Are batting and bowling equally important in test cricket?

[Faisal1985]

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.

Man o man...that is such a tease for a Pak fan like me...just imagine if they would have held half of those easy chances through out SL series, NZ, Aus, and now Eng.....how different the results could have been.....Amir's average/strike rate would have been amazing...nearly 30 catches have been dropped from his bowling....

 

[Jezroy]

Man o man...that is such a tease for a Pak fan like me...just imagine if they would have held half of those easy chances through out SL series, NZ, Aus, and now Eng.....how different the results could have been.....Amir's average/strike rate would have been amazing...nearly 30 catches have been dropped from his bowling....

Batting and bowling are very important, but if a team can't field and catch, it's demoralising for batters and bowlers, and the half chances that the other teams take don't matter to a team like 'Stan. Amir and Asif have been shafted so much by the fielders recently.

 

[asty80]

Bowling more important, IMO.
A great batting side can consistently draw matches since the bowlers wouldnt be able to take 20 wickets in every match.
But a great bowling side will give its batsmen a chance to win every match by taking 20 wickets.

And tbh, Pak is not a good example because their batsmen are very raw in the international arena.
England would probably be the best example out of the teams right now.

 

[kingkallis]

Pakistan say no.

Thats cause of TOP level bowling and club level batting!

 

[Jono]

What's an example of a very good bowling lineup and a mediocre batting lineup doing well in test cricket?

 

[Faisal1985]

What's an example of a very good bowling lineup and a mediocre batting lineup doing well in test cricket?

Wouldn't NZ be in that category? i don't know about the doing well in test cricket part...depends if you compare with Pak...they are doing super...

 

[Uppercut]

What's an example of a very good bowling lineup and a mediocre batting lineup doing well in test cricket?

England '05.

 

[Furball]

England '05.

Mediocre batting line ups don't regularly post 400 first up.

 

[andyc]

Mediocre batting line ups don't regularly post 400 first up.

Also failed to make 200 a couple of times that series IIRC, something that mediocre batting line ups tend to do. Do reckon they're a pretty good example of the question at hand though; very good bowling attack, less so for the batting line-up (Bell at 4 and Flintoff at 6 makes it a look a little bit short), but still obviously quite a successful team.

 

[Furball]

Also failed to make 200 a couple of times that series IIRC, something that mediocre batting line ups tend to do. Do reckon they're a pretty good example of the question at hand though; very good bowling attack, less so for the batting line-up (Bell at 4 and Flintoff at 6 makes it a look a little bit short), but still obviously quite a successful team.

Failing to make 200 against an on-song McGrath and Warne isn't exactly a hall mark of mediocre batting though (and iirc it only occured at Lord's).

Flintoff at the time was a good enough number 6 as well. It's debatable over the course of his career, but certainly between 2004 and India 2006 he was worth a place in the side on his batting alone.

 

[G.I.Joe]

What's an example of a very good bowling lineup and a mediocre batting lineup doing well in test cricket?

India in SA, 2006

 

[honestbharani]

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

lol.. why do McWarne come into the picture when discussing bowling of New Zealand, Pak and India..

 

[honestbharani]

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.

That is such a silly argument, that last line.. No offence to you, mate but a few others have made the same point here..


It is equally true that between two sides with equal bowling strength, the batting would make the difference. I mean, it is just stating the bleeding obvious, right?

 

[honestbharani]

Also failed to make 200 a couple of times that series IIRC, something that mediocre batting line ups tend to do. Do reckon they're a pretty good example of the question at hand though; very good bowling attack, less so for the batting line-up (Bell at 4 and Flintoff at 6 makes it a look a little bit short), but still obviously quite a successful team.

mediocre batting line ups would make sub 200 scores more often than that, for my money..

 

[vic_orthdox]

lol.. why do McWarne come into the picture when discussing bowling of New Zealand, Pak and India..

Think it's just referring to the general period though; its basically the period encompassing India's emergence.

 

[Prince EWS]

Failing to make 200 against an on-song McGrath and Warne isn't exactly a hall mark of mediocre batting though (and iirc it only occured at Lord's).

Flintoff at the time was a good enough number 6 as well. It's debatable over the course of his career, but certainly between 2004 and India 2006 he was worth a place in the side on his batting alone.

'Mediocre' doesn't mean 'crap' though. England didn't have a rubbish batting lineup, but I wouldn't have gone as far as saying it was 'good' by Test standards at the time. If there were four batting lineups better than at the time - which without doing too much research I'd be inclined to say was the case - even if not statistically - then "mediocre" fits.

I think they're a great example of a team doing particularly well with a very good bowling lineup and a batting lineup that just 'did enough'

 

[Ikki]

I was thinking about it, as even if bowling is more important to results than batting, it doesn't justify giving more importance to a bowler over a batsman as neither single-handedly influence a game and are reliant on their teammates. I say this because people say that even if a batsman scores a huge number of runs, his team can't win unless his bowlers take 20 wickets and a similar point can be made about bowlers. A bowler could even take 10 wickets across 2 innings but his team can't win unless his teammates take the rest.

 

[kingkallis]

India in SA, 2006

That was the 2nd last time I felt good about Indian bowling line up though.

Last time it was Zak / Ishant and spinners against the Aussies in Aussies.

 

[GIMH]

England '05.

Also failed to make 200 a couple of times that series IIRC, something that mediocre batting line ups tend to do. Do reckon they're a pretty good example of the question at hand though; very good bowling attack, less so for the batting line-up (Bell at 4 and Flintoff at 6 makes it a look a little bit short), but still obviously quite a successful team.

Failed to get to 200 once in the series.

Regularly put on 400 first up at a decent lick.

Had Tresco and Strauss regularly setting century partnerships.

Pietersen coming in down the order and Flintoff in his golden spell with the bat (averaged 40 at home to the crims, around 50 in india and about 40 between 03 and 06).

The definition of mediocre is 'not very good'. If you think our batting line-up in 05 was mediocre than your standards are way too high.

 

[Uppercut]

They utterly collapsed in three of the five tests tbf.

You can't judge a batting lineup on one series anyway. The general point is that England briefly had an all-time great side without anything even remotely resembling an all-time great batting lineup.