Why is it viewed as more important

[Xix2565]

Yes, as primary skills, no question about that. As secondary skills all three are vital, and the fact I'm still arguing that makes me wonder when you started watching cricket. Part of what makes the bowlers successful are the slip fielders

The bowlers are the ones making the chances though, they're far more important. Sorry but this is ****ing stupid to hype up good fielders as equivalent to good batters let alone good bowlers.

 

[Xix2565]

This is an odd take tstl.

Odder is disagreeing with it tstl. Only happens if you don't understand Test cricket IMO.

 

[ataraxia]

Odder is disagreeing with it tstl. Only happens if you don't understand Test cricket IMO.

Oh ok, I mustn't understand test cricket then. Carry on.

 

[Xix2565]

I mean you have to bowl a side out twice to win Tests. Can't do that with batting.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The fact that 20 people on a cricket forum have decided that bowling all-rounders are the alpha male irreplaceable position of a cricket team, when not a single one has been the centre piece of a great team, or even part of one.

Many/most top sides apart from that Windies and Australian one (have) had bowling allrounders though:

Australia with Miller and Lindwall - Invincibles and early 50s (later Davidson and Benaud also)

England 1950s with Bailey

The Saffas of 1970 with Procter

Sure the Windies didn't have one but Pakistan (Imran) and NZ (Hadlee) did and were the 2nd and 3rd best of the decade. Likewise South Africa with Shaun Pollock were 2nd to Australia.

In terms of teams from the last 15 years who got to no1, bowling allrounders were key parts of success for South Africa (Philander), England (Swann), NZ (Jamieson), and India (the 2 Ravis).

 

[ataraxia]

I mean you have to bowl a side out twice to win Tests. Can't do that with batting.

If you have no bowlers, your batting can still draw tests. If you have no batters, you've lost all tests ever by default.

See, I can play this silly game too. It's utterly fallacious to try to draw conclusions about which of batting and bowling is more important just by regurgitating the rules of the game when in reality they are mirror images of each other: batters try to score runs; bowlers try to prevent such occurring.

 

[ataraxia]

Many/most top sides apart from that Windies and Australian one (have) had bowling allrounders though:

Australia with Miller and Lindwall - Invincibles and early 50s (later Davidson and Benaud also)

England 1950s with Bailey

The Saffas of 1970 with Procter

Sure the Windies didn't have one but Pakistan (Imran) and NZ (Hadlee) did and were the 2nd and 3rd best of the decade. Likewise South Africa with Shaun Pollock were 2nd to Australia.

In terms of teams from the last 15 years who got to no1, bowling allrounders were key parts of success for South Africa (Philander), England (Swann), NZ (Jamieson), and India (the 2 Ravis).

Eh I'm not sure you can count those sides as good. Each basically had one good batter and one good bowling all-rounder and a nice average support crew. It's wrong to call them good sides when all their success comes from one or two players.

 

[Xix2565]

If you have no bowlers, your batting can still draw tests. If you have no batters, you've lost all tests ever by default.

See, I can play this silly game too. It's utterly fallacious to try to draw conclusions about which of batting and bowling is more important just by regurgitating the rules of the game when in reality they are mirror images of each other: batters try to score runs; bowlers try to prevent such occurring.

Draws require bad bowling conditions, and even then we've seen what happens when you give up a lot of runs with bad bowling and then have to bat second. A lot of losses happen when the bowling of one team is far worse than the other team's.

It's only silly because you don't seem to recognize that the two roles are not equal. Bowlers have all the initiative in Tests, and are necessary to the win condition in a way batters aren't. They are not equal roles, and the rise and fall of good Test teams have shown that repeatedly over the years.

 

[Xix2565]

Current India is a perfect example as to why the current side is far more successful than any of its predecessors, where having a good bowling attack wins more games than having a good batting lineup.

 

[ataraxia]

The fact that 20 people on a cricket forum have decided that bowling all-rounders are the alpha male irreplaceable position of a cricket team, when not a single one has been the centre piece of a great team, or even part of one.

Oh and no, that's wrong, forcing a position to be irreplaceable is a really bad mindset given there often isn't a good enough player at hand to fulfill that spot.

 

[subshakerz]

Draws require bad bowling conditions, and even then we've seen what happens when you give up a lot of runs with bad bowling and then have to bat second. A lot of losses happen when the bowling of one team is far worse than the other team's.

It's only silly because you don't seem to recognize that the two roles are not equal. Bowlers have all the initiative in Tests, and are necessary to the win condition in a way batters aren't. They are not equal roles, and the rise and fall of good Test teams have shown that repeatedly over the years.

More like 60/70 percent in favor of bowlers determining results.

 

[Xix2565]

Even then, it's not a sign of equality, which is the whole point with how bowling ARs should be valued IMO.

 

[Coronis]

As an opening bowler Malcolm Marshall lost a grand total of 4 games in his career.

How much better are we asking him to be, or would those extra runs have helped us win every game?

This is getting to be ridiculous.

You asked if he averaged 10 runs more would he be a better player.

This is an objectively true fact.

That’s all I stated.

I mean Australia had more batting than the West Indies and they won a much higher percentage of their matches (not due to losses but draws)

 

[OverratedSanity]

[/QUOTE]

Many/most top sides apart from that Windies and Australian one (have) had bowling allrounders though:

Australia with Miller and Lindwall - Invincibles and early 50s (later Davidson and Benaud also)

England 1950s with Bailey

The Saffas of 1970 with Procter

Sure the Windies didn't have one but Pakistan (Imran) and NZ (Hadlee) did and were the 2nd and 3rd best of the decade. Likewise South Africa with Shaun Pollock were 2nd to Australia.

In terms of teams from the last 15 years who got to no1, bowling allrounders were key parts of success for South Africa (Philander), England (Swann), NZ (Jamieson), and India (the 2 Ravis).

Bro really sneaking in Swann and Jamieson

 

[TheJediBrah]

Bro really sneaking in Swann

Well tbf he is the best no. 8 of all time who wasn't too good to bat at no. 8

 

[reyrey]

Stop this fallacy.

Nobody is saying that a team can't achieve greatness without a bowling AR. But a bowling AR would have made WI or Aus better. How could Brett Lee or Garner averaging 20 runs more in average harm the team? It could only make them better obviously by strengthening the lower order and allowing more partnerships with Gilly etc., the same way if Viv suddenly became a test class spinner. There would be a bunch of more scenarios where his wickets would be useful that weren't the case otherwise.

Brett Lee actually did average 20! Warne in the second half of his career also averaged 20. Gillespie averaged 19 and was really good at sticking around with the recognised batsman. Even McGrath did better with the bat during that era. Averaged 10 vs 4 before that.

So whilst that great Australia team didn't have a proper bowling all rounder, they did have a very good tail plus Gilly who more than made up for it.

 

[centurymaker]

Then no harm in having someone like Imran avging 37 with the bat

In fact from 1980 onwards, Imran averaged 47 with the bat in his last 63 Tests (which is three quarters of his career).

 

[OverratedSanity]

Brett Lee actually did average 20! Warne in the second half of his career also averaged 20. Gillespie averaged 19 and was really good at sticking around with the recognised batsman. Even McGrath did better with the bat during that era. Averaged 10 vs 4 before that.

So whilst that great Australia team didn't have a proper bowling all rounder, they did have a very good tail plus Gilly who more than made up for it.

Yeah but imagine if Warne averaged 40

 

[Coronis]

Yeah but imagine if Warne averaged 40

I don’t have to imagine, I can just break his toenail.

 

[Xix2565]

I don’t have to imagine, I can just break his toenail.

The Toenail Union will not stand for this.