Frontline bowlers in T20

[Arjun]

Spoken by Srinath on Extra Cover, Neo Cricket
If there are more T20 and no more ODIs, the specialist bowler is gone

A common stereotype about T20 is that frontline bowlers are not relevant here. It's a batsman's game, and it's all about hitting, and bowlers are just there to get hit.

But there is, however, a big advantage that a frontline bowler can provide. A specialist bowler has a clue of how to bowl to most batsmen, in most conditions. Even in this format, a specialist bowler can do significantly better than a bits-and-pieces bowler.

Take the case of India, for instance. They have had their main bowlers getting wickets at good rates, and even as T20 economy rates are going down, they've had decent economies. Their part-timers, however, get smashed all around for more in a single over than the specialists in all four. Likewise, Scott Styris, a stock bowler for NZ, has struggled in T20. If it's a nightmare for a bowler, imagine how bad it may be for a part-time, filler bowler.

On the other hand, some tight overs by a frontline bowler can set back a batting side significantly. A series of tight overs can win a match. Ultimately, even here, bowlers can change a match, so they're not out of it at all.

 

[Athlai]

Scott Styris hasn't been a stock bowler for NZ in years mate, since probably the advent of T20I. His knees are buggered.

 

[Matt79]

Reckon the format especially favours the super-quick strike bowlers. Guys like Tait, and if they were fit and available Lee and Akhtar, sometimes get picked off later in their spells in ODIs if they're bowling to batsmen who are set, or who are able to take four or five balls to get a sighter and adjust to the pace. In 20/20, he's only bowling four overs, he can bowl absolutely flat out, probably in two over spells, and the batsmen simply don't get that chance to adjust. They have to attack and they probably lose a wicket or two in the attempt.

 

[Precambrian]

Not at all.

A good bowler will always adapt to the situation of the game. And T20 is no different from test cricket in its basics. It is just that the overall momentum is much faster than in tests, and significantly from ODIs. In fact, the term frontline itself undergoes a change in definition as compared to test matches, in the sense that a good eco. rate is given preference over ability to take wickets.

I can understand Srinath's way of thinking, as he deems, "Heck what? Just 4 overs to be bowled, and I back my batsmen-who-can-bowl to do a reasonably good job for just 2 or 3 overs than picking a frontline bowler to bowl 4 overs and possible get hit as well, and add nothing to the batting". But again, that is due to the nature of thinking of the team captain or coach rather than anything to do with that of the inherent nature of the game as such.

 

[Prince EWS]

I agree with Srinath to some extent, but I really do think he's grossly exaggerating.

I don't think there's much point in picking specialist bowlers in Twenty20 cricket just for the sake of it as such. The difference between a low-quality regular bowler and a good quality part-timer is severely reduced so if you don't have any good bowlers there is little point in picking them. That said, I still think there's a big place for genuinely good specialist bowlers in Twenty20 cricket. It's harder to be a big asset as a bowler but the best bowlers will still be big components of teams in the format IMO.

It's bascially just an extention of what happens in ODI cricket compared to Test cricket. As the format becomes shorter, the gap between the effectiveness of specialist and part-time bowlers becomes smaller. The likes of Gul and Clark showed the value of having performing specialists who have adpated well to the format with the ball though, IMO.

They aren't the necessities they are in the other formats but the best ones are still huge assets.. perhaps even moreso.

 

[silentstriker]

Look at the difference between the good overs and the bad overs in the ongoing game India vs. SL and then tell me that quality bowling doesn't matter. The goals of the bowler are different, but you need good bowlers to win, just like in any other format. The bowlers stop the batsman from scoring too, the batsman just can't decide to score whatever he wants regardless of the bowling.

 

[four_or_six]

I don't agree with T20 being a batsman's game, I'd definitely want specialist bowlers and I reckon they can make a huge impact on the game. Okay, you want one or two of them to be able to smack a couple of 6's, but in a 20-over game a top 6 ought to be able to do the bulk of the batting. I don't think it's a coincidence that the IPL was won by the team with the best bowling attack.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Test matches are a bowler's game, ODIs are a batsman's game but T20s are in between.

If you don't have front line bowlers taking wickets then the part-timers will get killed.

Forcing a team onto the back foot and you can maybe smuggle in some cheap overs from your weak bowlers, without wickets then it becomes almost like death over aggression and you don't really want part-timers bowling during the death do you?

 

[four_or_six]

Where's Richard these days, anyway? He was always arguing with me about this.

 

[Jigga988]

Part timers can do the job in T20. There's always a situation where a part timer can come on and be effective, i.e. after a wicket. Though players who have been effective in ODI cricket generally have poor records in T20 in comparison to those in OD cricket

Take Dwayne Bravo, a good ODI bowler but in T20 he's played 8 matches and has an economy rate of 9.97. I think depending on a solid four overs from a part timer is alot to ask at times, seem to remember in last IPL Jayasuriya was depended on for four overs for Mumbai and was always hugely expensive, despite having a decent ODI record.

Part timers can pull together 10 overs in OD cricket and most of the time there will come a time in a twenty match where you could throw on a part timer and he could have a quiet couple overs, but to remain inexspensive is rarely done in T20 tbh.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Bravo was quite good with the ball in the IPL, especially in the home game against the Royals.

 

[HMas]

Umer Gul

 

[cowboysfan]

arjun-our best bowler in this match was yusuf pathan-a part timer.in t20 a bowler has to know how to bowl to each individual batsmen.if you bowl in their comfort zone then they will go for it.

 

[Arjun]

I don't think there's much point in picking specialist bowlers in Twenty20 cricket just for the sake of it as such. The difference between a low-quality regular bowler and a good quality part-timer is severely reduced so if you don't have any good bowlers there is little point in picking them. That said, I still think there's a big place for genuinely good specialist bowlers in Twenty20 cricket. It's harder to be a big asset as a bowler but the best bowlers will still be big components of teams in the format IMO.

If T20 is hard on the bowlers, it's extremely hard on bit bowlers. A regular bowler can adjust to most conditions, but a part-time bowler, who's not had much action in a match, struggles to adapt. Even a really good part-time bowler can have one bad over, and a bad over here can cost the team a match. If they're good enough all the time, they don't need to be part-timers and can bowl full-time. The likes of Sanath, Gayle, Afridi, Malik and possibly even Wright can bowl fully.

arjun-our best bowler in this match was yusuf pathan-a part timer.in t20 a bowler has to know how to bowl to each individual batsmen.if you bowl in their comfort zone then they will go for it.

Yusuf was a part-timer only when he played for India, but elsewhere, he's been a regular- he's a frontline bowler for Baroda. On the other hand, in the World T20 semi between India and Australia, Joginder bowled two overs that went for a few, and Sehwag bowled one over that went for more or less as much as those overs, leaving the team in peril and the strikers bowling again. Likewise, in this match you mentioned, Sanath bowled three neat overs, but Mubarak bowled one over of utter rubbish, and figures show the difference.

Reckon the format especially favours the super-quick strike bowlers.

This is what I had thought of for some time- a very interesting point.