What's new

How are T20Is any less significant than ODIs or even Test matches?

Titan24

Senior Test Player
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Runs
25,094
Post of the Week
6
I have observed many posters saying that international T20s are less significant and some say they are irrelevant however I cant understand why!

When a nation is playing another nation how can a match be insignificant irrespective of what format they are playing???

Every match country’s cricket team plays is of huge importance and they want to win it to make their country proud. How can the match being of 5 days, 50 overs or 20 overs changes it?
 
Skill levels required to win:

Test >>>>>>> ODI >>>>>>> T20I

A freak over of fluke batting or bowling can win T20I match.

T20 expert to become Test specialist is real tough !

Chances of comeback are less in T20I compared to ODI or Tests.
 
Last edited:
Skill levels required to win:

Test >>>>>>> ODI >>>>>>> T20I

A freak over of fluke batting or bowling can win T20I match.

T20 expert to become Test specialist is real tough !

Chances of comeback are less in T20I compared to ODI or Tests.

Contradiction?
 
Contradiction?

I mean once freak innings or spell happens in T20I it's difficult to make comeback by opposition.

Where as in ODI teams can crawl back to safety and even win match after such freak shows by opposition.

Tests 2nd Innings efforts will differentiate good and average teams ..cream will come on top finally.

Getting wickets in Tests need real skill from bowler... T20i more bad shots will gift wickets to bowlers.

Each format has significance ... Ratings will always be
Test > ODI > T20I.
 
T20s are made for hacks not pure well- rounded cricketers.
 
There is no such thing like temperament and patience to play long inning in T20s.
 
Test cricket gives all 11 (22) players chance to come into game at some stage. cricket, by nature is a slow & long game, it needs time for every player to show case their skills. Hence, in Test there are several come back option; even tight draws are exciting.

First, T20 does given enough chances to every player in a game; then the duration is too short to bring any tactics or combination. It's good fun indeed, but a bit shallow - often becomes boring & predictable.

By nature, cricket is one of the most complex game to understand. In terms of understanding the finer skills of the game, it's probably most complex; add to that the 5 day duration - it's really surprising that still Test cricket has so much following. This is 21st century, when even FB is becoming slowpo to Tweeter & snapchat, therefore excepting too many people in ground for 38 hours (exactly a full working week considering lunch, tea breaks & extended hours) is foolish; but lots of people still actually follow Test cricket via tv or net, even radio.

The fun of T20 is in it's actions (batting, bowling, fielding, cheer-leading ...), therefore one has to be attached with the game & see it. A good Test is like a thriller movie series - slow but mentally demanding, which is difficult for most common people.

ODI is probably in between both - ODI is the most tactical game; often nail biter as well. Most common people can't see the difference between ODI & T20, therefore popular belief is that both should merge (basically close ODI chapter), but both are totally different game. It's not surprising to me that historically, the correlation between Test & ODI ranking is much stronger than that of ODI & T20, though later 2 seems to be similar game.

All 3 formats should co-exist - at highest hierarchy, first 2 at National level, 3rd one at club/franchise level. The skills of this game is extremely complex and perfectionist job; learned from long hours in game condition - without Test (First Class) cricket, those skills set can't be learned, mastered - game will eventually die, if T20 takes over too much.
 
Test cricket gives all 11 (22) players chance to come into game at some stage. cricket, by nature is a slow & long game, it needs time for every player to show case their skills. Hence, in Test there are several come back option; even tight draws are exciting.

First, T20 does given enough chances to every player in a game; then the duration is too short to bring any tactics or combination. It's good fun indeed, but a bit shallow - often becomes boring & predictable.

By nature, cricket is one of the most complex game to understand. In terms of understanding the finer skills of the game, it's probably most complex; add to that the 5 day duration - it's really surprising that still Test cricket has so much following. This is 21st century, when even FB is becoming slowpo to Tweeter & snapchat, therefore excepting too many people in ground for 38 hours (exactly a full working week considering lunch, tea breaks & extended hours) is foolish; but lots of people still actually follow Test cricket via tv or net, even radio.

The fun of T20 is in it's actions (batting, bowling, fielding, cheer-leading ...), therefore one has to be attached with the game & see it. A good Test is like a thriller movie series - slow but mentally demanding, which is difficult for most common people.

ODI is probably in between both - ODI is the most tactical game; often nail biter as well. Most common people can't see the difference between ODI & T20, therefore popular belief is that both should merge (basically close ODI chapter), but both are totally different game. It's not surprising to me that historically, the correlation between Test & ODI ranking is much stronger than that of ODI & T20, though later 2 seems to be similar game.

All 3 formats should co-exist - at highest hierarchy, first 2 at National level, 3rd one at club/franchise level. The skills of this game is extremely complex and perfectionist job; learned from long hours in game condition - without Test (First Class) cricket, those skills set can't be learned, mastered - game will eventually die, if T20 takes over too much.

Excellent explanation of all the formats. Kudos.
 
Yes I agree that test cricket or ODI cricket gives more opportunity to every player and for good teams to bounce back. Also I know all three formats require different skill set for players.

However, national pride is involved in all three formats irrespective of the which is better form of cricket or which skill sets are required.
 
They are definitely less significant than Test Matches. To win even 1 Test match requires great planning, skills etc. No question about that, not even up for discussion.
 
Back
Top