Best match winners - batsmen and bowlers

[Richard]

you don't win matches by taking 20 wickets alone... You need to have scored more runs than the opposition side.


To me the whole bowlers > batsmen is juz BS.

Who actually said that? All anyone has said is that batsmen cannot cause a result, whereas bowlers can. I do indeed value a good bowler ahead of a good batsman, but that's more personal choice than anything, possibly in part because I'm a seam-bowler myself and consider it a far more exacting role than either bowling spin or batting.

 

[Richard]

Even in that respect he's wrong though. You don't need to bowl a team out twice to win. Say Team A declares in their 2nd innings and Team B makes a successful chase? That's precisely the batsmen winning the match.

If you're relying on a team declaring in their third-innings in order to win you're not going to win very often. There's a reason that's only happened a miniscule number of times in Test history.

 

[Uppercut]

You know you're right, Rich, but it's such a minor and theoretical point that I don't see why you put such effort into discussing it.

 

[Jarquis]

Who actually said that? All anyone has said is that batsmen cannot cause a result, whereas bowlers can. I do indeed value a good bowler ahead of a good batsman, but that's more personal choice than anything, possibly in part because I'm a seam-bowler myself and consider it a far more exacting role than either bowling spin or batting.

In what sense?

 

[Richard]

You know you're right, Rich, but it's such a minor and theoretical point that I don't see why you put such effort into discussing it.

As an excuse to avoid essay-writing TBH.

(Nah, just that I've been essay-writing and the like for a lot of today and yesterday, as well as listening to lectures and operating a till, so it's a nice relief to be posting on CW instead.)

 

[Richard]

In what sense?

Bowling seam is inestimably more physically taxing than batting or bowling spin. And for the best practitioners each are every bit as taxing mentally as each other.

 

[Burgey]

Ind33d he did - but he was grossly assisted by the rain and the fact that Australia could realistically aim for a five-nil so therefore there was no point worrying about losing if to prioritise a draw damaged chances of victory.

Had lost time been able to be made-up, or had the series been poised at two-one rather than three-nil, there's no way England would have won that Test from the position they found themselves mid-fourth-day, not a hope.

Sure, and generally I accept your premise about batsmen vs bowlers. I simply used the example of Butcher to demonstrate that one can't say a batsman never wins a test match for his team.

 

[Jarquis]

Bowling seam is inestimably more physically taxing than batting or bowling spin. And for the best practitioners each are every bit as taxing mentally as each other.

Yeah, just wanted to clarify that you meant physically, as I'd vehemently disagree with you if you thought seam bowling was more tougher menatally than seam bowling. Must admit though I've never heard anyone say before that they bowl seam due to the fact it's the most physically demanding out of the seam/spin/batting trio.

 

[Ikki]

If you're relying on a team declaring in their third-innings in order to win you're not going to win very often. There's a reason that's only happened a miniscule number of times in Test history.

Actually, whether they achieve the feat or not is not particularly important. It's just that in that event it is in the hands of the batsmen to win the match.

 

[Richard]

Sure, and generally I accept your premise about batsmen vs bowlers. I simply used the example of Butcher to demonstrate that one can't say a batsman never wins a test match for his team.

Rules without exception are... well, exceptionally rare.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, just wanted to clarify that you meant physically, as I'd vehemently disagree with you if you thought seam bowling was more tougher menatally than seam bowling.

I'd hope anyone with any sense vehemently disagreed with such a statement TBH.

Must admit though I've never heard anyone say before that they bowl seam due to the fact it's the most physically demanding out of the seam/spin/batting trio.

Oh, I don't - I bowl seam because it's the only thing I have the slightest talent for doing. Having fallen into that particular compartment, however, I tend to have most appreciation for fellow "sufferers".

 

[Richard]

Actually, whether they achieve the feat or not is not particularly important. It's just that in that event it is in the hands of the batsmen to win the match.

In any given fourth-innings it's in the hands of the batsmen of one team to win\draw the match and the bowlers of the other to win it. But almost invariably, a fourth-innings where a realistic target is set will only have occurred because the third-innings has been wrapped-up by bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

In any given fourth-innings it's in the hands of the batsmen of one team to win\draw the match and the bowlers of the other to win it. But almost invariably, a fourth-innings where a realistic target is set will only have occurred because the third-innings has been wrapped-up by bowlers.

I was referring to occasions where bowlers haven't taken 20 wickets, which invalidates the logic that you need your bowlers taking all 20 wickets to cause a result.

 

[Richard]

In almost any given instance, a team winning a Test match will have taken 20 wickets. The number of exceptions to this are so miniscule as to be completely irrelevant. This is not a statement of absoluteness, but of a fairly obvious rule-of-thumb.

It's basically accepted as fact that you don't win Tests without taking 20 wickets barring a humungous fluke.

 

[Ikki]

In almost any given instance, a team winning a Test match will have taken 20 wickets. The number of exceptions to this are so miniscule as to be completely irrelevant. This is not a statement of absoluteness, but of a fairly obvious rule-of-thumb.

It's basically accepted as fact that you don't win Tests without taking 20 wickets barring a humungous fluke.

There are plenty of tests with declarations. There are just few that have had a successful chase.

 

[Jarquis]

I'd hope anyone with any sense vehemently disagreed with such a statement TBH.

Haha, I didn't think that was what you meant but as I said I just wanted to clarify.

Oh, I don't - I bowl seam because it's the only thing I have the slightest talent for doing. Having fallen into that particular compartment, however, I tend to have most appreciation for fellow "sufferers".

Ok, makes more sense now.

 

[Shri]

if you thought seam bowling was more tougher menatally than seam bowling.

That does make a lot of sense, Marcus.

 

[honestbharani]

Who actually said that? All anyone has said is that batsmen cannot cause a result, whereas bowlers can. I do indeed value a good bowler ahead of a good batsman, but that's more personal choice than anything, possibly in part because I'm a seam-bowler myself and consider it a far more exacting role than either bowling spin or batting.

You need BOTH good batsmen and good bowlers to win matches. To keep arguing stupid stuff like if you give good bowlers and mediocre batsmen I will win more often than I would if you give me mediocre bowlers and good batsmen is really fruitless. Because it all depends on whom you are playing against. It is possible that if the opponent team is mediocre, you can still bowl them out with your mediocre bowlers and make sure you almost bat them out everytime with your good batsmen.


AS I said, you need both batsmen and bowlers and to keep arguing that one matters more than the other is plainly clutching at straws.

 

[Jarquis]

That does make a lot of sense, Marcus.

Gah, is meant to be "that seam bowling is mentally tougher thanspin bowling"

I'd hope anyone with any sense vehemently disagreed with such a statement TBH.

Read above

 

[Richard]

There are plenty of tests with declarations. There are just few that have had a successful chase.

That's because by-and-large a declaration leaves no realistic chance whatsoever of a successful run-chase. Which is why I say if you're depending on declarations for Test wins you're not going to get many - so thus 20 wickets is essentially a neccessity.