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

[subshakerz]

That’s a myth. Batting was actually quite good

NZ had strong batting the 80s? How?

 

[Shri]

you can win away test series if you have one top tier bowler (plus good support bowlers) supported by good if not great bats

you are unlikely to win away test series with multiple top tier bats in the xi but no great bowlers

 

[subshakerz]

you can win away test series if you have one top tier bowler (plus good support bowlers) supported by good if not great bats

you are unlikely to win away test series with multiple top tier bats in the xi but no great bowlers

To be fair, India did between 2007 and 2011 get to no.1 in the world, win in Eng and NZ and draw in SA without great bowlers. But in general I agree.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

I'd go with a 70:30 split in favor of bowlers.

Suppose you have to pick 4 players in your team who are going to be outstanding at their craft. A team with competent(but not great or excellent) batters and 4 top-tier bowlers will consistently outperform teams with 4 exceptional batsmen but no elite bowlers.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

I'd go with a 70:30 split in favor of bowlers.

Suppose you have to pick 4 players in your team who are going to be outstanding at their craft. A team with competent(but not great or excellent) batters and 4 top-tier bowlers will consistently outperform teams with 4 exceptional batsmen but no elite bowlers.

Just realised most people have said the same thing in one way or other.

 

[Xix2565]

To be fair, India did between 2007 and 2011 get to no.1 in the world, win in Eng and NZ and draw in SA without great bowlers. But in general I agree.

Context matters. England and NZ then were nowhere close to the challenges provided now or at other higher points. Drawing in SA while impressive isn't exactly winning. India during that period only had Zaheer as the one bowler who averaged under 30 (27.47), everyone else with substantial wickets had a worse average, from Ojha's 34.62 to Sreesanth's 46.50. Even batting friendly era wise it's not a great look.

 

[Starfighter]

I suppose if you skew the assumptions that way, you can draw whatever conclusion you want to.

I see you've discovered his main method of arguing.

 

[subshakerz]

Context matters. England and NZ then were nowhere close to the challenges provided now or at other higher points. Drawing in SA while impressive isn't exactly winning. India during that period only had Zaheer as the one bowler who averaged under 30 (27.47), everyone else with substantial wickets had a worse average, from Ojha's 34.62 to Sreesanth's 46.50. Even batting friendly era wise it's not a great look.

I think that's the point, it was an exceptional case where a poor bowling team went to the top.

 

[shortpitched713]

I see you've discovered his main method of arguing.

I gave him his calcs too, which I believe are also skewed. Truth probably is somewhere in the middle, but always ends up bowler favored for individual matches, as we both generally agreed.

Hell, I even concedes the overall point for Tendulkar, as he does have a ****load of longevity. And still you're going to say I argue in bad faith?

 

[Qlder]

This is all nonsense as I believe a team needs both an ATG bat and bowler in the side to do really well.

But since most seem to think a bowler is more important, how come Australia could still do well when Warne and McGrath retired in the same Test. So not one, but two world ranked ATG bowlers left at same time but Australia still did well without them?

I guess that proves Ponting could carry the team by himself once his two ATG bowlers left

 

[Xix2565]

But since most seem to think a bowler is more important, how come Australia could still do well when Warne and McGrath retired in the same Test. So not one, but two world ranked ATG bowlers left at same time but Australia still did well without them?

Their other bowlers were no slouches buddy. They weren't as good, but they were no 40 averaging randos.

 

[Qlder]

Their other bowlers were no slouches buddy. They weren't as good, but they were no 40 averaging randos.

So you are saying an ATG bowler is not required then...

 

[Xix2565]

So you are saying an ATG bowler is not required then...

I am saying that they had good bowlers even if they were not ATG bowlers. And that because bowlers are more valuable and impactful than batters, this allowed them to keep being successful for a while post Warne/McGrath.

If you want the counter example see how India's much vaunted batting in the 2000s didn't really translate to the type of success seen with the current side.

 

[Qlder]

I am saying that they had good bowlers even if they were not ATG bowlers. And that because bowlers are more valuable and impactful than batters, this allowed them to keep being successful for a while post Warne/McGrath.

Wow, so the thread was already bowler biased by asking 'how much more valuable is a top bowler over a top bat' and now you're saying 'any bowler is more important than a top bat'. Laughable

 

[ma1978]

When has a poor batting team ever gone to the top?

 

[Xix2565]

Wow, so the thread was already bowler biased by asking 'how much more valuable is a top bowler over a top bat' and now you're saying 'any bowler is more important than a top bat'. Laughable

Is the goal of your posts to deliberately misunderstand what is being stated or is this just a natural consequence of your comprehension skills? I need to know exactly how to respond here.

 

[kyear2]

When has a poor batting team ever gone to the top?

Never

 

[ma1978]

Never

So what are we talking about here? Yet again an unsupported dubious assertion about the value of bowling over batting

 

[kyear2]

So what are we talking about here? Yet again an unsupported dubious assertion about the value of bowling over batting

I do believe there's a slight advantage to bowlers, but small

You need both, still need runs to defend. don't know where this stuff came from tbh.

 

[subshakerz]

When has a poor batting team ever gone to the top?

Maybe NZ recently.