Test matches vs ODIs

[cricnewbye]

hi guys in my first post on this board i said i have been following cricket only since few months, considering that in the country i live in (italy) its quite unknown and though i had lived in England in the past i didnt have interst in it. My previous questioh was about a rule, now i wish to ask you to explain me, in brief....., the real difference about ODIs and test matches. Not the duration etc...i know about limited overs in ODIs, fielding restrictions bla bla bla, just the difference in the competion "Importance". I mean test matches should be more important (right?) but why after a test series is completed (like in outh Africas these days) then a ODIs session take off? Can be considered a sort of "consolation" for the losing side? Or a chance to settle the score? Are the best players kept for Test matches leaving some interesting prospect the chance to impress during ODIs?
One last thing? Is there an international tournament for top club teams like the Champions league or the UEFA Cup in football?
Thanks very much

 

[Neil Pickup]

There's no International club competitions.

The first ODI took place over thirty years ago between England and Australia, as a Test match was so heavily affected by rain there was no chance of a result, so a one-day game was played.

In theory, Tests and ODIs have equal importance, but different people and different countries don't treat them in this way. The subcontinental countries tend to place a greater premium on ODIs (and played much, much more than the rest of the world in the 1990s) whilst England for example rate Tests much more highly, to the point where the ODI side is used as a try-out for potential future Test players (e.g. Andrew Strauss).

The general core selection tends to stay the same from one form to the other (top class players will succeed whatever format they play), but there's a natural difference in that more aggressive or all-round players are brought in for ODIs (restriction rules) and more defensive or specialist players will play more Tests.

 

[Arrow]

Ive personally never understood why test matches are rated higher in terms of the pure performance aspect of batting at least. Its harder to bat trying to uphold a high run rate than it is crawling along at any speed you want, taking as much time as you want. Thats why players score less one day centuries and have lower averages. Ive always rated one day centuries over test ones.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ive personally never understood why test matches are rated higher in terms of the pure performance aspect of batting at least. Its harder to bat trying to uphold a high run rate than it is crawling along at any speed you want, taking as much time as you want. Thats why players score less one day centuries and have lower averages. Ive always rated one day centuries over test ones.

Maybe so, but the situations are different. Keep in mind the attacking strategies used by bowlers and captains in test cricket. In test cricket the ultimate aim of the bowler is to get you out, in one day cricket it is to stop you from scoring OR get you out. In the middle overs of a one dayer a thick outside edge might run down to third man for an easy single, while in a test match it would be caught in the slips. Just an example, but that is one of the reasons batting in test cricket is rated more highly. You are also more likely to be facing quality bowling all the time, rather than bits and pieces all-rounders who can bat and have a decent economy rate.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Simon Barnes in The Times (English newspaper) summed it up pretty well today:

"A one-day game is like a nice film — briefly satisfying, but seldom remaining long in the memory. A good Test match is like a good novel — a much more powerful and enduring experience."

 

[Steulen]

What a load of tripe. The film - novel comparison, that is. Personally, I am the quintessential modern cricket fan. I just don't have the time to really dig into a 5-day Test match. I enjoy watching it for an hour at the time, but then...there's other things to do. A good one-dayer I can give priority to.
And i also don't like two teams playing in the same kit...get yer pyjamas on!

 

[BoyBrumby]

What a load of tripe. The film - novel comparison, that is. Personally, I am the quintessential modern cricket fan. I just don't have the time to really dig into a 5-day Test match. I enjoy watching it for an hour at the time, but then...there's other things to do. A good one-dayer I can give priority to.
And i also don't like two teams playing in the same kit...get yer pyjamas on!

Think you've kinda proved his point there, mate!! ODIs are also, like films, mostly formulaic & with a predictable ending. Except, of course, that the bad guys (Australia) usually win!!

 

[Camel56]

ODI's are great from a constant excitement point of view but i cant go past a test match. I just love them, possibly more than a fat kid loves candy.

 

[SJS]

A very large majority loves a racy short story. Much fewer people enjoy a great classic. It requires a different kind of appreciation.

Another point. A short story by a not so great writer can also be very enjoyable for the purpose for which most people read short stories. But a classick to be really enjoyed , it has to be written by someone who really knows what he/she is doing.

Its the same with a game of cricket. Test matches are great but not only you should have a taste for it but it should be played between two really good sides and you never forget the story for the rest of your life.

 

[Jono]

Well, everyone remembers a test win. ODI wins are forgotten within a week.

 

[amokk1]

I'll Never forget the ODI world cup final. Tendulkar plays a weird shot for four and then....McGrath you ******* !!!

 

[honestbharani]

Ive personally never understood why test matches are rated higher in terms of the pure performance aspect of batting at least. Its harder to bat trying to uphold a high run rate than it is crawling along at any speed you want, taking as much time as you want. Thats why players score less one day centuries and have lower averages. Ive always rated one day centuries over test ones.

Scoring quickly is just one aspect of batsmanship. The real reason why test innings are rated over ODI innings is that, in ODIs, a bowler can bowl only 10 overs at you, and after a few overs, the field is generally well spread out, so that false shots give you fours more often than they do in tests. But in tests, the bowler can bowl for as long as he can and the field is generally pretty attacking. Also, given the various breaks between innings, it is more difficult for the batsman to keep going for a long period of time without lapses in concentration. Plus, the red ball swings and reverse swings more than the white ball. So, that is why test innings are given more value than ODI innings.


But to me, both games are different challenges. They pose different questions to the batsmen and that is why I rate guys who have done well consistently in both forms of the game to be the best in the world.

 

[Zinzan]

I think there is room for both forms....but IMO, ya can't beat a Test Match.

2 forms is enough though, thats why I'm not so keen on 20/20 becoming regular at international level.

 

[SJS]

I think there is room for both forms....but IMO, ya can't beat a Test Match.

2 forms is enough though, thats why I'm not so keen on 20/20 becoming regular at international level.

20/20 is for people who think burgers are great food and McDonalds is a great eating place

 

[Arrow]

Scoring quickly is just one aspect of batsmanship. The real reason why test innings are rated over ODI innings is that, in ODIs, a bowler can bowl only 10 overs at you, and after a few overs, the field is generally well spread out, so that false shots give you fours more often than they do in tests. But in tests, the bowler can bowl for as long as he can and the field is generally pretty attacking. Also, given the various breaks between innings, it is more difficult for the batsman to keep going for a long period of time without lapses in concentration. Plus, the red ball swings and reverse swings more than the white ball. So, that is why test innings are given more value than ODI innings.


But to me, both games are different challenges. They pose different questions to the batsmen and that is why I rate guys who have done well consistently in both forms of the game to be the best in the world.

Thats true, but being able to wait 3 or 4 overs for the right ball to put away in tests is something you cant do in one dayers.
Oh well.

 

[SJS]

You can actually win an ODI without getting even one opposition batsman out. Thats what is the REAL difference between the two formats.

You can not win a test without getting the opposition out twice (or their declaring).

Thus the very spirit of the limited over format majorly downplays the importance of penetrative bowling. It is too unidimensional to churn out a large number of different games that are so different from one another.

 

[Pratters]

One day cricket is the attraction you may have when you see a ***y girl.

test cricket is pure love.

 

[Steulen]

There are just as many formulaic & predictable books as there are films. Go check out your local fantasy bookshop if you don't believe me. And then there are great classic movies that are every bit as deep and original as the great works of literature.

Same goes for ODI's and Tests, IMO.

And just from a time management PoV, I prefer ODI's .

EDIT: corrected spelling error

 

[Arjun]

In which form of the game is a debut preferred? For a greenhorn, it should be Test cricket- they can take their time to get settled.

 

[Jono]

There are just as many formulaic & predictable books as there are films. Go check out your local fantasy bookshop if you don't believe me. And then there are great classic movies that are every bit as deep and original as the great works of literature.

Same goes for ODI's and Tests, IMO.

And just from a time management PoV, I prefer ODI's .

EDIT: corrected spelling error

Though there are awesome films that were written and created purely for film, you'll find that most 5 star films originated as novels

I acknowledge your point though.