding-side, it categorically does.

    That's far larger than the difference between good scoring-rates in the First-Class and one-day games: 3-an-over and 4-an-over respectively.

    Twenty20 is a game for batting. Bowlers are just there to be thumped, and inevitably pick-up a wicket or three in the process sometimes. Batsmen are not there to score big runs, but to score them quickly.

    Twenty20 marginalises the individual side of the game, one of the reasons I find it so boring.
    so are you just saying ignore the averages because it suits your opinion of the game????

  14. #14
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    I'm saying that in a 20-over game, bowling and batting averages don't tell any story.

  15. #15
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Which, in a game where a scoring-rate of 7-an-over is good for the fielding-side, it categorically does.
    As far as I'm concerned, as I said earlier, the goalposts for what is a good performance and what is not are merely moved IMO.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What is the last video game that you played?
    By Dravid in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 363
    Last Post: 25-02-2008, 07:36 AM
  2. Classic Catch Flash Game
    By mrtruffle in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-11-2006, 03:56 AM
  3. hey game needed
    By haroon510 in forum General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-09-2006, 07:38 AM
  4. Views on CWC99 game (cricket world cup 99)
    By san769 in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2002, 09:27 AM
  5. any league or union games coming
    By sasnoz in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-10-2002, 06:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •