Which is mentally more difficult at the top level - batting or bowling?

[kiwiviktor81]

I was a psychologist in my former career, and it has always fascinated me to watch the mental battles that players go through, especially in tests. I have often wondered (not being a world-class allrounder myself) which is mentally tougher at the test level out of batting or bowling.

In some ways I think batting, because if you make one mistake you're gone. This is even worse for openers because the ball does more.

In other ways I think bowling, because with batting you have 10 other guys that can pick up the slack if you fail, unlike bowling where you're part of a pack of 4 or 5 guys.

 

[Flem274*]

Would you like an apple or an orange?

 

[Uppercut]

I know the textbook answer is that they're incomparable.

But I do think that psychological factors make up a greater proportion of a batsman's quality than a bowler's. Concentration is more of a key skill, pressure situations are more common (speaking solely for tests) and the short-term fluctuations are pretty insane. Whether you miss or nick a good one early on in an important innings can define your entire career.

 

[Himannv]

I would say a bowler would find it more difficult in shorter formats while the batsman would find it harder in longer formats.

 

[ankitj]

Batting. Always.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Batting. One ball and you're gone etc...

 

[Z-Man]

In short formats. Bowling period.

In Tests. Batting period.

 

[silentstriker]

Batting, since one mistake and you're out. A bowler has many chances to redeem himself.

 

[sledger]

Batting most mentally draining and thus demanding surely. You pretty much have to be performing in one way or another pretty much for the entire time you are out in the middle. I know bowlers will have to concentrate in the field and so on, but people tend to forget that a batsman has an important job to do when he is not on strike, constant vigilance is required for running etc... From my (albeit limited) experience, going back to fielding after bowling an over definitely seems like a "rest", if you can call it that. Whilst being at the non-strikers end whilst batting meant that you still have to be ready to gun it on the call of your partner.

 

[four_or_six]

Maybe it's a technical rather than mental thing, but bowlers seem to be able to learn to bat more easily than batsman learn to bowl.

 

[sledger]

Wasn't Freddie originally picked as a batsman though?

 

[silentstriker]

Well he always spoke of himself as a batsman who bowled, despite what was painfully obvious to the rest of us.

 

[smash84]

I think that at the int'l level it is tougher being a good bowler than a good batsman.

Most conditions seem to support batsmen.

 

[Furball]

Maybe it's a technical rather than mental thing, but bowlers seem to be able to learn to bat more easily than batsman learn to bowl.

I'd say that's down to a few factors - batting ability in bowlers is far more important than bowling ability in batsmen.

It's also generally easier to guage this improvement because generally speaking everyone has to bat at some point. Who's to say that someone like Alistair Cook hasn't massively improved as a bowler over the last couple of years? If that improvement still means that he's of little to no use as a bowling option, then you don't get to see that improvement. Whereas someone like Monty Panesar improving from averaging 5 to 10 is easier to see, and a number 11 being capable of averaging 10, whilst still making him a crap batsman, will lend itself to situations where his batting will be quite useful.

 

[four_or_six]

I'd say that's down to a few factors - batting ability in bowlers is far more important than bowling ability in batsmen.

It's also generally easier to guage this improvement because generally speaking everyone has to bat at some point. Who's to say that someone like Alistair Cook hasn't massively improved as a bowler over the last couple of years? If that improvement still means that he's of little to no use as a bowling option, then you don't get to see that improvement. Whereas someone like Monty Panesar improving from averaging 5 to 10 is easier to see, and a number 11 being capable of averaging 10, whilst still making him a crap batsman, will lend itself to situations where his batting will be quite useful.

I guess I was more thinking Gillespie being able to score a 200, and various other bowlers becoming centurions, than Monty-esque batting. But yes, you make a fair point, and it would be interesting to see how good a batsman who was a fairly rubbish bowler (with a bit of talent in there) could become if he had to bowl regularly.

 

[Cabinet96]

I know the whole one mistake and your out thing makes it tough for a batsmen, but it also means that a horror show can end quickly. When your bowling crap there's no where to hide, and it could be quite humiliating getting smacked all day, as a result of this you have to get your act together quickly. If your batting badly you don't usually last long enough for it to be horrific, and you can do all you can in between matches to put a better show on the next game.

I reckon it's worse bowling, say, 0 - 150 in 30 overs, than getting a duck or struggling for a messy 12.

 

[Arachnodouche]

I know the whole one mistake and your out thing makes it tough for a batsmen, but it also means that a horror show can end quickly. When your bowling crap there's no where to hide, and it could be quite humiliating getting smacked all day, as a result of this you have to get your act together quickly. If your batting badly you don't usually last long enough for it to be horrific, and you can do all you can in between matches to put a better show on the next game.

I reckon it's worse bowling, say, 0 - 150 in 30 overs, than getting a duck or struggling for a messy 12.

yeah, look at the Indians in the current Test. Though must be said our team has done its fair share of leather chasing and nose picking in the past.

Definitely has to be batting, as far as Tests go. Can't imagine the pressure with 5-6 guys around the bat and a Warne/Murali bowling with their tail up. Must be positively claustrophobic.

 

[vic_orthdox]

If we are talking about mental strength... Batsmen.

However, I think bowlers need to be smarter.

 

[Zinzan]

Batting. One ball and you're gone etc...

^

 

[smash84]

I know the whole one mistake and your out thing makes it tough for a batsmen, but it also means that a horror show can end quickly. When your bowling crap there's no where to hide, and it could be quite humiliating getting smacked all day, as a result of this you have to get your act together quickly. If your batting badly you don't usually last long enough for it to be horrific, and you can do all you can in between matches to put a better show on the next game.

I reckon it's worse bowling, say, 0 - 150 in 30 overs, than getting a duck or struggling for a messy 12.

awta