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

[fredfertang]

Well at the risk of garnering a general warning, I'd make the analogy that if individual players can be rated on their longevity, a format can also be rated superior if it requires skills to be sustained over a longer period to effect a win.

Why would posting that attract a warning?

 

[Flem274*]

Why would posting that attract a warning?

#paythemandan

 

[Dan]

Lack of a PM system, tbh.

 

[uvelocity]

glad someone else hates analogies

 

[fredfertang]

So Dan's Pre Menstrual?

 

[Dan]

Dammit, you've worked out my secret. You've seen through the ruse!

 

[GIMH]

glad someone else hates analogies

Can you give us a frame of reference so we can understand how much you hate them?

 

[fredfertang]

A brave man, if rather foolish, to post that with Dan where he is at the moment

 

[Maximas]

Does a "real" cricket fan have to hate analogies and/or consider them irrelevant?

 

[the big bambino]

Why would posting that attract a warning?

Yeah just a pre emptive duck if Dan decided to swoop on another analogy.

As for the 2 formats I do think tests require more skill. Not just bcos you have to sustain good cricket over a longer period of time either. Tests actually accomodates the skills that make a successful T20 player. You can play a T20 type of innings in tests. Whereas T20 obviously can't endure an Atherton epic versus Alan Donald for example. But a blazing knock in tests has to be considerate of the state of the game. It has to be scored against bowlers who aren't limited to 4 overs that are basically forced under the T20 rules to bowl in a zone that facilitates a batsman teeing off. I'd agree with those who say T20 is more popular but thats a different argument.

 

[BeeGee]

glad someone else hates analogies

Hating analogies is like disproving of similes.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I don't completely agree with this. While some of the best test players took a couple of seasons to figure t20 out, I can't think of any quality test batsman who's poor at t20. Same for bowlers really.
.

Pujara? Chris Rogers? Would've loved to have seen Mark Richardson in the HRV Cup

 

[rtramdas]

test cricket is more important.but definitely 50 over cricket is important too in its own merits.test cricket is the ultimate test of the skills of a player.but that doesn't mean a successful test cricketer can always be a successful one day cricketer as well.there are lots of examples for this.i don't think Boycott or Gavaskar or Mark Taylor could have been very good one day cricketers in the log run.they were 'good'' at best.this implies one day cricket has its own challenges.hence i would rate one day cricket as almost 80- 85% as important as tests.going by that we have to consider the one day records of great players of tests too into consideration while rating them as players. i think here in this site test cricket is given too much importance in that one day records of cricketers are not given the marks as it should be.

 

[Hurricane]

test cricket is more important.but definitely 50 over cricket is important too in its own merits.test cricket is the ultimate test of the skills of a player.but that doesn't mean a successful test cricketer can always be a successful one day cricketer as well.there are lots of examples for this.i don't think Boycott or Gavaskar or Mark Taylor could have been very good one day cricketers in the log run.they were 'good'' at best.this implies one day cricket has its own challenges.hence i would rate one day cricket as almost 80- 85% as important as tests.going by that we have to consider the one day records of great players of tests too into consideration while rating them as players. i think here in this site test cricket is given too much importance in that one day records of cricketers are not given the marks as it should be.

welcome to cw rtramdas. I look forward to some commas in future posts.

 

[rtramdas]

welcome to cw rtramdas. I look forward to some commas in future posts.

thank you.

 

[Hooksey]

Watching Test cricket is like making love to a beautiful woman, whereas T20 is more akin to a quick knee trembler round the back of the bike sheds - there's really no comparison, but then if you can't get to see a Test match the T20 is still a better option than just about any other way of passing the time

So a tied Test would be on par with a knee trembler from a beautiful woman then?