Test Match or One Day Cricket

[Neil Pickup]

Down South, Union. In civilisation, League.

 

[Anil]

A couple of people have said that a person who is good in ODI cricket but not in Test cricket is not really that good a player. The argument for this is that Test cricket is the true test of a player. However, what about those who are good in Tests but not in ODI cricket? Does that make them worse than others? Case in point - Michael Vaughan.

I am one of them. Are you contending that Michael Vaughan will never become a very good or maybe even a great one-day player? If so, what is the basis of your statement? Two Indian examples, Rahul Dravid & Ravi Shastri....both started out as dour, defensive players(Dravid is still defensive in tests, right?), were considered not suited for one dayers....did they or did they not adapt well and subsequently become exceptional one day players in their career? Shastri didn't have the greatest of techniques or shot selection...but what he had was basic skills, an uncompromising attitude and a desire to excel. Dravid is more blessed as far as technique and talent goes and so, once he made an adjustment in attitude, his transition was fairly straight forward. Whoever has the basic technique, the right attitude and a fair measure of talent(quickness of eye, reflexes, shot slection....) will succeed in both forms of the game and they should be considered the true world class players. Michael Bevan has been tried in tests and found wanting, again and again. It's not as if he didn't really want to play tests or always preferred one dayers or something like that, it's just that he failed at it. That really tells the whole story.

There are really good test players who are overlooked for one dayers in many countries.....someone mentioned Justin Langer in a previous post.......it's mainly due to the proliferation of the so-called one day specialists and bits-and-pieces players. I believe in batsmen who can get into a side on their batting alone, attacking bowlers who always look to take wickets, specialist 'keepers and proper all-rounders(the ones who can get into a side on either of their disciplines). I believe that a team composed of such players will easily swat aside a team of these bits-and-pieces players and one day specialists in a one-day game or a 5 day test.

IMO ODI cricket is a completely different approach and game to Tests and therefore, a Michael Bevan should not be judged as a player due to his Test failure, but rather due to his ODI success. I think Bevan has worked hard and made a career for himself in ODI cricket and full credit to him for that.

ODIs have a very different approach to tests....some different rules, multicoloured clothing, white balls....etc...but it's still very much cricket. All the basic rules of cricket apply to one dayers also. I don't deny that Bevan has worked hard and made a name for himself in one dayers and as you say, full credit to him for that, but does anyone over here think that he is a greater batsman than SRT or Ponting or Lara or Gibbs just to name a few, even in one dayers? No way. My point is, don't give him any more credit than he deserves.

 

[PY]

I believe that a team composed of such players will easily swat aside a team of these bits-and-pieces players and one day specialists in a one-day game or a 5 day test.

NZ are a case in point though they are lacking the OD specialists

 

[Richard]

I am one of them. Are you contending that Michael Vaughan will never become a very good or maybe even a great one-day player? If so, what is the basis of your statement? Two Indian examples, Rahul Dravid & Ravi Shastri....both started out as dour, defensive players(Dravid is still defensive in tests, right?), were considered not suited for one dayers....did they or did they not adapt well and subsequently become exceptional one day players in their career? Shastri didn't have the greatest of techniques or shot selection...but what he had was basic skills, an uncompromising attitude and a desire to excel. Dravid is more blessed as far as technique and talent goes and so, once he made an adjustment in attitude, his transition was fairly straight forward. Whoever has the basic technique, the right attitude and a fair measure of talent(quickness of eye, reflexes, shot slection....) will succeed in both forms of the game and they should be considered the true world class players. Michael Bevan has been tried in tests and found wanting, again and again. It's not as if he didn't really want to play tests or always preferred one dayers or something like that, it's just that he failed at it. That really tells the whole story.

How long has Dravid's one-day average been as good as it is for? I'd bet quite a while, possibly all his career. Vaughan's one-day average has been poor for all his career, I can say that for certain.

There are really good test players who are overlooked for one dayers in many countries.....someone mentioned Justin Langer in a previous post.......it's mainly due to the proliferation of the so-called one day specialists and bits-and-pieces players. I believe in batsmen who can get into a side on their batting alone, attacking bowlers who always look to take wickets, specialist 'keepers and proper all-rounders(the ones who can get into a side on either of their disciplines). I believe that a team composed of such players will easily swat aside a team of these bits-and-pieces players and one day specialists in a one-day game or a 5 day test.

A team of good one-day players will beat a team of not-so-good one-day players in a one-day game. A team of good First-Class players will beat a team of not-so-good First-Class players in a First-Class game.
While bits-and-pieces players are not something I am especially keen on, the fact is there are batsmen (who can get into the side on their batting alone) who are good at the one-day game and those who are good at the First-Class game. Plenty are good at both. However, some are good at only one form. Good bowlers, meanwhile, will take wickets and bowl economically anyway, but for me economy is more important in the one-day game than in the First-Class game so hence a good one-day bowlers doesn't have to take that many wickets. And believe it or not, some players can keep wicket to international standard and bat to it. You don't have to be a poor batsman to be a good wicketkeeper. All-rounders, meanwhile, don't have, IMO, to be able to get into the side on either discipline - think about how hard that is! A bits-and-pieces player can be an all-rounder; just a not-very-good one. Bits-and-pieces players are ones that, for me, will hold down a place only for so long.

ODIs have a very different approach to tests....some different rules, multicoloured clothing, white balls....etc...but it's still very much cricket. All the basic rules of cricket apply to one dayers also. I don't deny that Bevan has worked hard and made a name for himself in one dayers and as you say, full credit to him for that, but does anyone over here think that he is a greater batsman than SRT or Ponting or Lara or Gibbs just to name a few, even in one dayers? No way. My point is, don't give him any more credit than he deserves.

IMO Bevan is a far better one-day player than SRT, Lara or Ponting. As for Gibbs... well, he's good, but he's not as good as those 3. Anyway, if you ask me Bevan is the best one-day player of all-time, simple as. And by some distance. Those who brand him a "finisher" and a "not-outer" are quite mistaken. Bevan has proved himself, many times, a finisher, mid-innings master, starter, repair-master, brilliant at just about everything the one-day game has ever asked any batsman to do.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

IMO Bevan is a far better one-day player than SRT, Lara or Ponting.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

 

[Richard]

I guess so...
But come on! 55 compared to the low 40s!

 

[Neil Pickup]

They play completely different roles!

I couldn't compare them. Bevan is the best at what he does, full stop, but ask him to play the SRT/Ponting/Lara top-order role and he won't get close to their execution.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Agreed on that one. I just think, though, that Bevan is a slightly better batsman, simply because of the shear number of times he has won the game for Aus

 

[Anil]

How long has Dravid's one-day average been as good as it is for? I'd bet quite a while, possibly all his career. Vaughan's one-day average has been poor for all his career, I can say that for certain.

No, not all his career. Dravid wasn't even a regular member of the one day squad in the beginning, he had his good days in ODIs, but they were few and far in between till around the NZ tour of I think '99. After that, he was a transformed player in one dayers and his average, SR went up quite steadily.

As for Vaughan, he has the talent, he has all the shots, I don't know whether captaincy is having/will have an impact on his batting, but if that doesn't happen, I believe he will come good in one dayers sooner rather than later. As to that, I guess we have to wait and see.

A team of good one-day players will beat a team of not-so-good one-day players in a one-day game. A team of good First-Class players will beat a team of not-so-good First-Class players in a First-Class game.
While bits-and-pieces players are not something I am especially keen on, the fact is there are batsmen (who can get into the side on their batting alone) who are good at the one-day game and those who are good at the First-Class game. Plenty are good at both. However, some are good at only one form. Good bowlers, meanwhile, will take wickets and bowl economically anyway, but for me economy is more important in the one-day game than in the First-Class game so hence a good one-day bowlers doesn't have to take that many wickets. And believe it or not, some players can keep wicket to international standard and bat to it. You don't have to be a poor batsman to be a good wicketkeeper. All-rounders, meanwhile, don't have, IMO, to be able to get into the side on either discipline - think about how hard that is! A bits-and-pieces player can be an all-rounder; just a not-very-good one. Bits-and-pieces players are ones that, for me, will hold down a place only for so long.

First of all I am not talking about first class games, but specifically about tests and one day games. All that other stuff in the above paragraph is really not in response to anything I posted.

1. Why do you post something as obvious as a good team will beat a not-so-good team? I mean, what is your point?

2. As for the rest of it, you are just rambling as far as I can see. If you are trying to refute anything I said, perhaps you can enlighten me as to what....

IMO Bevan is a far better one-day player than SRT, Lara or Ponting. As for Gibbs... well, he's good, but he's not as good as those 3. Anyway, if you ask me Bevan is the best one-day player of all-time, simple as. And by some distance. Those who brand him a "finisher" and a "not-outer" are quite mistaken. Bevan has proved himself, many times, a finisher, mid-innings master, starter, repair-master, brilliant at just about everything the one-day game has ever asked any batsman to do.

Your first statement in this paragraph, I find absolutely absurd, but I guess that's just my opinion. I named a few players who I said were greater one day players than Bevan. Off the top of my head, I can add a dozen more who would come into that list: Viv Richards, Graham Gooch, Des Haynes, Mark Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, Inzamam, Javed Miandad, Saeed Anwar, Gary Kirsten, Jacques Kallis, Aravinda DeSilva, Martin Crowe.....call him whatever you want, but IMO, he is not as great as any of the above players and I'm sure, a few more....

 

[marc71178]

I guess so...
But come on! 55 compared to the low 40s!

What good is a figure if he doesn't deserve it?

If he batted at 3, he wouldn't be close ot a 55 average.

 

[anzac]

There was / is the theory that your best batsman comes in at No3 or 4 but no lower, as this gives them the best opportunity to influence the innings & game. This alone would rule Bevan out of being 'The Best'.

I'd agree with the ranking that had him as the No1 ODI batsman, but that does not mean he is 'The Best' ODI batsman. I'd even go so far as to say that he is a more influential ODI batsman than most. It would be interesting to compare the number of times Bevan has won a match to the likes of Lara, SRT, Ponting etc.

For me Bevan is to the Aussie ODI side what Dravid is to the Indian Test side in particular - maybe not the 'Best' but perhaps the cornerstone that you want / need to see the back of more than anyone else - at least from a NZ point of view!

 

[Eclipse]

What good is a figure if he doesn't deserve it?

If he batted at 3, he wouldn't be close ot a 55 average.

Look at Bevans List A Domestic stats were he always bats at number 3 and he avrages 61.

His avrage would be about 40-45 for mine if he batted at number 3. Thats he avraged about 45 batting at number 4 and he has batted there quite alot for Australia.

And I dont like the idea that he only has souch a high avrage because of not outs because it's hard not to get out batting at number six most number six batsman in ODI's only avrage about 30. It's a credit to him that he does not get out.

 

[Anil]

And I dont like the idea that he only has souch a high avrage because of not outs because it's hard not to get out batting at number six most number six batsman in ODI's only avrage about 30. It's a credit to him that he does not get out.

Most No: 6 batsmen don't have the luxury of having players like Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting, Martyn.....come before them.....

 

[PY]

Most No: 6 batsmen don't have the luxury of having players like Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting, Martyn.....come before them.....

For most, read all.

 

[marc71178]

His avrage would be about 40-45 for mine if he batted at number 3.

So that is nowhere near 55, as I said then...

 

[Eclipse]

So that is nowhere near 55, as I said then...

yeah so.

 

[Eclipse]

Most No: 6 batsmen don't have the luxury of having players like Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting, Martyn.....come before them.....

Yeah and so the hell what!!

If our top order fires then Beven is almost usless to us because he cant come out and smash the ball all over the place that well.

Beven has made his name for rescuing an innings when the top order fails not capitalising on the good work of the top order. Somone else is usualy sent up the order in that situation.

If you want to thank anyone for Beven's succses it should be the Australian tail for sticking around with him so mnay times and allowing him to win the match for us not the top order they have done jack **** for him lol.

 

[Richard]

They play completely different roles!

I couldn't compare them. Bevan is the best at what he does, full stop, but ask him to play the SRT/Ponting/Lara top-order role and he won't get close to their execution.

Bevan bats at three for most sides he plays for except the Australian national side. His domestic-one-day average is in the early 60s, far higher than any of the above, and I don't think we need dispute that the Mercantile Mutual\ING Cup is the second-best one-day competition in The World (after SuperSport Series). Certainly that it's very high and exactly the same as the one Ponting plays in anyway.
If you ask me Bevan would still average about the same as he does - possibly even more - if he batted at three or four for the Australian national side.
Like I said above, those who brand Bevan a "finisher" really do not know what they're talking about.

 

[Richard]

What good is a figure if he doesn't deserve it?

If he batted at 3, he wouldn't be close ot a 55 average.

You can't say that for certain. The only way we'd know would be if he did it.

 

[Richard]

No, not all his career. Dravid wasn't even a regular member of the one day squad in the beginning, he had his good days in ODIs, but they were few and far in between till around the NZ tour of I think '99. After that, he was a transformed player in one dayers and his average, SR went up quite steadily.

As for Vaughan, he has the talent, he has all the shots, I don't know whether captaincy is having/will have an impact on his batting, but if that doesn't happen, I believe he will come good in one dayers sooner rather than later. As to that, I guess we have to wait and see.

I'm not talking about ODIs, I'm talking about his domestic one-day average. Was that always high? Was he always a regular in his side? (Can't remember who he plays for. Karnatka?)
Vaughan has been a poor one-day player all his career, it's reflected in his stats. Some people mistakenly judge that he has the talent, just like they did with Michael Slater, but the fact is, he doesn't. I will be quite astonished if his one-day international average goes up when his List-A one hasn't.

First of all I am not talking about first class games, but specifically about tests and one day games. All that other stuff in the above paragraph is really not in response to anything I posted.

1. Why do you post something as obvious as a good team will beat a not-so-good team? I mean, what is your point?

2. As for the rest of it, you are just rambling as far as I can see. If you are trying to refute anything I said, perhaps you can enlighten me as to what....

Well, if you're talking about Test-matches you're talking about First-Class games... what you say really doesn't make sense. Test-matches, ODIs and domestic one-day games. I responded presuming you were talking about Test-matches and ODIs; domestic First-Class and one-day games are the same just a level below. I really can't explain any better than that. I was trying to say that you get good First-Class players and good one-day players. Test-matches are First-Class matches, ODIs are one-day games, so it's the same thing. But a good Test batsman isn't neccesarily a good ODI batsman, and vice-versa.

Your first statement in this paragraph, I find absolutely absurd, but I guess that's just my opinion. I named a few players who I said were greater one day players than Bevan. Off the top of my head, I can add a dozen more who would come into that list: Viv Richards, Graham Gooch, Des Haynes, Mark Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, Inzamam, Javed Miandad, Saeed Anwar, Gary Kirsten, Jacques Kallis, Aravinda DeSilva, Martin Crowe.....call him whatever you want, but IMO, he is not as great as any of the above players and I'm sure, a few more....

For me, his averages are far higher than the lot of them and he's batted all the way up and down the order (except opening) and that's testament to his holding in my status.