Reasons why test cricket > Twenty20

[GIMH]

Yeah, IPL definitely came to mind tbf

 

[Uppercut]

AB De Villiers took him for about 30 runs in one over IIRC. Happens to the best of them though.

 

[Richard]

Have said it before and will say it again. Economy rates are reviewed differently based on whether they were in a Test or ODI, as such it is contradictory to bemoan the different standards of economy rate in twenty20. A bowler going at 4 in an ODI is doing a good job whereas in a Test they aren't, similarly a bowler is doing a good job when he goes at 6 in a T20 and isn't in an ODI.

And I said it before when you said that - the difference between 3-an-over (the "good standard" ER in Tests) and 4-an-over (the "good standard" in ODIs) is tiny compared to the difference between 4-an-over and 7-an-over.

Therefore for the purposes of Twenty20, Test and ODI are the same; for the purposes of Test and ODI, Twenty20 is vastly different and they are one and the same.

See?

Test and ODI establish a "standard" economy-rate; Twenty20 does not conform; thus, Twenty20 is the "odd out" and can in my book legitimately be said to make bowling "conventionally" economically as good as impossible.

 

[Richard]

In Tests, a bowler who bowls a spell that goes at 7 per over is still doing a good job if he's taken 6 wickets in 6 overs though.

Realism is also important. There has never been a Test spell of 6-42-6, nor has there ever been anything like it nor is there any remotely plausible chance of it ever happening.

 

[Richard]

Well, all this is debatable but the Econ doesn't matter if you are taking good wickets.

What constitutes "good wickets" also varies. In a ODI, for instance, the only wicket-taking which will actually influence the game is wickets taken early in the innings, those at the death are pretty worthless; in a Test the wickets of top-order batsmen at any time are generally the most valuable; in Twenty20, well, you've got to take 4-5 wickets to have any chance of really influencing the game, which in a 4-over spell will happen once-in-a-blue-moon.

Also economy-rate always matters in ODIs; regardless of how many wickets you take the more economical you are the better (ie, a spell of 6-33-4 < a spell of 6-21-4). Economy-rate is also valuable in Tests, because clearly the fewer runs you concede the lower the total is going to be in however-many-overs-it-takes-to-bowl-your-oppo-out. In Tests of course wicket-taking is often at odds with bowling economically - for most bowlers it's a risk-reward scenario in that the bigger risk of conceding runs you are prepared to take, the more you improve your chances of taking wickets.

In Twenty20 wicket-taking is often irrelevant because in 20 overs a side will incredibly rarely be bowled-out but what I've shown to be the definition of "regular economy" is also impossible.

 

[four_or_six]

And I said it before when you said that - the difference between 3-an-over (the "good standard" ER in Tests) and 4-an-over (the "good standard" in ODIs) is tiny compared to the difference between 4-an-over and 7-an-over.

Therefore for the purposes of Twenty20, Test and ODI are the same; for the purposes of Test and ODI, Twenty20 is vastly different and they are one and the same.

See?

Test and ODI establish a "standard" economy-rate; Twenty20 does not conform; thus, Twenty20 is the "odd out" and can in my book legitimately be said to make bowling "conventionally" economically as good as impossible.

I think maybe 5-an-over in ODIs would be a better figure, or certainly something above 4.5.

 

[GIMH]

And I said it before when you said that - the difference between 3-an-over (the "good standard" ER in Tests) and 4-an-over (the "good standard" in ODIs) is tiny compared to the difference between 4-an-over and 7-an-over.

Therefore for the purposes of Twenty20, Test and ODI are the same; for the purposes of Test and ODI, Twenty20 is vastly different and they are one and the same.

See?

Test and ODI establish a "standard" economy-rate; Twenty20 does not conform; thus, Twenty20 is the "odd out" and can in my book legitimately be said to make bowling "conventionally" economically as good as impossible.

I think maybe 5-an-over in ODIs would be a better figure, or certainly something above 4.5.

Given that 250 is hardly a winning score in ODIs these days I agree, but I know Richard won't. And anyway it is completely irrelevant what the economy rates are, this is the point. The fact is, there is a different standard as to what is economical in twenty20 than the other formats. The better bowlers will bowl to this standard, thereby giving their team a better chance of winning. Bat and ball are still balanced.

See?

 

[Richard]

The fact is, there is a different standard as to what is economical in twenty20 than the other formats. The better bowlers will bowl to this standard, thereby giving their team a better chance of winning. Bat and ball are still balanced.

See?

That's absolutely true, but it's irrelevant to the fact that Twenty20 is in a different universe to Tests and ODIs, which relative to Twenty20 are basically the same thing.

The standard that Tests and ODIs establish is thrown out of the window by Twenty20. What gives your team a chance of winning is a completely different matter.

 

[Richard]

I think maybe 5-an-over in ODIs would be a better figure, or certainly something above 4.5.

Nah, since ~1990 the best ODI bowlers have been able to concede a bit less than 4-an-over. The decent bowlers (of whom there haven't been very many recently) have tended to be around 4.1-4.4-an-over. Anything over 4.5-an-over and a bowler's pretty conclusively not good enough for ODIs in my book. And yes, there've been a hell of a lot of said bowlers of late.

 

[GIMH]

That's absolutely true, but it's irrelevant to the fact that Twenty20 is in a different universe to Tests and ODIs, which relative to Twenty20 are basically the same thing.

The standard that Tests and ODIs establish is thrown out of the window by Twenty20. What gives your team a chance of winning is a completely different matter.

That's completely different to the point I've been making all along though.

 

[Richard]

The point you're making is irrelevant to the point I'm making, though. You're trying to disprove my point by talking about something which, while absolutely true, is entirely unrelated.

 

[GIMH]

Not really, the crux of yours & aussie's argument is that T20 is a batting game where bowlers are never economical, I dispute this wholeheartedly

 

[four_or_six]

Nah, since ~1990 the best ODI bowlers have been able to concede a bit less than 4-an-over. The decent bowlers (of whom there haven't been very many recently) have tended to be around 4.1-4.4-an-over. Anything over 4.5-an-over and a bowler's pretty conclusively not good enough for ODIs in my book. And yes, there've been a hell of a lot of said bowlers of late.

It seems quite convenient that when you use your definition of what makes a decent bowler, four runs per over, only McGrath and Murali have achieved that standard and bowled significantly in the last decade. And the reason for that isn't that your rpo is too low, it's because there aren't any decent bowlers?!

 

[Craig]

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.

Yeah my thoughts are pretty similar to your's.

 

[aussie]

Not really, the crux of yours & aussie's argument is that T20 is a batting game where bowlers are never economical, I dispute this wholeheartedly

Did I or Richard say that?. I know i didn't.

Of course it possible for a bowler to bowl 4 overs for 15-20 runs or something. But thats doesn't happen very often.

 

[Furball]

Did I or Richard say that?. I know i didn't.

Of course it possible for a bowler to bowl 4 overs for 15-20 runs or something. But thats doesn't happen very often.

It doesn't happen very often because batsmen take more risks in T20.

It's the same reason why guys like James Hopes, who are pretty servicable ODI bowlers, get utterly smashed in T20.

 

[Furball]

Realism is also important. There has never been a Test spell of 6-42-6, nor has there ever been anything like it nor is there any remotely plausible chance of it ever happening.

Ok, it's a slightly unrealistic scenario, my point was that if you're bowling a massive wicket taking spell, then economy rate in Tests isn't the be all and end all.

 

[aussie]

It doesn't happen very often because batsmen take more risks in T20.

Yea & slog alot. But the type of bowler that is likely to bowl such an ecomincal spell in a T20 as i've said before is bowler who was usually a excellent death overs bowlers in a ODI (who also could bowl good slower balls, slower bumper, round the wicket delivering wide outside off like Broad) like a Gul, Malinga or Flintoff - while for the spinners a Warne/Vettori/Murali/Mendis/Kumble.

I dont expect a swing bowler like Anderson or a dart spinner like Snape or Benn to produce such an economical spell of bowling.

It's the same reason why guys like James Hopes, who are pretty servicable ODI bowlers, get utterly smashed in T20.

Word..

 

[Howsie]

Actually Sulieman Benn has had a pretty decent 20/20 career so far. Someone that can change up between 80-115K when the batsmen are going after him is for the most part going to be pretty successful.

 

[marc71178]

I dont expect a swing bowler like Anderson or a dart spinner like Snape or Benn to produce such an economical spell of bowling.

What, the same Snape with a career T20 economy rate of 6.71 you mean?

Or the sam Benn who has a career T20 economy rate of 6.10?