Malcolm Marshall vs. Sachin Tendulkar

[BazBall21]

Windies bowling is decent at home. The less said about it away, the better. Their batting is low-tier domestic level too. Not just mediocre.

 

[BazBall21]

I have seen this argument made before. That if bowling is more important, why were the Windies more competitive in the early 2000s when they had a poor attack and a decent batting lineup.

There is a difference between Brian Lara and Kemar Roach. Chanderpaul and Holder likewise.

 

[ma1978]

There just is no evidence that great bowling is more impactful - it’s just CW contrarian thinking

 

[BazBall21]

It's quite a common view.

 

[Prince EWS]

For all those people who value great bowling over great batting; explain this. South Africa today has excellent bowling but is a mediocre team since their batting declined. West Indies bowling has been more than decent but their batting makes them weak. Teams with good batting and mediocre bowling can be competitive (India mid 2000s) but not vice versa. Marshall wouldn’t help todays SA be a more competitive team, Tendulkar would go a long way.

The argument isn't that bowling is more important than batting.

It's that one great bowler helps a bowling attack more than one great batsman helps a batting lineup.

 

[BazBall21]

I think a **** team would rather have Curtly Ambrose than Brian Lara

 

[ma1978]

The argument isn't that bowling is more important than batting.

It's that one great bowler helps a bowling attack more than one great batsman helps a batting lineup.

again im not so sure about this, Border inthe 80s, Tendulkar in the 90s, Headley in the 30s etc.

the oounterfactual is Hadlee

but I’m not sure the data bears this out

 

[ma1978]

I think a **** team would rather have Curtly Ambrose than Brian Lara

every mediocre team today would prefer Lara

 

[Prince EWS]

every mediocre team today would prefer Lara

Bangladesh certainly wouldn't.

 

[BazBall21]

every mediocre team today would prefer Lara

Ambrose will propel them more imo. Great bowlers will naturally have a much lower failure rate because batting is more volatile.

 

[BazBall21]

Hence when I learned once that Kenya beat the West Indies, I felt shocked that they beat a team with Ambrose. Not so much that they had Lara. An Ambrose failure is much less likely than a Lara failure by and large.

 

[Slifer]

For all those people who value great bowling over great batting; explain this. South Africa today has excellent bowling but is a mediocre team since their batting declined. West Indies bowling has been more than decent but their batting makes them weak. Teams with good batting and mediocre bowling can be competitive (India mid 2000s) but not vice versa. Marshall wouldn’t help todays SA be a more competitive team, Tendulkar would go a long way.

No they donot. In the 90s I'd argue India had a better batting line up than Pakistan but Pakistan easily was a better team. Why? Their bowling. RSA had a decent batting in said decade but their bowling propelled and kept them at number 2. Fwiw, WI bowling is decent at home and horrible away.

Teams with good batting like India can be competitive but to be great, you need great bowling. Case in point the current India team. The south african team before that with steyn and Philander.

Ideally, you'd want both aspects to be great but history has shown the great teams tend to have the better bowling. Again using recent RSA teams, no way were RSA under Faf better batting wise than Australia or India but they did better thanks to their bowling. Wi was competitive in the 90s against Australia even though Australian batting was miles better. Why? WI had Walsh and especially Ambrose. Lara scored an identical amount of runs at home in the 99 series and 2003 series vs Australia yet WI drew one series and got smoked in the other. Why? WI lacked the bowlers. And in 2003 Lara had a much better batting lineup around him.

 

[ataraxia]

Hence when I learned once that Kenya beat the West Indies, I felt shocked that they beat a team with Ambrose. Not so much that they had Lara. An Ambrose failure is much less likely than a Lara failure by and large.

Yeah and it's also that there are less bowlers than batters. Marshall will bowl a quarter of the overs, but Tendulkar will score on average more like a sixth or a seventh of the runs / faced balls.

 

[BazBall21]

India ATXI has comfortably superior batting to Pakistan. But Pakistan ATXI are correctly acknowledged as the stronger side because of their bowling.

 

[Slifer]

India ATXI has comfortably superior batting to Pakistan. But Pakistan ATXI are correctly acknowledged as the stronger side because of their bowling.

The thing is, you do need batsmen to put runs on the board for the bowlers to work with. I don't want anyone to think i under value batting. And Pakistans batsmen aren't slouches by any stretch. But because of their bowling, their atg team (imo) would probably be more problematic worldwide than India.

 

[BazBall21]

The thing is, you do need batsmen to put runs on the board for the bowlers to work with. I don't want anyone to think i under value batting. And Pakistans batsmen aren't slouches by any stretch. But because of their bowling, their atg team (imo) would probably be more problematic worldwide than India.

Batting is still very important and Pakistan have a very good batting lineup. India just happen to have Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Dravid, Kohli all in the same top six.

 

[Xix2565]

I feel like people sort of ignore how bowling dictates batting as well. It's not like batters can freely score runs without any risk of getting out if they're consistently facing good bowling, and how that flips when the bowling is bad.

 

[kyear2]

Saying bowling is slightly more impactful isn't saying batting is more important. That being said you have to take 20 wickets to win, but yes, good batting helps tremendously as well. But alone it just would mostly avoid defeats and I think that in cricket more than any other sport, the emphasis is seldom placed on winning.

 

[smash84]

No they donot. In the 90s I'd argue India had a better batting line up than Pakistan but Pakistan easily was a better team. Why? Their bowling. RSA had a decent batting in said decade but their bowling propelled and kept them at number 2. Fwiw, WI bowling is decent at home and horrible away.

Teams with good batting like India can be competitive but to be great, you need great bowling. Case in point the current India team. The south african team before that with steyn and Philander.

Ideally, you'd want both aspects to be great but history has shown the great teams tend to have the better bowling. Again using recent RSA teams, no way were RSA under Faf better batting wise than Australia or India but they did better thanks to their bowling. Wi was competitive in the 90s against Australia even though Australian batting was miles better. Why? WI had Walsh and especially Ambrose. Lara scored an identical amount of runs at home in the 99 series and 2003 series vs Australia yet WI drew one series and got smoked in the other. Why? WI lacked the bowlers. And in 2003 Lara had a much better batting lineup around him.

The presence of Bumrah has really made the Indian team so much stronger.

 

[Xix2565]

The presence of Bumrah has really made the Indian team so much stronger.

Not just Bumrah to be fair. All the pacers have been really good, which has led to teams finding it more difficult to bat against India, which overall has meant India has won more in recent times than ever before.