Best match winners - batsmen and bowlers

[G.I.Joe]

While fast scoring batsmen could be considered match winners because they ensure fewer draws, they could also be considered match losers because they also give the opposition more time to bowl out the rest of his team, and more time to bat during their own innings.

 

[GIMH]

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.

If batsmen decide whether matches are won or lost, then that would make the ones who won the matches matchwinners, no?

 

[Richard]

But without bowlers who've taken 20 wickets, they do not get the chance to make the difference between victory and defeat, only draw and defeat.

With good bowlers who take 20 wickets, batsmen can make the difference between victory and defeat. Without good bowlers and with 20 wickets not falling, batsmen can make only the difference between draw and defeat.

The terminology "only bowlers win matches" isn't in truth an absolute reflection of the truth, it's over-simplified. Batsmen have no power to produce a result, only to influence what a result is once bowlers have allowed the chance; bowlers however can do both.

See? In every case where you could claim a batsman played a "match-winnings innings", you can also claim a bowler or bowlers produced match-winning spells. The same is not true in reverse; a bowler can produce a match-winning spell without any batsman's innings being described as match-winning. Ultimate example being Graham Gooch's 155* in 1991, possibly the ultimate innings-in-the-face-of-adversity. But Phillip DeFreitas took 8 wickets in the match, and thus his contribution was also crucial.

 

[GIMH]

Just to pluck a painful example from the sky, how about England's failure to win the first Test in India last winter?

That match was won by India's batsmen, simple as

 

[Richard]

Only because England declared (and were patently aiming for a declaration long before it arrived so thus lost far more wickets than they would have batting normally - 6 went down for the addition of 54). As I say, there'll be an incredibly unusual occasion where a team wins without bowling the oppo out, in which case clearly the bowlers haven't won the match. But such occasions are belief-defyingly unusual - look at the lists of defeat after declaring.

 

[zaremba]

Hydrogen is more important to water than oxygen.

 

[Ilovecric]

How did WI chase 417 against AUS ? the bowlers set up such a nice total ? nope!

The batsmen won that game. Richard I don't like how small you're trying to make the batsmen job appear in relations to winning games.

A batsman who can stay out in the middle and win games for his team is a match winner.

 

[Goughy]

Hydrogen is more important to water than oxygen.

Well expressed

 

[zaremba]

Batsmen also set up wins by creating pressure on the opposition. Batting after the opposition has put 650 on the board is a hell of a lot harder than when the opposition has scored 200, and in those circumstances you can come unstuck even against a mediocre bowling attack. For this reason, in addition to those expressed by others, it's obviously wrong to say that batsmen don't win matches.

However, speaking in very broad terms, it's also true that the most frequent match-winner will be a wicket-taking bowler.

 

[Uppercut]

Richard just means it in a strictly logical sense, in which case he's completely right. In practice, obviously you need both batting and bowling of some sort to win a game, but runs don't make results, wickets do.

You could, if you so wished, conclude that there are no match-winners because no one player can win a match on their own.

 

[FBU]

Man of the Match Awards

Pietersen - every 5 Tests
Kallis - 6
Sangakkara - 8
Smith - 8
Ponting - 9
Lara - 10
Sehwag - 10
Tendulkar - 13

Murali - 6
Akram - 6
Ambrose - 7
Warne - 8
Marshall - 8
Hadlee - 9
Donald - 10
McGrath - 11

 

[Ilovecric]

Man of the Match Awards

Pietersen - every 5 Tests
Kallis - 6
Sangakkara - 8
Smith - 8
Ponting - 9
Lara - 10
Sehwag - 10
Tendulkar - 13

Murali - 6
Akram - 6
Ambrose - 7
Warne - 8
Marshall - 8
Hadlee - 9
Donald - 10


McGrath - 11

Thats funny... Especially since players like ambrose weren't always on the winning team.

Surprise not to see Australians winning more often.

 

[NUFAN]

Thats funny... Especially since players like ambrose weren't always on the winning team.

Surprise not to see Australians winning more often.

You find that surprising?

When the team has so many match winners it's harder for individuals to win man of the match all the time. Obv.

 

[morgieb]

Lara for batting.

Both Kumble and Warne spring to mind for bowling, and there's certainly more, too.

 

[Uppercut]

Man of the Match Awards

Pietersen - every 5 Tests
Kallis - 6
Sangakkara - 8
Smith - 8
Ponting - 9
Lara - 10
Sehwag - 10
Tendulkar - 13

Murali - 6
Akram - 6
Ambrose - 7
Warne - 8
Marshall - 8
Hadlee - 9
Donald - 10
McGrath - 11

Tendulkar is shockingly low.

Also, I personally would give the award to bowlers much more often than it is now. Just find their big performances to be the more impressive and decisive more often than not.

 

[Burgey]

Only because England declared (and were patently aiming for a declaration long before it arrived so thus lost far more wickets than they would have batting normally - 6 went down for the addition of 54). As I say, there'll be an incredibly unusual occasion where a team wins without bowling the oppo out, in which case clearly the bowlers haven't won the match. But such occasions are belief-defyingly unusual - look at the lists of defeat after declaring.

Mark Butcher plainly won the 4th test in the 2001 Ashes for England, didn't he?

 

[Ilovecric]

You find that surprising?

When the team has so many match winners it's harder for individuals to win man of the match all the time. Obv.

Well that just dampened richard's theory. Then again, it doesn't matter because the bowlers always set up the win or complete the win, therefore they win matches.

Even tho WI chased down 417 against AUS.

And SA made over 450 in an ODI to beat AUS always..

 

[Ilovecric]

You find that surprising?

When the team has so many match winners it's harder for individuals to win man of the match all the time. Obv.

Well that just dampened richard's theory. Then again, it doesn't matter because the bowlers always set up the win or complete the win, therefore they win matches.

Even tho WI chased down 417 against AUS.

And SA made over 450 in an ODI to beat AUS always..

 

[Xuhaib]

Mohd Sami won a lot of games for the opposition.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

you don't win matches by taking 20 wickets alone... You need to have scored more runs than the opposition side.


To me the whole bowlers > batsmen is juz BS. It is cricket.. You can't win a game without both, juz like there can't be life without male and female genders, in most cases at least...