Jump to content

Who cares about ODIs anyway?... Look forward to the Lanka Tests here


Sooda

Recommended Posts

Not really. 2003 WC final brought twice as many viewers than IndvPak T20 Final.
1 game! BIG DEAL (ODIs are played in bigger stadiums than T20 most of the times) IPL and champ's trophy are the examples of the popularity of T20. Odi world cup is the biggest event of the cricket world hence more people watch it. but the point I was trying to convey was that more people care for ODI than tests now contrasting with thread title.
Link to comment
More people care about ODI than Tests! What a dumb thread title :lol: as long as popularity is concerned T20 >>> ODI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tests Skillz are concerned ODI >> T20 >> Tests patience and boring attitude Tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ODI>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>T20
2 things: 1). OP was sarcasm/in jest. 2). :finger:
Link to comment
patience and boring attitude Skills are concerned Tests>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ODIS>>>T20.
Tests = you have enough time to let go of all the bad balls and get singles off of bad deliveries. You rarely require the skill to have a go at those good bowls. You need 100x patience in this format than the other two. ODI = You can not leave every single good ball. at times you need the skillz to take on the bowling when needed regardless of good or bad deliveries. T20 = you have to go at every ball, swing and smack or get out....skillz required as you need to know the art of following the spinning and swinging balls and still swing your bat at it.
Link to comment

You're kidding right? Tests are the most difficult of the 3 forms. You're only looking at one aspect (run-rate) of the entire game. In Tests there are pretty much always men in catching positions unlike in ODIs where there are fielding restrictions. This means that you see far fewer edges that race away to the boundary in Tests than in ODIs. In Tests, a batsmans techincal flaws once found out are exposed pretty quickly because the captains can set any field they want (almost any field) and get their bowlers to bowl accordingly. Also in the shorter formats, a lot of mishits fall safely for 1s or 2s because the fielders are right back on the boundary. If that was a test match, the fielders saving 1 (of which there are more) could easily run back and catch it. Generally speaking, in Test cricket you get away with a lot less. Not just that but in Tests, its not good enough to simply dominate for 1-2 hours (which in most cases will win you an ODI, and in all cases will win you a T20) but you need to be able to maintain dominance over your opposition. This is not at all easy to do when there are 30 hours of cricket to be played over the course of 5 days. Its not enough to maintain 100% concentration for 2 hrs, you have to be 100% on for all 5 days. Look at the 4th Test (Ind vs Aus) in 2008, practically every session a different team was on top. No matter what you say, its well acknowledged (by players, coaches, commentators and most fans) that Test cricket is the ultimate form of the game. The only skill that is more difficult in the shorter forms of the game is fielding.

Link to comment
1.You're kidding right? Tests are the most difficult of the 3 forms. You're only looking at one aspect (run-rate) of the entire game. In Tests there are pretty much always men in catching positions unlike in ODIs where there are fielding restrictions. This means that you see far fewer edges that race away to the boundary in Tests than in ODIs. In Tests, a batsmans techincal flaws once found out are exposed pretty quickly because the captains can set any field they want (almost any field) and get their bowlers to bowl accordingly. Also in the shorter formats, a lot of mishits fall safely for 1s or 2s because the fielders are right back on the boundary. If that was a test match, the fielders saving 1 (of which there are more) could easily run back and catch it. Generally speaking, in Test cricket you get away with a lot less. 2. Not just that but in Tests, its not good enough to simply dominate for 1-2 hours (which in most cases will win you an ODI, and in all cases will win you a T20) but you need to be able to maintain dominance over your opposition. This is not at all easy to do when there are 30 hours of cricket to be played over the course of 5 days. Its not enough to maintain 100% concentration for 2 hrs, you have to be 100% on for all 5 days. Look at the 4th Test (Ind vs Aus) in 2008, practically every session a different team was on top. 3. No matter what you say, its well acknowledged (by players, coaches, commentators and most fans) that Test cricket is the ultimate form of the game. The only skill that is more difficult in the shorter forms of the game is fielding.
1. There is still 11 players on the field. You have field restrictions in ODI but you also have over restrictions (50) in ODI. Tests can help one practice their shots and nothing else. 2. To *maintain* the dominance you have to be very patience and spend the time and only take those safe runs from bad bowlers. Patience comes hand in hand with concentration. 3. The only reason that test format is called the "ultimate" form of the game is because every one is afraid that the format might become extinct in the coming years. It will :yes:. the max is 25 years for test cricket. The number of tests played are already decreased per year. almost half the tests are drawn which keeps the fans away (majority). The pitches now a days deteriorate by the end of the 3rd day which slows down the game even more.
Link to comment
Tests = you have enough time to let go of all the bad balls and get singles off of bad deliveries. You rarely require the skill to have a go at those good bowls. You need 100x patience in this format than the other two. ODI = You can not leave every single good ball. at times you need the skillz to take on the bowling when needed regardless of good or bad deliveries. T20 = you have to go at every ball, swing and smack or get out....skillz required as you need to know the art of following the spinning and swinging balls and still swing your bat at it.
swinging balls in t20? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
Link to comment
1. There is still 11 players on the field. You have field restrictions in ODI but you also have over restrictions (50) in ODI. Tests can help one practice their shots and nothing else. 2. To *maintain* the dominance you have to be very patience and spend the time and only take those safe runs from bad bowlers. Patience comes hand in hand with concentration. 3. The only reason that test format is called the "ultimate" form of the game is because every one is afraid that the format might become extinct in the coming years. It will :yes:. the max is 25 years for test cricket. The number of tests played are already decreased per year. almost half the tests are drawn which keeps the fans away (majority). The pitches now a days deteriorate by the end of the 3rd day which slows down the game even more.
So basically you're saying Pakistan are the no.1 cricket side in the world because they won the T20 world cup? You're part of a new generation that simply doesnt understand cricket at all if thats what you believe. Why stop at T20? The Hong Kong Sixes just took place. There you have to score even faster. Hong Kong are dominating that, so that must mean they are the best side in the world. 1-1 would be the ultimate cricket game of course right. You have NO CLUE!!! None! Zero! Absolutely nothing. There is a reason why you see all these upset victories in the shorter forms of the game, such as BD beating Ind or BD beating Aus or BD beating Saf, Zimbabwe beating Australia, Ireland beating Pakistan, etc. You don't ever see them in Test cricket. Its because in Test cricket you cant just be the better team for a few hours or a few sessions or even a couple of days. You have to be the best team for 5 days and thats why the best teams win the Test matches. That doesnt simply mean and shutting up shop. Look at what happened to England in day 5 of the 2nd Test vs Australia in 2006, or India in the 4th Test of 2008 vs Australia. It is not at all easy because of the men that are constantly in attacking positions. Its not until teams get to about 4/400 that the field starts to spread back. Thats usually when you see the lower-order sloggers (who do reasonably well in ODIs and T20) do well in Tests. Again you're only looking at the scoring rate and assuming its more difficult because you have to score faster. Let me tell you something, in my own experience it is much easier to come out and slog and get a quick fire 30 or 40 than it is to stay in and build an innings and get to a century. Look at Brendon McCullum, he carves up T20 but fails miserably very often in Tests. Ponting is the opposite. Like him or not, everyone in the world would have to agree Ponting is a better batsman that McCullum. Ponting can play more shots, and has a better technique. I can give you a hundred-thousand more examples like that but you wont get it because you simply get excited by the single-mindedness ("OOH ... BALL WENT FAR") on ODI and T20 cricket.
Link to comment
1.So basically you're saying Pakistan are the no.1 cricket side in the world because they won the T20 world cup? You're part of a new generation that simply doesnt understand cricket at all if thats what you believe. Why stop at T20? The Hong Kong Sixes just took place. There you have to score even faster. Hong Kong are dominating that, so that must mean they are the best side in the world. 1-1 would be the ultimate cricket game of course right. You have NO CLUE!!! None! Zero! Absolutely nothing. There is a reason why you see all these upset victories in the shorter forms of the game, such as BD beating Ind or BD beating Aus or BD beating Saf, Zimbabwe beating Australia, Ireland beating Pakistan, etc. You don't ever see them in Test cricket. Its because in Test cricket you cant just be the better team for a few hours or a few sessions or even a couple of days. You have to be the best team for 5 days and thats why the best teams win the Test matches. That doesnt simply mean and shutting up shop. Look at what happened to England in day 5 of the 2nd Test vs Australia in 2006, or India in the 4th Test of 2008 vs Australia. It is not at all easy because of the men that are constantly in attacking positions. Its not until teams get to about 4/400 that the field starts to spread back. Thats usually when you see the lower-order sloggers (who do reasonably well in ODIs and T20) do well in Tests. Again you're only looking at the scoring rate and assuming its more difficult because you have to score faster. Let me tell you something, in my own experience it is much easier to come out and slog and get a quick fire 30 or 40 than it is to stay in and build an innings and get to a century. Look at Brendon McCullum, he carves up T20 but fails miserably very often in Tests. Ponting is the opposite. Like him or not, everyone in the world would have to agree Ponting is a better batsman that McCullum. Ponting can play more shots, and has a better technique. I can give you a hundred-thousand more examples like that but you wont get it because you simply get excited by the single-mindedness ("OOH ... BALL WENT FAR") on ODI and T20 cricket.
1. I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said T20 requires more talent than ODI or Tests. Tests are long and boring which does not mean that they require more talent than the other two. ODI and T20 require both technique and the understanding of the game but they require you to think, play, manage and execute the plans faster. Who the hell are you to tell me that I have "no clue" about cricket? huh nerd? I can prove that I have better knowledge of cricket than you will ever do. 2. There is nothing such as "upset" victories. The phrase is often only used when a higher ranked team is beaten by a lower ranked team. This is not against the cricketing concepts. The better team wins on their day, simple as that. The so called "upsets" are 100x better than drawn test matches after 5 days. It's disgusting to have no result after 5 days. Test format simply flaws for not getting results in numerous games. 3. Scoring faster is harder, end of story. There are many examples of Test greats who have sucked at ODIs and have been dropped. for one example, sunny gavaskar is a top class test player yet never got his ODI caree going. I can come up with many examples as such. How old are you? "BALL WENT FAR" is exciting? hell yeah it is...That's what every one wants to see because you need the ability to time the ball exceptionally well to send the ball sailing over the boundary. Don't tell me timing the ball is not part of the game. All six 6s by UV were scored from the meat of the bat in the T20 world cup, will you call that cricket without talent? The whole concept of how the players continued their career from Tests to Odis has changed in past decade or two. In the old times, one would have to prove his ability in the test matches and then gain a chance in the ODI squad. Now it's the other way around. You are like my dad who would never come out of his "OLD TIMES and all the OLD IS GOLD" sayings. Times have changed and *WELCOME TO THE FUTURE 2009* :hatsoff:
Link to comment

Im not debating what is more exciting. I hate Test match draws as much as anyone else and I wont deny how exciting the shorter format of the game is. I love watching the IPL (dont like the idea of a T20 world cup but thats a different story). What I am debating is the fact that you seem to think that just because you have to score faster for a shorter period of time, its harder. Scoring faster yes maybe harder but in Tests you have to score more and for longer. That requires execution of good technique over a long period of time. Its not as easy as simply defending everything and waiting for a bad ball. If it was that simple, then Aakash Chopra would still be in the side. Tests require batsman to use judgement as to which balls to attack, and which to defend. Over the course of 5 days, when there are attacking men around the bat ready to pounce on your mistakes, this can be quite tough. Do not underestimate the difficulty in having to concentrate for long periods of time. Yes Yuvraj has a lot of talent and his six 6s were amazing but explain to me why he has then struggled in Tests. Dave Warner is another example of someone who isnt even in the starting XI of his states 4-day side, but is in the national T20 side. The reason why T20s are not a true form of the game in my opinion is that there is a fair bit of luck involved. Very often it involves swinging the bat. Yes there are some proper cricket shots but in most games after 6 overs they push 5 men back in the deep and have 4 saving one and no one catching. There is plenty of room to work the ball around for easy singles. You dont get that luxury in Tests. The reason batsman score slowly in Tests is that the bowling, the field placements, and the length of the format is such that if you want to score the onus is on you (the batsman) to take the risk and the attacking fielders are there ready to pounce. The only reason T20 is the future is because it generates money, and people that don't know much about cricket or necessarily like cricket might start liking T20. That doesn't equate to being a more difficult form of the game. Ive seen many T20 games where the game was over in the first 5 overs. After that the rest of the game is boring because the outcome is known anyway. Yes there are 4s and 6s but they wont change the result. What is good about Tests is that you might have an off-session (a team might collapse in the first session) but you can always come back and thats why the better team over the course of the 5-days wins. I challenge you to find me any person in the cricketing world (current player, former player, commentator, current coach, former coach, administrator, etc.) that does not think that Test cricket is the ultimate form of the game. Its not because they are worried that the format might be extinct. I think its more likely that they actually know what they are talking about than all of them being on a secret mission to save test cricket, from a format of the game that generates MORE money. Ian Chappell summed it up best "Test cricket is needed to produce the talented cricketers. Limited overs cricket is needed to generate the money."

Link to comment
Tests = you have enough time to let go of all the bad balls and get singles off of bad deliveries. You rarely require the skill to have a go at those good bowls. You need 100x patience in this format than the other two. ODI = You can not leave every single good ball. at times you need the skillz to take on the bowling when needed regardless of good or bad deliveries. T20 = you have to go at every ball, swing and smack or get out....skillz required as you need to know the art of following the spinning and swinging balls and still swing your bat at it.
bhai why don't you give the same assessment in terms of bowling.....and then you shall see the truth. :icflove:
Link to comment

^^

I cant cope with the hammering were recieving so Im in denial OK??? Lets IGNORE. And pretend its not happening.
I was only joking with the 'lets not care' thing. Was just pissed off at losing so badly ODIs matter loads, but we miss test criciket, tis been a while. As you say MB too many meaningless ones, the tour to WI for instance. Even this one could have been 5 matches.
Link to comment
Im not debating what is more exciting. I hate Test match draws as much as anyone else and I wont deny how exciting the shorter format of the game is. I love watching the IPL (dont like the idea of a T20 world cup but thats a different story). ...BS... Ian Chappell summed it up best "Test cricket is needed to produce the talented cricketers. Limited overs cricket is needed to generate the money."
:fail: TOO STUBBORN :fail:
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...