Reasons why test cricket > Twenty20

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Same thing with Benn. He bowled OK in 09 T20 WC, H he bowled two spells where he went for betwen 24 & 25 runs in his 4 overs. But compared to how economical he was for Barbados in the Standford T20 bowling darts. He didn't replicate the level economical at international level.

Because, surprise surprise, batsmen are better at international level.

 

[aussie]

Because, surprise surprise, batsmen are better at international level.

Yea i was talking about international T20 all the time. Its marco that brought up the iirelevant domestic T20 stats of Benn & Snape..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yea i was talking about international T20 all the time. Its marco that brought up the iirelevant domestic T20 stats of Benn & Snape..

But you agree that Benn > Lance Gibbs, surely?

And as for Snape. He only bowled an over in internationals, so can't really judge him one way or the other.

 

[aussie]

But you agree that Benn > Lance Gibbs, surely?

Haa, where is this lame sarcasm coming from?

And as for Snape. He only bowled an over in internationals, so can't really judge him one way or the other.

The fact the he was one of the best T20 bowlers domestically for a few years before the T20 bowling one way, then when he was picked for the WC he was smoked pretty much proves he wouldn't have made sense long term.

The type of spinners that make sense in T20s internationally the ones who have excellent variation & guile like Warne, Murali, Vettori, Mendis, Ojha, Kumble. Rather than those who look to bowl quickly...

 

[marc71178]

He bowled 1 over for 12 - yet for you that is conclusive proof

Note that in that 1 over he had Boucher dropped twice as well, well and truly smoked there.

 

[aussie]

He bowled 1 over for 12 - yet for you that is conclusive proof

Note that in that 1 over he had Boucher dropped twice as well, well and truly smoked there.

Ha ye i know that. But that doesn't change the fact that his style of spin bowling isn't a recipe for success long term in international T20s, based on how other bowlers like him have done internationally.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Haa, where is this lame sarcasm coming from?

Sarcasm aimed more at the cricket experts than you. Hoping you'd share in it, given you've some knowledge of West Indies cricket.

The fact the he was one of the best T20 bowlers domestically for a few years before the T20 bowling one way, then when he was picked for the WC he was smoked pretty much proves he wouldn't have made sense long term.

The type of spinners that make sense in T20s internationally the ones who have excellent variation & guile like Warne, Murali, Vettori, Mendis, Ojha, Kumble. Rather than those who look to bowl quickly...

As Marc said, his international record proves nothing. It's completely useless to your point.

 

[aussie]

Sarcasm aimed more at the cricket experts than you. Hoping you'd share in it, given you've some knowledge of West Indies cricket.

Oh.

As Marc said, his international record proves nothing. It's completely useless to your point.

If other bowlers like Snape had beeing doing well in T2O internationals since the 07 WC, we could say Snape one-off T20 is not a guide to how he may/may not have gone in future T20s for ENG. But since we do know thay style if not effective, we can safely say he wouldn't have been an international success.

Lets not forget also, his bowling partner in ENGs T20 squad Chris Schofield also was picked in the team based on having an season where he was the leading T20 wicket taker, with an ER of 6 rpo. He also bowled quickish/flattish leg-spin & didn't replicate that level of effectivenss & economy in the T20 WC.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Lets not forget also, his bowling partner in ENGs T20 squad Chris Schofield also was picked in the team based on having an season where he was the leading T20 wicket taker, with an ER of 6 rpo. He also bowled quickish/flattish leg-spin & didn't replicate that level of effectivenss & economy in the T20 WC.

Even worse example. In terms of economy, Snape has always been much more consistent and effective than Schofield in limited overs cricket. Fundamentally different bowlers too.

 

[aussie]

Even worse example. In terms of economy, Snape has always been much more consistent and effective than Schofield in limited overs cricket.

What does ODIs have to do with what it takes to be a good/effective T20 spinner?.

But since you brought it up. Snape earned his selection in the ODI squad back in the days for sure & did ok. Had a good chance of making the 03 WC, but when Ian Blackwell emegred he missed out.

Schofield was never seen or considered for ODIs, given he never possesed the tools to be a ODI quality in that format.

Fundamentally different bowlers too.

Yes. But in the intial years of T20 cricket since 2003 in ENG they way spinners took wickets & kept batsmen quiet was by bowling darts, thats why the both where picked in the 07 WC squad.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What does ODIs have to do with what it takes to be a good/effective T20 spinner?.

Why do you take ODI from the term "limited overs"?

Yes. But in the intial years of T20 cricket since 2003 in ENG they way spinners took wickets & kept batsmen quiet was by bowling darts, thats why the both where picked in the 07 WC squad.

Schofield's failure doesn't preclude Snape's. I'm saying that Snape has always been a more economical/consistent bowler. He simply does not support your point.

 

[aussie]

Why do you take ODI from the term "limited overs"?

Oh my bad. Well the point still stands, you cant you List A cricket as example to how a bowler may go in T20s.

Schofield's failure doesn't preclude Snape's. I'm saying that Snape has always been a more economical/consistent bowler. He simply does not support your point.

That one season in the Twenty20 Cup for that i showed you Schofield performances certainly supports my point. Schofields performances before then is irrelevant.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Oh my bad. Well the point still stands, you cant you List A cricket as example to how a bowler may go in T20s.

Why do you get List A from it?

By "limited overs" I'm talking about all limited overs formats. Why is T20 apart?

That one season in the Twenty20 Cup for that i showed you Schofield performances certainly supports my point. Schofields performances before then is irrelevant.

But Schofield is not Snape. If you wanted to make your point, use Schofield. Don't use Snape and qualify it by Schofield's failures. Bizarre.

 

[aussie]

Why do you get List A from it?

By "limited overs" I'm talking about all limited overs formats. Why is T20 apart?

T20 is technically a "limited overs format" yes. But clearly it is still totatally different from 50 overs cricket.

But Schofield is not Snape. If you wanted to make your point, use Schofield. Don't use Snape and qualify it by Schofield's failures. Bizarre.

Schofields failures back-up my point because his success bowling quickish spin like Snape did for years in domestic T20, is the reason both where picked for ENG 07 T20 WC squad. So although Snape only played one-game, the fact that Schofield failed - & that generally in international T20 spinners who bowl darts have failed - proves why Snape was highly unlikey to be a long term T20 success.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

T20 is technically a "limited overs format" yes. But clearly it is still totatally different from 50 overs cricket.

In both formats, particularly for spinners, economy rate is a key aspect of operation. My point was that in every format where economy is the focus, Snape has outbowled Schofield in that regard.

Schofields failures back-up my point because his success bowling quickish spin like Snape did for years in domestic T20, is the reason both where picked for ENG 07 T20 WC squad. So although Snape only played one-game, the fact that Schofield failed - & that generally in international T20 spinners who bowl darts have failed - proves why Snape was highly unlikey to be a long term T20 success.

This is a very, very weak point you've fished out.

 

[aussie]

In both formats, particularly for spinners, economy rate is a key aspect of operation. My point was that in every format where economy is the focus, Snape has outbowled Schofield in that regard.

A spinner can bowl darts mainly without depending on flight, guile or any form of variation in 50 over cricket & be economical i'd say i.e many part-time spinners like Symonds, Gayle, Sehwag. But their chances of replicating that in T20 internationals consistenly is very unlikey. This is why you can't compare the two.

This is a very, very weak point you've fished out.

I dont see how. Its proven by facts that i've already shown you.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

A spinner can bowl darts mainly without depending on flight, guile or any form of variation in 50 over cricket & be economical i'd say i.e many part-time spinners like Symonds, Gayle, Sehwag. But their chances of replicating that in T20 internationals consistenly is very unlikey. This is why you can't compare the two.

Interesting you mention Gayle, who bowls darts in T20s, as in ODIs, without much variation, and has a good economy rate. Who knows what Snape might have done if he wasn't a proven failure based on Schofield's performance.

I dont see how. Its proven by facts that i've already shown you.

The failure of one cannot preclude the failure of another. Where are the facts?

 

[zaremba]

Schofields failures back-up my point because his success bowling quickish spin like Snape did for years in domestic T20, is the reason both where picked for ENG 07 T20 WC squad. So although Snape only played one-game, the fact that Schofield failed - & that generally in international T20 spinners who bowl darts have failed - proves why Snape was highly unlikey to be a long term T20 success.

I thought Snape was meant to bowl amazingly slowly - or was that just his moon ball?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who read this and thought "which Snape is he talking about, then?"

From the Telegraph in '02: "Snape's deliveries were often recorded by the speed clock at about 50mph - donkey drops by professional standards - and Vaughan's off-breaks described a parabola not much quicker. These tactics were successful on a slow pitch, and five Sri Lanka middle-order wickets slipped away in seven overs from a very sound position."

The moon ball was little more than 40, if that, which is approx 8-year-old speed.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who read this and thought "which Snape is he talking about, then?"

From the Telegraph in '02: "Snape's deliveries were often recorded by the speed clock at about 50mph - donkey drops by professional standards - and Vaughan's off-breaks described a parabola not much quicker. These tactics were successful on a slow pitch, and five Sri Lanka middle-order wickets slipped away in seven overs from a very sound position."

The moon ball was little more than 40, if that, which is approx 8-year-old speed.

Maybe I'm mistaken too, but I could've sworn the little I saw of Snape in T20 he did indeed bowl flat and quick for the most part. Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else though.