What is more valuable to a ODI side?

[Hoppy1987]

A decent batsman who can score at 80+ s/r or a bowler who can keep e/r of -3.5 and take 2 or more wickets a game?

Just looking for opinions on what type of player wins more games??

[Prince EWS]

Given the above descriptions, the bowler every time. The bowler you listed is going to average less than 18 and go for 35 runs off a maxium 10 overs. That's extremely impressive and would be much more valuable than someone scoring 40 off 50 balls every game, IMO.

[Hoppy1987]

Given the above descriptions, the bowler every time. The bowler you listed is going to average less than 18 and go for 35 runs off a maxium 10 overs. That's extremely impressive and would be much more valuable than someone scoring 40 off 50 balls every game, IMO.

ok so what about say the worlds best bowler v worlds best batsman?

[Matteh]

I've simmed something like that. The team of batsmen always win because bowlers just can't get the runs on the board and there's very handy bowling from some Batsmen e.g. Hick/Ganguly/Tendulkar and so on.

[Prince EWS]

I've simmed something like that. The team of batsmen always win because bowlers just can't get the runs on the board and there's very handy bowling from some Batsmen e.g. Hick/Ganguly/Tendulkar and so on.

I reckon Pollock and Flintoff would score a few runs against an attack full of batsmen. Kallis would probably get them out eventually though.

[Matteh]

But if you want some good all time bowlers, you're looking at the likes of McGrath, Walsh, Ambrose who quite frankly can't bat really. The bowling team basically just doesn't get enough runs on the board.

[silentstriker]

I'd take the bowler, easily.

[Prince EWS]

But if you want some good all time bowlers, you're looking at the likes of McGrath, Walsh, Ambrose who quite frankly can't bat really. The bowling team basically just doesn't get enough runs on the board.

I was thinking more in terms of current players, not all-time ones. The game would be fairly close IMO.

[nightprowler10]

A better question would probably have been to compare the batsman to a bowler with an ER of 3.5 but takes a wicket once every couple of matches. I'd still take the bowler though.

[pup11]

Looking at the way Aussies have put up tons of runs on the board (before the WC) and still they went on to lose those games, that pretty clearly states that no matter how well the batsmen bat if the bowlers don't give a decent performance to back their batsmen's efforts then the team would eventually lose.

[simmy]

I'd take the bowler cos they will get 10 overs in. A batsman can go first ball. It sounds obvious but even the best players fail every now and again.

[Josh]

Gun Batsman Vs. Gun Bowler thread #423

[pasag]

Idiotic, sarcastic comment about a perfectly fine thread with a random number attached #653

[Perm]

I'd take the bowler every time.

[GIMH]

Gun Batsman Vs. Gun Bowler thread #423

Idiotic, sarcastic comment about a perfectly fine thread with a random number attached #653