Does ODI Form Relate to Test Selection?

[Richard]

Okay, to those who disagreed with me, I pose this question.

Should players be DROPPED from a test squad based on poor ODI form?

I can understand how good ODI form could have an impact, but what about poor ODI form?

Anyone saying this is probably just one of those people who are desperately flailing around for some reason Lee should be playing in Tests.

 

[tooextracool]

Ive been arguing with someone who believes that Lee should be picked in front of Kasprowicz for the WACA test based on his one day form.

ODIS this year

b.Lee- avg 29.95 ER 4.93
kaspa- avg 14.46 ER 3.67

doesnt sounds like much of an argument to me.

 

[tooextracool]

OD form should have some impact, but the type of player also needs to be evaluated.

Some excellent ODI bowlers such as Gavin Larsen took their wickets by strangling the RR and forcing the batsmen to take risks. Unfortunately for such bowlers these tactics seldom work in tests. Similarly, batsmen like Marshall work the quick singles without taking the bowling apart, as ODI fields are much more defensive, allowing such play. Again, test captains would set appropriate fields to stop this.

Smashing a quick 30-60 can change the course of an ODI but far less significant in a test. Averaging 20-30 at a S/R of around 100 is not acceptable for front-line test batsmen.

Therefore, AUS would be stupid to drop Kazp because of his ODI form.

well put

 

[Pratters]

It is very subjective as regards to ODI form leading to test selection..

ODI cricket and test cricket are different ball games. Yet if we can see test potential in a player seeing him play well in one dayers, then its not unsensible to give him a go at the test level..

An example is Michael Clarke who didnt have a great first class record but potential was seen and his odi form was good. So it was the right time to give him a test cap.

Similar is the case of Md. Kaif who hasnt done much of note in first class cricket.

One point to be mentioned is international one day players play lesser first class cricket and so which other ways can you judge his test potential from?

But it is an exceptional case of seeing a player with potential and giving him a place in the Test side seeing good odi performances. Usually the best way to select is to get the best performing and potential first class players of the country into the test team..

 

[Richard]

Similar is the case of Md. Kaif who hasnt done much of note in first class cricket.

And who, so surprisingly, hasn't done much in Test-cricket...

 

[Pratters]

And who, so surprisingly, hasn't done much in Test-cricket...

Not every test player succeeds. And he still has a lot of time left.. dont count him out yet.

 

[Richard]

I'm not counting him out - but surely he won't get too many more chances.

 

[Pratters]

I'm not counting him out - but surely he won't get too many more chances.

If a player has potential, he does deserve some more chances so he may as well. Any way you are TOTALLY deviating from the whole point of this thread i you havent noticed..

 

[Richard]

Yes - it's called evolution of discussion.
Yes, if a player has potential, he deserves more chances - I wouldn't - yet - begrudge Kaif another Test or two, he's played a few decent innings.
But nonetheless if he plays another couple and fails I can't see him getting any more chances and quite rightly IMO.

 

[Pratters]

Yes - it's called evolution of discussion.
Yes, if a player has potential, he deserves more chances - I wouldn't - yet - begrudge Kaif another Test or two, he's played a few decent innings.
But nonetheless if he plays another couple and fails I can't see him getting any more chances and quite rightly IMO.

It cant always be justified as evolution of discussion when you totally miss the point and start discussing a specific player..

Kaif got his chance mainly due to his odi form and no has to do with FC cricket like Clarke.

As far as Kaif's selection goes, its tough for many players to get games in the indian middle order and i kaif fails, he may be dropped. Its some thing which is known. Doesnt require stating it really.

 

[Richard]

It cant always be justified as evolution of discussion when you totally miss the point and start discussing a specific player..

Err, one person's missing the point is another's evolution of discussion.

Kaif got his chance mainly due to his odi form and no has to do with FC cricket like Clarke.

As far as Kaif's selection goes, its tough for many players to get games in the indian middle order and i kaif fails, he may be dropped. Its some thing which is known. Doesnt require stating it really.

Well stating it doesn't exactly do anyone any harm.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think its fine for emerging players to be picked in tests based on OD performances, providing they look like they would be a success in test cricket, and they haven't actually failed at test cricket previously.

But they should only be used, IMO, if:

1. Someone in the test side is out of form (in test cricket), and should be dropped.

AND

2. There is no-one in the country's FC competition who is deserved of a test spot.

 

[KennyD]

I think a good example for the original question, does ODI form relate to Test Selection, is Michael Bevan.

Bevan was tried at test level, and was hugely sucessful for a short time before a horrible run around 97/98, whih was when he was dropped and subsequently never given another chance, despite fantastic ODI and FC cricket form. Of course, he fell into the unhappy category of an ODI specialist, and I believe he peronally rues this label. Just like Langer, the Test Match specialist, who would love to have a go in a ODI shirt, but will probably never get another chance.

So, looking at the trends of Australian cricket selectors at least, ODI form does not directly relate to Test match selection and vice versa.

 

[marc71178]

"Being able to cope with the international pressure" is totally irrelevant if you've not got the ability.

So if they can perform in International Cricket in one form, then they don't have ability?

If they've shown it in one form, why not give them a go in the other?

 

[Prince EWS]

If they've shown it in one form, why not give them a go in the other?

If a batsman has a List A average of 50, an ODI average of 40, and a FC average of 20, its pretty obvious why they will success in ODIs and not tests...

 

[marc71178]

And in the real world, does such a person exist?

A case to consider here is Andrew Strauss - selected for the ODI's in the West Indies, he performed well, and when a spot came up in the Test side, he was given it...

 

[Prince EWS]

And in the real world, does such a person exist?

A case to consider here is Andrew Strauss - selected for the ODI's in the West Indies, he performed well, and when a spot came up in the Test side, he was given it...

Obviously thats an extreme, and I doubt such a person exists, but people in that mould exist Im sure.

Yuvraj Singh springs to mind, but Im sure there are better examples.

 

[Richard]

So if they can perform in International Cricket in one form, then they don't have ability?

If they've shown it in one form, why not give them a go in the other?

Because most of us know that ability in one is not the same as ability in the other.
Of course there are plenty who have it both, but there are more than enough who have only one to make keeping them seperate the best idea.

 

[marc71178]

Similarly there's more then enough people who are international failures but get great figures in domestic cricket, but you don't recognise that because it would class MRR as the failure he clearly was.

 

[Richard]

Ramprakash's First-Class record has never had anything to do with why I class him more of a Test success than most - but let's not get into that, as we know what the result will be.
Yes, there are plenty of people who get good domestic figures and fail in the handful of chances at Test-level they get - but there are still far more people who are Test successes having got good First-Class figures than those who are Test successes who haven't got good First-Class figures.