What's honestly worse - our batting or bowling?

[legend166]

Are people forgetting that the one time in this series our bowlers have had a decent target to defend (heck, a 200+ run lead after the first innings is much more than decent), they let England put up 1/517? I don't care that it was a flat wicket. 1/517 is atrocious.

I'm surprised so many people are saying the batsman.

 

[belfast_bomber]

Are people forgetting that the one time in this series our bowlers have had a decent target to defend (heck, a 200+ run lead after the first innings is much more than decent), they let England put up 1/517? I don't care that it was a flat wicket. 1/517 is atrocious.

I'm surprised so many people are saying the batsman.

Well, you could look at it this way:

In Brisbane our bowlers started us off, and we got the poms all out on the first day.

In Adelaide and Perth our batsmen did and they were a F*CKING DISASTER.

 

[juddsentant517]

They pretty much compliment each other. Shit batting puts pressure on the bowlers, leading to bad batting. Shit bowling leads pressure on the batsman to make runs quickly, thus increasing the chance of cheap wickets. Then again, both bowling and batting have collapsed being under no pressure. So, both.

 

[King Elvis]

Batters.

Our bowlers are on a hiding to nothing when they've got such pathetic totals to bowl with.

 

[Subprime]

The batting is easily worse than the bowling.

The batsmen have consistently failed, against good but not exceptional bowling, on perfect batting tracks. They have no excuses.

The bowlers have not been good. However, they have been made to look considerably worse than they are by some truly woeful fielding. Lets not forget that there were 5 chances which went begging in that score of 1/517. If the fieldsmen had done their job, then a score of 6/517 would look considerably better (not good - but definitely better).

Take the catches and we might have bowled them out for 400-450.

The fielding is atrocious.

 

[iluvparis]

Batters.

Our bowlers are on a hiding to nothing when they've got such pathetic totals to bowl with.

Like a 200 run lead in Brissy?

Has to be the bowlers for mine - a lot of the Bats are out of form but do have some talent hidden away somewhere.

The scary thing is, apart from MJ, I reckon most of our bowlers are bowling as well as they can! :S

 

[NAUGHT5]

With the batting, the players are there. They ARE good enough IMO.
5 of them have proved they can match it with the best. The form isn't there.

The bowlers just aren't good enough..

 

[Big John]

If England were scoring 500 to 600 runs and we bowled them out I would say the batters. But i'm going to give it to the bowlers because they haven't been getting wickets at all. England just bat until they figure they don't need to at all. Just makes it totally impossible to win a test.

Also the bowlers aren't even good enough to just dry up the runs.

 

[i_hate_scams]

worst - batters, then fielders, then bowlers... cant really blame the bowlers too much when they are not supported.

 

[The Passenger]

Cricket is a batsman's game. If you cant set a decent target your bowlers have no chance. Sub 300 scores and failing to bat for at least a day is demoralising for guys who have to run and try to produce wicket taking balls without giving away one half loose delivery an over. Make 500+ and its a totally different game.

man i feel like i'm harping on this lately... you can not win games with poor bowling. you can win games with poor batting. it's difficult, but it can be done.

in test cricket, post world war II, 102 teams have won a test match with a batting average of less than 25 for the match. i.e. being able to defend a 20-wicket total of 500 or less.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...l2=span;template=results;type=team;view=match

in the same period, the amount of teams who have won a test match by taking 18 wickets or less - only 35.... the amount of teams who have won a test match by taking 17 wickets or less.... 11.

another 70 or so teams have taken 19 wickets in a match to win it....

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ew=bowl;template=results;type=team;view=match

bowlers win you matches. end of story.

 

[aneale]

on the face of it batting because they have been so out of form, but our bowlers can't take 20 wickets and thats the end of the story. You dont take 20 wickets, you don't win, it's as simple as that.

The batting just need the rub like what Hussey got first cherry in Brisbane, hasn't looked back.

rolling through substandard test batsmen every WACA test means nothing unless we play all our games there. Any decent Shield bowler should trouble test batsmen on the WACA strip.

 

[dan warna]

THe bowling is ordinary but the batting AND the fielding is lame.

How many dropped catches this series?

Haddin DIDN'T even go for that catch, neither did watto. The slips have been asleep the outfielders have been asleep...

Even Clarke who started his career as the next punter in the field looks slow and lethargic.

All 3 parts of the game look bad.

I did enjoy the intimidatory bowling we used yesterday, its the first time we bowled to a plan, siddle looked genuinely menacing at stages, Johnson was doing as will, and hilfy and harris bowled with discipline for reward and hilfy looked good as well.

the random selection of out of form openers, the decline of the great punter, the form of clarke and the need to pack as many NSW players in the side regardless of form doesn't help.

 

[lemon chicken]

man i feel like i'm harping on this lately... you can not win games with poor bowling. you can win games with poor batting. it's difficult, but it can be done.

in test cricket, post world war II, 102 teams have won a test match with a batting average of less than 25 for the match. i.e. being able to defend a 20-wicket total of 500 or less.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...l2=span;template=results;type=team;view=match

in the same period, the amount of teams who have won a test match by taking 18 wickets or less - only 35.... the amount of teams who have won a test match by taking 17 wickets or less.... 11.

another 70 or so teams have taken 19 wickets in a match to win it....

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ew=bowl;template=results;type=team;view=match

bowlers win you matches. end of story.

Im not sure you've ever played cricket.

Big total batting first>>>>>>>>>>> Bowled out for peanuts.

Batsman are then pressured to score, bowlers can take more risks, field placings can be more attacking. Team tactics change completely when you have nothing to defend.

Scores dont tell me that in our first innings 4 of our top 6 bats played shots they shouldnt have and got out, not because the bowling was unplayable.

 

[Fastback]

Im not sure you've ever played cricket.

Big total batting first>>>>>>>>>>> Bowled out for peanuts.

Batsman are then pressured to score, bowlers can take more risks, field placings can be more attacking. Team tactics change completely when you have nothing to defend.

Scores dont tell me that in our first innings 4 of our top 6 bats played shots they shouldnt have and got out, not because the bowling was unplayable.

So true, scoreboard pressure by the batsman is just as important as good bowling when the opposition is batting.
There are mini competitions within the game, our top order vs theirs and pressure mounts/ascendancy is gained when one performs better than the other.
It has taken 2 spells of extraordinary bowling from Siddle and Johnson to just keep us in the series.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

the random selection of out of form openers, the decline of the great punter, the form of clarke and the need to pack as many NSW players in the side regardless of form doesn't help.

Besides Hughes, who are these NSW players so undeserving of a spot?

Haddin is in good form, Smith was playing well for NSW, Watson is consistent and Clarke is having his first real form slump so it'd be pretty unfair to drop him after giving Hussey chance after chance to finally come good.

If you want them dropped then get rid of Ponting first, and the 'One Good Spell in a Blue Moon to Save Our Arses' twins in Johnson and Siddle. If Clarke didn't deserve credit for his 80 last week then nor do these bowlers who decide to show up every 6-7 tests.

I'm assuming you have two eyes, try using them.

 

[dan warna]

Besides Hughes, who are these NSW players so undeserving of a spot?

Haddin is in good form, Smith was playing well for NSW, Watson is consistent and Clarke is having his first real form slump so it'd be pretty unfair to drop him after giving Hussey chance after chance to finally come good.

If you want them dropped then get rid of Ponting first, and the 'One Good Spell in a Blue Moon to Save Our Arses' twins in Johnson and Siddle. If Clarke didn't deserve credit for his 80 last week then nor do these bowlers who decide to show up every 6-7 tests.

I'm assuming you have two eyes, try using them.

clarke has had a couple of form slumps, he was dropped remember, and his 'one good innings a blue moon that didn't save our arses...wait what? and haddin drops or misses at least one catch a test match.

johnson is to bowling what clarke is to batting.

 

[The Passenger]

Im not sure you've ever played cricket.

Big total batting first>>>>>>>>>>> Bowled out for peanuts

whatever. playing days may be (possibly) long gone now. have you ever played in a cricket competition where you need 10 wickets to get a result?? if so you'll know the importance of bowlers. if you've only ever played limited overs cricket than yeah each are of equal importance - in fact batting is probably more important. but limited overs cricket isn't real cricket.

my first year out of school in 02/03 we had a gun batting line-up but our bowlers (including me) had a very poor year, therefore we finished in the bottom five out of 20 teams. regularly drew games with us scoring 6/280+ and the opposition was 7/250ish or something like that. only won two or three games despite having a top five batting line up.

i've never said scoring runs isn't important. but getting big totals doesn't guarantee winning matches. not being able to take wickets guarantees one thing - you can't win test matches. you might not lose many if your batting is strong but you are simply playing for draws. if your playing cricket not to lose than you might as well give it up (yeah there are exceptional circumstances. if we went to sydney 2-1 up i'd want to see the flattest deck ever and australia try and bat till all out 1200 on the fourth day)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1945;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

once again since WWII this is the list of teams win-loss-draw records in a game in which they've scored 600 runs in an innings - 113 teams who have achieved the feat and only 59 have gone on to win the match.... 54 have resulted in draws (admittedly may be a few double up's on the draws where both teams scored 600+ but i can be bothered checking. wouldn't be enough to change the results much).... so getting big totals means **** all if you don't have the bowlers to win the match. yeah you don't lose the game. but it doesn't mean you will win it which is what it's about.

even taking it down to matches where a team has scored 500 runs an innings so there is more time for a result... 500 an in innings has occurred 436 times for 212 wins, 212 draws, 2 ties, 10 losses....

once again getting a big score doesn't mean you'll go on to win a match. if your playing not to lose test matches then batting probably seems more important.

but in the 1709 test matches since 1945 (same time frame) only 11 teams have won a test taking less than 18 wickets including two contrived results - one in which both teams forfeited an innings (england v saffer's about 10 years ago) and the 2006 pakistan walk off which resulted in england winning.

now with johnson bowling like he did yesterday at least that's a big chunk of our bowling woes solved. if he can keep that up we've all seen how dangerous he is. ryan harris was also much improved and if ben hilfenhaus can start taking wickets than i think we've found our best three quicks for now. i think siddle would really wanna get some wickets in the next innings, if hilf doesn't and copeland takes a bag in the shield match starting today then he'll also be under pressure.

 

[dan warna]

could be the value of our batsmen.

The english bowlers are being talked up, but their averages this series are, well average.

Hussey, Haddin and watto haven't had significant problems with the batting, and frankly only watto came into the series with good form.

Our bowlers aren't that bad, whats bad is the manner in which our batsman don't stand up. The concentration from Hussey was remarkable, his personal discipline this series have been the difference. Many other players just don't have it any more, they are used to the middle class pacemen rushing through the overs in FC cricket now.

The chin music prior copped yesterday was something he just wasn't used to, they are happy to dish it out, but cricket has got a lot tamer. Had that been michael holding, curtly ambrose or alan donald dishing out that love instead of siddle, a few of them would have lost their heads.

Same as many of our batsmen now, I can't see many of them making runs against garner, ambrose, walsh, marshall, hadlee etc.

 

[Thommo 42]

not only do our batsmen let us down with the bat, they then let the bowlers down by grassing simple chances - making the bowlers look even worse than they are.

 

[Cousin Jed]

Another magnificent effort from the batsmen

 

[DaRick]

Another magnificent effort from the batsmen

But at least this question has been solved...right?

 

[bresker]

Surely no-one can now say batting is better than bowling?

Take away Watson, Hussey and Haddin and what's the average this series?

It's bloody carnage out there

 

[charcoalchicken]

7/77 Boxing Day Test

edit make that 8/77

 

[lemon chicken]

But at least this question has been solved...right?

Pretty sure Black Thunder will blame the bowlers if we dont roll the English for under 100.

 

[bresker]

The famously unreliable MCG wicket at work here. No embarrassment