Twenty20 Is A Batsman's Game: Fallacy or Fact?

[Tom Halsey]

Of course its a batsman's game. A bowler can take 2 or 3 wickets but concede 8 an over through slogs and edges and still have bowled a "bad spell".

What? 8 an over is generally considered a reasonable spell in Twenty20.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Of course its a batsman's game. A bowler can take 2 or 3 wickets but concede 8 an over through slogs and edges and still have bowled a "bad spell". Wickets are effectively meaningless unless they come in huge numbers, fields offer absolutely 0 support to bowlers, with slips for more than a couple of overs a huge rarity, and bowlers are restricted to just 24 deliveries to try and make an impact.

The only form of the game that's more batsman friendly is the Hong Kong Sixes.

That's just complete rubbish, also 2/3 for 32 are usually good figures as has been said so you're just showing off your ignorance there. By definition bowlers will have just as many 'good' and 'bad' spells as in any other format, the goalposts have changed obviously but so what? Unlike in ODIs bowling well actually makes a significant difference, in ODIs players can just milk you away and because the conditions and fielding positions rarely offer you a chance to bowl people out so you might take 1-40 - while the other bowlers hardly go for much more and wickets are distributed randomly when players are eventually bored to death by the monotony of the middle overs. In Twenty20 batsmen have to attack you and so the difference between a bad spell (eg 1-0-20-0 or 4-0-50-0) and a good spell (eg 4-0-24-3) is huge.

Bowlers play as large a part in a game of Twenty20 as batsmen do. This isn't the case in most ODIs.

 

[Richard]

That is interesting. Due to a family member being autistic I try and learn about the subject but didnt know that Aspberger's Syndrome was a related form.

No?!?!

For those that dont know

Selected Characteristics of Asperber's Sufferers
- Narrow interests or preoccupation with a subject Repetitive behaviors or rituals;
- Extensive logical/technical patterns of thought; thought is not a conversational wise as most people.
- Repetitive behaviors or rituals
- Often viewed as eccentric or odd

Always interesting to learn something non-cricket related here.

I fit several typical criteria quite well.

 

[Richard]

How have you worked that out?

FC run rates are generally over 3 an over, OD run-rates are generally over 5 an over, and Twenty20 are generally over 8 an over.

I make it that the jump is about 1.5 times greater, though obviously this is a bit objective. Fail to see how anyone can make it 4 times as great though.

Nonsense, a good ER in the FC game is <3-an-over, a good one in ODers is <4-an-over. In Twenty20 it's <7-an-over if not <8-an-over.

To suggest 5-an-over is a typical ER in a ODI is ludicrous - virtually no bowler has such an ER and if he does he doesn't (often - Sajs and Liams notwithstanding) last too long!

 

[adharcric]

To suggest 5-an-over is a typical ER in a ODI is ludicrous - virtually no bowler has such an ER and if he does he doesn't (often - Sajs and Liams notwithstanding) last too long!

 

[Richard]

Note the "often".

I could have added a certain Ajit Agarkar to those Liams and Sajs, but didn't want to.

 

[adharcric]

I wasn't disputing your claim. Just felt like the great man deserved some random recognition.

 

[Sanz]

In last years Twenty20 comp in England about 35 bowlers had averages of 20 or under. Looking at the stats quickly looks like a wicket fell every 2 overs.

Those wickets have no value, batsmen are not afraid to throw their wickets. As for bowling averages, if a bowler bowls 2 overs and goes for forty runs and takes 2 wickets, he will end up with an avg. of 20 and strike rate of 6 and an economy of 20. I leave it up to you to figure out if it is a batsman's game or bowler's.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Twenty20 has seen some great young bowlers come through, nad develop their game in general. Stuart Broad and my man Samit Patel seemed to have profited from it as regards bowling. And Sidebottom maintained a great average throughout his 20/20 career, so it is fallacy that its just a batsmans game

 

[steds]

Who gives a flying **** about bowling-averages? Any fool can get wickets in a 20-over game - Joe Club Bowler would do.

Tbf, Joe's pretty ****ing awesome.

 

[silentstriker]

It's not about averages! 20/20 (and ODI) thrives on defensive bowling and aggressive batting, which makes it a batsman's game.

And as Sanz said: "As for bowling averages, if a bowler bowls 2 overs and goes for forty runs and takes 2 wickets, he will end up with an avg. of 20 and strike rate of 6 and an economy of 20. I leave it up to you to figure out if it is a batsman's game or bowler's."

 

[Swervy]

It's not about averages! 20/20 (and ODI) thrives on defensive bowling and aggressive batting, which makes it a batsman's game.

And as Sanz said: "As for bowling averages, if a bowler bowls 2 overs and goes for forty runs and takes 2 wickets, he will end up with an avg. of 20 and strike rate of 6 and an economy of 20. I leave it up to you to figure out if it is a batsman's game or bowler's."

I see the point being made..but surely if in a test match a bowler bowled 2 overs and went for 40 and takes two wickets, he would have the same average and strike rate and same economy. Would that make test cricket any more or less a batsmans game!!!!???

 

[Scaly piscine]

It's not about averages! 20/20 (and ODI) thrives on defensive bowling and aggressive batting, which makes it a batsman's game.

And as Sanz said: "As for bowling averages, if a bowler bowls 2 overs and goes for forty runs and takes 2 wickets, he will end up with an avg. of 20 and strike rate of 6 and an economy of 20. I leave it up to you to figure out if it is a batsman's game or bowler's."

No it doesn't. The part bowlers or batsmen play in the end result of the game is what matters. Bowling is much more important in Test cricket than batting generally. Batting is much more important than bowling in ODI cricket generally. In Twenty20 it's around about equal.

Test cricket is a bowler's game, ODI cricket is a batsman's game. Twenty20 is both or neither.

 

[adharcric]

Does that sound slightly ****** to anyone else?

 

[silentstriker]

I see the point being made..but surely if in a test match a bowler bowled 2 overs and went for 40 and takes two wickets, he would have the same average and strike rate and same economy. Would that make test cricket any more or less a batsmans game!!!!???

Yes, if 40 runs in two overs was anywhere near a common occurrence in Tests, it would definitely be a batsman's game.

 

[Swervy]

Yes, if 40 runs in two overs was anywhere near a common occurrence in Tests, it would definitely be a batsman's game.

is it common that a bowler goes for 40 in 2 even in 20/20??

The thing is, yes runs will go off a bowler, but the tendancy is there will be a price to pay, and that is that wicket will fall.

I am tending towards thinking that the balance is pretty much the same for all forms of the game maybe just leaning more to the batsmen. As Tom H said, the goalposts have moved and so a rpo of 6 throughout 20 overs is a mediocre batting performance in twenty20, but outstanding in tests...I think its just a lot of people are struggling to come to terms with the 'moving goalpost' effect.

Faaip mentioned that a part of the problem is that only a large chunk of wickets has any effect in 2020. Probably in order to restore the balance, it would require a bowling team to only take 8 wickets in an innings as opposed to 10 to bowl a team out.

I will still maintain though that good bowling is frequently rewarded in Twenty20, which suggests the balance isnt so far over towards batting as maybe some would think

 

[adharcric]

Perhaps the issues with Twenty20 cricket have been slightly exaggerated, but the current debate seems rather one-sided to me. There is no doubt (IMO) that Twenty20 cricket is heavily batting-oriented and I have seen the difference between playing 25-over and 40-over cricket. Even though that's league cricket and not international cricket, it's really obvious that the bowlers have a larger part to play and a better contest is offered in the latter format.

 

[open365]

Ok, look at it this way.

In test cricket, the crowd turn up to see a contest between bat and ball, they come to see 5 fors as well as hundreds, they are not happy when the pitch is a road and the match is a dead set draw by the 2nd day.

In ODI cricket, the crowd (majority) want to see a 300+ score with lots of 6s and 4s followed by a close run chase. Seeing a side score 190 in 50 overs is not what pleases them most, but still if there is an excellent bowling performance(such as Pollock's 5-23) the crowd are glad to have seen it but deep down wish he'd have gone for a few more runs.

In 2020, a crowd of drunken middle aged men and their slightly confused kids and wives turn up to see the batsmen hit the hell out of the bowling and try and catch one of the many 6s hit. They do not recognise a good bowling performance, all they want to see is fielders being ran ragged and hear the music and dance when boundaries are hit. They pay little attention to the bowling.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Ok, look at it this way.

In test cricket, the crowd turn up to see a contest between bat and ball, they come to see 5 fors as well as hundreds, they are not happy when the pitch is a road and the match is a dead set draw by the 2nd day.

In ODI cricket, the crowd (majority) want to see a 300+ score with lots of 6s and 4s followed by a close run chase. Seeing a side score 190 in 50 overs is not what pleases them most, but still if there is an excellent bowling performance(such as Pollock's 5-23) the crowd are glad to have seen it but deep down wish he'd have gone for a few more runs.

In 2020, a crowd of drunken middle aged men and their slightly confused kids and wives turn up to see the batsmen hit the hell out of the bowling and try and catch one of the many 6s hit. They do not recognise a good bowling performance, all they want to see is fielders being ran ragged and hear the music and dance when boundaries are hit. They pay little attention to the bowling.

How the hell would you know what people are paying attention to? There's music for wickets as well, so what? Another typically ridiculous comparison between ODIs and Twenty20 when most of what's in a Twenty20 is in ODIs anyway so why even bother with this elitist nonsense.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Does that sound slightly ****** to anyone else?

Definitely.