How much more valuable is a top bowler over a top bat?

[subshakerz]

Having this debate in the PC forum. How much of an advantage would you give in rating top bowlers in your rankings as cricketers over too bats based on their value to the side?

Is it a 60/40 advantage? Equal? Or a lot more?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

30/30/40-- bat/bowl/fielding

 

[capt_Luffy]

Around equal. Top bowlers are bigger match winners, but generally have much lower longevity than Top bats.

 

[Ali TT]

Have you created a metric to measure "match-winning potential" as that might help you answer this question?

 

[sledger]

Having this debate in the PC forum.

My condolences

 

[kyear2]

As far as primary skills go, the absolute most one can allocate off the top of my head is 55 / 45 for bowlers.

But @capt_Luffy also raised a point on longevity that sways it back slightly to the batsmen.

Do yeah. 55 / 45 Max

 

[subshakerz]

As far as primary skills go, the absolute most one can allocate off the top of my head is 55 / 45 for bowlers.

But @capt_Luffy also raised a point on longevity that sways it back slightly to the batsmen.

Do yeah. 55 / 45 Max

Yes makes sense.

 

[Qlder]

Having this debate in the PC forum. How much of an advantage would you give in rating top bowlers in your rankings as cricketers over too bats based on their value to the side?

Is it a 60/40 advantage? Equal? Or a lot more?

Suggesting a bowler is more valuable than a batsman in an XI (or vice-versa) is ridiculous.

Should have stayed in the PC forum where ridiculous theories are the 'norm', why bring it here?

 

[Xix2565]

The only reason it seems ridiculous to clearly have bowlers over batters more than 60/40 at times is because some people overrate batters, which seems to be a global trend in general.

 

[Starfighter]

I read the title as saying 'top hat'.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I read the title as saying 'top hat'.

This is the most cogent and worthwhile post in this thread, or any subshakerz thread

 

[subshakerz]

This is the most cogent and worthwhile post in this thread, or any subshakerz thread

Why so crabby?

 

[ataraxia]

Suggesting a bowler is more valuable than a batsman in an XI (or vice-versa) is ridiculous.

Should have stayed in the PC forum where ridiculous theories are the 'norm', why bring it here?

There are fewer bowlers in a team than batters, yet most acknowledge bowling and batting are of more or less equal importance in modern test cricket.

 

[Coronis]

Suggesting a bowler is more valuable than a batsman in an XI (or vice-versa) is ridiculous.

Should have stayed in the PC forum where ridiculous theories are the 'norm', why bring it here?

I mean, lets say you have 1 ATG bat and the rest are all average batsmen. You also have 1 ATG bowler and the rest are all average bowlers. Which will hurt your team more if they get injured/have to be replaced by another average player?

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, lets say you have 1 ATG bat and the rest are all average batsmen. You also have 1 ATG bowler and the rest are all average bowlers. Which will hurt your team more if they get injured/have to be replaced by another average player?

The bowler.

 

[shortpitched713]

It's obvious that the best bowlers on a team can have more impact than the best batsmen, over the course of say a series. All batsmen are expected to be somewhat inconsistent, whereas the best bowlers are not. This is just true, to anyone who watches and understands cricket at a really basic level.

Obviously, the greater longevity of many batsmen, especially compared to fast bowlers can mitigate that. However if a great bowler has a full enough career, and can last and play the vast majority of matches over that relatively comparable level career span to a bat, then I'm afraid to say the bat has no chance to match that sheer level of value.

 

[subshakerz]

It's obvious that the best bowlers on a team can have more impact than the best batsmen, over the course of say a series. All batsmen are expected to be somewhat inconsistent, whereas the best bowlers are not. This is just true, to anyone who watches and understands cricket at a really basic level.

Obviously, the greater longevity of many batsmen, especially compared to fast bowlers can mitigate that. However if a great bowler has a full enough career, and can last and play the vast majority of matches over that relatively comparable level career span to a bat, then I'm afraid to say the bat has no chance to match that sheer level of value.

For bowlers, I am thinking average length of full careers now is coming to 100 tests or so. For bats, over 150 tests.

 

[Coronis]

For bowlers, I am thinking average length of full careers now is coming to 100 tests or so. For bats, over 150 tests.

That would mean only 7 batsmen and 17 bowlers (10 pace, 7 spin) this century have had an average length career. You could push it to 19 bowlers if you include Kallis and Stokes.

 

[ankitj]

@trundler a thread you may have missed.

 

[subshakerz]

That would mean only 7 batsmen and 17 bowlers (10 pace, 7 spin) this century have had an average length career. You could push it to 19 bowlers if you include Kallis and Stokes.

I didn't say just average length. I said full career. Not all cricketers get that, many get dropped or injured.