Reasons why test cricket > Twenty20

[Furball]

Am Dravid &, Jaysuriya, Tendulkar?.

Tendy for example was he didn't hit his traps in ODIs when he became an opener in the 96WC. Same too Jayasuriya who was wasted down the order in his early days for SRI.

Dravid wasn't much of a ODI bat in the late 90s & early 2000s although he had a few good performances. He definately transformend himself later on into one as well..

Tendulkar took 5 or so years to become really good at ODIs, which without checking, would make him about 21.

 

[aussie]

I'm not arguing this with you, since you're an illiterate spastic.

I'm sorry Ginger sweetie but i cant take these insults seriously so forgive me if i dont feel insulted. WTF is spastic

Go back and read the part of my quote you've bolded properly, note the sentence structure, then try and understand what I'm saying.

No sir. It is your job to make your post clear so that I the reader & others posters can understand clearly. I or anyone doesn't need to TRY to understand, if others poster have to "try" & understand that means you are not doing a very good job in explaining your point.

As you said there "Statistically, Pollock's batting + Kallis' bowling = Flintoff". That doesn't make cricket sense because although "statiscally" Pollock's career batting average of 32 + Kallis' career bowling average (to date) of 31 = Flintoff's career statistical numbers. Its not as if practically Pollock batting average = Flintoff batting average of 32 or Kallis' bowling average.

Thats a blind stats argument. I found it even more confusing given that you then went on to say in the next sentence Flitnoff was the best all-rounder:

At his peak, Flintoff was a better all rounder, over the course of their entire careers there's no argument.

Which is basically the point.

3rd highest wicket taker at a sub 25 average?

Similar in the sense that in Ashes 09 like SA 04/05, he was threatening & economical but seemed to lack that something extra to get really run through a side (the 5 wicket haul argument). Which during the Ashes 09 was clear sign that the consistent injuries of between SRI 06 to WI 09, had regressed his bowling back to post Ashes 05 days (Bridgetown 04 to Centurion 05)

 

[aussie]

Dravid was never hopeless, merely someone who needed to up his pace. He was only about 23 when he first played ODIs IIRR and 25 or so by the time he made the transition from decent to excellent.

Checking back your right about 'the wall" here. I sort of mischarterized his ODI career a bit here...

Tendulkar was always damn good, he just made the transition from good to superb when he moved to the top of the order.

Yea again your right here. I sort of always got the feeling Tendy was very patchy in ODIs before he starred in the 96 WC though..

Jayasuriya really isn't comparable because he made a complete sea-change in the type of player he was. Until about 1994 he was a bowling-all-rounder; thereafter he was an opening batsman who bowled.

Unless you're suggesting Anderson will become a number-five batsman who also bowls 6-7 overs I don't see the relevance of Jayasuriya.

Jaysuriya's sea change is pretty similar to the sea change Steve Waugh made in test cricket. So unlike Dravid & Tendy, Jayasuriya's chance from a average bowling-allrouder to WC ODI opener is potentially very similar to Anderson now probably moving from patchy/average ODI bowler to a very good ODI bowler based on his 2009 ODI performances.


Some other players that come to mind who came good after not being that superb after 24-25 ODIs. Damien Martyn, Andrew Symonds, Paul Collingwood (to a level), Dippenaar...there has got to be more

 

[Richard]

WTF is spastic

Spastic and spacker both = disabled. Must say it's something I find in rather poor taste when used in an obviously derogatory manner TBH, but that's just me.

 

[Richard]

Jaysuriya's sea change is pretty similar to the sea change Steve Waugh made in test cricket. So unlike Dravid & Tendy, Jayasuriya's chance from a average bowling-allrouder to WC ODI opener is potentially very similar to Anderson now probably moving from patchy/average ODI bowler to a very good ODI bowler based on his 2009 ODI performances.

As I say - don't see how you can compare someone changing their entire role to someone becoming better at the same role really.

Some other players that come to mind who came good after not being that superb after 24-25 ODIs. Damien Martyn, Andrew Symonds, Paul Collingwood (to a level), Dippenaar...there has got to be more

Less than sure about Martyn - as in Tests I think it was just that he didn't get the leeway that many newly-introduced players need. Reckon he could easily have become an established Test and ODI batsman earlier than he did if the cookie had crumbed for him. Collingwood has barely changed all ODI career TBH; Symonds had been around for ages before becoming good and I can't remember how old he was when he did; Dippenaar was always good, he was just never a fixture, all career.

BTW I wasn't saying after having played 24-25 ODIs, I was saying at the age of 24-25.

 

[aussie]

As I say - don't see how you can compare someone changing their entire role to someone becoming better at the same role really.

Some players improve/get better by changing their entire role. While some improve at the set role that they specialised in.

Less than sure about Martyn - as in Tests I think it was just that he didn't get the leeway that many newly-introduced players need. Reckon he could easily have become an established Test and ODI batsman earlier than he did if the cookie had crumbed for him

He was involved in the AUS ODI side alot in the late 90s. Probably was a bit wasted batting @ 7. But he certainly was hardly much ODI quality until he about 2002 when he started batting @ 4 long term after AUS lost VB series 2000/01.

Collingwood has barely changed all ODI career TBH;

Ha. He certainly has especially in recent ODIs in SA & the CT. which is the best he played in ODIs better than even his 2006/07 batting in VB series in AUS.

Symonds had been around for ages before becoming good and I can't remember how old he was when he did;

Symonds was total joke/slogger between PAK 98 to VB series 2002/03. The innings vs PAK in WC 2003 was when it all changed for him & he was 27/28 during that innings.

Dippenaar was always good, he was just never a fixture, all career.

Sure about that?. I sort of remember him as been not so good. But around 2006 - 2007 he was a very long anchor top ODI opener for SA. But then the harshly dropped him before the 2007 WC

BTW I wasn't saying after having played 24-25 ODIs, I was saying at the age of 24-25.

...Andy Bichel, Kaprowicz, Hogg, Van Der Wath, Ian Harevey, Robin Singh.

All these cats didn't become ODI quality until after age 24-25...Sure there is still more players.

 

[Black_Warrior]

To the original post..while most of us on this forum prefer test cricket, I find this exercise of listing all the reasons why Test cricket is better pretty futile. As has been said in this thread, they cater to different audiences with different tastes and these two groups are unlikely to accept each other's reasons. Take someone who prefers T20 for example. The first reason he will provide is that it finishes quickly. Now are we going to accept that and acknowledge the superiority of T20? No. But that reason is sufficient enough for him just like Collingwood battling against Steyn, Morkel and De Wet on the 5th day to save a test match is sufficient for us. There is no reason to try to convince each other because it wont work.

Test cricket's appeal is so distinct from that of T20, that one cant possibly compare them.

But having said that, as mush as I love test cricket, even I dont have the luxury of watching 5 day test match from beginning to end anymore. After the first day in the second test match between Australia and Pakistan, I took the next 4 days off, but thats a one-off thing..I cant take days off everytime a test match happens. But an England-South Africa test series will definitely excite me much more than a T20 World Cup..

I'd be quite happy if Tests were the only format of the game. No limited overs at all. I suspect I'm in a considerable minority though.

As much as I love test cricket..I also love ODIs too

The worry isn't that it's taking place at the expense of Tests, the worry is and always, always has been that its importance will come to outweigh the importance of Tests in players' minds, and players will thus gear their skillsets that way.

Such an outcome would not have its impact for at least a decade. Whether such a thing happens at all remains to be seen; I obviously sincerely hope not.

Actually its already having its effects. Watching the India-Bangladesh test match on the first day, the way people like Gambhir, Sehwag, Yuvraj got out..
I am sure they will not repeat the mistake in the second innings, but you will have these collapses from time to time even with the best batting line up.

Sort of like how Bradman was a slightly better batsman than me.

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;

Are you sure about that?? Have a look at this. I saw it from the first ball but have a look at the scorecards, especially South Africa's one..are you telling me if Wasim Akram who is usually a very good death bowler, had got Lance Klusener in the 45th over, the outcome would not have been different?

 

[Richard]

Are you sure about that?? Have a look at this. I saw it from the first ball but have a look at the scorecards, especially South Africa's one..are you telling me if Wasim Akram who is usually a very good death bowler, had got Lance Klusener in the 45th over, the outcome would not have been different?

I'm essentially talking about in the first-innings; in the second-innings by-and-large a different typical innings course will be followed because the chasing side know what they are aiming for.

Someone like Klusener, too, who in the words of Wisden "turned death hitting into something of an exact science", is a wicket like precious few other. Mostly, in the death overs it's a case of batsmen will have a swing at everything so thus their wicket is in danger most deliveries; Klusener however was able to both smash the ball at the death time and again and not get out all that often doing it.

Nonetheless, yes, even Klusener was containable by someone like Wasim Akram or possibly his near-team-mate Fanie de Villiers, who like Wasim was about as good at death-bowling as one could wish to be.

 

[Richard]

Some players improve/get better by changing their entire role. While some improve at the set role that they specialised in.

Players only exceptionally rarely change their entire role; when they do it's just that, an exception which proves nothing about any case other than itself. As I say, mostly if someone isn't good enough to do something (be it bat or bowl) to ODI-standard by the age of 23-24 or so they're not going to be good enough to do it at all. Yes, of course there are exceptions.

He was involved in the AUS ODI side alot in the late 90s. Probably was a bit wasted batting @ 7. But he certainly was hardly much ODI quality until he about 2002 when he started batting @ 4 long term after AUS lost VB series 2000/01.

As I recall it Martyn looked a more than useful replacement player from about 1998/99 in ODIs and played several excellent knocks on the rare occasions he got the chance, which suggests to me that, as in Tests, he could've been good enough if he'd got a real opening earlier.

Ha. He certainly has especially in recent ODIs in SA & the CT. which is the best he played in ODIs better than even his 2006/07 batting in VB series in AUS.

I think not TBH. He's done what he did there before.

Sure about that?. I sort of remember him as been not so good. But around 2006 - 2007 he was a very long anchor top ODI opener for SA. But then the harshly dropped him before the 2007 WC

He'd been being harshly dropped all career, but from 2000/01 onwards he was comfortably good enough to be playing and really probably should have been a fixture.

...Andy Bichel, Kaprowicz, Hogg, Van Der Wath, Ian Harevey, Robin Singh.

All these cats didn't become ODI quality until after age 24-25...Sure there is still more players.

Bichel was only ODI-class for a few months in the space of the biggest tournament of his career and was hopeless outside 2002/03; Harvey, Hogg and van der Wath were never ODI-standard IMO; Robin Singh was a useful utility player at best, certainly not ODI-standard with bat or ball, Kasprowicz well he wasn't ODI-class for very long either, and he was about 32 or something before he really looked like he was.

 

[aussie]

Players only exceptionally rarely change their entire role; when they do it's just that, an exception which proves nothing about any case other than itself. As I say, mostly if someone isn't good enough to do something (be it bat or bowl) to ODI-standard by the age of 23-24 or so they're not going to be good enough to do it at all. Yes, of course there are exceptions.

Yes. So at least lets be given Jimmy a chance please. Thanks..

I think not TBH. He's done what he did there before.

IMO his batting vs SA recently was a level above his batting in the CB series win 06/07.

Bichel was only ODI-class for a few months in the space of the biggest tournament of his career and was hopeless outside 2002/03;

Kasprowicz well he wasn't ODI-class for very long either, and he was about 32 or something before he really looked like he was

All true, but for however long they lasted they became ODI class after age 24-25. Especially Bichel at a key time for AUS in WC 03.

Harvey, Hogg and van der Wath were never ODI-standard IMO;

Disagree uncle. Especially on Hogg i know you meant that about Hoggy come on now *pats on the back*

Harvey to be never fully lived up to his potential with the bat. His bowling was very solid.

VDW for me would have been to top good all-rounder for SA if he didn't go ICL. Seeing him vs AUS in 05/06 home & away, he certainly fit the bill of the usual quality all-rounders that SA usually produces..

Robin Singh was a useful utility player at best, certainly not ODI-standard with bat or ball,.

Na man Singh was a very dangerous late order hitter & his medium pacers where at least on par with Collingwood's.

 

[Richard]

Yes. So at least lets be given Jimmy a chance please. Thanks..

Believe it or not I'm not actually not giving him a chance; he certainly, unquestionably currently deserves his place in the ODI side. But I'm certainly not expecting him to be ODI-standard for the foreseeable future as some seem to.

IMO his batting vs SA recently was a level above his batting in the CB series win 06/07.

The last 3 matches of that series, remember. That's arguable, but I don't expect it to last any longer than his previous good spells (most of which have been 3-4 games long) have done.

All true, but for however long they lasted they became ODI class after age 24-25.

I was more meaning players who have lengthy spells, rather than those of a couple of months, of being ODI-standard.

Harvey to be never fully lived up to his potential with the bat. His bowling was very solid.

Don't think so; he was a thoroughly poor bowler at ODI level because he got bored too easily. If he'd done the basics more often and tried to be clever less he might well have been ODI-class, but he wasn't for my money.

VDW for me would have been to top good all-rounder for SA if he didn't go ICL. Seeing him vs AUS in 05/06 home & away, he certainly fit the bill of the usual quality all-rounders that SA usually produces..

I know, we've had this one before remember; I don't agree, I think he was always far too unpredictable for ODI excellence and his domestic record (where he was always miles better in the longer game) reflects that. Either way, he certainly was never a ODI-class cricketer, regardless of whether he could or could not have been.

Na man Singh was a very dangerous late order hitter & his medium pacers where at least on par with Collingwood's.

Collingwood's are not ODI-class either, they're merely a useful-sixth-bowler option. Singh was often expected to be India's fifth bowler, which he just wasn't good enough to be. He was indeed a dangerous late-order hitter but not a ODI-standard batsman.

 

[honestbharani]

To the original post..while most of us on this forum prefer test cricket, I find this exercise of listing all the reasons why Test cricket is better pretty futile. As has been said in this thread, they cater to different audiences with different tastes and these two groups are unlikely to accept each other's reasons. Take someone who prefers T20 for example. The first reason he will provide is that it finishes quickly. Now are we going to accept that and acknowledge the superiority of T20? No. But that reason is sufficient enough for him just like Collingwood battling against Steyn, Morkel and De Wet on the 5th day to save a test match is sufficient for us. There is no reason to try to convince each other because it wont work.

Test cricket's appeal is so distinct from that of T20, that one cant possibly compare them.

But having said that, as mush as I love test cricket, even I dont have the luxury of watching 5 day test match from beginning to end anymore. After the first day in the second test match between Australia and Pakistan, I took the next 4 days off, but thats a one-off thing..I cant take days off everytime a test match happens. But an England-South Africa test series will definitely excite me much more than a T20 World Cup..




As much as I love test cricket..I also love ODIs too



Actually its already having its effects. Watching the India-Bangladesh test match on the first day, the way people like Gambhir, Sehwag, Yuvraj got out..
I am sure they will not repeat the mistake in the second innings, but you will have these collapses from time to time even with the best batting line up.








Are you sure about that?? Have a look at this. I saw it from the first ball but have a look at the scorecards, especially South Africa's one..are you telling me if Wasim Akram who is usually a very good death bowler, had got Lance Klusener in the 45th over, the outcome would not have been different?

AWTA.. strongly. Excellent post. One of the best in recent times. :

 

[Black_Warrior]

I'm essentially talking about in the first-innings; in the second-innings by-and-large a different typical innings course will be followed because the chasing side know what they are aiming for.

Someone like Klusener, too, who in the words of Wisden "turned death hitting into something of an exact science", is a wicket like precious few other. Mostly, in the death overs it's a case of batsmen will have a swing at everything so thus their wicket is in danger most deliveries; Klusener however was able to both smash the ball at the death time and again and not get out all that often doing it.

Nonetheless, yes, even Klusener was containable by someone like Wasim Akram or possibly his near-team-mate Fanie de Villiers, who like Wasim was about as good at death-bowling as one could wish to be.

I still disagree.
I think even in the first innings, wickets at the death overs can prove to be very helpful.
Often it is able to bring down the total by 20-30 runs.
Look at this for example
Umar Akmal and Yousuf looked set at one stage, setting the platform for Afridi, Umar himself and Naved to start smashing. Yousuf got out..but then Umar, Afridi and Naved got out after the 40th over. Pakistan only managed 230. I think, if Umar and Afridi managed to hang in their, Pakistan could have well crossed 250. But good bowling by Butler and Vettori did the trick.

Sorry to bring up only Pakistan matches as examples..Those are the matches I watch from ball 1 usually and happen to remember.

 

[Richard]

I still disagree.
I think even in the first innings, wickets at the death overs can prove to be very helpful.
Often it is able to bring down the total by 20-30 runs.

Well I disagree TBH. In my experience it barely matters who the batsmen are (as long obviously as they're not rank rabbits), bad bowling (ie not constantly in the blockhole) will get the treatment in the last ~5 overs of the innings. The only way to keep the rate down is by bowling constantly in the blockhole; taking 2-3-4 wickets won't help, unless obviously they're the last wickets in the innings and a side is thus bowled-out with an over or two remaining.

 

[Stapel]

To the original post..while most of us on this forum prefer test cricket, I find this exercise of listing all the reasons why Test cricket is better pretty futile. As has been said in this thread, they cater to different audiences with different tastes and these two groups are unlikely to accept each other's reasons. Take someone who prefers T20 for example. The first reason he will provide is that it finishes quickly. Now are we going to accept that and acknowledge the superiority of T20? No. But that reason is sufficient enough for him just like Collingwood battling against Steyn, Morkel and De Wet on the 5th day to save a test match is sufficient for us. There is no reason to try to convince each other because it wont work.

Test cricket's appeal is so distinct from that of T20, that one cant possibly compare them.

But having said that, as mush as I love test cricket, even I dont have the luxury of watching 5 day test match from beginning to end anymore. After the first day in the second test match between Australia and Pakistan, I took the next 4 days off, but thats a one-off thing..I cant take days off everytime a test match happens. But an England-South Africa test series will definitely excite me much more than a T20 World Cup..

Good post. I agree with most of it.

TBH, I find the discussion a bit useless. I like to watch cricket and I like to watch speed-skating. Trying to argue why one is better than the other is really pointless.

I can defenitely get more excited about test cricket than ODI or T20. However, I like T20 far more than ODI. I'm not sure why, but it's just what makes me tick more.