Batting vs Bowling

[Neil Pickup]

The two stand out sides over long periods of the last twenty five years have been the West Indians and the Australians.

The West Indian side was based around a battery of scarily fast bowlers (Croft, Garner, Patterson, Marshall, Holding, Ambrose, Walsh...) who frequently destroyed the opponents, and were backed up by a good - but not as good - batting line up.

The Australians have been the opposite, with a batting line up sweeping all infront of them but with a slightly weaker bowling line up, and have relied on themselves to get 500 every time out.

Yet when one part of the side fails, things start to go wrong. Recent tests have shown that when the Aussie bowling doesn't click, the batting can't always drag them out of the hole. This case, I think, is less pronounced in a bowling based side - probably because of the fact that batsmen get one chance, bowlers get plenty.

To cut the waffle short - what would you rather have?

A brilliant top six OR A brilliant bowling attack?

Bowling for me!

 

[luckyeddie]

Bowling - every time.

You usually win games by bowling sides out twice (although having 5 or 6 hundred on the board tends to inspire moderate bowlers to rise above themselves)

 

[raju]

Both sides mentioned had great batting and bowling line ups and thats why they were so dominant. Aussie have (or had?) 2 of the all time greats in Warne and McGrath. And WI had one of the best top 3 batting line ups ever with some impressive back up just below. So I don't really agree that the Aussie batting is stronger or that WI had a better attack as the Aussie side had more variety. Both fantastic all round sides.

To answer the question though, a side needs to take 20 wickets so IMO bowling is more important at test level.

 

[Kenny]

The Windies batting line up of......

Greenidge
Haynes
Richards
Richardson
Hooper
Logie
Dujon

Wasn't too bad, and......

McGrath
Gillespie
Lee
Warne

Isn't too shabby either.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Not disputing that guys - but whilst they are both very good line-ups they dont' match the strength of the other discipline

 

[Tom Halsey]

The Aussies bowling attack would be as good as their batting line up if it wasn't for 2 words - Brett Lee

 

[luckyeddie]

The Aussies bowling attack would be as good as their batting line up if it wasn't for 2 words - Brett Lee

I tell you what - England would be happy to snatch the Aussies' hands off for him.

 

[age_master]

the aussie attack without lee and mcgrath lacks fire - especially as gillespie takes a more McGrath like approach

at the moment i woudl take the batting cause it gets injured less


but bowling sides out twice is the key to winning tests, and for me, is more important

 

[JohnnyA]

If I've to choose ... I'll take the ace bowling lineup. It means the batters have to score less runs to win games, and puts much more pressure on the opposition. Common sense really.

Ace bowling means shorter matches with lots of results (in your favour normally).

Ace batting means lots of draws (in nobodies favour).

P.S. I don't think the Aussie bowling battery of McG, Warney, Gilly and Lee is any weaker than their batting. The batters have benefitted from the fact that other teams contemporaneous to them have had very ordinary bowling attacks ... especially in Austrailia. Put them under pressure and the Aussie batters fold like everyone else ... problem is ... no-one's put them under pressure enough ...

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'm not disputing Brett Lee is an above average bowler. But, he is comfortably the worst bowler in the Aussie side (apart from when Brad Hogg gets a game)

 

[krkode]

I would rather have a West Indianesque bowling lineup than a really good Australianesque top six.

I'm not quite sure why, but for some reason, scoring 200 and bowling the opposition out for 150 seems more plausible than scoring 300 and bowling the opposition out for 285. That's for ODIs. Even in the test format of the game I'd rather have a set that could rip out 20 wickets every game, than a set that could score 500 odd runs and then struggle to restrict the opposition to less than that.

That said, if I was on a cricket team the one person I'd want the most on my team is Glenn McGrath. The second most is Tendulkar...and so goes the story. :P

 

[Richard]

Personally I'd much prefer have Warne or Muralitharan than McGrath.

 

[hourn]

bowlers.

we are a very underappreciated species, and thanks to rule changes, improvements in pitch and grounds and varying other factors, our craft is becoming harder and harder, and a bowling average of 30, is akin to around about 26ish about 10-15 years ago.

but if you want to win a match, you need our breed to take your 10 or 20 wickets (depending on the rules of your competition).

 

[hourn]

P.S. I don't think the Aussie bowling battery of McG, Warney, Gilly and Lee is any weaker than their batting. The batters have benefitted from the fact that other teams contemporaneous to them have had very ordinary bowling attacks ... especially in Austrailia. Put them under pressure and the Aussie batters fold like everyone else ... problem is ... no-one's put them under pressure enough ...

Australias best four bowlers is as strong as any other bowling attack in history (except for Windies 70's, 80's) - the problem for Australia is their bwoling depth is not all there.

 

[iamdavid]

Australias best four bowlers is as strong as any other bowling attack in history (except for Windies 70's, 80's) - the problem for Australia is their bwoling depth is not all there.

IMO it is , the selectors just dont utilise it properly.

 

[hourn]

IMO it is , the selectors just dont utilise it properly.

hmmmm I don't share that opinion, and i've said it for a couple of years, that we need more depth in our bowling.

I actually think Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, Lee combination is better than our batting when they're playing well.

who would you reckon the Australian team should be looking to use?

 

[martin01]

hmm i agree Iamdavid, i believe Australia has got plenty of good back up bowlers that would play in other teams such as Macgill, Kasprowicz, Lee, Tait and Watsons not a bad allrounder that can bowl aswell, Dunno what happened wit Bichel but neway...
Im just wondering to some of you other guys, if Australia doesnt have depth in there bowling then who does?

 

[Nate]

hmm i agree Iamdavid, i believe Australia has got plenty of good back up bowlers that would play in other teams such as Macgill, Kasprowicz, Lee, Tait and Watsons not a bad allrounder that can bowl aswell, Dunno what happened wit Bichel but neway...
Im just wondering to some of you other guys, if Australia doesnt have depth in there bowling then who does?

India... :P

often when a weak side comes on the scene, there is always talk about how low they will be rolled out for. IMO, more of the talk should be on how they will get the other team out! especially in tests, where you need 20 wickets.

 

[SJS]

In test matches, there can not be a great winning side without a great attack. Test matches are won by bowlers. You can score less than 100 in either innings and still win a test (and it has been done) but there is no way you can win without having an attack capable of taking twenty wickets.

It was said of a test side (I forget which) that they won so much partly because they had a relatively weak batting side which gave their great bowling attack more time to bowl out the opposition !!! It was the days of three day tests.

By the way, its a fallacy to consider this Australian side a weaker bowling side than the West Indies side of the 70's and 80's. It is more balanced. It is just that we are enamoured by the long line of fast bowler of the Windies. Australian side has the BIG advantage of having Warne.

Its also not correct to say that the Windies side was inferior to this Aussie side in batting. Just start placing the players of both batting orders side by side and you will se what I mean. The only thing you can say is that this Aussie said has a keeper who bats far better than any keeper they had, period.

 

[Deja moo]

India... :P

.

Dude, I'm one step away from introducing Bracken into the conversation.