Is form transferrable between different formats?

[GIMH]

Today, Paul Collingwood has been named back in the England Test line-up. This is in spite of the fact that he hasn't actually played a long-form innings since being dropped, so what form are they gauging him to have? A couple of half-decent LO innings, that is all. Now this in itself is perhaps more a reflection of England's selection policy, the same one that saw Strauss recalled for New Zealand away. But it got me thinking.

Now CW seems to have a consensus on whether your team selection in different forms should be entirely independent from each other (though it is something else I'd like to discuss in future itbt). However, it is slightly different if a batsman is recalled in one form after showing form in the other.

For example, let's say Pietersen was dropped for Tests because he had a run of poor form, but was then selected for the ODI side. In the tournament he was selected for, he plays well, finishing with an average in the 60s. There is a Test series one month later? Do you recall him, even though he has played no FC innings since being dropped from Tests?

Thoughts?

 

[Ikki]

I would definitely agree. Not only form, but ability. Australia's used it to slowly bring in Test players by giving them experience and exposure in ODI. Gilchrist, Symonds, Watson, Hogg...plenty of examples.

As for the Pietersen example, I am not sure. How should we assume those that are already there are doing? Are the current batsmen struggling?

 

[Manee]

I believe that his runs in county cricket may have given him the confidence which has been lost due to his poor form, but not that it has necessarily put him back into form.

 

[Uppercut]

I would definitely agree. Not only form, but ability. Australia's used it to slowly bring in Test players by giving them experience and exposure in ODI. Gilchrist, Symonds, Watson, Hogg...plenty of examples.

Yet Bracken has risen to number 1 ranked ODI bowler in the world and doesn't get a look in to the test side. Thoughts?

 

[Woodster]

I think a few runs in limited overs cricket does not mean that all is now well, but it may help him knowing that he's finding the middle of the bat. I think if a judgement is made of a certain player, ie if they are in form then they are good enough for international cricket, then more often than not it is about getting them to score a few runs, spend time in the middle, feel the ball somewhere near the middle of the bat, in game situations, albeit one-day cricket.

So as a result of this, imo, I think players can influence selectors with their one-day form if they are conceived to be a vital part of the Test line-up, just simply out of form. I think it's much harder for players to gain Test recognition for simply one-day performances alone.

Although as said in a previous post, it is a good stepping stone for younger players who are judged to be good enough for Test exposure in years to come.

 

[Ikki]

Yet Bracken has risen to number 1 ranked ODI bowler in the world and doesn't get a look in to the test side. Thoughts?

I didn't mean to say it's a guarantee. There are other arguments as to why but right now the Aussie Test selectors seem to be putting more faith in youth. Being almost 31 doesn't help Bracken's cause.

There is also a famous example in Bevan. One of the ODI greats but not persisted with at Test level.

 

[Uppercut]

I didn't mean to say it's a guarantee. There are other arguments as to why but right now the Aussie Test selectors seem to be putting more faith in youth. Being almost 31 doesn't help Bracken's cause.

Yeah, but it's really surprising that someone can be a truly world-class ODI bowler yet be nowhere near the test squad, never mind the team. It would suggest that the Australian selectors would answer "No" to this thread, in the case of bowlers at least.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, but it's really surprising that someone can be a truly world-class ODI bowler yet be nowhere near the test squad, never mind the team. It would suggest that the Australian selectors would answer "No" to this thread, in the case of bowlers at least.

Why to bowlers? Maybe just Bracken.

 

[Uppercut]

Why to bowlers? Maybe just Bracken.

Do they just not like him? Is he too old? Is there something in his method of bowling that they feel means he can't be a threat at test level? Do they want to avoid burning him out?

They'd all be pretty valid if he was a steady ODI performer, but he's not. He's statistically the best in the entire world. I might not pick him for the test side myself, but i do find it curious in the context of this thread that he doesn't get anywhere near it.

 

[fredfertang]

Today, Paul Collingwood has been named back in the England Test line-up. This is in spite of the fact that he hasn't actually played a long-form innings since being dropped, so what form are they gauging him to have? A couple of half-decent LO innings, that is all. Now this in itself is perhaps more a reflection of England's selection policy, the same one that saw Strauss recalled for New Zealand away. But it got me thinking.

Now CW seems to have a consensus on whether your team selection in different forms should be entirely independent from each other (though it is something else I'd like to discuss in future itbt). However, it is slightly different if a batsman is recalled in one form after showing form in the other.

For example, let's say Pietersen was dropped for Tests because he had a run of poor form, but was then selected for the ODI side. In the tournament he was selected for, he plays well, finishing with an average in the 60s. There is a Test series one month later? Do you recall him, even though he has played no FC innings since being dropped from Tests?

Thoughts?

As the season progresses I am coming to the view that if there is a selection policy this year it may simply be geared to reducing expectations in anticipation of a drubbing next year – if there is any actual policy involved it has passed me by and there appears to be nothing going on in the collective selectorial consciousness that can be satisfactorily explained – even Michael Vaughan seems to have twigged that much.

Collingwood is being set up to fail IMO and that is sad because he is a decent player but there we are – I think form and confidence, which usually but not always go hand in hand, are crucial - presumably a telephone call to the West Country and a “Hi Marcus do you fancy a game at The Oval and no need to tour” is out of the question?

 

[Ikki]

Do they just not like him? Is he too old? Is there something in his method of bowling that they feel means he can't be a threat at test level? Do they want to avoid burning him out?

They'd all be pretty valid if he was a steady ODI performer, but he's not. He's statistically the best in the entire world. I might not pick him for the test side myself, but i do find it curious in the context of this thread that he doesn't get anywhere near it.

I think it's a combination of a few of those things. Age possibly, although Clark is older, for instance. The way he bowls, very possible. Test cricket bowling is much different to ODI. You gotta ask more questions of batsmen and do it for longer, as well as keeping it tight. Stuey Clark was a pretty hopeless ODI bowler but has settled into Tests very well. This is attributed to his style I'd say.

I don't think the selectors do it on a set formula. For instance, in Australia we have FC cricketers averaging 50+ but don't get invited to Tests for years. Shane Warne was barely starting and he made the Test squad. Potential and what the selectors perceive in ability has tended to show a lot of strange choices. A lot of good ones for Australia, though. I would say they are getting it right most of the time.

But where it concerns this thread, there are also clear examples (I named a few) where batsmen and bowlers have been in the ODI side and, upon success, into the Test side. I can't really presume with much definition really; this is my opinion and also guess.

 

[Richard]

Although as said in a previous post, it is a good stepping stone for younger players who are judged to be good enough for Test exposure in years to come.

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.

As regards Collingwood, I don't imagine his OD innings made much if any impact upon his recall. They've simply said "he remains in the picture, so he's first port-of-call when we want to pick a batsman".

 

[GIMH]

Yeah that's true but in general do you think being in form in OD cricket can be a sign of being in form in general?

 

[Burgey]

I think form is transerable in the sense that, if you're hitting the ball well, you're hitting it well whether it's a red ball or a white one.
Whether that means being good at one form (forgive pun) of the game makes you suitable to another is a different thing though.

 

[tooextracool]

Depends on your definition of 'form'. If you know that someone is up to the mark in the long form and he is just having a poor trot in form, then yes, if someone is hitting the cover off the ball in ODI cricket then its logical to select him in tests as well. At the end of the day, that definition of form, is related to confidence which you either have or you dont and would be irrelevant to the format of the game. Now whether Collingwood's 30 odd in a Twenty20 game and 70 odd in a LO game and some miscellaneous failures count as a return to 'form' is questionable. I dont believe that 1 good innings is exactly a return to form, especially if its not a 100.

The Strauss scenario mentioned above is completely different. Strauss was dropped because he was technically very poor and could barely play a front foot drive. If the selectors assumed that this was part of his lack of 'form' then that is rather foolish. In such a case however, you should only select the player if he starts to score runs again at the FC level *and* shows a change in his technique, which Strauss was categorically not doing at the time. His selection was poor at the time, however fortunately he had made some technical improvements in his time out and managed to score runs eventually when he was brought back into the side. Am i convinced about him? No. But equally I do think that hes no longer susceptible to full inswinging balls like he was either.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, but it's really surprising that someone can be a truly world-class ODI bowler yet be nowhere near the test squad, never mind the team. It would suggest that the Australian selectors would answer "No" to this thread, in the case of bowlers at least.

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.

 

[tooextracool]

Do they just not like him? Is he too old? Is there something in his method of bowling that they feel means he can't be a threat at test level? Do they want to avoid burning him out?

They'd all be pretty valid if he was a steady ODI performer, but he's not. He's statistically the best in the entire world. I might not pick him for the test side myself, but i do find it curious in the context of this thread that he doesn't get anywhere near it.

He bowls at little over medium pace. He bowls inswingers and occasionally off cutters but he simply just doesnt hit the pitch hard enough or bowl fast enough to consistently bother batsman on pitches around the world. Essentially, when the ball isnt swinging he does not pose a threat to anyone in the world and the fact that if he were to play tests, he would play the majority of his tests in Australia where hed get little help from the conditions doesnt help either.

 

[Richard]

I think form is transerable in the sense that, if you're hitting the ball well, you're hitting it well whether it's a red ball or a white one.

Even that isn't entirely the same - the requirements in one-day cricket, due to different field-settings, are different to those in the two-innings game. In the latter, batting well generally means you're middling it and even if you do hit the infielders often enough, you're still hitting it hard to the boundary as soon as you miss them. In the former, even if your timing's off, it matters less as finding the gaps is more important than getting the power to reach the rope - and often even if you do get the power, the fielders in the deep have time to move and reach the ball. But the inability to pierce the infield, however well you're timing it, is fatal.

You can easily be out of one-day nick and in First-Class nick or vice-versa. One of the best examples of this was Nick Knight in 2002. Couldn't stop scoring runs in the Championship but, after a 125* in his opening OD innings of the season, could not get a run in the National League, B&H, C&G or for England's ODI side for the rest of the summer.

 

[Uppercut]

He bowls at little over medium pace. He bowls inswingers and occasionally off cutters but he simply just doesnt hit the pitch hard enough or bowl fast enough to consistently bother batsman on pitches around the world. Essentially, when the ball isnt swinging he does not pose a threat to anyone in the world and the fact that if he were to play tests, he would play the majority of his tests in Australia where hed get little help from the conditions doesnt help either.

He's at least a better test bowler than Mitchell Johnson. For my money, you just described Chaminda Vaas, a successful bowler in both forms of the game. I don't believe it has been proven conclusively that Bracken can't succeed in the test format. As it stands, i probably wouldn't have him in the team, but it's still curious that someone can be ranked #1 ODI bowler in the world without even getting in the squad for tests.

 

[Burgey]

Pick him for India - let him try to swing it early, then bowl those fastish left arm finger spinners/ cutters as the wicket wears. He's no worse an option in that role than any potential spinner we have atm.