IPL hurting the international game

[Flem274*]

Will be the first 16.2 hand pony ever then.

And seriously, even if I did have a family to take care of, I'm not motivated by the highest dollar. if it pays enough to feed my hypothetical family and I enjoy it, I'm happy.

 

[GIMH]

Ha, well which one of those players transformed their ODI succes to tests then?

To be fair to you, I misread your initial post and thought you were saying the opposite of what you did. That being said, quite a lot lately I see you stating opinions and then backing them up by saying "it's a fact" and well, no, it's an opinion. Very annoying and disrespectful to people you are debating with, IMO.

 

[aussie]

To be fair to you, I misread your initial post and thought you were saying the opposite of what you did. That being said, quite a lot lately I see you stating opinions and then backing them up by saying "it's a fact" and well, no, it's an opinion. Very annoying and disrespectful to people you are debating with, IMO.

An opinion is if someone said "I think Ian Botham was the greatest all-rounder in cricket history". That would be wrong.

A fact would be saying "Murali is SRI greatest ever spinner". There is no debating that.

Thats all i do, try to highlight to the people i'm debating with the difference between the two notions when looking at various points. No disrespect.

 

[GIMH]

It's not a FACT though. Even saying Bradman is the greatest cricketer ever isn't actually a fact; it's just an opinion that everybody agrees with.

You could, of course say that statistically Murali is Sri Lanka's best ever spinner, and Bradman the greatest batsman, and they would be facts. But you are stating subjective points and passing them off as facts. You might not need to be disrespectful, but setting your opinions to be facts is just stifling for discussion, IMO. And that's a fact

 

[Prince EWS]

A fact would be saying "Murali is SRI greatest ever spinner". There is no debating that.

That's actually still just an opinion. It'd be an extremely popular opinion but a judgement on quality cannot be fact. "Murali has taken over 700 Test wickets" is a fact.

 

[aussie]

A tiny number obviously. All the more reason for ODIs to be scrapped as they don't do anything that T20s can't to World cricket.

What?. If as i'm saying you can't scrap ODI's because nations outside AUS, SA, ENG due to their FC domestic competitions depend on some ODI form as a guide to pick players for tests, (although it is a proven that ODI success doesn't qual test success).

How can you abolish ODI's & start picking players for test matches based on T20 form?. That is madness.

 

[aussie]

Not sure they can, because the IPL would still need the NOC, which can only be provided by the player's home board.

I have to check it back. But i seriously think McCullum & co could take that route in the future.

 

[Prince EWS]

Stopping teams from being able to use ODIs as selection trials for Tests would actually be a huge positive IMO. I don't care how dire their First Class competitions are, performing well in two-innings, multi-day cricket is going to be a better indicator of potential success than ODI cricket.

 

[aussie]

Stopping teams from being able to use ODIs as selection trials for Tests would actually be a huge positive IMO. I don't care how dire their First Class competitions are, performing well in two-innings, multi-day cricket is going to be a better indicator of potential success than ODI cricket.

There is a reason why only AUS, WI, ENG & SA (just before being banned in 1970) have had world champions of test cricket. Thats because at some point, the standard of FC cricket was on par with test match level intensity & quality in these 4 nations.

In dire FC competitions you will not get that intensity. Thats is why nations like IND, PAK, NZ, SRI tend to use performances in ODIs to pick players for test matches.

The best thing that can happen is the ICC to aid NZ, PAK, WI, SRI in buidling a strong national academies to compensate for the lack of strong FC structure. But ODIs dont need to be abolished, just limited.

 

[Athlai]

He has a pony.

 

[Prince EWS]

There is a reason why only AUS, WI, ENG & SA (just before being banned in 1970) have had world champions of test cricket. Thats because at some point, the standard of FC cricket was on par with test match level intensity & quality in these 4 nations. In dire FC competitions you will not get that intensity.

Well duh. I fail to see how this advocates teams with poor First Class competitions picking players based on ODI performances though - the teams that you claim have been forced into doing such have had no joy from it at all, have they? If anything, it just shows that trying to select Test teams based on ODI performances is a fruitless endeavour and that good Test teams will only form from players who have succeeded in high-quality First Class competitions. You've shown that low-quality competitions will not produce an abundance of Test standard players but you haven't shown that ODIs actually do so to pick up the slack.

Poor-quality First Class competitions might not be the ideal medium to pick Test players from, but as far as I'm concerned it makes a lot more sense to that than to pick them out of ODIs. The quality might not be as good but at least they're actually playing the same game - it's a lot more likely that a good Test player will fail in ODIs than fail in a poor quality First Class competition. You'd miss out on a lot of players by putting to much importance on ODIs for Test selection.

I'm not saying ODIs should be scrapped (although I'd rather they were than have the current amount of Test/FC cricket currently being played reduced any further, TBH) but if they were I'd see the inability for teams to use them as Test selection trials as a huge plus.

 

[Pigeon]

Will be the first 16.2 hand pony ever then.

And seriously, even if I did have a family to take care of, I'm not motivated by the highest dollar. if it pays enough to feed my hypothetical family and I enjoy it, I'm happy.

Nah mate. There is nothing like "enough" money when a family is involved. Get into those shoes and you'll understand what I mean.

 

[Pigeon]

What?. If as i'm saying you can't scrap ODI's because nations outside AUS, SA, ENG due to their FC domestic competitions depend on some ODI form as a guide to pick players for tests, (although it is a proven that ODI success doesn't qual test success).

I don't agree with you. There are players in other sides also who made into the test squad without ODI grinds. (Just the current squad basically)

India - Amit Mishra, Ishant Sharma, VVS Laxman, Rahul Dravid
Sri Lanka - Thilan Samaraweera, Paranavithana, Jayawardena (avg something like 15 over his last 30 odd ODIs, yet never dropped from tests), Prasanna Jayawardena.
Pakistan - Danish Kaneria

How can you abolish ODI's & start picking players for test matches based on T20 form?. That is madness.

No, don't. FC exists for a reason and that is to supply test quality cricketers. T20s almost always never supplies test quality players, just like ODIs.

 

[Pigeon]

There is a reason why only AUS, WI, ENG & SA (just before being banned in 1970) have had world champions of test cricket.

England and SA were World Champions? Honestly? To qualify as World Champions, they should have consistent success over a period of time (say 8-10 years) in test cricket, and over the world. Mate that suggestion was indeed laughable, because if SA can be called WC, then so can India also be called, based on their current form in test cricket.

In dire FC competitions you will not get that intensity. Thats is why nations like IND, PAK, NZ, SRI tend to use performances in ODIs to pick players for test matches.

I might agree with PAK and NZ. But India and SL never really pick their players based on ODI form. I know the odd Yuvraj happens, but that's exception rather than rule.

The best thing that can happen is the ICC to aid NZ, PAK, WI, SRI in buidling a strong national academies to compensate for the lack of strong FC structure. But ODIs dont need to be abolished, just limited.

Again, you are saying something which is completely unrelated to the topic of discussion. The question is "Why just not ban ODIs altogether?". T20s do the same job ODIs do. They in fact do it better. ODIs have become redundant in the sense that neither it supplements test cricket by being a talent pool, nor it brings in the money like T20s do.

 

[aussie]

Well duh. I fail to see how this advocates teams with poor First Class competitions picking players based on ODI performances though - the teams that you claim have been forced into doing such have had no joy from it at all, have they? If anything, it just shows that trying to select Test teams based on ODI performances is a fruitless endeavour and that good Test teams will only form from players who have succeeded in high-quality First Class competitions. You've shown that low-quality competitions will not produce an abundance of Test standard players but you haven't shown that ODIs actually do so to pick up the slack..

They are plenty of examples i think. Plus you can also add the fact that due to the poor FC structures in WI, NZ, PAK, IND, SRI, as you know many players a picked based on natural ability.

You look at Virender Sehwag for example. After Gavaskar IND struggled to find openers for years. Sehwag was basically a mid order batsman, opened in ODIs, IND took a risk and it payed off. He didn't open in FC cricket.

Pietersen was fast tracked in the 05 Ashes based on superb ODI performances. Although he was doing well in FC cricket for ENG. Those ODI performances in the intesity of INTL cricket was what really propelled him to the test line-up.

Razzaq was pushed into he PAK test in the late 90s as an all-rounder ,based on ODI performances & natural ability.

Vettori was picked a natural ability, he wasn't fully ready for tests when he intially played.

The entire WI team this decade outside Gayle & Sarwan has been picked on either ODI form or raw ability.

I remember Roger Twose getting a second go a test cricket after his superb batting in the 99 world cup. But was criminally found wanting technically.

Generally with NZ, IND, SRI, PAK, WI. You find alot of players being fast-tracked too quickly as well & they end up learning their trade at test level, which either breaks them or MAYBE they eventually come good.

Poor-quality First Class competitions might not be the ideal medium to pick Test players from, but as far as I'm concerned it makes a lot more sense to that than to pick them out of ODIs.

The player would still not be exposed to that level of intensity of intl cricket, that you get in ODIs. Which is a key mental facet of the game.

The quality might not be as good but at least they're actually playing the same game - it's a lot more likely that a good Test player will fail in ODIs than fail in a poor quality First Class competition. You'd miss out on a lot of players by putting to much importance on ODIs for Test selection.

In ODI you do have some some periods of the game, where test match like situations come into play though. Look at the AUS WC opener vs PAK 03 for eg, Symonds innings needed test match style application to survive to eventually get to stage where he savaged the bowling.

While facing a the swinging white new-ball againts QUALITY pacers intially does test a batsman's technique. Thats the reason iwhy Watson was given the chance to open in tests ATM.

 

[Pigeon]

They are plenty of examples i think. Plus you can also add the fact that due to the poor FC structures in WI, NZ, PAK, IND, SRI, as you know many players a picked based on natural ability.

You look at Virender Sehwag for example. After Gavaskar IND struggled to find openers for years. Sehwag was basically a mid order batsman, opened in ODIs, IND took a risk and it payed off. He didn't open in FC cricket.

You are just spouting BS mate. You really are. Sehwag averaged nearly 60 after 3500 runs of FC cricket before he was picked in test matches. And guess where he started his test career? As a middle order batsman and he scored a century. So your argument that he was picked for tests based on his ODI performance, does not hold any water. He was a genuine test quality batsman who was picked on his FC performances alone. It does not matter that he converted into opening and his ODI performances were no real factors based on which the switch happened in tests.

 

[aussie]

I don't agree with you. There are players in other sides also who made into the test squad without ODI grinds. (Just the current squad basically)

India - Amit Mishra, Ishant Sharma, VVS Laxman, Rahul Dravid.

Amit Mishra yes. But what about the other average spinners in Kumble era like, Kapoor, Sarandeep Singh, Raju, Johsi, Bahutule, Sanghvi, Kulkarni as IND generally struggled to get a suitable partner for Kumble. Until Harbhajan who was fast tracked - stepped up.

I've always thought Sharma like Sreenath, Patel, VRV Singh etc where benefiting more from the MRF pace foundation, rather than the domestic cricket.

Dravid, Laxman & Ganguly yes where the big boys alogn with Tendy in IND middle order for all these years, plus Azhar.

But outside this group, others players who may have gotten a chance. Namely Ajay Sharma, Kambli, Bhardwaj, Kaif, Jadeja, Yuvraj (although i'd hope he comes good in tests soon).

Plus all those failed openers like Das, Ramesh, Gandi, Jaffer, Raman, Rathour. Until Sehwag a make shift option came along by a bit of luck.

Sri Lanka - Thilan Samaraweera, Paranavithana, Jayawardena (avg something like 15 over his last 30 odd ODIs, yet never dropped from tests), Prasanna Jayawardena.

I have always felt Samaraweera has become a top test batsman while playing test cricket.

Paranavithan has just started, he has accomplished anything as an opener. He could very well and get worked out technically in the future.

Where did you get those stats from Mahela from?. I saw the other day he scored a hundred the other day. But even if true, there would be no reason to drop him from the test side based on ODI from, Mahela is a proven performer.

Pakistan - Danish Kaneria.

He was picked on natural talent vs ENG 2000 i believe.

No, don't. FC exists for a reason and that is to supply test quality cricketers. T20s almost always never supplies test quality players, just like ODIs.

It hasn't historically for IND, PAK, SRI, NZ. Thats why they have never dominated test cricket. They have depended a mainly on natural talent & players doing well in ODIs.

Since even their best FC performers who come & play test generally don't translate that form.

 

[aussie]

England and SA were World Champions? Honestly? To qualify as World Champions, they should have consistent success over a period of time (say 8-10 years) in test cricket, and over the world. Mate that suggestion was indeed laughable, because if SA can be called WC, then so can India also be called, based on their current form in test cricket.

ENG where WC in the 1950s. SA where the best test team in the world in the late 60s & if they weren't banned it very possible that they would have been the best test team in the world from 70-76, before the WI domination began.

IND are not the best test team currently. SA have been the most consistent team for the last 2 years. But ATM its close thing with IND, AUS & SA.

Again, you are saying something which is completely unrelated to the topic of discussion. The question is "Why just not ban ODIs altogether?". T20s do the same job ODIs do.

That point is relevant to "Why just not band ODIs altogether". T20s does not do the same job as ODIs.

T20 is a slog fest, no batting or bowling success in that format can nor must never be used as a guide to pick players for test matches. Especially for the nations like IND, SRI, PAK, WI who have poor FC structures.

ODIs isn't a great guide, since as i said ODI success doesn't equate to test success generally. But these 4 nations have that unfortunate predicament of having to use ODI form & picking players based on natural test to get into their test side. If you abolish ODIs you will affect these 4 nations without a doubt.

They in fact do it better. ODIs have become redundant in the sense that neither it supplements test cricket by being a talent pool, nor it brings in the money like T20s do.

Only thing in ODIs that have become redundant & foolish is 7-match ODI series. Thats the only part of ODIs that needs to be abolished.

ODIs still brings in money & it will always do so even if T20 will now bring in more. Very good ODI still a very exciting & good enough of crowd puller.

 

[Pigeon]

Amit Mishra yes. But what about the other average spinners in Kumble era like, Kapoor, Sarandeep Singh, Raju, Johsi, Bahutule, Sanghvi, Kulkarni as IND generally struggled to get a suitable partner for Kumble. Until Harbhajan who was fast tracked - stepped up.

Almost all of them you mentioned came through FC setup than ODI setup.

I've always thought Sharma like Sreenath, Patel, VRV Singh etc where benefiting more from the MRF pace foundation, rather than the domestic cricket.

I read your argument somewhere above that Academies should also serve as a supplement for FC structure. Anyway pace bowling never has been the best strength of Indian cricket including it's FC. So well it helped, what's your point? And Ishant had excellent FC figures to back him before he was selected.

Dravid, Laxman & Ganguly yes where the big boys alogn with Tendy in IND middle order for all these years, plus Azhar.

Duh. Those big boys have occupied the chunk of middle order for about 14 years, and not one of them came through ODIs and relied only on FC games to support their credentials.

But outside this group, others players who may have gotten a chance. Namely Ajay Sharma, Kambli, Bhardwaj, Kaif, Jadeja, Yuvraj (although i'd hope he comes good in tests soon).

I am at a loss to understand you mate. Either my comprehension is really bad, or your english is.

Plus all those failed openers like Das, Ramesh, Gandi, Jaffer, Raman, Rathour. Until Sehwag a make shift option came along by a bit of luck.

---do--- (What's the point you are making? I fail to understand how it can be linked to due to policy of picking players on their ODI performances)

I have always felt Samaraweera has become a top test batsman while playing test cricket.

Precisely. Why then are you saying SL does not pick it's players based on FC performances? Samara was a good FC player, never played ODIs to be picked for tests.

Paranavithan has just started, he has accomplished anything as an opener. He could very well and get worked out technically in the future.

Just saying in SL people indeed get picked based on their FC performances than ODI performances,

Where did you get those stats from Mahela from?. I saw the other day he scored a hundred the other day. But even if true, there would be no reason to drop him from the test side based on ODI from, Mahela is a proven performer.

Maybe, maybe not. Fact remains that Jaya will continue to get picked for tests regardless of his ODI form.

He was picked on natural talent vs ENG 2000 i believe.

Natural talent as evidenced by his performances in FC.

It hasn't historically for IND, PAK, SRI, NZ. Thats why they have never dominated test cricket. They have depended a mainly on natural talent & players doing well in ODIs.

Pray, tell me how this "natural talent" is identified?
Well, to say they have not dominated test cricket, so has not England or South Africa. In fact only 2 teams can really claim to have dominated test cricket, Australia and West Indies.

Since even their best FC performers who come & play test generally don't translate that form.

Nothing to do with FC. Mark Ramp, and Graeme Hick are two prime examples from the fabled county structure. It has more to do with player mental makeup than quality of domestic structure.

Oh and throw in Dave Hussey of Australia also.

 

[Pigeon]

ENG where WC in the 1950s. SA where the best test team in the world in the late 60s & if they weren't banned it very possible that they would have been the best test team in the world from 70-76, before the WI domination began.

In the 1950s, England won 39 tests, lost 22 and drew 22. A win % of less than 50%. Surely WC stuff?

In the 1960s, SA played 7 series, won 2, lost 2, and drew 3. WC stuff?

IND are not the best test team currently. SA have been the most consistent team for the last 2 years. But ATM its close thing with IND, AUS & SA.

Oh I agree. I am merely suggesting that a small run of good wins do not make a team WCs.

That point is relevant to "Why just not band ODIs altogether". T20s does not do the same job as ODIs.

T20 is a slog fest, no batting or bowling success in that format can nor must never be used as a guide to pick players for test matches. Especially for the nations like IND, SRI, PAK, WI who have poor FC structures.

Haha... So does not ODIs either.

ODIs isn't a great guide, since as i said ODI success doesn't equate to test success generally. But these 4 nations have that unfortunate predicament of having to use ODI form & picking players based on natural test to get into their test side. If you abolish ODIs you will affect these 4 nations without a doubt.

No they don't. As I have conclusively proven above.





Only thing in ODIs that have become redundant & foolish is 7-match ODI series. Thats the only part of ODIs that needs to be abolished.

ODIs still brings in money & it will always do so even if T20 will now bring in more. Very good ODI still a very exciting & good enough of crowd puller.[/QUOTE]