Read on Twitter
[SHORT THREAD]
Pretty much everything I tweet about Test cricket is shaped by what I think is a chronic problem with (esp. IND) cricket following community in columns, blogs, tweets etc. - Batting is overvalued, bowling is undervalued. Here& #39;s why I think this error exists:
1/
Pretty much everything I tweet about Test cricket is shaped by what I think is a chronic problem with (esp. IND) cricket following community in columns, blogs, tweets etc. - Batting is overvalued, bowling is undervalued. Here& #39;s why I think this error exists:
1/
One specialist batsman and one specialist bowler are not equally significant to the fortunes of a Test team. 1 bowler (1 in 4) is at least 50% more significant than 1 batsman (1 in 6). And that& #39;s even before one considers the basic asymmetry between the skills.
2/
2/
Only the bowler gets to begin each play. The batsman can only face whatever the bowler bowls. The range of possible outcomes on each delivery are shaped overwhelmingly by the bowler& #39;s skill and control. Batsmen rarely make unforced errors in Tests (they get out when they do).
3/
3/
Bowlers on the other hand, can make a lot of unforced errors. The bowler& #39;s unforced errors are harder to observe than the batsman& #39;s. This is why cricket fans tend to undervalue their significance.
4/
4/
An bowler who lacks control and lands only 8 out of 36 deliveries in threatening areas instead of 28 is far deadlier to his team than a batsman who gets out cheaply. This lack of control costs the team a wicket or two. But omission is harder to notice than commission.
5/
5/
This is why, having Ishant Sharma over Siraj or Umesh is vastly more significant than having any one of India& #39;s eight bats over any other. The diff. between a bat who averages 40 and one who averages 50 is less than that between a fast bowler who aves 24 and one who aves 34. 6/
But you can be sure than after Siraj/Umesh go for 1/150 in one of the Tests, and Ajinkya Rahane scores, say, 6 and 41 in the same Test, the vast majority of IND cricket fandom will see Rahane& #39;s as the bigger contributer to the defeat
7/
7/
In cricket terms, Siraj/Umesh& #39;s 1/150 is catastrophic for winning a Test match, while Rahane& #39;s 6 & 41 is routine (the best batsmen of all time fail in roughly 60-70% of the time). They& #39;re not even remotely equal contritbutors to the result.
8/
8/
It also does not matter who one might think is the bigger star or the more experienced player. If the question is "Why did this Test match turn out the way it did", then the answer is always "The winning side bowled better than the losing side"
9/
9/
The essential point of top level Test cricket is that this idea - the winning side bowled better than the losing side - doesn& #39;t imply that the winning side batted better than the losing side. Bowling and batting are not symmetrical skills They& #39;re not equally independent.
10/
10/
So, everything I tweet is designed to redress this imbalance - to counter the inflated significance given to batting in discussions of Test cricket. Test cricket is a bowler& #39;s game. The teams which bowler fewer bad balls and fewer easy overs win Tests.
END
END
