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

[Swervy]

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??

[silentstriker]

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.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

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?

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Swervy

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.

[Tom Halsey]

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.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

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???

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Tom Halsey

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

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Swervy

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.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Nope, because if they attack their figures will be worse.

anything to back that up???

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Swervy

anything to back that up???

Simple watching of the format. Look at how many attack and how many defend.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

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???

[Richard]

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.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Richard

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????

[Richard]

I'm saying that in a 20-over game, bowling and batting averages don't tell any story.

[Tom Halsey]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.