Commonwealth Bank Series

[mattfb]

One Dayers are just as Important as Test Matches, your putting on your teams national colours and it is important to win.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Test Matches are the real deal. They should be considered the top form just slightly over ODI's by no mean margain. I think if you asked most domestic players I think if they had the choice of only ever playing one form of the International game, they'd want to play Test Cricket over ODI Cricket. Saying that though, probably every player that plays Test Cricket wants to play ODI cricket aswell.

 

[mattfb]

Tests may be the better game because of the concertration required but what about when you play a ODI.... You have to plan out your innings perfectly and one mistake could lose a game because the next batsmen might not have time to play himself in and have to slog and end up starting a collapse

 

[aussie_ben91]

So? What relevance does that have? ODI cricket is certainly a challenge yes but ODI's doesn't have the effect that Test Cricket has.
The real great players get noticed for what they do in Test Cricket. For a batsman, you can really just play you're normal game without any pressure of having to really lift the runrate at any point of you're innings while as a bowler you get the satisfaction of actually geniuely dismissing a batsman without them having to go the tonk and worry about scoring quickly. The value of acchieving in Test Cricket is just more supreme.
I think playing 100 Test Matches should be a bigger accomplishment then playing 300 ODI's.

 

[mattfb]

So your sayin players like Bevan are not as good as Players Like Langer.

 

[Mars Maximus]

Yea well the better players always will make it into a test team. Dean Jones for instances, he was a great one dayer, yet struggled alot in tests, well against the better teams anyway, yet he shined in one dayers. That says something.

A test world cup would be cool, but only in one way. In another a world cup may seem to cheapen test cricket. So I guess that's why it's not happening.

And what about 20 20 cricket. I see that as a joke to be honest...

 

[mattfb]

Yea righto, Just because Bevan can hit runs off a lot of balls but struggles to play a bouncer that makes him not a better player? thats a joke.

 

[Mars Maximus]

Haha I never said he wasn't a good player, though nowadays bouncers are allowed in one dayers as well. I just think he is more one day material than test material. Well was...

 

[mattfb]

Yea i know he is its just you said the better players play test cricket and im just saying that is not entirely true.

 

[langerrox]

So your sayin players like Bevan are not as good as Players Like Langer.

mate, test match 100 > a odi hundred any day of the week, test matches have 2x the quality of any ODI match. you're forgetting that in ODIs the fields have to be brought in, less overs from say a mcgrath than in tests. tests is about survivability and ODIs entertainment

 

[mattfb]

doesn't mean the players are any better. You dont see a lot of one day hundreds but test hundreds you could get off 300 balls if you liked.

 

[langerrox]

and more of the 300 balls faced would be from the best bowler and not some part timer?

 

[Mars Maximus]

Yea i know he is its just you said the better players play test cricket and im just saying that is not entirely true.

I guess it depends on the side and what players a country has and the selectors. I guess one can say that one dayers are warm ups for tests. I admit that the excellent fielding one sees in tests at times can be acredited to one dayers, but tests matchs simply are the the cream of cricket.

 

[mattfb]

I have nothing against Tests and agree they are great but i dont believe one cricket is better than other cricket, they are different types of game and have different ways of being approached so you cant judge one game better than the other. The only way you can judge them is about what type you like watching more, but neither has more better players than the other

and more of the 300 balls faced would be from the best bowler and not some part timer?

mate if there is 300 balls bowled to one player they must have bowled a lot of overs which ends up with part timers bowling anyway, most of the time ODIs have more quality bowlers bowling then part timers, you put in 5 bowlers and there you go, in test matches you are somtimes forced to bowl part timers as frontline bowlers get tired.

 

[Mars Maximus]

Yea just wana add that it was funny how the first final saw around 40 thousand people at the MCG, was it? Yet the first day of the 4th Ashes test saw around 90 thousand. Yet there was a time when test cricket was almost in danger of being snuffed out. Glad that's not the case anymore. It's like chess on a field lol. Glad you think tests are great feelin blue?