A Single Test or Fifty ODIs?

[Jono]

Over an Ashes finale where you score 401* and chase down 700 to win? Fantasy is fantasy, right?

seems like i'd probably end up with some mental troubles if i did that and was never picked again

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Yeah exactly.

I'll take representing my country 50 times easily.

Na, you just want 50 chances to see Kohli in the shower.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Depends on the test for me. If I made a 50 plus score or a five wicket haul and if it was against a top team, I would pick the Test.

Below 50 or 1 or 2 wickets means I did rubbish and as a result I was dropped. So why not play the 50 ODIs and make money.

 

[Prince EWS]

It would depend on the financial differences really. I think it's fairly obvious that the bloke who plays 50 ODIs is going to have a more financially successful cricket career but I'd probably still lean towards the one Test unless that financial difference was absurd. I don't really like the McGain/McKay example because McGain was a really atypical example of a one Test wonder in that he wasn't even a professional cricketer for a long period beforehand, and McKay actually did play one Test anyway, but I think I'd rather be Pollard than to-date Chris Rogers - certainly not in a purely cricketing sense, but in a lifestyle opportunity sense. The financial differences between Pollard and pretty much any one-Test/zero-ODI player of this era would be absurd.

 

[Pothas]

Not sure how great it would feel to end up with just one test. I suspect that Michal Carberry would swap his one test cap against Bangladesh for 50 ODIs.

 

[Jarquis]

It would depend on the financial differences really. I think it's fairly obvious that the bloke who plays 50 ODIs is going to have a more financially successful cricket career but I'd probably still lean towards the one Test unless that financial difference was absurd. I don't really like the McGain/McKay example because McGain was a really atypical example of a one Test wonder in that he wasn't even a professional cricket for a long period beforehand, and McKay actually did play one Test anyway, but I think I'd rather be Pollard than to-date Chris Rogers - certainly not in a purely cricketing sense, but in a lifestyle opportunity sense. The financial differences between Pollard and pretty much any one-Test/zero-ODI player of this era would be absurd.

Well you're not really choosing the ODIs over the Test. You're choosing the IPL over the Test by the sound of it.
Vikram Solanki or Chris Adams?
Robin Uthappa or Badrinath?
Colin Ingram or Zander de Bruyn?

 

[Daemon]

I'd go with the one dayers, purely for the financial benefit and the opportunity to travel while staying in nice hotels. Would steal things like Tendulkar's box, Dhoni's gloves, Kohli's suits etc and auction them online when I'm done spending the money I earn from the matches.

The only downside is I'd have to face rage from fans all over the world wondering why I was part of the squad, and would quite easily go down as the worst cricketer to ever play an international.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I'd go with the one dayers, purely for the financial benefit and the opportunity to travel while staying in nice hotels. Would steal things like Tendulkar's box, Dhoni's gloves, Kohli's suits etc and auction them online when I'm done spending the money I earn from the matches.

The only downside is I'd have to face rage from fans all over the world wondering why I was part of the squad, and would quite easily go down as the worst cricketer to ever play an international.

There are far worse things to do than steal Tendi's box or Kohli's suit.

Plus Joni would have swiped the suit before you.

 

[theegyptian]

The only downside is I'd have to face rage from fans all over the world wondering why I was part of the squad, and would quite easily go down as the worst cricketer to ever play an international.

haha dernbach?

 

[social]

It would depend on the financial differences really. I think it's fairly obvious that the bloke who plays 50 ODIs is going to have a more financially successful cricket career but I'd probably still lean towards the one Test unless that financial difference was absurd. I don't really like the McGain/McKay example because McGain was a really atypical example of a one Test wonder in that he wasn't even a professional cricketer for a long period beforehand, and McKay actually did play one Test anyway, but I think I'd rather be Pollard than to-date Chris Rogers - certainly not in a purely cricketing sense, but in a lifestyle opportunity sense. The financial differences between Pollard and pretty much any one-Test/zero-ODI player of this era would be absurd.

Yeah but you could be Pollard AND a one test wonder

Anyway, for me it would be one test and I would make the choice without a millisecond's hesitation

 

[smash84]

Money I understand but I couldn't think of anything worse than fame.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well you're not really choosing the ODIs over the Test. You're choosing the IPL over the Test by the sound of it.

Yeah fair enough. I'm struggling the get around the idea in my head because there are too many intangibles. I think playing 50 ODIs and 0 Tests would give you a far greater chance of making a ****load of money than 1 Test and 0 ODIs. I can't really think of an example of someone who did the latter and made a lot of money out of cricket.

I picked the Test anyway, because I don't think the question was meant to be finance-based. If you've played 50 ODIs then you've been an international success in a form of cricket, where if you've played one Test and nothing else then you've not - but I'd get more personal satisfaction out of making the Test team anyway, and I think that's all the question was asking.

 

[Jarquis]

Vikram Solanki is not an International success. Neither is Yusuf Pathan.

Hell, Rohit Sharma has played 100.

 

[theegyptian]

Vikram Solanki is not an International success. Neither is Yusuf Pathan.

Hell, Rohit Sharma has played 100.

yes but at least you're going to have a few good days to look back at and remember. And you still represented your country regardless of the format.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah, but so has the bloke who got himself a Test cap :/

 

[Goughy]

Purely for myself, and I don't judge others, I have tried my hardest to avoid any sort of fame. Perhaps I have done it too well, I don't know. But the idea of wanting to be famous sickens me. I honestly couldn't think of anything, outside the extreme, that would make life worse than other people paying attention to what I do.

 

[theegyptian]

Yeah, but so has the bloke who got himself a Test cap :/

You really think Pattinson took more from his career than Solanki.

 

[Goughy]

Purely for myself, and I don't judge others, I have tried my hardest to avoid any sort of fame. Perhaps I have done it too well, I don't know. But the idea of wanting to be famous sickens me. I honestly couldn't think of anything, outside the extreme, that would make life worse than other people paying attention to what I do.

Actually, you know what. **** that. I do judge. Anyone who desires fame is a **** of the highest order. I don't understand it and I pity them.

 

[smash84]

Actually, you know what. **** that. I do judge. Anyone who desires fame is a **** of the highest order. I don't understand it and I pity them.

Sour grapes eh

 

[fredfertang]

If it was a Test against Australia, or anybody at Lord's then the Test in a heartbeat - otherwise not so sure - probably the Test though