Test Match or One Day Cricket

[Ford_GTHO351]

I love Cricket & both forms of the game are great.

But if I was forced to pick out of the two, I would pick One Day Cricket. One Day Internationals (ODI's) are very exciting, whether it be very agressive batting from the likes of Adam Gilchrist, the likes of great fielding from players such as Andrew Symonds or Ricky Ponting, or the likes of watching Michael Bevan play a match winning innings.

Though the Australian Test Team deserve credit as they play Tests which more follow ODI's than in years gone by. Adam Gilchrist boasts a ODI batting strike rate of 92.26! In Tests, Gilchrist boasts a strike rate of 83.59 which is amazing as this is more than alot of ODI cricketers batting strike rates!

So what are all your opinions. Test or ODI cricket (if you were forced to choose)?

 

[IsuraE]

I would most certainly choose test cricket if I had to choose one
form of the game. One day cricket can be exciting if both teams are good, otherwise it can get very predictable. For example the current England Bangledesh series, the match is basically decided in the first 15 overs.

 

[Richard]

Simple for me - the World Cup's in one-dayers, but Tests are the oldest form.
Each has their merits and I'd be very, very sad if deprived of either.

 

[Richard]

I would most certainly choose test cricket if I had to choose one
form of the game. One day cricket can be exciting if both teams are good, otherwise it can get very predictable. For example the current England Bangledesh series, the match is basically decided in the first 15 overs.

And The Second Test was different because...?

 

[Neil Pickup]

ODIs are good for a quick fix, but nothing can ever match the depth of thought and tactics and the way that things can change in Test Cricket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No question - Test cricket.

For reasons, see WI v Australia 4th Test 2003; WI v Aus 3rd Test 1999; WI v Pak 3rd Test 2000; WI v Zim 1st Test 2000.

 

[marc71178]

No question - Test cricket.

For reasons, see WI v Australia 4th Test 2003; WI v Aus 3rd Test 1999; WI v Pak 3rd Test 2000; WI v Zim 1st Test 2000.

* notes Liam forgot to mention Zim v WI 1st Test 2003 *

 

[Richard]

No question - Test cricket.

For reasons, see WI v Australia 4th Test 2003; WI v Aus 3rd Test 1999; WI v Pak 3rd Test 2000; WI v Zim 1st Test 2000.

Huhm-huhm! How about Eng v WI Second Test 2000?
Better than all that lot. Probably better than it all put together. Not just a thrilling last innings but an inconceivable last two and two other exceptional ones.
Best Test of all-time surely.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I would most certainly choose test cricket if I had to choose one
form of the game. One day cricket can be exciting if both teams are good, otherwise it can get very predictable. For example the current England Bangledesh series, the match is basically decided in the first 15 overs.

Welcome to the forums, IsuraE. Good to see another one from a minnow country (although you'd thrash us easily :P)

As for the question at hand, well, I prefer Tests. It's what everybody in Norway first laugh at when they hear about the game (How can anyone watch a game that takes 5 days?), but it is much more exciting, it can change in a matter that no ODI can, and it lasts longer.

 

[Langeveldt]

Watch Allan Donald against Mike Atherton in 1998 (or any other great confrontations for that matter such as Shoaib-Hayden) and you will soon realize that test cricket provides a dimension that simply doesnt exist in the one day game...

I love One day cricket too, I prefer coloured kits and a white ball, but I like more the grit and attrition you get in test matches..

SO tests all the way for me...

 

[age_master]

ODI's for me, they are more attacking, particularly highlighting fielding skills

 

[Langeveldt]

ODI's for me, they are more attacking, particularly highlighting fielding skills

But are they though? I know they are from a batting point of view, but one day cricket has bread a lot of mundane, defensive captaincy and bowling...

The sight of Shoaib steaming in, first morning of a test match trying to knock a guys poles over, with 5 slips and 2 gullies, thats attacking too

 

[Prince EWS]

But are they though? I know they are from a batting point of view, but one day cricket has bread a lot of mundane, defensive captaincy and bowling...

The sight of Shoaib steaming in, first morning of a test match trying to knock a guys poles over, with 5 slips and 2 gullies, thats attacking too

I agree with you 100%. I much more enjoy a brilliant spell of bowling than a brilliant spell of batting and test cricket shows far better and more attacking bowling.

When I first started watching cricket, I enjoyed ODIs 100x more, but gradually as I apreciated the game more and more, and understood the tactics and the changes in test cricked, I liked test cricket more and more than ODIs. And now its ahead by a mile.

Test cricket defiantely for my answer.

 

[Craig]

Welcome to the forums, IsuraE. Good to see another one from a minnow country (although you'd thrash us easily :P)

As for the question at hand, well, I prefer Tests. It's what everybody in Norway first laugh at when they hear about the game (How can anyone watch a game that takes 5 days?), but it is much more exciting, it can change in a matter that no ODI can, and it lasts longer.

Do you get much coverage/if any of cricket in Norway? If not, then how were you attracted to this great game?

 

[Craig]

Welcome to the forums, IsuraE. Good to see another one from a minnow country (although you'd thrash us easily :P)

As for the question at hand, well, I prefer Tests. It's what everybody in Norway first laugh at when they hear about the game (How can anyone watch a game that takes 5 days?), but it is much more exciting, it can change in a matter that no ODI can, and it lasts longer.

I never saw a ball of that series, but there have been plenty of other great Tests before and since that should be ranked up there.

 

[JohnnyA]

Test cricket by a mile.

Too many mediocre and on-trick-pony cricketers are successful at ODI level. You don't have to be great to succeed at OD level. You just need a trick ... accurate bowling, fast scoring rate, bit of both.

There have been so many successful medium pacers with mediocre bats who have made quite successful OD careers. But when elevated to the REAL game, they have nothing to offer.

I can think of Jayasuria's "deadly" medium/slow bowling ... and plenty of others.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Do you get much coverage/if any of cricket in Norway? If not, then how were you attracted to this great game?

Craig, the only cricket I've ever seen on TV was a 5-minute report in the weekly sports roundup - and it was nearly ridiculing the sport. I rely heavily on cricinfo. There's some cricket on Pakistani channels or Sky Sports, but you have to pay a lot to get them and my parents aren't interested in that (I'm a bit singled out in my family...my cousin likes it, but he's half English so that doesn't count)

How I got attracted - well, don't really remember, think it started out as a laugh at first and suddenly I was hooked on the game - followed every single World Cup match at breaktimes and stuff.

 

[Mister Wright]

I prefer tests! There are more things that can happen in a test match, one team can get on top, then the other fights back and takes the initiative, then it is on again. While it can happen in ODIs it is more common in test matches.

Mister Wright's best three test matches (that he as witnessed either live or on t.v.)

India v Australia 2nd test 2001

West Indies v Australia 4th test 2003

West Indies v Australia 3rd test 1999

And I agree with JohnnyA so many mediocre players have big careers in ODIs when they couldn't make it in tests.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Test cricket by a mile.

Too many mediocre and on-trick-pony cricketers are successful at ODI level. You don't have to be great to succeed at OD level. You just need a trick ... accurate bowling, fast scoring rate, bit of both.

There have been so many successful medium pacers with mediocre bats who have made quite successful OD careers. But when elevated to the REAL game, they have nothing to offer.

I can think of Jayasuria's "deadly" medium/slow bowling ... and plenty of others.

Well by what you said, you are ridiculing players like Michael Bevan who has been very sucessful in the One Day game. Sure Bevan may not be in the Australian Test Team, but thats no reason to rubbish his (or other ODI players) One Day Performances. It takes hard work in both forms of the game to become a sucessful cricketer.

Tests and ODI's are the real game, its a cricket match after all.

 

[iamdavid]

ODIs are good for a quick fix, but nothing can ever match the depth of thought and tactics and the way that things can change in Test Cricket.

Couldnt agree more , the ODI's are a tad predictable , I generally watch the first 20 overs of an innings , go do something else , then come back & watch the last 10 (unless its a big/close game or Adam Gilchrist/Mark Waugh are still there).

You generally know whats going to happen from overs 20-35 of a ODI , whereas in a test match you know the intensity is always there & the game could change in a matter of minutes.