• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Does a ''real'' cricket fan have to hate LOI and/or consider them irrelevant?

watson

watson

Banned
Accuracy is when the batsman hits the ball in the middle of the bat. Precision is when the batsman repeatedly hits the ball in the middle of the bat.

T20 puts a lot of emphasis on the batsman being accurate in his shot making because the team needs a lot of 4s and 6s during its 20 overs to win the game.

However, during the course of a T20 innings there is not a heavy demand for precision. Indeed, imprecision may be desirable if it means snicking the ball through the slips for 3 boundaries in 1 over.

On-the-other-hand, Test match batsman are required to be both accurate and precise during the course of their innings. Unless the fielding side is incompetent is is unlikely that any batsman could get away with being imprecise for very long, and 3 snicks to the slips in 1 over generally means that the batsman's innings comes to an end.

It is this lack of precision in T20 batting that probably leads many people to conclude that it must be less skillful relative to Test match batting that demands a high degree of precision to be successful. And probably rightly so.
 
Last edited:
Hurricane

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Prince EWS said:
I think we're at cross-purposes at bit. Limiting the amount of overs so significantly changes the game from Test cricket to T20 cricket in two ways:

1. It literally just makes it shorter.
2. The shortness of it fundamentally changes the way the game is played (ie. we don't just see 40 overs of Test cricket in a T20).

Obviously, #1 makes upsets and fluke one-off performances more likely because good cricket doesn't have to be sustained for as long. The more games you play, the less this 'problem' exists, but there's no doubt resutls and personal performances are less predictable due to the shortness of the game.

My point, however, is that #2 does not make T20 easier, just different. Raina isn't a vastly superior T20 player to what he is a Test player because T20 is easier or more prone to flukes, but because his skillset is far more suited to it. He's really not intrinsically a worse cricketer than someone like Pujara unless you give much greater importance to Test cricket - which most of us do, but not because it really is harder, but because we like or value the skills it rewards more. This is probably because they adhere more greatly to the ethos of cricket and why most of us are cricket fans, and not because they're actually more difficult to develop.
Click to expand...
That was tough to understand PEWS. However, in response...

T20 is easier for three reasons

1) you only have to face Dale Steyn for 2 overs with the new ball.
2) it is actually harder to hit a cover drive than a slog over cow corner and although some of the straight sixes are impressive shots many of the boundaries are simply muscled over the boundary.
3) less mental stamina is required.

Bowling I haven't really thought about. In some ways bowling in T20 requires great intelligence and thought if you want to go at less than 8 an over.
 
Last edited:
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
You can see the difference at local level. In our town's comp we have 2 day fixtures (which might be equated to a test- the idea is to bat thru 80 overs in your innings) the majority of the time, and then a few 20/20s each season. Usually a knock out comp.

Often players from 2nd or 3rd grade cricket are better than 1st grade players in the 20/20 format. Basically, they have a better "eye", and hit shots further easier, but poorer shot selection/technique, and less patience. In 20/20, an innings of 20 off 6 balls could be of great value to your team. In long form cricket, it's just a wasted opportunity.
 
Teja.

Teja.

Global Moderator
Prince EWS said:
I think we're at cross-purposes at bit. Limiting the amount of overs so significantly changes the game from Test cricket to T20 cricket in two ways:

1. It literally just makes it shorter.
2. The shortness of it fundamentally changes the way the game is played (ie. we don't just see 40 overs of Test cricket in a T20).

Obviously, #1 makes upsets and fluke one-off performances more likely because good cricket doesn't have to be sustained for as long. The more games you play, the less this 'problem' exists, but there's no doubt resutls and personal performances are less predictable due to the shortness of the game.

My point, however, is that #2 does not make T20 easier, just different. Raina isn't a vastly superior T20 player to what he is a Test player because T20 is easier or more prone to flukes, but because his skillset is far more suited to it. He's really not intrinsically a worse cricketer than someone like Pujara unless you give much greater importance to Test cricket - which most of us do, but not because it really is harder, but because we like or value the skills it rewards more. This is probably because they adhere more greatly to the ethos of cricket and why most of us are cricket fans, and not because they're actually more difficult to develop.
Click to expand...
This is definitely the only legitimate POV and any other view is just wrong.

I can't believe people are arguing higher variance in one game = lower ability, ffs. It just means short term results cannot be taken as seriously. I apologize for being cranky but the ridiculousness of the variance argument directly and indirectly being developed by several here would be demonstrated if one stops and thinks for two seconds about the implications of it wrt everything in the world if it were true.
 
CricAddict

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
Hurricane said:
T20 is easier for three reasons

1) you only have to face Dale Steyn for 2 overs with the new ball.
2) it is actually harder to hit a cover drive than a slog over cow corner and although some of the straight sixes are impressive shots many of the boundaries are simply muscled over the boundary.
3) less mental stamina is required.
Click to expand...
While I agree that T20 is easier than tests, I disagree with your points.

1. 2 overs of Dale Steyn or any other premier bowler in a T20 match can make or break the match. So the effect of 4 overs of an in-form Dale Steyn in a T20 match result is the same as multiple overs from him in a test match.
2. It depends. A cover drive is easier for Dravid while cow corner slog is easier for Raina. You can see that good test players find it tough to do the cow corner slog in T20s.
3. The mental stamina required over 40 overs of a T20 is not that lesser than 40 overs of a test match. There are many good test players who have openly advocated that. Players need to think on each and every ball which does require mental stamina.
 
watson

watson

Banned
Just a reminder – The original question posed was: Does a ''real'' cricket fan have to hate LOI and/or consider them irrelevant?

So there wasn’t any specific mention about skill levels or anything like that. The relevant answers to Jassy’s questions are therefore, NO and NO. Which are pretty obvious IMO
 
Hurricane

Hurricane

Hall of Fame Member
Teja. said:
This is definitely the only legitimate POV and any other view is just wrong.

I can't believe people are arguing higher variance in one game = lower ability, ffs. It just means short term results cannot be taken as seriously. I apologize for being cranky but the ridiculousness of the variance argument directly and indirectly being developed by several here would be demonstrated if one stops and thinks for two seconds about the implications of it wrt everything in the world if it were true.
Click to expand...
Please re-state PEWS' POV in your own words as I strongly suspect I am missing it.

My poor understanding of it is that he is one of the people arguing (if I understand his posts correctly which I doubt because they are not concise) that a higher variance would indicate there is more skill in test cricket if there were to be a higher variance. He however claims that the variance is the same between both forms of the game and then he made conclusions about the skill being the same based on that. So one hand you are saying you agree with his POV which is based on variance theories and then on the other hand you are dissing people who subscribe to variance theories.

I find all of this quite esoteric by the way and violating the KISS rule for logic. Yes some people are better than others at T20 batting it doesn't make it skillful some people are just more aggressive in their mind set. The one counter argument to this is that you can practice hitting sixes and get better at it but I will not dwell on that point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top