Reasons why test cricket > Twenty20

[aussie]

Interesting you mention Gayle, who bowls darts in T20s, as in ODIs, without much variation, and has a good economy rate.

Gayle out of 12 T20s for WI hasn't always bowled his 4 overs though. Overall if he bowled his 4 overs consistently i dont expect his style to be econmonical at all.

Who knows what Snape might have done if he wasn't a proven failure based on Schofield's performance.

I never said Snape was proven international T20 failure. I said i didn't expect him to be a success based on how spinners bowling darts have fared in international T20 to date.

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

Simple example. Look at the amount of joke all-rounders ENG have picked in ODIs in the last 10-15 years. The selectors didn't not learn from the failures of past joke all-rounders & they kept picking them & they all kept failing.

 

[Neil Pickup]

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.

The only bits of the T20 WC I remember are Zimbabwe beating Aus, Yuvraj going downtown with Broad and Gayle's ton. I don't think I watched England at all: I had this thing called work.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The only bits of the T20 WC I remember are Zimbabwe beating Aus, Yuvraj going downtown with Broad and Gayle's ton. I don't think I watched England at all: I had this thing called work.

Wouldn't have been in the World Cup. Would have been in domestic cricket at some point. Going to concede though, as I suspect that I'm mistaken.

 

[aussie]

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.

Yea i remember this ball from some his ODIs vs IND 2001. But T20s didn't start in ENG until 2003 & Snape certainly bowled darts for leicestershire based on what i remember mostly. He probably did bowl that "moon ball" at times in domestic T20s, but i just dont remember seeing it TBH.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Gayle out of 12 T20s for WI hasn't always bowled his 4 overs though. Overall if he bowled his 4 overs consistently i dont expect his style to be econmonical at all.

Based on the results of Schofield. I get ya, killa. Fyaaaah!

I never said Snape was proven international T20 failure. I said i didn't expect him to be a success based on how spinners bowling darts have fared in international T20 to date.

Snape was your example. His international career, no less.

I'm talking about International T20. Snape was turned into a satellite in 07 WC, because his tactic in domestic cricket of bowling darts has proven to be non-effective in International T20s.

^ Now defend yourself.

Simple example. Look at the amount of joke all-rounders ENG have picked in ODIs in the last 10-15 years. The selectors didn't not learn from the failures of past joke all-rounders & they kept picking them & they all kept failing.

I still don't see any relevant facts there. The only facts are that some have failed. How can it possibly be a fact that someone will fail?

 

[GIMH]

The only bits of the T20 WC I remember are Zimbabwe beating Aus, Yuvraj going downtown with Broad and Gayle's ton. I don't think I watched England at all: I had this thing called work.

The South Africa game was a Sunday evening so you know where you can shove your work excuse

 

[aussie]

Based on the results of Schofield. I get ya, killa. Fyaaaah!

No top shotta. Based on the recent resultsof every T20 international that has played who has bowled that way.

Snape was your example. His international career, no less.

Yea & i have explained why although its just one game - one over to be specific. Why i dont/didn't expect him to be success @ T20 level internationally.

^ Now defend yourself.

I still don't see any relevant facts there. The only facts are that some have failed.

All of failed/not being international ODI quality. Dougie Brown, Matthew Fleming, Adam & Ben Holliake, Mark Alleyne, Irani, Blackwell, Dalrymple, Yardy (im sure i'm missing someone)

Outside Freddie that only others that have looked international quality as ODI all-rounders are White & Mascarenhas.

How can it possibly be a fact that someone will fail?

All those names above should have told the ENG selectors that those domestic all-rounders who star up really aren't up to quality & has it has been proven the domestic OD standards are rather average. But they haven't learnt since Luke Wright is in the team currently..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No top shotta. Based on the recent resultsof every T20 international that has played who has bowled that way.

Every single one of them? I'm with ya soldya. Boom goes the dynamite.

Yea & i have explained why

No you haven't. Not very well, at least.

All of failed/not being international ODI quality. Dougie Brown, Matthew Fleming, Adam & Ben Holliake, Mark Alleyne, Irani, Blackwell, Dalrymple, Yardy (im sure i'm missing someone)

All substandard spinners, indeed.

All those names above should have told the ENG selectors that those domestic all-rounders who star up really aren't up to quality & has it has been proven the domestic OD standards are rather average. But they haven't learnt since Luke Wright is in the team currently..

And yet sometimes players defy your suggested convention. Sometimes players with average domestic records do well internationally, sometimes players with decent records do decently, and destroy your "factual" argument.

But I agree, Luke Wright sucks and will suck because Schofield sucked.

 

[GIMH]

Stuart Broad & Graeme Swann IMO

 

[aussie]

Every single one of them? I'm with ya soldya. Boom goes the dynamite.

Yea basically, i have yet to see any main bowler who is spinner (who consistently bowls his full quota or 4 overs) in international T20 be a success or be economical consistently bowling darts.

No you haven't. Not very well, at least.

Yea i think i have very well. If you get the gist fully ah well..

All substandard spinners, indeed.

This point is talking about spinners only like Snape & Schofield. It was in response to your point that:

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

Those examples of all the English ODI all-rounders that have fell way short of international quality is the facts.

And yet sometimes players defy your suggested convention. Sometimes players with average domestic records do well internationally, sometimes players with decent records do decently, and destroy your "factual" argument.

Yea sure all these hypotetical scenarios is possible. But for the last 15 years in English doemstic cricket OD what is a proven "fact", is that ENG generally dont produce quality limited over all-rounders at all whether they have excellent domestic record or average domestic records before selection.

So unless someone does defy this convention, its fairly easy from a English perspective to use the failures of the many in the past to use as guide when watching all-rounders in domestic cricket - whether they will go on to become ODI quality.

But I agree, Luke Wright sucks and will suck because Schofield sucked.

. Loving your Schofield sarcasm here son. But no Luke Wright sucks for reason aformentioned..

 

[Furball]

Yea basically, i have yet to see any main bowler who is spinner (who consistently bowls his full quota or 4 overs) in international T20 be a success or be economical consistently bowling darts.

So in other words, crap bowlers with no variations get smashed in T20.

Stunning insight there, thanks for that.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yea sure all these hypotetical scenarios is possible. But for the last 15 years in English doemstic cricket OD what is a proven "fact", is that ENG generally dont produce quality limited over all-rounders at all whether they have excellent domestic record or average domestic records before selection.

So unless someone does defy this convention, its fairly easy from a English perspective to use the failures of the many in the past to use as guide when watching all-rounders in domestic cricket - whether they will go on to become ODI quality.

Time to stop picking allrounders, because they'll all suck, according to Schofield Law.

 

[Richard]

ODIs are also about scoring quickly.

Only very briefly in a ODI is it about going hell-for-leather. In a Twenty20 there are precious few passages of play where batsmen are doing aught but.

Mostly ODIs are about timing your assaults well and making the most of it when you're not assaulting. IE, they offer far more variety of type of batting than Twenty20 does. And what annoys me is people who say "if you want that variety of batting, watch Tests" - I do, and nonetheless ODIs are better than Twenty20s for me.

 

[Richard]

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.

Snape and Vaughan both routinely bowled at comfortably less than 50mph. Only when they bowled quicker (not neccessarily the quicker straight-on ball, just with a bit more effort) did they top 50mph. Snape, even before he developed the "moon ball" (which I've tended to understand is a deliberate slow full-toss), bowled the odd stupidly slow delivery. I remember him being clocked at 39mph in Zimbabwe in 2001/02, which is notably slower than any international bowler I've ever seen be clocked. I myself struggle to bowl that slowly - but then I am a seamer.

 

[aussie]

So in other words, crap bowlers with no variations get smashed in T20.

Stunning insight there, thanks for that.

. No sir, the type of variations needed for bowling well in T20 int'ls is the variations needed to bowl @ the death in 50 over game. Many good/decent/very good bowlers in ODIs didn't have those variations, but that doesn't mean they where crap/poor.

To date in international T20 the type of fast bowlers/medium pacers or spinners who are effective are:

Fast/medium pacers - the ones If you have the yorker MAINLY, along with clever variations such a the slower deliveries, slower bumper - you will get smashed.

Alot of great bowlers in tests/ODIs didn't have these pre-requistes thus would struggle in this format. For eg swing bowlers like Hoggard & Anderson who ability to test batsmen by pitching the ball up are basically very ineffective in this format.

While in ODIs bowlers like Hopes who tend to do decent jobs in ODIs get smoked in T20s

Spinners the bowlers who try bowling quickly get smashed in T20s. But those same type of bowlers could be ecomical in ODIs. Only the spinners with great guile & variation do well in T20s.

 

[aussie]

Time to stop picking allrounders, because they'll all suck, according to Schofield Law.

No because of the "English domestic OD standard is crap law". The "Schofield Law" is a figment of your imagination

But of course you don't have to stop picking them, that would be madness. The selectors just need to do a better job & recognising when the are crap when watching them in domestic cricket & stop making the same mistake over & over. Bullet!!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No because of the "English domestic OD standard is crap law". The "Schofield Law" is a figment of your imagination

No way, killa.

 

[Furball]

. No sir, the type of variations needed for bowling well in T20 int'ls is the variations needed to bowl @ the death in 50 over game. Many good/decent/very good bowlers in ODIs didn't have those variations, but that doesn't mean they where crap/poor.

To date in international T20 the type of fast bowlers/medium pacers or spinners who are effective are:

Fast/medium pacers - the ones If you have the yorker MAINLY, along with clever variations such a the slower deliveries, slower bumper - you will get smashed.

Alot of great bowlers in tests/ODIs didn't have these pre-requistes thus would struggle in this format. For eg swing bowlers like Hoggard & Anderson who ability to test batsmen by pitching the ball up are basically very ineffective in this format.

While in ODIs bowlers like Hopes who tend to do decent jobs in ODIs get smoked in T20s

Spinners the bowlers who try bowling quickly get smashed in T20s. But those same type of bowlers could be ecomical in ODIs. Only the spinners with great guile & variation do well in T20s.

So in other words, what I said.

 

[aussie]

So in other words, what I said.

Not really because as i sad. A bowler like Anderson who is pretty solid ODI bowlers, but doesn't really have the skills to be a good death bowlers etc. Would not be very good T20 bowler - but overall that doesn't make him crap.

It shows that the format is crap, because it elimates the effectiveness of a swing bowler like Anderson more than 90% of the time. Which overall is a example where in T20s & even battle between bat & ball is decreased significantly.

 

[aussie]

No way, killa.

Start it Warlord in the BUILDING!!

Yo
Killa na run
Killa na hide
Killa pop it off, car drive wide
Buss it inna face
Killa na blush
From ya dish Killa dat a suicide


KABOOMMMM!!