Are batting and bowling equally important in test cricket?

[NasserFan207]

.

I won't get into that argument, but in modern test cricket, I'd rank India's bowling strength as below average, and Pakistan's batting as horrific.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I think of it this way: If you have good bowling and poor batting, you at least have a chance to win. And if you have good batting and poor bowling, you at least have a chance to draw.

Agreed

 

[Jarquis]

I won't get into that argument, but in modern test cricket, I'd rank India's bowling strength as below average, and Pakistan's batting as horrific.

So true

 

[Furball]

That is because India's bowling has been ineffective only on flat tracks whereas Pak batsmen ,for some weird reason,have collapsed even on flat tracks.Which means the Indian bowling>Pak batting (whatever that means).

To make things more interesting,Pak have historically had a much stronger bowling attack to India's generally stronger batting and it's no surprise they've beaten India more often than not (12-9)

Consider the following teams

Team 1

1.Sehwag
2.Gambhir
3.Dravid
4.Tendu
5.Laxman
6.Raina
7.Dhoni
8.Ashok Dinda
9.Abhimanyu Mithun
10.Ashwin
11.Sudeep Tyagi

Team 2

1.Faisal Iqbal
2.Farhat
3.Khurram Manzoor
4.Khalid Latif
5.Umar Amin
6.Azhar Ali
7.Kamran
8.Amir
9.Asif
10.Gul
11.Ajmal

In the above example, Pak's batting and Ind's bowling are equally bad.Ind's batting is more or less as good as Pak's bowling.Who is more likely win a 5 match series and why?

India are. Amir, Asif and Gul won't dismiss India's batsmen cheaply enough to win Pakistan matches, because their batting is simply that woeful.

In a 5 match series, even in helpful bowling conditions, I'd back India's batsmen to reach 250 at least 7 times out of 10. On present form, scoring 500 runs in the match will easily be more than enough.

 

[weldone]

Clearly the question is simplifying a pretty complex issue.

Batting is so important because it provides a level of consistency to a side. It's an undervalued commodity, consistency, but it's like a game plan in a football code; it provides reliability and allows a team to be able to trust each other and work together. As soon as the batting fails, things go haywire - plans for batsmen have to be ignored to try and get them out as quickly as possible, fields can't be employed, have to change the use of bowlers to try and have a quicker effect on the game. External factors start affecting what a team is trying to do when the batting isn't good enough.

Good teams don't need great batting line-ups, they just need consistent ones; England in 2005 is a good example of that. That's talking generally, but to take a specific example, the only time that their bowling fell apart in that series was in the third innings of the series, the one after their batting lost it.

Batting well creates its own pressure, have a look at how rarely teams get near a score of 500+ after the team batting first gets there; this despite the fact that they'll generally be batting over days 2 and 3, usually the best time for batting on a Test Match pitch.

Basically what I'm saying that while bowling wins a Test match, batting helps create a quality team over a long time, through having a core. You can replace a bowler here or there as long as the batting remains quality and consistent in output - ref: India over the past 24 months and Australia in 1999-2001.

Good post that.

I guess another important point here might be the era we are currently in makes people think that bowling is more important. Keeping the Pakistani example aside, all of the better teams have decent/very good batting lineups. People take that as a default. Ya, of course, among two teams with good batting lineups the one with better bowling is the better one.

Had this question been asked (say, for example) before the war, most people would be dying to get a batsman with average over 45 in their teams over getting a bowler with average, say, 25.

This question is so so dependant on the situation and team composition. Ask Pakistan whether they'll take a batsman like Sobers in their team, or a bowler like Marshall? They'll choose Sobers. Ask Bangladesh if they'll want a batsman like Hobbs in their team, or a bowler like Hadlee? They'll choose Hobbs, at least that'll give them some chance to draw some of the matches. Ask India if they'd like a bowler like Ambrose or a batsman like Ponting? They'll choose Ambrose for obvious reasons.

A good team needs both. Lloyd's West Indies couldn't be the same without Richards, Greenidge, Lloyd, Haynes, Kallicharan. Waugh-Ponting's Australia couldn't be the same without McGrath-Warne.

I mean this question is like asking which one is more important for human life - air or water?

 

[vcs]

India are. Amir, Asif and Gul won't dismiss India's batsmen cheaply enough to win Pakistan matches, because their batting is simply that woeful.

In a 5 match series, even in helpful bowling conditions, I'd back India's batsmen to reach 250 at least 7 times out of 10. On present form, scoring 500 runs in the match will easily be more than enough.

Most Pakistani batsmen have their career-high averages and top-scores against India though TBF...

 

[Uppercut]

The obvious answer is the last option. They're both useless without the other. Is that the same as both being equally important? If so then the third option is correct.

The question oversimplifies the issue quite horribly. Jack's summarised the value of batting perfectly, but a key point is:

Good teams don't need great batting line-ups, they just need consistent ones.

Your average test side will be improved much, much more by the addition of one top-class bowler than they will by the addition of one top-class batsman. The structure of the game just allows him a say in the outcome of much more games.

Although having utterly incompetent batting is often worse than having utterly incompetent bowling.

 

[Furball]

In fact, to add to Jack's point about a good batting line-up providing stability and consistency, I don't think it's a coincidence that the teams ranked 6 to 9 in the Test rankings are the teams with the worst batting lineups.

 

[Uppercut]

India are. Amir, Asif and Gul won't dismiss India's batsmen cheaply enough to win Pakistan matches, because their batting is simply that woeful.

In a 5 match series, even in helpful bowling conditions, I'd back India's batsmen to reach 250 at least 7 times out of 10. On present form, scoring 500 runs in the match will easily be more than enough.

Is India's attack much worse than England's or Australia's? If it is, then Pakistan can expect to score far, far more than 500 runs per match- their typical total against England or Australia. If it isn't, your entire comparison is invalid because India are supposed to be an example of a side that can't bowl.

 

[Uppercut]

In fact, to add to Jack's point about a good batting line-up providing stability and consistency, I don't think it's a coincidence that the teams ranked 6 to 9 in the Test rankings are the teams with the worst batting lineups.

Hahaha they have the worst bowling attacks too!

 

[vic_orthdox]

Isn't Pakistan ranked one of the 6-9?

 

[Matt79]

Going on a slight tangent, but also another way of looking at this question, this reminds me of an old thread here - assume you've been given charge of some random associate country, and most of your team are of a standard just below FC - district players in Australian terms. If you could draft three current players from around the world into that team with the goal of making it a competitive unit against a Test nation, who would you take?

At the time (2006 IIRC), I went for Pollock, Tendulkar and Warne, theorising that Shaun and Shane would help both with the bowling and putting a decent score on the board.

These days, I think I'd take Kallis, Sehwag, and Steyn.

 

[Furball]

Hahaha they have the worst bowling attacks too!

I'd argue that New Zealand and Pakistan's attacks, post McWarne, haven't been any worse than India's.

 

[akilana]

Nah, the top batting side would be far harder to beat.

If India were to face off vs Pakistan tomorrow in a best of 5 series, you might get the odd occasion where the Pakistani bowlers bowl out India cheaply, but you'd get far more occasions where the Indian batsmen would put up a score that is simply too big for Pakistan - which on the evidence of the last 4 Tests, doesn't need to be particularly high - 300-350 in the first dig should be enough to ensure that you'll win a Test.

Pakistan batting line up weaker than India's bowling and India's batting line-up is stronger than Pakistan's bowling. Asif's class. Ameer is just a newbie. Gul and Kaneria make one half of the attack but in Indian batting line up, you have Sachin, Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman etc. Some all time great batsmen and a few years old test bowlers.. the comparison is unfair. We're talking about good bowlers vs good batmen. Asif, Donald, McGrath and Ambrose with Pakistan batting line up vs India would tell if bowling > batting true or not.

 

[Faisal1985]

Always felt bowling was a touch more important for the reason mentioned in the first post. You can score a 1000 runs but if you fail to take out the other team then there is no point to those runs.

Runs matter when your bowling is capable of giving you a chance. If batting is crape there is still a chance your bowling might get you even a better deal against the other batting side. Pak v Aus 2nd test in Eng is a very good example.

But when you have equal teams batting wise...its the bowling that makes the difference.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Going on a slight tangent, but also another way of looking at this question, this reminds me of an old thread here - assume you've been given charge of some random associate country, and most of your team are of a standard just below FC - district players in Australian terms. If you could draft three current players from around the world into that team with the goal of making it a competitive unit against a Test nation, who would you take?

At the time (2006 IIRC), I went for Pollock, Tendulkar and Warne, theorising that Shaun and Shane would help both with the bowling and putting a decent score on the board.

These days, I think I'd take Kallis, Sehwag, and Steyn.

Posts related to this one have been moved into the old thread, which can be found here, as it is an interesting conversation and one worth having, but more relevant to that thread and may sidetrack this one.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Feel that people are over-rated the importance of batting based on India and Pakistan examples, when Pakistan just have incredibly atrocious batting and fielding with 2-3 top notch bowlers. Yet they still managed to beat Australia. India have good batting depth, okay fielding (for Test cricket) and in the past had Kumble and have some other decentish bowlers.

A top notch bowling attack will always give a team a chance. Warne and McGrath showed that so many times for Australia when the batting failed. Test cricket is a bowler's game, the odd bore draw aside.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

India are. Amir, Asif and Gul won't dismiss India's batsmen cheaply enough to win Pakistan matches, because their batting is simply that woeful.

In a 5 match series, even in helpful bowling conditions, I'd back India's batsmen to reach 250 at least 7 times out of 10. On present form, scoring 500 runs in the match will easily be more than enough.

I guess it's just a matter of opinion then.I would back that Pak side to win 3-2.

 

[Uppercut]

Isn't Pakistan ranked one of the 6-9?

Yeah. So the point is really just the one about Pakistan that everyone's already made.

On a side note, I wonder how well they'd carry their batting if their fielding was up to scratch.

 

[Faisal1985]

Feel that people are over-rated the importance of batting based on India and Pakistan examples, when Pakistan just have incredibly atrocious batting and fielding with 2-3 top notch bowlers. Yet they still managed to beat Australia. India have good batting depth, okay fielding (for Test cricket) and in the past had Kumble and have some other decentish bowlers.

A top notch bowling attack will always give a team a chance. Warne and McGrath showed that so many times for Australia when the batting failed. Test cricket is a bowler's game, the odd bore draw aside.

Good examples...