Anyone have a theory on why.....

[ttm]

Michael Slater was such a bad one day player? Perhaps its just a statistical anomaly on the outskirts of the normal range. The way he played in tests makes you think he would have been an ideal one day player.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by ttm

Michael Slater was such a bad one day player? Perhaps its just a statistical anomaly on the outskirts of the normal range. The way he played in tests makes you think he would have been an ideal one day player.

Basically he played get out shots far too often.

Slater scored far too many scores between 50 and 73 which wasn't enough.

Look at his third and fourth last matches - 53* (69) and 52 (38) batting at 6, he then failed twice in England batting in the middle order where captain Mark Taylor was opening and struggling. There wasn't enough room for both so they kept the captain, and Slats never really did much for NSW in List A matches to force his way back.

[Prince EWS]

Too boundary-reliant.

[Julian87]

A more defensive field sorted him out IMO. Hiitting the ball in the air in test cricket is a little less risky at the start of an innings because so many players are behind the icket whereas in ODI's it is always more of a ring field.

[Top_Cat]

Slats' great strength in the early days was his orthodoxy too. Very straight-bat player. In ODI, you need to be able to improvise and because guys are bowling to contain rather than outside off-stump away-swinging deliveries, which his technique was geared towards playing. Little chips over the on-side field, for example, weren't his thing. Wasn't great off his pads, either.

[subshakerz]

I suppose these anomalies happen in cricket. Sehwag also, you would expect him to prosper in onedays like in tests, but he just hasnt clicked.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Too boundary-reliant.

Originally Posted by Julian87

A more defensive field sorted him out IMO. Hiitting the ball in the air in test cricket is a little less risky at the start of an innings because so many players are behind the icket whereas in ODI's it is always more of a ring field.

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Slats' great strength in the early days was his orthodoxy too. Very straight-bat player. In ODI, you need to be able to improvise and because guys are bowling to contain rather than outside off-stump away-swinging deliveries, which his technique was geared towards playing. Little chips over the on-side field, for example, weren't his thing. Wasn't great off his pads, either.

Agree with all of this. There's any number of examples of fine, boundary-hitting, orthodox long-form batsmen who struggle with the shorter game: Slater, Michael Vaughan, Younis Khan, Mahela Jayawardene, Virender Sehwag, etc.

Being "a strokeplayer" isn't something that should make one assume a batsman will be successful at the one-day game.