How will the coming generation of cricketers judge themselves?

[Richard]

This is a very fascinating question and one I've thought more than once in recent years. And with David Gower, David Lloyd and Michael Atherton discussing the matter with varying degrees of guesswork during lunchtime on the day of this post, I thought I'd put it out there to CW.

Someone like Ricky Ponting, I think it can fairly safely be said, will take far more pride in his 30 (summat like that) Test centuries and playing in and leading a Test side that has beaten most comers than his multiple ODI achievements (including 3 World Cups, 2 as captain). Equally, I don't doubt that 18-year-old Middlesex batsman Billy Godleman is hoping to play Tests one day - probably not even really thinking about ODIs.

Aravinda de Silva, Mahela Jayawardene, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Mohammad Yousuf, Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid, beyond doubt I think, will be more proud of their Test achievements than anything they've done in the shorter game, despite the fact that attendances are a tiny fraction for the five-day than what they are for the one- in each of their countries.

But what about the next generation? What is it that these boys

the likes of Tanmay Srivastava, Taruwar and Virat Kohli, Ajitesh Argal and Ravindra Jadeja are dreaming of? Are they wanting to play 100 Tests for India and take the team to the top of The World? Or are they aiming to get the biggest bids they can possibly get in the IPL, or are they considering chucking the whole lot in to go and play in the ICL?

Do they think they can do both? Do they want to?

The only way we could know, I suppose, is to talk to them. But I wonder if anyone has any inkling, besides stereotypes and assumptions.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

First chance average.

 

[Richard]

It'd be good, but I think it'll be a while before I start persuading players to do that.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It is an interesting question, actually: will tests still be the gold standard of cricketing excellence? I personally think there has already been a shift towards the abbreviated forms of the game in most cricketing nations; one only has to see the spartanly populated crowds for the current test in NZ & compare them to the virtual full-houses for the 20/20s & ODIs that preceded it to see where the kiwi paying public's hearts lie.

Obviously, with the filthy lucre on offer in the subcontinent's 20/20 alphabet stews, it's reasonable to assume that this is a trend that will continue. The talent will follow the money. We're already seen Ponting having a semi-whinge about his (in his humble opinion) undervaluing in the IPL's cattle-market compared to yer Symonds & yer Dhonis of the world. Now patently not too many would rate either as being in Ponting's league as a test player, but if the financial rewards for the shortened form are so much in advance of those for the longer version it can't help but affect the prestige tests are viewed with. For the younger generation tests could well become of less importance.

It's only us Brits (& maybe to a lesser extent the Aussies) that are really still a bit sniffy about the shorter formats now.

 

[Prince EWS]

First chance average.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Tests will be seen as pretty much like Grand Slams in tennis. More money in other tournaments/types of games, but they're the one that you really want to take part in. They'll keep their lustre.

 

[Richard]

That's what the likes of CW posters (and, fair to say, most youngish cricketers in the UK and Australia, and probably West Indies too) hope, certainly.

But is there anyone out there who can say with actual knowledge, rather than guesswork, that this will truly be the attitude of cricketers from the subcontinent? Or that it won't?

As I say, to me the question so far has always been addressed with a whole lot of assumption about subcontinental attitudes - assumption not without some grounding in reason, of course, but assumption nonetheless.

I mean, Jack - you yourself are probably more likely than anyone on here to know anything relevant. How much did you talk to those from the India\Pakistan\Sri Lanka teams (I don't know how much English some of them speak of course) in the last event? If enough to discern their attitudes, what were they?

 

[chaminda_00]

TBH most Indian cricketers will be rated on how hot the Indian Bollywood actress they are going out with is.

If Test don't mean anything then why do Yuraj Singh, Pathan feel they have achieved very little in their career, even though both have been fairly to very sucessful ODI careers.

Fans might rate players on how much they earn, especially casual fans. But the players and true fans will always rate players on how much they achieve in the Test arena.

Also even though someone like say David Beckham might be the highest overall earning footballer, most fans don't even have him in the same ball park as Kaka, Ronaldino or Ronaldo. I'm sure it will be the same in cricket, once wages start to regularly increase through the shorter forms.

 

[Redbacks]

Test cricket is the way to go. One factor it has going for it is a whole day is a good time to sit on the Hill at adelaide oval and have a beer or ten. What's dissapointing is when I go to watch state games crowds are almost non-existant. yet the big-bash could pack out Adelaide oval.

I rate Kallis and Dravid very highly due their ability to concentrate for such long periods and have a brilliant defense. Neither are the best one-day players but most cricket lovers that I discuss the game with rate the skill set of test cricket above the one day game.

 

[Redbacks]

insert <Dravid>

 

[NUFAN]

Great question.

Anyone with ballz (and talent) will be aiming to play Test Cricket.

Some players mentioned in the original post will and should be happy just to earn big money playing IPL style matches.

 

[burr]

well test cricket obviously. when it comes down to it odis mean ziltch. and i totally don't believe in this first chance average hobby horse you've got going on.

 

[Richard]

well test cricket obviously. when it comes down to it odis mean ziltch.

That's precisely the point - do they?

I think there've been too many people who've commented so far in this thread who've taken a "this is the way I see it so obviously it must be the way everyone does" attitude TBH.

and i totally don't believe in this first chance average hobby horse you've got going on.

It's only been discussed in jest here TBH.

 

[burr]

lol. I don't presume e.one thinks the same as me, and I'm going to bed. But have fun debating

 

[silentstriker]

Very interesting question, look at some of the comments made by Indian players:

Harbhajan:

“Many of them said they loved me when I met them outside the stadium. I can understand the public wanting to support their team but I made them realise that I also played cricket the tough way. I was not in Australia to make friends. I was there to play for my country and win. And win we did.”

Former captain Tiwary:

“We have bearded the lion in its own den. It was a fantastic effort, winning it 2-0 against the World champions.”

Siddhu:

It is definitely one of the top five wins recorded by India in its history.

Tendulkar rated this as one of the highlights of his career. I mean - this is after they lost the Test series. Now Harbhajan is not a great test player, but he has accomplished a lot in Tests (250+ wickets, and a hat trick is certainly something to be proud of), and to hear him speak like they just won a Test series, or even a World Cup does point to a change in attitude towards the limited overs game. Thirty years ago, and maybe even ten years ago, perhaps you wouldn't hear players saying these things.

As a Test cricket lover, I don't like this one bit, but if the players themselves don't value Test cricket as the highest form (and not the fringe fans who flock to limited overs game), then it cannot and will not remain as the highest form. Is Test cricket in its death throes? I don't think so, but in twenty years, will it still be considered the highest form of cricket by the players themselves? I am beginning to be skeptical.

 

[social]

Very interesting question, look at some of the comments made by Indian players:

Harbhajan:


Former captain Tiwary:


Siddhu:



Tendulkar rated this as one of the highlights of his career. I mean - this is after they lost the Test series. Now Harbhajan is not a great test player, but he has accomplished a lot in Tests (250+ wickets, and a hat trick is certainly something to be proud of), and to hear him speak like they just won a Test series, or even a World Cup does point to a change in attitude towards the limited overs game. Thirty years ago, and maybe even ten years ago, perhaps you wouldn't hear players saying these things.

As a Test cricket lover, I don't like this one bit, but if the players themselves don't value Test cricket as the highest form (and not the fringe fans who flock to limited overs game), then it cannot and will not remain as the highest form. Is Test cricket in its death throes? I don't think so, but in twenty years, will it still be considered the highest form of cricket by the players themselves? I am beginning to be skeptical.

How can they say anything else?

They lost the test series

 

[Richard]

The point is, 10 years ago (and certainly 20 or 30) would anyone really take a huge degree of comfort from winning the B&H\C&U\VB\CB Series having been beaten in the Tests? Never mind be pleased with it?

I wouldn't know really, though my guess would be not.

What I do know is that you can contrast these Indian reactions to those of the English when we did something vaguely similar last year (though really, I don't know how much comparison is wise, because we all know that in the Tests India pretty much matched Australia regardless of some whimsical series scoreline, whereas England were outclassed for most of the series). Near enough everyone reacted in a "oh well, nice to have something I suppose, but we still failed abjectly really". It'd be more of a fair comparison had India been flattened in the Tests.

 

[chaminda_00]

You quote anyone after winning something and I wouldn't be surprised if many sportsmen say it was their best win. Very time Hewitt wins a 5-setter in the Tennis he says something similar. But once things settle down all the focus will go onto the return Test series in India. I'm sure there is atleast 1-5 ODI series between Australia and India, but they will all be seen as prelude to the Test series.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, very good point.

Maybe we'd do well to ask them what they think in 3 months' time.

 

[Jono]

Very interesting question, look at some of the comments made by Indian players:

Harbhajan:


Former captain Tiwary:


Siddhu:



Tendulkar rated this as one of the highlights of his career. I mean - this is after they lost the Test series. Now Harbhajan is not a great test player, but he has accomplished a lot in Tests (250+ wickets, and a hat trick is certainly something to be proud of), and to hear him speak like they just won a Test series, or even a World Cup does point to a change in attitude towards the limited overs game. Thirty years ago, and maybe even ten years ago, perhaps you wouldn't hear players saying these things.

As a Test cricket lover, I don't like this one bit, but if the players themselves don't value Test cricket as the highest form (and not the fringe fans who flock to limited overs game), then it cannot and will not remain as the highest form. Is Test cricket in its death throes? I don't think so, but in twenty years, will it still be considered the highest form of cricket by the players themselves? I am beginning to be skeptical.

You completely missed here SS, sorry but that's just incorrect and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

What they said was because of the opposition they beat, not of what format they won in.

If they won the tests, they'd be saying the same, and tenfold too.

Part of the reason India have been so happy beating Australia (other than the fact Australia were world champions) was because of the fact that they were bold and selected a young side, and because of all the controversy that occurred throughout the summer.

Why would they play down their achievement?

IMO your post is quite irrelevant to the topic, which is what will players be aiming for in the future, money or test acheivements. Not whether they'll value winning ODIs over tests because of the format.

I guarantee you Harbhajan and Tendulkar would have rathered won the test series (Sachin himself said before the tests began that if India won the test series, it'd be the greatest achievement in his career).