No, no - but there are a whole lot of ignoramuses out there and plenty of them don't share my viewpoints. So inevitably, while there's a hell of a lot of cases where that does indeed apply, it isn't something which is automatically the case.
In Test cricket bowling is definitely more important. Whilst in 50 overs cricket batting is more important.
So Richard, lets discuss the difference between the ignoramuses that do not share your viewpoint on bowling needing to dominate/ achieve parity with bat, and the non-ignoramuses who happen to believe the same as said ignoramuses.
Not buying it. Balance, for mine. Poor bowlers at least as likely to get poor batsmen out as great batsmen to score against great bowlers.
Id' disagree. The top might be 5-5, while the bottom might be 1-3-0-7.
There might be all sorts of differences - one might have a blue pen in their hand, the other might have a green one. Among many other things.
But then judging from your history, I know we'll never agree on this.
Not necessarily. The champion bowling attack isn't guaranteed to pick up 20 champion batsmen anymore than the woeful bowling attack is likely to pick up 20 woeful batsmen on a flat track.
No it isn't. You're conveniently lumping the 'wickets ftw' group alongwith the group preferring the balance between bat and ball to make your argument appear more credible.
The India of Zaheer, Ishant, Sreesanth, Harbhajan are ranked #1, while the Pakistan of Wasim, Waqar, shoaib and Saqlain were not.
We're talking about results though. They had good batsmen so they won mostly. Our hypothetical lineup would lose more often than Australia did. But they'd still have a result almost every game.
Come on, you're better than that. That is not my argument - I never said they didn't. I said better bowling > better batting.
You were the one that brought the "wickets ftw" group into things ITFP; I only mentioned the "runs ftw" group.
Exactly. Balance.
But good, and interesting, cricket is about results, not draws.
I know you said that, which is what I disagree with if its meant to be accepted as a sort of theorem. We could cite examples for both sides of the argument, which if anything shows that you can't state it as such.
I don't disagree that bowlers are treated roughly in the game. And I definitely prefer to see the give and take of runs and wickets. But that's from a spectator's perspective. From the perspective of a team, success is winning, not winnings some, losing some, and always providing a definitive result.
???
I really can't think of any other way to say that. But I'll try, just for you...