Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 ^ What has South Africa achieved in last 20 years? Their problem goes way deeper than cricketing reasons. They simple don't have it in them to win a must-win/knockout game in a ICC tourney. They have lost 6 straight knockout games in ICC tourneys now and some of them from winning positions. Hell they can't even read a chart with target score for a given over properly under pressure!!! :omg:
akshayxyz Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 So, when presented with a counter-example, it came to some mysterious reason?
Vilander Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 B'lore had one of the best batting lineup in this edition of IPL with batsmen like Gayle, AB De Villiers, Dilshan, Kohli etc. in the team but they couldn't even get to the knockouts, whereas all the teams with a decent bowling attack (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkatta) topped the table. Proves once again that in any format bowling wins you tournaments. An old saying in some of the games (especially footie, American football) is "Offense wins you games whereas Defense wins you championships". In cricket this translates to "Batting wins you games while Bowling wins you championships". Every good to great team had a good bowling attack whereas a good batting lineup looks good on paper but will seldom win anything. That's why a team with the likes of Malinga, Naraine, Morkel will most often than not trump a team with the likes of Gayle, ABDV, Sehwag etc. two totally different games , and you are also mixing offense and defense. batsmen defend their wickets and bowlers attack it, bowlers defent their totals and batsmen attack it. So how are you categorizing offense and defense ?
Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 So' date=' when presented with a counter-example, it came to some mysterious reason?[/quote'] Nope you came up with an exception than the rule and in fact their history shows they lost out when they not only had the better bowlers but also the better batsmen :giggle: Thus their example goes both ways. There have been 10 WCs so far and the teams who have won it are the ones who had one of the better bowling attacks. First it was WI and then the Aussies who dominated. India made the most of bowlers who fit the conditions perfectly (in 83 and 2011) and SL & Pakis did the same in 96 & 92 respectively. Same goes for Tests as any good team historically had a good bowling attack. In fact Pakis in 80s and early 90s didn't have great batting but had the bowlers to make it count.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 20, 2012 Author Posted May 20, 2012 two totally different games , and you are also mixing offense and defense. batsmen defend their wickets and bowlers attack it, bowlers defent their totals and batsmen attack it. So how are you categorizing offense and defense ? Generally bowlers are synonymous with offense hence the term bowling "attack". That's why it's said that bowler win games while the batsmen preserve the win.
yoda Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Am I missing something here? I thought it was RCB's batting which failed today, not bowling.
akshayxyz Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Nope you came up with an exception than the rule and in fact their history shows they lost out when they not only had the better bowlers but also the better batsmen :giggle: Thus their example goes both ways. There have been 10 WCs so far and the teams who have won it are the ones who had one of the better bowling attacks. First it was WI and then the Aussies who dominated. India made the most of bowlers who fit the conditions perfectly (in 83 and 2011) and SL & Pakis did the same in 96 & 92 respectively. Same goes for Tests as any good team historically had a good bowling attack. In fact Pakis in 80s and early 90s didn't have great batting but had the bowlers to make it count. There is a difference between 'performing on the day' and having a generally better bowling attack. WI had far superior bowling attack in 83.. which they duely showed few months later...in fact they lost the final because of their careless batting and not because India had better bowling attack. Winning a tournament is a combination of lot of factors... 2003 final could have easily gone other way - if Ganguly had chosen to bat, in fact it was OZs attacking batting that took the game away from us (and not the bowling)...and in the same tournament, it was India's attacking batting- that took the game away from Pak -while chasing, against a better bowling attack.. Similarly India-vs-SL 1996 SF could have gone other way - if had batted first.. You can be in attacking mode with either of the department.. You have to attack with Batting on batting friendly pitch, and attack with bowling on bowling friendly pitch/conditions...
akshayxyz Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Am I missing something here? I thought it was RCB's batting which failed today' date=' not bowling.[/quote'] this. (and of course Steyn used the conditions better - helped by batting brainfarts from RCB).
Ultimate_Game Posted May 21, 2012 Author Posted May 21, 2012 There is a difference between 'performing on the day' and having a generally better bowling attack. WI had far superior bowling attack in 83.. which they duely showed few months later...in fact they lost the final because of their careless batting and not because India had better bowling attack. Winning a tournament is a combination of lot of factors... 2003 final could have easily gone other way - if Ganguly had chosen to bat, in fact it was OZs attacking batting that took the game away from us (and not the bowling)...and in the same tournament, it was India's attacking batting- that took the game away from Pak -while chasing, against a better bowling attack.. Similarly India-vs-SL 1996 SF could have gone other way - if had batted first.. You can be in attacking mode with either of the department.. You have to attack with Batting on batting friendly pitch, and attack with bowling on bowling friendly pitch/conditions... It is but most of the times the winners are the ones with the better bowling attack and you will seldom see a team with a good bowling attack not go deep in the tournament. As you mentioned anything can happen on a given day but the team with a better bowling attack will more often than not have the better on those days.
Needforspeed Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 In that case I would say that a team with poor bowling tends to choke lot more. As for CSK they have a decent attack for their home games and most of the IPL venues. They made a mistake in letting Murali go which hurt them this season and that's why their bowling is not as strong which can be seen in their results this year. I am sure Dhoni understands it and will go for a good bowler next season. But in any case Chennai bowling attack was still way ahead of Bangalore's. B'lore don't have even one good bowler in their lineup - Zaheer is past it and as for others :hysterical: CSK did not have Murali last season either. He played for KTK.
rkt.india Posted May 21, 2012 Posted May 21, 2012 It is about balance. Bowling alone or batting alone does not make a team world beater. All invincible teams had that. Why Australia of late 1998-2005 was unbeatable because they had all aspects covered. Superb openers in Langer and Hayden, great middle order in Ponting, Waughs, Clark, Martyn, Gilchrist, Lehman, etc. and unbeatable bowling attack of McGrath, Lee, Gillespie, Kasper, Warne, Macgill.
Recommended Posts