Cricket Thread

[Syn]

agree with taht to an extent but you cant just say england beat india because of home advantage. india were shocking, home pitches do not affect your fielding or nor do they stop bowlers bowling decent lengths etc

Ollie, I'm not trying to be mean, but you seriously have no sense of logic. It's really frustrating.

Any defeat can be pinned down to individual mistakes. What about England's fielding in the last 5 games? Does the mere fact that they play in India or the fact that they're playing a limited overs game instead of a Test cause their catching/fielding ability to lessen? It's all a part of an overall effect. The energy in the field, the concentration, the mentality - those are all factors which affect fielding - and they are very different when you're playing away from home. Just a few months ago we saw India arguably put in the best fielding performances in history in the knockout stages of the World Cup. Things would definitely have been different if the Test series was played in India.

[Cripps_orig]

Besides, England are no great shakes in the one day game. I'm looking forward much more to the test series!

May i ask why? Is it cos England are a bit shit at ODIs and pretty good in the Test format? Or do you find Tests more appealing than the limited over game? And if so why? Serious question here. What is so appealing about Tests? Regardless of what people may think, a lot more skill goes in to the limited over games than it does in Tests.

The bowling in Tests - Bowl wherever you want, offside or leg, its practically impossible to bowl a wide in Tests and you must be really shit to do so. A bowler can also have 10, 15 maybe 20 as many overs as they like to get their eye in.

Bowling in Limited over games - Have to be on the money from the first ball. Line has to be spot on or its a wide and a bowler doesnt have unlimited amount of overs to get their eye in. 2 maximum if that. They have to get it right straight away or their overs run out and they have gone for 6+ an over

Tell me which requires more skill. A bit of a recap

Tests - Bowl wherever you want, no pressure.

Limited overs - Line spot on. Pressure is immense to be accurate asap.

Thats the bowling. Lets have a look at the batting

Batting in Tests - Again like with bowling, you can face 100 balls to get set and get your eye in, You can leave or block as many as you want (more on this later when i get to the entertainment section of the post)One of the most embarrassing things in cricket is when a player is out playing a defensive shot. If youre going to get out, get out trying to score runs which is the whole point of the sport

Batting in Limited Overs - You have to score and you have to score quick. Look at Trott in this ODI series. I cant remember which match it was. It was either the 2nd or the 3rd where he scored 90 odd and England scored 298 i think, Looking at that on its own, that looks very good. Actually watch the match and his innings as i did and you'll see he cost England 20 possibly 30 runs and England should have had 320+ at least if not for Trott. Its not just me saying this. Pundits said the same during and after that ODI. He was critisised for it and rightly so. Now look at someone like Sehwag who comes out swinging and is regarded as awesome by every Indian fan out there. Whether he scores 20, 30 or 90, he gets India above the run rate and the rest finish it off as was the case during the World Cup. A proper team player who sacrifices his wicket for the good of the team.

A little recap

Batting in Tests - Block and leave as many as you want. No pressure to score runs as overs are unlimited

Batting in Limited overs - Score runs and quickly as overs go quickly.

So tell me which needs more skill?

As for fielding, in Tests there are no restrictions so the captain can put his fielders where ever he wants and no thought is needed. In limited over games, there are restrictions so a captain actually has to think where to put his fielders to take wickets, stop runs etc.

Now to the entertainment, can anyone seriously tell me Tests are more entertaining? For me, a cricket and a sports fan in general, i want to be entertained first and foremostly. Look at the crowds in Tests all over the world not just in England. Tests are not as popular as it once was. Ask a kid who doesnt know about Cricket and what he'd rather watch and it'd be limited over games all the time.

Tests have a place in Cricket but it comes in 3rd behind the other 2 and rightly so. When world class players such as Malinga at the age of 27 i think retires from Tests to play ODis and T20, well its a damning indictment

[Syn]

Don’t know how many times we need to go through this but actually I don’t think this point has been mentioned. Many people think that all that separates Tests from ODIs is the length of the game (and pitch wear). The major issue is actually the red ball. It swings and moves off the seam a lot more than the white ball. It makes batting more difficult - and especially tricky on the morning of the first day. Then as the pitch wears, there is more unpredictable movement with spin. Those with good defence, technique and concentration can survive at the crease for large spells so it’s a better test of batting technique. I’ve always been a big fan of great tekkers - even in football. It's why some might prefer Bergkamp to Henry - style vs. productivity. It’s a matter of preference.

[Cripps_orig]

If we're comparing it to football, its more like Tests = Stoke and Limited over games = Invincibles surely?

[Ollie the Optimist]

May i ask why? Is it cos England are a bit shit at ODIs and pretty good in the Test format? Or do you find Tests more appealing than the limited over game? And if so why? Serious question here. What is so appealing about Tests? Regardless of what people may think, a lot more skill goes in to the limited over games than it does in Tests.

The bowling in Tests - Bowl wherever you want, offside or leg, its practically impossible to bowl a wide in Tests and you must be really shit to do so. A bowler can also have 10, 15 maybe 20 as many overs as they like to get their eye in.

Bowling in Limited over games - Have to be on the money from the first ball. Line has to be spot on or its a wide and a bowler doesnt have unlimited amount of overs to get their eye in. 2 maximum if that. They have to get it right straight away or their overs run out and they have gone for 6+ an over

Tell me which requires more skill. A bit of a recap

Tests - Bowl wherever you want, no pressure.

Limited overs - Line spot on. Pressure is immense to be accurate asap.

Thats the bowling. Lets have a look at the batting

Batting in Tests - Again like with bowling, you can face 100 balls to get set and get your eye in, You can leave or block as many as you want (more on this later when i get to the entertainment section of the post)One of the most embarrassing things in cricket is when a player is out playing a defensive shot. If youre going to get out, get out trying to score runs which is the whole point of the sport

Batting in Limited Overs - You have to score and you have to score quick. Look at Trott in this ODI series. I cant remember which match it was. It was either the 2nd or the 3rd where he scored 90 odd and England scored 298 i think, Looking at that on its own, that looks very good. Actually watch the match and his innings as i did and you'll see he cost England 20 possibly 30 runs and England should have had 320+ at least if not for Trott. Its not just me saying this. Pundits said the same during and after that ODI. He was critisised for it and rightly so. Now look at someone like Sehwag who comes out swinging and is regarded as awesome by every Indian fan out there. Whether he scores 20, 30 or 90, he gets India above the run rate and the rest finish it off as was the case during the World Cup. A proper team player who sacrifices his wicket for the good of the team.

A little recap

Batting in Tests - Block and leave as many as you want. No pressure to score runs as overs are unlimited

Batting in Limited overs - Score runs and quickly as overs go quickly.

So tell me which needs more skill?

As for fielding, in Tests there are no restrictions so the captain can put his fielders where ever he wants and no thought is needed. In limited over games, there are restrictions so a captain actually has to think where to put his fielders to take wickets, stop runs etc.

Now to the entertainment, can anyone seriously tell me Tests are more entertaining? For me, a cricket and a sports fan in general, i want to be entertained first and foremostly. Look at the crowds in Tests all over the world not just in England. Tests are not as popular as it once was. Ask a kid who doesnt know about Cricket and what he'd rather watch and it'd be limited over games all the time.

Tests have a place in Cricket but it comes in 3rd behind the other 2 and rightly so. When world class players such as Malinga at the age of 27 i think retires from Tests to play ODis and T20, well its a damning indictment

test i enjoy much more because its over 5 days. using the 2005 ashes as an example, i cant think of a single day where it was plain sailing. england would be winning then the aussies then england again. it was fast furious and the best cricket ever played. the last day of the third test match was amazing. ten wickets to get for england, an unlikey amount of runs for the aaussies (think it was 400 odd) it was a draw but it went right down to the last ball where england just needed one more wicket. that was cricket at its best because it was over 5 days, every player gave their all yet neither won.

your point about limited overs being more testing as a bowler is valid because of lack of time but then again its not as well. bowling down the legside shouldnt be a problem because its easy to bowl on the off if its your natrual pattern, ie right hand bowler to rhb is easy to keep it offside. in ODI's they bowl for 4 overs at a time most of the time so its easy to be fast and furious because its not a long spell. tests is different because you can be required to bowl 30, 40 sometimes more overs in one innings. using praveen kumar as an example, he was indias best bowler this summer and though he still went for a lot of runs, compared to other bowlers he didnt. he was always bowling the same line etc keeping it testing for the batsman. to do this for 4 overs is fine, to do this when bowling 40 overs is incredibale. both for fitness and consistency. james anderson bowled to hussey in the ashes this year for about 10 overs where hussey just couldnt play him. he said it was the best spell of bowling he had ever faced. this was when he was on over 100. pretty set for a batsman yet couldnt play someone.
going back to my legside offside point, in odi you cant bowl at leg stump because if you get it wrong, its a wide. this therefore neglects some batsman weakness. KP for one, who always drifts accross as if you get it wrong you go for a wide at best. in tests you can really focus on a batsmen weakness because of the width you have to bowl at him.

batting in tests is harder too, longer concentration, more probing lines from bowlers imo as they have longer to settle and less restrictions on length so they can really keep it in one area. in ODI you can swing and hit it, as you say sehwag does. some days this comes off and you get a 100 but more often then not it doesnt. in tests as you can put fielders back, it doesnt pay off because you are likely to be caught. in ODIs esp in powerplays you are more likely to hit it over fielders.
going back to fast and furious point, in ODIs you can hit it hard and quickly but you are batting in a short time so its easier as in tests you are batting for days esp in the case of Ali cook when he hit his 294. the fitness and concentration required for that is unreal much harder then batting in ODIs.

fielding in ODIs is harder because of balls being sprayed everywhere but again a captain does have his decisons made for him, esp in powerplays. he can only put them in circle so it makes it easier for him to place. in tests they can go anywhere, so do you attack or defend to contain the score. again odis are quick so concentration not needed as much. in tests chances can be few and far between so you have to be switched on the whole time.

that is why i love tests, more skill, much harder to play and much more exciting imo. odis are bish bash wallop and can be fun to watch but tests are more of a challenge and the excitment goes on for longer.

on a side point, trott scoring 90 odd when he could have scored more imo is stupid. you always need a guy to bat and score runs while staying in. what good is it having two new batsman towards then end when you can have one in who has scored runs. trott is not htere to slog but to anchor. thats why england have kp, bell etc

[McNamara That Ghost...]

Asif and Butt have been found guilty, Butt found guilty on the more severe charge along with the same charge Asif has received.

[Rors]

New planets will be born and die quicker than it will take for this place to finally put the ODI/tests debate to bed. Different host, same danger

Tests by the way.

[Cripps_orig]

SL scored about 250 odd in 110 overs in a recent test v Pakistan

Tests

[Olivier's xmas twist]

SL scored about 250 odd in 110 overs in a recent test v Pakistan

Tests

Only decent test is the Ashes tbh, Not really fussed about anything else.

[Cripps_orig]

Last couple of Ashes were awful. 2005 was pretty good.

The 20 years before that were too one sided to be called good.

India v Pakistan and India v Aussies piss on the Ashes