Why are players always rated on the basis of their test performances only

[MechEng]

While test cricket tests a batsman's ability to concentrate for long hours, limited overs cricket tests a player's state of awareness and the ability to find gaps/ play big shots. You cannot expect Alastair Cook or Dravid to score 100 runs in last 10 overs while Dhoni and DeVilliers can achieve the same.

 

I'm not saying that one format is better than other, but all three formats test different skill sets of a cricketer.

[Vilander]

2 hours ago, MechEng said:

While test cricket tests a batsman's ability to concentrate for long hours, limited overs cricket tests a player's state of awareness and the ability to find gaps/ play big shots. You cannot expect Alastair Cook or Dravid to score 100 runs in last 10 overs while Dhoni and DeVilliers can achieve the same.

 

I'm not saying that one format is better than other, but all three formats test different skill sets of a cricketer.

Dravid has instances where he has scored quickly and scored importantly match winning innings in ODI, he did captain t20 side. Dhoni has captained a test side poorly, had a poor test career too, so people tend to rate Dravid highly as a batsman. In Alistair cook v De villers its just a case of one doing better than the other when they play together in tests. De Villers is a phenomenal LOI batsman. Very good predominantly LOI cricketers doing well in tests is rare, say a maxwell this series.

[Brainfade]

Stodgy elitism, pure and simple.  And a bit of nostalgia.  People like me who grew up in the 80s and 90s seem to love to extol how great things were back in their day, how test cricket is the ultimate, and how we must all accept that every other form of cricket is inferior.  What they don't realize is that most tests "back in the day" were boring, most of them finishing as meandering draws.  We looked forward to things like the mandatory overs on Day 5 when Sunil Gavaskar would imitate the bowling action of Abdul Qadir.  Every now and then there was an interesting match.  We must thank ODIs for injecting a sense of urgency, athleticism and result-oriented thinking into test cricket.  

 

Every form of cricket has its nuances.  Instead of complaining about what is better or worse, we must enjoy the variety.  

[MechEng]

2 hours ago, Vilander said:

Dravid has instances where he has scored quickly and scored importantly match winning innings in ODI, he did captain t20 side. Dhoni has captained a test side poorly, had a poor test career too, so people tend to rate Dravid highly as a batsman. In Alistair cook v De villers its just a case of one doing better than the other when they play together in tests. De Villers is a phenomenal LOI batsman. Very good predominantly LOI cricketers doing well in tests is rare, say a maxwell this series.

Dravid cannot score 100 odd runs in last 10 overs of a limited overs cricket (remember Pakistan game in Champions trophy 2009?), even though he's very good in LOI's.

 

 

[MechEng]

1 hour ago, Brainfade said:

Stodgy elitism, pure and simple.  And a bit of nostalgia.  People like me who grew up in the 80s and 90s seem to love to extol how great things were back in their day, how test cricket is the ultimate, and how we must all accept that every other form of cricket is inferior.  What they don't realize is that most tests "back in the day" were boring, most of them finishing as meandering draws.  We looked forward to things like the mandatory overs on Day 5 when Sunil Gavaskar would imitate the bowling action of Abdul Qadir.  Every now and then there was an interesting match.  We must thank ODIs for injecting a sense of urgency, athleticism and result-oriented thinking into test cricket.  

 

Every form of cricket has its nuances.  Instead of complaining about what is better or worse, we must enjoy the variety.  

I came up with this thread topic after thinking about Pujara's 500 ball double. While Pujara's concentration level is extraordinary, does that make him a better player than Aaron Finch who is a T20 specialist?

 

Test players are great, no arguments there. But are we showing lesser respect to LOI players as well?

[Brainfade]

7 minutes ago, MechEng said:

I came up with this thread topic after thinking about Pujara's 500 ball double. While Pujara's concentration level is extraordinary, does that make him a better player than Aaron Finch who is a T20 specialist?

 

Test players are great, no arguments there. But are we showing lesser respect to LOI players as well?

Like I said, stodgy elitism of the old-timers.  They don't recognize the talent that it takes to score at will - hand-eye coordination, bat-speed, stamina, athleticism and often, coolness under pressure.  

[BeautifulGame]

Different People have different opinions .Older generation tends to rate test cricket more because they grew up with it and younger generation generally rates ODI and T20S more .

 

Since most of the cricketers and media they generally try to enforce their view as correct.

 

Hardly matters.

 

 

[kosingh]

I don't think Playere are rated on test performance only. Look at Dhoni, Rohit, Yuvi etc are players who have received plenty of respect, and it's not because of their performances in test cricket.

[Vilander]

2 hours ago, MechEng said:

Dravid cannot score 100 odd runs in last 10 overs of a limited overs cricket (remember Pakistan game in Champions trophy 2009?), even though he's very good in LOI's.

 

 

he can throw his bat around with 75% efficiency if you will as some of the best LOI players. The reason why batting is difficult in cricket in general is because it only takes one ball get dismissed,the bowler gets several chances. In tests the batsman gets 2 chances but the bowler gets unlimited. In LOI the batsman only has to face a limited number of deliveries and can chance himself against the bowling and if it comes off for say 5-10 over he can still come off with a good innings. There are 10 wickets for 50 or 20 overs. But in tests the batsman can not chance himself as he has to make the team play 2-3 days of cricket facing anywhere around 200 overs , the bowler will keep coming at him without restrictions. But if there are players who can bat long durations days and score at a high rate say 65 to 100 strike rate they are great and even better than regular test batsmen which is what Sachin,Sehwag,Hayden etc are.

[NameGoesHere]

Because it's the only form of the game that shapes us, and ultimately matters.

 

FINIS.

[Ultimate_Game]

Don't agree that's true OP. Players such as Bevan and Dhoni are rated quite highly and will probably be in lot of people's ATG XI for odis. Tests is just one format and doesn't mean performances in odis & T20s don't count.

 

For me a gun shorter format player is as important, if not more, as a gun Test player. After all you don't win WCs and other ICC tourneys on the back of Test only stars.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Ultimate_Game

[Stuge]

Hence Player who can adapt to all three format is the best ,

[chewy]

it's a cliche, but Test format is true test of player's ability and mental strength...both batsman or bowler

a batsman surviving on tricky pitches with no over limits on opposition bowlers

a bowler tolling on flat tracks

 

in ODIs and T20s, a player's weakness can only be exploited for short periods

[gattaca]

Quality vs quantity can be applied to test vs Loi players. Why do we see very less good test players than loi players

[Muloghonto]

13 hours ago, MechEng said:

While test cricket tests a batsman's ability to concentrate for long hours, limited overs cricket tests a player's state of awareness and the ability to find gaps/ play big shots. You cannot expect Alastair Cook or Dravid to score 100 runs in last 10 overs while Dhoni and DeVilliers can achieve the same.

 

I'm not saying that one format is better than other, but all three formats test different skill sets of a cricketer.

i used to think the same in the 90s, where i saw batsmanship in the 90s to be 'apples and oranges' for Tests & ODIs. 

But nowadays, the odds are so heavily stacked in favour of batsmen in LOIs that i just don't rate ODI batting to be equal to test batting anymore. 

With NRR in tests creeping to over 50 and ODI batsmen not facing even half the challenges of the 90s, i think Tests are just more challenging for batting than LOIs. 

For bowling, same thing really and i think LOIs have been too restrictive on the leg-side wide, where practically any play-n-miss is a wide. ODI bowling is now all about blockhole or good length bowling, with practically zero desire to specifically attack stumps and pick up wickets. 

 

[Gollum]

Same reason Classical Chess>Rapid>Blitz

[mancalledsting]

Higher standard of cricket. 

[Pollack]

Personal opinion: I rate ODI's most.

Cricket is as much about skills as it is about temperament.A player with little to no skills can get away in tests but a player with no temperament cannot get away in ODIs though he can in t20s.

ODI>Test>>>>>>>>>>>T20

[goose]

A fine restaurant is known by the quality of its main course and wine. 

[vivek04]

Because

1. no field restrictions.

2. no bowling rules restrictions

3. play on tricky 5th day pitch instead of road of odi/t20.

4. old ball / reverse swing test

5. mental strenght

6. test the technique of boler / batsmen.

etc.........