Reasons why test cricket > Twenty20

[GIMH]

Because of the wickets slow the run rate theory

 

[Richard]

Well yes, as discussed previously in my experience nothing slows the run-rate in the last 6-7 overs other than exceptional bowling with ball after ball in the blockhole. Normally of course this will result in both a slow run-rate and a fair few wickets falling, but the wickets are not essential, merely a by-product, and without them the slow run-rate will still result.

 

[Furball]

Well yes, as discussed previously in my experience nothing slows the run-rate in the last 6-7 overs other than exceptional bowling with ball after ball in the blockhole. Normally of course this will result in both a slow run-rate and a fair few wickets falling, but the wickets are not essential, merely a by-product, and without them the slow run-rate will still result.

Because in a situation where you've got a well set Yuvraj and Dhoni about to take a batting powerplay as a launchpad for the last 10 overs, I wouldn't mind snaring one of them.

I'd back both of them to score much quicker than Raina, Jadeja etc.

Plus, there's been a bit of a trend where if you can remove a well set batsman, particularly during the powerplay, then you'll snap up a couple more wickets, batsmen seem to struggle with the batting powerplay when they're fresh to the crease with the field up.

 

[aussie]

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

I was comapring how Steve Waugh like Anderson as your said "was poor for a long time", 7-8. Like Anderson ODI career between 2002/03 to 2007/08 (although i wouldn't call it poor).

But then Waugh turned it around, so yes it is possible for a player to poor/average for long then turn it around. I believe Anderson can do based on 2009 ODI performances.

at The SCG,[/B] 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.

Yea my mistake, wrong "G" i'm getting old

 

[aussie]

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.

Where did i say Pollard has been brainless of late?. I said he on Smith are on the same level, i.e very dangerous T20 players i see absolutely no difference.

But as i said that all Pollard is ATM. Their is no evidence this new found T20 consistency will translate into his ODI form. When Windies go back to AUS for the ODI series, we will see how he goes..

By God, I've tried. The flaws are self-evident anyway.

 

[aussie]

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.

Which Smith. Graeme or Dwayne?

Oh add Imran Nazir, Justin Kemp to the list too..

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.

The levels of excellece that the list of players you gave displayed in tests, indeed isn't/wasn't as HIGH as their ODI form. But the still did well in tests for a long enough period.

- A player like Symonds for example was a good test player, excellent ODI player, WC T20 player. The entire list you gave i'd say would make good T20 players.


As i said before they where other very good test & ODI player who weren't hitters who would be average/crap/useless in T20s.

- Gary Kirsten: WC test opener, who even in modern day ODIs he would make a very good Anchor like opener. But in T20s he would be useless.

- Angus Fraser & Stuart Clark. Excellent line bowler in test & decent in ODIs & would trouble the best of batsmen technically in this both of those formats. But in T20s would be slaughthered.

- Gillespie & Kasprowiz. Very good test & ODI bowlers. BUT neither where effecient death bowlers in ODIs & would likely have been very average in T20s.

- Thorpe, Cullinan, Laxman, Samaraweera, Prince, Dravid, C'Paul, Kalis Younis Khan, Lehmann, Clarke. Veryy good/excelelnt test players who had top ODI careers. But in T20s all these are either defensive or batsman who took time get set thus would struggle in in a T20.

edit: Although i'd admit Dravid & Kallis has looked good in IPL. SA for example with Kallis had to let Kallis to open with Kallis to get the best out of him (since he was struggling batting in the middle), but overall he isn't a very convincing T20 player IMO..

But as i said before when looking at batsman. In T20s you are more likely to see average/joke players (who couldn't cut it in ODIs) or technically inept test players (who where very good/excellent ODI players) like Pollard, Dwayne Smith, Wright, Bossman, Imran Nazir, Afridi, Gayle, McCullum, Yuvraj, Sehwag, Cameron White, Warner, Fletcher, Kemp, Napier, Yusuf Pathan, Ricardo Powell, A Morkel etc. Who would be stars in T20s.

Try reading my posts. First off, I'm not talking about the 00s, I'm talking about the last 15 years. . Looking at overall careers, Pollock and Kallis are quite clearly in front of him, and arguably Chris Cairns is as well.

- Yes Kallis & Pollock at their peaks as "all-rounders" where clearly was a better all-rounder than Flintoff at the "beginning of his peak" (Ashes 05 - IND 06). Once you are clear Flintoff was the best "pure test all-rounder" of the 2000s era, i'm good..

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

This is constanct mischarterisation that you & other people who complain about Flintoff's test record & him not being able to take 5 wicket hauls. Most people fail to understand the effect injuries had on Flintoff's "peak"

After Master Fred became test quality in Bridgetown 2004 - & reached the beginning of his zenith as bowler between Ashes 05 to IND 06. The next 3 years of his career (SRI 06 - Ashes 09) was marred by injury, which prevented him frong taking his bowling to another level although he remained very much test quality & ENG best bowler during this period.

So not taking a 5 wicket-hauls was not a situation where as the common wisdom puts it that "at his peak as a bowler he was never good at taking 5-wicket hauls consistently". His bowling never reached its "ulitmate" peak after the beginning of zenith between Ashes 05 to IND 06. Injuries pushed his bowling & batting in the last days of this career (SRI 06 - Ashes 09) to a pre Ashes 05 level.


On Chris Cairns he is just like Flintoff in many ways. In which he never got to reach his true peak as all-rounder thanks to consistent injuries which kept hindering his progress. Cairns was a better batsman than Flintoff during their best days - but Flintoff the superior bowler.

 

[Furball]

The levels of excellece that the list of players you gave displayed in tests, indeed isn't/wasn't as HIGH as their ODI form. But the still did well in tests for a long enough period.

- A player like Symonds for example was a good test player, excellent ODI player, WC T20 player. The entire list you gave i'd say would make good T20 players.

Stop missing the point. I'm not debating whether or not the line up I posted were or weren't good Test players, so stop ****ing arguing it. My point is that none of them IMO come close to an all time great Test list. In ODIs, all of them certainly have a case. So it's quite possible for players to be better at one form of the game. The same applies for T20, there are players who have the required skillset to be a success at T20. Just because guys like Bosman, D. Smith, Pollard etc. aren't good at the longest form isn't a reason to criticise T20s.

- Yes Kallis & Pollock at their peaks as "all-rounders" where clearly was a better all-rounder than Flintoff at the "beginning of his peak" (Ashes 05 - IND 06). Once you are clear Flintoff was the best "pure test all-rounder" of the 2000s era, i'm good..

Again, I've never argued against that. Kallis and Pollock wouldn't have been capable of the sort of series Flintoff had against Australia in 2005. Flintoff at his peak was the best "pure" all rounder, I doubt many others would be able to have the kind of match Flintoff had at Edgbaston 2005. Over the course of their careers, Kallis and Pollock however are miles ahead of Flintoff, because if you take Kallis' bowling and Pollock's batting, statistically you have Flintoff.

This is constanct mischarterisation that you & other people who complain about Flintoff's test record & him not being able to take 5 wicket hauls. Most people fail to understand the effect injuries had on Flintoff's "peak"

Go on, enlighten me. How did injuries prevent Flintoff from taking more 5 fors between 2004 and 2006?

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, there are plenty of reasons he never took more 5fers in that time but injury ain't one of them.

 

[aussie]

Stop missing the point. I'm not debating whether or not the line up I posted were or weren't good Test players, so stop ****ing arguing it. My point is that none of them IMO come close to an all time great Test list. In ODIs, all of them certainly have a case. So it's quite possible for players to be better at one form of the game. The same applies for T20, there are players who have the required skillset to be a success at T20.

I have to kepp ****ing arguing it, because the distinction you are drawing is foolish. Lets go this again

- It is irrelevant whether the list of players of players you listed where capable of being All-time great test quality.

- All of those players although their ODI success isn't comparable to their test success, they STILL WHERE VERY GOOD TEST PLAYERS FOR A LONG ENOUGH PERIOD.

- So they dont fall under the category of players who where "better & one format" & average poor at one format.

Just because guys like Bosman, D. Smith, Pollard etc. aren't good at the longest form isn't a reason to criticise T20s.

It clearly is a reason to criticise it because test cricket is proper cricket & if T20s didn't exist they wouldn't have a career ATM. They way they bat in T20 suits that format, which is their unique ability to hit the ball although they are technically very poor. In test cricket (& in ODIs to level) where batsmen are tested technically & mentally they would fail because their ability to clear the fence etc is irrelevant in proper cricket - test cricket.

In tests only proper cricket prosper. In T20s proper cricketers & ultimate joke crickets (rfering to the batsman who has certain skills sets like those proper cricketers can/would prosper as well)

Again, I've never argued against that. Kallis and Pollock wouldn't have been capable of the sort of series Flintoff had against Australia in 2005. Flintoff at his peak was the best "pure" all rounder, I doubt many others would be able to have the kind of match Flintoff had at Edgbaston 2005. Over the course of their careers, Kallis and Pollock however are miles ahead of Flintoff, because if you take Kallis' bowling and Pollock's batting, statistically you have Flintoff.

You where going so well up until this. Suggesting this is nothing more than stats picking.

As you said youself Flintoff at his best (although his best was never completed due to injury) was the best "pure all-rounder". Case closed.

Go on, enlighten me. How did injuries prevent Flintoff from taking more 5 fors between 2004 and 2006?

The portion of the post below that you didn't quote clearly explains why..

Yeah, there are plenty of reasons he never took more 5fers in that time but injury ain't one of them.

Which are?

 

[Furball]

I have to kepp ****ing arguing it, because the distinction you are drawing is foolish. Lets go this again

- It is irrelevant whether the list of players of players you listed where capable of being All-time great test quality.

- All of those players although their ODI success isn't comparable to their test success, they STILL WHERE VERY GOOD TEST PLAYERS FOR A LONG ENOUGH PERIOD.

- So they dont fall under the category of players who where "better & one format" & average poor at one format.

I didn't ****ing say that you spacker. My point was that certain players have a skill set which makes them better at one format than the other, not that the players I listed were crap Test players.

It clearly is a reason to criticise it because test cricket is proper cricket & if T20s didn't exist they wouldn't have a career ATM. They way they bat in T20 suits that format, which is their unique ability to hit the ball although they are technically very poor. In test cricket (& in ODIs to level) where batsmen are tested technically & mentally they would fail because their ability to clear the fence etc is irrelevant in proper cricket - test cricket.

Irrelevant. Their ability to clear the fence makes them useful T20 cricketers. How good or not they are at Tests is utterly irrelevant to T20.

You where going so well up until this. Suggesting this is nothing more than stats picking.

As you said youself Flintoff at his best (although his best was never completed due to injury) was the best "pure all-rounder". Case closed.

Statistically, Pollock's batting + Kallis' bowling = Flintoff. At his peak, Flintoff was a better all rounder, over the course of their entire careers there's no argument. Flintoff spent the first 5 years of his career as a joke cricketer, and the last 3 years as a much reduced bowler and a complete non batsman.

The portion of the post below that you didn't quote clearly explains why..

No it doesn't. It explains why Flintoff could not continue performing as he had done at his peak. It doesn't offer any explanation as to why an injury free, peak performance Flintoff between West Indies 2004 and India 2006 could only manage 2 Test 5 fors in c. 25 Tests.

 

[GIMH]

How many 5fers did the other pace bowlers take in that period? I'd imagine more than Flintoff, but I'd say the main reason was that the wickets were shared around a pace attack that was taking twenty wickets for fun.

 

[Furball]

How many 5fers did the other pace bowlers take in that period? I'd imagine more than Flintoff, but I'd say the main reason was that the wickets were shared around a pace attack that was taking twenty wickets for fun.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

14 for the pacers - 5 for Harmison, 4 for Hoggard, 3 for Jones, 2 for Flintoff.

 

[aussie]

I didn't ****ing say that you spacker.

. Is that really a diss. Its quite funny how in discussions on these boards these days how poster have to resort to internet tuff talk *Shakes head*

My point was that certain players have a skill set which makes them better at one format than the other, not that the players I listed were crap Test players.

Oh geez. But list of players you gave as i said DISPLAYED THE SKILL SET in test cricket for a long enough period even though it wasn't as long as their ODI careers.

So like for example Brett Lee. At his peak as test bowler between WI 2005 to WI 08 that was comparable to what he accomplished over his ODI career.

Saqlain Mushtaq in the 90s & early 2000s was a WORLD-CLASS offspinner & was as good as he was in tests as he was in ODIs. He just fell of later on in tests.

Irrelevant. Their ability to clear the fence makes them useful T20 cricketers. How good or not they are at Tests is utterly irrelevant to T20.

Exactly, thats ALL basically a batsman needs in T20 to be really successfull, that alone should prove why T20 is "batting game" - thats a limited skill set. Since Pollard can hit the ball as hard as KP & clear the fence/destroy Brett Lee as effective as KP. But in proper cricket (test & ODIs where batsmen are tested mentally & technically) - Lee would own Pollard - but Lee he wouldn't KP it would a far even battle with bat & ball.

We dont even have to go as low as Pollard. We can use Chris Gayle. As we saw in T20 WC this year. Gayle slaughtered Lee & bowler who in test & ODIs who troubled him troughout his career with deliveries swinging into his pads. But in T20 WC such pitch up lenght Lee was slaughtered.

When Gayle went to AUS recently. He was owned in 1st test (proper cricket) by Hilfenhaus a bowler who like Lee could swing the ball back into the pads of lefties. In a T20Gayle would slaughter Hilfenhaus because he has a license to go crazy, no patience is required, nor can he be exposed technically...

Statistically, Pollock's batting + Kallis' bowling = Flintoff. At his peak, Flintoff was a better all rounder, over the course of their entire careers there's no argument.

Pollock's batting at which period & Kallis' bowling at which period of their respective careers?.

Since AFAIK Pollock's batting at no point of his career could match Flintoff at the beginning of his peak. Neither was Kallis' bowler ever comparable to Flintoff.

So the combination of Pollock's batting + Kallis' bowling wouldn't be a better all-rounder than Flintoff.

Simply put at their respective peak's Pollock & Kallis where better than Flintoff's "early peak" because:

- Pollock although his batting was noway as good as Freddie, his bowling between 95-2003 was all-time great stuff. So that balances out & makes Pollock better.

- Kallis although his bowling was never on par with Flintoff's. His batting was world-class, arguabbly SA's greatest ever batsman. So that balances out & makes him a better all-rounder than Flintoff..

Flintoff spent the first 5 years of his career as a joke cricketer,

Technically no. Flintoff after his debut vs SA 98 (in which he should'nt have played at all), SA tour 99/00 & home summer 2000 vs ZIM/WI. That was only period he was a joke test cricketer.

When Flintoff played his next test vs IND 01. He was he definately qaulified as test quality between Mohali 01 to WI 04 (trinidad test). In this period he was a ok/decent test # 7 who bowling was useful 5th seamer - but he was never penetrative.

and the last 3 years as a much reduced bowler and a complete non batsman.

Because of injury.

No it doesn't. It explains why Flintoff could not continue performing as he had done at his peak.

It doesn't offer any explanation as to why an injury free, peak performance Flintoff between West Indies 2004 and India 2006 could only manage 2 Test 5 fors in c. 25 Tests.

Flintoff was hardly injury free in this period either. If you remember vs WI 04 in ENG. He played a few test matches/innings where he didn't bowl or when he bowled he wasn't bowling 100%.

But overall as i did explain in that post from Bridgetown 2004 to Centurion 05 was when his bowling moved from the "Mohali 01 to Trinidad 04" phase of 5th bowler/stock bowler - To main-bowler in the ENG attack.

The Ashes to IND 06 was the beginning of his zenith/peak as bowler. He never got to build on that (which includes his ability to take more 5 wicket hauls) between SRI 06 - 2009 because injuries messed up his progress. Simple.

Flintoff's bowling in the Ashes 09 reminded me so much of SA tour 04/05. It certainly was not on the Ashes 05 level..

 

[Richard]

Because in a situation where you've got a well set Yuvraj and Dhoni about to take a batting powerplay as a launchpad for the last 10 overs, I wouldn't mind snaring one of them.

I'd back both of them to score much quicker than Raina, Jadeja etc.

If you got rid of one or both with 10 overs remaining yeah sure; if it's with 3 or 4, I'd back the difference to be miniscule - maybe 6-7 runs at best. Which is why I only mentioned wickets in the last few overs, not the last 1\5th of the innings, being relatively useless.

Plus, there's been a bit of a trend where if you can remove a well set batsman, particularly during the powerplay, then you'll snap up a couple more wickets, batsmen seem to struggle with the batting powerplay when they're fresh to the crease with the field up.

Don't disagree with that, but Powerplays and death overs are two different matters. Clearly wicket-taking during a Powerplay is useful.

 

[Richard]

I was comapring how Steve Waugh like Anderson as your said "was poor for a long time", 7-8. Like Anderson ODI career between 2002/03 to 2007/08 (although i wouldn't call it poor).

But then Waugh turned it around, so yes it is possible for a player to poor/average for long then turn it around. I believe Anderson can do based on 2009 ODI performances.

As I say, players make Test turnarounds at any number of different stages of careers. There are the odd few cases of players making the turnaround at the age when most will retire. But in ODIs, as I say, it's a different matter. By-and-large, if a player isn't good enough for ODIs at 24-25, he never will be.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, there are plenty of reasons he never took more 5fers in that time but injury ain't one of them.

Namely, bowling style of various bowlers (relating to line, length and amount and type of swing used), the time of innings various bowlers tended to bowl at, and fortune of various bowlers (Flintoff often tended to be an unlucky bowler, Harmison for instance often tended to be a lucky one, so sometimes was Simon Jones).

 

[aussie]

As I say, players make Test turnarounds at any number of different stages of careers. There are the odd few cases of players making the turnaround at the age when most will retire. But in ODIs, as I say, it's a different matter. By-and-large, if a player isn't good enough for ODIs at 24-25, he never will be.

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..

 

[Richard]

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

 

[Furball]

Pollock's batting at which period & Kallis' bowling at which period of their respective careers?.

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

 

[Furball]

Flintoff's bowling in the Ashes 09 reminded me so much of SA tour 04/05. It certainly was not on the Ashes 05 level..

3rd highest wicket taker at a sub 25 average?