Every cricket fan knows that the contest between bat and ball has swung massively towards the former in recent years.
The emergence of the Twenty20 format, increasingly docile pitches and advances in batting technology have all had a massive influence.
It really is a batsman’s game at the moment.
That got me thinking about one of the quirks of cricket – all specialist bowlers have to bat, but specialist batsmen don’t have to bowl.
More cricket:
» Nevill the shock inclusion as Australia announce World T20 squad
» The Liebke Ratings: New Zealand vs Australia third ODI
» Has Brendon McCullum retired a tad too early?
» McCullum: Withdrawing appeal would have been ‘disrespectful’
» Watch: New Zealand retain Chappell-Hadlee Trophy amid controversy
» New Zealand vs Australia highlights: New Zealand take Chappell-Hadlee trophy
» Scorecard: New Zealand vs Australia third ODI
Imagine if, at least in 50-over cricket, everyone except the wicketkeeper had to bowl, and how that would change the dynamic of that format of the game. Mathematically it could work neatly, with five bowlers each sending down seven overs, and five batsmen bowling three each.
But regardless of whether that would be an experiment worth trying or not, the fact that bowlers do have to bat in all forms of cricket does provide its own form of entertainment.
In no other top level sport do you get to see people with a limited skill so regularly on display as you do with genuine number 11s when they bat. It gives us all a glimpse of what we might look like if we were out there in the middle.
And maybe the entertainment would work in reverse if specialist batsmen were forced to bowl in at least one format of the game.
Anyway, speaking of batting bunnies, below is a list of some of the major ones in Australian cricket history, based on their Test records. A couple of them do, however, have a notable batting highlight as a part of their careers.
Mike Whitney, for example, famously survived Richard Hadlee’s last over on Day 5 of the 1987 Boxing Day Test to deny New Zealand victory. And Glenn McGrath scored a memorable half-century against the Kiwis at the Gabba in 2004.
Bob Holland – 11 Tests, average 3.18
Bruce Reid – 27 Tests, average 4.65
Carl Rackemann – 12 Tests, average 5.30
Jim Higgs – 22 Tests, average 5.55
Wayne Clark – 10 Tests, average 5.76
Alan Hurst – 12 Tests, average 6.0
Mike Whitney – 12 Tests, average 6.18
Terry Alderman – 41 Tests, average 6.54
Glenn McGrath – 124 Tests, average 7.36
Doug Bollinger – 12 Tests, average 7.71
Who are the batting bunnies that you remember fondly, either from Australia or other countries?
Warnie's Love Child
Guest
One of the worst was Bhagwat Chandrasekhar from India back in the '70's. The only batsman I've seen who received advice from his batting partner between almost every delivery he faced (and there usually weren't many.)
MikeTV
Guest
Some of the genuine batting bunnies: 1. Chris Martin (NZ) 2. Phil Tuffnel (Eng) 3. Monty Panesar (Eng) 4. Bob Holland (Aus) 5. Courtney Walsh (WI) Today most batsman could roll the arm over quite easily, but quite a few batsman from 1980's would struggle. Scott Muller was batting bunnie, and according to Cameraman Joe (or Warnie) he was a bowling bunnie too!
Tails
Guest
The great batting bunnies! That used to be one of the more entertaining aspects of the game in an time not too far gone. Nothing better than seeing a bunny shaking as he regrettably strode to the crease. Adorning every piece of protective attire known to the game and a bit invented in the change room. Chest pad, arm guard, double thigh pads, you could see them shaking as the blower ran in. And there was no referral either, tuck the bat under the arm and run back to the changing room. Nothing better than seeing the likes of Merv Hughes try to slog the Windies out of the ground only to wear it on the body. Everyone in the game knew that when the tail-enders ( look that one up Winston) went into bad it was time to warm up because they weren't going to be there long. The funny part is I think the best bunnies were some of the great Windies blowers, but opposing teams were too scared to bounce them. Courtney Walsh ( have you heard of him Winston) had the grace and elegance of a jellyfish when he tried to dig a Yorker (another one for ya mate) out. You can blame the "can bat batting bunnies" on the great Steve Waugh ( heard of him Winston) as he used to make them bat, don't run to expose the tail-ended. Anyway, I say bring back the liget no 11, it's a great place to bat. You can score runs and everyone thinks your a hero.
I hate pies
Guest
I reckon to even things up the bowlers should be allowed to bowl from either side of the wicket. There's heap of room for the runner to move over nowadays, and it would at least give the bowlers something to use. Of course, if they want to bowl with the other arm they should be able to do that too.
John Coomer
Roar Guru
It could certainly be viewed that way (i.e. further promoting bat dominance over ball), however it would also introduce a further tactical element to the game (i.e. when do you bowl your less capable bowlers). One day cricket is very predictable at the moment. And how well a specialist batsmen bowled would also potentially influence their selection chances (i.e. you would have to weigh up how much value they added with the bat versus how how much of a liability they were with the ball). I also would enjoy seeing some of the master blasters cop some of their own medicine. At the moment, batsmen are a protected species in that they don't have to bowl (not counting indoor cricket obviously which is a social game), whereas bowlers do have to bat. One day cricket is struggling for relevance in modern cricket, this could differentiate it further and is just a thought to generate some interest in a format that is dying a slow death.
Craig Swanson
Guest
They have that all bowl format in indoor cricket if I am not mistaken. What you are proposing though is a way of further elevating the dominance of bat over ball. That we do not want.
Dan Patrick
Guest
Not sure you are understanding the gist of the article - maybe a re read might be a good idea
John Coomer
Roar Guru
I think you may need a refresher course in cricket terminology Winston, see link below. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/239756.html Your definition of the term is a particular type of bunny. The thrust of my article was on batting bunnies in general, which is the first and main definition of the term provided by a source like cricinfo and other highly credible sources.
Winston
Guest
This is rubbish. A batsman is only a bunny if he is a particular bowler's bunny. This article needs to be completely rewritten. Whoever makes the list would need to be a bowler with a significantly better bowling average across his career compared to when he bowls to a particular batsman. And it's not enough to just say any bowler who's ever bowled to Don Bradman - it needs to be a batsman who's not particularly good like that, but just happens to excel when facing that particular bowler.
EvertonAndAustralia
Roar Pro
Chris Martin from the blackcaps comes to mind, batting average of just over 2 iirc