Is form transferrable between different formats?

[Zinzan]

But the question is, is 'form' transferrable, not is 'skill' transferrable. ODIs and tests require 2 different skills and Bracken simply has the skills for one and not the other. I guess you could credit the Australian selectors for realizing that, but you could also criticize them for not realizing this before.

Bang on the money TEC, the exact reason Chris Harris was a fine ODI player, yet rubbish test player

 

[Craig]

On the flip side, somebody like Michael Slater who was one of the most aggressive Test opening batsmen I have ever seen (yeah I was a fan) yet was rubbish as a one day batsman. I have never understood that, except for trying to be 'too aggressive' and not play his natural game.

 

[tooextracool]

On the flip side, somebody like Michael Slater who was one of the most aggressive Test opening batsmen I have ever seen (yeah I was a fan) yet was rubbish as a one day batsman. I have never understood that, except for trying to be 'too aggressive' and not play his natural game.

Being aggressive does not automatically result in ODI success. Slater obviously did not lack technically, but even though he was an aggressive test batsman he scored his runs by playing orthodox cricketing shots. He hit his boundaries along the ground rather than going over the top of the fielders and he wasnt one to work it around in the gaps for singles and 2s. Its similar to why Vaughan failed in ODI cricket, you block the boundaries and there is little that Slater could do to get runs.

 

[Craig]

Being aggressive does not automatically result in ODI success. Slater obviously did not lack technically, but even though he was an aggressive test batsman he scored his runs by playing orthodox cricketing shots. He hit his boundaries along the ground rather than going over the top of the fielders and he wasnt one to work it around in the gaps for singles and 2s. Its similar to why Vaughan failed in ODI cricket, you block the boundaries and there is little that Slater could do to get runs.

So the whole skill thing applies again with batting? As in with your example of Bracken on how he is a fine ODI bowler but rubbish in Tests and his lack of skill with the red ball, the same thing applies to a guy like Slater where he doesn't have the skill to move the ball into the gaps.

Bah I think I get the jist of it.

 

[tooextracool]

It applies to both disciplines. There are plenty of successful test batsmen that have struggled in ODIs and vice versa. I would think that the only discipline that is transferrable in both forms is fielding.

 

[Top_Cat]

It applies to both disciplines. There are plenty of successful test batsmen that have struggled in ODIs and vice versa. I would think that the only discipline that is transferrable in both forms is fielding.

Yeah, what you said earlier is pretty close; Slats was never one for hitting the ball in the air much. Comes from being a trained opener, really. Hitting the ball over the top is pretty important for ODI players. Slats used to hit some long balls in Tests but they were generally against the spinners. I don't recall any hooks off quicks for six or drives on the up over their heads. He just wasn't geared that way.

 

[honestbharani]

Being aggressive does not automatically result in ODI success. Slater obviously did not lack technically, but even though he was an aggressive test batsman he scored his runs by playing orthodox cricketing shots. He hit his boundaries along the ground rather than going over the top of the fielders and he wasnt one to work it around in the gaps for singles and 2s. Its similar to why Vaughan failed in ODI cricket, you block the boundaries and there is little that Slater could do to get runs.

Excellent point. Sehwag is another one that comes to mind...

 

[pasag]

But the question is, is 'form' transferrable, not is 'skill' transferrable. ODIs and tests require 2 different skills and Bracken simply has the skills for one and not the other. I guess you could credit the Australian selectors for realizing that, but you could also criticize them for not realizing this before.

From what I've heard, Bracken has been improving considerably in the longer format, just like he did in the shorter format, with lots of hard work.

Like most, I haven't actually seen it with my own eyes though.

 

[Uppercut]

Excellent point. Sehwag is another one that comes to mind...

I don't think Sehwag takes ODIs particularly seriously. He doesn't take tests seriously either, but in ODIs he's having a laugh and in T20 he just takes the piss completely.

Still a genuine one-day matchwinner on his day, but i agree it's unusual for such an aggressive player in tests to do as poorly as he has done in ODIs.

 

[Uppercut]

Or alternatively, he could have played, faced what was an in-form, aggressive and confident bowling line-up, failed and never be heard from again. Not to mention, the 400+ first-day head-start the Aussie bowlers gave the English batsmen made a small difference.

The Aussie lost that series and would have lost it by more if not for the rain in the 3rd Test, one batsman, for whom there was no guarantee that he would have succeeded, would not have made a difference. Accept it.
.

Hmm, the difference between the teams was two runs in the end. England were, over the series, clearly the better side and thoroughly deserved their victory. But it was still a fine, fine margin by which they won it. Two runs. One batsman may well have made a difference.

 

[Woodster]

I couldnt agree with that.

I dont think LO or ODI runs should be a part of the judgement of Test potential.

But for an older, experienced player that has played a lot of Test cricket then LO runs can play a role. Just feeling the bat on ball and gaining some confidence and runs under the belt can do wonders for a player regardless of the format.

I think it's very often an awful idea TBH, ODI cricket is no way to judge the potential merits of a Test player.

If you pick someone for ODIs as a "stepping-stone" and he fails badly (because he's not very good at one-day cricket) that can often get someone who should be right at the front of the Test queue pushed back.

It's very frustrating.

I may need to qualify my comments here.
I was thinking in the main of Australia when I suggested their selection on promise for the future, and of course it is not just with Test cricket in mind but obvious planning for future World Cups and limited overs cricket in general.

I appreciate they are two entirely different formats and a young player cannot be judged on his Test potential should he fail in ODI's.

It is exceptionally difficult for a young Australian to break into the Test side, and by way of increasing a players development and exposure in top class cricket they are given ODI games to enhance their skills. Now as said, failure here does not mean players are thought any less of when Test squads are mentioned, unless they really looked out of their depth.

Not necessarily a natural 'stepping stone' as I earlier suggested, but certainly an environment to test how these players can handle the different pressures of playing cricket at this level.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, the difference between the teams was two runs in the end. England were, over the series, clearly the better side and thoroughly deserved their victory. But it was still a fine, fine margin by which they won it. Two runs. One batsman may well have made a difference.

Nah, that just isn't true. You cannot win a series by 2 runs unless that's the margin of victory in the last Test.

Truth is, England were the better side by a long way over the last four Tests and won the series convincingly. Katich is not the no-hoper he's often portrayed as - he's a fine batsman who was made to look amateurish by some of times utterly superlative bowling. Such bowling could easily have made Hussey look poor too.

That's aside from the fact Katich's selection was 100% nailed-on certainty pre-series. There was zero case for Hussey to play ahead of him. Hussey as a middle-order Test batsman had barely even been considered in those days - it only happened by accident.

 

[Burgey]

Nah, that just isn't true. You cannot win a series by 2 runs unless that's the margin of victory in the last Test.

Truth is, England were the better side by a long way over the last four Tests and won the series convincingly. Katich is not the no-hoper he's often portrayed as - he's a fine batsman who was made to look amateurish by some of times utterly superlative bowling. Such bowling could easily have made Hussey look poor too.

That's aside from the fact Katich's selection was 100% nailed-on certainty pre-series. There was zero case for Hussey to play ahead of him. Hussey as a middle-order Test batsman had barely even been considered in those days - it only happened by accident.

Mints.

You know it, they know it, everyone knows....

It was the mints that got them bowling so well.

In the most recent test v SA, I noticed Vaughan on the field chewing on the remnants of a mandarin after the lunch break. Ban them!! Plainly being used for an unfair advantage by the conniving England Hierarchy.

Oh look, is that the time?

 

[Top_Cat]

Hmm, the difference between the teams was two runs in the end. England were, over the series, clearly the better side and thoroughly deserved their victory. But it was still a fine, fine margin by which they won it. Two runs. One batsman may well have made a difference.

At Edgbaston, the match difference was two runs. In the third Test, the Aussies only drew by virtue of the rain, really. As you said, England thoroughly deserves their victory. Especially since he would have been playing in his first Test series,

I'd have backed Hussey to do relatively poorly, especially since vastly experienced, tough Test batsmen like Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, etc. didn't come close to equalling their career averages. Even Kat was relatively experienced and came into the series in reasonable nick, yet left it a shot-duck.

Plus, the reserve swing was clearly more effective against lefties so Hussey would have had to contend with that. It's all idle speculation and no-one has any way of knowing for sure but England's bowling, as good as their batting was, made the difference. If a line-up like the Aussies had for that series can struggle, anyone can and Hussey, I'd hazard, would have too.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think Sehwag takes ODIs particularly seriously. He doesn't take tests seriously either, but in ODIs he's having a laugh and in T20 he just takes the piss completely.

Still a genuine one-day matchwinner on his day, but i agree it's unusual for such an aggressive player in tests to do as poorly as he has done in ODIs.

I do think that having so many guys in the covers cuts him off in ODIs.. It is not the same in tests. And while he can tip and run with the best of them, he doesn't do it with any real consistency and that is the reason you so often see those 20s and 30s from him and then getting out to an attempted aggressive shot. He simply is yet to work out how to build and pace his innings in an ODI, something that he never has trouble with in a test or in a Twenty20 game.

 

[Richard]

Mints.

You know it, they know it, everyone knows....

It was the mints that got them bowling so well.

In the most recent test v SA, I noticed Vaughan on the field chewing on the remnants of a mandarin after the lunch break. Ban them!! Plainly being used for an unfair advantage by the conniving England Hierarchy.

Oh look, is that the time?

Glad they've found something else - stop people clutching at this ridiculous mints lark straws.

 

[Richard]

England's bowling, as good as their batting was, made the difference.

Don't think England's batting was particularly good at all TBH, Australia's bowling-attack (especially with McGrath absent for two Tests out of four) was simply poor and their catching execrable. And even then England couldn't build massive totals. Trescothick got plenty of good quick starts, cashing-in on the wayward opening stints, but didn't go on; Strauss did reasonably, making a few quick starts and a couple of centuries; Vaughan played pretty poorly throughout and only made half-centuries thanks to let-offs; Bell was got out repeatedly and got himself out shockingly on a few other occasions; Pietersen started very well then faded (and of course had copious good fortune at The Oval to make it look better); Flintoff played pretty well throughout; and Geraint Jones didn't make a chanceless half-century.

Only Strauss and Flintoff came out of those four Tests England dominated with any real credit with the bat, to my mind.

 

[tooextracool]

Don't think England's batting was particularly good at all TBH, Australia's bowling-attack (especially with McGrath absent for two Tests out of four) was simply poor and their catching execrable. And even then England couldn't build massive totals. Trescothick got plenty of good quick starts, cashing-in on the wayward opening stints, but didn't go on; Strauss did reasonably, making a few quick starts and a couple of centuries; Vaughan played pretty poorly throughout and only made half-centuries thanks to let-offs; Bell was got out repeatedly and got himself out shockingly on a few other occasions; Pietersen started very well then faded (and of course had copious good fortune at The Oval to make it look better); Flintoff played pretty well throughout; and Geraint Jones didn't make a chanceless half-century.

Only Strauss and Flintoff came out of those four Tests England dominated with any real credit with the bat, to my mind.

I think you are being really really generous with Strauss. At best Strauss was rubbish for all of the first 4 tests, no way around it. His 100 at OT was irrelevant and came at a time when the Aussie bowling attack was down on confidence and had nothing to play for given the match situation. AFAIC, if he hadnt scored that century, someone else would have. Trescothick was the best batter after Flintoff that series, followed by Pietersen and everyone else was pretty much a footnote.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

AFAIC, if he hadnt scored that century, someone else would have.

 

[Richard]

I think you are being really really generous with Strauss. At best Strauss was rubbish for all of the first 4 tests, no way around it. His 100 at OT was irrelevant and came at a time when the Aussie bowling attack was down on confidence and had nothing to play for given the match situation. AFAIC, if he hadnt scored that century, someone else would have. Trescothick was the best batter after Flintoff that series, followed by Pietersen and everyone else was pretty much a footnote.

Strauss' contributions at Edgbaston (first-innings), Old Trafford (second-innings) and Trent Bridge (both innings') were important AFAIC. Not Earth-shatteringly brilliant innings, but important to the outcome.

Trescothick could be argued to be the second-best batsman of that series, but so could Strauss or Pietersen.