Is skill required in ODI cricket underrated?

[ankitj]

After sad and sudden demise of Dean Jones, I read this interview of Deano where he said:

I always felt that - I know this will shock a few people - ODI cricket was harder to play than Test cricket because one-day cricket will show up your weakness quicker than Test cricket. If you can't throw over 50 metres, you will be sorted out. If you can't bowl a ball in the blockhole under pressure, you are going to be sorted out. If you can't swing the ball in the first 15 overs, you are going to be sorted out. If you don't have the power to hit over the top, particularly early in the innings, and have the others believe that you can hit Ambrose over the top of his head, you are going to get sorted out. If you have any weakness in your game, it will come out faster in one-day cricket than in Tests.

I have always wanted to discuss this. We all treat test cricket as the hardest form of cricket and it is in many ways. But ODI cricket has unique set of challenges. We often say on this forum that it is harder to rate ODI cricketers using their stats. That means there is more complexity and more factors to balance in ODI cricket, does it not? Unlike tests where we almost don't care for SRs and ERs, in ODIs we care for them along with averages which in itself indicates there is more than one factor batsmen and bowlers both need to keep in mind. We also think of cricketers who specialize in different phases of the game -- death bowlers vs. middle over bowlers, same for batsmen. Doesn't it all point to how ODI cricket is more challenging in its own ways? Discuss.

 

[mr_mister]

personally i think the patience and discipline required for test cricket(with both bat and ball) puts it over the top for me


I've played plenty of 1 and 2 day cricket (40 overs each side for the one dayers and 80 overs each side for the 2 dayers) cricket and I can definitely say I find 80 over cricket a tougher challenge

 

[Spark]

ODI cricket probably requires a broader range of specific "skillsets" i.e. concrete things you need to execute on demand, but the idea that being able to bowl a yorker counts as a skill and being able to bat for 6 hours does not is, well, not using any definition of the word "skill" that I would recognise.

I also think historical record cuts pretty hard against that theory too. There aren't too many Clint McKays in Test cricket.

 

[honestbharani]

Shorter the format, the more specific the skillsets get. But the thing about the longer format is, while you may need to display the same skillsets you do in the shorter formats at some points, you also need additional skillsets that you can only use in the longer format. Hence the pedestal. Rightfully so, IMO. But I can't agree that the other formats are somehow much inferior or anything. Test cricket is the pinnacle but being great in the other formats is pretty ****ing special too.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah, I agree too that perseverance and level of application required in test cricket does make it the pinnacle form of cricket. I guess the fact that you don't get anything easy in test cricket is why it is considered the highest form. Bowlers won't resort to defensive lengths or defensive fields easily and the batsmen won't give opportunities by manufacturing unnecessary shots. So everyone has to summon their very best.

Still, there is beauty of its own in the variety of skillsets needed in limited over cricket.

PS. I do keep t20 out when talking of limited overs because I haven't yet conditioned myself to see much beauty in it.

 

[honestbharani]

A skillset need not be beautiful to be valuable and special though.

 

[Tom Flint]

A t20 bowler or even one day bowler can more or less just perfect one or two deliveries and just bowl them over and over.
Chris jordan in t20s, or David Willey spring to mind

 

[Uppercut]

I don’t think tests are seen as the pinnacle because they’re more difficult than ODIs. Different players find different formats harder or easier. I think test cricket is so respected because it’s much older, and so has had time to develop a rich mythology and culture that gives it meaning. Plus it’s slow and initially accessible, but ultimately more rewarding, and that’s almost always the type of art that gains the most respect.

 

[weeman27bob]

A t20 bowler or even one day bowler can more or less just perfect one or two deliveries and just bowl them over and over.
Chris jordan in t20s, or David Willey spring to mind

It probably depends on what deliveries you perfect, but you could definitely be a successful test match bowl if you could consistently bowl two good deliveries over and over.

 

[stephen]

Test cricket requires more skill than ODI cricket but ODI cricket requires more athleticism. Fielding skills take a greater role in the short formats than they do in tests. You can't train your way out of having a custard arm but most of the rest of fielding skills can be honed and refined.

Batting and bowling skills are equally important in both forms of the game, but the skills themselves differ. The shorter the game, the less important it is to take a wicket but the more important it is to be hard to score from. Similarly with batting, power hitting is far more important in the short formats while having a rock solid defensive game is more important in tests.

 

[Teja.]

You could be very boundary reliant in tests but you have to be good at picking the gaps and rotating the strike in ODIs to be equally effective. This was even more true till the last decade of ODI cricket. A great example of this is Sehwag who was not quite as good an ODI batsman for this reason.

Fielders who are natural slip catchers are the most important fielders in tests wheras all round freaks like Rhodes/Symonds are the most important fielders in ODIs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't subscribe to the idea of ranking which is harder, or requires more skills. ODIs and Tests just require certain slightly different skill-sets respectively. Whether you consider one harder than the other is purely subjective.

 

[Daemon]

I think it’s a bit easier the shorter the format to pull off performances that are beyond your usual range.

It’s why you’ll regularly see upsets in these formats but very few in Tests.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think it’s a bit easier the shorter the format to pull off performances that are beyond your usual range.

It’s why you’ll regularly see upsets in these formats but very few in Tests.

I figure that's more a case of the length of the matches. The longer the game, less chance of an upset. Harder to end up ahead of a superior team over 5 days and 2 innings than over just 100 overs.

 

[ankitj]

I think it’s a bit easier the shorter the format to pull off performances that are beyond your usual range.

Well, performances that are in top 1 percentile can only occur 1% of the time irrespective of the format or level of skill required.

 

[Daemon]

I figure that's more a case of the length of the matches. The longer the game, less chance of an upset. Harder to end up ahead of a superior team over 5 days and 2 innings than over just 100 overs.

That's exactly what I'm saying though. Shorter = easier to pull off upsets.

 

[ankitj]

That's exactly what I'm saying though. Shorter = easier to pull off upsets.

Sorry for being pedantic. Easier ≠ more frequent surely. Because top 1% performances can only occur 1% of the time. Benchmarks shift and the same % of performances impress you.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's exactly what I'm saying though. Shorter = easier to pull off upsets.

Sure but does that mean it's easier to "pull off performances that are beyond your usual range", or does it just mean that said performances are more likely to change the outcome of the game?

Well, performances that are in top 1 percentile can only occur 1% of the time irrespective of the format or level of skill required.

Yes but a 1% performance is more likely to influence the result of a match if it's a shorter game

eg. I remember a Test in NZ v Aus a few years back McCullum made a 50 ball 100, ended up with 130 or 140 I think on Day 1, absolutely insane innings. But NZ still lost by a margin in the end. If he does that in an ODI they are much less likely to lose, even if their opponents are stronger on paper.

 

[ankitj]

Yes but a 1% performance is more likely to influence the result of a match if it's a shorter game

eg. I remember a Test in NZ v Aus a few years back McCullum made a 50 ball 100, ended up with 130 or 140 I think on Day 1, absolutely insane innings. But NZ still lost by a margin in the end. If he does that in an ODI they are much less likely to lose, even if their opponents are stronger on paper.

You mean due to the length of the game you need more than just one player's brilliance to change the outcome of a test match? I agree.

 

[vcs]

Doing simple things to an extremely consistent and very high standard, over and over and over again, seems to be harder than pulling off a skill which most people would find tougher, over a shorter period of time. It's like the McGrath vs. Wasim debate I guess. McGrath probably couldn't produce those deliveries that go one way and then the other at the last millisecond as often as Wasim did, and Wasim probably couldn't consistently hit the exact length needed with the exact amount of movement needed to trap the best batsman over and over again like McGrath.

I guess there are more people in parks and grade cricket who can bowl like McGrath for an over or two, than ones who can bowl magic balls like Wasim. But there are probably even fewer who can sustain it all day long, for 5 days.