Are bowlers senseless ?

[lion100lion]

I asked a question (on twitter @chennaiphoenix) to Sanjay Manjrekar/starsports :-
Why are batsmen preferred over bowlers (specially fast bowlers) for captaincy ?

And he/they replied me saying that cricket is a batsman's game. So a batsman is a more sensible person as he chose to become a batsman!!
Hence he deserves to become the captain.

So, that means bowlers (specially fast bowlers) are senseless as they have chosen to bowl. Aren't they ?

 

[PokerAce]

Its not a serious reply ... he is clearly kidding. The idea is that he is taking a potshot at rules that are tilting more and more in favor of batsmen, especially in T20, so one has to be senseless to be a fast bowler on those flat T20 tracks, its a hard job. Hence he jokingly implies that it makes more sense to become a batsman and have it easy.

 

[lion100lion]

Its not a serious reply ... he is clearly kidding. The idea is that he is taking a potshot at rules that are tilting more and more in favor of batsmen, especially in T20

Are there any rules for captaincy ?
My question was simply that why are batsmen preferred over bowlers ? (Forget T 20, I am asking about Tests and 50 over matches )
For example, while choosing a new captain, SA board appointed Amla over A B De villiers. Dale Steyn was nowhere in picture.
A lot such examples in the history of cricket..

 

[PokerAce]

Are there any rules for captaincy ?

I am sure there must be some rules for captaincy, like the captain cannot be the 12th man and all, but I am sure there are no rules that say players of a particular displine must only be captains. There have been plenty of bowlers, and wicket-keepers, who along with Batsmen have been captains.

My question was simply that why are batsmen preferred over bowlers ? (Forget T 20, I am asking about Tests and 50 over matches )
For example, while choosing a new captain, SA board appointed Amla over A B De villiers. Dale Steyn was nowhere in picture.
A lot such examples in the history of cricket..[/QUOTE]

I think there are enough examples of good captains who were bowlers. Waqar, Wasim, Vettori, Walsh, Pollock, Kumble, Streak, etc. However the larger point is that it does appear more Batsmen are made captains than bowlers are. I don't know whether that is stastically true, but it appears that way for sure. Why that is, I don't know. Perhaps its got something to do with the fact that Batsmen tend to have a longer career than bowlers, and thus are more likely to be in contention at any given time, with regard to experience.

Also simple math and probability could be another factor. Since you ask specifically about batsmen over fast bowlers, its just that on probability alone, the batsmen have an upper hand. There are not more than 3 fast bowlers in any playing XI, so on probability alone the likelihood of a captain being a fast bowler is 3/11, while that of a fast bowler not being captain is 8/11.

Thus its clear the odds on a non-fast bowler being the captain is rather high and much more probable. Further since captaincy is not math alone,the odds of fast bowlers are further reduced. They start with short odds of 3/11, and it gets even shorter, as the other skills such as leadership, experience, tactical understanding, to also fall in the 3/11 group are lower than say them falling in the group that starts with 8/11 odds in their favor.

I think it ends up that math favors non-fast bowlers, as they are more in number.

 

[grkrama]

Perhaps its got something to do with the fact that Batsmen tend to have a longer career than bowlers, and thus are more likely to be in contention at any given time, with regard to experience.

Apart form that another reason i think especially for tests would be physical strain, a fast bowler after his over/spell is more likely to have some freetime at fine leg or deep third man unlike a batsman standing at slips. Also as a bowler it will make it a multi tasking thing unlike a batsman as you have to worry about your bowling as well as setting fields and tactics for others, very few are up to it like imran or kapil.

 

[lion100lion]

Apart form that another reason i think especially for tests would be physical strain, a fast bowler after his over/spell is more likely to have some freetime at fine leg or deep third man unlike a batsman standing at slips. Also as a bowler it will make it a multi tasking thing unlike a batsman as you have to worry about your bowling as well as setting fields and tactics for others, very few are up to it like imran or kapil.

Ok... So I simply ask you that, why should a young boy take up fast bowling as a career ?
Though as a team you need bowlers, but personally why one should take bowling as a profession when you know that your career will be full of injuries, hard labour and still won't be able to lead your national team.

 

[lion100lion]

A bit of correction (sorry for that) - My question was answered by Sanjay Manjrekar, not by Aakash Chopra !

 

[grkrama]

why should a young boy take up fast bowling as a career ?

Because you can, especially when the pool of quality fast bowlers is less its the easiest way to get recognized. Also its boils down to what comes to an individual its not necessarily the choice they make as much as their inherent talent to do so. Johnson or steyn may not be leading their team but they are the talk of the town when they fire, so there is sure the limelight as well fame and the honor of representing the country, im sure very few cricketers would dream to become captain when they are young their dream would be to get a chance to represent the country rather than leading.

 

[greymatter776]

I asked a question (on twitter @chennaiphoenix) to Sanjay Manjrekar/starsports :-
Why are batsmen preferred over bowlers (specially fast bowlers) for captaincy ?

And he/they replied me saying that cricket is a batsman's game. So a batsman is a more sensible person as he chose to become a batsman!!
Hence he deserves to become the captain.

So, that means bowlers (specially fast bowlers) are senseless as they have chosen to bowl. Aren't they ?

He was being sarcastic to the rules of the game.He was certainly kidding when he said that one who made choice to be a batsman in a batsman's game is brilliant than the one who chose to be a bowler.
And as if for your question,there are do some recent exception;Stuart Broad and Lasith Malinga did lead T20 sides of their nations but it do hold true that most of the captains has been batsman(which is very correct for India,Except for Kumble for a short period of time and all rounder Kapil most of our captains have been batsman)
However I prefer a batsman to be a captain and even making a Keeper captain is not great (except for all time greats such as Dhoni ).I mean being a bowler you need to think a lot of your own bowling and it would be difficult to plan for the team.For keepers,its challenging being behind the stumps throughout the innings and is very challenging when it comes to tests. So the batsman are the most free minded person when a team fields.He could plan for the team as he has the least pressure about his performance when he fields.So I prefer a batsman to be the captain.

 

[greymatter776]

why should a young boy take up fast bowling as a career ?

I think that selection is more about your passion.You should chose to be a batsman/bowler/keeper not for a good future or for an easy life.The decision should be based on what you love.If you feel excited seeing a fast bowler beating batsman for pace,be a fast bowler,if you get excited watching Warne or Kumble bowling,be a spinner.If its the class of batsman that you like be a batsman.Thats it.Play cricket for your passion for the game and not for a good future.