Reasons why test cricket > Twenty20

[Richard]

Not really, the crux of yours & aussie's argument is that T20 is a batting game where bowlers are never economical, I dispute this wholeheartedly

It is that, and given that I've defined "economical" as "economical by Test and ODI standards", and given reasons why it is legit to do this, I don't see how anyone can dispute it.

 

[Richard]

It seems quite convenient that when you use your definition of what makes a decent bowler, four runs per over, only McGrath and Murali have achieved that standard and bowled significantly in the last decade.

Pollock has done likewise; Vettori very, very nearly has. This shows it's perfectly possible. Of course only the most exceptional bowlers can do it. I certainly never once suggested that to be even decent you have to go for <4-an-over; ever since about 1990 that's been the realm of the exceptional. The decent bowlers tend to concede 4.1-4.4-an-over or so.

And the reason for that isn't that your rpo is too low, it's because there aren't any decent bowlers?!

Of course it is. I'd say it's fairly obvious there've been a large number of very poor ODI bowlers in recent years. Look at this list. Also there's a few names in there who have not been used properly and have thus not maximised their economy - Bond, Flintoff and left-arm seamers Bracken and Bradshaw to the fore. The number of "decent" bowlers in there is not considerable - Harris, Gillespie, Harbhajan Singh, that's basically it. There's also Oram and Vaas who tended to be capable of being very good quite often but also absolutely awful from time to time. There's also some bowlers who were once very good but declined later on - Gough, Wasim Akram, Saqlain Mushtaq. It's also fairly safe I think to say that Dharmasena would've been added to the Pollock, McGrath, Murali, Vettori category had he been allowed to continue his career.

 

[NUFAN]

I notice that Bangladesh who continue to make about 250 (that's 5 runs per over for each bowler), have been left off once again...

If you are bowling 10 overs and going for under 45 you've done well now.

EDIT - Shakib 4.56 and Rafique 4.58 should be included IMO. I didn't add any teams to the query, just Bangladesh.

 

[four_or_six]

Pollock has done likewise; Vettori very, very nearly has. This shows it's perfectly possible. Of course only the most exceptional bowlers can do it. I certainly never once suggested that to be even decent you have to go for <4-an-over; ever since about 1990 that's been the realm of the exceptional. The decent bowlers tend to concede 4.1-4.4-an-over or so.

Of course it is. I'd say it's fairly obvious there've been a large number of very poor ODI bowlers in recent years. Look at this list. Also there's a few names in there who have not been used properly and have thus not maximised their economy - Bond, Flintoff and left-arm seamers Bracken and Bradshaw to the fore. The number of "decent" bowlers in there is not considerable - Harris, Gillespie, Harbhajan Singh, that's basically it. There's also Oram and Vaas who tended to be capable of being very good quite often but also absolutely awful from time to time. There's also some bowlers who were once very good but declined later on - Gough, Wasim Akram, Saqlain Mushtaq. It's also fairly safe I think to say that Dharmasena would've been added to the Pollock, McGrath, Murali, Vettori category had he been allowed to continue his career.

I think we are just using a very different definition of 'decent'.

 

[GIMH]

It is that, and given that I've defined "economical" as "economical by Test and ODI standards", and given reasons why it is legit to do this, I don't see how anyone can dispute it.

Because it's ludicrous to define economical in T20 terms by those standards - just as it's ludicrous to review ODI economy by Test standards. It's irrelevant what the discrepancy is, the standards are different. Hence my pizza with a different currency argument.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself and we'll never agree on this.

 

[Furball]

It is that, and given that I've defined "economical" as "economical by Test and ODI standards", and given reasons why it is legit to do this, I don't see how anyone can dispute it.

There is a lack of attack in Test Cricket, as can be seen by the economy rates of bowlers and strike rate of batsmen in Test Cricket by T20 standards.

 

[silentstriker]

There is a lack of attack in Test Cricket, as can be seen by the economy rates of bowlers and strike rate of batsmen in Test Cricket by T20 standards.

That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Come back when the term slip has any meaning in T20.

Also, that duel between Steyn and Collingwood = Glorious orgasm. Better than porn.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Come back when the term slip has any meaning in T20.

Also, that duel between Steyn and Collingwood = Glorious orgasm. Better than porn.

Fairly certain he was stating a sarcastic counterpoint to Richard's ongoing argument.

 

[GIMH]

That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Come back when the term slip has any meaning in T20.

Also, that duel between Steyn and Collingwood = Glorious orgasm. Better than porn.

For a bright bloke you're not so perceptive

 

[silentstriker]

Can't tell anymore - there were people writing in during the Collingwood innings, both to the TV commentators and to cricinfo commentary, about how he wasn't scoring fast and thus it was boring.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Collingwood let South Africa off the hook. Fact.

 

[Furball]

That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Come back when the term slip has any meaning in T20.

Also, that duel between Steyn and Collingwood = Glorious orgasm. Better than porn.

Dear God.

T20 is like a quick ****, feels great to blow your load at the time but it's not particularly memorable. Certainly enjoyable though.

Test cricket is taking a beautiful woman, going through your full repetoire and having the time of your life, a memorable shag that you'll still look back on with fondness years after the event.

 

[Richard]

I notice that Bangladesh who continue to make about 250 (that's 5 runs per over for each bowler), have been left off once again...

If one was to make a case for Bangladesh being ODI-standard now (and I wouldn't agree BTW) then you'd be able to do it for a few months at best. I've said it God-knows-how-many times - it's so, so annoying that someone will make the claim that because Bangladesh have \ will some day become ODI-standard, that they were never substandard. No, Bangladesh were not ODI-standard in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009, AFAIC.

If you are bowling 10 overs and going for under 45 you've done well now.

You've done decently; a spell of, say, 10-48-1 for instance is what I'd call a less-than-disastrous spell; ditto one of 10-43-1. But it's certainly not a good one. A good spell remains one where you've bowled 10 overs for 40 or less - unless of course it's a really bowler-friendly game in which case 10-38-1 might well be poor figures.

 

[Richard]

Because it's ludicrous to define economical in T20 terms by those standards - just as it's ludicrous to review ODI economy by Test standards.

Do you not understand or just understand and disagree with what I've said about the relative differences?

3-an-over to 4-an-over is a World of difference to 4-an-over to 7-an-over. For Twenty20 purposes, ODI and Test are the same thing. The latter two define a standard which the former does not keep to.

 

[Furball]

Surely the better comparison is ODI and T20, since they're the two most similar forms?

There's plenty of good international bowlers with economies of under 7 an over.

 

[GIMH]

Do you not understand or just understand and disagree with what I've said about the relative differences?

3-an-over to 4-an-over is a World of difference to 4-an-over to 7-an-over. For Twenty20 purposes, ODI and Test are the same thing. The latter two define a standard which the former does not keep to.

Because it's ludicrous to define economical in T20 terms by those standards - just as it's ludicrous to review ODI economy by Test standards. It's irrelevant what the discrepancy is, the standards are different. Hence my pizza with a different currency argument.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself and we'll never agree on this.

Why would you remove the part of my post that clearly shows I do understand?

What I'm saying is that it's just being selective to state "3 and 4 are closer than 4 and 7" the fact is the standards are still different.

And how ODIs & Tests are the same thing when compared to twenty20 is beyond me. T20/ODIs are both about scoring quickly, Tests are not...

 

[Richard]

Surely the better comparison is ODI and T20, since they're the two most similar forms?

There is infinitely more similarity between Test and ODI than ODI and Twenty20.

 

[Richard]

Why would you remove the part of my post that clearly shows I do understand?

Because I wasn't sure it did show so, can see how it might do but wasn't sure.

What I'm saying is that it's just being selective to state "3 and 4 are closer than 4 and 7" the fact is the standards are still different.

And how ODIs & Tests are the same thing when compared to twenty20 is beyond me. T20/ODIs are both about scoring quickly, Tests are not...

Twenty20 is about scoring insanely quickly from ball 1 to ball 120; ODIs are about building an innings (and trying to stop an innings being built), same way Tests are.

 

[Furball]

Twenty20 is about scoring insanely quickly from ball 1 to ball 120; ODIs are about building an innings (and trying to stop an innings being built), same way Tests are.

ODIs are also about scoring quickly.

 

[aussie]

What, the same Snape with a career T20 economy rate of 6.71 you mean?

I'm talking about International T20. Snape was turned into a satellite in 07 WC, because his tactic in domestic cricket of bowling darts has proven to be non-effective in International T20s.

Or the sam Benn who has a career T20 economy rate of 6.10?

Same thing with Benn. He bowled OK in 09 T20 WC, H he bowled two spells where he went for betwen 24 & 25 runs in his 4 overs. But compared to how economical he was for Barbados in the Standford T20 bowling darts. He didn't replicate the level economical at international level.