Should we value limited overs cricket more highly when rating modern greats?

[harsh.ag]

What PEWS is talking about is that there has been, for some time now, no option for the majority of Test cricketers but to try and be good ODI players as well. More than that, they all usually choose to want to play ODIs as well. Once that is established, as a young cricketer, you have to change your mindset a bit when developing your talents, and a reasonable view is that there might be spillover effects in to their test performances as a result of such changes, and thus ODI performances should be taken into account when judging the players. Whether this is true or not is not in evidence, though. Maybe the spillover effects are neutral, or positive even. Maybe higher SRs translate to a better average etc.

More than that, I think the point stands that this effect should be true for all players, and so i evens out. But then again, some players like Pollard and Gayle put more stock in their limited overs career, and so maybe there is an issue. I say that had there not been limited overs cricket, it might have been the most likely case that most of such players' test careers would have not panned out well anyway.

Lots of conjecture, and all interesting.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

They concentrate on the LOIs because of enormous monetary gains. Therefore if their Test performance is affected (which it obviously is) then it's their own fault and should be judged based on that.

 

[harsh.ag]

They concentrate on the LOIs because of enormous monetary gains. Therefore if their Test performance is affected (which it obviously is) then it's their own fault and should be judged based on that.

It may be slightly harsh to refer to this as their fault, perhaps, given that they are expected to deliver the goods in LOIs by fans as well as the board/coach etc.

 

[NUFAN]

Prince, I'll answer your question with a question - Should we rate Dhoni as one of the best wicketkeepers in terms of modern greats? :P

Ever since I've been on here, I've completely separated Test from ODI cricket, its just easier for comparison and I still feel as though nearly all Tests are an occasion while most ODI matches are not.

In the end of the day, I actually don't have a problem with stating that X is a better Cricketer than Y (for starters he has two legs which helps) if their Test records are equal and X performs better in ODIs. However, in general its easier to call a Cricketer like VVS Laxman as a modern great compared to calling even someone like Shane Watson a modern great.

 

[Dan]

As long as Tests are seen as the primary form of the game (read: forever), it's hard to justify using ODIs or T20s as a metric for determining the relative merits of players - you live and you die by your Test performance. I mean, if you screw up your Test career and absolutely gun it in ODIs like a Michael Bevan, you can still be an ATG player in that format, but it's hard to justify it overall.

So without Test performance, you can't become an ATG - but what about in the case of two equally-performing ATG players? Is it fair to use ODI cricket to differentiate them?

Well, if you have two blokes who were great Test batsmen - say, both averaging in the mid-40s, both aggressive, both having faced quality bowling throughout their careers; barring some stats-picking there isn't huge amounts to differentiate them at Test level. But one reproduced a mid-40s average in ODI cricket, the other averaged in the mid-20s and never got going in that form.

If you wanted to pick, from the two, which was the more complete player, it's undoubtedly the one who performed in ODI cricket, even if his record is deemed to be fractionally inferior at Test level.

To me, Test cricket puts one in the pantheon of greats. Ceteris paribus, limited overs cricket affects comparisons with other greats, but doesn't get you there in the first place.

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm sure I've said something like this before, probably in relation to defending the "100 international centuries" thing that got a lot of flack on here.

 

[Howe_zat]

here we go

It's an exciting record because no-one's done it before, no one's got close and it's hard to imagine anyone matching it for decades to come. We generally don't add international hundreds, but that's because no one else has given us such a reason to.

And yes, ODI tons matter too, because they matter to him and to his fans. To use a PEWSian, it's his job to score not just Test hundreds, but international hundreds. And he's done it massively more so than the next guy.

Besides anomalies like Ramprakash, nobody counts the most First Class hundreds any more, because the game has changed to the point where domestic cricket is less relevant. But the enduring record of Jack Hobbs' career is his 199 FC tons, not his Test figures. We make an exception in Hobbs' case, because that number shows that he was just that good. We can do the same for Tendulkar.

I don't especially care about the specific mark of the hundredth hundred (and I'll certainly be hiding from Cricinfo for a while when he gets it - everything he does is a record these days, we don't need a bunch of new articles every time) but long after he has retired it's his international hundreds that should be the figure he'll be most proud of, and the one people should rave about, if they must.

It's his thing. It's what makes him special.

I barely consider them at all, personally.

But I think if we really want to look at how much a player has achieved, being completely fair, we have to give ODIs a great deal of importance because they're a great deal of what matters to the player and to the team. For the last 30 or so years, players have grown up learning to play all forms of the game. There's no doubt that when they set out on a cricketing career, they aim to play in all formats, and they spend their time and resources trying to achieved that. So if we want to judge how successful they've been, it doesn't make sense to ignore a large portion of what they were trying to do.

 

[centurymaker]

People who say ODIs don't matter are in the minority-- probably in the 0-5% range (and are mostly found here). Hardly anyone besides them really cares about their minority opinion including the player themselves since players devote at least as much time developing their ODI game as they do with their 5-day game. If ODIs didn't matter to them, they just wouldn't play or not care. But they give it their all. Limited overs require different skills. Only true champions are able to adapt to different formats and excel in all. It is not like ODIs are a different sport! They are still a big part of international cricket and have a huge fan-base.

GF summed it up pretty well and so did Prince (ofcourse). How is Test cricket your only test as a player especially a batsman's? If you are not doing well in the limited overs then you are clearly a deficient cricket player and should be rated lower and is rightly done so by the majority.

 

[feroz rawther]

People who say ODIs don't matter are in the minority-- probably in the 0-5% range (and are mostly found here). Hardly anyone besides them really cares about their minority opinion including the player themselves since players devote at least as much time developing their ODI game as they do with their 5-day game. If ODIs didn't matter to them, they just wouldn't play or not care. But they give it their all. Limited overs require different skills. Only true champions are able to adapt to different formats and excel in all. It is not like ODIs are a different sport! They are still a big part of international cricket and have a huge fan-base.

GF summed it up pretty well and so did Prince (ofcourse). How is Test cricket your only test as a player especially a batsman's? If you are not doing well in the limited overs then you are clearly a deficient cricket player and should be rated lower and is rightly done so by the majority.

absolutely spot on.it is bit surprising to see that a lot of people in this forum doesn't rate one days higher despite players them selves play the game with as much passion as they play test cricket

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I've always seperated the forms of the game and regard Steyn as the best bowler around today, if we break it down and put in ODI's and 20/20 I would imagine that he would have some competition to being number 1. Personally I have always looked at 20/20 as a bit of fun and don't like ODI's much apart from world cup month.

I think the tongue in cheek comment about Dhoni above is apt, you would never take him over Prior in tests but in the same way you would never consider Prior over Dhoni in the shorter games. Does that mean Dhoni is better than Prior?

 

[GIMH]

They concentrate on the LOIs because of enormous monetary gains. Therefore if their Test performance is affected (which it obviously is) then it's their own fault and should be judged based on that.

But why shouldn't they focus on the monetary gains? They are a long time retired.

 

[feroz rawther]

I've always seperated the forms of the game and regard Steyn as the best bowler around today, if we break it down and put in ODI's and 20/20 I would imagine that he would have some competition to being number 1. Personally I have always looked at 20/20 as a bit of fun and don't like ODI's much apart from world cup month.

I think the tongue in cheek comment about Dhoni above is apt, you would never take him over Prior in tests but in the same way you would never consider Prior over Dhoni in the shorter games. Does that mean Dhoni is better than Prior?

the prime thing is w.r.t whether these 2 players can be compared to each other as a whole pack, i mean both tests and 1 dayers combined.ofcourse Prior is batter test player than Dhoni, but Dhoni is not bad either and vice versa.though the exercise is that much compex , i don't thing there is any thing wrong in comparing them as a whole(both formats combined)

 

[Migara]

In fact, Michael Hussey is probably the best overall batsman of the last 10 years.

ABDV disagrees

 

[Agent Nationaux]

But why shouldn't they focus on the monetary gains? They are a long time retired.

They should, after all you have to provide for your family. However, if they can't perform as well in Tests because of it, then why should we rate them any higher than they deserve as PEWS is suggesting we do by taking into account the LOIs. Someone like Amla has sacrificed the monetary gains by concentrating on Tests. So if someone else comes along and says, I should also be rated at a same level because I'm brilliant at LOIs and not so much in Tests since I preferred to play in the IPL, why should he be.

 

[MW1304]

ABDV disagrees

And, as per usual, ABDV is wrong.

 

[uvelocity]

And, as per usual, ABDV is wrong.

 

[honestbharani]

There is definitely merit in looking at all formats of the game if you wanna who is the better "cricketer".. But ultimately, the complexity just increases to such a level that it only helps add to the arguments/debates than really helping to answer them... My opinion is that you just decide who is better in each format and leave it at that. To answer that player A was a better cricketer than player B after considering their performances in all 3 formats when they are generally closely matched is just a pretty pointless exercise as ultimately it will always be subjective and upto the mind of the person making the judgement. There is just no universal fact or answers to such questions..

 

[hendrix]

Good test players are good test players.
Good ODI players are good ODI players.

I see no reason to use crossover analysis between the two. If one wants to look at a composite of the two then that's another matter.

 

[Hurricane]

Agree with the peeps who said do it on tests alone. Mainly because I haven't seen enough of Shane Watson to know if he has sacrificed part of his test match game to get better at T20.

I would hope if anything the other formats might make batsman in particular better at test cricket. They said with the invention of ODIs that people started running it down to third man as a matter or routine course in tests for the first time. So perhaps T20 has brought some shots to tests.

Playing T20 gives you additional exposure to Narine etc in a non threatening environment where you can experiment against him and get used to his variations.

It also just gets your eye in as a batsman in a hit and giggle environment. It is no coincidence in my mind that when Dan stopped playing limited overs stuff his batting went to pot in tests just due to a lack of recent familiarity with international bowling.

As a bowler I agree though that the other formats limit your performances in tests. Richard hadlee described how he went wider on the crease in ODIs and had to remember to adjust for tests.
Completely different lengths in T20 for bowlers would screw you up too.

tl;dr version just judge on tests especially for batsman. Maybe there's a case for bowlers but probably not.

 

[Daemon]

What do you guys think about captaincy in Tests vs ODIs?

Vastly different, but I can't make up my mind as to which is more demanding.