Best match winners - batsmen and bowlers

[Ilovecric]

Who are they ?

 

[subshakerz]

In tests, I dont really believe there are any 'match-winning' batsmen. Bowlers win matches, not batsmen. There are just some batsmen who are better at playing under pressure than others.

 

[Shri]

In tests, I dont really believe there are any 'match-winning' batsmen. Bowlers win matches, not batsmen. There are just some batsmen who are better at playing under pressure than others.

Its a team game. One type of player isn't necessarily more important than the other.

 

[Notorious1]

A batsman who scores runs when team needs it and helps the team to win matches can be considered a match winning batsman.

 

[subshakerz]

Its a team game. One type of player isn't necessarily more important than the other.

I disagree. I find a worldclass bowler, especially a fast bowler, to be more valuable than a worldclass batsman in test cricket.

 

[Notorious1]

Brain Lara comes to mind that comes to mind immediately of recent times.

Greame Smith has done well in the 4 innings of tests.

 

[Uppercut]

Anil Kumble's almost the definition of a match-winner for mine. He doesn't set the game up for victory like a strong first innings batsman or a top-class fast bowler. But when it gets to day 4 or 5 and a match is hanging in the balance, he's the guy who wins his side the game. Turns draws and defeats into victories.

 

[MrIncredible]

Match winners = Shane Warne, Murali, Mcgrath etc

 

[bagapath]

TESTs
viv richards/ richard hadlee

ODIs
tendulkar/ muralitharan

 

[Ikki]

Shane Warne. The greatest match winner of them all for mine. Be it Tests or ODIs.

 

[Shri]

I disagree. I find a worldclass bowler, especially a fast bowler, to be more valuable than a worldclass batsman in test cricket.

If bowlers can win matches on their own, why select 6-7 batsmen in a side?

Individual match winners imo:

Tests - Inzamam Ul-Haq, Shane Warne

Odis - Sachin Tendulkar / Michael Bevan, Muralitharan / Mcgrath

 

[Richard]

Best oxymoron - this thread title (well, half of it anyway). As stated here

In tests, I dont really believe there are any 'match-winning' batsmen. Bowlers win matches, not batsmen.

in the limitless-over game, batsmen don't win matches, bowlers do. Without 20 wickets being taken, victories are almost certain not to happen. However good your batsmen, if your bowlers aren't good enough, you won't win matches (even if you might also not lose many).

 

[Richard]

Its a team game. One type of player isn't necessarily more important than the other.

Not more important, they just play different roles. Bowlers win matches; batsmen either save them or make the difference between defeat and victory. If bowlers on both sides are not good enough, the match will not have a result.

If bowlers can win matches on their own, why select 6-7 batsmen in a side?

Because you never need more than five bowlers and mostly don't need more than four. However you always want as much batting as possible - not only should you use every place not taken-up with bowlers on batsmen, but all your bowlers should bat as well as they can.

 

[Uppercut]

If bowlers can win matches on their own, why select 6-7 batsmen in a side?

Not really the point. The difference between a world-class bowler and a mediocre bowler in output is an absolute chasm compared to the difference between a world-class batsman and a mediocre batsman.

A solid batting lineup is just as important as a good bowling lineup when developing a side, but of the best players in history, the ones who won their side the most test matches are all bowlers.

Except Bradman. Obviously.

 

[Richard]

A batsman who scores runs when team needs it and helps the team to win matches can be considered a match winning batsman.

So go on then - when does the team not need runs? Under almost any conceivable circumstance, scoring runs > not scoring runs. The batsmen who score runs best are those which make the best contribution towards their side's position of the game.

Of course there are times when runs are more critical than others, but there is almost no such thing as "a time when runs are not needed". A batsman who scores lots of runs regularly will invariably make a great many contributions to a great many good positions - which if his bowlers are good enough will then be converted to a great many victories. It is not fair to blame the inadequacies of a team's bowlers on their batsmen, and plain silly to say "<insert batsman> doesn't score runs when they're needed".

 

[zaremba]

Steve Waugh

 

[Ilovecric]

In tests, I dont really believe there are any 'match-winning' batsmen. Bowlers win matches, not batsmen. There are just some batsmen who are better at playing under pressure than others.

Micheal holding said everytime viv went out to bat he was trying to score quick runs so WI could win. Micheal holding consider viv a match winner, said he only scored in accordance to the state of the game. In a time when batsmen didn't score quickly viv was able to set up nice totals in a score period to give WI a chance. As a batsman, he was a match winner.

 

[Richard]

Basically any quick-scoring batsman will often be called "match-winning". Obviously the quicker you score any runs you score the less you make the game likely to be a draw, but however many overs your bowlers have if they're not good enough they still won't bowl the oppo out quickly enough and for few enough runs for victory to result.

Equally obviously Viv Richards scored excellent numbers of runs at higher speed than almost anyone ever has done, so he's one of the most obvious examples of the type of batsmen who generally get termed "match-winning batsmen", but if West Indies' attack (Holding mostly included) hadn't been so superlative they'd still not have won anywhere near so many of the games Richards participated in than they did. And it's notable that after Holding and Garner left Test cricket West Indies started winning far fewer series' and drawing far more, despite the fact that Richards remained as good as ever for 3 years after their exit.

 

[GIMH]

Gotta say, never been a subscriber to the 'batsmen don't win matches' theory, tbh

Sure, you have to take twenty wickets to win a Test, almost all the time.

But you also have to score more runs than the opposition.

Give a side an attack of McGrath-Ambrose-Barnes-Warne.

Then stick me and my uncoordinated mates into bat. See what happens.

Similarly, give them Hobbs-Hayden-Bradman-Tendulkar-Lara-Sobers.

And stick me in my mates in as the bowling attack.

You need good bowlers and batsmen to win matches.

 

[Richard]

Without good bowlers, matches are drawn.

With good bowlers and not-so-good batsmen, matches are either won or lost.

In the former scenario, if you and your uncoordinated mates were mirrored on the other team by some other uncoordinated mates, the match sure as would be won - by someone. In the latter scenario, give the other side some other uncoordinated mates to bowl, and the match sure as would not be won by anyone.

Batsmen either draw matches or decide whether they're won or lost. Bowlers on the other hand decide whether they're won or drawn.