Reasons why test cricket > Twenty20

[Furball]

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.

Or in other words, Anderson doesn't have the skill set to be a successful T20 bowler.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Swanneh was even slower than that when he came into the side in the West Indies- was the slowest spinner I'd seen in international cricket for a long time. Didn't have the moon ball though, unfortunately.

 

[aussie]

Or in other words, Anderson doesn't have the skill set to be a successful T20 bowler.

Yes, but him not havign the skills set (nor any other swing bowler who is effective in test or ODIs) doesn't make them crap bowlers. The fact that T20s (at international level) makes his type of bowling 90% of the time ineffective shows why the format is not not a even balance between bat & ball.

 

[slowfinger]

Yes, but him not havign the skills set (nor any other swing bowler who is effective in test or ODIs) doesn't make them crap bowlers. The fact that T20s (at international level) makes his type of bowling 90% of the time ineffective shows why the format is not not a even balance between bat & ball.

So your saying in t20 all swing bowlers become ineffective?I beg do differ. Look at Parnell and Gul.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yes, but him not havign the skills set (nor any other swing bowler who is effective in test or ODIs) doesn't make them crap bowlers. The fact that T20s (at international level) makes his type of bowling 90% of the time ineffective shows why the format is not not a even balance between bat & ball.

This.

Is stupid.

 

[Furball]

Yes, but him not havign the skills set (nor any other swing bowler who is effective in test or ODIs) doesn't make them crap bowlers. The fact that T20s (at international level) makes his type of bowling 90% of the time ineffective shows why the format is not not a even balance between bat & ball.

No, it makes him a bad bowler for the format.

Umar Gul and Wayne Parnell say hi btw.

 

[aussie]

No, it makes him a bad bowler for the format.

Yes, but in tests & odi's all bowlers of various quality have a chance. A swing bowler tests a batsman by pitching it up. In T20 during the first 6 overs bowling that lenght to a joker like Dwayne Smith - Anderson would be smoked 80-90% of the time & Smith would look good. But in an ODI he could get Smith out 80-90% since such batting would be dumb, since Smith is a joke batsman.

So as i say T20 is elimates the effectiveness of swing bowler most of the time. Which is not good.

Umar Gul and Wayne Parnell say hi btw.

They aren't swing bowlers like Anderson. They are excellent yorker bowlers, which is why they have been very effective in T20s internationally.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

They aren't swing bowlers like Anderson. They are excellent yorker bowlers, which is why they have been very effective in T20s internationally.

So maybe Anderson should work on his yorker.

 

[slowfinger]

Yes, but in tests & odi's all bowlers of various quality have a chance. A swing bowler tests a batsman by pitching it up. In T20 during the first 6 overs bowling that lenght to a joker like Dwayne Smith - Anderson would be smoked 80-90% of the time & Smith would look good. But in an ODI he could get Smith out 80-90% since such batting would be dumb, since Smith is a joke batsman.

So as i say T20 is elimates the effectiveness of swing bowler most of the time. Which is not good.



They aren't swing bowlers like Anderson. They are excellent yorker bowlers, which is why they have been very effective in T20s internationally.

DWTA- You can't get every batsmen you face out with yorkers-you must have skill and they do, they attack other batsmen hard and force batsmen to play rash shots.

 

[GIMH]

I heard that swing bowlers are no good in ODIs as well, after all, Hoggard was a gun in tests and beyond catastrophic in ODIs. Case closed.

 

[aussie]

So maybe Anderson should work on his yorker.

I'm sure has tried to. I personally think he can improve it since i believe in tests matches he the ability to reverse-swing the ball consistently (based on his last day spell vs WI @ Trindad last year). But not all swing bowlers or other bowler may be able to master the art of bowling yorkers thus will always be generally ineffective in that format.

DWTA- You can't get every batsmen you face out with yorkers-you must have skill and they do, they attack other batsmen hard and force batsmen to play rash shots.

Umar Gul certainly proved it can be done in the T20 WC. His yorkers where as close to perfect as they could come.

But yes although bowling a yorker is a KEY facet in being a good T20 fast-bowler, since bowling in a T20 is basically like bowling in last 10 overs in an ODI. You need also a good slower ball, bouncer & slower bouncer, plus not being predicatable in your lenght (i.e not always bowling short or full). But not many bowlers to date have all these skills.

Whats concerning here is most of these skills sets is makes bowling in T20 "advanced defensive bowling".

I heard that swing bowlers are no good in ODIs as well, after all, Hoggard was a gun in tests and beyond catastrophic in ODIs. Case closed.

Other swing bowlers who where decent/good/very good in ODIs but have been/would have been average/largely ineffective/crap in T20 i'd say are Allot, Asif, Mills, Sidebottom, RP Singh, Sohail Tanvir. Langevelt. Cant pin point any other bowler ATM..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'm sure has tried to. I personally think he can improve it since i believe in tests matches he the ability to reverse-swing the ball consistently (based on his last day spell vs WI @ Trindad last year). But not all swing bowlers or other bowler may be able to master the art of bowling yorkers thus will always be generally ineffective in that format.

Can't think why any bowler wouldn't be better for learning to bowl a yorker. And if he just can't, well that's because he's a limited bowler. Not that T20 refuses to conform to his shortcomings.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Other swing bowlers who where decent/good/very good in ODIs but have been/would have been average/largely ineffective/crap in T20 i'd say are Allot, Asif, Mills, Sidebottom, RP Singh, Sohail Tanvir. Langevelt. Cant pin point any other bowler ATM..

Interesting, because Tanvir only got into the ODI team because he impressed in the T20I team IIRC. And Langeveldt and RP Singh have outstanding T20 records. All interesting points, yes.

 

[slowfinger]

But then again, I don't take t20 seriously at all.

 

[aussie]

Can't think why any bowler wouldn't be better for learning to bowl a yorker. And if he just can't, well that's because he's a limited bowler. Not that T20 refuses to conform to his shortcomings.

Many excellent bowlers couldn't bowl yorkers. For example for AUS Gillespie, Clark, Kaprowicz who very good/good/decent in ODIs. Bowling at the death wasn't their forte, which would have made them at their peaks average T20 bowlers.

Interesting, because Tanvir only got into the ODI team because he impressed in the T20I team IIRC.

Yea but he hasn't mainted it, mainly because the pace he was showing in IPL 2008 has disappeared. He relies solely on swing now..

And Langeveldt and RP Singh have outstanding T20 records. All interesting points, yes.

Domestic records. In international matches they haven't looked that special since they are swing bowlers. Although Langevelt can bowl good yorkers, i'm sure you remember his hat-trick vs WI @ the old Kensington..

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Many excellent bowlers couldn't bowl yorkers.

Which is why they'd concede that they can't play T20. Hey, no one's perfect. Except Joel Garner.

Yea but he hasn't mainted it, mainly because the pace he was showing in IPL 2008 has disappeared. He relies solely on swing now..

I think it's because he was never much of a bowler.

Domestic records. In international matches they haven't looked that special since they are swing bowlers. Although Langevelt can bowl good yorkers, i'm sure you remember his hat-trick vs WI @ the old Kensington..

So what you're saying is that Langeveldt has the tools of swing AND yorkers and yet is crap in T20 because he's a swing bowler, AND swing bowlers are only effective if they can bowl yorkers? ITSTL.

And RP Singh averages 15 with a 6.81 economy rate in T20Is. Get off it.

 

[aussie]

Which is why they'd concede that they can't play T20. Hey, no one's perfect. Except Joel Garner.

As the hypotetical scenario i gave with Anderson vs Dwayne Smith:

Yes, but in tests & odi's all bowlers of various quality have a chance. A swing bowler tests a batsman by pitching it up. In T20 during the first 6 overs bowling that lenght to a joker like Dwayne Smith - Anderson would be smoked 80-90% of the time & Smith would look good. But in an ODI he could get Smith out 80-90% since such batting would be dumb, since Smith is a joke batsman.

So as i say T20 is elimates the effectiveness of swing bowler most of the time. Which is not good

The fact that a swing bowlers effectiveness is generally rendered ineffective shows that format is not a even battle between bat & ball. A swing bowlers tests a batsman technique more than any other bowler fast-bowler with the new ball. That form of attack is useless most of the time since a useless slogger up the order like a Smith or Luke Wright can smoke them during the 1st 6 overs of T20 when the field restrictions are in place.

I think it's because he was never much of a bowler.

Yes & because swing bowlers don't do well.

So what you're saying is that Langeveldt has the tools of swing AND yorkers and yet is crap in T20 because he's a swing bowler,

By mentioned the Barbados ODI was to show why a swing bowlers needs to yorker to be effective, which would increase their effectiveness at some point of T20 but that wouldn't make them generally a "very good" T20 bowler like a Gul or Malinga - but just decent.

AND swing bowlers are only effective if they can bowl yorkers? ITSTL.

Yes because if they can bowl yorkers it increases their chances of being effective to a degree. If they only have to rely of pitching it up to swing it, they would get smoked.

And RP Singh averages 15 with a 6.81 economy rate in T20Is. Get off it.

Early days seeing him bowl in both IPL's to date, i dont believe he would be much of T20 bowler @ international level. His ER is almost 7.5 domestically..So i'm staying on it

 

[NasserFan207]

To succeed as a bowler in 20/20 you need accuracy and a good cricketing brain. Swing and seam are not 'useless', but the fact that the bowlers have so little time makes their approach almost always defensive. I, for one, don't enjoy watching that sort of bowling (not as much as aggressive bowling anyway).

For sure, 20/20 provides aggressive batting. I guess it comes down to which facet of cricket you prefer. However, I'm always of the opinion that an even battle between bat and ball provides the best cricket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ok aussie, since most of your post boils down your own inconsistency of opinion, I'll just address the last bit.

Early days seeing him bowl in both IPL's to date, i dont believe he would be much of T20 bowler @ international level. His ER is almost 7.5 domestically..So i'm staying on it

First you say "no, his domestic record is outstanding, not his international one, yo" and then I counter with the fact that "his international record is pretty tight, dawg". Then your response to that is "but he's not that special, son, because his domestic record is crap and it'll catch up".

I think you need to sit down and have a good long talk with yourself, decide what your actual opinion is, then state it properly.

 

[Furball]

Aussie, there is a skill set for T20 bowling.

Good spinners IMO have taken to the format more readily because variation in flight, bounce, spin etc. is already part of their forte.

If you're just going to land the ball on the same spot at the same pace 6 deliveries out of 6, then the batsmen will line you up and will attempt to hit you. You have to be able to skilfully vary your length and speed.

It's nonsense to say that someone like Anderson might go poorly in T20s, therefore the format is a joke. There is a formula for success in T20s, just as there is for ODIs, just as there is for Tests. Truly great bowlers (and batsmen) have the game to adapt successfully to all formats. The merely very good will struggle more with one format or the other based on their shortcomings technically.

Ganguly
Jayasuriya
Dhoni
Sarwan
Symonds
Bevan
Flintoff
Klusener
Lee
Bracken
Saqlain

Is a pretty damned decent ODI line up from the last 10 years. Yet not one of them IMO comes anywhere near an equivelant Test line up.