Are batting and bowling equally important in test cricket?

[Avada Kedavra]

Saw an argument in one of the other threads.I have always believed that bowling>batting in tests because you've got to take 20 wickets to win a match whereas even a score of 1000 doesn't guarantee a win.Obviously batting is also very important,that goes without saying.

EDIT : Added a poll.

 

[Matt79]

Equally important - a gun bowling attack with no batting will still see you lose a lot of cricket matches. And the opposition is GOING to take 20 wickets if your batting is bad. One of the more irritating fallacies in cricket IMO.

 

[GotSpin]

Equally important - a gun bowling attack with no batting will still see you lose a lot of cricket matches. And the opposition is GOING to take 20 wickets if your batting is bad. One of the more irritating fallacies in cricket IMO.

Still feel you're going to win more with a better bowling attack than batting

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Equally important - a gun bowling attack with no batting will still see you lose a lot of cricket matches. And the opposition is GOING to take 20 wickets if your batting is bad. One of the more irritating fallacies in cricket IMO.

That's true.Perhaps a more interesting question would be what would happen if a team with a top class bowlers+crap batsmen were to face a team with top class bats+crap bowlers.My money would be on the team with top class bowlers+crap batsmen to win far more often than not.

 

[Matt79]

Why?

 

[honestbharani]

That's true.Perhaps a more interesting question would be what would happen if a team with a top class bowlers+crap batsmen were to face a team with top class bats+crap bowlers.My money would be on the team with top class bowlers+crap batsmen to win far more often than not.

India - Pak..

 

[honestbharani]

Equally important - a gun bowling attack with no batting will still see you lose a lot of cricket matches. And the opposition is GOING to take 20 wickets if your batting is bad. One of the more irritating fallacies in cricket IMO.

AWTA.. Strongly

 

[pasag]

Strong batting and weak bowling always beats the inverse because of the scoreboard pressure that takes a lot of wickets for you, esp when batting first.

 

[Furball]

Still feel you're going to win more with a better bowling attack than batting

Pakistan say no.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Clearly the question is simplifying a pretty complex issue.

Batting is so important because it provides a level of consistency to a side. It's an undervalued commodity, consistency, but it's like a game plan in a football code; it provides reliability and allows a team to be able to trust each other and work together. As soon as the batting fails, things go haywire - plans for batsmen have to be ignored to try and get them out as quickly as possible, fields can't be employed, have to change the use of bowlers to try and have a quicker effect on the game. External factors start affecting what a team is trying to do when the batting isn't good enough.

Good teams don't need great batting line-ups, they just need consistent ones; England in 2005 is a good example of that. That's talking generally, but to take a specific example, the only time that their bowling fell apart in that series was in the third innings of the series, the one after their batting lost it.

Batting well creates its own pressure, have a look at how rarely teams get near a score of 500+ after the team batting first gets there; this despite the fact that they'll generally be batting over days 2 and 3, usually the best time for batting on a Test Match pitch.

Basically what I'm saying that while bowling wins a Test match, batting helps create a quality team over a long time, through having a core. You can replace a bowler here or there as long as the batting remains quality and consistent in output - ref: India over the past 24 months and Australia in 1999-2001.

 

[Furball]

That's true.Perhaps a more interesting question would be what would happen if a team with a top class bowlers+crap batsmen were to face a team with top class bats+crap bowlers.My money would be on the team with top class bowlers+crap batsmen to win far more often than not.

Nah, the top batting side would be far harder to beat.

If India were to face off vs Pakistan tomorrow in a best of 5 series, you might get the odd occasion where the Pakistani bowlers bowl out India cheaply, but you'd get far more occasions where the Indian batsmen would put up a score that is simply too big for Pakistan - which on the evidence of the last 4 Tests, doesn't need to be particularly high - 300-350 in the first dig should be enough to ensure that you'll win a Test.

You'd also be very unlikely to get a situation where the Pakistani batsmen were able to put up a score big enough to worry India.

Both disciplines are equally important - yes, without taking 20 opposition wickets you won't win a Test, but equally, if your batting is as amateurish as Pakistan's is, you won't win many games because despite your bowlers being brilliant, your batsmen aren't good enough to take advantage.

 

[Matt79]

Clearly the question is simplifying a pretty complex issue.

Batting is so important because it provides a level of consistency to a side. It's an undervalued commodity, consistency, but it's like a game plan in a football code; it provides reliability and allows a team to be able to trust each other and work together. As soon as the batting fails, things go haywire - plans for batsmen have to be ignored to try and get them out as quickly as possible, fields can't be employed, have to change the use of bowlers to try and have a quicker effect on the game. External factors start affecting what a team is trying to do when the batting isn't good enough.

Good teams don't need great batting line-ups, they just need consistent ones; England in 2005 is a good example of that. That's talking generally, but to take a specific example, the only time that their bowling fell apart in that series was in the third innings of the series, the one after their batting lost it.

Batting well creates its own pressure, have a look at how rarely teams get near a score of 500+ after the team batting first gets there; this despite the fact that they'll generally be batting over days 2 and 3, usually the best time for batting on a Test Match pitch.

Basically what I'm saying that while bowling wins a Test match, batting helps create a quality team over a long time, through having a core. You can replace a bowler here or there as long as the batting remains quality and consistent in output - ref: India over the past 24 months and Australia in 1999-2001.

Jack - says what none of us are smart enough to be thinking....

 

[vic_orthdox]

Nah, the top batting side would be far harder to beat.

If India were to face off vs Pakistan tomorrow in a best of 5 series, you might get the odd occasion where the Pakistani bowlers bowl out India cheaply, but you'd get far more occasions where the Indian batsmen would put up a score that is simply too big for Pakistan - which on the evidence of the last 4 Tests, doesn't need to be particularly high - 300-350 in the first dig should be enough to ensure that you'll win a Test.

You'd also be very unlikely to get a situation where the Pakistani batsmen were able to put up a score big enough to worry India.

Both disciplines are equally important - yes, without taking 20 opposition wickets you won't win a Test, but equally, if your batting is as amateurish as Pakistan's is, you won't win many games because despite your bowlers being brilliant, your batsmen aren't good enough to take advantage.

Mind you, to get a fair comparison, you'd be replacing Zaheer, Ishant, Harby and Mishra (or whoever for India) with a County 2nd XI attack.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Why?

For the reason I mentioned in the first post.

 

[Teja.]

To get a true measure of how depleted and injury ravaged India's attack in this recent series was,

The 'bowling attack':-

P.Ojha:- 8-515(averaging 64)

I Sharma:- 7-432(Averaging 62)

A Mithun:- 6-372(Averaging 57)

A Mishra:- 4-187(Averaging 46)

H Singh:- 2-304 (Averaging 152)

Luckily, The Legend that is SehWAG averaged 26 with the ball. I'd still back India to beat Pakistan everyday.

 

[NasserFan207]

Pakistan say no.

Pakistan have a HORRIBLE batting lineup though. To say their batting line up is as bad as India's bowling line up does a great disservice to the Indians imo.

I think of it this way: If you have good bowling and poor batting, you at least have a chance to win. And if you have good batting and poor bowling, you at least have a chance to draw.

 

[Furball]

For the reason I mentioned in the first post.

It's all very well being able to take 20 wickets very cheaply, but if your batting line up can only muster 262 runs in 2 innings, I'd say you'd be very unlikely to win any Test matches against a side with half decent batting, even if your bowling attack is Marshall-McGrath-Hadlee-Warne.

 

[Teja.]

To get a true measure of how depleted and injury ravaged India's attack in this recent series was,

The 'bowling attack':-

P.Ojha:- 8-515(averaging 64)

I Sharma:- 7-432(Averaging 62)

A Mithun:- 6-372(Averaging 57)

A Mishra:- 4-187(Averaging 46)

H Singh:- 2-304 (Averaging 152)

Luckily, The Legend that is SehWAG averaged 26 with the ball. I'd still back India to beat Pakistan everyday.

Pakistan have HORRIBLE batting though. To say their batting line up is as bad as India's bowling line up does a great disservice to the Indians imo.

.

 

[vcs]

Jack - says what none of us are smart enough to be thinking....

Agreed - great post.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

India - Pak..

Pakistan say no.

That is because India's bowling has been ineffective only on flat tracks whereas Pak batsmen ,for some weird reason,have collapsed even on flat tracks.Which means the Indian bowling>Pak batting (whatever that means).

To make things more interesting,Pak have historically had a much stronger bowling attack to India's generally stronger batting and it's no surprise they've beaten India more often than not (12-9)

Consider the following teams

Team 1

1.Sehwag
2.Gambhir
3.Dravid
4.Tendu
5.Laxman
6.Raina
7.Dhoni
8.Ashok Dinda
9.Abhimanyu Mithun
10.Ashwin
11.Sudeep Tyagi

Team 2

1.Faisal Iqbal
2.Farhat
3.Khurram Manzoor
4.Khalid Latif
5.Umar Amin
6.Azhar Ali
7.Kamran
8.Amir
9.Asif
10.Gul
11.Ajmal

In the above example, Pak's batting and Ind's bowling are equally bad.Ind's batting is more or less as good as Pak's bowling.Who is more likely win a 5 match series and why?