Downfall of Indian Test Cricket

[Old guy]

ok im sure ur being sarcastic :mad:

[superstar]

ok im sure ur being sarcastic :mad:

I am not. I am not a fan of dot ball cricket. I don't have all day to watch cricket...

[Old guy]

I am not. I am not a fan of dot ball cricket. I don't have all day to watch cricket...

:headshake: im not getting trolled nay more ur on our side! also dot balls ...i love how faf saved match it was more interesting then any odi match this year :beee:

[DarthSimian]

no bad analogy ... if u just want result just toss the coin and get done with it :cantstop: its more about thrill for me i have seen sessions of play with bowler working over batsmen..bbatsmen counter attacking at right time like amla and smith did vs australia and taking game away

Exactly. Personal opinions. I find putting a batsmen in a time pressure situation is more exciting and difficult to execute. Hence, why I find T20 and ODI better than tests.

[bharat297]

Personal opinions yes but I'd rather watch a batsman make a tough century in difficult bowling conditions than see Ravindra Jadeja edge his way to 25 off 18 to keep his $2m/year salary. Anyone who knows anything about cricket knows that Test cricket is the truest form of the game. It's where a batsman's technique and a bowler's skill to take wickets (not just bowl dot balls) are truly tested.

[DarthSimian]

Anyone who knows anything about cricket knows that Test cricket is the truest form of the game. It's where a batsman's technique and a bowler's skill to take wickets (not just bowl dot balls) are truly tested.

Again. Personal opinion, not a fact. You can have your opinion. In my opinion, a bowler skill to contain and batting under time pressure is far more difficult.

[Old guy]

Again. Personal opinion, not a fact. You can have your opinion. In my opinion, a bowler skill to contain and batting under time pressure is far more difficult.

nope getting people out is more skillful and making runs when ball is jagging around with fields which are not restricted on crumbling or green pitch is much harder and every cricketers dream to do well in....

[bharat297]

Again. Personal opinion, not a fact. You can have your opinion. In my opinion, a bowler skill to contain and batting under time pressure is far more difficult.

LOL you can have you're opinion but I think you'd be very hard pressed to find anyone who has played top level cricket who agrees with you.

[DarthSimian]

nope getting people out is more skillful and making runs when ball is jagging around with fields which are not restricted on crumbling or green pitch is much harder and every cricketers dream to do well in....

According to you. Lets not try to make opinions into facts. Each one has their own According to me, a time pressure induced situation makes it more difficult than having enough time to vary their choices.

[mastana]

Bhai its downfall of indian cricket as a whole not just test cricket.

[bharat297]

According to you. Lets not try to make opinions into facts. Each one has their own According to me, a time pressure induced situation makes it more difficult than having enough time to vary their choices.

So by that logic would you rate the Hong Kong Super Sixes as the ultimate form of the game? What about the 1-over bowl off. Time pressure doesn't necessarily equate to a more difficult form of the game overall. People who think Test cricket is just a game of patience are just plain wrong and to be blunt do not deserve their blatantly wrong opinions to be put on an equal level as others. It's a game where technique for batsmen and wicket-taking ability for bowlers gets brutally exposed. Look at Ravi Ashwin! He can contain batsmen well in T20 but in Tests just doesn't know how to set up a batsmen and work them over. Look at Gautam Gambhir! He is still performing in limited overs matches because one of his main shots is the edge to 3rd man. You can get away with a lot of edges in shorter forms of the game. Gambhir did this in the Test series vs Australia and consistently got caught in the slips. Look at Suresh Raina! He's a very good T20 player but gets shown up in Tests consistently. It's not just about patience. These people all have good Ranji Trophy records so they know how to be patient. It's about technique on all surfaces. In T20 technique and wicket-taking ability are not as important as Tests.

[DarthSimian]

So by that logic would you rate the Hong Kong Super Sixes as the ultimate form of the game? What about the 1-over bowl off. Time pressure doesn't necessarily equate to a more difficult form of the game overall. People who think Test cricket is just a game of patience are just plain wrong and to be blunt do not deserve their blatantly wrong opinions to be put on an equal level as others.

HK Sixes has lot of other things that makes it easier. Shorter grounds, lesser fielders, etc. And, there's always the optimal level. ODI is better but T20 is also optimum in that itgives enough time for batsmen to settle while providing the chance to accelerate. Unlike tests, batsmen and bowlers do not have infinite time to experiment and read the conditions. Ashwin and Gambhir are not even doing well in T20 tight now. In any case, T20 and tests require different skills. All who perform in T20 need not necessarily do well in tests. Nor those who do well in tests would do well in T20s. For every Gayle and Pollards, there are Trotts and Clarkes. The skills are different and are equally important depending on the format. Neither one is important than the other. Of course, based on opinions it might differ. According to me, limited over skills are better. According to you, test skills are beter. As simple as that. Those who feel test skills are better are just giving their opinion. Like I said you can have it but that does not make it a fact.

[Bumper]

Why Indian Test Cricket is on the Downfall? When the England cricket team landed on Indian shores early last month, not many expected them to put up a decent fight let alone win. After the first test in Ahmedabad, it all but seemed that way. In the second innings of that match, the way Cook batted for 176 followed by the 91 by Prior seemed to turn things around for England as they started to really believe that they can bat on Indian pitches having been bundled out for 191 in the first innings. Little did India know of what was to follow in the next two tests. All of a sudden, England, a team which has a knack of playing extremely poorly in Indian and Sri Lankan pitches started to dominate the Indians on their own grounds. It was as if England were playing India in home conditions. None of the Indians looked dominant or fierce and their firepower were comparable to the Bangladesh side. Many cricket lovers around the world were shocked to find out England had clinched the series 2-1. Clinched would seem to be an understatement, England had soundly thrashed India in there own backyard. That statement alone is something someone would envision in their dreams, more likely English dreams. So what happened? Why did a side who had so much success recently, falter against sides like England, Australia, Bangladesh and South Africa but seem to do moderately well against sides like Pakistan and Sri Lanka? Firstly, as a non-Indian, I would probably say I'm not surprised. With a country celebrating the shorter format of the game, it's no wonder that they have 'forgotten' how to play test cricket. Looking at the Indian captain, regarding highly of T20 cricket and always making sure to state its importance and how much the next generation should embrace T20. Talk to him about Test cricket or even One-Dayers and one wouldn't be surprised to see him yawn. One could ask him, "So what do you think of the DRS?", and his response would be "Who it is? Oh yea, nah it shouldn't be there, k, bye." Not only the Indian captain, but just look at the attitude of the players themselves. They get kicked out early in the 2007 WC, result? Disappointment. They lose a big test match, result? Disappointment. They get kicked out of the T20 WC, result? Crying like little girls, *cough* Virat Kolhi-flower *cough*. Not only the Indian players, but just look at Indian media. I'll admit I watch streaming cricket videos on the net live from some Indian channel, and looking at their ads, it's always some dude or some kid saying something in Hindi with T20 clearly said a number of times, not Test matches but T20. The Indian cricketers in the ads are always in T20 uniform, the kids in beaches are playing T20 (or T10?) cricket, never see em in the baggy whites looking to bat long innings, it's always bat hard. Then theres one ad of Rajinikanth lookalike I assume, hitting 6 or 7 bowlers at once for a sixer which lands somewhere in space and so on... I literally had a friendly chat to a regular Indian on the street and told him "India just lost a test match" and had the response "Yea, don't care, k, stop stalking me dude". I then told him "India just lost some T20 match" and his response "WAT? No WAy!!! But seriously dude, you're not a journalist, leave me alone you piece of -"So clearly, Indian people themselves are regarding T20 as greater than Test matches. Test matches are fast on the decline and India, with its powerful BCCI, seem to be keen on destroying Test cricket not embracing it. The Indians need to be sent a message that Test cricket can be just as exciting and enthralling, if not more than T20 or ODI. Look at the recent Australia vs South Africa series and learn from the way those guys composed themselves. Also look at the current Australia vs Sri Lanka series and see how they turned a pitch that wouldn't last 3 days and took the game right to the last half-hour of the 5th day. In T20, you will cherish your win for 2 days, whereas in Test cricket, you will cherish your win for 2 years. If you lose, well um...it makes you stronger? Remember fellow Indian dudes, To fight the pen with the sword is to sword with the...um.. I dunno, I'm not wise enough yet. India's next tour is scheduled with West Indies and Sri Lanka. If there is a test match in that series, do not expect to challenge the likes of the number 1 Test batsmen (Sangakkara), the Prince of Galle (Jayawardene), the Six King (Gayleforce) and Fiercely scary batsmen (Tharanga Paranavitana), without changing your mindset about Test cricket. Upul Tharanga, Correspondent of a Newspaper.

Upul Tharanga Mahaveera Benadinga Wickramasinghe, Point taken, looking forward to your lyrical on the "mindset" of Langan kircutters in Australia.

[NareshK]

According to you. Lets not try to make opinions into facts. Each one has their own According to me, a time pressure induced situation makes it more difficult than having enough time to vary their choices.

You could say you enjoy one format over the other but to say T20 is a tougher contest than tests is just ridiculous. T20 is a lottery format and nothing more than silly entertainment for a couple of hours. Its just one level above Hong Kong Sixes. Even players with mediocre talent do well in T20 whereas test cricket exposes your overall quality as a batsman, bowler, wicket keeper or a captain.

[bharat297]

Exactly! You could edge your way to a decent score in T20 cricket. Especially given that a standard T20 field is a 3rd man and the keeper behind square. Can't do that in Tests for very long.

[philcric]

The main difference between T20 and Test cricket is the value of a batsman's wicket. In tests, unlike T20/ODIs, the bowler has to be quality and earn each and every wicket. Hence you find many average bowlers having good stats at T20/ODIs (Agarkar, Afridi, BLee, Jayasuriya etc.), but that never happens at Test cricket. The ones with good stats in tests are really good bowlers. Also the quality of the way of dismissals. Most of the ODI dismissals is getting caught on the edge of 30 yard circle or in the outfield .. basically bastmen throwing away their wickets for quick runs. Test dismissals are a joy to watch .. LBWs, caught behinds by WK & slips, bat-pads for spinners etc. One thing which is obviously better in shorter formats is the quality of the fielding ... diving around, catching in the outfield, saving boundaries close to the rope, run outs etc.

[DarthSimian]

You could say you enjoy one format over the other but to say T20 is a tougher contest than tests is just ridiculous. T20 is a lottery format and nothing more than silly entertainment for a couple of hours. Its just one level above Hong Kong Sixes. Even players with mediocre talent do well in T20 whereas test cricket exposes your overall quality as a batsman, bowler, wicket keeper or a captain.

Like I said, there is difference in the skillsets for T20 and tests. Clarke may have a good batting technique but if you put him in a T20 team (as seen in IPL) he will fail badly. Because he does not have the skill of handling the time pressure. There are batsmen or bowlers who can fit in both T20 and test. There are batsmen who do well only in T20. There are batsmen who do well only in tests. The point is that the skillsets are different and are equally important depending on the format that the player is playing. Now what skillsets you like is entirely based on your likes and dislikes. I, for example, hate watching tests and love T20s and ODIs. For me, the limited over skillset is supreme. For you, the test skillset may be great. That is fine. It is only when someone acts fanatically saying that one skillset is always superior to another is when things go wrong.

[bharat297]

Like I said, there is difference in the skillsets for T20 and tests. Clarke may have a good batting technique but if you put him in a T20 team (as seen in IPL) he will fail badly. Because he does not have the skill of handling the time pressure. There are batsmen or bowlers who can fit in both T20 and test. There are batsmen who do well only in T20. There are batsmen who do well only in tests. The point is that the skillsets are different and are equally important depending on the format that the player is playing. Now what skillsets you like is entirely based on your likes and dislikes. I, for example, hate watching tests and love T20s and ODIs. For me, the limited over skillset is supreme. For you, the test skillset may be great. That is fine. It is only when someone acts fanatically saying that one skillset is always superior to another is when things go wrong.

So do you consider the 1-over playoffs (when there is a tie) the ultimate showcase of skills? Thats the maximum time pressure.

[DarthSimian]

So do you consider the 1-over playoffs (when there is a tie) the ultimate showcase of skills? Thats the maximum time pressure.

Like I said few posts above, there is always an optimal balance which ODI or T20s present. And, also, considering that there are only a handful of people in the entire world (bowlers or batsmen) who you can trust in a Super Over, it is definitely a skill that I would be excited about.

[bharat297]

It's different skills yes. However, what I consider as the pure form of the game is one where the batsmen are trying to score runs while the bowlers are trying to get the batsmen out. In ODIs and T20s the field is generally spread and you see a lot of runs being scored off edges. The main skill is to be able to get bat on ball and pick the gaps. This is something that you need to do in Test cricket as well but there are men in catching positions ready for the slightest edge, which in my opinion, makes it a much tougher form of the game. Plus to win a match of Test cricket bowlers actually have to take 20 wickets. The other reason I consider Test cricket the toughest form is that in Test cricket the best team invariably wins over the course of the 5 days. In T20s and to a lesser extent in ODIs, a team that has a bad patch, or a few dodgy decisions, or a bit of bad luck, is essentially out of the match. While you could argue that it makes it more difficult, its also prone to a lot of luck (e.g. a few edges, bad decisions, weather factors). In Tests though, even if you have a few bad decisions, you have time to turn the match back in your favour.