Match Winning Batsmen in Test Cricket

[wellAlbidarned]

I know everyone loves a crazy rambo type perfomance but the idea of there being "match winners" is really flawed and subjective, even moreso than most tags us ****s give players. There's good players, mediocre players, and **** players imo, the rest is down to whether we enjoy watching them or not.

 

[benchmark00]

The match is set up in the first two sessions of the match in my opinion. A good start and you have the opposition chasing the game from then on.

Cook the best opener in the world at the moment so probably him.

Ponting, although not an opener, was phenomenal in the first of a series in particular so he would be up there. Hayden dominant also.

 

[Goughy]

Steve Waugh was the man. He averaged almost double in wins than in draws and scored 25 of his 32 tons in wins (which accounted for just over 50% of his games.) Waugh one of the few not to pad stats in draws. I know this is heresy but I'd take Steve Waugh over Lara and Tendulkar for my side though both have probably surpassed him as greats.

Cullinan also underrated regarding winning innings

 

[Maximas]

Ashraful has been known to star in Bangladesh wins, that ODI against Aus comes to mind...
Not consistent at all though.

 

[benchmark00]

Steve Waugh was the man. He averaged almost double in wins than in draws and scored 25 of his 32 tons in wins (which accounted for just over 50% of his games.) Waugh one of the few not to pad stats in draws. I know this is heresy but I'd take Steve Waugh over Lara and Tendulkar for my side though both have probably surpassed him as greats.

Tell Shane Warne this.

 

[Satyanash89]

Steve Waugh was the man. He averaged almost double in wins than in draws and scored 25 of his 32 tons in wins (which accounted for just over 50% of his games.)

That's because Waugh had the best attack of the generation in his team. Lara and Tendulkar obviously didn't. If they'd had Warne and Mcgrath in the side, they probably would have had an ungodly number of hundreds in test victories

 

[Goughy]

That's because Waugh had the best attack of the generation in his team. Lara and Tendulkar obviously didn't. If they'd had Warne and Mcgrath in the side, they probably would have had an ungodly number of hundreds in test victories

Firstly, that doesn't make any sense regarding Waugh's low average in draws.

Sedondly, Lara played 80 tests with both Ambrose and Walsh in the side. If you have not heard of them then perhaps you should look them up. They were pretty good.

 

[Satyanash89]

Firstly, that doesn't make any sense regarding Waugh's low average in draws.

Sedondly, Lara played 80 tests with both Ambrose and Walsh in the side. If you have not heard of them then perhaps you should look them up. They were pretty good.

1) It seems that you're saying Waugh's low average in draws is somehow a good thing. You're effectively saying that when a great batsman feels the match is heading for a draw he should just say "Oh dammit, people will think I pad my average up if I do well here, so I'll just throw my wicket away"

2) Yeah, my bad... shouldn't have said "attack". I meant Waugh's Australia were arguably the greatest team ever, and had great bowlers AND batsmen who ensured Waugh's brilliant hundreds didn't go to waste. Without a doubt, there have been plenty of cases where either the bowling or batting has not been able to capitalize on Lara/tendulkar hundreds. Far fewer cases for Waugh. Not saying he isn't a match-winner, but he can't be called a bigger match-winner than others simply because he averaged more than them

 

[Lillian Thomson]

There used to be someone who posted on here years ago who reckoned that batsman can't be match winners - only bowlers can.

 

[kyear2]

Regardless of what the batsmen do, the bowlers have to take 20 wickets to win a match. So some merrit to that.

 

[Satyanash89]

Both are obviously important, but if you gave a captain a choice between a world-class bowling attack and a world-class batting lineup and to only pick one of them, he'd want the bowling attack I reckon.

 

[kyear2]

I would.

 

[coolkuna]

It is not always easy to determine whether a batsman's innings was significant in winning the match. Winning a Test match is generally a team effort and imo it is bowlers who play akey role in winning Test matches most of the time. So I am taking this question as the list of batsmen who did their bit when their skills were most needed more frequently than others.

Of the batsmen that I have seen, these are the ones that contributed their bit against tough attacks or in situations that I expected them to do so with a decent frequency. Just going by my visual memory and not by stats.

Lara
Waugh brothers
Gooch
Viv Richards
Border
Gower

 

[Гурин]

Ian Bell. Average of 62 in won games and 28 in lost ones (54 in draws)! And this doesn't take into account those wonderful rearguards of his.

When he's on song, England is unbeatable.

(compare to the woeful numbers of Pietersen: 61 in W, 28 in L, 56 in D. One less in wins, 2 more in useless draws. Pathetic)

 

[Coronis]

Trumper's stats are interesting, averaged 40+ in a win or loss, averaged 23 in a draw.

 

[Maximas]

It's not always useless to score runs in draws, remember Headingly against SA when his hundred propped up England's first innings before the game was lost to rain. Steyn might have ripped through the batting had he not come in and made those runs.

Edit: Oh ad how could I forget the oval test of 2005?

 

[Goughy]

Ian Bell. Average of 62 in won games and 28 in lost ones (54 in draws)! And this doesn't take into account those wonderful rearguards of his.

When he's on song, England is unbeatable.

(compare to the woeful numbers of Pietersen: 61 in W, 28 in L, 56 in D. One less in wins, 2 more in useless draws. Pathetic)

The old knock on Bell - which may apply to others - is that he scores big when someone else also does. He isn't the guy to hold an innings together but a guy who tons up in easy conditions when someone else is also scoring heavily.

EDIT - a quick look shows that Bell was the only centurian in England's innings on 4 of 17 occasions whereas KP was the only man to score a hundred in the inning almost 3 times (I lost count, it is about 11 or 12 times) that number in 22 innings.

 

[Ikki]

Someone not named: Sehwag. When he was having a good match you could basically say goodbye to it. He scored at a pace which would turn the match on its head. Same goes to Gilchrist and Viv.

 

[cricmahanty]

So batsmen belonging to teams with strong bowling attacks are kind of at a disadvantage here. (I'm thinking specifically of the West Indies 70s-80s, and Australia 2000s).

True. But conversely, batsmen belonging to teams with mediocre bowling attacks are also at a similar wavelength of disadvantage here. I could count you so many champion test knocks coming from the likes of Gavaskar and Tendulkar that didn't end up in a victory cause because they weren't assisted by a potent bowling attack or were lone-hands with the other batsmen faltering around them.

So, both the extremes probably level out.

Batting average in winning causes could be one metric that we could use but I doubt if that would give us a complete picture either. From the top off my head, I'd rate Waugh, Dravid, Ponting, Kallis, Smith, Pietersen as pretty good match-winners with the bat.

People like Laxman, Amla, Sehwag deserve a notable mention too.

 

[Гурин]

The old knock on Bell - which may apply to others - is that he scores big when someone else also does. He isn't the guy to hold an innings together but a guy who tons up in easy conditions when someone else is also scoring heavily.

EDIT - a quick look shows that Bell was the only centurian in England's innings on 4 of 17 occasions whereas KP was the only man to score a hundred in the inning almost 3 times (I lost count, it is about 11 or 12 times) that number in 22 innings.

You know, others to score a hundred is not really something you can control as a batsman. And, if Bell has filled his shoes when others did, how come KP has not in those innings? I don't think he decided that 'Ow this track is easy, let's get out, somebody else will score here'. Eventually, as we have seen, their stats are pretty similar.

Anyway that's just me, I never really believed in these things such as clutchness*. I put it this way, if cricket was an open market game (which, thank God, is not, let me be clear about this) and I was the GM of some franchise, I'd be extremely happy to get Bell at a much lower price (60%? You know, at the Top End increases are exponential) than KP, extremely good player, but one which I believe would have an exaggerately inflated price due to reputation. Then, if others disagree with me... fine. I got mine, you got yours.


*which really helps me as a player also. I go and play my best game, whatever the situation. If the bowler beats me, good for him, he was better. But pressure is for ignorant wimps.