Kumble calls it a day!

[JBH001]

Goodbye Anil.

So sad to see him go, almost all the players I grew up watching (in the 90s) have retired. Once Murali and SRT call it quits I think I will cry.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Batsmen don't have to make 0 runs for it to be true. They can tie the game at any score. Their success is outscoring the opposition.

You don't seem to understand. It is a balancing act between both. You said the non-existence of one(bowlers) will not cause a result. Precisely the opposite is true. Therefore your formulaic reasoning is flawed, and wrong.

What then becomes the issue is how often will bowlers be responsible and how often batsmen will be regarding causing the result. And there are plenty of ways for both. Therefore, your notion that only bowlers cause a result is wrong, no matter what way, shape or form.

In actual fact, in my last post I showed you a way where batsmen CAN cause a result even if the bowlers take 0 wickets. In the other example I showed you it's very possible to win a match with your bowlers not even bowling the opposition out twice.

So you're wrong. Whether you want to contend it's rare or not as likely is another discussion. There is no absolute that only bowlers will cause a result.

 

[krkode]

This discussion is a little silly, isn't it?

Can't we all agree that ultimately one needs both strong batting and strong bowling to be an over all strong team?

Interesting stat: looking at the players who have won the most man of the match awards:
The ODI list is dominated by batsmen - the first bowler on the list is Sean Pollock at #15 followed by Wasim Akram at #16 and then another string of batsmen.

The test list is mostly bowlers, especially in the top 5 (with the exception of Kallis at #1), but for the most part the batsmen are fairly competitive. I would hazard a guess that a lot of batsman MoM awards happen in draws and most of the bowler MoM awards happen in wins. And if we were to consider only the MoM awards in test wins, the bowlers would be more dominant. (That's not to say I completely agree with Richard... I do think it's more of a balance than he makes it out to be.)

Granted, I've always felt that man of the match awards were quite batsman-biased. Probably more so in ODIs because a bowler has 10 overs to make his impact whereas an in-form batsman can play 100+ deliveries and make a big 50 or a century.

 

[Precambrian]

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.

Australia had all time greats in their bowling (2 out of 4). As for all time great batsmen, they had only Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist. (2 out of 7)
India had atleast 3 all time greats (Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag, and possible Laxman) as compared to 1 all time great in the bowling dept (Kumble). That shows in the results.

 

[Richard]

Batsmen don't have to make 0 runs for it to be true. They can tie the game at any score. Their success is outscoring the opposition.

You don't seem to understand. It is a balancing act between both. You said the non-existence of one(bowlers) will not cause a result. Precisely the opposite is true. Therefore your formulaic reasoning is flawed, and wrong.

What then becomes the issue is how often will bowlers be responsible and how often batsmen will be regarding causing the result. And there are plenty of ways for both. Therefore, your notion that only bowlers cause a result is wrong, no matter what way, shape or form.

In actual fact, in my last post I showed you a way where batsmen CAN cause a result even if the bowlers take 0 wickets. In the other example I showed you it's very possible to win a match with your bowlers not even bowling the opposition out twice.

So you're wrong. Whether you want to contend it's rare or not as likely is another discussion. There is no absolute that only bowlers will cause a result.

No, but there is an absolute that without bowlers taking 20 wickets, there will (barring a tiny number of exceptional cases) be no result - ie, there'll be a draw.

Batsmen can score as many runs as you like, they cannot by themselves change a draw to a victory. They can only impact on whether something is a loss or a victory.

I have never once said the non-existence of either bowlers or batsmen will cause there to be no result. Once again that's a response to something you'd like me to have said rather than something I have said. I've said that in the overwhelming majority of cases, if 20 wickets don't fall, a Test will be drawn, regardless of what the batsmen do.

Therefore, bowlers change draw to result. Batsmen impact on the likelihood of whether this result is win or loss - as, of course, do bowlers. Batsmen, however, can never change draw to result by themselves. Their bowlers (or exceptionally rarely the opposing captain) have to have given them something to aim for.

 

[Burgey]

Australia had all time greats in their bowling (2 out of 4). As for all time great batsmen, they had only Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist. (2 out of 7)
India had atleast 3 all time greats (Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag, and possible Laxman) as compared to 1 all time great in the bowling dept (Kumble). That shows in the results.

Nah, by that reckoning if Sehwag's an all time great (or possibly one) then so too is Hayden. If Laxman's an all time great given his average, so too was Martyn and so too is Hussey now.

And on Kumble, cheers for the memories. Seems a great fella and was a wonderful competitor. An Iron Man with the ball. One moment earlier this year I didn't much like him, but I'm over it and I'm pretty sure he hasn't lost any sleep over it either. Kudos on a great career.

 

[Ikki]

Australia had all time greats in their bowling (2 out of 4). As for all time great batsmen, they had only Ricky Ponting and Adam Gilchrist. (2 out of 7)
India had atleast 3 all time greats (Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag, and possible Laxman) as compared to 1 all time great in the bowling dept (Kumble). That shows in the results.

Having 2 all-time great bowlers in your attack is MUCH different to having 2 all-time great batsmen. If you have two all-time great bowlers in your attack you have essentially one of the greatest attacks of all-time. The same cannot be said for the same team with only 2 all-time great batsmen.

Ponting, Gilchrist, Waugh, Hayden...these guys can comfortably be classed as all-time greats. Then you have guys like Hussey, Langer, Martyn, etc and the batting line-up of Australia is much stronger.

 

[Ikki]

I have never once said the non-existence of either bowlers or batsmen will cause there to be no result. Once again that's a response to something you'd like me to have said rather than something I have said.

Really?

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".

 

[neutralguy]

. There is no absolute that only bowlers will cause a result.

Spot on mate. Echoes my opinion.Here are the two matches, which shows that if batsman applies themselves , they can win matches. I do not think the bowling was extraordinary in both these matches. Its just that the batsman failed to apply themselves, resulting in loosing their matches.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63566.html
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63564.html
Nothing more to add from my side, except that batsman also do win matches, if they apply themselves properly. Its just a balancing act between the two.

 

[anoop4real]

Spot on mate. Echoes my opinion.Here are the two matches, which shows that if batsman applies themselves , they can win matches. I do not think the bowling was extraordinary in both these matches. Its just that the batsman failed to apply themselves, resulting in loosing their matches.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63566.html
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63564.html
Nothing more to add from my side, except that batsman also do win matches, if they apply themselves properly. Its just a balancing act between the two.

I also feel like that............. there is a balance

 

[Mister Wright]

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.

This is a load of tripe. England only took 14 wickets in this game, and I'm fairly sure a lot of people would argue that Butcher won this game with his batting.

 

[BoyBrumby]

This is a load of tripe. England only took 14 wickets in this game, and I'm fairly sure a lot of people would argue that Butcher won this game with his batting.

Gilchrist IMHO.

 

[Richard]

Really?

You need to learn the difference between literal and metaphoric\similaic.

 

[Richard]

Spot on mate. Echoes my opinion.Here are the two matches, which shows that if batsman applies themselves , they can win matches. I do not think the bowling was extraordinary in both these matches. Its just that the batsman failed to apply themselves, resulting in loosing their matches.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63566.html
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63564.html
Nothing more to add from my side, except that batsman also do win matches, if they apply themselves properly. Its just a balancing act between the two.

Again, you seem to be mistaking the difference between victory and defeat for the difference between a result and a draw.

 

[Richard]

This is a load of tripe. England only took 14 wickets in this game, and I'm fairly sure a lot of people would argue that Butcher won this game with his batting.

OK, check the several instances where I've mentioned that exceptional circumstances (eg, when a team is chasing a five-nil whitewash and lost play intervenes) do occur on rare occasions.

Of course Butcher's innings won that match, but he'd have been almost certain not to have had the chance if the series scoreline was 2-1 OR if lost time could be made-up. The only reason England could win that match without taking 20 wickets was because Australia were chasing the whitewash AND play had been lost.

 

[Mister Wright]

Thank you.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The last few pages are probably why Kumble called it a day

 

[Langeveldt]

Yeah absolute legend, one of the few old skool players who was in his pomp when I first started watching cricket.. Also nice that he didn't turn into an egotistical **** like his off spinning friend.. Top bloke

 

[Ikki]

You need to learn the difference between literal and metaphoric\similaic.

 

[Richard]

I guess that's an acknowledgement that you do - let's hope you're successful in your attempts.