Cricket is an Asymmetric Game
There is always debate about T20 pitches being too batsman friendly and bowlers being reduced to just bowling machines. While this runs inflation has been going on for decades, it has increased particularly in the T-20 era. But throughout the history of cricket, batsmen have always had upper hand in terms of importance and fame. Could it be because cricket is basically an asymmetric game as the roles of two key player categories are defined differently? The asymmetry comes from two sources.
First source of asymmetry is the metric used to measure success — for ODI and T20, runs is the only metric. The number of wickets literally don’t matter. Bowlers’ contribution is not reflected in the result. In Test cricket, however, a team cannot win match unless bowlers take all 20 wickets of the opposition. Hence, Test match is the only format where there is even contest between bat and ball.
Another source of asymmetry is the nature of the game itself. Batsmen and bowlers differ in the duration and nature of opportunities they get. A batsman in cricket cannot make mistake (and get out), but if they don’t make mistake they can play throughout the game. Bowler on the other hand, can make mistakes (and get hit for runs) and still continue bowling. But in ODI/T20, there is a limit to the time which they can contribute. Again in Test matches where bowlers can bowl any number of overs provides a better opportunity for bowlers.
With these asymmetries between the roles of batsmen and bowlers, cricket will continue to be batsmen’s game. Can these asymmetries be removed or at least be reduced? Here are a couple of ideas for both sources of asymmetry.
For the metric, can wickets be valued along with runs? e.g. consider a case when one team scores 300 runs with loss of 8 wickets and other 260 for 2. Assuming each wicket weighs 20 runs (random number which I came up with), first team’s adjusted runs will be 300–8*20=140, while for the second team, it will be 260–2*20=220. So second team will be winner. In fact, the games affected by rain use Duckworth-Lewis use similar adjustments which value wickets. Perhaps, DL method can be modified to get adjusted runs.
Second source of asymmetry is much more fundamental to the game itself and can be difficult to remove. But let’s have a thought experiment to reverse the asymmetry in favour of bowlers— How would completely reversing the cricketing paradigm will look like? A batsman can have unlimited lives but limited balls to perform. So they may get out any number of times, but would get only 4 overs (24 balls) to play. Bowler on the other hand will have only one life — perhaps when they get hit for a six, they cannot bowl again. But as long as they are not hit for six, they can continue bowling. Imagine Bumrah bowling 10 overs in a T20! But with this paradigm reversal, will runs be the correct metric to decide winner? Runs being used as a metric actually shows the tilt towards batsmen. Maybe number of dot balls can be a good metric.
These potential alternatives show that it is really challenging to reduce the asymmetry in cricket. So it’s better to stop complaining about the batsmen getting limelight in cricket and enjoy the game as it is.
