Reasons why test cricket > Twenty20

[vic_orthdox]

Already happening with some players. We will see more.

Yeah, but a lot of those players may never have had the skill-set to make Test cricket, so they are gearing themselves to make the most out of what their skill-set provides.

 

[duffer]

I think that's an iffy term. Liking your sport more than another sport is not snobbish, it's personal preference. I do think cricket takes a long while to really immerse yourself in, and in that way, it is both a small and sort of exclusive community, especially those of us (and there aren't many, even on this forum) who watch almost every single Test match live regardless of who plays (and ruins entire weeks by staying up from 8pm-8am to catch back to back test matches like the recent ones between Aus-Pak and RSA-Eng). Frankly, I'm not even sure if anyone else, even on this forum, is doing that.

What that means, aside from having no life whatsoever for the past few weeks, is that I get a bit defensive about my hobby, and maybe that leads to some more than warranted snide remarks, but in the end, I don't see that as snobbish because I don't see them as the same sport.

Wasn't refering to you tbh but the point I was making is that I think people who ridicule others for liking T20's do tick enough boxes to be labelled elitists or snobs. Liking Test cricket better than T20's alone doesn't put you in the category, you need to be a sufficient enough prick to qualify for it.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, but a lot of those players may never have had the skill-set to make Test cricket, so they are gearing themselves to make the most out of what their skill-set provides.

I think the problem is not in England and Australia where you can make a great living being Test cricketers. I think if you're from NZ or SL, you make almost no money playing Tests and can make 20x your annual salary in one season at IPL, so if you're a youngster, which skillset would you focus on?

you need to be a sufficient enough prick to qualify for it.

I'll try harder.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, but a lot of those players may never have had the skill-set to make Test cricket, so they are gearing themselves to make the most out of what their skill-set provides.

Haha, wonder who you're referring to.

Is the truth, though. I mean, ****, wouldn't you? If I had international standard talent at cricket but knew I wasn't Test material and was in and out of my state side, I'd very strongly consider taking T20 $$'s and playing in front of big crowds instead of slogging it out in SS.

 

[Craig]

If i go to a cricket match at a ground (test mainly) thats the ONLY occassion i dont want to see any *****.

Perfect example when i went to the 5th Day of the Old trafford test in 05 Ashes, that was seriously nervous day of cricket, turned off my phone didn't want to speak to none of my hoes.

FMD.

 

[slugger]

The only criticism I need is it's all attack and no defence.

defending your score is defence. i don't see feilders thrown their hands in the air when the ball runs past them.. in actual fact feilding only improved in test cricket when the 50 over game was introduced. and sometimes attack is the best defence..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'd be quite happy if Tests were the only format of the game. No limited overs at all. I suspect I'm in a considerable minority though.

 

[Jono]

Would suck working full time and only being able to see cricket once or twice when it was played on a weekend.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd be quite happy if Tests were the only format of the game. No limited overs at all. I suspect I'm in a considerable minority though.

Nah, minority maybe, but I think there are enough of us out there who fantasize about a Test only landscape and multimillion dollar FC private cricket leagues .

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nah, minority maybe, but I think there are enough of us out there who fantasize about a Test only landscape and multimillion dollar FC private cricket leagues .

I enjoyed cricket more during the West Indies Tests v Australia than I have any T20 or ODI in the past 2 years at least. It got me thinking that I could definitely live on Test cricket alone, whether or not that's a world with Chris Gayle.

 

[GIMH]

If i go to a cricket match at a ground (test mainly) thats the ONLY occassion i dont want to see any *****.

Perfect example when i went to the 5th Day of the Old trafford test in 05 Ashes, that was seriously nervous day of cricket, turned off my phone didn't want to speak to none of my hoes.

Absolutely vile - there are girls at this forum you know, what do you think they think when they read this?

Anyway, I would get over it if limited overs was taken away but really do enjoy it, I was off work for the T20 WC last year (by coincidence rather than deliberately) and watched nearly all of it, it was awesome. And (if successful in the ballot) I'll be watching Eng-Aus in an ODI at Lord's in July which will be great as well. Tests are my favourite form of the game as well, I don't consider them to be different sports (because by definition they aren't) but love all three. I don't think there's anything wrong with people who just like T20/ODIs either.

 

[four_or_six]

If i go to a cricket match at a ground (test mainly) thats the ONLY occassion i dont want to see any *****.

Perfect example when i went to the 5th Day of the Old trafford test in 05 Ashes, that was seriously nervous day of cricket, turned off my phone didn't want to speak to none of my hoes.

Lol, how vile.

BTW, just to clarify, I was talking about toilets.

 

[four_or_six]

I'll be watching Eng-Aus in an ODI at Lord's in July which will be great as well.

I was going to go in for that, and then I saw it was £85!! Went in for Pak-Aus test tickets instead.

 

[Richard]

defending your score is defence.

It's not the sort of defence I'm talking about.

i don't see feilders thrown their hands in the air when the ball runs past them.. in actual fact feilding only improved in test cricket when the 50 over game was introduced.

What has that got to do with attack and defence?

and sometimes attack is the best defence..

Using attack to defend isn't "defensive cricket".

 

[Uppercut]

The only criticism I need is it's all attack and no defence. That makes perfect sense and is unequivocally true. Cricket in my book has to be about a balance between attack and defence to be interesting.

There are plenty of other legit reasons to criticise Twenty20 but that's the biggest thing I dislike about it.

That's balls Rich, and since I'm willing to bet I watch significantly more T20 than you do I'm claiming superior knowledge on the subject.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That's balls Rich, and since I'm willing to bet I watch significantly more T20 than you do I'm claiming superior knowledge on the subject.

But it's true. What defence there is in T20 cricket is about as rare as an 80-ball hundred in Test cricket. It does happen on occasion, but is largely discouraged, for obvious reasons. At best you could count the number of defensive shots on one hand in 9/10 T20 games.

 

[Uppercut]

But it's true. What defence there is in T20 cricket is about as rare as an 80-ball hundred in Test cricket. It does happen on occasion, but is largely discouraged, for obvious reasons. At best you could count the number of defensive shots on one hand in 9/10 T20 games.

You're defining defence as what would be considered defensive in a game of test cricket, then applying it to a completely different game. It's just as absurd as saying football doesn't contain any defence and is all attack because you've never seen a footballer play a forward defensive.

 

[honestbharani]

Always has been the case with Test fans vs fans of LOI's. It's not people who have a preference (like SS), it's those who just rag on the other form of the game as if Tests are objectively better when, really, it's just about what you personally like.

I love both, get different things from the both forms of the game.

AWTA... Tests are a test of discipline, patience and cricketing skill as defined by how the game was played over the years.. T20 tests a players' fitness, ability to think on his feet, adaptation, power, handling of pressure (those big crowds that boo you if you play a couple of dot balls)... Fair to say, they are pretty different games even though they stem from the same root. I prefer all formats of the game but just like to see them spread out more evenly...


My ultimate dream is to see international cricket tours consist of 3 tests, 3 ODIs and 3 T20s...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You're defining defence as what would be considered defensive in a game of test cricket, then applying it to a completely different game. It's just as absurd as saying football doesn't contain any defence and is all attack because you've never seen a footballer play a forward defensive.

I'm saying that it's perfectly reasonable to dislike one particular form of the game because it lacks something that the other form has. It's not apples and oranges. Both forms are cricket. That said, I prefer rugby to American football because it has several things that the other lacks. How is that not reasonable? It's about preference. It's the same with anything really.

And your football analogy makes very little sense, due enormous exaggeration. Comparing football and cricket is nothing like comparing Test cricket and T20 cricket.

 

[GIMH]

I was going to go in for that, and then I saw it was £85!! Went in for Pak-Aus test tickets instead.

It's only £85 in the posh seats. It's £50 where we've applied for.

Gonna look at going to one of the Eng-Pak Tests as well this summer, and Bangladesh at OT is only £25 for a day so I'll probably do that, don't get many Tests at OT these days