Test match batting is easier than ODI's
RoshanCat
From an old posting of mine...............for the benefit of RK,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To score in tests you need the following skills only
i) How to leave a ball not on stumps
ii) How to defend the ball on stumps
To score in ODI's
i) Need to know how to score 4's of bad balls
ii) Need to know how to score singles of good balls
iii) Special skill of scoring fours of good balls too
iv) Need to constantly play in the gaps for singles(in tests I can play
millions of balls to the same fielder without having any pressure) v)
constantly look for gaps in a spread out field, to score boundaries (in tests
you have the whole field for yourself, not to talk about the usually vacant
mid-on & mid-wicket regions where you can get your easy boundaries) v) Good
fitness & great running between the wickets
Of course purists will argue about bouncers, pace & extra spin in test matches,
but again a half -decent cricketer should be able to handle with a decent net
practice
Bowlers will always like Test cricket bcoz they have more luxury & margin for
error to bowl their deliveries
Batsman will always like Test cricket bcoz you can always play thousands of
balls without scoring & with absolutely no pressure to score runs from the
crowd
Cheers,
Roshan [Any sport which allows for a draw is always less pressure on the
players]
Ragupati - Chandrasekaran
<snip>
>
> >iv) Need to constantly play in the gaps for singles(in tests I can play
> >millions of balls to the same fielder without having any pressure)
>
> If you think that batsmen don't feel pressure in tests you're deluding yourself.
> Have a look at how the Australian batsmen play tests and one dayers and you'll
> find a higher percentage of runs made off singles than India or Pakistan mana
ge.
excellent point!the aussies are wonderful at the art of takin singles,esp
in test matches and i'd single out that man steve waugh for praise in this
regard.he is a past master at pushin and nudgin the ball around throughout
his innings(not just when he is lookin to settle down).takes the pressure
off himself and allows the bowler no chance of settlin into a rhythm by
bowlin to one batsman majority of the time.
for batsman from the subcontinent,its mostly all or nothin which i guess
will be reflected in the proportion of dot balls in their innings.
Ragu[who thinks thats one area the ind definitely need to address bfore
they set off for the tour down under]
>
>
> > v)
> >constantly look for gaps in a spread out field, to score boundaries (in tests
> >you have the whole field for yourself, not to talk about the usually vacant
> >mid-on & mid-wicket regions where you can get your easy boundaries)
>
> OTOH the spread out field means that it's easier to get the ball through the
> infield and get the 1s & 2s.
>
> >vi) Good fitness & great running between the wickets
>
> Cricket isn't a game which demands a lot of physical fitness, check out
> Ranatunga, Imzi, Taylor, Warne ...
>
> In terms of mental concentration tests demand more.
>
> >
> >Of course purists will argue about bouncers, pace & extra spin in test matches,
> >but again a half -decent cricketer should be able to handle with a decent net
> >practice
>
> Which explains why the Indian batsmen have struggled so much against pace over
> the last 20 odd years...
> and why RSA, Pakistan and NZ have repeatedly been run through by Warne, and Pak
> by McGill...
> >
> >Bowlers will always like Test cricket bcoz they have more luxury & margin for
> >error to bowl their deliveries
>
> Not to mention that they are allowed to vary their line of attack, have more
> than 10 overs and concentrate on dismissing the batsman.
> >
> >Batsman will always like Test cricket bcoz you can always play thousands of
> >balls without scoring
>
> Then you get a ball which turns a bit more and bat pad takes the catch. Pure
> defence never won a match.
>
> > & with absolutely no pressure to score runs from the
> >crowd
> >
>
> I seem to recall quite a lot of slow handclapping over the years.
>
> >Cheers,
> >Roshan [Any sport which allows for a draw is always less pressure on the
> >players]
>
> Yeah, notice how easy it is to bat out for a draw when under pressure.
>
> ****************************************************************************
> The Politician's Slogan
> 'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
> of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
> Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
> ****************************************************************************
>
> Mad Hamish
>
> Hamish Laws
> h_l...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
> h_l...@tassie.net.au
>
>
>
Happy is he who dares courageously to defend what he loves.
-- Ovid
******************************************************************************
Ragupati Chandrasekaran Res:(409)691-0269
Texas A&M University Off:(409)862-8106
******************************************************************************
Dan
You forgot one important point....
Test match batting requires batting against TOP class bowling for more than
a 10 over spell on wickets that suit bowling more than batting.
Sorry mate..I cant agree with any of your points you made.Test match batting
is by far the ultimate challenge.
RoshanCat <rosh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990722173613...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>
>
> From an old posting of mine...............for the benefit of RK,
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> To score in tests you need the following skills only
> i) How to leave a ball not on stumps
> ii) How to defend the ball on stumps
>
> To score in ODI's
> i) Need to know how to score 4's of bad balls
> ii) Need to know how to score singles of good balls
> iii) Special skill of scoring fours of good balls too
> iv) Need to constantly play in the gaps for singles(in tests I can play
> millions of balls to the same fielder without having any pressure) v)
> constantly look for gaps in a spread out field, to score boundaries (in
tests
> you have the whole field for yourself, not to talk about the usually
vacant
> mid-on & mid-wicket regions where you can get your easy boundaries) v)
Good
> fitness & great running between the wickets
>
> Of course purists will argue about bouncers, pace & extra spin in test
matches,
> but again a half -decent cricketer should be able to handle with a decent
net
> practice
>
> Bowlers will always like Test cricket bcoz they have more luxury & margin
for
> error to bowl their deliveries
>
> Batsman will always like Test cricket bcoz you can always play thousands
of
> balls without scoring & with absolutely no pressure to score runs from the
> crowd
>
Mad Hamish
>
>
>From an old posting of mine...............for the benefit of RK,
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>To score in tests you need the following skills only
>i) How to leave a ball not on stumps
>ii) How to defend the ball on stumps
You still need to score. Mistakes from the batsman are more likely to result in
a dismissal. An edge in one dayers is more likely to go through an empty slips
cordon. There isn't likely to be a silly mid off or a silly mid on.
Note that defending and leaving still doesn't win tests. You still have to
score.
>
>To score in ODI's
>i) Need to know how to score 4's of bad balls
Pretty useful in tests as well.
>ii) Need to know how to score singles of good balls
again useful in tests. The best batsmen manage it pretty consistently.
>iii) Special skill of scoring fours of good balls too
Useful at times but generally not worth the risk, of course it depends exactly
what you mean by good balls. I've seen a fair few decent looking outswingers
cover driven for 4. I've seen some pretty sharp bouncers hooked for 4, I've seen
decent inswingers worked for 4 through the leg side.
>iv) Need to constantly play in the gaps for singles(in tests I can play
>millions of balls to the same fielder without having any pressure)
If you think that batsmen don't feel pressure in tests you're deluding yourself.
Have a look at how the Australian batsmen play tests and one dayers and you'll
find a higher percentage of runs made off singles than India or Pakistan manage.
> v)
>constantly look for gaps in a spread out field, to score boundaries (in tests
>you have the whole field for yourself, not to talk about the usually vacant
>mid-on & mid-wicket regions where you can get your easy boundaries)
OTOH the spread out field means that it's easier to get the ball through the
infield and get the 1s & 2s.
>vi) Good fitness & great running between the wickets
Cricket isn't a game which demands a lot of physical fitness, check out
Ranatunga, Imzi, Taylor, Warne ...
In terms of mental concentration tests demand more.
>
>Of course purists will argue about bouncers, pace & extra spin in test matches,
>but again a half -decent cricketer should be able to handle with a decent net
>practice
Which explains why the Indian batsmen have struggled so much against pace over
the last 20 odd years...
and why RSA, Pakistan and NZ have repeatedly been run through by Warne, and Pak
by McGill...
>
>Bowlers will always like Test cricket bcoz they have more luxury & margin for
>error to bowl their deliveries
Not to mention that they are allowed to vary their line of attack, have more
than 10 overs and concentrate on dismissing the batsman.
>
>Batsman will always like Test cricket bcoz you can always play thousands of
>balls without scoring
Then you get a ball which turns a bit more and bat pad takes the catch. Pure
defence never won a match.
> & with absolutely no pressure to score runs from the
>crowd
>
I seem to recall quite a lot of slow handclapping over the years.
>Cheers,
>Roshan [Any sport which allows for a draw is always less pressure on the
>players]
Yeah, notice how easy it is to bat out for a draw when under pressure.
RoshanCat
All good points, why does 99% of the batsman have a better test average than an
ODI average?. This despite they having to face Kenya, B'desh & usualy dibbly
dobbly bowlers. Simple Test match batting is over-rated & not as difficult as
making runs in ODI's.
Why does all the players have a 100 scoring rate usually 10-15 times more in
ODI's than in tests (i.e more innings per 100 or 50?). I know you would argue
that not all batsmen get equal opportunities in ODI's. Let me present you SRT
who bats at #1 in ODI's. He makes 100's every 10 innings in ODI (that includes
Kenya, B'desh & dibbly dobbly bowlers). But in test matches he scores at nearly
one 100 in every 5 innings. So test match batting is twice as easy as ODI's
I know your typical answer to this, batsman have to score at an extra pace at
ODI's & hence lose their wicket thus dropping their average.
i.e Scoring runs >> defending your wicket
i.e Essence of ODI >> Essence of test cricket
ODI batting >> test cricket batting
(Q.E.D)
As a batsman myself, I dont care how many people surround me. In fact I love it
when people surround me because it gives me loads & loads of empty space to get
my runs. If played with the right technique (which is not difficult to get thru
practice) IMHO all these close-in fielder are useless.
But even if you have all the strokes & right technique what guarantee can you
give that a batsman can score at a SR of more than 100 (which is the essence of
ODI winning)
In my original posting of course just to drive in the point i separated the
skills required, there is no doubt both of them overlap in both forms. But IMHO
I always feel I can bat (in fact I love to) for *five* days rather than having
to score more than run a ball
Finally please go thru the list of century makers in ODI & tests, you'll find
many useless batsmen have scored a test 100, but only & only talented guys have
scored an ODI 100
Cheers,
Roshan
Mac Attack
Taking away all that bullshit about playing for averages, why is Michael Bevan so
widely regarded as a fine one day player, yet suck at Test level?
Mac
Ravi Krishna
> i.e Scoring runs >> defending your wicket
>
> i.e Essence of ODI >> Essence of test cricket
>
> ODI batting >> test cricket batting
>
> (Q.E.D)
Except for Bihar Univ's all other would fail you for the above. :-)
> Finally please go thru the list of century makers in ODI & tests, you'll find
> many useless batsmen have scored a test 100, but only & only talented guys have
> scored an ODI 100
Sure sure. Chetan Sharma, Kris Srikanth ...
RK-
--
Remove nospam from email for reply.
RoshanCat
>Bevan so
>widely regarded as a fine one day player, yet suck at Test level?
i clearly mentioned that 99% of the players have test average better than their
ODI average. You can't bring an exception case like this & argue.
Nobody has replied to that point of mine
Cheers,
Roshan
RoshanCat
>
>> i.e Scoring runs >> defending your wicket
>>
>> i.e Essence of ODI >> Essence of test cricket
>>
>> ODI batting >> test cricket batting
>>
>> (Q.E.D)
>
>Except for Bihar Univ's all other would fail you for the above. :-)
>
RK, please explain why do batsmen have better test averages than ODI averages
(despite in ODI you get to face Kenya, Scot, B'desh & dibbly dobbly bowlers)
rationally & I'll accept test batting is difficult. Till then all the
self-alleged purists may live with the myth that test batting is difficult
>> Finally please go thru the list of century makers in ODI & tests, you'll
>find
>> many useless batsmen have scored a test 100, but only & only talented guys
>have
>> scored an ODI 100
>
>Sure sure. Chetan Sharma, Kris Srikant
C. Sharma has a test HS of 74 & Srikanth has hit Test centuries too. Shall I
give you a long list of useless players who have hit test 100's?
A. Mann
Ijaz Fakih
Pravin Amre
Surinder Amarnath
SMG (He hit 34 of them once every 6 tries & couldn't get one in 101 tries in
the ODI's)
Langer
R'kash
.........
Cheers,
Roshan
Sundarraman Subramanian
> RK, please explain why do batsmen have better test averages than ODI averages
> (despite in ODI you get to face Kenya, Scot, B'desh & dibbly dobbly bowlers)
> rationally & I'll accept test batting is difficult. Till then all the
Because, Roshan, of the nature of Test cricket? Let me try to
answer your interesting question. In Test cricket you wage the war
for a longer period of time, and have to bring out more skills
(runs included) to outdo your opponent. In Test cricket, your
opponent has more time to score runs, and he usually makes use of
that (the SMG attitude). To outdo him, you necessarily have to
score more runs and also have the time to do that. In other words,
high scores are the emphasis and time is not a criterion (i.e.,
compared to ODI's). In ODI's, time is crucial, and batsmen have to
score runs quickly, and they either get out in the process, or are
unable to score as much as in Tests due to the limit on the number
of balls faced. This is not unlike in a war, where, the stronger
the opponent the stronger we would want ourselves to be. And how
would you make your position impregnable? Runs, runs, runs.
Because, mind you, the opponent would have lots of time to scale
your total, if it is unsubstantial.
Sundar [writing in a hurry, logic may be flawed] Subramanian
RoshanCat
>answer your interesting question. In Test cricket you wage the war
>for a longer period of time, and have to bring out more skills
>(runs included) to outdo your opponent. In Test cricket, your
>opponent has more time to score runs, and he usually makes use of
>that (the SMG attitude). To outdo him, you necessarily have to
>score more runs and also have the time to do that. In other words,
>high scores are the emphasis and time is not a criterion (i.e.,
>compared to ODI's). In ODI's, time is crucial, and batsmen have to
>score runs quickly, and they either get out in the process, or are
>unable to score as much as in Tests due to the limit on the number
>of balls faced. This is not unlike in a war, where, the stronger
>the opponent the stronger we would want ourselves to be. And how
>would you make your position impregnable? Runs, runs, runs.
>Because, mind you, the opponent would have lots of time to scale
>your total, if it is unsubstantial.
So you agree to the fact that you lose wickets more easily while scoring runs
in a hurry (even against mediocre attack) to scoring runs at a leisurely pace
(even against a lethal attack on a lethal pitch).
This implies that in ODI's wicket do fall more regularly than tests, which
inturn implies batting in ODI's is more difficult (simply bcoz of the fact that
you have more chance of getting out in an ODI)
Cheers,
Roshan [Please look at my reply to Hamish which I have explained more
elaborately]
RoshanCat
>
>a. Scoring a 100 in ODI is difficult than test.
>
>b. batting itself is easier in test than ODI.
I'm saying b) bcoz of which a) happens. As i have explained in an earlier
thread SRT opens India in ODI's that means he gets full opportunities to score
a ODI 100, he also gets to face Kenya, SCot, B'desh + a lot of dibbly dobbly
bowlers. But he still scores a ODI 100 once every 10 innings but his test
hundreds are every 5 innings
there is also an average difference of 13+ in tests & ODI's. Since he doesn't
bat at the end your theory of less opportunities doesn't hold water
> Lemme add something more. ODI rules are very
>restrictive for the bowlers, both for spinners and seamers.
>As a result, batsman with fatal technical problem can get
Exactly my point, by adding those restrictions the gap is a bit narrowed. if
there were no restrictions I would have said ODI batting is 10 times more
difficult than tests, but with restrictions, it is around 1.4. But still
batting in ODI's is difficult (more pressure than tests)
>As a result, batsman with fatal technical problem can get
>severly exposed in test cricket than ODI
You are making the grave mistake of having technique (that too the sole
technique of defending) as the sole criteria of judging the batsman.
Isn't R'kash, Hussain, Langer, Horne, Twose also technically deficient (they
cant score runs of good balls usually) but still they are more successful in
tests than ODI's.
The technique you are talking about is the sole technique of defending or
keeping the ball down
So I conclude test cricket allows mediocre players like above (limited skills &
techniques) to excel in tests, but thoroughly exposed in ODI's
>if a case can be made that it requires superior skill set to
>score runs in ODI (which SMG/Mohinder lack), then a stronger
>case can be made that it requires even better skill set to
>save ur wicket in test cricket when the bowlers are
Then how do you explain 99% of the batsman actually safeguard their wickets
more easily in tests than ODI's (difference in averages). Doesn't that imply it
is easier to defend your wicket in tests rather than ODI's & hence tests are
easier to bat than ODI's
Here are my points,
A batsman has higher %age of getting out in the following conditions
1) When he is throwing caution into the wind (80%)
2) The conditions are extremely bowler-friendly (60%)
3) The attack is very lethal (50%)
In ODI's he always faces situation 1), rarely 2), but 3) quite often (although
a scaled down version)
In tests he faces rarely 1), once in every 10 innings condition 2) & frequently
3)
If you analyse about these factors you still have more chance of getting out in
ODI's than tests.
And please dont mention about the close-in fielders, I really find it sick when
people use this as a defence.
A long-off is as lethal in helping to take a wicket in ODI's as a fourth slip
in tests. Botomline there are 11 fielders who are willing to take all the
chances you offer to them in both tests & ODI's
Finally, I really dont expect anyone to agree with me on this subject (It is
too blasphemous for many to even think about it), but it would open your mind
if you think about the above points I mentioned
Cheers,
Roshan
RoshanCat
>RoshanCat wrote:
>
>> From an old posting of mine...............for the benefit of RK,
>
>international cricketers, would have the exact opposite view.
>
>Test batting is a "test" of technique, durability, skill, tenacity,
>and brains -- the ability to change your game according to
>the situation.
>
>ODI batting is a test of uhh.. umm.. lemme see.. the ability
>to slog the ball over the infield in the first 15 overs, to take
>quick singles, and throw bat blindly at ball in the last 4-5
>overs. It largely requires a quick eye, a strong arm, and
>fast feet (Inzy not withstanding:-)
>
>Not much of a contest in my view, but clearly your view differs.
I dont expect anyone to agree on this topic, but please go thru my other
responses on this topic & add your precious 2 cents worth
Cheers,
Roshan
R. Bharat Rao
> From an old posting of mine...............for the benefit of RK,
Your opinion Mate. But I, and I would suspect that 95% of
international cricketers, would have the exact opposite view.
Test batting is a "test" of technique, durability, skill, tenacity,
and brains -- the ability to change your game according to
the situation.
ODI batting is a test of uhh.. umm.. lemme see.. the ability
to slog the ball over the infield in the first 15 overs, to take
quick singles, and throw bat blindly at ball in the last 4-5
overs. It largely requires a quick eye, a strong arm, and
fast feet (Inzy not withstanding:-)
Not much of a contest in my view, but clearly your view differs.
Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao E-mail:bha...@scr.siemens.com
Adaptive Information & Signal Processing, Siemens Corporate Research
US Mail: 755 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540
Phones: (609)734-6531(O) (609)734-6565(F) (609)371-1607(H)
R. Bharat Rao
highly skilled boxers, mano-a-mano, able to use their
own offensive and defensive skills to the fullest. The
winner is the last man left standing.
ODI cricket, with all its restrictions, (no bouncers,
limited overs from each bowler, fielding restrictions,
dibbly dob 5th bowlers) is akin to putting each boxer
in a ring with 100 drunks. The winner is the boxer
who knocks out the most drunks.
That does test something -- I'm just not sure exactly what!
Lawrence Cavedon
>Test cricket is like a championship boxing fight. Two
>highly skilled boxers, mano-a-mano, able to use their
>own offensive and defensive skills to the fullest. The
>winner is the last man left standing.
>ODI cricket, with all its restrictions, (no bouncers,
>limited overs from each bowler, fielding restrictions,
>dibbly dob 5th bowlers) is akin to putting each boxer
>in a ring with 100 drunks. The winner is the boxer
>who knocks out the most drunks.
Good analogy! Basically, doing well in either type of batting requires
both skill and some slices of luck. In Test cricket, there is more
emphasis on certain skills (because the bowler has his full armoury)
than in ODI, while in ODI all batsmen take more risks and therefore
rely on luck (i.e. things going their way) more than they do in Test.
If needing luck to more go your way is a defn of "harder" than, yes,
that would make ODI batting "harder". That's why batting avgs *tend*
to be lower in ODI than Test---you can't rely on luck going your way
all the time. But Test cricket is a greater test of skill---i.e. if
you have a technical weakness, it's going to be exposed more readily
in Test rather than ODI.
So following Bharat's analogy, in ODI you're relying on those 100
drunks not getting in a lucky punch, as well as your own skills :-)
L
RoshanCat
>Test cricket is like a championship boxing fight. Two
>highly skilled boxers, mano-a-mano, able to use their
>own offensive and defensive skills to the fullest. The
>winner is the last man left standing.
>
>ODI cricket, with all its restrictions, (no bouncers,
>limited overs from each bowler, fielding restrictions,
>dibbly dob 5th bowlers) is akin to putting each boxer
>in a ring with 100 drunks. The winner is the boxer
>who knocks out the most drunks.
>
Well, all these are abstract isn't it?, Even I can give an analogy inn the
above lines & make you feel ODI > test cricket. But you are missing my point. I
love watching test cricket over ODI, I love bowling in test cricket over ODI,
but from a batsman point of view tell me which is easier???
I'll ask you a personal question, when you go out to bat which one of the
following is comfortable to you?
I)
a) going out to bat in the first innings of a longer version of the game with a
decent attack on a decent pitch
b) going out to bat in the first innings of a limited over game (with all the
restrictions you mentioned above) but knowing that your opposition has a ver
strong batting line up
PS: Only in ODI's even the opposition batsman play a ver important role in your
dismissal.
For eg: If you are playing SLK in a decent pitch, the very fact that they can
chase anything will make you panic & hence lose your wicket
II)
a) Going out to bat in the second innings to save your side by probably having
to bat out for a day (you have the option of drawing a match)
b) Going out to bat while chasing a mammoth 300 runs put by the oppostion
III
a) Going out to bat on a minefield & a lethal bowler
b) having to chase 60 runs in 6 overs
Cheers,
Roshan
Dhruv Gupta
RoshanCat wrote in message <19990723141346...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>
>>As a result, batsman with fatal technical problem can get
>>severly exposed in test cricket than ODI
>
>You are making the grave mistake of having technique (that too the sole
>technique of defending) as the sole criteria of judging the batsman.
>Isn't R'kash, Hussain, Langer, Horne, Twose also technically deficient
(they
>cant score runs of good balls usually) but still they are more successful
in
>tests than ODI's.
>
>The technique you are talking about is the sole technique of defending or
>keeping the ball down
>
>So I conclude test cricket allows mediocre players like above (limited
skills &
>techniques) to excel in tests, but thoroughly exposed in ODI's
I think that test and ODI batting test different things:
Test Batting:
1. Batting against aggressive attacks (bouncers, slip fielders)
2. "Pure" Batting technique - this is vague, but I mean classic shotmaking
skills
3. Mental toughness - a quick fire 35 vs. a fought out double century
ODI Batting:
1. Ability to score quickly - this is an important skill involving the
ability to score boundaries and take the quick singles
2. Luck - when you are hitting out, you are giving up a certain amount of
control over your fate. Whereas in Test cricket, if you are mentally tough
enough you can avoid some of the vagaries of luck, in ODI cricket, in order
to win you need to take risks that are subject to wild luck.
I would also argue that there is *generally* more pressure in Tests then in
ODI, because:
1. You are expected to score more in a test and not just throw away your
wicket
2. With the proliferation of ODIs, winning or losing an ODI just doesn't
matter too much. Does anybody care who won a triangular tournament 4 years
ago?
3. There are some exceptions - I think that World Cups' semi-final and
final games put more pressure than most test innings.
With these arguments, I would say that Test cricket is far more a battle of
skills, whereas an ODI is determined partially by skills, but by a lot of
luck.
The fact that useless bowlers get wickets in ODIs whereas they can do
nothing in Tests reinforces this argument. Since bowlers don't have the
same restrictions in Test matches, one would expect that good ODI bowlers
would be able to do even better when there are no restrictions. The fact
that many fail implies, IMO, that in ODIs batsmen are more likely to throw
away there wickets playing silly shots and luck playing a greater part.
Don't get me wrong, I love watching an exciting ODI innings (Waugh vs. South
Africa in the Super Six), but a purer test of a batsman's ability comes from
Tests.
Cheers
Dhruv
RoshanCat
Good points again, but many are making the mistake of watching a test & ODI
cricket. Personally I love watchin test cricket, that has never been my point.
In fact, I have asked three specific questions to Bharat as a batsman. Just put
yourself in the batsmen shoes & answer those questions honestly
Cheers,
Roshan
R. Bharat Rao
> I dont expect anyone to agree on this topic, but please go thru my other
> responses on this topic & add your precious 2 cents worth
Geez Roshan, why post a topic like this, and then get irritated
when people disagree with you?
RoshanCat
>both skill and some slices of luck. In Test cricket, there is more
>emphasis on certain skills (because the bowler has his full armoury)
>than in ODI, while in ODI all batsmen take more risks and therefore
>rely on luck (i.e. things going their way) more than they do in Test.
>If needing luck to more go your way is a defn of "harder" than, yes,
>that would make ODI batting "harder". That's why batting avgs *tend*
>to be lower in ODI than Test---you can't rely on luck going your way
>all the time. But Test cricket is a greater test of skill---i.e. if
>you have a technical weakness, it's going to be exposed more readily
>in Test rather than ODI.
>
>So following Bharat's analogy, in ODI you're relying on those 100
>drunks not getting in a lucky punch, as well as your own skills :-)
>
Great!!! now we are getting closer. you are saying
1) To succeed in tests you need technique (atleast the technique to defend &
that is sufficient enough) against good bowlers
2) To succed in ODI's you need
a)hitting abilty against mediocre bowlers
b)good slice of luck
If X wants to become a serious cricketer he can get
(1) by hours & hours of practice
(2a)by hours & hours of practice
How do we get 2b? The very fact that we are leaving it to fate (esp, in a
matches of a must win situation), isn't it harder?
So as a batsman just like any other human being, doesn't he feel very
comfortable when he actually in control of things rather than leaving it to
fate.
It is always *this* factor which makes me find it easier to bat in longer
versions than in shorter versions & hence the topic
Cheers,
Roshan
RoshanCat
>when people disagree with you?
Honestly I'm not irritated at all. Come one, a guy who can take Indian team
performances so calmly should definitely be having a little bit more patince
than you have attributed
Cheers,
Roshan
Rohan Chandran
>I)
>a) going out to bat in the first innings of a longer version of the game with
>
>b) going out to bat in the first innings of a limited over game (with all the
>restrictions you mentioned above) but knowing that your opposition has a ver
>strong batting line up
I would be infinitely happier going in in scenario b). From a
perspective of success vs failure. Scenario a) however, would actually
mean a lot more, but that's a different debate.
>II)
>a) Going out to bat in the second innings to save your side by probably having
>to bat out for a day (you have the option of drawing a match)
>
>b) Going out to bat while chasing a mammoth 300 runs put by the oppostion
b), anyday. And that's not just because of the way I bat :-)
>III
>a) Going out to bat on a minefield & a lethal bowler
>
>b) having to chase 60 runs in 6 overs
This is the easiest one of the lot. I'd fancy my chances of succeeding
in situation b) a lot lot more than situation a). However, it would be
situation a) that actually questions my credentials as a batsman.
Your arguments, I submit are based on a flawed premise. You confuse
statistical differences with qualitative differences. Sure, batsmen
average in the mid-30's in OD cricket, and the mid-40's in Test
cricket. There are pretty obvious reasons for that, and none of them
is to do with the level of difficulty involved in making runs. Do you
really think it is *harder* for Tendulkar to score an ODI 50 than a
Test 50 ? Ask him, if you don't believe me.
Rohan.
RoshanCat
>really think it is *harder* for Tendulkar to score an ODI 50 than a
>Test 50 ?
Runs can be scored more easily in ODI's than in tests, but you also have more
chance of getting out in ODI's than tests (after all that is what averages are
suggesting) Since getting out implies no further participation in the match, I
personally feel it is difficult for me to play the shorter version than the
longer one
Cheers,
Roshan
Sridhar
>
> RK, please explain why do batsmen have better test averages than ODI averages
> (despite in ODI you get to face Kenya, Scot, B'desh & dibbly dobbly bowlers)
> rationally & I'll accept test batting is difficult. Till then all the
all along, you've been saying "batting" in tests is easier than
in odi's but you seem to've based that premise on the fact that people
(other than bevan) score more runs in tests. don't forget you have
to weigh the outcome (runs) against expectation.
to give you a weightlifting (actually power lifting) analogy, it's
like saying deadlifts are easier than the bench-press because you can
lift more weight. but in competition, it's the deadlift that requires
stricter discipline and form - else you'll actually break your back.
besides, the performance measures for odi and test batting
are quite different, batting average being just one common denom,
and there are any number of egs to suggest that being
good at one doesn't guarantee you'll be good at the other. for this
very reason, i doubt if we can have a universal agreement that one
is easier than the other. or vice versa, for that matter.
> Cheers,
> Roshan
Ragupati - Chandrasekaran
>
> All good points, why does 99% of the batsman have a better test average than an
> ODI average?
roshan,
that has more to do with the nature of the two forms of the game than with
anythin else,IMO.the fact that most batsman have a higher avg in the test
match version doesnt necessarily indicate that ODIous batting is more
diff. than test match batting.the figure that needs to be compared(and its
a huge statistical exercise) is the proportion of the team's runs that a
particular batsman makes in both versions of the game.
>
> Why does all the players have a 100 scoring rate usually 10-15 times more in
> ODI's than in tests (i.e more innings per 100 or 50?).
which might contradict the point that u made abt run makin being diff. in
the odi's as compared to tests?
<snip>
> As a batsman myself, I dont care how many people surround me. In fact I love it
> when people surround me because it gives me loads & loads of empty space to get
> my runs. If played with the right technique (which is not difficult to get thru
> practice) IMHO all these close-in fielder are useless.
only when the batsman isnt thinkin abt the consequences of his
dismissal.IMO,there are very very few batsman that can walk in at say 50/4
and not feel the pressure of being hemmed in by the close-in fielders.as i
said before,cricket is more of a mental game than most people give it
credit for.
<snip>
>
> Finally please go thru the list of century makers in ODI & tests, you'll find
> many useless batsmen have scored a test 100, but only & only talented guys have
> scored an ODI 100
rofling at that!
Ragu[saeed's 194 in chennai vs his 188 i cal,which was the more diff eh?]
Ragupati - Chandrasekaran
>
> So you agree to the fact that you lose wickets more easily while scoring runs
> in a hurry (even against mediocre attack) to scoring runs at a leisurely pace
> (even against a lethal attack on a lethal pitch).
that is an unwarrented conclusion.yes,ur chances of being dismissed are
higher when u are lookin,more often than not,to play ur shots and the
reverse is true too.if u go into too much of a defensive shell ur chances
of being dismissed increase too cos the bowler settles into a rhythm,isnt
thinkin too much abt what u might do with his next delivery and
concentrates just on where he needs to bowl the next one.
>
> This implies that in ODI's wicket do fall more regularly than tests, which
> inturn implies batting in ODI's is more difficult (simply bcoz of the fact that
> you have more chance of getting out in an ODI)
well u score at a faster rate in odi's than tests.does that necessarily
imply that odi batting is easier?
Ragu
Mike Holmans
>
>1) To succeed in tests you need technique (atleast the technique to defend &
>that is sufficient enough) against good bowlers
No, that's not enough. You also need to be able to make runs.
In an ODI, you are unlikely to face four top-class attacking bowlers.
Only RSA that I can think of have the same top four bowlers in Tests and
ODIs. Everyone else leaves out the odd spinner or fast bowler who's an
absolute rabbit with the bat in favour of a second-rater who can hold
the bat the right way up. You are therefore under less pressure in an
ODI, because it's much less time until you get a let-up. In a Test
Match, an opening batsman is likely to have to bat for over three hours
before he gets to face a bowler who is reasonably easy to score off.
Even under these circumstances, you've still got to aim for a strike
rate of 40+/100 balls in reasonable conditions, otherwise you will be
dropped.
>2) To succed in ODI's you need
>a)hitting abilty against mediocre bowlers
>b)good slice of luck
>
>If X wants to become a serious cricketer he can get
>(1) by hours & hours of practice
>(2a)by hours & hours of practice
>
>How do we get 2b? The very fact that we are leaving it to fate (esp, in a
>matches of a must win situation), isn't it harder?
>
I think you're giving far too much weight to the luck element. For a
decent batsman, it's more a matter of avoiding bad luck in the shape of
getting tripped up by a mediocre bowler, than needing to find sackfuls
of gold under nearby toadstools.
What the luck element can do is make a second-rate batsman adequately
successful, or more than adequately, in ODIum. An awful lot of ODIs are
played on very flat pitches, and all of them are played on first day
pitches. They are usually true. Most of the ODIs in the record books
have been played in dry climates, where the ball rarely deviates much in
the air.
So, an average batsman can launch himself at a fair proportion of the
bowling without being surprised by movement in the air or off the pitch,
and he'll have a fair old chance of coming off.
It was noticeable during the recent World Cup, where the conditions were
rarely as favourable atmospherically as usual, that average batsmen were
regularly defeated by a moving ball, and that a lot of the most
successful batsmen were ones who don't have the fastest scoring rates in
ODIs generally (although their WC strike rate was the same as their own
personal norms).
Let's try a mathematical model:
Batsman A is of average skill. In favourable conditions, what he tries
succeeds 70% of the time.
Batsman B is of high skill. What he attempts, succeeds 95% of the time
in good conditions.
In difficult conditions, assume the odds against the batsman worsen by
40%.
So now, batsman A will succeed 42% of the time, while batsman B succeeds
57% of the time.
That means that the average batsman fails more often than not, whereas
the high skill batsman succeeds more often than not.
As long as most ODIs are played in conditions favourable to the batsman,
which they are, the difference in quality is not so noticeable. Most
batsmen succeed most of the time, and scores are high.
It is perhaps interesting to speculate, after the WC's return to its
original home, whether ODIous cricket would have developed in the same
way if the World Cup had always been held in the more challenging
English conditions.
There would certainly have always been a niche for the Bevans and
Fairbrothers, who can come in down the order and push and nudge and keep
the score rattling along at a run a ball, but pinch-hitting might well
have had a less productive role.
Cheers,
Mike
--
At least the World Cup's over for another four years
Sailesh Krishnamurthy
>
> RK, please explain why do batsmen have better test averages than ODI averages
> (despite in ODI you get to face Kenya, Scot, B'desh & dibbly dobbly bowlers)
> rationally & I'll accept test batting is difficult. Till then all the
> self-alleged purists may live with the myth that test batting is difficult
>
I don't see what all the argument is about.
The average ODI innings is far shorter than the average Test innings.
275 is an excellent total score in an ODI innings. 275 is only a
respectable team score in an average test innings.
You play less overs, you score less runs. Ergo, ODI averages are less
than Test averages.
Anyway, I don't really believe that even Roshan really believes what he
is on about. Seems merely rhetoric to claim that SRT is the best batsman
today.
I don't see why you need rhetoric for that :-)
Okay okay .. I'm just kidding .. I'm an SRT fan, so bite me. Of course,
I'm always expecting more from him. Here now we can start another SRT
thread and RK can get his clothes in a bunch over people going crazy
over him.
--
Pip-pip
Sailesh (http://www.meer.net/~sailesh)
Ph: (408) 225-8035 [H]
(408) 463-3176 [W]
Aneesh Patel
RoshanCat <rosh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990723101246...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
Okay. First of all, your claim that 99% of the players have test average better
than their ODI average is an exaggeration. That can be seen from the stats
below. Out of 94 batsmen/allrounders, 68 have higher Test averages and 26 have
higher ODI averages! So 72%, not 99%, have test averages better than their ODI
averages.
In any case, there are a couple of reasons why test batting is more difficult:
1. Teams require batsmen to take bigger risks in ODIs so they just need to
bat for a shorter while. If a batsman is out for 25 off 30 deliveries in an ODI
that is a success, but if the same batsman turns in the same performance in a
Test, it would be considered a failure.
2. ODIs induce mistakes and are therefore more limiting. A good comparison
would be chess, in which the game is finished in 2 to 3 hours, vs speed-chess,
where an entire game is finished in 2 to 3 minutes. In which type of game will
more mistakes be made? Speed-chess. In which type of game would you be more
upset if you lost? regular chess. Why? Because luck plays less of a role in the
longer form of the game. So in which form of the game would you be under more
pressure? The longer form of the game. The same holds true for batting.
--- Aneesh
------------------------------------------------------------
Current Players who have batted regularly at #7 or higher
(min. 10 Test innings AND 10 ODI innings)
AUSTRALIA TEST Avg ODI Avg TEST minus ODI
MG Bevan 29.07 61.44 -32.37
GS Blewett 35.14 20.40 +14.74
ML Hayden 21.75 26.00 -4.25
IA Healy 28.09 21.00 +7.09
DS Lehmann 28.50 33.65 -5.15
DR Martyn 28.81 25.30 +3.51
TM Moody 32.57 23.29 +9.28
RT Ponting 38.25 39.45 -1.20
MJ Slater 44.61 24.07 +20.54
ME Waugh 42.85 38.58 +4.27
SR Waugh 50.81 31.99 +18.82
ENGLAND TEST Avg ODI Avg TEST minus ODI
MA Atherton 38.50 35.11 +3.39
JP Crawley 31.64 21.36 +10.28
MA Ealham 21.00 16.51 +4.49
NH Fairbrother 15.64 39.47 -23.83
GA Hick 34.40 38.94 -4.54
N Hussain 37.57 28.61 +8.96
NV Knight 27.85 39.48 -11.63
MR Ramprakash 27.15 26.50 +0.65
RC Russell 27.10 17.62 +9.48
AJ Stewart 40.63 30.16 +10.47
GP Thorpe 39.24 40.59 -1.35
INDIA TEST Avg ODI Avg TEST minus ODI
M Azharuddin 44.88 37.33 +7.55
R Dravid 54.43 37.70 +16.73
SC Ganguly 49.68 41.80 +7.88
A Jadeja 28.31 36.87 -8.56
NR Mongia 24.41 20.45 +3.96
NS Sidhu 42.13 37.09 +5.04
SR Tendulkar 54.49 42.38 +12.11
NEW ZEALAND TEST Avg ODI Avg TEST minus ODI
NJ Astle 34.77 32.72 +2.05
CL Cairns 27.19 27.41 -0.22
SP Fleming 35.97 31.83 +4.14
CZ Harris 20.25 31.16 -10.91
MJ Horne 38.24 20.00 +18.24
CD McMillan 43.66 23.64 +20.02
AC Parore 26.72 29.37 -2.65
CM Spearman 31.75 17.16 +14.59
RG Twose 27.59 35.75 -8.16
BA Young 31.78 24.52 +7.14
PAKISTAN TEST Avg ODI Avg TEST minus ODI
Aamer Sohail 36.53 32.52 +4.01
Azhar Mahmood 36.15 17.19 +18.96
Ijaz Ahmed 39.77 32.61 +7.16
Inzamam-ul-Haq 43.21 38.98 +4.23
Mohammad Wasim 33.07 26.26 +6.81
Moin Khan 29.38 24.84 +4.54
Rashid Latif 22.72 15.58 +7.14
Saeed Anwar 46.02 40.12 +5.90
Saleem Malik 43.69 32.88 +4.81
Shahid Afridi 32.18 23.86 +8.32
Wasim Akram 20.82 15.86 +4.96
Yousuf Youhana 34.50 43.35 -8.85
SOUTH AFRICA TEST Avg ODI Avg TEST minus ODI
AM Bacher 26.10 21.00 +5.10
MV Boucher 23.18 12.59 +10.59
WJ Cronje 38.50 38.16 +0.34
DJ Cullinan 43.15 34.57 +8.58
HH Gibbs 33.25 27.05 +6.20
AC Hudson 33.45 29.41 +4.04
JH Kallis 38.53 41.33 -2.80
G Kirsten 40.41 40.03 +0.38
L Klusener 27.45 45.37 -17.92
SM Pollock 32.17 27.80 +4.37
JN Rhodes 34.65 32.46 +0.19
SRI LANKA TEST Avg ODI Avg TEST minus ODI
MS Atapattu 28.89 33.33 -4.44
PA deSilva 42.86 35.65 +7.21
UC Hathurusingha 29.62 20.90 +8.72
ST Jayasuriya 45.82 28.29 +17.53
DPMdeS Jayawardene 49.64 27.81 +21.83
RS Kalpage 18.37 20.58 -2.21
RS Kaluwitharana 32.26 19.05 +13.21
RS Mahanama 29.27 29.49 -0.22
A Ranatunga 35.58 35.83 -0.25
HP Tillakaratne 38.59 29.64 +8.95
WEST INDIES TEST Avg ODI Avg TEST minus ODI
JC Adams 47.33 30.13 +17.20
KLT Arthurton 30.71 26.08 +4.63
SL Campbell 35.91 24.65 +11.26
S Chanderpaul 42.05 35.86 +6.19
RIC Holder 25.33 23.96 +1.37
CL Hooper 33.76 35.47 -1.71
RD Jacobs 32.85 28.94 +3.91
BC Lara 51.98 44.45 +7.53
JR Murray 24.13 22.60 +1.53
PV Simmons 22.26 28.93 -6.67
PA Wallace 21.46 21.30 +0.16
SC Williams 24.26 32.38 -8.12
ZIMBABWE TEST Avg ODI Avg TEST minus ODI
ADR Campbell 27.87 28.90 -1.03
SV Carlisle 19.44 19.28 +0.16
A Flower 43.54 32.52 +11.02
GW Flower 37.47 34.73 +2.74
MW Goodwin 53.60 26.84 +26.76
GJ Rennie 26.26 25.53 +0.73
PA Strang 27.66 23.53 +4.13
HH Streak 15.67 21.73 -6.06
GJ Whittall 26.80 23.37 +3.43
CB Wishart 15.36 20.12 -4.76
------------------------------------------------------------