when Ashwin plays 150 tests, I will comfortably say he’s at the same tier as Dravid. It’s not a bowler / batter thing, it’s a volume of output thing
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Is Bumrah the best cricketer India has ever produced?
- Thread starter silentstriker
- Start date
shortpitched713
International Captain
Lol, bowlers will almost never ( besides Anderson ), have that many matches over a career.
So it does become a bowler/ batter thing, by default.
and why the greatest batters are the most valuable
shortpitched713
International Captain
Nah. The can be as valuable, but they aren't the most valuable.
They're inherently inconsistent and need more support to win a match compared to a bowler.
They're inherently inconsistent and need more support to win a match compared to a bowler.
So you would say all of Marshall/Steyn/Ambrose are worse than Dravid then?
Victor Ian
International Coach
Bowlers need batsmen to score more runs than the opposition. Can't win with less runs
Batters make runs based off the bowling they face though. Can't score a lot if the bowling is too good.
Victor Ian
International Coach
Bowlers take wickets based off the batting they face though. Can't take many if the batting is too good.
lame argument, they are all better than Ashwin
Given that it's not been addressed, there's no point in calling it lame.
Again, failing to understand the basic advantages bowlers have in general with every ball bowled is not a good place to start from. You might as well say you don't understand how 1+1 = 2.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just pretend their stupidity is intelligence IMO
Victor Ian
International Coach
This is highly offensive, not because you are insinuating I don't know basic math (I don't), but because an ignoramus feels superior to me.
I mean you did take a valid point and try to mock it without thinking about it. Is there going to be value in discussion, or is this just another way to snipe at each other?
Victor Ian
International Coach
I was less trying to mock and more trying to show the flip side. To win a test you must end the opposition's innings twice (why bowlers matter) while having scored more runs (why batsmen matter).
I tend to rate bowlers as more valuable too, but I also see that it is not because they win the matches alone.
shortpitched713
International Captain
4-6 bowlers vs not quite 11 batsmen. One side of the equation is always a bit unbalanced.
Victor Ian
International Coach
This might hold up if you could remove a bowler from the innings, not to return, if you hit him for 6 or something.
Oddly, 4 to 6 bowlers bowl the same number of balls that batsmen face.
You could say bowlers have it easy because they can just play with their top order. Imagine if all 11 had to bowl!
Arachnodouche
International Captain
I think I'm just reiterating Victor Ian, but 20 wickets a game to win is a cliche I never quite understood. Sure, ok, technically it is true - well, not if you run into a team like England happy to declare prematurely and let you chase down a score - but 20 wkts in a game won't do you any good if your batsmen can't outscore the opposition by >= 1. You can take fewer wickets and still win but you can never score fewer runs to win a game of cricket.
Also, I'm not sure I agree with the statement that bowlers are inherently more valuable to a team. The nature of the game implies a bowler can fail repeatedly over the course of a spell in terms of executing his skills and still only require the one decent delivery to get rid of the batsman. Whereas odds are a batsman has to be extraordinarily lucky and/or named Travis Head to survive making repeated bad decisions, hence making a technically solid batsman who minimizes errors an extremely valuable asset in his own right, as much if not more so than a bowler.
Also, I'm not sure I agree with the statement that bowlers are inherently more valuable to a team. The nature of the game implies a bowler can fail repeatedly over the course of a spell in terms of executing his skills and still only require the one decent delivery to get rid of the batsman. Whereas odds are a batsman has to be extraordinarily lucky and/or named Travis Head to survive making repeated bad decisions, hence making a technically solid batsman who minimizes errors an extremely valuable asset in his own right, as much if not more so than a bowler.