Batsmen or Bowlers?

[Austerlitz]

Actually thinking deep i would say despite everybody saying indian batting and all the current indian setup seems to be based on model of australia's legendary team.[Not comparing them]
Ofcourse there is a ocean of difference in sheer quality but i'm saying that the basic concept seems similar.

Hayden/sehwag -The destructive FTB

Langer/gambhir - The quiet grafter

Ponting/tendulkar - The genius

Dravid/martyn - Silent accumulators

Hussey/laxman -Firefighter

Gilchrist/dhoni -Low order acceleration

Another at 6 mostly for support

Bowling 1 main strike fast bowler
1 main strike spin bolwer.

Now here is the true great diff with a MASSIVE margin.
Mcgrath and warne are ofc in another league altogether but the basic concept of 1 main spinner and 1 main pacer holds true.
And 2 support pacers.Here is the other great diff as lee and gillespie are probably better than zaheer themselves.
But still if u see the models look similar ,no?
Food for thought.

 

[smash84]

Actually thinking deep i would say despite everybody saying indian batting and all the current indian setup seems to be based on model of australia's legendary team.[Not comparing them]
Ofcourse there is a ocean of difference in sheer quality but i'm saying that the basic concept seems similar.

Hayden/sehwag -The destructive FTB

Langer/gambhir - The quiet grafter

Ponting/tendulkar - The genius

Dravid/martyn - Silent accumulators

Hussey/laxman -Firefighter

Gilchrist/dhoni -Low order acceleration

Another at 6 mostly for support

Bowling 1 main strike fast bowler
1 main strike spin bolwer.

Now here is the true great diff with a MASSIVE margin.
Mcgrath and warne are ofc in another league altogether but the basic concept of 1 main spinner and 1 main pacer holds true.
And 2 support pacers.Here is the other great diff as lee and gillespie are probably better than zaheer themselves.
But still if u see the models look similar ,no?
Food for thought.

No

 

[BoyBrumby]

I do think a good bowler will win more matches than a good batsman. Look at New Zealand and Sri Lanka; both countries produced some quality batsmen before before they became genuine forces, NZ had Sutcliffe and Donnelly and SL had de Silva and Gurusinha, but it wasn't until both countries had a genuine all-time great bowler in their midsts that they started knocking over the big boys.

 

[Migara]

Bowlers doing well will win you the match.
Bowlers doing **** may lose you the match.
Batsmen doing well may win the match for you.
Batsmen doing **** will lose you the match.

 

[smash84]

Bowlers doing well will win you the match.
Bowlers doing **** may lose you the match.
Batsmen doing well may win the match for you.
Batsmen doing **** will lose you the match.

can you please elaborate??

 

[hang on]

think it means that bowlers have a more critical role in a team's performance according to my reading of it. will as opposed to may.

 

[smash84]

yeah but he also says that batsman doing badly WILL lose you the match not so with the bowlers.

Oh so maybe he is trying to say that batsmen are essential to saving matches and bowlers essential to winning??? Is that what he is trying to say??

 

[hang on]

exactly. the bowlers performance or lack thereof has a greater effect on the result.

 

[Howe_zat]

Though it's less prevalent at the top level, it's worth pointing out that ****e bowling takes wickets more often than ****e batting scores lots of runs.

 

[weldone]

If a team has an excellent batting order, it allows the bowlers approximately between 2 and 2.5 days to take 20 wickets in order to win the game.

Considering 90 overs to be bowled per day, 2.5 days will see (90*2.5*6) deliveries, i.e. 1350 deliveries. That translates to about 67.5 deliveries per wicket. So, we need a bowling attack with average strike rate of 67.5 (along with a very good batting lineup) to win test matches. That's close to the strike rate of somebody like Abdul Razzaq of Pakistan. So, are ATG bowlers essential in a side in order to win games?

 

[smash84]

If a team has an excellent batting order, it allows the bowlers approximately between 2 and 2.5 days to take 20 wickets in order to win the game.

A pretty good analysis but where did you come up with this???? Your analysis all boils down to this assumption

 

[Migara]

If a team has an excellent batting order, it allows the bowlers approximately between 2 and 2.5 days to take 20 wickets in order to win the game.

Considering 90 overs to be bowled per day, 2.5 days will see (90*2.5*6) deliveries, i.e. 1350 deliveries. That translates to about 67.5 deliveries per wicket. So, we need a bowling attack with average strike rate of 67.5 (along with a very good batting lineup) to win test matches. That's close to the strike rate of somebody like Abdul Razzaq of Pakistan. So, are ATG bowlers essential in a side in order to win games?

So how many will the opposition score off four Abdul Razzaq's? 33 * 20 = 660 runs in two innings. ATG bowling line up will clean a batting line up around 25 a piece, and will restrict the above bowling side with four Abdul Razzaq's to 500. If we raise the bar to 30, still it comes out as 600 runs (this is counting for 11 GREAT batsmen against GREAT bowlers). In real life, you have only 7-8 good batsmen, so the total runs will be still lesser.

 

[weldone]

A pretty good analysis but where did you come up with this???? Your analysis all boils down to this assumption

That's a general observation. 5/2=2.5. So, if you have a very good batting lineup, and you bat for slightly over 2.5 (or max. 3) days, more often than not you'll compile more runs than the opposition can chase.

 

[weldone]

So how many will the opposition score off four Abdul Razzaq's? 33 * 20 = 660 runs in two innings. ATG bowling line up will clean a batting line up around 25 a piece, and will restrict the above bowling side with four Abdul Razzaq's to 500. If we raise the bar to 30, still it comes out as 600 runs (this is counting for 11 GREAT batsmen against GREAT bowlers). In real life, you have only 7-8 good batsmen, so the total runs will be still lesser.

I was never talking about an ATG side. I was talking about the test matches we see every year (not the hypothetical Bradman's XI vs Sobers' XI matchups).

A good test bowling lineup (not an ATG one) will have a bowling lineup of Steyn, Morkel, Kallis, Harris, Tsotsobe (say). They should average around 30 overall. Of course when they play against a good batting lineup this average of 30 is bound to increase (considering my team has a very good batting lineup) by quite a few points.

All I am trying to prove is that a very potent test match side can be formed by having a very good batting lineup along with a merely good bowling lineup. People often over-stress the importance of taking 20 wickets in a test match. Sometimes they fail to realise that for taking 20 wickets in a 5-day game it is not mandatry to have ATG bowlers in your side, provided you are not going to face an ATG test team.

[However, Abdul Razzaq was a hypothetical example. I agree that you won't win many test matches if your 4 bowlers are 4 Abdul Razzaqs. Replace Abdul Razzaq by Andre Nel if you wish. But the point still stands.]

 

[Flem274*]

Who ****ing cares? If either your batsmen or your bowlers miss the team bus, you're ****ed.

To win a test match you need good bowlers and good batsmen. It isn't rocket science, even if Australia's bowlers make it look like it.

 

[smash84]

Who ****ing cares?

The pseudo experts at CW (read as we) care

 

[braydonwilson7]

webdesign

in cricket both the boller and batsman are important
===============================================

webdesign

 

[salman85]

I'm pretty sure the boller is not important.

 

[smash84]

I'm pretty sure the boller is not important.

 

[Blaze 18]

I'm pretty sure the boller is not important.