Importance

[Ford_GTHO351]

I have been looking at some peoples comments lately here about when they say that Tests are more important than ODI's so I decided that I wanted to start a new thread on this.

This IMO is wrong! To me, both hold equal importance. After all both forms of the game are part of international cricket.

Also I think that ODI performances never seem to recieve the media attention they deserve.

I was thinking also that a legendary ODI player such as Michael Bevan does not get nearly enough accolades for his ODI performances as he deserves because the media & certain writers/critics point out that he hasn't played Test cricket for years. So what if he hasn't played test cricket for years, he has performed extremely well in ODI's through a long career and he deserves the same praise as a great player who only played tests.

Sure ODI's have not been around for 100 plus years like test cricket, but that should not mean a thing! New traditions have been created in every sport. Sure people may have a preference to either test or ODI cricket, but to say that either one is not important is just WRONG!

I'll finish by saying again that tests and ODI's hold to me equal improtance & ODI's deserve far better attention then they get.

 

[age_master]

equal for me as well

 

[Jono]

Equal for me too, however I believe there are reasons as to why test cricket is held in a higher stature. Tradition and history is one of them, but I think the fact the game goes for 5 days straight gives it major credibility. It really does distinguish the best of the best. One day cricket is great as well don't get me wrong and there's nothing I enjoy more than the ICC World Cup, it's just a 3 or 5 test series is just great to watch, slightly more so then a 3 or 5 ODI series (although I may eat my words considering the awesome series Pakistan and India are producing currently).

By the way, Bevan got plenty of media attention back in 96 (I think it was) when he came on the scene finishing off games. I still understand your point, but I think Michael Bevan and Andrew Symonds are more known around Australia than Justin Langer for example. Just a thought, but ODI cricket gets plenty of exposure.

 

[iamdavid]

Both have their merits & I cant really split them.

Test cricket is the real thing , with all the traditions & the intensity over the course of 5 days.
There will be times in a ODI where the game just seems to roll along predictably in the middle overs but a test is never like that , the pressure is always on.

ODI cricket is good for a quick fix , to get a result within a day & it also brings its own unique array of tactics & stats to the fold.
And as we all know its where 70% of the money comes from these days.
Problem is that alot of ODI's seem to take on little to no meaning & are forgotten almost immediately , this barely ever happens in the longer form.


I enjoy watching them equally , but as a player I enjoy the longer game form (in Canberra grade cricket we have a 50 over competition & a 2/3 day comp).
I enjoy the 3 day games far more than the hit & giggle stuff , as a bowler in the one day game your often forced to just worry about restricting them , the tactics with the ball & in the feild can become very negative & that can creap into your general cricketing state of mind.

 

[SquidAU]

IMO, Tests would be far more important to the players. There are too many meaningless ODI tournaments being played throughout a year. Even an ODI only batsmen like Bevan has stated that he would rather play more Tests than ODI's.

 

[Simon]

I'm a traditionalist, test cricket for me anyday, it seems i can turn on the tv every day and watch one day cricket, but test cricket is not like that, theres something special about it.

 

[bennyr]

Tests for me.

I guess it's a combination of the points already made.

I tend to lose interest over the course of a one day series (except World Cups), especially when it is a two-sided series, but even a dead rubber test holds interest for me.

My opinion on this point has changed over the last ten years, and I'd reckon that's probably a combination of the Aussie success and the changes made to playing conditions that make it harder to play for draws.

 

[luckyeddie]

I'm prepared to listen to arguments as to whether ODIs are as 'important' as test matches, but there is no way they could be construed in any way to be more important.

I love a run-fest as much as anyone (the Pakistan v India ODI series at the moment is terrific) but I also enjoyed watching Nasser Hussain battling it out with Tino Best.

I'd go 51:49 with tests just edging it.

 

[marc71178]

Tests for me as well!

The good thing about ODI's is the revenue they generate, but they're 2 a penny IMO.

I must admit the poll so far really is encouraging to see - the forum in general appear to appreciate the Tests...

 

[Langeveldt]

Id much rather sit and watch a test match, but IMO they hold equal importance, because One day cricket requires new skills that are not seen often in the test arena...

 

[Anil]

At a time when tests were waning in popularity(mostly because of a lot of dull, lifeless matches on flat wickets), one day matches re-energised the game and brought crowds back into the cricket ground and in front of T.V sets. The positive contributions of one day cricket as I see it are encouraging increased stroke-play and better fielding in addition to increasing the game's popularity. However, tests for me are what cricket is all about and one dayers while they are important in the overall scheme of things will remain the springy little brother.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

I like both tests and ODIs but I would rather watch an exciting OD match!

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

I must admit the poll so far really is encouraging to see - the forum in general appear to appreciate the Tests...

Are we just talking about the people who voted tests only or who voted for both?

Its because people who voted for both apreciate both forms of the game.

 

[marc71178]

Test's only - as it stands, over 50% is the call.

 

[Anil]

Are we just talking about the people who voted tests only or who voted for both?

Its because people who voted for both apreciate both forms of the game.

Even people who voted for tests(like me)
appreciate both forms of the game, they just like one better than the other, that's all.....

 

[Sanz]

To all those people who voted TESTs as more important :- How many of you would actually like to go and watch a test match for 5 full days and end up a draw ?

 

[Armadillo]

Definately tests for me, call me strange but I love enjoying test matches a hell of a lot more than ODI matches, I just feel that test matches are the real test for players' abilities. eg. In ODI matches a bowler doesn't have to get 20 wickets they only have to contain.

 

[Langeveldt]

To all those people who voted TESTs as more important :- How many of you would actually like to go and watch a test match for 5 full days and end up a draw ?

Oh Id have no problem with that, even if there is no result, a test match tells a fine and complex story...

After all, ive seen loads of people going home after a 0-0 football match convinced they had seen a good game...

 

[Swervy]

To all those people who voted TESTs as more important :- How many of you would actually like to go and watch a test match for 5 full days and end up a draw ?

a draw is a completely valid result in my book and as long as the cricket has been good and tough then no problems in a draw for me

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

To all those people who voted TESTs as more important :- How many of you would actually like to go and watch a test match for 5 full days and end up a draw ?

Well under Steve Waugh's captaincy of the Australian Test team, the draw was consigned to the recycle bin. That was a positive move in that he encouraged results to happen in Tests.