Are we heading into a bowler dominated era?

[SciD]

Cricket is not a batsman's game, it is a bowlers game. Remember, a batsman only gets 1 chance, a bowler gets unlimited chances.

Bowler does not get unlimited chances. Its just a ckiche developed by cricketers. Bowlers have nothing in game going for them except the bouncer rule. Every rule in Cricket is made keeping batsman in mind.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Yes, but the batsman gets far more opportunity to get something productive done with each ball. Sure, it takes 1 ball to get you out, but if the pitch isn't doing something and the batsman is good enough, it doesn't matter how many balls you bowl. And the point is that the pitches are getting better.

Well if the bowler is good enough then he'll get them out.

*Cough* Glenn McGrath *Cough*

 

[irottev]

Difference is that Siddle can bowl. Watson was always a batsman who can throw down a few overs but Siddle is a genuinely good young bowler.

I was talking in terms of injury. Watson was/is a promising player but can't get on the park.

 

[Kev]

Cricket always has been and always will be a batsman's game. If it becomes dominated by bowlers it will be wrecked. Although you do see the odd really low score, when low scores become the norm that's when it's a bowlers game.

 

[nightprowler10]

"Are we heading into a bowler dominated era?"

I hope so, but don't think so.

 

[Skater]

I think it's about time. Batsmen have ruled cricket for a long while now. Short boundaries, ridiculous lbw laws, dead pitches...

 

[King Pietersen]

I think Pietersen proved that we're far from moving into a bowler dominated game today. If you try and dominate an attack you win. Bowlers should be dominant though, batsmen make 1 mistake and lose their wicket, bowlers can make countless mistakes and still take plenty of wickets.

 

[sohum]

I think Pietersen proved that we're far from moving into a bowler dominated game today. If you try and dominate an attack you win. Bowlers should be dominant though, batsmen make 1 mistake and lose their wicket, bowlers can make countless mistakes and still take plenty of wickets.

I think one innings is hardly something to draw a conclusion from, especially when you see that the other batsmen in the England innings sucked.

 

[irottev]

I think we're already in one. Test cricket-wise i'm talking. I bet we're seeing less long/big innings. I wonder if this is a negative effect from ODIs/Twenty/20s.

 

[lancashire666]

Are we heading into a bowler dominated era?


no, end thread

 

[usy]

yeah cause if we were to have a bowler dominated era, then expect Pakistan to rule the game.

 

[shravi]

I don't think either side is dominant. However, I do feel that the introduction of t20 cricket brings about more aggressive cricket from both parties. It makes them think in a variety of ways and sometimes it clicks and sometimes it doesn't.

 

[TruSachFan]

for crickets sake lets hope so

cricket needs another freddie and mcgraths

and lets hope tait can come back

 

[aussie_ben91]

Ishant Sharma
Ifran Pathan
RP Singh
Tim Southee
Peter Siddle
Mohammad Asif
Stuart Broad
Dale Steyn
Umar Gul
Jerome Taylor
Lasith Malinga
Shaun Tait

 

[SciD]

I love fast bowling. We need more fast bowlers to make cricket intresting. These batsman days are numbered.