T20 brings out the best in average/poor cricketers

[Langeveldt]

It's been a theory I've held since the start, poor players flourish in the T20 format, proving the skills are either different to "real cricket" as I call it, or not existant at all..

Bitter cucumber muncher lamenting the demise of his favourite game, or do I have a point? I'd like to find out..

Lets take a look at some of the big successes in the format I've grown to despise, and how they tally in FC/Test cricket. I'm sure Richard or somebody with more time can provide some salient statistics.. Just a few off the top of my head I'd be interested in knowing about..

Loots Bosman
Garnett Kruger
Thandi Tshabalala
Darren Maddy
Cameron White
Brendon McCullum
Ian Harvey
Albie Morkel
Robbie Peterson

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

White and McCullum are far from poor cricketers.

 

[Langeveldt]

White and McCullum are far from poor cricketers.

Yeah fair enough, although I was surprised at McCullums poor ODI average after being raved about by basically everybody, and White seems to get an absolute rocket every time he dares to get near the Aus test team

 

[Goughy]

Pretty much all the people on the list have represented their country at another format as well. At the domestic level I wouldnt call them average/poor at that level.

 

[vic_orthdox]

McCullum's average suffers from coming in down the order for much of his early career, from what I saw anyway.

 

[Uppercut]

The top ten most useful batsmen of the IPL, as rated by cricinfo, are as follows:

S Marsh
S Jayasuriya
V Sehwag
G Gambhir
S Watson
K Sangakarra
R Sharma
G Smith
Y Pathan
A Gilchrist

That's a pretty solid group of batsmen for my money. The odd anomaly, which is inevitable in such a short format. As for bowlers:

S Tanvir
A Mishra
F Maharoof
I Pathan
S Warne
U Gul
P Chawla
G McGrath
Sreesanth
D Fernando

Shaun Pollock comes in at 11. I suppose you could have a point here, but there's a pattern. Mediocre or poor bowlers with fantastic slower-balls, like Maharoof, Fernando and Pathan, seem to have great success.

 

[silentstriker]

The top ten most useful batsmen of the IPL, as rated by cricinfo, are as follows:

S Marsh
S Jayasuriya
V Sehwag
G Gambhir
S Watson
K Sangakarra
R Sharma
G Smith
Y Pathan
A Gilchrist

That's a pretty solid group of batsmen for my money. The odd anomaly, which is inevitable in such a short format. As for bowlers:

S Tanvir
A Mishra
F Maharoof
I Pathan
S Warne
U Gul
P Chawla
G McGrath
Sreesanth
D Fernando

Shaun Pollock comes in at 11. I suppose you could have a point here, but there's a pattern. Mediocre or poor bowlers with fantastic slower-balls, like Maharoof, Fernando and Pathan, seem to have great success.

Yup, the batting is already a pretty good list. I suspect as the 'great' bowlers develop their skills for the short game, you'd see the best players succeeding there too. Right now, the bowling list is dominated by subcontinent players as they are more used to the conditions, but as the IPL matures, people will learn. I don't think you'd keep quality players out.

I completely disagree with the OP. I would think, if anything, ODI hides weaknesses better.

 

[Uppercut]

I completely disagree with the OP. I would think, if anything, ODI hides weaknesses better.

I'd agree with that in general, but then occasionally with a bit of luck T20s can make absolute prank-bowlers like Yo Mahesh look decent when they get targeted unsuccessfully.

 

[Furball]

I'll look at Darren Maddy and Graham Napier, and compare their T20 records with Mark Ramprakash and Graeme Hick, the two most prolific First Class batsman of the last 20 years in English cricket.

 

[Furball]

                Mat  	Inns  	NO  	Runs  	HS  	Ave  	BF  	SR  	100  	50
DL Maddy   	 48  	48  	5  	1418  	111  	32.97  	1048  	135.30  1  	11
GR Napier       39  	26  	3  	515  	152*  	22.39  	312  	165.06 	1  	0
MR Ramprakash   44  	44  	7  	1163  	85*  	31.43  	926  	125.59 	0  	8
GA Hick         37  	36  	3  	1201  	116*  	36.39  	769  	156.17 	2  	10

 

[G.I.Joe]

The logic in the OP is fallacious in that it defines the quality of a cricketer from a Test cricket point of view, rather than from a neutral one. It could easily be turned around and the claim could be made that Test cricket brings out the best in average/poor cricketers, the quality being defined from the T20 pov, alongwith a list of mediocre T20 cricketers who excelled in Test cricket.

The two forms require different skill sets, just appreciate the ones that appeal to your tastes and try to be less anal about what doesn't gel with your sensibilities.


It really is the equivalent of claiming that photography brings out the best in average/poor painters.

 

[thierry henry]

McCullum is a good example of Langeveldt's point imo. He is a precious commodity in T20 because he bats like an idiot. People need to stop defending him. After 7 years he still hasn't made a proper international century.

 

[Johnners]

Yeah fair enough, although I was surprised at McCullums poor ODI average after being raved about by basically everybody, and White seems to get an absolute rocket every time he dares to get near the Aus test team

That's because he's getting close to selection/has been selected, for his bowling. Bloke has talent with the bat.

 

[howardj]

Warner and Marsh would tend to support the theory in the opening post.

 

[Uppercut]

McCullum is a good example of Langeveldt's point imo. He is a precious commodity in T20 because he bats like an idiot. People need to stop defending him. After 7 years he still hasn't made a proper international century.

Only because noone could stay out with him long enough in the 2nd test against Australia. His keeping is absolutely top-class, and he averages more than say, Mark Boucher. His problem, especially in tests, is that he's a wicket keeper who bats and New Zealand are looking for more than that given the current strength of their batting lineup.

In ODIs, i think he's very useful. His knock against the West Indies this week changed the game. Don't underestimate the value of 45 runs in double-quick time, bearing in mind that it's a bonus as it comes from the wicket keeper and not a front-line batsman. He sees off the new ball and cuts down the target from, say, 295 to 250, barely using up any time.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Different skillset, that's all.

The majority of very good ODI players are also good test players, with some exceptions, 20/20 is basically the same, just a bit further removed because the formats have less in common. I dislike 20/20 as much as the next guy, in fact at times I can hardly sit through a whole match, which is very unusual for me when it comes to cricket, but a good player in other formats will generally succeed in 20/20 as well.

I do think the 20 over format does too much to encourage bowlers not to bother with trying to take wickets, and that results in some pretty mediocre bowlers doing well and attacking bowlers struggling, but that's inevitable when you push the balance too far in favour of the bat.

 

[NUFAN]

Cricinfo - Born for Twenty20

 

[grecian]

It's been a theory I've held since the start, poor players flourish in the T20 format, proving the skills are either different to "real cricket" as I call it, or not existant at all..

Bitter cucumber muncher lamenting the demise of his favourite game, or do I have a point? I'd like to find out..

Lets take a look at some of the big successes in the format I've grown to despise, and how they tally in FC/Test cricket. I'm sure Richard or somebody with more time can provide some salient statistics.. Just a few off the top of my head I'd be interested in knowing about..

Loots Bosman
Garnett Kruger
Thandi Tshabalala
Darren Maddy
Cameron White
Brendon McCullum
Ian Harvey
Albie Morkel
Robbie Peterson

Yeah, I don't see Albie winning any matches in a longer format

 

[popepouri]

Yeah, I don't see Albie winning any matches in a longer format

TBF, he does average over 40 in FC with a double hundred to his name and then 30 with the ball almost 3 wickets a match. He is not that dire.

 

[TT Boy]

TBF, he does average over 40 in FC with a double hundred to his name and then 30 with the ball almost 3 wickets a match. He is not that dire.

He would be playing test cricket if he was from a lesser nation or was around for South Africa during the 90s. His a good all-round cricketer and as you say his batting is far better than it gets credit for.