Team full of batsmen or team full of bowlers? Which is stronger on paper?

[AldoRaine18]

I'll go with Gavaskar and Sutcliffe as the opening pair in the defensive XI. Better batsmen than the likes of Boycott while having similar or perhaps better defensive technique.

 

[Red]

Surely Lawry has to slip into the defensive XI?


You don't get labeled the corpse with pads on for flamboyant hook shots.

 

[watson]

Surely Lawry has to slip into the defensive XI?


You don't get labeled the corpse with pads on for flamboyant hook shots.

Except that Lawry's scoring rate of 39.18 is better than (in order);

Conrad Hunte
Denis Compton
Bill Brown
Walter Hammond
Len Hutton
Ian Redpath
John Edrich
Colin Cowdrey
Vijay Hazare
Geoff Boycott
Hanif Mohammad
Herbert Sutcliffe
Glenn Turner
Bill Woodfull


In relative terms there are batsman who are slightly more 'corpse' like - if SR is anything to go by.

Incidently, I think that Gavaskar's reputation as a defensive batsman is a little undeserved as he could crank things up when he wanted to. For example, his century against Marshall and Holding at Delhi in 1983 came off only 94 balls.

 

[Victor Ian]

I think it is a folly to categorise batsman as either defensive or attacking based upon strike rate. Who was the more proficient attacker between Bradman and Warner. Bradman killed you, Warner merely gives you black eyes. The best of attackers need a sound defense to enable them to land more than one punch. The best of the defenders need more than a 0.0 strike rate to stop a bowler from completely working them over. Otherwise you might say I am the best defensive batsman in the world, what, with my likely test strike rate of 0.00.

 

[watson]

I think it is a folly to categorise batsman as either defensive or attacking based upon strike rate. Who was the more proficient attacker between Bradman and Warner. Bradman killed you, Warner merely gives you black eyes. The best of attackers need a sound defense to enable them to land more than one punch. The best of the defenders need more than a 0.0 strike rate to stop a bowler from completely working them over. Otherwise you might say I am the best defensive batsman in the world, what, with my likely test strike rate of 0.00.

It's a cliche to say that "an hour or two of Gilchrist at the crease can turn a match up-side-down'. So I think it fair to say that the difference between an Attacking batsman and a Defensive batsman is the desire and ability to change the course of a game rapidly. Batsman like Bradman, Richards, Sobers, Lara, Sehwag, and Botham all played memorable innings that did precisely this.

In other words they try to dominate the bowling whenever possible in order to give their team a distinct tactical and psychological edge. This is different to the slow strategic accumilation of runs by batsman like Boycott.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I'd say that a definition of a defensive batsman was one that had few shots other than defence. I'm thinking of a Mark Richardson sort of player. I think a defensive bowler would be all about the ER.

 

[Dan]

Except that Lawry's scoring rate of 39.18 is better than (in order);

Conrad Hunte
Denis Compton
Bill Brown
Walter Hammond
Len Hutton
Ian Redpath
John Edrich
Colin Cowdrey
Vijay Hazare
Geoff Boycott
Hanif Mohammad
Herbert Sutcliffe
Glenn Turner
Bill Woodfull


In relative terms there are batsman who are slightly more 'corpse' like - if SR is anything to go by.

Incidently, I think that Gavaskar's reputation as a defensive batsman is a little undeserved as he could crank things up when he wanted to. For example, his century against Marshall and Holding at Delhi in 1983 came off only 94 balls.

Half of that list don't have proper balls faced data ffs.

 

[Red]

It's a cliche to say that "an hour or two of Gilchrist at the crease can turn a match up-side-down'.

It might be a cliche but it was true. Look at his high scores and most of them come when he came in as Australia's innings was sitting at 5/200-300 and in the balance, and nek minnit Australia are 500-600 and in an impregnable spot in the match.

 

[mr_mister]

I'd say that's true for most number 7's high scores though

 

[TheJediBrah]

^he's got you there

 

[Red]

no he hasn't. not many #7 have as many high scores as Gilchrist. Which other number 7 has taken his team from 300-500/600 on a number of occasions?

 

[mr_mister]

Dhoni, McCullum?

 

[TheJediBrah]

no he hasn't. not many #7 have as many high scores as Gilchrist. Which other number 7 has taken his team from 300-500/600 on a number of occasions?

I know you're right, Gilchrist was something special, just saying he made a good point

 

[Red]

I know you're right, Gilchrist was something special, just saying he made a good point

So one minute he's "got you there" and next i'm right?

 

[TheJediBrah]

So one minute he's "got you there" and next i'm right?

yes it's pretty self evident

 

[bagapath]

Just to understand the question better for myself, I am creating two teams - one with batting all rounders and the other with bowling all rounders. Which one of the two you consider the better one should kind of reveal your answer to the original question.

Batting all rounders XI

Bob Simpson
Sanath Jayasurya
Walter Hammond
Jacques Kallis
Sir Gary Sobers
A. Flower +
Doug Walters
Sir Frank Worrell *
Hon. F. S. Jackson
Tony Greig
G. A. Faulkner

Bowling all rounders

Vinoo Mankad
Wilfred Rhodes
Keith Miller
Imran Khan*
Shakib Al Hasan
Sir Ian Botham
Jack Gregory
Kapil Dev
Andrew Flintoff
Shaun Pollock
Ian Healy +

 

[smash84]

Just to understand the question better for myself, I am creating two teams - one with batting all rounders and the other with bowling all rounders. Which one of the two you consider the better one should kind of reveal your answer to the original question.

Batting all rounders XI

Bob Simpson
Sanath Jayasurya
Walter Hammond
Jacques Kallis
Sir Gary Sobers
A. Flower +
Doug Walters
Sir Frank Worrell *
Hon. F. S. Jackson
Tony Greig
G. A. Faulkner

Bowling all rounders

Vinoo Mankad
Wilfred Rhodes
Keith Miller
Imran Khan*
Shakib Al Hasan
Sir Ian Botham
Jack Gregory
Kapil Dev
Andrew Flintoff
Shaun Pollock
Ian Healy +

I'd hand this to the bowling all rounders for sure, even though you haven't included Hadlee or Wasim in it

 

[TheJediBrah]

Just to understand the question better for myself, I am creating two teams - one with batting all rounders and the other with bowling all rounders. Which one of the two you consider the better one should kind of reveal your answer to the original question.

Batting all rounders XI

Bob Simpson
Sanath Jayasurya
Walter Hammond
Jacques Kallis
Sir Gary Sobers
A. Flower +
Doug Walters
Sir Frank Worrell *
Hon. F. S. Jackson
Tony Greig
G. A. Faulkner

Bowling all rounders

Vinoo Mankad
Wilfred Rhodes
Keith Miller
Imran Khan*
Shakib Al Hasan
Sir Ian Botham
Jack Gregory
Kapil Dev
Andrew Flintoff
Shaun Pollock
Ian Healy +

This is the second time this thread Keith Miller has been listed as a bowling all-rounder --> rubbish. He averaged almost 50 in first-class cricket with the bat.

Also Shakib a "bowling all-rounder" is even sillier.