Kumble calls it a day!

[neutralguy]

How can that be possible in a test match? Without the bowlers taking 20 wickets, (unless a sporting declaration from the other side, extremely rare), it is not possible for batsmen to win it any way.

Why not. You are assuming the bowlers bowled really badly and unable to take 20
wickets. What i mean is, bowlers bowling poorly to a team batting in 1st innings and restricting them to 350 instead of say 200 and in turn making around 600, while in second dig restricting the opposition to still 300.Possible isnt it.
I believe that batsman could still be matchwinners in test cricket but usually they do not apply themselves really well in chasing 4th innings.Possibly the pitch and bowlers may play a role, but if the batsman play well without any fear they can atleast draw the match , rather than loose it.

 

[Craig]

WAG (Kumble).

 

[Richard]

Why not. You are assuming the bowlers bowled really badly and unable to take 20
wickets. What i mean is, bowlers bowling poorly to a team batting in 1st innings and restricting them to 350 instead of say 200 and in turn making around 600, while in second dig restricting the opposition to still 300.Possible isnt it.
I believe that batsman could still be matchwinners in test cricket but usually they do not apply themselves really well in chasing 4th innings.Possibly the pitch and bowlers may play a role, but if the batsman play well without any fear they can atleast draw the match , rather than loose it.

Batsmen cannot be matchwinners. End of. Even if 20 wickets fall for 600 over the course of first- and second-innings', some bowler will almost certainly have done pretty well, or all of them will have done reasonably. If, on the other hand, Team X makes 600 in their first-innings and the other side doesn't get bowled-out, there's nothing whatsoever the batsmen can do to win the match.

Bowlers win matches. Batsmen can only help ensure their endeavours to win don't end-up in defeat instead. Without good bowling, matches are drawn and drawn only.

 

[nightprowler10]

End of an era for sure. Sad to see him go. Been so underrated for most of his career.

 

[krkode]

Batsmen cannot be matchwinners. End of. Even if 20 wickets fall for 600 over the course of first- and second-innings', some bowler will almost certainly have done pretty well, or all of them will have done reasonably. If, on the other hand, Team X makes 600 in their first-innings and the other side doesn't get bowled-out, there's nothing whatsoever the batsmen can do to win the match.

Bowlers win matches. Batsmen can only help ensure their endeavours to win don't end-up in defeat instead. Without good bowling, matches are drawn and drawn only.

A little bleak, but probably quite true.

Batsmen can theoretically be match-winners in 4th innings situations, though, wherein without a stellar performance the match would be drawn, or even worse - lost, if not for a good batting performance. A few examples come to mind such as the WI 400+ chase against Australia, Graeme Smith against England last summer, etc. Granted, the prerequisite to this is also 20 wickets (or a declaration).

I suppose at the end of the day, no matter how well the opposition bowls, if you bowl better, you can still win. But you can't win just by batting better. Still have a prerequisite of 20 wickets, whereas with the runs, there's no set prerequisite - only how much you can defend with the bowlers you have at your disposal.

Maybe that's why virtually half (or more?) of the games on the subcontinent are draws.

 

[Mister Wright]

Batsmen cannot be matchwinners. End of. Even if 20 wickets fall for 600 over the course of first- and second-innings', some bowler will almost certainly have done pretty well, or all of them will have done reasonably. If, on the other hand, Team X makes 600 in their first-innings and the other side doesn't get bowled-out, there's nothing whatsoever the batsmen can do to win the match.

Bowlers win matches. Batsmen can only help ensure their endeavours to win don't end-up in defeat instead. Without good bowling, matches are drawn and drawn only.

Fairly sure Gayle, Smith, Ganga, Lara, Sarwan, Chanderpaul, Jacobs, Banks and Drakes would disagree with you.

 

[Precambrian]

Fairly sure Gayle, Smith, Ganga, Lara, Sarwan, Chanderpaul, Jacobs, Banks and Drakes would disagree with you.

That was an exception than rule. How many such scores have been chased and won?

 

[Pratters]

Champion cricketer. Will be deeply missed.

 

[Mister Wright]

That was an exception than rule. How many such scores have been chased and won?

An exception to the rule is still one, and not 'never' or 'impossible'.

 

[Goughy]

An exception to the rule is still one, and not 'never' or 'impossible'.

Yeah. Noone can tell me that Gooch didnt win this game despite being a batsman and not even batting last.

 

[Matt79]

Does the name Don Bradman mean anything in this ridiculous debate about who's more important for wins?

 

[Richard]

If Bradman hadn't had Grimmett and O'Reilly in his team for most of his 1930s career he'd have played in one hell of a lot of draws.

Doesn't detract one single thing from his deeds, but it does prove that batsmen, however insane their scoring, cannot win matches, as only wickets falling will result in results.

 

[Richard]

Fairly sure Gayle, Smith, Ganga, Lara, Sarwan, Chanderpaul, Jacobs, Banks and Drakes would disagree with you.

It was noted in Wisden's match report that "the importance of Mervyn Dillon's 4-112 cannot be understated". And it's true. Had Dillon and the West Indies' other bowlers not cut Australia's second-innings total from out-of-sight to merely very large, those batsmen would never have been able to chase the score.

The bowlers gave WI the chance of victory, the batsmen took it. As always. But for the bowlers, their only possible thing to bat for in that game would have been to avoid defeat.

 

[Goughy]

If Bradman hadn't had Grimmett and O'Reilly in his team for most of his 1930s career he'd have played in one hell of a lot of draws.

Doesn't detract one single thing from his deeds, but it does prove that batsmen, however insane their scoring, cannot win matches, as only wickets falling will result in results.

Games Bradman played that Australia won his average = 130.08

Games Bradman played that Australia lost his average = 43.27

A difference of nearly 90 in games lost and won but batsmen dont win games.

 

[Richard]

Yeah. Noone can tell me that Gooch didnt win this game despite being a batsman and not even batting last.

Gooch's hand was easily the biggest in the victory, easily one of the biggest you'll ever see in any victory. But if England had bowled poorly they'd have lost that game, there's no two ways about that. Obviously you can say if Gooch had been out for 14 they'd probably have lost it as well, and that's quite true. There's the odd game where the pitch is so lively a game is simply never going to be a draw however badly both sides bowl, and I suppose in these sorts of games you can make some element of case for batsmen being termed matchwinners. But it's still true that Gooch gave England the chance of victory, and DeFreitas and even Watkin grabbed that chance.

 

[Richard]

Games Bradman played that Australia won his average = 130.08

Games Bradman played that Australia lost his average = 43.27

A difference of nearly 90 in games lost and won but batsmen dont win games.

Batsmen can clearly make the difference between victory and defeat but they cannot win games. They cannot cause a result. Without bowlers taking wickets, a game will be drawn.

 

[Goughy]

Gooch's hand was easily the biggest in the victory, easily one of the biggest you'll ever see in any victory. But if England had bowled poorly they'd have lost that game, there's no two ways about that. Obviously you can say if Gooch had been out for 14 they'd probably have lost it as well, and that's quite true. There's the odd game where the pitch is so lively a game is simply never going to be a draw however badly both sides bowl, and I suppose in these sorts of games you can make some element of case for batsmen being termed matchwinners. But it's still true that Gooch gave England the chance of victory, and DeFreitas and even Watkin grabbed that chance.

No, IMO

The target set was well above par for that track. England could afford to bowl ordinary to win that game.

 

[Ikki]

Batsmen can clearly make the difference between victory and defeat but they cannot win games. They cannot cause a result. Without bowlers taking wickets, a game will be drawn.

Likewise, if no batsman makes a run it will be a tie.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Likewise, if no batsman makes a run it will be a draw too.

Extras

 

[Ikki]

Extras

LOL, that just proves bowlers can lose you games .