Which are further apart - Cricket formats or rugby codes?

[Howe_zat]

Inspired by a conversation with Howe Snr in which it was posited that Test cricketers playing T20 is like if all rugby players spent the summer playing league.

 

[sledger]

S'all gravy.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think they're similar in comparison, and the natural idea that the rugby codes are completely different sports only comes from the fact that a player will make a living playing only one, and so players' training and body types will be more specialised towards one or the other. Playing T20 requires completely different set of 'aims' from each particular play to Test cricket, which has lead to different skills being rewarded and completely different strategies being employed. It's possible that we're already at the point where cricketers need different body types to get the best out of themselves in different formats.

As a result, I think as time goes on and it's becoming more and more feasible to play only one format as a cricketer, we will see fewer players be able to compete properly in all forms just as fewer players are able to change codes, because of increased specialisation.

 

[GIMH]

Gutted I've retired my Richard persona, this thread was tailor made for it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's an interesting question.

Instinctively I thought the cricket formats are closer and, after consideration, I still believe this to be the case.

Primarily because it seems that the genuinely great players can excel in any of them. Even his most churlish critic (which might well be me, as it goes; love me some churl) would struggle to make a meaningful case that Jacques Kallis isn't an ATG test player and remains a very useful T20 performer and T20's leading runmaker, Chris Gayle, is one of only (I think) 4 players to have made more than one test triple century.

The respective rugby codes have less transferable skillsets in certain positions. It'd be pretty much impossible to imagine a classic union prop or lock being a world class league forward because of its uncontested possession. Ditto the crucial (in union) ball scavs like McCaw, Pocock or Back. Whilst all have great hands for union forwards, in league they'd be far more quotidian. Witness the recent abortive attempts to make a union back out of Sam Burgess, who (apparently) has a bit of a rep in the NRL for butterfingers, because of his perceived superior distribution.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Union and league are 120 years apart, T20 and Test cricket merely 15 years.

Not merely a pedantic joke, I think the separation is only going to grow and grow (particularly among the bowlers).

 

[GIMH]

Would a better comparison be that T20/ODIs are more akin to Rugby Sevens versus Union?

I don't know enough about Rugby, especially League, to meaningfully contribute to this discussion. So I'm not saying the above is my belief. Just a question, and something I think I have seen posed on here before.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's an interesting question.

Instinctively I thought the cricket formats are closer and, after consideration, I still believe this to be the case.

Primarily because it seems that the genuinely great players can excel in any of them. Even his most churlish critic (which might well be me, as it goes; love me some churl) would struggle to make a meaningful case that Jacques Kallis isn't an ATG test player and remains a very useful T20 performer and T20's leading runmaker, Chris Gayle, is one of only (I think) 4 players to have made more than one test triple century.

The respective rugby codes have less transferable skillsets in certain positions. It'd be pretty much impossible to imagine a classic union prop or lock being a world class league forward because of its uncontested possession. Ditto the crucial (in union) ball scavs like McCaw, Pocock or Back. Whilst all have great hands for union forwards, in league they'd be far more quotidian. Witness the recent abortive attempts to make a union back out of Sam Burgess, who (apparently) has a bit of a rep in the NRL for butterfingers, because of his perceived superior distribution.

I reckon for every Burgess there's a Folau or Thorn who aces the move between codes. And in any case, Burgess playing Union probably went a bit better than Alastair Cook playing T20.

 

[Howe_zat]

Would a better comparison be that T20/ODIs are more akin to Rugby Sevens versus Union?

I don't know enough about Rugby, especially League, to meaningfully contribute to this discussion. So I'm not saying the above is my belief. Just a question, and something I think I have seen posed on here before.

I think limiting overs in cricket functions a lot like how League limits tackles. It changes the barometer for success wildly and limits the strategies, and so limits the types of players who can succeed.

Sevens is like indoor cricket.

 

[Jono]

Gutted I've retired my Richard persona, this thread was tailor made for it.