Test cricket tests your technique, temperament, patience, character ....it is the the "real" test. What is the basis of this judgement by cricket old-timers and aficionados ?

[rangeelaraja]

1) Technique, Temperament,  Patience, Character  = Test cricket

 

 

2) Temperament to break down a run chase targeting specific bowlers,  skill to slog successfully at will, skill to  steal a game with quick singles and twos, skills to play scoop shot, switch hit ..etc    = LOI cricket ( ODIS + T20 )

 

 

 

If  1  is more valuable than  2  ( I wonder what is the basis of this judgement by cricket old-timers and aficionados )

 

........then the likes of VVS, Steve Waugh, Justin Langer..perhaps Dravid...all great Test batsmen should have been smash hits on LOI cricket.  But they were ok to mediocre. ..

 

The reality is that  the brute batting skills/talent required for LOI are significantly more than Test cricket.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2021 by rangeelaraja

[Chakdephatte]

Bull's eye. This is a cliché statement used by buddhas(not in a bad taste) who, at best, played or watched cricket in the '80s. Some people say it just to sound intellectual. "Cricket is not for entertainment" is their only defense, which, if you ask me, is BS.

 

Limited overs cricket forces one to change his natural style. You may need to chase 250 in 50 overs someday and 350 the other. In tests, you can play the way you want to. In tests, you need technique and temperament, and not talent. Even bowlers need to keep evolving, otherwise they will become predictable. Test format is more testing and requires better stamina, but not the hardest to adapt.

 

I like test cricket but these cricket pundits are unnecessary disrespecting LOI cricket. Sooner or later, LOI will take precedence for everyone.

Edited October 10, 2021 by Chakdephatte

[Adamant]

@rangeelaraja  @Chakdephatte

 

That's a very biased way of looking into it, 

Why didn't  you list out all the loi players who failed spectacularly in test cricket. 

If the skills and talent required in lois are significantly more than why didn't they manage to succeed in tests. 

And I am quite sure the number of loi specialists are definitely more than number of test specialists. 

[Jay]

Test cricket you face the best bowlers over longer tougher spells. Test cricket allows for 2 bouncers an over. Red ball swings. 

 

You have to face the best bowlers consistently. Not the case with odi where u get 2 new balls, rule restrictions, power play with no fielders in the outfield. 

 

In tests you can play according to whole you are bowling to. Batsman needs to adjust constantly. 

 

Test cricket is best cricket. Real cricket.

[Lone Wolf]

Actually ODI is easiest format these days.  Two new balls,  ultra fast outfields,  no reverse..  Field restrictions.  What more do you want? 

T20 margin of error is very low & is highly competitive.  5 fielder outside the circle after PP. 

Test cricket is toughest format of them all.. Coz of pitches & conditions & quality bowlers. 

ODI cricket is played on patta these days.  The flair it had is long gone after 2015 WC

 

 

[Mariyam]

22 minutes ago, Jay said:

Test cricket you face the best bowlers over longer tougher spells. Test cricket allows for 2 bouncers an over. Red ball swings. 

 

You have to face the best bowlers consistently. Not the case with odi where u get 2 new balls, rule restrictions, power play with no fielders in the outfield. 

 

In tests you can play according to whole you are bowling to. Batsman needs to adjust constantly. 

 

Test cricket is best cricket. Real cricket.

This only proves that test cricket is more testing (pun unintended) for batsmen.

 

For bowlers, it's T20 cricket that is more of a challenge. Due to number of bouncers rule, field restrictions etc etc.

[Chakdephatte]

40 minutes ago, Adamant said:

Why didn't  you list out all the loi players who failed spectacularly in test cricket. 

Coz it proves nothing. One might say Yuvraj is not a successful test batsman, does not mean it's the hardest format. Similarly, if Pujara is not a good ODI player, it does not mean it's harder than test. 

 

45 minutes ago, Adamant said:

That's a very biased way of looking into it, 

Bias is a human trait, it is always there.

1 of 2

[Chakdephatte]

47 minutes ago, Adamant said:

And I am quite sure the number of loi specialists are definitely more than number of test specialists. 

That's because most batsmen choose shorter formats over test. New generation batsmen practice thinking of t20s in mind. It has already taken precedence over other formats among the young. Even former cricketer are supporting it now. Earlier, they were saying it would kill cricket, but things are changing now.

[Chakdephatte]

52 minutes ago, Adamant said:

@rangeelaraja  @Chakdephatte

 

That's a very biased way of looking into it, 

Why didn't  you list out all the loi players who failed spectacularly in test cricket. 

If the skills and talent required in lois are significantly more than why didn't they manage to succeed in tests. 

And I am quite sure the number of loi specialists are definitely more than number of test specialists. 

If I have not made it clear already, I am not against test cricket, I am against those 'experts' who are not willing to change their mind. Those who can't accept the fact that Cricket, just like any other sport, will evolve. I basically hate," Test cricket is the real cricket " people.

 

Test cricket is harder is your opinion, you can stand by it, I stand corrected as well.

[Chakdephatte]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

Test cricket is best cricket. Real cricket.

See, that's the problem. We were talking about the level of difficulty but you unnecessarily brought a "Real cricket" angle to it. All three formats are real cricket, include 100 as well. Which one is better is subjective. But the fact is, you have to change with respect to the world.

 

Just because it's old, doesn't mean it's the best. It's over 100 years old but how many countries have started playing it. If cricket is to become popular, T20 is the way forward. (Please don't use ghita pita logic like, "It doesn't need to be popular)." It's easy to understand, and makes sense to a layman. 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2021 by Chakdephatte

[Jay]

33 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

This only proves that test cricket is more testing (pun unintended) for batsmen.

 

For bowlers, it's T20 cricket that is more of a challenge. Due to number of bouncers rule, field restrictions etc etc.

Not really. Because you have to bowl longer overs and batsmen don't need to rush themselves whilst batting. It's more taxing on the body for bowlers. 

 

Good batsmen can play attrition cricket and don't have to engage in a power game. They can take their time and get acclimated to conditions to wear out the attack. 

 

Bowling on pattas is way harder for bowlers in tests even with lesser rule restrictions. 

[Jay]

6 minutes ago, Chakdephatte said:

See, that's the problem. All three formats are real cricket, include 100 as well. Which one is better is subjective. But the fact is, you have to change with respect to the world.

 

Just because it's old, doesn't mean it's the best. It's over 100 years old but how many countries have started playing it. If cricket is to become popular, T20 is the way forward. (Please don't use ghita pita logic like, "It doesn't need to be popular). It's easy to understand, and makes sense to a layman. 

 

We were talking about the level of difficulty but you brought unnecessary, " Real cricket" talk to it.

Test cricket is more difficult to play for batsmen and taxing for bowlers too depending on pitches. 

Fielders need to run a lot more. Longer duration requires more endurance and sustained power that needs to be maintained across days. 

 

Odi is completely biased towards batsmen. 

 

T20 too. Played on pattas. 

[Jay]

Tbf I feel test should be played on 2 separate pitches. It's unfair to team batting in unfavourable conditions. 

[Chakdephatte]

7 minutes ago, Jay said:

Test cricket is more difficult to play for batsmen and taxing for bowlers too depending on pitches. 

Fielders need to run a lot more. Longer duration requires more endurance and sustained power that needs to be maintained across days. 

Odi is completely biased towards batsmen. 

T20 too. Played on pattas. 

1. What we have seen in UAE are not pattas. Pitches depend on their curator and home side's preference. If they choose batting friendly pitches, can't blame the format for it.

2. ODI is biased towards batsman, fair point. But who says a sport should be neutral for every type of player.

3. More difficult does not equal Real.

Edited October 10, 2021 by Chakdephatte

[Jamadagni]

For bowlers, taking wickets in test matches is definitely the hardest. You don't get cheap tickets like you do in T20s or even LOIs. 

 

As for batsmen, obviously hitting is far more difficult.

[nevada]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

Test cricket you face the best bowlers over longer tougher spells. Test cricket allows for 2 bouncers an over. Red ball swings. 

 

You have to face the best bowlers consistently. Not the case with odi where u get 2 new balls, rule restrictions, power play with no fielders in the outfield. 

 

In tests you can play according to whole you are bowling to. Batsman needs to adjust constantly. 

 

Test cricket is best cricket. Real cricket.

And bowlers have a limited number of overs in LOIs. A batsman can bat all 50/20 overs but a bowler only bowls 10/4!

[Adamant]

36 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

This only proves that test cricket is more testing (pun unintended) for batsmen.

 

For bowlers, it's T20 cricket that is more of a challenge. Due to number of bouncers rule, field restrictions etc etc.

Not entirely true.   Broaden your perspectives madam. 

If t20 is tough for bowler bcoz of these restrictions you pointed out then test match has it's own challenges, you have to produce jaffas to get a batsman out coz they aren't looking to score of every ball. They can play out 60 balls for 0 runs without a worry, on the other hand in t20s batsman gift you wickets most of the time just to up the run rate. 

Bowlers need to lear how to obtain lateral movement, extra bounce and reverse swing to make his career, on the other hand you just need to learn how to bowl a slower one for t20s lol, even I can do that. 

 

The skill difference between two teams is clearly visible in a test match, where more often than the better team wins.

 

 

[Adamant]

I just consider Tests and Odis as two different types of courses /subjects, Tests are like Theoretical Physics while lois can be considered as software engineering, while the physicist can't really do the job of a software engineer, we definitely know who is the more smarter and successful individual. 

[goose]

test cricket does not need context. a great test match stands alone. it need not be part of a series, or a league. the contest is pure.

 

T20 cricket is forgettable. you can try to generate context and meaning by raising the financial stakes and/or setting up a league, as the IPL has done. that will satisfy some. not me. the difference between 2nd place (and so playing the all important qualifier) and coming 5th or 6th and playing no further part is nearly always the result of a single match between those two sides. it's a total farce. you might as well play tiddly winks.

[Jay]

28 minutes ago, Chakdephatte said:

1. What we have seen in UAE are not pattas. Pitches depend on their curator and home side's preference. If they choose batting friendly pitches, can't blame the format for it.

2. ODI is biased towards batsman, fair point. But who says a sport should be neutral for every type of player.

3. More difficult does not equal Real.

Well different formats require different strengths. 

 

But playing endurance based cricket like tests is more grruelling and challenging for the body. So yes tests are harder. Is it better? For me personally, barring the toss factor which can inhibit a team's performance due to altering overhead conditions, I feel it's how cricket should be played. 

 

Not saying it's real but it's tough and a true test of ability. 

 

I am starting to appreciate. I am a fast bowling fan. I pay money to watch fast bowlers and batsmen with well rounded skillet play. 

 

I need to be entertained. Fast bowlers can be seen bowl long spells in test cricket hence to me it's the best format. 

Edited October 10, 2021 by Jay