Rank the formats

[Satguru]

I truly love Tests and ODIs almost equally, unlike plenty of snobs who fail to appreciate how good ODIs are to watch.

Why i love ODIs:
1) Beautiful three-act structure batsmen pretty much HAVE to follow to build an innings..
Act1: Get off to a flier, take some risks and build early momentum
Act 2: Play it safe in the middle overs,while not slowing the rate down too much
Act 3: Unleash hell
In tests its a much more methodical pace throughout and the mindset of the batsmen doesnt change quite as much as the innings progresses.

2) The 10-over-limit imposed on bowlers makes it fascinating to watch the captain decide whether to save his best bowlers for the death or bring them on to get a breakthough. In tests ideally your best bowler can pretty much bowl half your overs esp if its someone like Murali, or kumble, and the reason he's taken out of the attack is usually to give him a rest.

3) Huge pressure on the bowler as well as the batsmen due to the time constraint.Batsmen need to get going immediately without getting bogged down, bowlers can undo all the good work done by themselves and their teammates if they have just 1-2 bad overs, and have no time to undo their damage unlike in tests. Can be taken as a negative or a positive, but its undeniably good to watch.

4) Result guaranteed. I. Hate. Dull. Draws.

5) Tests are like Waqar Younis. When theyre good, theyre untouchable in terms of watchability. But when theyre bad, oh, god, they can be terrible. ODIs are like Wasim, never quite sinking to such terrible depths, but even at their peak, not quite reaching the heights of the greatest test matches. I can think of plenty of awful, awful test matches (Sri Lanka 900 vs India, for example), but even the worst ODIs are never quite as godawful to watch.

Love both tests and ODIs as they have a very nice ebb and flow to them, unlike T20s which are slam-bang-boom-done

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Cricket, pyjama cricket and baseball in that order for me. Come to think of it, I don't think I ever watched a baseball game except 2007 WC final. Some good swing bowling in that one, IIRC!

Stopped following pyjama cricket for a long while after that 434/438 mayhem. A few recent series sort of rekindled the old interest and it's been good viewing so far in the second innings.

 

[Daemon]

I truly love Tests and ODIs almost equally, unlike plenty of snobs who fail to appreciate how good ODIs are to watch.

Why i love ODIs:
1) Beautiful three-act structure batsmen pretty much HAVE to follow to build an innings..
Act1: Get off to a flier, take some risks and build early momentum
Act 2: Play it safe in the middle overs,while not slowing the rate down too much
Act 3: Unleash hell
In tests its a much more methodical pace throughout and the mindset of the batsmen doesnt change quite as much as the innings progresses.

2) The 10-over-limit imposed on bowlers makes it fascinating to watch the captain decide whether to save his best bowlers for the death or bring them on to get a breakthough. In tests ideally your best bowler can pretty much bowl half your overs esp if its someone like Murali, or kumble, and the reason he's taken out of the attack is usually to give him a rest.

3) Huge pressure on the bowler as well as the batsmen due to the time constraint.Batsmen need to get going immediately without getting bogged down, bowlers can undo all the good work done by themselves and their teammates if they have just 1-2 bad overs, and have no time to undo their damage unlike in tests. Can be taken as a negative or a positive, but its undeniably good to watch.

4) Result guaranteed. I. Hate. Dull. Draws.

5) Tests are like Waqar Younis. When theyre good, theyre untouchable in terms of watchability. But when theyre bad, oh, god, they can be terrible. ODIs are like Wasim, never quite sinking to such terrible depths, but even at their peak, not quite reaching the heights of the greatest test matches. I can think of plenty of awful, awful test matches (Sri Lanka 900 vs India, for example), but even the worst ODIs are never quite as godawful to watch.

Love both tests and ODIs as they have a very nice ebb and flow to them, unlike T20s which are slam-bang-boom-done

Fair enough. That's actually the best justification I've heard from anyone who rates ODIs as highly, or higher than tests. I don't agree with a lot of the points made, but I can see why you believe in what you do.

 

[Jacknife]

I see the English are voting in order of their results against India

The middle overs of ODIs are often tedious, there should be thoughts about a rule change. If they are worried teams will pick more batsmen then they should ensure a team uses at least 5 bowlers and give away penalty runs if they don't (and make it to 50 overs).

How very dare you, I've never been so insulted.

 

[Uppercut]

I truly love Tests and ODIs almost equally, unlike plenty of snobs who fail to appreciate how good ODIs are to watch.

Why i love ODIs:
1) Beautiful three-act structure batsmen pretty much HAVE to follow to build an innings..
Act1: Get off to a flier, take some risks and build early momentum
Act 2: Play it safe in the middle overs,while not slowing the rate down too much
Act 3: Unleash hell
In tests its a much more methodical pace throughout and the mindset of the batsmen doesnt change quite as much as the innings progresses.

2) The 10-over-limit imposed on bowlers makes it fascinating to watch the captain decide whether to save his best bowlers for the death or bring them on to get a breakthough. In tests ideally your best bowler can pretty much bowl half your overs esp if its someone like Murali, or kumble, and the reason he's taken out of the attack is usually to give him a rest.

3) Huge pressure on the bowler as well as the batsmen due to the time constraint.Batsmen need to get going immediately without getting bogged down, bowlers can undo all the good work done by themselves and their teammates if they have just 1-2 bad overs, and have no time to undo their damage unlike in tests. Can be taken as a negative or a positive, but its undeniably good to watch.

4) Result guaranteed. I. Hate. Dull. Draws.

5) Tests are like Waqar Younis. When theyre good, theyre untouchable in terms of watchability. But when theyre bad, oh, god, they can be terrible. ODIs are like Wasim, never quite sinking to such terrible depths, but even at their peak, not quite reaching the heights of the greatest test matches. I can think of plenty of awful, awful test matches (Sri Lanka 900 vs India, for example), but even the worst ODIs are never quite as godawful to watch.

Love both tests and ODIs as they have a very nice ebb and flow to them, unlike T20s which are slam-bang-boom-done

Quality post, this. Point 5 especially is something I think us test junkies probably forget a little too easily.

 

[_Ed_]

I truly love Tests and ODIs almost equally, unlike plenty of snobs who fail to appreciate how good ODIs are to watch.

Why i love ODIs:
1) Beautiful three-act structure batsmen pretty much HAVE to follow to build an innings..
Act1: Get off to a flier, take some risks and build early momentum
Act 2: Play it safe in the middle overs,while not slowing the rate down too much
Act 3: Unleash hell
In tests its a much more methodical pace throughout and the mindset of the batsmen doesnt change quite as much as the innings progresses.

2) The 10-over-limit imposed on bowlers makes it fascinating to watch the captain decide whether to save his best bowlers for the death or bring them on to get a breakthough. In tests ideally your best bowler can pretty much bowl half your overs esp if its someone like Murali, or kumble, and the reason he's taken out of the attack is usually to give him a rest.

3) Huge pressure on the bowler as well as the batsmen due to the time constraint.Batsmen need to get going immediately without getting bogged down, bowlers can undo all the good work done by themselves and their teammates if they have just 1-2 bad overs, and have no time to undo their damage unlike in tests. Can be taken as a negative or a positive, but its undeniably good to watch.

4) Result guaranteed. I. Hate. Dull. Draws.

5) Tests are like Waqar Younis. When theyre good, theyre untouchable in terms of watchability. But when theyre bad, oh, god, they can be terrible. ODIs are like Wasim, never quite sinking to such terrible depths, but even at their peak, not quite reaching the heights of the greatest test matches. I can think of plenty of awful, awful test matches (Sri Lanka 900 vs India, for example), but even the worst ODIs are never quite as godawful to watch.

Love both tests and ODIs as they have a very nice ebb and flow to them, unlike T20s which are slam-bang-boom-done

This is a really excellent post.

I do prefer Tests to ODIs, but not by much. Nothing beats a truly great Test, but the very best ODIs beat a hell of a lot of other Tests, IMO.

 

[Hurricane]

I like the middle overs in ODIs.

 

[centurymaker]

I like the middle overs in ODIs.

yeah i dont mind the middle overs at all.

 

[NasserFan207]

I truly love Tests and ODIs almost equally, unlike plenty of snobs who fail to appreciate how good ODIs are to watch.

Why i love ODIs:
1) Beautiful three-act structure batsmen pretty much HAVE to follow to build an innings..
Act1: Get off to a flier, take some risks and build early momentum
Act 2: Play it safe in the middle overs,while not slowing the rate down too much
Act 3: Unleash hell
In tests its a much more methodical pace throughout and the mindset of the batsmen doesnt change quite as much as the innings progresses.
2) The 10-over-limit imposed on bowlers makes it fascinating to watch the captain decide whether to save his best bowlers for the death or bring them on to get a breakthough. In tests ideally your best bowler can pretty much bowl half your overs esp if its someone like Murali, or kumble, and the reason he's taken out of the attack is usually to give him a rest.

3) Huge pressure on the bowler as well as the batsmen due to the time constraint.Batsmen need to get going immediately without getting bogged down, bowlers can undo all the good work done by themselves and their teammates if they have just 1-2 bad overs, and have no time to undo their damage unlike in tests. Can be taken as a negative or a positive, but its undeniably good to watch.

4) Result guaranteed. I. Hate. Dull. Draws.

5) Tests are like Waqar Younis. When theyre good, theyre untouchable in terms of watchability. But when theyre bad, oh, god, they can be terrible. ODIs are like Wasim, never quite sinking to such terrible depths, but even at their peak, not quite reaching the heights of the greatest test matches. I can think of plenty of awful, awful test matches (Sri Lanka 900 vs India, for example), but even the worst ODIs are never quite as godawful to watch.

Love both tests and ODIs as they have a very nice ebb and flow to them, unlike T20s which are slam-bang-boom-done

So am I the only one who hates ODIs for no1?

I surely can't be alone there. Predictability and forcing batsmen to play one way is pretty terrible. I also disagree completely with your point about tests.

Personally the only good thing about ODIs is no 4, and that's not even true anyway.

 

[centurymaker]

I surely can't be alone there. Predictability and forcing batsmen to play one way is pretty terrible. I also disagree completely with your point about tests.

why is it bad? if you are good enough then you'll be able to do what the situation demands...

 

[BoyBrumby]

So am I the only one who hates ODIs for no1?

I surely can't be alone there. Predictability and forcing batsmen to play one way is pretty terrible. I also disagree completely with your point about tests.

Personally the only good thing about ODIs is no 4, and that's not even true anyway.

The formulaic nature of ODIs, especially the dreaded middle overs (if anyone really loves Kohli & Raina sending down a few overs of straight breaks to Bopara & Trott that're clipped to mid wicket or pushed to deep mid on for singles they're missing something pretty fundamental about cricket IMHO) is their biggest prob.

Will stand up for draws too; some of the very best tests end up as such. I defy anyone to say Edgbaston in 2005 or Cardiff in 2009 weren't absloutely enthralling watches.

 

[NasserFan207]

why is it bad? if you are good enough then you'll be able to do what the situation demands...

A better question would be what's good about it.

The only point I agree on is that the worst test is harder to watch than the worst ODI, for obvious reasons.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I like the middle overs in ODIs.

Yeah, this.

No surprises with the nationality of those who voted Test>T20>ODI, considering England are crap. I'd hate ODIs too if I was English.

 

[GotSpin]

I like the middle overs in ODIs.

Jesus...

 

[G.I.Joe]

I truly love Tests and ODIs almost equally, unlike plenty of snobs who fail to appreciate how good ODIs are to watch.

Why i love ODIs:
1) Beautiful three-act structure batsmen pretty much HAVE to follow to build an innings..
Act1: Get off to a flier, take some risks and build early momentum
Act 2: Play it safe in the middle overs,while not slowing the rate down too much
Act 3: Unleash hell
In tests its a much more methodical pace throughout and the mindset of the batsmen doesnt change quite as much as the innings progresses.

2) The 10-over-limit imposed on bowlers makes it fascinating to watch the captain decide whether to save his best bowlers for the death or bring them on to get a breakthough. In tests ideally your best bowler can pretty much bowl half your overs esp if its someone like Murali, or kumble, and the reason he's taken out of the attack is usually to give him a rest.

3) Huge pressure on the bowler as well as the batsmen due to the time constraint.Batsmen need to get going immediately without getting bogged down, bowlers can undo all the good work done by themselves and their teammates if they have just 1-2 bad overs, and have no time to undo their damage unlike in tests. Can be taken as a negative or a positive, but its undeniably good to watch.

4) Result guaranteed. I. Hate. Dull. Draws.

5) Tests are like Waqar Younis. When theyre good, theyre untouchable in terms of watchability. But when theyre bad, oh, god, they can be terrible. ODIs are like Wasim, never quite sinking to such terrible depths, but even at their peak, not quite reaching the heights of the greatest test matches. I can think of plenty of awful, awful test matches (Sri Lanka 900 vs India, for example), but even the worst ODIs are never quite as godawful to watch.

Love both tests and ODIs as they have a very nice ebb and flow to them, unlike T20s which are slam-bang-boom-done

Excellent post.

 

[Satguru]

The formulaic nature of ODIs, especially the dreaded middle overs (if anyone really loves Kohli & Raina sending down a few overs of straight breaks to Bopara & Trott that're clipped to mid wicket or pushed to deep mid on for singles they're missing something pretty fundamental about cricket IMHO) is their biggest prob.

Will stand up for draws too; some of the very best tests end up as such. I defy anyone to say Edgbaston in 2005 or Cardiff in 2009 weren't absloutely enthralling watches.

Well, you talk as if there are no periods in test matches where both teams are simply going through the motions and generally being defensive The middle-over blues exist in test matches too
And i didnt say i hate tests which end as draws, just those which you know will have no result from the 1st or 2nd day itself. It was Trentbridge 2005 which was the draw you were talking about iirc, not edgbaston, and ofcourse that test and cardiff 2009 were undeniably brilliant

 

[Hurricane]

The formulaic nature of ODIs, especially the dreaded middle overs (if anyone really loves Kohli & Raina sending down a few overs of straight breaks to Bopara & Trott that're clipped to mid wicket or pushed to deep mid on for singles they're missing something pretty fundamental about cricket IMHO) is their biggest prob.

Will stand up for draws too; some of the very best tests end up as such. I defy anyone to say Edgbaston in 2005 or Cardiff in 2009 weren't absloutely enthralling watches.

I enjoy those clips to midwicket and pushes down the ground. Mind you I also enjoy watching a top class forward defensive stroke as well. I enjoy the general skill involved with working a spinner around for singles.

I would prefer to watch a good spinner bowl as opposed to Raina however. So agree with you there.

I do probably enjoy watching a boundary more than a single to midwicket. But much prefer classical cricket shots even if they go for one than watching the slog fest of 20.20s. The only exception to this is when a player manages to score at a SR of 160 in a 20 20 while striking the ball purely and as correctly as possible (this doesn't happen all the time though).

Just to make a point - and I am not serious here but...
If you don't like ODIs because they are "slow" in the middle - then test cricket is even slower. So you shouldn't like that either.

 

[Daemon]

I enjoy those clips to midwicket and pushes down the ground. Mind you I also enjoy watching a top class forward defensive stroke as well. I enjoy the general skill involved with working a spinner around for singles.

I would prefer to watch a good spinner bowl as opposed to Raina however. So agree with you there.

I do probably enjoy watching a boundary more than a single to midwicket. But much prefer classical cricket shots even if they go for one than watching the slog fest of 20.20s. The only exception to this is when a player manages to score at a SR of 160 in a 20 20 while striking the ball purely and as correctly as possible (this doesn't happen all the time though).

Just to make a point - and I am not serious here but...
If you don't like ODIs because they are "slow" in the middle - then test cricket is even slower. So you shouldn't like that either.

Don't think Brumby said he doesn't like the 'slow' nature of the middle overs; a fiery opening spell from new ball bowlers can result in a 'slow' start as well, but that makes for good viewing doesn't it?

What most people have a problem with is low quality bowlers trundling in, bowling just about well enough to not get hit for a boundary every ball, and batsmen doing all they can to not do just that and play risk free shots that get them off strike. That whole passage of play is usually pretty boring, and unlike in tests, you don't see many interesting field changes, strategies being used, bowlers setting batsmen up and stuff like that. That isn't to say that tests don't have boring sessions as well, and that's where multi tasking comes in

 

[Hurricane]

I just don't get it then Daemon. You are saying it is boring because the ball is not being hit to the fence during the middle overs which seems very one dimensional to me. Can't you just admire the quality of the singles during this period?

 

[GotSpin]

I just don't get it then Daemon. You are saying it is boring because the ball is not being hit to the fence during the middle overs which seems very one dimensional to me. Can't you just admire the quality of the singles during this period?

Not when there's no quality in the bowling