"A player good in 1 format will be good in all 3 formats" - Do u agree with this?

[amits]

We have seen players like Hashim Amla who was labelled as a test specialist earlier, do well in ODIs and T20Is. We have seen players like David Warner who was labelled as a T20 specialist, do well in Tests and ODIs too. There have been other examples too 

The basics of all 3 formats is the same, batsmen have to make runs and bowlers have to take wickets, which means that if a cricketer is doing well in 1 format, he is likely to do well in the other 2 formats too and we can say that "A player good in 1 format will be good in all 3 formats" :D 

[Texy]

Nope, Rahane, Chepu are prime examples. 

[sourab10forever]

"Likely" but not guaranteed.

And even this "likely" is restricted to a certain lot of very good players. 

Like in tennis, a great doubles players might be a good singles player but not a great one.

 

It depends on how fast a player can switch between formats. For example it's hard for Pujara to play a T20 type innings. It also depends on how much a player has to change his game to suit the format. For example Kohli doesn't have to change much across formats. 

 

[rkt.india]

not guranteed

Edited January 17, 2017 by rkt.india

[bowl_out]

Tests only : Rahane, Chepu, Vijay

LOIs only : Raina, Yuvraj, Mishraji 

 

Enough examples in the Indian team itself that not everybody is suited to all formats

 

[kira]

A great test player can become good in all formats, a great limited overs player can never become good at test cricket if he already doesn't posses the right technique The are a few exceptions to this rule though, like warner and sehwag 

[chewy]

1 hour ago, kira said:

A great test player can become good in all formats, a great limited overs player can never become good at test cricket if he already doesn't posses the right technique The are a few exceptions to this rule though, like warner and sehwag 

Agree with this.

As my personal rule of thumb, if a player (batsman or bowler) is a good Test player then he will be more successful at taking that form into ODIs and T20s but vice versa (from T20->One Days->Long Form) that player will find it much difficult.   

 

Too often in T20s batsmen get away not facing the best bowler enough (max 4 overs), from these 4 overs they are likely to just face 50% of the balls, hence have to playout 12 balls to survive. In ODIs maybe maximum 30-40 balls. It's a different matter in Tests.

No wonder likes of Raina get found out quickly in Tets

[OpeningBatsman]

Not all good/great test players were/are good in LOIs.  VVS, Langer, Gavaskar, Yasir shah, Philander etc. So that argument is flawed. I strongly believe only if you are a complete batsman/bowler will you excel in all the forms of cricket. (sachin, ricky ponting, viv, virat, warne, murli, mcgrath etc) 

Edited January 17, 2017 by OpeningBatsman

[BeautifulGame]

That's usually the thinking of our selectors .

[kosingh]

You can be a great test batter without having a good strike rate. YOu really cant be a good ODI batter if you don't have a good SR.

 

change the assertion to "if you are a good test player and have a good SR, you can be good in all formats"

[BeautifulGame]

A great test player can become good in all formats, a great limited overs player can never become good at test cricket if he already doesn't posses the right technique The are a few exceptions to this rule though, like warner and sehwag 

Alister Cook is a great test player ,can u imagine him opening in T20s ?

Every format has seperate specialist skills needed to succeed.This, if u are great in test cricket , can succeed in any format is stone age thinking .

[mishra]

1 hour ago, BeautifulGame said:

That's usually the thinking of our selectors .

Thats usual excuse to nepotism.

[sandeep]

The name.  The legend.  

 

Return of the _____

[Ultimate_Game]

This statement is not true at all. As an example likes of Cook, Pujara, Vijay, Rahane aren't fit to play the shorter formats and more suited to the Tests. Same with bowlers like Umesh who should focus on tests and not play shorter formats as he doesn't have the control or variations required. Converse is also true with likes of Bevan, Afridi, Yusuf Pathan etc. suited to shorter formats and not cut out for Tests.

 

Tests, odis and T20s ar three different formats and need different skill sets. Success in one doesn't mean a player will succeed in the other formats. For the time being the line between odis & T20s is a bit more blurred but WI has shown that the skills in T20s do not necessarily translate to odis. Wish our selectors understood this simple fact and do away with this Rahane & Yuvraj experiment.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Ultimate_Game

[mancalledsting]

No....

 

Gavaskar

Yuvraj

Nick Knight

Michael Bevan

Michael Vaughan

 

[coffee_rules]

Yes, says Younis Khan.

[Yoda-esque]

Graeme Hick says Hello

[BeautifulGame]

Graeme Hick says Hello

Which format was he great at seriously ?

[vvvslaxman]

Bevan, Neil fairbrother,  Yuvraj , Simon O Donnell . So many examples .

[amits]

Some poor examples being given above 

Rahane & Vijay have done well in IPL numerous times. Even Cheteshwar Pujara has done well in Syed Mushtaq T20 and recently smashed a 70 ball 100 in DY Patil T20 tournament. Yuvraj was never given a proper go in tests as we already had Fab 5. And when he did get a chance in 2008, he averaged 42 after Ganguly's retirement till he suffered from cancer. 42 is not a bad average 

 

Bevan averages 57 in FC cricket, despite playing the toughest FC league, and he could not play tests during his best years as Australia already had a very strong batting line up at that time 

 

There is already enough evidence to say that "A player good in 1 format will be good in all 3 formats"