Kumble calls it a day!

[Ikki]

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

What does it matter what the score was? Let's say in the 4th innings the batsmen needed 20 runs to win the game.

 

[Richard]

LOL, that just proves bowlers can lose you games .

Or wicketkeepers. And wides, leg-byes and runs are essentially the same thing - the result of inaccurate bowlers.

No-balls (at least, those from overstepping) and byes are different, of course, as one is the fault of a transgression that happens before the delivery arrives at the batsman and one after.

 

[Richard]

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

The likelihood of no runs being made in a game of cricket of five days is zero. The likelihood of a game of cricket where less than 40 wickets fall is very high.

 

[Ikki]

The likelihood of no runs being made in a game of cricket of five days is zero. The likelihood of a game of cricket where less than 40 wickets fall is very high.

And the likelihood of batsmen also not playing a part (remember you said outright they have no role in the win) is absolutely small as well. Or how about the scenario where a team bats first, their bowlers only get the batsmen in the opposing team out for one inning, and in the third inning their batsmen put a formidable score and declare. Once declared, the team's bowlers don't take all the opposing team's batsmen (theoritcally, they can take 0 wickets) and the opposing team will not have enough time to make up those runs. Therefore the win was attributed to the 3rd innings performance of this team's batsmen.

The absolutist interpretation you have of the game, where only bowlers are definitively the match-winners is frankly non-sense.

The fact is both batsmen and bowlers heavily affect the outcome of a match. Often, the runs made by the batsmen will sway the match more in terms of the wickets the bowlers end up getting. Often, it is the other way round. The scenarios can vary widely and to argue this insults the intelligence of myself and everybody else on the board.

 

[Uppercut]

And the likelihood of batsmen also not playing a part (remember you said outright they have no role in the win) is absolutely small as well. Or how about the scenario where a team bats first, their bowlers only get the batsmen in the opposing team out for one inning, and in the third inning their batsmen put a formidable score and declare. Once declared, the team's bowlers don't take all the opposing team's batsmen (theoritcally, they can take 0 wickets) and the opposing team will not have enough time to make up those runs. Therefore the win was attributed to the 3rd innings performance of this team's batsmen.

The absolutist interpretation you have of the game, where only bowlers are definitively the match-winners is frankly non-sense.

The fact is both batsmen and bowlers heavily affect the outcome of a match. Often, the runs made by the batsmen will sway the match more in terms of the wickets the bowlers end up getting. Often, it is the other way round. The scenarios can vary widely and to argue this insults the intelligence of myself and everybody else on the board.

Learn from pasag. Just say, "Symonds>Atherton".

 

[Goughy]

Learn from pasag. Just say, "Symonds>Atherton".

Or for the bigger can of worms, Hayden > Hussain

Hayden ftw

 

[BoyBrumby]

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

The mismatch in the bowling attacks is almost comical. The Windies had Ambrose, Marshall, Patterson & Walsh whereas we had Watkin, Pringle, De Freitas & Malcolm.

Think Gooch's hand in the 2nd dig was voted the greatest innings of all-time, wasn't it? Amazing knock.

 

[Richard]

Or for the bigger can of worms, Hayden > Hussain

Hayden ftw

Thing is, pretty much everyone knows Atherton and Hussain were better than Symonds. Yet both were also better than Hayden and that's nowhere near so widely known.

 

[Richard]

And the likelihood of batsmen also not playing a part (remember you said outright they have no role in the win)

This is one of the best examples of replying to what somone would like to have been written rather than what was.

What utter nonsense to suggest I ever said batsmen play no part in any win.

 

[Ikki]

This is one of the best examples of replying to what somone would like to have been written rather than what was.

What utter nonsense to suggest I ever said batsmen play no part in any win.

You said only bowlers are capable of causing a result. I showed you that if batsmen score no runs there won't be a result either. Then you talked about the likeliness of scenarios. Well, there are plenty of scenarios that show bowlers winning the game and also plenty to show that batsmen can win the game. So, I hardly see how your original point stands in any way, shape or form.

 

[Richard]

Without bowlers, games are not won, they're drawn.

Batsmen merely make the difference between victory and defeat. Without bowlers, no batsman can cause a result.

However, once good bowling is in place, batsmen can make the difference between victory and defeat.

You seem to have - presumably deliberately - confused "cause a result" with "cause a victory".

 

[Precambrian]

Without bowlers, games are not won, they're drawn.

Batsmen merely make the difference between victory and defeat. Without bowlers, no batsman can cause a result.

However, once good bowling is in place, batsmen can make the difference between victory and defeat.

You seem to have - presumably deliberately - confused "cause a result" with "cause a victory".

AWTA> Can't believe the other theory is still argued that "Batsmen are more important than bowlers in test cricket" unless it is just for the sake of it.

 

[Mister Wright]

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.

Well...In that case Dillon set up the game and the batsmen won it.

 

[Ikki]

Without bowlers, games are not won, they're drawn.

Batsmen merely make the difference between victory and defeat. Without bowlers, no batsman can cause a result.

However, once good bowling is in place, batsmen can make the difference between victory and defeat.

You seem to have - presumably deliberately - confused "cause a result" with "cause a victory".

Without batsmen, games are not won, they're tied.

If batsmen don't make runs, bowlers can't cause a result. If bowlers don't take wickets, batsmen can't cause a result. End of discussion. What is the difference between causing a result and causing a victory? I was assuming you mean win or loss when you say result.

Bowlers can take 20 wickets and still not cause a result if their batsmen do not outscore the opposition. Likewise, (unless you take declaration into account) batsmen can score 1000 runs more than their opposition but until all wickets are taken there will be no result.

The difference is that unless bowlers take all 20 wickets, they cannot be said to have won the match or caused the result (in this kind of absolutist argument), whereas all batsmen have to do is score more than the opposition.

Here is another scenario: Team A scores 600 runs and declares. Team B scores less and is still 150 behind. Team A bats again and adds another 250 runs creating a lead of 400. Team B scores 401 runs and wins the game. This can occur with their bowlers taking less than the 20 wickets needed. In fact, if Team A declares again after adding 250 to steal a win, Team B can win with their bowlers taking 0 wickets.

 

[Precambrian]

Without batsmen, games are not won, they're tied.

If batsmen don't make runs, bowlers can't cause a result. If bowlers don't take wickets, batsmen can't cause a result. End of discussion. What is the difference between causing a result and causing a victory? I was assuming you mean win or loss when you say result.

Bowlers can take 20 wickets and still not cause a result if their batsmen do not outscore the opposition. Likewise, (unless you take declaration into account) batsmen can score 1000 runs more than their opposition but until all wickets are taken there will be no result.

The difference is that unless bowlers take all 20 wickets, they cannot be said to have won the match or caused the result (in this kind of absolutist argument), whereas all batsmen have to do is score more than the opposition.

Here is another scenario. Team A scored 600 runs and declares. Team B scores less and is still 200 behind. Team A bats again and adds another 200 runs creating a lead of 400. Team B scores 401 runs and wins the game. This can occur with their bowlers taking less than the 20 wickets needed. In fact, if Team A declares again after adding 200 to steal a win Team B can win with their bowlers taking 0 wickets.

No, rather it is the bowlers who determine what is a winnable score in a test match. Eg- India, with its Fab 4 has consistently failed to win games. Why? They had only one International quality bowler during most of that period.

 

[Ikki]

No, rather it is the bowlers who determine what is a winnable score in a test match. Eg- India, with its Fab 4 has consistently failed to win games. Why? They had only one International quality bowler during most of that period.

That's poor reasoning. Had you Australia's bowling line-up (Warne/McGrath/Gillespie/Kaspa) but only 1 batsman of note you were just as likely to get the same results.

 

[Precambrian]

That's poor reasoning. Had you Australia's bowling line-up (Warne/McGrath/Gillespie/Kaspa) but only 1 batsman of note you were just as likely to get the same results.

Maybe since it has Gillespie and Kaspa still. But if you note, with McG and Warne in their team, Aus batsmen were always confident of a total scored by them defended for sure. This takes a lot of pressure of them. As for India, it was only one story, if they bat well, and by fortune their bowlers click, they'd win, otherwise they'll draw and if they didn't, they will lose. A score of 250 in the first innings by Indian batsmen meant the test was gone, but not the case with Aussies.

 

[Ikki]

Maybe since it has Gillespie and Kaspa still. But if you note, with McG and Warne in their team, Aus batsmen were always confident of a total scored by them defended for sure. This takes a lot of pressure of them. As for India, it was only one story, if they bat well, and by fortune their bowlers click, they'd win, otherwise they'll draw and if they didn't, they will lose. A score of 250 in the first innings by Indian batsmen meant the test was gone, but not the case with Aussies.

Your example here shows your Indian batsmen failing. Well, it's just as likely that Australian bowlers would fail and leave the opposition 300 or so runs up. If they had poor batsmen or only 1-2 good ones that score could be hard to get as well.

Australia isn't a good comparison because they had all-time greats in their batting and bowling departments. Your original point is moot because you fail to acknowledge that the reverse of the Indian situation is just as bad as the original. Therefore the importance of bowling and batting is equal.

 

[Richard]

Without batsmen, games are not won, they're tied.

If batsmen don't make runs, bowlers can't cause a result. If bowlers don't take wickets, batsmen can't cause a result. End of discussion. What is the difference between causing a result and causing a victory? I was assuming you mean win or loss when you say result.

Bowlers can take 20 wickets and still not cause a result if their batsmen do not outscore the opposition.

But they do. A result is caused, whether it's win or loss.

No game of five-day cricket has ever been or will ever be tied with the scores on 0. However, a great many are drawn because 20 wickets have not fallen for either team.

The "possibility" you allude to is absurd, and useless - that without batsmen making runs, games are tied. Because it doesn't and never will happen. Whereas the notion that without bowlers taking 20 wickets, games do not (with exceptionally rare exceptions) have results (ie, a win for one side and a loss for the other) is fairly basic common-sense and happens with plentiful regularity.

 

[Richard]

Well...In that case Dillon set up the game and the batsmen won it.

Dillon gave West Indies the chance of a result in their favour, the batsmen took it.

The same does not and cannot work the other way around. Bowlers always have the chance to get a result, regardless of what the batsmen do. But batsmen cannot get a result if the bowlers don't take 20 wickets.