• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Batsmen or Bowlers?

hang on

State Vice-Captain
The recently concluded Pak-Windies test match leads me to ask whether:

1) the whole "bowlers win matches while batsmen save them" chestnut is true?
2) to what extent, if so?
3) and how one would go about building a strong or dominating team for the future - start with a good group of bowlers or batsmen, assuming one had to make a choice?

Of course, even without taking that saw too literally, one can get the gist of it. What are your thoughts on this? Needless to mention, India (and Lanka now, one would imagine) exemplify one end of the spectrum while Pakistan the other. It seems that the Indian results of the past few years would suggest that the batting 'model' should be the preferred one but that seems a bit simplistic (not that this whole thread or thought experiment isn't!).

Look forward to your indulgence on this subject!
 
Last edited:

TumTum

Banned
India batting >>> Pakistan batting
Pakistan bowling >= India bowling

Both win you matches, but batsman can also save them (bowlers too if they are highly economical and don't take wickets, but that's unlikely).

Thing is that there are 6 batsman compared to 4 bowlers, so a single bowler has more of an effect on the match result than a single batsman.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
A team with Darren Sammy as one of its top bowlers just won a Test match.

Bowling loses this argument.
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
that is part of the mind**** aspect of that, athlai!

it must take real effort to propel the ball at such a pudding pace when u have the perfect physique for a fast bowler.
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
what's better for a batsman: to be part of good batting unit or team with a good bowling (but weak batting) unit? never can make up my mind on this one. i would guess the first but...

i haven't played the game at a first class level and so do not really know whereof i speak. perhaps some here who has played at a high enough level can toss his tuppence this way..
 

salman85

International Debutant
1) the whole "bowlers win matches while batsmen save them" chestnut is true?
Yes it does.

2) to what extent, if so?
Large extent.You have to bowl out the opposition twice to win a test match.You can win a Test match even if you bat only once.

3) and how one would go about building a strong or dominating team for the future - start with a good group of bowlers or batsmen, assuming one had to make a choice?
Bowlers.All great teams in history had strong bowling units.Having an equally good batting line is great,but you can win matches even if you have great bowling attacks and lesser batting lines.Shift it the other way around (great batting,lesser bowling) and the victory ratio comes down.Look at India - Their batting line has remained consistently good for ages,but their rise as an International Side is down to their potency as a bowling unit.
 
Last edited:

Spark

Global Moderator
Start with a good group of batsmen - last I heard Pakistan haven't won too many Tests in the last few years despite having a gun attack. India have been doing pretty well with a less than brilliant attack, too.
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
nice way of looking at it, salman.

i want to play the devil's advocate and so say:

the victory ratio, if calculated using draws too, might be another way of looking at it though. for example ponting is the 'winningest' captain in history but richards never lost a series. simplistic way of putting it, i know!

and india's rise coincides, arguably, with their batsmen's ability to play in different conditions more consistently.
 

salman85

International Debutant
Start with a good group of batsmen - last I heard Pakistan haven't won too many Tests in the last few years despite having a gun attack. India have been doing pretty well with a less than brilliant attack, too.
Pakistan's inability to win too many test matches in the last few years is down to our fragile batting lineups.The great bowling attacks have not been complemented by our batting lineups.

India's rise as a test side,if attributed to one man,would be down to Zaheer Khan.There's always been the Sachins,Sehwags and Dravids,but Zaheer Khan has been the key.Also,India have the services of arguably the best captain in the world right now,which makes them rise above their limitations.

A better rounded team,a great captain at the helm.They have a great batting line,and a good bowling attack.Pakistan has a great bowling line and an average batting attack.India's better shaped as a team,thus they have done better off late.
 
Last edited:

salman85

International Debutant
nice way of looking at it, salman.

i want to play the devil's advocate and so say:

the victory ratio, if calculated using draws too, might be another way of looking at it though. for example ponting is the 'winningest' captain in history but richards never lost a series. simplistic way of putting it, i know!

and india's rise coincides, arguably, with their batsmen's ability to play in different conditions more consistently.
India's batsmen always adapted well to different conditions.They struggled with bowling.And moreso,with quality fast bowling.They had Kumble and Harbhajan,but they didn't have a fast bowler who could compliment them consistently - Now Zaheer has taken over that role very well.

Yes you can use the victory ratio by the number of draws too,but the different era argument applies here too.Australia were head and shoulders above every team during their prime,whereas WI faced comparativly more cometition.Not as simple,as it sounds,but just saying.

There's a lot more that goes into the bowling-batting argument,and i've put it in a very simplistic way,but by and large,a side with a great bowling attack and good batting line would be more dangerous than an attack with a great batting line and a good bowling attack.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
India's batsmen always adapted well to different conditions.
Not at all, salman. By 'always' if you mean 'the last 10-15 years' then you might have a point (though that's arguable too). Otherwise, this hasn't been the case at all before that.

Among the retired Indian batsmen, only a handful played pace well consistently in bouncy conditions - Gavaskar, Merchant, Vishwanath, Hajare and Mohinder.
 
Last edited:

Spark

Global Moderator
Pakistan's inability to win too many test matches in the last few years is down to our fragile batting lineups.The great bowling attacks have not been complemented by our batting lineups.

India's rise as a test side,if attributed to one man,would be down to Zaheer Khan.There's always been the Sachins,Sehwags and Dravids,but Zaheer Khan has been the key.Also,India have the services of arguably the best captain in the world right now,which makes them rise above their limitations.

A better rounded team,a great captain at the helm.They have a great batting line,and a good bowling attack.Pakistan has a great bowling line and an average batting attack.India's better shaped as a team,thus they have done better off late.
Not true at all, until Sehwag and Gambhir came along India struggled to find an opening pair worthy of the name. Their success is built primarily on their batting and the "big four" - now five, obviously.
 

salman85

International Debutant
Not at all, salman. By 'always' if you mean 'the last 10-15 years' then you might have a point (though that's arguable too). Otherwise, this hasn't been the case at all before that.

Among the retired Indian batsmen, only a handful played pace well consistently in bouncy conditions - Gavaskar, Merchant, Vishwanath, Hajare and Mohinder.
I'm talking of the last 10-15 odd years when i started watching cricket obviously.

Not true at all, until Sehwag and Gambhir came along India struggled to find an opening pair worthy of the name. Their success is built primarily on their batting and the "big four" - now five, obviously.
Whereas India's opening pairs were not as great as Australia's,they were hardly shambolic.Their middle order has always been super strong and It has rated amongst the world's best for a while now.It is the improvement in bowling that has made their team better off late.The improvement in bowling,aided by a brilliant man incharge as captain has made India a better side.There is a very negligible difference in their batting quality.

Let's agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
India is a team with an ATG batting and average batting. Pakistan on the other hand neither have an ATG bowling attack atm and an ATP (All time pathetic) batting line-up so the comparison is not really fair IMO.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
I'm talking of the last 10-15 odd years when i started watching cricket obviously.
Then also I won't agree, it is close though.

If we talk about the last 10-15 years only, Sehwag has matured greatly as a batsman post-2007, Tendulkar has arguably hit the form of his life post-2007 and was pretty mediocre in the 2003-06 period in general. Laxman has hit the form of his life lately as well. Ganguly was not any Donald Bradman on bouncy pitches either. The only frontline batsman who was unarguably better pre-2007 than now is Rahul Dravid. And we haven't had as good a batsman among our wicketkeepers in the last 15 (or 40, for that matter) years as Dhoni. Overall, the current Indian batting lineup is a step ahead of any Indian batting lineup pre-2007...and 2 steps ahead on bouncy pitches.
 

akilana

International 12th Man
Start with a good group of batsmen - last I heard Pakistan haven't won too many Tests in the last few years despite having a gun attack. India have been doing pretty well with a less than brilliant attack, too.
How many matches have Asif and Amir played together for Pakistan? Asif made sporadic appearances for Pakistan. Akthar hardly played. Kaneria wasn't that good. Amir and Asif played together in only a few series but more than their batting, it was their fielding that was losing matches for them.

Indian attack may not be great but they have two world class bowlers in their attack. Zaheer is right there behind Steyn and Harbajan is one of the two or three best spinners around. Which other team can boast of having two class bowlers--one spinner and one fast bowler-- in their attack other than England?
 

Blaze 18

Banned
I'd back a team with great bowling and average batting to perform better than a team with great batsman and average bowling more often than not. Not much in it, obviously.

Now I know people will use examples of the current Indian and Pakistani sides to rebut that, but I don't think it's a fair example. Here's why :

The current Pakistani bowling attack is not great (talking tests here). It's very good/above average, yes, but not great. It'd be a different story if Mohammad Aamer and Mohammad Asif were around, though. Simply put, the gulf between the batting line-ups of the two sides is much more than the gulf between the difference in their bowling attacks (heck, some would argue there's little to choose between Zaheer, Sreesanth, Sharma, Harbhajan and Gul, Wahab, Ajmal, Rehman).

For the comparison to be a fair one, the gulf in batting quality should be more or less equal to the gulf in bowling quality. Consider these two teams :

1) Salman85
2) Smalishah
3) Fusion
4) Faisal
5) Agent Nationaux
6) Xuhaib
7) Imran Khan
8) Wasim Akram
9) Waqar Younis
10)Shoaib Akhtar
11)Saqlain Mustaq

1) Virender Sehwag
2) Sunil Gavaskar
3) Rahul Dravid
4) Sachin Tendulkar
5) Gundappa Vishwanath
6) VVS Laxman
7) MS Dhoni
8) vcs
9) Jono
10)Silentstriker
11)Sanz

Which team would you expect to do better and why?
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
1) Salman85
2) Smalishah
3) Fusion
4) Faisal
5) Agent Nationaux
6) Xuhaib
7) Imran Khan
8) Wasim Akram
9) Waqar Younis
10)Shoaib Akhtar
11)Saqlain Mustaq
lol...any sensible batsman facing the bowlers of this team will try to leave every delivery that's not hitting the stumps because they can expect 'bye 4' for most of those :p
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
Willing to bet Fusion gives a better interview than Dhoni.

Edit: More seriously, Pakistan would win, because you only need 5 bowlers but everyone has to bat.
 
Last edited:

Top