What's new

How do you 'weigh' the three forms of International cricket?

Snatch

Snatch

Tape Ball Captain
Joined
Sep 2, 2016
Runs
1,019
I commented in the recent 'Sangakkara's peak' thread that most purist hard-core cricket fans from England, Australia, New Zealand & South Africa tend to consider Test cricket by far the most important form when rating cricketers, but that I sometimes get the impression that fans from Asian countries seems to care as much or sometimes more about ODIs & T20s. I know many women & novice fans do.

I've personally never been a fan of people mixing the forms together as one when rating players. I think there's much more purpose in judging the 3 forms separately for what they are, just like we do when we provide our greatest Test XIs, quite separately from our greatest ODI Xis or T20 XIs.



If however I did have to 'weight' them based on importance to me, I'd give test cricket a 60% weighting, ODIs 30% & T20s just 10%.

What would your weightings be? And do you think Asian fans (generally speaking) seem to care a little more about the white-ball formats than fans from the West?
 
Last edited:
I like ODI lot - it's a tactical format, which allows aggressive cricket as well as opportunities for teams to comeback within a match.

My weightage will be Test 85%, ODI 35% ......... and one can put the rest for T20, to balance that equation to 100% total. I am quite happy if T20 is limited only in Franchise cricket - players need easy money, fans need cheap entertainment, billionaires need own toys & bookies need Cricket matches - so I am quite fine with IPL, BPL, SPL, CPL, BBL, EPL, PSL ................. please leave those 7/8 serious cricket teams left for Test & ODI only.
 
MMHS said:
I like ODI lot - it's a tactical format, which allows aggressive cricket as well as opportunities for teams to comeback within a match.

My weightage will be Test 85%, ODI 35% ......... and one can put the rest for T20, to balance that equation to 100% total. I am quite happy if T20 is limited only in Franchise cricket - players need easy money, fans need cheap entertainment, billionaires need own toys & bookies need Cricket matches - so I am quite fine with IPL, BPL, SPL, CPL, BBL, EPL, PSL ................. please leave those 7/8 serious cricket teams left for Test & ODI only.
Click to expand...

Some typo in bold part here?
 
Yeah I'm assuming he meant Tests 55%, ODIs 35% & T20s 10%.
 
MMHS said:
No, mathematically, negative is a figure as well - put "minus" 20% for T20I, equation will be correct :)
Click to expand...

Haha, okay, very well.

I think the odd T20 international is still good in countries like South Africa & New Zealand to rope new potential fans into cricket in general, especially women, but I would like them limited to no more than 1 T20 match per tour.
 
Snatch said:
Haha, okay, very well.

I think the odd T20 international is still good in countries like South Africa & New Zealand to rope new potential fans into cricket in general, especially women, but I would like them limited to no more than 1 T20 match per tour.
Click to expand...

Why spoil the character - every friend of mine started smoking or drinking with just one sniff or sip .......... It's cheap entertainment & I do agree that, some of the T20I are entertaining. If you allow them, can't restrict with a single match only. Rather it should be restricted to Franchise only - 20 or so years back, Football also started 5 a side "Internationals" - FIFA quickly killed it with Footsol.

I don't mind T20, but as a Franchise game, for evening pass time.

Besides, it's balancing much needed financials for every Cricket Board. But, T20 is against core of Cricket - now we can't see that, because already established players are playing T20. If we don't limit it, it'll cost FC & Test cricket, which eventually will kill the game for lack of proper talent.

Cricket by nature is a game of slow building, where you need time & patience to learn & apply your skills - "Rapid Chess", didn't produce Kasparov, Fischer or Karpov or Anand - though once they learned the game, they were best in rapid chess as well. But, if you make Rapid Chess the main format, Kasparovs won't be born any more - same is Cricket - Viv Richards won't have been Viv had he practiced only hitting in nets.
 
MMHS said:
Why spoil the character - every friend of mine started smoking or drinking with just one sniff or sip .......... It's cheap entertainment & I do agree that, some of the T20I are entertaining. If you allow them, can't restrict with a single match only. Rather it should be restricted to Franchise only - 20 or so years back, Football also started 5 a side "Internationals" - FIFA quickly killed it with Footsol.

I don't mind T20, but as a Franchise game, for evening pass time.

Besides, it's balancing much needed financials for every Cricket Board. But, T20 is against core of Cricket - now we can't see that, because already established players are playing T20. If we don't limit it, it'll cost FC & Test cricket, which eventually will kill the game for lack of proper talent.

Cricket by nature is a game of slow building, where you need time & patience to learn & apply your skills - "Rapid Chess", didn't produce Kasparov, Fischer or Karpov or Anand - though once they learned the game, they were best in rapid chess as well. But, if you make Rapid Chess the main format, Kasparovs won't be born any more - same is Cricket - Viv Richards won't have been Viv had he practiced only hitting in nets.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't care personally if they never played a T20 international again, but in a country like New Zealand, cricket is a poor cousin to rugby, so I can understand the notion of trying to get as many fans into cricket, even if that means focusing on the most entertaining form to get new people interested.
 
I don't watch most T-20 games. I mainly rate test and ODI with 65-35 or 60-40 weight. Well, I haven't thought about exact percentage that much so it can vary.
 
TEST cricket 99
ODI 1*
T20i 0


* World Cups only, all other ODI events have a 0 weighting
 
Tests and ODIs are 51-49 for me.

I feel both require ample amount of skill to achieve results.

T20s = 0. Don't get me wrong it requires skill but in comparison to the other two it's not even close. Rubbish cricketers can make merry in T20s these days.
 
kingusama92 said:
Tests and ODIs are 51-49 for me.

I feel both require ample amount of skill to achieve results.

T20s = 0. Don't get me wrong it requires skill but in comparison to the other two it's not even close. Rubbish cricketers can make merry in T20s these days.
Click to expand...

This seems a slightly weird thing to say given ODIs & T20s are much more similar by nature than Tests and ODIs are, and I don't just mean because those use a white ball.

The distinction I make in Tests compared to the other two is not just that it's played over 5 days, but moreover that in Test cricket you don't have anywhere to hide. If you're not up to it against a certain bowler for example, you don't have a limited number of overs you can see them off. Similarly, if you're weak against the short-ball, the restrictions aren't the same. etc etc
 
It has become very uncool to follow Test Cricket these days. And why not? Wasting 5 days over something in which no action takes place for 95% of the duration of play is insanity.
 
Dman said:
It has become very uncool to follow Test Cricket these days. And why not? Wasting 5 days over something in which no action takes place for 95% of the duration of play is insanity.
Click to expand...

Uncool? By 'followingt Test cricket, doesn't mean you have to watch every ball either, even if purists like me do try to ;)
 
Love test and ODI and don;t care much about T20.

Lets keep T20 at domestic level and commercial/professional leagues only and don;t play at international level at all.
 
Snatch said:
This seems a slightly weird thing to say given ODIs & T20s are much more similar by nature than Tests and ODIs are, and I don't just mean because those use a white ball.

The distinction I make in Tests compared to the other two is not just that it's played over 5 days, but moreover that in Test cricket you don't have anywhere to hide. If you're not up to it against a certain bowler for example, you don't have a limited number of overs you can see them off. Similarly, if you're weak against the short-ball, the restrictions aren't the same. etc etc
Click to expand...

There is some flip side to it. In ODI you are forced to score and some time even on good balls. You have to have range of shots otherwise life can be very difficult to rotate the strike. In Test, you can simply sit for a while when going gets tough and plan to score later. In ODI, you often can't do that otherwise game may be lost while doing so. You have to keep rotating the strike otherwise you get into situations where Pakistan finds itself often.

There is a reason that players like Cook, YK etc found it tough in ODI despite being good in the test format. Different skill set is required. Sure, I still rate test higher, but presenting the flip side here when it comes to challenge for batsmen.
 
Simple

Test 3 ( not so much over ODI because now a days in fast pace era it is waste of everything but it is still over ODI as it is the perfect form of cricket to judge a cricketer)

ODI 2 (just under test as it can judge a cricketer at least and one can give time (most valuable in this era )for it)

T20I 0 (it's just picnic and doesn't judge anything of cricketer at all ie it's not cricket just hit)
 
Nil Dhumrojal said:
Your judgement is based on current Pak's condition,isn't it? :D
Click to expand...
Actually no.

It's based in the fact that 20 and 50 overs cricket use balls which help batsmen on pitches which offer no lateral movement.

It's like watching football with twenty metre wide goalposts and no defenders.
 
Buffet said:
There is some flip side to it. In ODI you are forced to score and some time even on good balls. You have to have range of shots otherwise life can be very difficult to rotate the strike. In Test, you can simply sit for a while when going gets tough and plan to score later. In ODI, you often can't do that otherwise game may be lost while doing so. You have to keep rotating the strike otherwise you get into situations where Pakistan finds itself often.

There is a reason that players like Cook, YK etc found it tough in ODI despite being good in the test format. Different skill set is required. Sure, I still rate test higher, but presenting the flip side here when it comes to challenge for batsmen.
Click to expand...

I agree there's different skill-sets & guys like Cook, YK & even Michael Vaughan never had the games to make it in ODis.

But do remember, although you're right that good ODI batsmen have to be able to put away good bowling, let's not pretend that almost all ODIs games aren't played on good batting pitches these days... which means a batsmen like Martin Guptill who doesn't have the skills to last long against decent bowlers in Test cricket, does have the skill to confidently hit through the line of the ball, even against top bowlers in ODIs.
 
Junaids said:
Actually no.

It's based in the fact that 20 and 50 overs cricket use balls which help batsmen on pitches which offer no lateral movement.

It's like watching football with twenty metre wide goalposts and no defenders.
Click to expand...

All the pitches and grounds are not same as you stated.what will be your weights if ball moves?
 
Snatch said:
I agree there's different skill-sets & guys like Cook, YK & even Michael Vaughan never had the games to make it in ODis.

But do remember, although you're right that good ODI batsmen have to be able to put away good bowling, let's not pretend that almost all ODIs games aren't played on good batting pitches these days... which means a batsmen like Martin Guptill who doesn't have the skills to last long against decent bowlers in Test cricket, does have the skill to confidently hit through the line of the ball, even against top bowlers in ODIs.
Click to expand...

I think point about pitch is valid, but if we go back few years then it wasn't that bad. All ODI's pitches don't allow batsmen like Guptil to score freely otherwise he won't average Aus - 30 , India 32, SA 33 , SL 18 , WI 19 and so on... Sure, he plays better now, but still all pitches are not like WC pitches in AUS or bilateral between India-Aus in India few years back with both sides making 350+. My comment was in general for all ODI history.
 
It's 60-40 for me. Don't rate performances in T20s at all.

This said, I rate performance in ODIs the most. It's the toughest format for both batsmen and bowlers.
 
Tests 50%

ODI 15%

T20 35%

ODI are pointless now IMO. Just a long T20 match with more boring parts. Should be scrapped except for WC.
 
AamchiMumbaikar said:
I want to watch a timeless test to see how the game was when started!
Click to expand...

It'll be much more exciting than a 4 Day (400 overs) Test, trust me. Teams will bat positively & bowl to get 20 wickets, because only way you can avoid defeat is by winning it - better try to make runs when sun is shining. Hardly any timeless Test went beyond 5 playing days (without rain), but in general the RR was far better than 3/4 Days Test played in UK. Those days, average over-rate was 23-25/hour; often 6 hours day produced close to 150 overs - that's around 525+ overs in 4 days - enough time for a direct result; still, most times, teams having a deficit after even 1st Day, opted to play out time & try to avoid defeat - resulting run rate hobbling around 1.7 to 2.2.

You can analyze the scorecard of Ashes series between 1900 to 1938, when Tests in AUS was timeless while in UK, it was 3/4 days affair (with last Test being often timeless). Those days, these two were only good teams - matching each other; hence outside Ashes, matches are not conclusive, but still are indicative enough.
 
For me its:

ODIs - 55%

Tests - 40%

T20s - 5%

I think overall ODIs judge your skills a lot as you need a blend of aggression as well as defence.
 
Snatch said:
This seems a slightly weird thing to say given ODIs & T20s are much more similar by nature than Tests and ODIs are, and I don't just mean because those use a white ball.

The distinction I make in Tests compared to the other two is not just that it's played over 5 days, but moreover that in Test cricket you don't have anywhere to hide. If you're not up to it against a certain bowler for example, you don't have a limited number of overs you can see them off. Similarly, if you're weak against the short-ball, the restrictions aren't the same. etc etc
Click to expand...

ODIs exploit a batsman's inability to adapt under duress (i.e. scoreboard pressure, over limitations).

YK walking in at #3 (tests) will often face a similar scenario where he can take his time and build an innings. Once his eye gets in he can expand his strokeplay.

Don't get me wrong, it takes a lot of skill (which is why I put tests at 51%) but its repetitive and a person can excel if they hone their defensive technique and patience.

ODIs don't provide as much leniency. It's the reason YK has failed so many times. Sometimes, you walk into a situation where blocking is required and other days you need to score 6 an over.

T20s is a bit extreme and useless especially for bowlers. Walk in, hit, get out. A few top edge sixes and it's game over.
 
For me maybe 60% Tests 20% ODIs and 20% T20Is. I'll go with that.
 
MMHS said:
It'll be much more exciting than a 4 Day (400 overs) Test, trust me. Teams will bat positively & bowl to get 20 wickets, because only way you can avoid defeat is by winning it - better try to make runs when sun is shining. Hardly any timeless Test went beyond 5 playing days (without rain), but in general the RR was far better than 3/4 Days Test played in UK. Those days, average over-rate was 23-25/hour; often 6 hours day produced close to 150 overs - that's around 525+ overs in 4 days - enough time for a direct result; still, most times, teams having a deficit after even 1st Day, opted to play out time & try to avoid defeat - resulting run rate hobbling around 1.7 to 2.2.

You can analyze the scorecard of Ashes series between 1900 to 1938, when Tests in AUS was timeless while in UK, it was 3/4 days affair (with last Test being often timeless). Those days, these two were only good teams - matching each other; hence outside Ashes, matches are not conclusive, but still are indicative enough.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Will get more details on those matches.
 
Test - 65%
ODIs - 25%
T20s - 10%

I think the destiny of the shorter formats in that they will merge into one
 
Tests and ODIs are pretty much equal.

THOUGH a good sporting track Test where bowlers have a chance is better than ODIs.

T20s are fun indeed but not that important.
 
Tests 85%
ODI-10%
T20-5%

In Test matches there is no where to hide, and is where pure talent is required. It where batsmen have to bat on seaming pitches, and if they have a weakness they will be attacked, and bowlers need to be special with the ability to take wickets, and be vrave by pitching the ball up and must have endurance.

In ODI cricket average batsmen like Guptil and Grant Elliot can succeed because the ball doesnt move and the bowlers arent looking to get wickets (both Guptil and Elliot are toothles batsmen in Tests) and medium pace bowlers who do nothing with the ball can be just as effected as express bowler and part time spinners can be just as usefull as agressive/Test spinner like Shah.
 
Slog said:
Test - 65%
ODIs - 25%
T20s - 10%

I think the destiny of the shorter formats in that they will merge into one
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Though it would be interesting to see how our preferences change as we grow older and as times change.

I started watching cricket during the 96 WC, and then ODIs were my main format. I still followed test cricket, but not with the same passion.

My interest in tests grew during the Australia tour of India in 1998. It was billed as Warne vs Sachin series. That was the beginning of the love of test for me. The Pakistan tour of India + Indo-Pak asian test in 99 (3 tests that were played at real high intensity, and were super close) and India's tour to Australia in the same year (even though we were slaughtered) sealed Test cricket as the major format.

I was against T20s in the beginning. Even though India won in 07, it was still a format for sloggers as far as I was concerned. I am starting to slowly open up to T20, but it will never be close to ODIs or Tests for me. I will watch an International T20, but wont watch the IPL. I understand the importance of the IPL and similar tournament to players and the cricket economy, so I dont want it to cease existing, but I will not watch it.
 
Depending on the amount of time I have nothing to do, I watch cricket.
So here goes:
Odi's 80% (sometimes miss one innings)
T20s 18%
Test 2% (only follow on cricinfo)
 
One of the reasons why I would take AB,Amla, KP and Clarke over Cook or Yk..
 
T20 is not only producing low quality cricketers but also fans with low level of cricketing knowledpdge and understanding .
 
This is what I'll say

Tests - 42.5%
ODI's - 42.5%
T20I's - 15%
 
Last edited:
I think most players that are good ODI players preform well in Tests too.

But the same can't be said for some High class Test Players.

Although nevertheless I still rate the very equally but I might just give Test matches an edge.

As for T20I's they are entertaining but performances in just that format can't mean much.
 
kingusama92 said:
ODIs exploit a batsman's inability to adapt under duress (i.e. scoreboard pressure, over limitations).

YK walking in at #3 (tests) will often face a similar scenario where he can take his time and build an innings. Once his eye gets in he can expand his strokeplay.

Don't get me wrong, it takes a lot of skill (which is why I put tests at 51%) but its repetitive and a person can excel if they hone their defensive technique and patience.

ODIs don't provide as much leniency. It's the reason YK has failed so many times. Sometimes, you walk into a situation where blocking is required and other days you need to score 6 an over.

T20s is a bit extreme and useless especially for bowlers. Walk in, hit, get out. A few top edge sixes and it's game over.
Click to expand...

Totally agree!
 
Tests: 40%, ODIs: 35%, t20s: 25%

The shorter formats are great as is tests, it's like having a plate of food you don't want all meat or all veggies all of the time. Need some meat, veggies, and then leave a little room for dessert aka t20s.

Also the reason in Asia LOIs are given much more weightage is because our people like fast and quick entertainment compared to one where they applaud a player's mental grit and determination and appreciate a longer game of multiple days. They don't get the nuance behind it. Not saying everyone is like this, but this is the case for casual fans. ODIs/t20s give the quick thrill and entertainment in the form of big sixes and is why t20 leagues are so hot right now.
 
Used to watch ODI Cricket religiously.. It was all over once they started free hit and all that crap. I could care less if they scrape off ODI all together and just keep Test and T20

ODI has become extended t20 anyways
 
kingusama92 said:
ODIs exploit a batsman's inability to adapt under duress (i.e. scoreboard pressure, over limitations).

YK walking in at #3 (tests) will often face a similar scenario where he can take his time and build an innings. Once his eye gets in he can expand his strokeplay.

Don't get me wrong, it takes a lot of skill (which is why I put tests at 51%) but its repetitive and a person can excel if they hone their defensive technique and patience.

ODIs don't provide as much leniency. It's the reason YK has failed so many times. Sometimes, you walk into a situation where blocking is required and other days you need to score 6 an over.

T20s is a bit extreme and useless especially for bowlers. Walk in, hit, get out. A few top edge sixes and it's game over.
Click to expand...

Yup I grew up watching ODI under old rule and it was pretty tough..
 
Tests 80%
ODI 20% (Only World Cups and Multi National Events such as Champions Trophy)
T20 - O (These are only World Event and Multi National Cricket Events that I wouldn't mind missing) - A pointless pointless format with ZERO positives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Our team and cricket is in shambles, How do we get out of it?
Replies
50
Views
1K
jnaveen1980
J
K
LOI versus Test Cricket: Format Preference for Asian Nations
Replies
34
Views
623
kron
K
mominsaigol
Why do some Test greats struggle in White-Ball cricket and vice versa?
Replies
65
Views
2K
kron
K
dildilpak
Loyal Pakistan cricket fans still cheering for this team: How do you do it?
Replies
61
Views
2K
ayemgilani86
ayemgilani86
Suleiman
How to revive cricket after its death at the hands of India in Champions Trophy 2025 Final? What must be done?
2
Replies
122
Views
4K
Shehmir
S
Back
Top