HOT TAKE ALERT : Contrary to what CricketingView and the commentators will have you believe, batting is more important than bowling in Test cricket. Bowling is more important because you need to take 20 wickets is a lazy act. So many factors and complexities go into it.

I have felt this for a long time but the numbers that @dweplea posted about the South African bowling attack in the Steyn era have firmly reaffirmed my belief.

It is easier to build a great team with one great bowler and three support bowlers than having a great bowling attack and only one great batsman. There is common sense to it. Batting is more volatile than bowling. You are always 1 ball away from losing a major chunk of your runs.

The archetypal version of these two teams : SA from 2007-11 (before Philander's debut). Australia from 2016-now. You can easily figure out which the better team is.

Another case in point. This is comfortably India's greatest bowling attack ever. Yet their results away from home aren't really that much better than the 2000s team which had a better batting line up (overseas) with at best a serviceable bowling attack.

Of course, you still need a good bowling attack..You will never be a truly great team without one. But it's easier to make up for bowling deficiencies than batting ones. Average bowlers can win you Tests with runs on the board.

No bowling attack, no matter how great, can win you Tests without runs on the board. West Indies have a better bowling attack now than at anytime in the post Ambrose era. Yet they were a more competitive team in 2000s with Lara, Chanders, Gayle Sarwan than with the current dross.