Why is Jacques Kallis so disliked?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Didn't Lawson take something like 7 wickets in the first innings?

Scores were practically even (if not actually even) in the first innings, so it could be argued that that game was won on second innings batting.

 

[silentstriker]

Scores were practically even (if not actually even) in the first innings, so it could be argued that that game was won on second innings batting.

They were exact (just looked it up) but it was Lawson who restricted a better lineup to 240. Obviously chasing 400+ is always going to be tough and batsmen deserve all the credit, but you always need to start off with 'How can I take 20 wickets?'

 

[Richard]

How is it, then, that an innings like Dravid's 233 in Adelaide is more remembered than Agarkar's 6-fer in the same game?

I imagine that were this the 1990s, you'd be changing your tune.

Because people also remember Laxman's 281 and Dravid's 180 but Harbhajan had a hat trick and 13 wickets and was arguably better than either. Batting sells tickets, bowling wins matches.

These are positively the two best - I repeat THE TWO BEST - examples of said poor-memory.

Everyone remembers Dravid and Laxman. Yet without Harbhajan and Agarkar's feats they'd probably be no more remembered than Sehwag and Dravid were here. Yes, batting can play a part in the winning of matches, but mostly it don't happen without bowlers. The same cannot be said the other way around.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And, for that matter, would they have won had Mervyn Dillon not taken the wonderful figures of 4\112 to restrict Australia to a "mere" target of 412.

But you can equally argue that the West Indies outbatted Australia in that second innings, rather than the West Indies outbowling Australia. After all, the West Indies did chase 418 for victory.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Two main reasons:

Time-being-made-up rules changed dramatically in... yes, you guessed it... 2001, the exact time that batting started to dominate bowling. This has made a huge impact on the results.

Feel bad breaking this up and turning it into an old-school CC bunfight, but hey.

One would imagine that this isn't precisely coincidence. As a rule, time is made up in similar conditions that would precipitate the stoppage, such as damp or overcast conditions for rain, or borderline-light for bad-light calls.

Cricket at the moment is very "result-orientated". No-one ever thinks about "let's make this game safe" in the first-innings: it's always "make sure we've got enough time to force a victory". This manifests itself both in the speed batting is done at (the poorer quality of the bowling allows this massive increase in speed over the course of nothing more than 5 or 6 months) and the attitude of captains in declarations and field-settings.

Agreed, but doesn't that mean batsmen hold more sway in the direction of matches, hence my original point?

 

[Richard]

But you can equally argue that the West Indies outbatted Australia in that second innings, rather than the West Indies outbowling Australia. After all, the West Indies did chase 418 for victory.

I'm not disputing that for a second.

But what'd have happened had WI not managed to bowl-out Australia, and had Waugh had the chance to declare 580 ahead?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

They were exact (just looked it up) but it was Lawson who restricted a better lineup to 240. Obviously chasing 400+ is always going to be tough and batsmen deserve all the credit, but you always need to start off with 'How can I take 20 wickets?'

The thing is, you can't write off the impact of batsmen in winning matches. For one, you don't necessarily have to take 20 wickets to win a cricket match. You do, however, have to score more runs than the opposition. And the weight of a large score on a chasing team is immeasurable and certainly boosts the bowling attack.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

But you can equally argue that the West Indies outbatted Australia in that second innings, rather than the West Indies outbowling Australia. After all, the West Indies did chase 418 for victory.

Admittedly, they had fought back from Australia being 0-242 in the third dig.

 

[Richard]

Feel bad breaking this up and turning it into an old-school CC bunfight, but hey.

Please don't, gets boring if it's just me and tec that do that and no-one else.

One would imagine that this isn't precisely coincidence. As a rule, time is made up in similar conditions that would precipitate the stoppage, such as damp or overcast conditions for rain, or borderline-light for bad-light calls.

Not as a rule at all, there are plenty of examples of, for example, first-day washed-out (or half of it), next 4 days have 15 overs tacked onto them in fine weather, so time is mostly (or wholly) made-up and a full match, rather than a 4\5ths one played.

Agreed, but doesn't that mean batsmen hold more sway in the direction of matches, hence my original point?

They still can't win them if 20 wickets don't fall, though.

 

[silentstriker]

The thing is, you can't write off the impact of batsmen in winning matches. For one, you don't necessarily have to take 20 wickets to win a cricket match. You do, however, have to score more runs than the opposition. And the weight of a large score on a chasing team is immeasurable and certainly boosts the bowling attack.

I think that if you look at history and look at matches won by a great lineup of bowlers vs. a great lineup of batsman, you'll see the former winning a lot more.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Admittedly, they had fought back from Australia being 0-242 in the third dig.

But then had to score more runs to actually win the game. Batting allowed them to win that game as much as the bowling. You can't set one above the other.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think that if you look at history and look at matches won by a great lineup of bowlers vs. a great lineup of batsman, you'll see the former winning a lot more.

Batting and bowling go hand in hand in a matchwinning cause. Except in matches where one team is bowled out for a ridiculously low score.

 

[Richard]

The thing is, you can't write off the impact of batsmen in winning matches.

I'm trying not to.

For one, you don't necessarily have to take 20 wickets to win a cricket match. You do, however, have to score more runs than the opposition.

True, but instances of non-20-wicket-taking wins are so rare (and usually weather-and-state-of-series orientated) as to be almost discounted.

And the weight of a large score on a chasing team is immeasurable and certainly boosts the bowling attack.

It does indeed. It's one of the big reasons why we see an increase in results despite a denegration in bowling quality.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'm not disputing that for a second.

But what'd have happened had WI not managed to bowl-out Australia, and had Waugh had the chance to declare 580 ahead?

A draw.

Some might say that the bowling allowed the West Indies to win that game, but then the batsmen had to step up to a huge task, especially when Lara was out less than halfway there. The way I see it, the bowling allowed the win and the batting got the win. So which one is the matchwinning performance? Splitting hairs, IMO. To win a Test match you typically need to take 20 wickets AND score more runs than the opposition.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

We digress. Greatly.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Please don't, gets boring if it's just me and tec that do that and no-one else.

I shouldn't feel bad, but I do. More often than not, it just descends into pedantry and point-scoring, with the actual topic at hand being ignored.

They still can't win them if 20 wickets don't fall, though.

It's been done. When a side has built up enough runs to declare, bowlers almost become an irrelevancy and batsmen become paramount. Anyway, with the scoring rates rising so far and bowling averages changing only slightly, it's a given that strike-rates remain the same - which is surely the chief factor in taking 20 wickets.

If strike-rates are similar, the conclusions can be reasonably drawn that the scoring-rates are going to dictate the course of play, considering that 20 wickets are still, more often than not, taken in an uninterrupted Test - flat decks or not.

So the side who bats better - taking both averages and run-rates into consideration - will usually win. As a result, that's why I believe batsmen are more key in deciding a Test's result.

 

[Richard]

A draw.

Some might say that the bowling allowed the West Indies to win that game, but then the batsmen had to step up to a huge task, especially when Lara was out less than halfway there. The way I see it, the bowling allowed the win and the batting got the win. So which one is the matchwinning performance? Splitting hairs, IMO. To win a Test match you typically need to take 20 wickets AND score more runs than the opposition.

We digress. Greatly.

Proves the best of us can do it. And proves, IMO, that there's no harm in doing so either. I'm sure that after this 15-minute barrage, some will resume talking about Kallis' non-selfishness.

Look, I've never tried to claim that bowling is more important than batting. I've tried to get the point across that batsmen, while equally important in a victory as bowlers, cannot engineer a victory without the bowlers doing their job.

The bowlers can. If team a bowls team b out for 40 and 70, while team a scores 60 and 71\9, I'd hardly say the batsmen have done a sterling job. But the match is won.

Whereas if team a pile-up 600\5 and team b respond with 702ao, there's no second-guessing what the result is.

 

[Richard]

I shouldn't feel bad, but I do. More often than not, it just descends into pedantry and point-scoring, with the actual topic at hand being ignored.

Shows how often you've indulged yourself.

It's been done. When a side has built up enough runs to declare, bowlers almost become an irrelevancy and batsmen become paramount. Anyway, with the scoring rates rising so far and bowling averages changing only slightly, it's a given that strike-rates remain the same - which is surely the chief factor in taking 20 wickets.

If strike-rates are similar, the conclusions can be reasonably drawn that the scoring-rates are going to dictate the course of play, considering that 20 wickets are still, more often than not, taken in an uninterrupted Test - flat decks or not.

So the side who bats better - taking both averages and run-rates into consideration - will usually win. As a result, that's why I believe batsmen are more key in deciding a Test's result.

Where do you get the idea that bowling-averages aren't changing? For the most part, they've been inflating like a football since 2001\02.

Look mate, simple thing is, side who plays the better cricket will (mostly) win. But if you don't bowl well, you don't win. Even if you pile-up 640\4, if you bowl poorly you still haven't got a chance of victory.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Where do you get the idea that bowling-averages aren't changing? For the most part, they've been inflating like a football since 2001\02.

Look mate, simple thing is, side who plays the better cricket will (mostly) win. But if you don't bowl well, you don't win. Even if you pile-up 640\4, if you bowl poorly you still haven't got a chance of victory.

My point is that the massively inflated scoring rates compensate for poor bowling by creating more chances. Hence strike-rates remain the same. Hence the prevalence of results.

It's a perverse situation, innit? Match aggregates may be increasing, but wickets are still falling at the same rate.

Great bowling performances are still appreciated, though. It's just that they're not crucial for victory in this era. You youself have testified to the woes of terrible bowlers doing well nowadays (don't pick me up on that one, it's just a vibe).

 

[Richard]

I can't think, IAH, of too many terrible bowlers who've done well for that long. There will always be the "He's Got Promise Because He DID Bowl That One Good Spell Six Games Ago" types like Mahmood at the current time, though.

I'd be interested to see overs\wickets ratios in, say, 1992-2001 compared to 2001\02-2006. Dunno how easy it'd be to produce. I'm sure someone, somewhere on here has the tools.