Sri Lanka v England, 1st Test, Kandy, 1st-5th Dec

Merlin wrote:
Some anal scrutiny

pull your head out of it, merlo ...

Merlin wrote:

taipan wrote:

Bowlers win tests

batsmen win jamodi's

no change

Errrr... maybe I'm missing something here, but I'd suggest Sangakara's 150+ went a little way to posting a winning score...
Wouldn't you?

Oh, and by the way, they were playing a Test in Kandy.

Sometimes that analogy doesn't stand up to scrutiny ....

Idiot . . . that 150+ meant nothing if the bowlers couldn't bowl England out on the last day.

It's obvious that batsmen can save tests, but you need 20 wickets to win one.

So you ARE a dense bugg3r after all !

Let me explain my comment ..

A vs B ... A bat twice and leave B to score 280 to win the match.
Are you with me so far ?

Okay, B's bowlers may well have taken A's 20 wickets to set the game up ... or perhaps A felt cocky enough to DECLARE their innings (in which case NOT 20 wickets) ...

Now, it's B's turn to BAT .... and they WIN !!!!

Here's your chance to explain to all whom you think actually WINS this particular match for B ?

Their bowlers batting at 1,2,3,4,5 ...?

Think carefully before you answer ...........idiot.

Often, though, batsmen are chasing an unrealistic 4th innings target (because the bowling has been so bad), and/or they have to survive an unreasonable period because the bowling was so bad that the other team could make its runs more quickly.

To win matches, you need good bowlers.

Surely merlo even you realise that England won the Ashes in 2005 principally because of their bowlers, not their batsmen??

I totally agree lardy - in essence bowlers DO win matches - but for arguments sake, let's take this last test in Kandy.

If - and I know it was a huge IF, England had won the match, their bowlers would have been the last in the queue to have taken credit from the game.

Hence my impartiality when it comes to "sharing the spoils" - whilst my heart is always with bowlers - I do recognize batsmen's contributions in a victory as well.