• 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.

Players who are exceptional in one format and dire in another

BeeGee

BeeGee

International Captain
Guptill's ODI ton today, which follows his complete failure in the last test match got me curious about players with such a huge contrast in performance between test cricket and LO cricket.

Guptill has a test batting average of 29, an ODI average of 38 and a T20 average of 35.

A couple of other kiwis off the top of my head:

Mark Richardson, test batting average 44, ODI average 10.
Geoff Allot, test bowling average 58, ODI average 23.

So which player has the greatest contrast in performance between test and LO cricket?
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
One I always think of is Michael Slater. Average of 24 in ODIs compared to 42 in Tests may not seem as big a gap as some others but there are two factors that really set him apart.

Richardson averaging 10 in ODIs is obviously a little bit misleading because he only played four of them - the selectors could see he was unsuited to it - but Slater played 42 ODIs for his average of 24 and HS of 70 odd, mostly as opener. His attacking style in Tests kept suckering people in to thinking he should be good in ODIs but the fact of the matter was that he was too boundary-reliant for the format.

What really sets him apart though is that his abject direness wasn't just an international phenomenon; he couldn't bat in domestic one day cricket either despite being one of the best attacking Test openers of his time.

Very, very similar in many ways to Slater was Michael Vaughan, although he wasn't quite as good a Test batsman or quite as poor a one day batsman as Slats.
 
BeeGee

BeeGee

International Captain
Prince EWS said:
One I always think of is Michael Slater. Average of 24 in ODIs compared to 42 in Tests may not seem as big a gap as some others but there are two factors that really set him apart.

Richardson averaging 10 in ODIs is obviously a little bit misleading because he only played four of them - the selectors could see he was unsuited to it - but Slater played 42 ODIs for his average of 24 and HS of 70 odd, mostly as opener. His attacking style in Tests kept suckering people in to thinking he should be good in ODIs but the fact of the matter was that he was too boundary-reliant for the format.

What really sets him apart though is that his abject direness wasn't just an international phenomenon; he couldn't bat in domestic one day cricket either despite being one of the best attacking Test openers of his time.

Very, very similar in many ways to Slater was Michael Vaughan, although he wasn't quite as good a Test batsman or quite as poor a one day batsman as Slats.
Click to expand...
Yeah, small sample size. He actually ended up playing ODIs because of similar reasoning to Slater. In this test match when NZ needed quick runs in the second innings he hit 57 off 69 balls and everyone started saying "if he can do that in a test match, why can't he do it in an ODI?" Two months later he's playing his first ODI.
 
wellAlbidarned

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
Prince EWS said:
One I always think of is Michael Slater. Average of 24 in ODIs compared to 42 in Tests may not seem as big a gap as some others but there are two factors that really set him apart.

Richardson averaging 10 in ODIs is obviously a little bit misleading because he only played four of them - the selectors could see he was unsuited to it - but Slater played 42 ODIs for his average of 24 and HS of 70 odd, mostly as opener. His attacking style in Tests kept suckering people in to thinking he should be good in ODIs but the fact of the matter was that he was too boundary-reliant for the format.

What really sets him apart though is that his abject direness wasn't just an international phenomenon; he couldn't bat in domestic one day cricket either despite being one of the best attacking Test openers of his time.

Very, very similar in many ways to Slater was Michael Vaughan, although he wasn't quite as good a Test batsman or quite as poor a one day batsman as Slats.
Click to expand...
Expressway76 said:
Hamish Rutherford averages 49 in test cricket and about 8 in ODI/List A cricket after 16 games
Click to expand...
Similarities?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top