Test Match or One Day Cricket

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

I disagree. There have been MANY ODI's where the game has drastically swung late and in the middle overs.

 

[mavric41]

Test cricket by a long way. It truly lets players showcase their full talent. How many double centuries do you see in ODI or 7w/i.

I liken Tests to reading a good book. Can take time to develop, full of highs and lows and finish with a satisfying ending in most cases. ODI are more like reading magazines - short, sudden impact and over before you know it leavingyou wanting more.

Give me tests anytime.

 

[Linda]

Its hard to decide for me... I mean, when you are seeing a team get thrashed in a Test its awful, so you really do need good even teams playing ech other. And when they end in a draw :!( Sure its full of skill and guts and determination... but no result!?
In OD's, its fast and exciting... but I hate when a batsman can't make his century cos the 50 overs are up. Or a team gets bowled out for 100 runs, and it takes the other team 20 overs to win.

BUT if I had to choose, I'd probably say OD. Especially if your there cheering on your country, fantastic!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

How many double centuries do you see in ODI or 7w/i.

None and 7 (against Zim, Nam, Eng, Ind, Eng, Ind, Aus).

 

[IsuraE]

Samuel_Vimes - I hear you about being a minor country. I'm so jealous of you guys who get to watch every single test and ODI on Sky Sports!
Although test cricket is the purest form of the game, one day cricket still has its merits. THe level of fitness and fielding has been drastically improved because of one day cricket, and that has only helped enhance the quality of both forms of the game.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm so jealous of you guys who get to watch every single test and ODI on Sky Sports!
Although test cricket is the purest form of the game, one day cricket still has its merits. THe level of fitness and fielding has been drastically improved because of one day cricket, and that has only helped enhance the quality of both forms of the game.

Completely agree on both points!

 

[Anil]

Test matches for me......One dayers are fun, but it is too skewed in the batsman's favour and is too much of a slam-bang lottery to be as real an indicator of class as tests.

Of course, you have players who perform whatever form of cricket they play in and they enrich the game in both forms, but it also encourages an almost assembly-line production of bits-and-pieces players(the word all-rounder has been so devalued after the increased popularity of one day cricket) and other kinds of players who look all at sea when they try to break into the test team.

Test cricket is a five day grind, but you get sustained brilliant performances from bat and ball, tests of technique, character and temperament, fast scoring, gritty defending, attacking as well as restrictive bowling, brilliant fielding.....in fact all the goodies that cricket has to offer.

One dayers basically take the fast scoring and the restrictive bowling & fielding areas and sort of specialize in them....if you are lucky enough to get a well contested game between fairly even sides, you might just get to see a little more.....(I do enjoy watching one day matches, it's just that I enjoy test cricket soooo much more....)

 

[marc71178]

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

Bevan, Hick, Knight, Mullally...

 

[Anil]

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.

Bevan isn't in the test team for a simple reason, he just isn't a good enough batsman....doesn't that say something about his abilities.......no matter how much success he has enjoyed at the one day level? More importantly, doesn't that tell you something about the standard of play in a one day international as compared to that in a 5 day test?

 

[JohnnyA]

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.

Well ... I'm not ridiculing. But it's in the nature of the game to allowed limited cricketers to succeed ... bowling restrictions, fielding restictions ... all designed to help the batters. It can be fun sometimes. But there's so much of it, I don't really care who wins of loses most of the time. That's bad for the game. If we had the World Cup every 2 years, that might make it a bit more worthwhile ... hell cricket needs this. Trust the powers that be to me miles behind the times!!!

But yeah ... Bevan is a limited cricketer. Bang it in short at a decent pace for a sustained period and he's can't cope.

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Bevan isn't in the test team for a simple reason, he just isn't a good enough batsman....doesn't that say something about his abilities.......no matter how much success he has enjoyed at the one day level? More importantly, doesn't that tell you something about the standard of play in a one day international as compared to that in a 5 day test?

Going by what you said, I could just as easily for example say that Justin Langer is not in the Australian One Day Team because he is not a good enough batsman, doesn't that tell you something about the standard of play in a 5 day test as compared to that in a One Day International?

Thankfully I see that Justin Langer is an excellent batsman whilst he may not be a part of the Australian ODI side.

See how wrong it is to say that the standards of ODI games are lower then Tests. They both have equal standards as not only both forms of the game require different skills, but both forms of the game require hard work to succeed.

 

[JohnnyA]

Going by what you said, I could just as easily for example say that Justin Langer is not in the Australian One Day Team because he is not a good enough batsman, doesn't that tell you something about the standard of play in a 5 day test as compared to that in a One Day International?

Thankfully I see that Justin Langer is an excellent batsman whilst he may not be a part of the Australian ODI side.

See how wrong it is to say that the standards of ODI games are lower then Tests. They both have equal standards as not only both forms of the game require different skills, but both forms of the game require hard work to succeed.

Langer is not consiedred because you have to make room in the one day team/squad for more mediocre all rounders. There are less specialised positions available, simple as that. With Gilchrist moving up to open, Symonds, Harvey etc coming in, there just aren't enough specialised places. Hence someone has to miss out. It's not gonna be Haydyn or Ponting! Lehman and Beven are excellent one day middle order players ... because they can milk spinners and medium pacers at will.

Langer suffers from the lesser standards at play in One Day Cricket.

It's what we're saying about the one day game allowing mediocre talents to succeed. Symonds, Harvey etc wouldn't last long as specialised batters, when put under the kind of pressure and worked over the way test batsmen are.

 

[Anil]

Going by what you said, I could just as easily for example say that Justin Langer is not in the Australian One Day Team because he is not a good enough batsman, doesn't that tell you something about the standard of play in a 5 day test as compared to that in a One Day International?

Thankfully I see that Justin Langer is an excellent batsman whilst he may not be a part of the Australian ODI side.

See how wrong it is to say that the standards of ODI games are lower then Tests. They both have equal standards as not only both forms of the game require different skills, but both forms of the game require hard work to succeed.

JohnnyA has explained the Justin Langer case very clearly in the previous post....anyway here are my two bits on the topic...

One day cricket can at best be called the superficial part of cricket in that it has very little depth, very little subtleties and basically pointed towards mass entertainment. The rules like field restrictions in the first 15 overs, restriction of bouncers etc skew the game clearly in favour of the batsmen and they are encouraged to put on a spectacular show of power hitting for the entertainment of the attending masses.

One day cricket has done a lot for cricket in that it brought huge popularity and rejuvenated a game which was on the decline or atleast stagnating, improved the general standards of fitness and fielding, but this version can never capture the all the subtle nuances and magic of its 5 day brother basically because of its skewed rules and the simple fact that there is just no time.

The general mass of people who can't/won’t appreciate the finer nuances of this game swear by this slam-bang variety while deriding the traditional version(let me stress here that tradition is not what attracts me about 5 day tests), but when you say one dayers are better than tests or even equal, how do you justify or prove that? What does a one dayer have that the tests don’t have except of course for the lopsided rules?

Mindless slogging might happen very rarely, but quick scoring, exceptional running between the wickets, agile fielding, exciting chases, restrictive bowling etc are very much there in the longer version.

However, a lot of other things that make cricket special like technical finesse, temperamental excellence, attacking bowling, attacking fielding, back-to-the-wall, gritty match saving innings….there are so many things that could be listed out that are either pretty rare(even from the classy players who are exceptional in both versions) or patently absent in the one day variety.

 

[Rich2001]

Bevan isn't in the test team for a simple reason, he just isn't a good enough batsman....doesn't that say something about his abilities.......no matter how much success he has enjoyed at the one day level? More importantly, doesn't that tell you something about the standard of play in a one day international as compared to that in a 5 day test?

Just a point there, you say Bevan isn't in the team because he isn't good enough.

However the view here seems to be overall rather than fixed on a team, so are you saying Bevan isn't good enough for any longer form of the game or just Australia.

If it's the first then surley his still a player good enough to play Tests, and isn't one of those players that get branded OD only. So he might not make the Australian XI - where you say he isn't good enough.... but (Example) he could actually be the 12th best player in Australia and not being in the team doesn't say the whole story.

 

[Anil]

Just a point there, you say Bevan isn't in the team because he isn't good enough.

However the view here seems to be overall rather than fixed on a team, so are you saying Bevan isn't good enough for any longer form of the game or just Australia.

If it's the first then surley his still a player good enough to play Tests, and isn't one of those players that get branded OD only. So he might not make the Australian XI - where you say he isn't good enough.... but (Example) he could actually be the 12th best player in Australia and not being in the team doesn't say the whole story.

My view is that Bevan isn't good enough for a 5-day international test match. He just isn't good enough against fast bowling as well as quality spin. He is good at milking medium pace and part-time spin bowling. I have seen some of his innings, he is not even a particularly good placer of the ball, he is just lightning quick between the wickets so that as long as he has good understanding with his partner and gets good support, he will almost certainly complete his run. As far as being the 12th best player in Australia in tests, no way....

 

[Craig]

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.

Well I feel sorry that you cant get to watch cricket and are missing out out a lot in your education of cricket. IMO we are always learning something new about the game.

 

[anzac]

IMO Test cricket is the pinacle & true test of an indivdual & team's character....

Test cricket when played well & attacking is a banquet full of rich or subtle flavours and nuances even when fighting to survive, however when it is played defensively so far as not wanting to create an opportunity to win a match then it is bland & stale & a deplorable offering over 5 wasted days......

When people recount cricket stories most are based upon Test matches / series, either specific incidents (Lara & Hayden scores, Warne v Gatting, Lillee v Miandad etc), great controversy (Bodyline, past tours to the sub continent etc), heroes (Bradman, The Invincibles etc), adversity (the NZ Tangiwhai disaster boxing day test in SA 1956???), or even memorable closes (McDermott v Walsh & Hadlee v Mike ????).

ODI by contrast is often little more than fast food for the masses & revenue generation ....limited in substance & likened perhaps to the malaise for the need of instant gratification. Too often ODI results can be quickly determined well b4 the 1st innings is completed - a glut of runs or wickets or even a poor call at the toss because of the pitch conditions......

Yet both have their place in the modern game and indeed much of the modern game would not exist if it weren't for ODI cricket. The development of player fitness & professionalism is a direct consequence of OD cricket. Perhaps some of the variety in bowling may have also been highlighted in ODI. On the down side there is an equally persuasive arguement for the purest that there are fewer truely great batsmen in the ODI era, as technical development has been replaced by run rates.

For me I like to watch Test cricket on the box to get closer to the technical aspects etc, but prefer to be at the game for the ODI atmosphere......

 

[Craig]

Seeing the outscore of over 300 is ok, but to have seen two sides nearly put on over 350 and 347 in the TVS Cup, it does kind of makes it boring, unless the two opening batsmen when they open for the team batting 2nd kit 6'6's in the 1st couple of overs and then my sir we have a game.

 

[anzac]

I've finally remembered the lost surname - Hadlee v Michael Whitney......

 

[LankanPrince]

The future of cricket lies with one day cricket. Test cricket is simply not attractive enough to the younger generation with its slow pace and lack of colour and atmosphere. Admittedly some test matches are real classics. However when you go to an ODI, especially involving Asian teams, the spirit and involvement of the crowd is on another level. The action is fast paced and intense with a nice commercial feel. There is always a prospect of a result whereas test matches can end up as draws. For newcomers to cricket the excitement probably lies in aggressive batting displays and the intense crowd atmosphere. This is only really available in one day cricket which is evident in that ODIs have a world cup whereas tests don't. Eventually to the disgust of traditionalists, test cricket may be wiped out due to its lack of profitability and popularity. Like it or not, ODI cricket attracts big crowds and big bucks. Cricketers who want a slice of the action need to look to get into their country's ODI team as test cricket may gradually get phased out.:O