Reasons why test cricket > Twenty20

[Furball]

Sometimes he looked like a joke, sometimes he looked fairly competent. But he will always be a use to ENG T20 set-up whether he open with him or batting him down the order. The fact that he even has a use is disgrace to the format.



Yea but you will still have your Pollards, Dwayne Smith etc who are brainless sloggers being of great use in a T20, where they came make the best of bowlers look like crap.





Oh i think he would still based on passed innings:

- vs SA 03 (hundred of 79 balls)

- VS Eng 04 (24 of one over from Hoggard)

- vs AUS 09

Thats how he prefers to play.

Bad bowling in all formats will be hit. The nature of T20 might mean that on occasion average batsmen will chance their arm and get lucky against good bowling. But if guys like Smith are making hay, the quality of the bowling has to be looked at.

I disagree. As i said all of those players had very good peak periods in test where they where good/very good excellent test players. For example i would argue Saqlain at his peak could make a Pakistan All-time test XI

- Dhoni in some peoples mind already would make an Indian All-time test XI. Although i personally would still have Engineer. He could probably make a test team of the 2010s..

- Jayasuriya surely would open for a SRI ATXI?

Okay maybe none would make make a test XI from the same era. But they will still quality test players, so the distinction you are drawing with this list is an unfair one TBF.

When have I said any of them weren't good Test players? The reason I've listed that side is because in my time watching cricket (since c. 1997), the 11 players are amongst the very best ODI players that have played the game. The point I'm making is despite their excellence in ODIs, in Tests they haven't been able to reproduce such high levels of excellence. An XI containing players like Tendulkar, Gilchrist, Ponting, Lara, Inzamam, Kallis, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Murali and McGrath contains players that were excellent in both forms. That's the distinction I'm making, between good players who excelled in one form (in this case, ODIs), and great players who excelled at all forms.

Thats blinding looking at stats. Kallis is 2000s era was as we have argued on this specific point before was MAINLY a batsman who contributed with the ball for SA. He stopped being a complete all-rounder "capable of scoring hundreds & taking 5-wicket hauls" very early in the 2000s era. His last 5 wicket haul was since 2003 vs ENG @ TB. So for 7 years he was just a WC batsman who bowled.

Pollock for most of the decade regressed significantly as bowler & his batting was never capable of batting in the top 6 or 7 consistently for SA. If you want to pick Pollock for anything in the 2000s era is as a bowler, you can't compare his output as an all-rounder to Flintoff in any way.

Flintoff was the only all-rounder during at his peak during the 2000s era who was able to combine quality batting capable of scoring centuries & 5 wicket hauls consistenly. Plus he would have been better if it weren't for injuries. So he was the best pure "all-rounder" of the 2000s era.

Its a totally different argument is you say Kallis & Pollock where better than him from a career perspective based on their peaks as all-rounders, which i'd say Kallis was for sure. While Flintoff at his peak vs Pollock at his peak is fairly comparable.

Try reading my posts. First off, I'm not talking about the 00s, I'm talking about the last 15 years. It's ironic that you pick on Kallis' lack of 5 fors to shoot him down as an allrounder, when taking 5 in an innings was never a strong point of Flintoff's. At his peak, Flintoff is without doubt the finest Test all rounder I've seen. Looking at overall careers, Pollock and Kallis are quite clearly in front of him, and arguably Chris Cairns is as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

Smith himself is a smarter ball-striker than he used to be, but is much more likely to give his hand away before he's done anything. Anyone watching Pollard of late and calling him brainless needs to take a look at himself, IMO.

The T20 against QLD where he was dropped at long-on then holed-out to long-off the next ball excepted, of course. And that he was caught at long-on on Tue against Tas.....

Nah seriously, he's batted really well for SA overall. Was gearing himself for a big one the other night before he got dudded by a great slower-ball from Rana.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The T20 against QLD where he was dropped at long-on then holed-out to long-off the next ball excepted, of course. And that he was caught at long-on on Tue against Tas.....

Nah seriously, he's batted really well for SA overall. Was gearing himself for a big one the other night before he got dudded by a great slower-ball from Rana.

As I said, he's not perfect, but it's clear that he does think about his batting. Definitely improved from his early days.

 

[Top_Cat]

As I said, he's not perfect, but it's clear that he does think about his batting. Definitely improved from his early days.

Yeah, walked off pretty mad with himself for holing out. In his defence, Rana has one of the most unpickable slower-balls around.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yeah, walked off pretty mad with himself for holing out. In his defence, Rana has one of the most unpickable slower-balls around.

Wouldn't say that walking off mad is any indication of thoughtfulness in general though. Devon Smith (or was it Ryan Hinds; same point anyway) constantly chastised himself for getting out, IIRC.

Anyway the real question here: Pollard and Smith are allrounders, but not English. Does Schofield Law still apply?

Yes, I'm running with this.

 

[Top_Cat]

Wouldn't say that walking off mad is any indication of thoughtfulness in general though. Devon Smith (or was it Ryan Hinds; same point anyway) constantly chastised himself for getting out, IIRC.

Haha yeah, fair enough. Just usually so cool. Walking out to bat, the theme song was Mr Boombastic.

Anyway the real question here: Pollard and Smith are allrounders, but not English. Does Schofield Law still apply?

Yes, I'm running with this.

Remind me?

Love Pollard's bowling; comes in off a 20m run-up and bowls about 110Km/h. Somehow manages to take wickets.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Remind me?

I better not. I fear I've said too much.

Love Pollard's bowling; comes in off a 20m run-up and bowls about 110Km/h. Somehow manages to take wickets.

Built like a fast bowler, hits 'em like a fast bowler, bowls like Chris Harris.

 

[GIMH]

There is no way Anderson is aught but poor in ODIs, nor has ever been. Has the odd good spell of 3 or 4 games (or the odd good game in 10 sometimes) which convinces people that he's cracked it but always the same old same old again before long.

Did you not watch any ODIs last year?

 

[Richard]

Haa, well i know you have always been a big critic about Anderson as an ODI bowler since i came on this site. But its fairly evident that 2009 was the best Anderson has bowled in ODIs i'd say since he debuted period. His bowling in SA in the Champions trophy & during the ODI series ranged from very good to excellent. I defiantely think he has hit a peak period in not only his test bowling - but his ODIs as well.

He bowled pretty well in South Africa this winter, I'll give you that. But he certainly didn't bowl any better for my money than he has on the odd previous stint - the summer of 2003 being the best example.

In West Indies and in the summer I'd say he bowled no better than at any point earlier in his career.

 

[Richard]

Did you not watch any ODIs last year?

Granted I didn't watch as many as I'd like to have done, but I watched enough.

It's almost impossible for someone to be awful at ODI bowling for 7 years then miraculously become good at the age of 26-27 anyway.

 

[GIMH]

He was expensive at times but in all honesty you'd have to consider him for an ODI World XI based on his 09 performances. And I've not always been as big a fan of ODI Jimmeh as I am of Test Jimmeh but to say he was awful for 6-7 years is harsh, and also it's hardly unusual for sportsmen to improve in their mid-twenties. At first his ODI game seemed to drop as his Test game improved but now really it is pretty obvious to anyone who has watched him that in the last two years he has quite simply improved as a cricketer, in Tests & ODIs, and also even with the bat. His injury free run no doubt has helped this and I'd imagine a lot of hard work.

 

[Richard]

He was expensive at times but in all honesty you'd have to consider him for an ODI World XI based on his 09 performances.

If so - and I'm not saying you're neccessarily wrong BTW, I've not studied those of ODI excellence in 2009 with any intimate detail - then it'd show nothing but weakness of current standards.

And I've not always been as big a fan of ODI Jimmeh as I am of Test Jimmeh but to say he was awful for 6-7 years is harsh

You may think so; I don't. Anderson was golden-armed in the summer of 2003; he bowled awfully 2003/04-2008/09, though he sometimes turned-in the odd good spell, had the odd other spell where his figures flattered him, and was always really effective against substandard sides who he played not-infrequently, so thus his average was IIRR ~35 rather than the ~40 which it should've been.

and also it's hardly unusual for sportsmen to improve in their mid-twenties.

Go on, name me some players who were hopeless in ODIs until the age of 26 then became even pretty good never mind very good. It may not be unheard of for someone who has demonstrated potential however bad they've overall been in the longer game to turn the corner at 26 (though even there it's not exactly common) but in the shorter game mostly people, bowlers especially, tend to be good enough at 23-24 or aren't at all.

At first his ODI game seemed to drop as his Test game improved but now really it is pretty obvious to anyone who has watched him that in the last two years he has quite simply improved as a cricketer, in Tests & ODIs, and also even with the bat. His injury free run no doubt has helped this and I'd imagine a lot of hard work.

He's been injury-free for quite a while so I'm safe to say that's had no impact. If he's improved as a OD bowler we'll wait and see. I as you know am never prepared to make such a judgement on such flimsy evidence - it was summer 2009, a year after we can now say that Anderson's Test improvement happened, that I was finally able to say for sure that it had indeed happened.

 

[GIMH]

He's been injury free for a couple of years - that was kinda my point. If you go back to 2006 and earlier he had one problem or another quite constantly and this period saw him having action difficulties etc.

I'll agree to disagree with you on the rest I guess as I haven't got the heart for a debate tonight & one of the reasons I rated him a lot last year was because even when he was expensive he took wickets regularly, and I know you don't rate this as highly in ODIs as me so it would be a little pointless.

Nonetheless, JimmehFTW

 

[Richard]

He's been injury free for a couple of years - that was kinda my point. If you go back to 2006 and earlier he had one problem or another quite constantly and this period saw him having action difficulties etc.

But he remained awful for the best part of 2 years after ceasing to be injury-free. I just don't see how something which such lag-time can be said to be significant TBH.

I'll agree to disagree with you on the rest I guess as I haven't got the heart for a debate tonight & one of the reasons I rated him a lot last year was because even when he was expensive he took wickets regularly, and I know you don't rate this as highly in ODIs as me so it would be a little pointless.

Depends. I certainly rate a spell where someone knocks-over the top-order but goes for a few then comes back and goes for a few later as a far-from-dreadful one. 10-56-4 where all 4 were top-order wickets is certainly at least as good a spell if not better than 10-33-0 (obviously 10-56-4 where 3 of the wickets are meaningless end-of-innings ones from slogs is a poor spell). I actually can't remember if Anderson's done this many times in the last year but it didn't seem that way at the time.

Nonetheless, JimmehFTW

We'll see. I don't completely rule-out anything as you know and if he has somehow managed to make the miraculous transformation from dreadful to good in ODIs I'll give him full credit for it. But in due course - not yet.

 

[GIMH]

But he remained awful for the best part of 2 years after ceasing to be injury-free. I just don't see how something which such lag-time can be said to be significant TBH.

Depends. I certainly rate a spell where someone knocks-over the top-order but goes for a few then comes back and goes for a few later as a far-from-dreadful one. 10-56-4 where all 4 were top-order wickets is certainly at least as good a spell if not better than 10-33-0 (obviously 10-56-4 where 3 of the wickets are meaningless end-of-innings ones from slogs is a poor spell). I actually can't remember if Anderson's done this many times in the last year but it didn't seem that way at the time.

We'll see. I don't completely rule-out anything as you know and if he has somehow managed to make the miraculous transformation from dreadful to good in ODIs I'll give him full credit for it. But in due course - not yet.

Because of the time it takes to find your rhythm, resdiscover your appropriate action etc

I'm only speculating, just a theory like

 

[Richard]

If it was, say, 6 months, then I'd say fair noof. But 2 years? Nah, not remotely likely IMO.

 

[aussie]

Granted I didn't watch as many as I'd like to have done, but I watched enough.

It's almost impossible for someone to be awful at ODI bowling for 7 years then miraculously become good at the age of 26-27 anyway.

. Awful not all. I prefer hot & cold. Plus i dont see why its impossible, you look at the test career of Steve Waugh from 85/86 before he turned it around vs WI 92/93 with his MCG hundred. He was very average for a good 7-8 years before he blossomed into a WC batsman.

 

[Richard]

In Test matches. In ODIs Waugh was moderate and remained moderate all career. He was a ODI-standard batsman, but only just.

And BTW Waugh emphatically did not turn his career around with his century against West Indies in 1992/93 which came not at The MCG but on a rank featherbed at The SCG, any more than Mark Taylor ended his bad trot with his second-innings century at Edgbaston or Nasser Hussain his with his first-innings century at Kandy. They were merely preludes, innings' which hinted that the tide would soon be turned. Waugh actually turned the corner - as did Shane Warne - in New Zealand later in 1992/93.

 

[Furball]

But he remained awful for the best part of 2 years after ceasing to be injury-free. I just don't see how something which such lag-time can be said to be significant TBH.

Depends. I certainly rate a spell where someone knocks-over the top-order but goes for a few then comes back and goes for a few later as a far-from-dreadful one. 10-56-4 where all 4 were top-order wickets is certainly at least as good a spell if not better than 10-33-0 (obviously 10-56-4 where 3 of the wickets are meaningless end-of-innings ones from slogs is a poor spell). I actually can't remember if Anderson's done this many times in the last year but it didn't seem that way at the time.

We'll see. I don't completely rule-out anything as you know and if he has somehow managed to make the miraculous transformation from dreadful to good in ODIs I'll give him full credit for it. But in due course - not yet.

Can see where you're coming from, but to call end of innings wickets "worthless" is a bit of a stretch IMO.

 

[Richard]

Seriously, what use is there in dismissing batsmen at a time when there's only 6-7 overs left? So much better to take less wickets and concede fewer runs. Virtually no chance of bowling a side out unless they're already 6-7 down going into the "death" overs, in which case the chance of a high run-rate isn't substantial anyway.