bones Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 If you have to pick one or the other, what would you pick? Let say for example you had the choice of picking a great batsman say for example Sir Viv/Sunil Gavaskar , or a great bowler say for example Glenn McGrath/Michael Holding. Who would you pick?
JaFanatic Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 you mean for indian team or are u asking in general
bones Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 In general. It's not specific to any single country, I'm not India btw, but the question applies to all.
abhinavdixit Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 How about a great all-rounder instead? Anyway, since I have personally (like most Indians) preferred wielding the willow over rubbing saliva on leather, I will go with a batsman.
bones Posted January 9, 2013 Author Posted January 9, 2013 India has had great batting sides traditionally, West Indies and Australia recently have had them as well. But West Indies and Australia are considered the two dominant teams for a period of cricket. It was their bowling. I will always take a McGrath over a Lara.
JaFanatic Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 in general i would go for batsman, cos b4 you go attacking you should get your defense strongB->. if i have to choose for team india i would go for the bowler its not like we have world beating batting line up atm but we have potential batsmen in our ranks:agree:
Marut Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Test matches: If you want to win matches go for a bowler, if you want to draw matches go for a batsman. Great batsmen by themselves cannot win matches as they can't get 20 wickets. ODI/T20: It depends on the context. On a batting track. go for the batsman and if bowling track go for the bowler. We Indians usually choose batsman, and due to this we have sucked as team through most of our cricketing history.
JaFanatic Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 India has had great batting sides traditionally' date=' West Indies and Australia recently have had them as well. But West Indies and Australia are considered the two dominant teams for a period of cricket. It was their bowling. I will always take a McGrath over a Lara.[/quote'] pakistan have had great bowling line up too but they were never a dominant side and india din have the grt bowling thats the reason they were not able to dominate for a longer time like wi or aus having either great bowlers or great batsmen wont help a team to be dominant but a decent or a good side you need both to be dominnant
JaFanatic Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Test matches: If you want to win matches go for a bowler, if you want to draw matches go for a batsman. Great batsmen by themselves cannot win matches as they can't get 20 wickets. ODI/T20: It depends on the context. On a batting track. go for the batsman and if bowling track go for the bowler. We Indians usually choose batsman, and due to this we have sucked as team through most of our cricketing history. we never had great batting line in most of our cricketing history:headshake:
philcric Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 A great bowler. Team usually has 7 bats (including WK) and 4 bowlers. So I'd imagine a great player has more value as part of 4-man group than a 7-man group.
JaFanatic Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 A great bowler. Team usually has 7 bats (including WK) and 4 bowlers. So I'd imagine a great player has more value as part of 4-man group than a 7-man group. think this way just 7 good balls are enough to remove that 7 men gang:winky:
namasteji1 Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 A bowler can always come back even after getting smashed, but a batsmen just needs one ball to get out! No comebacks for him unless you are Ian Bell!
JaFanatic Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 A bowler can always come back even after getting smashed' date=' but a batsmen just needs one ball to get out! No comebacks for him unless you are Ian Bell![/quote'] :hysterical:
Sooda Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Bowler for me, great fast bowler. Nothing like watching a truly great fast bowler steaming in and shattering stumps.
JaFanatic Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 nothing like batsman coming down the track and hitting it into the stance:--D
Sooda Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 ^ No really, thats dime a dozen these days with T20 cricket etc. How many 'GREAT' genuinely fast bowlers are there though...
JaFanatic Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 ^ No really' date=' thats dime a dozen these days with T20 cricket etc. How many 'GREAT' genuinely fast bowlers are there though...[/quote'] true but the question is in general
vvvslaxman Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Great all rounder. But between bowler and batsmen.. Bowler help win more tests than batsmen. Batsmen help draw more tests than bowlers.
the don Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Simple !! a great bowler , pakistan has produced greater bowlers than India , hence their win loss ratio is greater than India against most teams in all forms of the game .bowlers win you matches . its well known, especially test matches . .
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now