Most cricket games belong to batsmen. Countless others belong to bowlers, or at least used to.
Think of the ODI bowling greats of the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, who crushed or contained dangerous batting line-ups.
Yes, cricket is a contest between ‘teams’. But isn’t it also – the single delivery, over, spell – a contest between ‘individuals’?
Football has duels where attacker and defender are locked in combat. But largely, it is the team that looms as the ‘contest’ moves from one pair of feet to another. Even the referee is running around.
But cricket? The ball is returned every few seconds to the scene of battle – the pitch. No matter how many times it’s hurled away, it’s always hurled back to that arena where the actors remain, more or less as they were.
Batsman at batsman’s crease, a bowler at his, non-striker at his, wicket-keeper at his, close-in fielder at his and umpire at his. Yes, we saw what bat just did to ball. Now we want to see if it can do it again.
Cricket tests batsmen, from both ends. It tests with spin, with pace, with left-arm, right-arm, with over the wicket and around. So cricket fans cheer good bowlers as much as they do good batsmen (or classy fielders and wicket-keepers). If batsmen aren’t tested, where’s the contest?
Do we now have a new species – the ‘batsman’ fan?
Cricket is a team sport. But it celebrates individual performance even more than team performance. Isn’t that why we fuss over greatest players?
So, ignore individual achievement. Or accept that the game includes (within that team battle) another fascinating battle between individuals and between bat and ball.
WG Grace may be excused his contempt for the bowler when he said: “Folks have come to see me bat, not you bowl”. Quality bowling, fielding, umpiring hadn’t evolved. No contest.
What happened when great bowlers eventually out-thought even the most accomplished batsmen? What happened to the batsman’s game then? Didn’t we commend Muttiah Muralitharan’s 35 caught-and-bowled feats, foxing the most powerful forearms at the other end?
Didn’t we praise Akram when 35 per cent of his wickets were bowled dismissals (out of his ridiculously high haul of 502 ODI wickets). Didn’t we cheer Waqar Younis and his 13 incredible five-for ODI innings?
Didn’t we celebrate Glenn McGrath’s record haul of 27 wickets from 11 matches (economy rate of four with seven maidens) in the single Carlton-United series in 1998-99? And wasn’t mention of the name Curtly Ambrose enough to tighten the sphincter of even the gum-chewing, swaggering batsmen of his era.
They bowled to the most proven, most tested ODI bats ever. Batsmen aren’t the only ones who win matches. Great bowlers too earn man of the match trophies.
Prescriptions to even the balance agonise over sizes (bats, boundaries). But that’s mechanics. For every few ODIs in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s where batsmen dominated there were others where bowlers did. The balance had become more, if not perfectly, even. Calibre of resistance had gone up – bowling, fielding, tech-umpiring.
But in the last six to eight years or so, while batting skill has proliferated, bowling skill has plummeted. The band of today’s deadly bowlers pales in comparison with the battalion of their more dependable predecessors.
Balance has more to do with sharpening bowling. Who’d call any of the ODI bowling greats bit players?
Fielding rules can occasionally blunt good bowling but that bat isn’t missing ball or that ball isn’t finding fielder (in spite of improved fielding) as much as it used to, is telling. We may argue over how to maintain balance between ball and bat. But isn’t balance, however imperfect, worth aspiring to?
If, as All Out Cricket‘s Peter Miller says, “the point is to score as many runs as you can”, why not drop bowlers altogether? Both sides – packed with batsmen – can hammer each other senseless. A trend now, because dangerous bowlers are endangered. But the point of ODIs is also to contain.
If, Wisden India Almanack editor Suresh Menon says, “A well-struck six is a reminder of what someone … better coordinated than us, is capable of”, why not pit 11 ODI bats against Under-11 bowlers? Wouldn’t that be a sight? Double tons, triple tons – ODI heaven!
The Bat(s)man is no Knight if he’s punching the petite Robin in the neck. He is who he is because he’s clobbering the colossal Bane.
Cricket, like any sport, is a contest. Rob it of its contest and you rob it of its sport.
Shaw
Roar Rookie
For odi games: Something for the bowlers and captains. Give the option of a new ball from each end every 5 overs. After all, batsmen can change equipment whenever they please. The strategic implications of increasing flexibility for maximum impact of bowling line-up / pitch/ climate would be fascinating.
Rudolph Lambert Fernandez
Roar Rookie
Insightful comments Julian King, thank you. Especially your point about captaincy. You’re right. An evolving game demands creativity, innovation and each era has brought out the best of these across nations, across formats. As Chris Kettlewell rightly says, the ebb and flow takes care of these things anyway. What's disturbing is the implication in the two articles highlighted - that a) there's never been any balance between bat/ball when as Chris says - there has been a see-saw every that keeps the game challenging and interesting, b) since almost everyone wants bat to rule, why not sit back and enjoy; forget about ball/bowler, after all it’s batsmen who win matches when as b and Joel have pointed out - bowlers too help win matches, c) the point of cricket is to just score as many runs as you can when as I’ve said - ODIs are about containing too.
b
Guest
It's not the only one, I used it as an example because of who was playing, their batting line ups, and all the pregame predictions of a runfest.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
The dead pitches are more to blame than the big bats, although mishit sixes does not seem right.
Julian King
Roar Guru
More than an even contest between bat and ball, cricket is about results. Captaincy plays an integral part too. A team with inferior players but a better captain can be competitive. The evolving nature of the game forces players to think differently about how to get wickets, score runs etc. Every delivery is an opportunity to get a wicket. Being 9 down chasing 151 is gripping, sure. But likewise, to see a team fall agonisingly short chasing say, a 400 total can be equally compelling.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Cricket has ebbs and flows. Batsmen find a way to get on top of bowlers, then bowlers work out a way to fight back. See Starc going at 3 rpo in a total of 300+. It's possible, even on a pitch good enough to score 376 to bowl really well and be hard to score from. When T20 cricket first came onto the scene, there were numerous 200+ scores and it seemed the bowlers had no answer, then bowlers started to work out more ways to bowl to counter this and average scores dropped, then batsmen came up with new ways of playing the bowling and it goes around and around in circles. And there are different ways of doing it. Starc is very traditional. Bowl really fast, swing the ball, and bowl really good, accurate yorkers. Faulkner is the opposite, with a myriad of different cutters and slower balls to call on, mixing it up every ball. Both are really effective. I don't see it as a problem. In fact, what it starts to show is the really great bowlers stand out far above the rest, and teams will probably start to realise that more than anything, they need more really top quality bowlers, because the lesser bowlers are going to go the journey.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Maybe not quite all batsmen, but certainly bowlers who are pretty good with the blade. When Cummins was coming in at #11 for Australia I thought that a bit. He's not a bad batsman, the idea of coming in at #11 for him would be a pretty strange one, but that's the depth of the Australian batting lineup at the moment.
JGK
Roar Guru
Ah, yes indeed. Eden Park.
Joel
Roar Rookie
Rubbish. Has anyone been watching this world cup? Southee's 7, Trent Boult's 5 and then Mitchell Starc's 6. Daniel Vettori is taking wickets at will and going for not many. Pakistan beating South Africa on the back of a brilliant bowling performance after making a terrible score. As much as this tournament has been about scores over 400 etc, it has also highlighted the best bowlers in the world at the moment in the competitive low scoring games.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I agree totally with your criticism of the modern game but I disagree with the eventual effect it will have on the game. The direction the ICC and CA are taking the game I think will lead to the end of specialist batspersons in 30 years, I think we will definitely see only two specialist batspersons in 20 years. Batting has become so easy due to many factors that a team can now rely on bowlers and all-rounders making significant contributions to a score. It has taken just 15 years for the Australian cricket team to go from picking 6 specialist batspersons to picking 4 and if we win the world cup then that line of thinking will permeate to all the other nations. Many fans in Australia don't see the need for 6 batspersons because the difficulty factor has dropped so much they just can't see the need for it. Only once a game happens where guys like Maxwell can't tonk with impunity does that notion get challenged, and that is becoming a rarity in the game. Then you add to that modern thinking which has many fans who see specialist bowlers as being almost a luxury, some were actually calling for on two specialist bowlers for recent Australia games and then the idea of specialists starts to be challenged. That line of thinking then evolves into a team built on the theory of having many bowling options to cover any form drop or conditions which of course leads to having a team consisting of many all-rounders. All that takes away from the game the key battle which is bowler against batsperson. Personally I think we should allow bouncers back into the game because the real effect of restrictions on short balls in the batsperson basically knows the length of the ball coming next most of the time. Also bring in two piece balls to get the ball moving more in the air, and of course the big change is getting administrators to add a little juice or turn into wickets. Right now everyone thinks runs and boundaries equal more excitement, but like a movie that has an explosion every minute that will get old and then the game will have nowhere left to move to.
Rellum
Roar Guru
They should be doing that now in T20.
Rellum
Roar Guru
A whole one game out of 30 odd does not prove that the Rudolph is wrong.
Targa
Guest
Eden Park - Eden Gardens is India
b
Guest
Another person who got caught up in the pretournament hype of batsmen winning the world cup, and missed the game between two of the cup heavyweights, Australia and New Zealand. Yes bats are bigger, grounds are smaller, fielding is restricted and short form pitches are bat friendly, but quality bowling still exists and it still humbles the heavily advantaged batsmen.
JGK
Roar Guru
By the way - the great Bill O'Reilly was advocating this as a strategy 30 years ago.
Chris
Guest
the most terrifying thing about this is that i can honestly see a team in the near future actually come out with 11 guys who see themselves as batsmen with a few of them being batting all rounders. another terrible thing about the current bias towards batting friendly wickets is that batsmen may indeed score more runs but wont be as good batsmen.
JGK
Roar Guru
I don't think it's any coincidence that 2 of the best games of the tournament have been low scoring affairs at Eden Gardens.
pjm
Roar Rookie
Needs to make his point sooner, I went 3/4 of the article not knowing what he was getting at.
ak
Roar Guru
Very good article. Really liked it.