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

[Dan]

Hoe WAFG.

 

[Red]

Hoe so?

hahaha

 

[mintykip]

. I've always thought test cricket is like Radiohead, and LO cricket is like Coldplay, it's just a matter of what you prefer

Perfect analogy.

 

[Adders]

Test cricket is like making love to the hot stewardess in 1st class all the way from Sydney to London.
T20 is knocking the top of it in the dunny between Sydney and Dubbo.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's like one person in this thread who is arguing against this, if that.

This might be surprising from someone many here might consider a Test/FC cricket snob, but I actually do disagree with that. It's doesn't require more skill; it just requires different skills - skills that are more admirable perhaps, and skills that are more applicable to the traditional ethos of cricket definitely, but not necessarily more.

The difference between the best and worst players in Test cricket is not really any bigger than the difference between the best and worst players in international T20 cricket for mine, indicating the amount of skill required is pretty similar. Some of the world's best Test players are terrible T20 players for no lack of trying to improve their games; it's just a matter of different demands for different games.

 

[Red]

Test cricket is like making love to the hot stewardess in 1st class all the way from Sydney to London.
T20 is knocking the top of it in the dunny between Sydney and Dubbo.

What could you possibly see between Sydney and Dubbo that would require this course of action?

 

[watson]

This might be surprising from someone many here might consider a Test/FC cricket snob, but I actually do disagree with that. It's doesn't require more skill; it just requires different skills - skills that are more admirable perhaps, and skills that are more applicable to the traditional ethos of cricket definitely, but not necessarily more.

The difference between the best and worst players in Test cricket is not really any bigger than the difference between the best and worst players in international T20 cricket for mine, indicating the amount of skill required is pretty similar. Some of the world's best Test players are terrible T20 players for no lack of trying to improve their games; it's just a matter of different demands for different games.

People tend to admire qualities like perseverance, guts, stamina, and courage more than some other traits. That's why in 100 years from now people will still be writing about Gooch's 154* against the West Indies at Headingley in 1991, but will probably give Chris Gayle's T20 knocks little more than a passing mention.

The cricketing skills for Test cricket and T20 might be on a similar level. But the character traits required to succeed at Test cricket appear to hold more intrinsic value. It is not so much the cricket in Test match cricket that makes it great, but rather the great human qualities like courage that go hand-in-hand with it. If you know what I mean.

 

[Hurricane]

People tend to admire qualities like perseverance, guts, stamina, and courage more than some other traits. That's why in 100 years from now people will still be writing about Gooch's 154* against the West Indies at Headingley in 1991, but will probably give Chris Gayle's T20 knocks little more than a passing mention.

The cricketing skills for Test cricket and T20 might be on a similar level. But the character traits required to succeed at Test cricket appear to hold more intrinsic value. It is not so much the cricket in Test match cricket that makes it great, but rather the great human qualities like courage that go hand-in-hand with it. If you know what I mean.

Great post. Possibly one of the better ones I have read in a while. Just to give you some feedback and please recognise my good intentions - you have become a very good poster.

In terms of responding to this post - and I don't know if this will make sense - when a batsman battles for 5-6 hours at the crease he leaves part of his personality/soul out in the middle such is the sacrifice mentally. That doesn't make any sense having read it again but essentially he uses every part of his character to succeed and he will be a bit different afterwards.

Cheers

 

[Jassy]

I don't think it has ever been questioned how much it means to the players. These are competitive sportsmen and if they are pulling on their national jersey for any contest then they are going to take it seriously. Every sportsmen worth their salt loves to win and hates to lose.......if they don't then there are far bigger issues at play.

But it must also be acknowledged that with the amount of cricket played that team managements do prioritise certain events. Whether we the fans share the same priorities as the management is probably what we should be discussing.

As an example England went into this tournament with the biggest handicap that currently exists in world cricket......Jade Dernbach, while Jimmy Anderson was sitting at home taking a well earned rest (IMO) Now I do know that Jimmy hasn't played an International T20 game in nearly 5 years but ****ed if anyone can lodge a serious case for Turdbach being a better T20 bowler than Jimmy. Is this an indication of where the England team management rate T20 cricket, even a WC where Steyn played who is very closely managed by the Saffers?? And do we as fans agree with it??

Personally I do, I don't want Anderson playing T20 cricket, I'd rather he be managed and saved for (IMO) more important contests.

As I said earlier in the thread this is an interesting debate and I am not hating on T20 cricket (because that would clearly make me a test poser who is an idiot) but I am interested in sharing my views and hearing others on where it rates in terms of importance to the fans, the players and the team managements.......because they will not always be the same.

Sportsmen don't like losing - definitely agree there. They always give their best even in the BBLs and IPLs. What I was saying though is that no-one has ever seen Mahela and Sanga react the way they did yesterday, ever. As we're talking about two blokes who have scored about 40,000 test+ODI runs between them, you can safely say it clearly ranks very, very high on their priority list. I agree that different people have different priorities, it just grates a little when you have something like "oh that was just a mickey mouse tournament, no one cares, let's see in "real cricket'' constantly shoved down your throats and this coming from someone who prioritizes tests. I made a post on this earlier :

T20 does not really interest me aside from the World T20. ODIs are a different kettle of fish though and on decent pitches ODIs can be pretty exciting. I actually enjoying watching ODIs more than tests sometimes but a test win is always more important(WC wins aside maybe). Australia and India are the two teams I support; if I had to rank wins/series, it would be :

From an Aus POV:
1)Ashes
2)WC
3)Test series vs major sides
4)Champions trophy/World T20
5)jam ODIs

From an Indian POV:

1)WC
2)Away test series vs major sides
3)India vs Pakistan any format
4)Test series vs major sides
5)Champions trophy/World t20
6)Asia Cup
7) jam ODIs.

I think sometimes LOIs get too much flak on here. It is almost as if it is blasphemy to like or give importance to the shorter formats. I wholeheartedly agree that tests are the most important form of the game but with the importance fans and players alike attach to the shorter formats, it clearly isn't just ''Mickey mouse'' cricket. I was watching the hghlights of last year's CT final the other day and you just had to see Cook's reaction when India won, it was as if someone had died. And mind you that was Ashes year too....I think the time has come for us to acknowledge that LOIs are important, especially the major trophies. Tests are the still the most important format IMO but if say, a Sri Lankan fan would readily swap their test win in SA for a Champions trophy or the World T20, who are we to judge?

No one is denying the emotional impact of T20 cricket, nor the importance of emotion in a cricket match. But emotion is only half of it.

Deep down, I'm sure that we would all agree that it is far more difficult to play Test cricket, and to succeed at Test Cricket, than any other form of the game. It is the unbelievable skill and tenacity required to bat all day against McGrath and Warne, or Marshall and Holding that we really admire, and puts the 5 Day game on a higher plain.

But no one is denying it is more difficult to succeed at test cricket nor is it really relevant with regards to the discussion at hand. It is more difficult to score runs off Dale Steyn than it is to score runs against Ishant Sharma; doesn't mean runs scored against the latter should be discounted or unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Besides, a lot of the "T20 specialists" are actually not all hacks - Warner and Gayle for example. They are fairly good in the whites too. People go on about Gayle like his only claim to fame are his IPL exploits when the bloke has gun test records in places like SA and Aus including the fastest century at Perth or something IIRC to go with a mind boggling ODI record.

 

[marc71178]

By what stretch of the imagination is Gayle's ODI record "mindboggling" or his Test record in SA and Aus "gun"?

 

[Maximas]

Gayle averages 49 and 54 in Aus and SA respectively, that's pretty gun for a WI batsman in tests

 

[OverratedSanity]

By what stretch of the imagination is Gayle's ODI record "mindboggling" or his Test record in SA and Aus "gun"?

Jassy's not wrong, really.Till a couple of years back, his ODI record was genuinely brilliant. And he has been extremely good in the few opportunities he's got in SA and Australia. Got two great contrasting hundreds in Australia on his last tour. Also scored a sensational hundred in England too.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Gayle averages 49 and 54 in Aus and SA respectively, that's pretty gun for a WI batsman in tests

Didn't know the stats. Good record, that. Even though it must be a smallish sample

 

[Jassy]

By what stretch of the imagination is Gayle's ODI record "mindboggling" or his Test record in SA and Aus "gun"?

In Aus : Avg 49.88 with 2 centuries (5 tests, 10 innings)
In SA : Avg 54.50 with 2 centuries (5 tests, 10 innings)

If that is not gun, what is?

He's fallen away a little in the ODI format in recent years(which I didn't realise) but his ODI is still great.

8000+ runs, 21 tons, Avg 37+, SR 84+

While "mind-boggling" might be pushing it a bit, it is certainly very good.

 

[marc71178]

Sorry, but those are very good records, but far from gun - I was expecting 70+ averages when you said gun, especially as it is only going to be over a very small sample size.

I'd also call that ODI record pretty average. Maybe 5 years ago when he was in mid-career it would've looked better, but he's behind a stack of batsmen who I wouldn't say have very good records.

 

[Daemon]

50 in Aus and SA is definitely 'gun' to me. Can agree to disagree because everyone has different definitions.

As for his ODI records, I don't think they're mind boggling at all, but they are certainly pretty good when you factor in his wickets. With the recent trend of high scores in the last couple of years for ODIs, we're used to seeing higher averages and 37 doesn't sound all that great. But then you remember someone like Ponting averaged 42 at a slightly lower strike rate and it suddenly feels pretty good.

 

[Jono]

His test record is definitely gun. Helped by his 09/10 series for sure.

 

[ankitj]

You don't have to hate limited over cricket but you have to hate IPL.

 

[Maximas]

No average under 100 is gun if Clint Mckay was part of the attack for one of the matches tbf

 

[nightprowler10]

Cricket is not in a position to pick and choose its fans. Its not popular enough and already barely any countries play it properly. Its run by a bunch of dickheads and has complicated rules.

If you know someone who is willing to sit and watch cricket for a bit, that's a good thing.

Yeah but can we all choose to not let Shri be a cricket fan anymore?