Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 63

Thread: Batsmen or Bowlers?

  1. #31
    International Debutant salman85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,168
    I'm not sure Ali and i would make a good opening pair.

    I would try to hit every delivery at his crotch for all the doomsday predictions he makes in the dressing room.Which would result in us being 1 wicket and 2 balls down after the first delivery
    Last edited by salman85; 16-05-2011 at 08:49 AM.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,456
    Quote Originally Posted by salman85 View Post
    I'm not sure Ali and i would make a good opening pair.

    I would try to hit every delivery at his crotch for all the doomsday predictions he makes in the dressing room.Which would result in us being 1 wicket and 2 balls down after the first delivery
    Slick

  3. #33
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,733
    Quote Originally Posted by salman85 View Post
    I'm not sure Ali and i would make a good opening pair.

    I would try to hit every delivery at his crotch for all the doomsday predictions he makes in the dressing room.Which would result in us being 1 wicket and 2 balls down after the first delivery
    played

    I see that you haven't left the habit of focusing on people's crotches
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  4. #34
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,667
    Quote Originally Posted by benchmark00 View Post
    There is no definitive answer to this question.

    Like in football how on some days a team's midfield will win the game for their team, other days the forwards or defence will win it.

    Can't have a great team without both. Sometimes bowling wins the day, sometimes batsmen.
    This

    I find the bowlers win matches cliche one of the most simplistic and over-romanticised things on CW.


  5. #35
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,733
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post

    I find the bowlers win matches cliche one of the most simplistic and over-romanticised things on CW.
    How dare you

  6. #36
    International 12th Man weeman27bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,724
    Distinct lack of pretty much irellivant statistics so far in this thread, so I'll change that.

    The average average of the the four highest averaging batsmen (min 20 innings) is 70.8175.
    The average average of the lowest four averaging bowlers (min 2000 balls) is 13.8525.

    The average average of the four lowest averaging batsmen (min 20 innings) is 2.36
    The average average of the four highest averaging bowlers (min 2000 balls) is 92.79500

    (70.8175/2.36) = 30.0074153
    (92.79500/13.8525) = 6.69879085

    (30.0074153/6.69879085) = 4.47952712

    So in conclusion, batsmen are almost four and a half times more important.

  7. #37
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,838
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    This

    I find the bowlers win matches cliche one of the most simplistic and over-romanticised things on CW.
    Obviously it's not that batsmen can't win matches but there are fewer bowlers than batsman so individually they have a bigger effect on the outcome of a game. A single bowler being really bad can hurt you a lot more than one batsman being really bad game. Conversely - and due to the number imbalance, a single bowler can run through sides much more often than a single batsmen scores almost all of a team's runs (as a % of wickets or runs respectively). So since their effects are really amplified, they are more important to have in a team IMHO.
    Last edited by silentstriker; 16-05-2011 at 12:10 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  8. #38
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,424
    Quote Originally Posted by weeman27bob View Post
    Distinct lack of pretty much irellivant statistics so far in this thread, so I'll change that.

    The average average of the the four highest averaging batsmen (min 20 innings) is 70.8175.
    The average average of the lowest four averaging bowlers (min 2000 balls) is 13.8525.

    The average average of the four lowest averaging batsmen (min 20 innings) is 2.36
    The average average of the four highest averaging bowlers (min 2000 balls) is 92.79500

    (70.8175/2.36) = 30.0074153
    (92.79500/13.8525) = 6.69879085

    (30.0074153/6.69879085) = 4.47952712

    So in conclusion, batsmen are almost four and a half times more important.
    Can't argue with that.
    Every 5 years we have an election and have to decide who are the least obnoxious out of all the men. Then one gets in and they age really quickly. Which is always fun to watch.

  9. #39
    U19 Debutant Austerlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Empire of cricket
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by vcs View Post
    Seriously speaking, I would think a country has a much better chance of building a good team based on its bowling strength compared to its batting strength. Partly it's because if you find two quality strike bowlers who will do the business more often than not, you only need the others to do a decent, reliable job (see Australia with McWarne). On the other hand, if you want a strong team based on its batting, you cannot afford any passengers out of the 6 batsmen + keeper. That's because even the strongest lineups will collapse occasionally and you need one or two guys who put their hands up and bail you out.

    Also, you need a wide variety of skills in your batting lineup to account for all types of conditions. Strong openers who can see off the shine (if you have an aggressive game-breaker like Sehwag, that's a bonus), a quality middle-order that can capitalize or consolidate as the situation demands, and a guy like Steve Waugh/Laxman in the lower-middle order who can firefight and bat with the tail. Harder to find so much quality and expect them to all peak at around the same time.
    Superb post.Sums up the debate very well.

    A great bowler gives u more bang for buck than a great batsman,but once u start accumulating a number of great batsmen the balance starts to tilt slightly towards batting.
    Because its easier to find 2 great bowlers than 5 great batsmen,but again easier to field 5 great batsmen than 4 great bowlers[which is near impossible,done by the west indies].
    Last edited by Austerlitz; 16-05-2011 at 12:45 PM.
    Fan of - Cpujara ,Rsharma, kohli.Fanboy of -Napoleon,Tendulkar,steyn,lara ,warne,Akram.
    Commentators i like -Atherton,boycott,chappell,greig,holding.Can't tolerate - Shivaramakrishnan,Lal,morrison,AK Anthony.

  10. #40
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,667
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker View Post
    Obviously it's not that batsmen can't win matches but there are fewer bowlers than batsman so individually they have a bigger effect on the outcome of a game. A single bowler being really bad can hurt you a lot more than one batsman being really bad game. Conversely - and due to the number imbalance, a single bowler can run through sides much more often than a single batsmen scores almost all of a team's runs (as a % of wickets or runs respectively). So since their effects are really amplified, they are more important to have in a team IMHO.
    Well yeah, but I didn't say that wasn't true.

    None of what you said means that bowlers win matches and batsmen don't. All you've said there is that bowlers are worth more as individuals.

  11. #41
    U19 Debutant Austerlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Empire of cricket
    Posts
    311
    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.

  12. #42
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Austerlitz View Post
    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

  13. #43
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,193
    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.
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "as much a news event as an actual footballer, a worthy stop-start centre forward, but an all-time hyper-galactico when it comes to doing funny things with cars and hats, a player whose signing proves once again that the Premier League is still undoubtedly the best in the world when it comes to doing things with cars and hats."
    - Barney Ronay on Mario Balotelli

  14. #44
    International Captain Migara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Just under your skin
    Posts
    5,806
    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.
    Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)

  15. #45
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Migara View Post
    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??

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. India's bowlers for the West Indies and England tours
    By George.Hinton in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 17-01-2011, 11:13 AM
  2. should bowlers be allowed to wear sunglasses
    By jouerducricket in forum Ashes 2010-2011
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-11-2010, 09:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •