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

[Howe_zat]

Captains seem to get credit for more in Tests, whereas in ODIs it's generally either unnoticed or slated.

 

[sledger]

The problem is, valuing limited overs cricket more highly, will allow people to erroneously claim that Bradman was not the best ever.

 

[Prince EWS]

The problem is, valuing limited overs cricket more highly, will allow people to erroneously claim that Bradman was not the best ever.

I wouldn't have expected you to actually read the OP before posting but you could've at least read the thread title.

 

[sledger]

Bradman was modern when I was your age itbt.

 

[smash84]

I wouldn't have expected you to actually read the OP before posting but you could've at least read the thread title.

 

[kyear2]

It would be interesting to see the ratings today to see which was more watched, the IPL final or the England Test, I imagine that the IPL final would have won handily as that is unfortunately where cricket is heading.
I am personally not a huge fan of t20 and all but stopped watching ODI's out side of the world cup and possibly some champions trophy and as such rate players solely on their Test performances as that for me will always be the primary and purest form of the game, and LOI's do not factor in at all for me.

 

[harsh.ag]

Pounding on LOIs is all well and good now, but my childhood days were filled with Limited Overs matches. Even when we played a four innings game, we limited the number of overs per innings. And it was fun, and I learnt a lot that way. I learnt to hook the ball when I couldn't afford to let them go as the target was too big. I learnt how to run hard, and field hard for every run. I learnt how to adjust my strokes a wee bit to get it away from those pesky point and cover fielders.

So, it would be thoughtless of me to suggest that there is absolutely no way there can be positive spillovers from playing LOIs into Test performance.

 

[Coronis]

Pounding on LOIs is all well and good now, but my childhood days were filled with Limited Overs matches. Even when we played a four innings game, we limited the number of overs per innings. And it was fun, and I learnt a lot that way. I learnt to hook the ball when I couldn't afford to let them go as the target was too big. I learnt how to run hard, and field hard for every run. I learnt how to adjust my strokes a wee bit to get it away from those pesky point and cover fielders.

So, it would be thoughtless of me to suggest that there is absolutely no way there can be positive spillovers from playing LOIs into Test performance.

Sadly there can be a lot of negative spillovers too.

 

[Jono]

I wouldn't have expected you to actually read the OP before posting but you could've at least read the thread title.

Lol so good

 

[GIMH]

I wouldn't have expected you to actually read the OP before posting but you could've at least read the thread title.

Well that's just naive

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Fun fact: If you combine Graham Gooch's FC runs and his List A runs, he actually outscores Jack Hobbs.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think I wouldn't be adverse to limited overs prowess being used as a tie-break thang where players are pretty evenly matched in tests/FC, but I can't shake off the idea that the longer formats pretty much are cricket and tests the gold standard thereof.

I can't help but rate chaps like (say) Vaughan, Slater or Prior higher than (say) Bevan or Hick because they're done it where (IMHO) it matters most.

To bastardise the old golfing adage (drive for show; putt for dough): tests for posterity; limited over for dough.