Are batting and bowling equally important in test cricket?

[Furball]

Haha that isn't an argument! You've just completely made up a scenario where your ideas are correct.

I don't think bowlers feel under pressure bowling to low totals. Some might start to lose interest sooner, but they certainly don't wilt under the pressure.

It's not a completely implausable scenario. Of course there's pressure on a bowling attack when the batsmen haven't put up much of a fight in the first innings. Same way that there's pressure on a batting line up when the opposition has put 500 up in the first innings.

 

[honestbharani]

Here is something interestng:


YOu never know how many runs are enough, but you always know that 20 wickets are enough and is the absolute maximum you need to take. Might explain why sides predominantly tend to have 6 batters and 4 bowlers...

 

[GIMH]

More to do with that there aren't enough overs in a day for more than four or five bowlers

 

[G.I.Joe]

More to do with that there aren't enough overs in a day for more than four or five bowlers

Don't think that fits in with present day bowlers getting injured all the time and blaming it on excessive cricket. Surely if what they claim is true, and an extra bowler reduces their daily workload by 20%, they'd go for it. One of those viewpoints has to be incorrect.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Don't think that fits in with present day bowlers getting injured all the time and blaming it on excessive cricket. Surely if what they claim is true, and an extra bowler reduces their daily workload by 20%, they'd go for it. One of those viewpoints has to be incorrect.

But is the captain really going to bother using his fifth and sixth best option, when their first two options are feeling fresh and ready to go?

 

[Migara]

Bowling and batting are equally important.

Since bowlers are lesser in number, bowlers are more important than batsmen.

 

[G.I.Joe]

But is the captain really going to bother using his fifth and sixth best option, when their first two options are feeling fresh and ready to go?

Thats true.

 

[weldone]

Since bowlers are lesser in number, bowlers are more important than batsmen.

Wicketkeepers are the least in number, so according to your logic wicketkeepers are more important than bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

I've always been off the belief that having good/great bowlers is always better than having good/great batters. I think if you're taking 20 wickets every test match you're always in the game. Its no surprise that minnows have always struggled until they've been able to put up a decent bowling outfit on paper.

 

[Uppercut]

Wicketkeepers are the least in number, so according to your logic wicketkeepers are more important than bowlers.

That's not according to his logic at all?

 

[Matt79]

But it actually is kind of true. If your wicket keeper has a complete Akmal of a day, he can completely undo all the work of the other ten players and single-handedly lose the match for you, much more so than any one bowler or batsman.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah. I wouldn't say it's the most important position but it's by far the worst place to have someone useless.

 

[GIMH]

That's not according to his logic at all?

Yes it is, seeing as he said, "Since bowlers are lesser in number, bowlers are more important than batsmen."

 

[Uppercut]

Ack, you're just being pedantic .

You know what the logic he used to reach that statement was, and you can't derive what weldone did using it.

 

[weldone]

That's not according to his logic at all?

OK got his point by reading it again.

Well, in that case I'll modify slightly what he's wanting to say:

Batting = Bowling

or, 7 batsmen = 5 bowlers + 11 fielders

If we consider 11 fielders equal to 2 bowlers, then

or, 7 batsmen = 7 bowlers

or, 1 batsman = 1 bowler

 

[Migara]

That's twisting the logic.

Wicket keeper is the most important position of a test team. You'd hardly win with a crap keeper. One bad bowler is huge problem for a captain. One bad batsman is a lesser problem. One bad fielder even a lesser one.

 

[Matt79]

That's twisting the logic.

Wicket keeper is the most important position of a test team. You'd hardly win with a crap keeper. One bad bowler is huge problem for a batsman. One bad batsman is a lesser problem. One bad fielder even a lesser one.

Suspect you mean "captain" rather than batsman there.

 

[Migara]

^^Yes. Should be captain.

 

[slowfinger]

OK got his point by reading it again.

Well, in that case I'll modify slightly what he's wanting to say:

Batting = Bowling

7 batsmen = 5 bowlers + 11 fielders

If we consider 11 fielders equal to 2 bowlers, then

7 batsmen = 7 bowlers

1 batsman = 1 bowler

So we've established that Bowling is more scarce than Batsmen, it is easier to become a batsman than a bowler. But what is more valued in a team? Let's see:

What bowlers aim to do to stay in a team and to be valued:

They must get batsman out at a steady pace and at a reasonably low RR
They must stay fit and mantain that fitness for a period of about 8-9 years
They must be able batsmen and fielders.
They must be able to deliver when a team is doing badly


Batsmen:
They must be in decent form at all times- as soon as that happens bar a few people, they usually get dropped.
They must be reliable at all times, especially when the team need them.
They should be able fielders

If you weigh it up aswell, you find that Bowlers are fiery, Batsmen are cool, bowlers are more prone to injuries thus less of a career, vice versa for the batsmen. But what is more valuable? A person to save a match... Batsmen can save a match, but bowlers can win a match. This is my opinion anyway, I think you need a bowler more than a batsman, if you find a class act batsman , you will take him, but if you find a class act bowler, you will grab him. (Unless you are Pakistan then you will take the batsman quite frankly), but evidently, it is the bowlers that do the damage. Fair comment?

 

[honestbharani]

So we've established that Bowling is more scarce than Batsmen, it is easier to become a batsman than a bowler. But what is more valued in a team? Let's see:

What bowlers aim to do to stay in a team and to be valued:

They must get batsman out at a steady pace and at a reasonably low RR
They must stay fit and mantain that fitness for a period of about 8-9 years
They must be able batsmen and fielders.
They must be able to deliver when a team is doing badly


Batsmen:
They must be in decent form at all times- as soon as that happens bar a few people, they usually get dropped.
They must be reliable at all times, especially when the team need them.
They should be able fielders

If you weigh it up aswell, you find that Bowlers are fiery, Batsmen are cool, bowlers are more prone to injuries thus less of a career, vice versa for the batsmen. But what is more valuable? A person to save a match... Batsmen can save a match, but bowlers can win a match. This is my opinion anyway, I think you need a bowler more than a batsman, if you find a class act batsman , you will take him, but if you find a class act bowler, you will grab him. (Unless you are Pakistan then you will take the batsman quite frankly), but evidently, it is the bowlers that do the damage. Fair comment?

depends on what you mean by damage.. coz runs and wickets both damage opposition..