Is skill required in ODI cricket underrated?

[vcs]

So ***** was probably right about that bloke who made boiled rice for 70 years after all

 

[ankitj]

Flip side to that also is -- at least when it comes to batting -- that players can excel at test cricket through sheer application and determinism to the extent that you can't in ODI cricket. Someone like Kallis could be among the best test batsmen ever but to be among the best in ODIs one needed to have a special talent like Viv Richards or AB de Villiers. It doesn't apply to bowling it would seem, not to comparable degree.

Of course as Howe said earlier being able to apply yourself for long periods is also a skill like ability to pick the ball early or time beautifully. I on on "test is best" bandwagon on the whole, but feel there is lot to celebrate about ODI skills and it's not non-purist in any sense if you do.

 

[Kirkut]

Every format has their own skill set. For example the ability to find the gaps and hit very defensive bowling for fours is a highly needed skill in T20s like how Virat Kohli scored 83 in 2016 T20 WC. This sort of skill may not be necessarily replicated even from a seasoned attacking test batsman like Sehwag.

 

[Kirkut]

I think it’s a bit easier the shorter the format to pull off performances that are beyond your usual range.

It’s why you’ll regularly see upsets in these formats but very few in Tests.

It's easy to brush off an upset as a fluke, but that is exactly what limited overs cricket is about, the presence of mind is much stronger here than in tests which is relatively more relaxed. Think of Misbah's scoop shot in T20 finals.

 

[Tom Flint]

Test cricket requires more skill than ODI cricket but ODI cricket requires more athleticism. Fielding skills take a greater role in the short formats than they do in tests. You can't train your way out of having a custard arm but most of the rest of fielding skills can be honed and refined.

Batting and bowling skills are equally important in both forms of the game, but the skills themselves differ. The shorter the game, the less important it is to take a wicket but the more important it is to be hard to score from. Similarly with batting, power hitting is far more important in the short formats while having a rock solid defensive game is more important in tests.

Agree with most of this, although I'm sure you can improve you throwing arm, I'm sure someone like joe root without all his fielding training wouldn't be able to throw the ball in flat and on the full from the boundary.

 

[Daemon]

haha yeah, throwing is an area that can definitely be improved. even the way we say 'throwing arm' implies we don't understand it properly, a lot of the power is generated from your lower body.

 

[stephen]

haha yeah, throwing is an area that can definitely be improved. even the way we say 'throwing arm' implies we don't understand it properly, a lot of the power is generated from your lower body.

Throwing is 99% about twitch fibres though. Strength training and technique can't do much.

 

[weldone]

Well, performances that are in top 1 percentile can only occur 1% of the time irrespective of the format or level of skill required.

Yes but top 1 %ile is different for different lengths of time. Take the example of share market - a one-day increase in price of 10% may be top 1 %ile performance, but over a one-year period the top 1 %ile is far far less than 2500% increase in price (number of trading days*10%). The upside cases don't grow linearly over time. Similarly, consistently performing better than a strong team over 5 days is more difficult/unlikely than doing it over 240 balls.

 

[weldone]

Someone like Kallis could be among the best test batsmen ever but to be among the best in ODIs one needed to have a special talent like Viv Richards or AB de Villiers.

That's very disrespectful to Kallis imo, especially given AB de Villiers thinks Kallis is the best batsman he learnt from during his formative years. I get your point though - someone like Chanderpaul would probably be a better example. (although in counter-argument I can mention someone like Michael Bevan who is known more for his application than talent).

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

There was an ODI in the early 00s where Chanderpaul finished a match with a flurry of boundaries against Daryl Tuffey. He had the presence of mind to walk across the wicket towards the offside and neatly guided/flicked a few balls over fine leg...

He also finished a game with a four and a six against Sri Lanka(I can’t remember the bowler).
In Chanderpaul’s early years he wasn’t that bad of an ODi player

 

[weldone]

Ya he was great in the Diana Memorial match too, only overshadowed by Sachin

 

[trundler]

Players like Kallis are pretty damn special too though. SR ≠ talent etc etc.

 

[weldone]

Players like Kallis are pretty damn special too though. SR ≠ talent etc etc.

Exactly. Sometimes SR indicates power (e.g. Andre Russell) rather than talent. Viv was extremely powerful too, not saying he didn't have the touch..

 

[ankitj]

No one thinks Russell or Afridi are pinnacle of talent because SR alone does not matter. Richards and De Villiers are special because they could score at brisk pace and score often -- something that is super valuable in limited over games, not so much in tests. Randomly whipping your bat around is not what we are talking about here.

 

[weldone]

No one thinks Russell or Afridi are pinnacle of talent because SR alone does not matter. Richards and De Villiers are special because they could score at brisk pace and score often -- something that is super valuable in limited over games, not so much in tests. Randomly whipping your bat around is not what we are talking about here.

Ok how talented do you think guys like Michael Bevan and MS Dhoni were? (compared to Kallis)

 

[Daemon]

Throwing is 99% about twitch fibres though. Strength training and technique can't do much.

You can train and develop fast twitch muscles no?

Obviously a lot of this is genetic, but it's nothing that can't be trained.

 

[ankitj]

Bevan is a good counter example. Can't be classified as an inventive and truly gifted cricketer (from eyesight, muscle reflexes perspective) but was elite ODI batsman.

 

[stephen]

Bevan is a good counter example. Can't be classified as an inventive and truly gifted cricketer (from eyesight, muscle reflexes perspective) but was elite ODI batsman.

I dunno, he was pretty talented. Australian pitches in the 90s, combined with the bat and ball technology gave more value for placement than power or inventiveness. A lot of today's inventiveness is only possible due to the ball pinging off the modern bats on small grounds. I'd put Bevan in Australia's top two most inventive ODI batsmen alongside Dean Jones.

 

[stephen]

You can train and develop fast twitch muscles no?

Obviously a lot of this is genetic, but it's nothing that can't be trained.

Not really. You can build muscle but not really twitch fibres.

 

[Daemon]

Not really. You can build muscle but not really twitch fibres.

aren’t twitch fibres muscle

pretty sure they can be developed and trained man