Is it easier to bat in Test cricket than in Limited Overs?

[SangasCoverDrive]

The biggest example of this is Faheem Ashraf. He bats pretty well in Tests when the fielders are in but being the same player in LOI, he averages in 10s. Ashwin is kind of same batsmen too who would score important runs in Test but is not even half as good as in white ball (though not as useless as Faheem). You can also use the example of players like Azhar Ali, YK, Pujara, Misbah all of them who are very good Test batsmen but we’re exceptionally poor in white ball cricket.

 

[Savak]

Have to agree. In test cricket there is no run rate pressure most of the times except in the fourth innings, the bowling side has most of the fielders in the ring.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Not easier at all, its just completely different and requires a different skill set.

 

[U$ofA]

Have to agree. In test cricket there is no run rate pressure most of the times except in the fourth innings, the bowling side has most of the fielders in the ring.

This exactly was the thought process of Sehwag. Something that made him successful and changed the Test opener role in some way.

Also, he gave the same piece of advice to David Warner in encouraging him to take up opening in tests.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Yes. Unfortunately some of these elitists will find it difficult to reconcile with that fact and will go on about “techniques” and “application” without realizing just how much skill it takes to score against good bowling/fielding lineups as the required rate climbs. Eventually they will realize this though.

 

[Rafa]

In Test Cricket, you don't have the pressure of Scoring rate. A batsman can take his sweet time and keep blocking the good deliveries and wait for the bad balls , however such luxury is not available in Odis. An Odi Batsman needs to be capable to put the good balls away , if he plays too many dot balls the req rate increases and you can't escape defeat even after playing full quota of overs.

Younis Khan for example was great in Tests but he didn't have the ability to score valuable runs in Odis as he struggled to score at a decent rate and played sluggish knocks.

It's often said that Test Cricket is ultimate test of all skills of a Batsman/Cricketer but it doesn't Test a Batsmans ability to survive and score runs at the same time.

 

[Rajdeep]

Batting in test cricket is atleast 5 times tougher for the following reasons:

1) Red Ball seams around more due to higher tread on the seam.

2) More close in fielders and slips/gully throughout the innings

3) Bowlers can bowl for longer spells. Spinners can bowl 20-25 overs a day with close in fielders. There is no see off the strike bowler and target 4th or 5th bowler like in ODIs

4) Test match pitches are mostly left with some grass to last for 5 days. Team batting first will always face bowlers getting some seam movement. It slowly assist spinners starting 4th day due to wear and tear. Batting on 5th day becomes nightmare due to potholes. In ODI, they shave off all the grass and its a case of see the ball and hit the ball along the line.

5) No bodyline bowling in ODIs. Also, test batters dont get advantage of free hits, power play, field restrictions etc.

6) 2 new balls in ODIs means ball never reverses.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

Batting in test cricket is atleast 5 times tougher for the following reasons:

1) Red Ball seams around more due to higher tread on the seam.

2) More close in fielders and slips/gully throughout the innings

3) Bowlers can bowl for longer spells. Spinners can bowl 20-25 overs a day with close in fielders. There is no see off the strike bowler and target 4th or 5th bowler like in ODIs

4) Test match pitches are mostly left with some grass to last for 5 days. Team batting first will always face bowlers getting some seam movement. It slowly assist spinners starting 4th day due to wear and tear. Batting on 5th day becomes nightmare due to potholes. In ODI, they shave off all the grass and its a case of see the ball and hit the ball along the line.

5) No bodyline bowling in ODIs. Also, test batters dont get advantage of free hits, power play, field restrictions etc.

6) 2 new balls in ODIs means ball never reverses.

Ok then why tailenders and lower order batsmen tend to score more runs in Test cricket than in white ball cricket? Do you think Yasir can score a hundred in ODI or T20? Do you think Washington Sundar can score 90 odd in ODI cricket? Do you think Alzarri Joseph can score 89 in ODI?

 

[boomboomcheema]

Batting in test cricket is atleast 5 times tougher for the following reasons:

1) Red Ball seams around more due to higher tread on the seam.

2) More close in fielders and slips/gully throughout the innings

3) Bowlers can bowl for longer spells. Spinners can bowl 20-25 overs a day with close in fielders. There is no see off the strike bowler and target 4th or 5th bowler like in ODIs

4) Test match pitches are mostly left with some grass to last for 5 days. Team batting first will always face bowlers getting some seam movement. It slowly assist spinners starting 4th day due to wear and tear. Batting on 5th day becomes nightmare due to potholes. In ODI, they shave off all the grass and its a case of see the ball and hit the ball along the line.

5) No bodyline bowling in ODIs. Also, test batters dont get advantage of free hits, power play, field restrictions etc.

6) 2 new balls in ODIs means ball never reverses.

Lol that's what is expected from someone who probably is a Test Cricket fanatic.

If Test batting is 5 times tougher then what stops your Pujara from succeeding in Odi format which is 5 times easier than Test Cricket ? Odi Cricket won't let him play dead bat Cricket all day.

 

[Ab Fan]

Different formats have different challenge but test cricket batting is comfortably much more tougher than ODI batting. Actually, ODI batting is not much tougher if you have some shots in your kitty.

KL Rahul and Johnny Bairstow are perfect examples of that. They want to do well in test cricket and they have the game to do well too but they struggle because it is much hard to master test cricket.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

Different formats have different challenge but test cricket batting is comfortably much more tougher than ODI batting. Actually, ODI batting is not much tougher if you have some shots in your kitty.

KL Rahul and Johnny Bairstow are perfect examples of that. They want to do well in test cricket and they have the game to do well too but they struggle because it is much hard to master test cricket.

Then what about Pujara, YK, Azhar Ali etc? There are countless examples of Test players failing in ODIs.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes it is.

A Test match between two average teams on a flat wicket is the lowest form of cricket that you can have at the professional level.

Someone like Faheem can play at his own tempo in a Test match but as soon you force him get out of his comfort-zone due to run rate pressure, he crumbles like cookie.

This is why the notion that Test cricket is harder than LOIs is a load of baloney. If it was actually harder, every successful Test cricketer would have dominated the shorter formats but that is not the case.

Someone like Azhar and Pujara can block against an average attack on a flat pitch all day long, but if you ask them to bat at a SR of 100+ against the same attack in the same conditions, they will perish.

 

[boomboomcheema]

All strokeless wonders like Azhar Ali, Misbah , Pujara shine in Test Cricket that is supposed to be 5 times tougher according to fanatics but all are failed Odi Batsmen.

 

[boomboomcheema]

Test Cricket is so difficult for batting that Misbah ul Haq of all people has the Fastest Test Ton record whereas same Misbah couldn't bat to save his life in Odis and didn't have a single Odi 100.

Misbah 100s in Test Cricket = 10

Misbah 100s in Odi Cricket = Zero.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

Even Afridi averages like 30 in Tests and in ODI his average was in 20s lol.

 

[Ab Fan]

Then what about Pujara, YK, Azhar Ali etc? There are countless examples of Test players failing in ODIs.

Their skill sets do not fall even within a mile of ODI cricket. So, they struggle there. The skill sets of Tests and ODIs are different and it is much harder to master test cricket but you need some skills to do well in LOIs also. Pujara and Azhar don't have any skills required for LOIs.

Rahul and Bairstow have skills to succeed in both formats but you can clearly see that they find it much harder in Tests than LOIs because mastering tests is much harder even if you have the right skills.

 

[Rajdeep]

Lol that's what is expected from someone who probably is a Test Cricket fanatic.

If Test batting is 5 times tougher then what stops your Pujara from succeeding in Odi format which is 5 times easier than Test Cricket ? Odi Cricket won't let him play dead bat Cricket all day.

I am a cricket fanatic but can you pls rebut any of the points I raised? Is it not true that with close in fielders, no field restrictions, red ball etc. makes test batting much tougher.

Pujara is a poor example because he is almost finished as a batsman. His avg in last two years proves that. During his peak years he would have been a fine ODI batsman but India had too many good players for him to find a place. I can also give a counter arguement why likes of Yuvraj Singh who was a superstar white ball player...man of the series in a world cup, couldnt make a mark in test cricket. So these individual examples makes no sense.

The fact is, chasing 350 runs in modern ODI cricket is considered a norm these days. However, teams struggle to even chase down 250+ scores in tests. Ask any cricketer and he will always consider batting in tests is the toughest.

 

[Ab Fan]

Fakhar Zaman averages 48 in ODIs.

In test cricket, 32. Also, gets termed as hack.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Comparing apples to oranges.

The right comparison would be

Tests (lively pitches) vs Test (flat pitches) vs ODIs (80s and 90s) vs ODIs (now).

Test (lively pitches) - Takes skills to survive the good balls so you can punish the bad balls. This is why players like Yuvraj Singh, Raina couldn't make it in test cricket. They could destroy the bad balls but wouldn't last long enough to capitalize on it.

Test (flat pitches) - Requires a different skill to score big. Yes, its easier to score 20s and 30s on dead pitches but it's not the same as scoring 100s and 200s. A 30 run on a tough pitch DOES NOT translate into 200 runs on an easy pitch. Batsman has to have the mindset to play a long innings. Guys like Sehwag and Warner are amazing here (tho Sehwag can do the same on lively spin pitches too).

ODIs (80s and 90s) - Guys like Rayudu, Rahane, Ashwin would be very good/decent ODI bats/ARs back in the day where the focus was still on surviving the bad balls so you can capitalize on the good ones. Scoring fast wasn't that big a requirement.

ODIs (now) - Pitches are flat as hell. A pitch in SA or Eng or India or Aus is almost the same except for bounce. Key is to ABSORB pressure and score fast. Totally different skillset. Someone like Dravid who has 10k ODI runs would struggle here. This is built for modern day explosive bats (and even hacks - not meant as an insult here). It's an incredible skill no doubt but it's ONE TYPE of skill.

-----

Take guys like Alex Hales, Jason Roy and put them in Tests (lively), ODIs (80s and 90s) and they will flop around while guys like Rahane, Dravid will score super important runs and win you games. They might even struggle on flat test pitches if the bowling is good enough.

So all in all....cricket is a very complex game with so many formats and changing conditions.

Challenging in a way.

Pathetic in another way.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

Fakhar Zaman averages 48 in ODIs.

In test cricket, 32. Also, gets termed as hack.

He has got like average of 172 against Zimbabwe in 8 matches. That helps his case a lot.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Pujara would have been an AMAZING ODI batsman in the 70s and 80s.

Would have averaged 40-50 with 65-75 SR.

Check his List A records. He averages 54. Remember him scoring runs for fun in England tour (for the A team I think)

For the modern ODI era, he is worse than useless.

 

[Srtfan]

Yuvraj, symonds, bevan, dhwan, raina, finch, ajay jadeja,( they are super star In odi & flop in test.)

 

[Hitman]

Sachin Tendulkar was once asked which format (Test or ODI) was more difficult. He answered that Test cricket is definitely more challenging.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Pujara would have been an AMAZING ODI batsman in the 70s and 80s.

Would have averaged 40-50 with 65-75 SR.

Check his List A records. He averages 54. Remember him scoring runs for fun in England tour (for the A team I think)

For the modern ODI era, he is worse than useless.

Azhar Ali, Asad Shafiq and Fawad Alam would’ve been amazing ODI batsmen in the 70s and 80s. That doesn’t mean anything. Cricketers live and play in their own time and that’s where their worth is judged.

 

[Ab Fan]

He has got like average of 172 against Zimbabwe in 8 matches. That helps his case a lot.

Against the Big 3, New Zealand and South Africa overall, he averages 45 at 93 which is pretty good too. But his test stats are awful.

If you compare ODI runs vs top teams to test runs vs lower ranked teams, then the ODIs runs are obviously more valuable but if you campare apples with apples, then Test cricket is much harder than ODIs for 90% scenarios.

Take a case of Joe Root. He is equally good in both formats- Tests and ODIs but if you ask him which format he spends more time improving or focussing on, he will tell you it's test cricket.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Azhar Ali, Asad Shafiq and Fawad Alam would’ve been amazing ODI batsmen in the 70s and 80s. That doesn’t mean anything. Cricketers live and play in their own time and that’s where their worth is judged.

Asad Shafiq no. That dude is a mental midget.

Azhar Ali probably. Whats his List A average?

Fawad Alam most likely tho he hasnt been tested much against quality bowling.

Just cos someone is slow and steady doesnt mean they will be amazing bats in 80s.

There is a graveyard full of mediocre 80s and 90s slow coach bats. Lol.

Pujara being amazing would also be due to his unreal mental strength.

Sure it doesnt mean much now but just cos era has changed doesnt mean we stop acknowledging the reality.

Forget about everything....had India played Dravid as opener in 2019 WC semi we might have won it.

All the magical explosive hacks so missing when there is movement, so lets show some respect to players who can withdtand good bowling.

With that being said, the elitist view that if you can master test cricket, you can master anything is pure unadulterated b.s.

That nonsense needs to be called out.

 

[Titan24]

Batting as a whole in test cricket is much more challenging from technical perspective as others have said. Knock of 91 which Faheem played in NZ against quality attack requires decent skills. Also he averages 38 in Tests.

Valid question that why is he struggling in ODI cricket?

Answer is pretty simple and revolves around few things. Lets take his domestic averages first, average of 32 in FC cricket with bat and 15 in List A cricket with the bat. He is able to replicate his FC average in test cricket rather as of now if doing better than that while in ODI cricket he is averaging in teen (11) just like his List A average which is slightly better.

These averages manifest his default comfort level and skillset. When batting at no 7, 8 in white ball cricket there is usually a high scoreboard pressure lingering over you, while in test cricket at similar numbers you just have to play normally.

You can argue in last two matches there wasnt much of scoreboard pressure as well and he just had to bat normally. Thing is game sense is one thing most of our players lack, he came in team was under pressure and rather than playing normally and settling in he started playing high risk shots straight away which he normally would avoid in tests atleast for some balls and even if he will than there are less fielders on the boundary and more gaps with no extra thinking of overs remaining and runs scored required.

His weakness wasnt something which could’nt have been seen at domestic level or as his domestic numbers show as well. Guy with a list A average of 16 can’t be a finisher, yes he has some decent basics to improve but only he can work hard and coaches can also help him. With 2 List A 50s after 73 matches, if anyone was expecting him to suddenly score a 100 in ODI than I guess it has more to do with expectations of management, selectors as well as fans.

 

[Saurav]

Both have different challenges

But I'd take a good Test batter over a good ODI one. Say a Laxman over Yuvraj

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

An ODI & a test match played on exactly same pitch & condition will most probably have the following outcome;

1. On a rank turner, batting will be easier in an ODI compared to a test match. less close in fielders, less overs of spin, two white balls mean batting would be slightly easier in an ODI game. Test score would probably be around 140-150, ODi score around 200-220.

2. On an absolute Greentop, I expect score to be around 200- 220. Test match innings will probably have 10-15 less runs compared to an ODI innings.

3. On a pacy & a bouncy pitch, Im not quite sure as I haven't seen a very pacy & a bouncy track for a while.

4. On a slow sluggish pitch, test batting will be easier.

5. On a flat track, Test batting again will be much more easier.

 

[Mesozoic]

People often forget about the mental aspects of batting in different formats. As Gavaskar would say, batting (in any format) is 70% mindset , 25% ability and 5% luck.

In limited overs cricket, the main and clear objective of a batter is to score a run(s) almost every ball. In the past one and a half decade or so, it has become even more clearer with the advent of T20 cricket, flat wickets, big bats, smaller boundaries, two new balls etc etc.

A Shreyas Iyer or a Mo Hafeez will fully commit to a cover drive/off drive if the ball is full and just outside offstump. But a Pujara or Azhar Ali have to battle their instincts, leave the ball most of the time and pick and choose carefully which delivery to commit fully because at the back of their minds, they know it's okay even if they shoulder arms to a juicy half volley or a short and wide tempter. This inner struggle of whether to go for a shot or not can and usually results in a batter playing a half minded shot. Kohli's nothing shot against Jamieson on the last day at Southampton is the best example that comes to mind. If that was a white ball game, he would have played that with a lot more conviction and would have punched it to cover as his mind would not have been stuck in a "to leave or to play" dilemma. And that's the speciality of test cricket as it is as much a test of your temperament, patience and decision making as it is of your technique and ability.

 

[Marooned]

This place is becoming collectively dumber day by day. Can't believe you guys are unable to see the other side of the argument so here goes.

1. For every example you gave, there many more examples which prove the reverse.
How many batsman average 50 in tests? Cuz even Imam and Hope do in odis. Babar averages some 58 odd in odi and only 42 in tests. Kohli averages 60+ in odis and only 52 in tests. Dhoni averaged 50 in odi and would not get into Indian test team on batting alone with that 36 average. Sharma for all his inflated test average is not even 1/10th the batsman he is in odis. Everyone knows this. I don't even need to talk about Roy and Bowledstow. Generally, if you look for this decade , odi averages for batsmen are much higher than test averages.

2. People are saying they just require different skills which is true but the two can't be equated. Test requires a far far higher level of skill. This is because test cricket gives a bowler Carte Blanche of sorts. Throw on whatever you have got in your arsenal with field placements of choice, long spells etc. and take the wicket! That is the challenge. It also gives the batsmen a Carte Blanche. Bring out all the skills you have in whatever way possible and make the runs! This is obviously a much more complete test of skills than batting with no slips, powerplays, barely any spin(since the 2 new ball rule) and no pitch deterioration with only the occasional run rate pressure.


3. If you ask any batsman who has played both the formats, I can guarantee you their answer will always be test cricket...oh I forgot they are all beridden with sentimentality and emotions and only we can see it clearly.

 

[street cricketer]

You are comparing two completely different formats of the game that require different skills. In Test cricket, the difficulty of the bowling and/or the conditions (pitch/overhead/red ball) is often higher and therefore the probability of you getting out is more. There is also much more time in Test cricket and therefore as a combined effect of which, you have to be very concentrated to minimise the risks of you getting out and bat for longer periods. A blitzkrieg style of innings will not work in Test cricket because the probability of getting out even with normal batting is higher in Test cricket and an ultra attacking innings will invariably be fraught with more risks and also, it might lead you to getting out very quickly while giving more time for the opponents to bat long. So such an approach will not be very productive in the risk vs reward calculation in Test cricket.

In LOI cricket, the urgency to score runs is more as the game time is much shorter compared to Test cricket and therefore you have to be more attacking in your approach to get as many runs as possible before the game time runs out. The probability of you getting out is also lesser in LOI cricket because the scales are tilted towards the batsmen mostly (flat pitches, short boundaries, power plays, fielding restrictions, 2 new balls, white ball swinging less, etc.). Therefore in such a scenario, the risk/reward calculation calls for a more attacking approach as a sedate approach will cost you the game.

The difference is as stark as the difference between amateur boxing (used in the Olympics and the commonwealth games) and professional boxing. In amateur boxing, there is much lesser rounds (3) while in pro boxing, you have to fight for a longer period (12 rounds). The winner in amateur boxing at the olympics is decided by the number of "clean" punches one can land on the opponent within those 3 rounds. Therefore you need to be more attacking in your approach. In Professional boxing however, there are far more rounds and therefore you have to outlast your opponent. Also the winner is not just decided by the number of blows you land, an uber attacking approach against a boxer with a strong defense will lead you to tiring out quickly. Therefore someone like Mayweather will keep at an arms distance and try to evade the barrage of punches from the opponent, biding his time and choosing the right time to go for the kill. A boxer with a strong defense, great reflexes and with a single powerful blow can sometimes knock an opponent out.

It makes no sense to compare amateur boxing where you have to be pro active in throwing clean punches quickly within a short period of time to professional boxing which tests your technique and stamina more and your ability to survive an attacking barrage and outlast your opponent. It's the same thing between comparing batting in LOI cricket and Test cricket.

 

[BDfanforever]

Test Cricket fundamentalist: test cricket is the hardest format to master.

Yasir Shah after scoring century in Australia: hold my beer.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

The formats have diverged a lot in recent years and the gap is massive especially in a place like England. Pujara can never bat at 110 SR at the top of the order consistently even on an extremely flat pitch. Conversely, Jason Roy cant open in English test match conditions to save his life.

 

[street cricketer]

Needless to add, saying batting in Test cricket is easier than batting in LOI cricket is a bit like saying the likes of Floyd Mayweather and Muhammad Ali had it easier in professional boxing than those in the amateur boxing circuit.

 

[UzmanBeast]

Yes it is.

A Test match between two average teams on a flat wicket is the lowest form of cricket that you can have at the professional level.

Someone like Faheem can play at his own tempo in a Test match but as soon you force him get out of his comfort-zone due to run rate pressure, he crumbles like cookie.

This is why the notion that Test cricket is harder than LOIs is a load of baloney. If it was actually harder, every successful Test cricketer would have dominated the shorter formats but that is not the case.

Someone like Azhar and Pujara can block against an average attack on a flat pitch all day long, but if you ask them to bat at a SR of 100+ against the same attack in the same conditions, they will perish.

Conditions matter in Test Cricket.

Playing in SENA is much harder than ODI cricket, but playing on flat Pakistani wickets where our team should be making 500+ is quite easy.

I personally find spinning wickets entertaining to watch in test cricket, a true challenge, but seaming conditions are equally as entertaining.

Both formats require different skillsets but I don't think it will be too long before players introduce high-risk shots into test cricket, particularly Pant.

 

[Mamoon]

Needless to add, saying batting in Test cricket is easier than batting in LOI cricket is a bit like saying the likes of Floyd Mayweather and Muhammad Ali had it easier in professional boxing than those in the amateur boxing circuit.

This example is highly illogical.

If Mayweather, Tyson etc. would have competed in the amateur circuit during their peak and got whooped, the argument that professional boxing is harder would not have any credibility.

Plenty of Test greats have failed in LOIs during their peak, which dispels the notion that batting in Test cricket is tougher.

If it was tougher, then all Test greats would have found LOIs to be a piece of cake.

 

[Mamoon]

This place is becoming collectively dumber day by day. Can't believe you guys are unable to see the other side of the argument so here goes.

1. For every example you gave, there many more examples which prove the reverse.
How many batsman average 50 in tests? Cuz even Imam and Hope do in odis. Babar averages some 58 odd in odi and only 42 in tests. Kohli averages 60+ in odis and only 52 in tests. Dhoni averaged 50 in odi and would not get into Indian test team on batting alone with that 36 average. Sharma for all his inflated test average is not even 1/10th the batsman he is in odis. Everyone knows this. I don't even need to talk about Roy and Bowledstow. Generally, if you look for this decade , odi averages for batsmen are much higher than test averages.

2. People are saying they just require different skills which is true but the two can't be equated. Test requires a far far higher level of skill. This is because test cricket gives a bowler Carte Blanche of sorts. Throw on whatever you have got in your arsenal with field placements of choice, long spells etc. and take the wicket! That is the challenge. It also gives the batsmen a Carte Blanche. Bring out all the skills you have in whatever way possible and make the runs! This is obviously a much more complete test of skills than batting with no slips, powerplays, barely any spin(since the 2 new ball rule) and no pitch deterioration with only the occasional run rate pressure.


3. If you ask any batsman who has played both the formats, I can guarantee you their answer will always be test cricket...oh I forgot they are all beridden with sentimentality and emotions and only we can see it clearly.

The problem with such statements is that they are simply illogical.

If Test cricket is a far higher level of skill, that means that ODI cricket is a much lower level of skill.

If that is true, then why do plenty of players who have attained the far higher level of skill fail to perform the much lower level of skill?

If every single Test great was dominating ODIs, this statement would have been true. However, they don’t and hence, this statement stands falsified.

Would a PhD in mathematics fail a high school math exam? Never. And that shows that PhD level math requires far greater knowledge and application than high school mathematics.

However, plenty of Test greats with the so-called far greater skill have flunked the Limited Overs examination which is supposedly the much inferior skill.

Yes, the reverse is also true. Plenty of LOI stars have also failed to adapt to Test because they do not have the skills to succeed in the format.

 

[ElRaja]

xyz averages 40 in tests, but 30 in odis, ipso facto test batting is easier is dumbest logic ever. theres loads of batsmen who average more in odis than tests, but thats besides the point.

1. test cricket is about batsmen not making mistakes for extended periods of time. scoring a pretty 50 will rarely win you a test but a quick 50 in odis can have a massive impact on the result.

2. no close in fielders. the amount of streaky boundaries in odis cannot be ignored. not having close in fielders take significant amount of pressure off the batsmen, and contributes to virtually eliminating the potency of spinners.

3. most odis are played with two news balls on flat wickets with boundaries drawn in close. the first 7 or 8 overs are technically challenging, after that the next 40 overs will rarely see the ball or pitch do anything unexpected.

4. no persistent short pitch bowling. odi greats such as bevan struggled at test level because of an inability to play the short ball. you will never have a specific weakness of your game tested in an odi consistently like you do in tests.

5. concentration, limited overs you will rarely have to play more than 150 balls, and if you bat 4 or below, you will seldom have to play more than 100 balls. in a test a good batsmen would be expected to average 80 to 100 balls per dismissal, regardless of batting position.

any competition at the highest level is technically very tough, but test match batting definitely exacts a much higher mental toll on batsmen than any other sport imho.

 

[Mamoon]

I am a cricket fanatic but can you pls rebut any of the points I raised? Is it not true that with close in fielders, no field restrictions, red ball etc. makes test batting much tougher.

Pujara is a poor example because he is almost finished as a batsman. His avg in last two years proves that. During his peak years he would have been a fine ODI batsman but India had too many good players for him to find a place. I can also give a counter arguement why likes of Yuvraj Singh who was a superstar white ball player...man of the series in a world cup, couldnt make a mark in test cricket. So these individual examples makes no sense.

The fact is, chasing 350 runs in modern ODI cricket is considered a norm these days. However, teams struggle to even chase down 250+ scores in tests. Ask any cricketer and he will always consider batting in tests is the toughest.

You have actually negated your own argument by citing Pujara’s example.

Pujara could not compete with Kohli, Rohit and Dhawan during his peak years which is why didn’t get picked in ODIs. He also couldn’t cut it in Tests.

If your statement that batting in Test cricket is 5 times harder was true, then someone like Pujara, who was indispensable for India in Tests and highly successful would have also been a monstrous ODI player.

He should have been a better ODI player than Rohit and Dhawan since he was also a better Test player than them.

Hence, the idea that Test cricket is five times harder or requires a higher level of skill has no truth attached to it.

 

[Mamoon]

xyz averages 40 in tests, but 30 in odis, ipso facto test batting is easier is dumbest logic ever. theres loads of batsmen who average more in odis than tests, but thats besides the point.

1. test cricket is about batsmen not making mistakes for extended periods of time. scoring a pretty 50 will rarely win you a test but a quick 50 in odis can have a massive impact on the result.

2. no close in fielders. the amount of streaky boundaries in odis cannot be ignored. not having close in fielders take significant amount of pressure off the batsmen, and contributes to virtually eliminating the potency of spinners.

3. most odis are played with two news balls on flat wickets with boundaries drawn in close. the first 7 or 8 overs are technically challenging, after that the next 40 overs will rarely see the ball or pitch do anything unexpected.

4. no persistent short pitch bowling. odi greats such as bevan struggled at test level because of an inability to play the short ball. you will never have a specific weakness of your game tested in an odi consistently like you do in tests.

5. concentration, limited overs you will rarely have to play more than 150 balls, and if you bat 4 or below, you will seldom have to play more than 100 balls. in a test a good batsmen would be expected to average 80 to 100 balls per dismissal, regardless of batting position.

any competition at the highest level is technically very tough, but test match batting definitely exacts a much higher mental toll on batsmen than any other sport imho.

Then how do you explain why a lot of successful Test batsmen are ODI flops?

Why would a batsman average 40 in Tests but 30 in ODIs if Test requires a higher level of skill?

If you master a higher level of skill, you should be even better at performing the lower level skill.

 

[Titan24]

I think all the formats while revolve around the basics require somewhat different skillsets and we cant confidently say that one is more difficult then others. Yes as mentioned in my post test cricket is more challenging from technical point of view as any chink in your armor is going to be tested at one point or another while in ODIs your technique is tested but obviously not as much as test however, your ability to play strokes on good balls and your ability to adapt as per the match situation, following the req RR comes into play which are not easy skills to master as well. In T20s technical aspect takes the back seat big time and ability to hit, RR and match situation take much more control.

So in terms of basics of batting which revolve around technique test batting is much more difficult than any other format. However, that doesnt mean that the skills require in ODIs or T20 cricket are easy to master as there are many good quality test batsmen who struggle to do so and vise versa.

Most world class players have all round skills and are good at all the formats however in 90s or early 2000s most of the 40+ averaging ODI batsmen (Playing in top 4-5) would generally be decent test batsmen as well and vise versa however with the changing dynamics of the ODI cricket with 2 new balls, flat wickets and field restrictions there are quite a few 40+ averaging ODI batsmen around who struggle in test cricket or are unable to match their success. Imam, Fakhar, Roy, Bairstow, Dhawan (Now a days), Rohit (For most part of his career until last 2-3 years), Hope, Finch etc.

That change in ODIs meant that it started to require certain kind of specialization as well which quite a few decently successful Test players (Averaging 40+) have been unable to adapt to ODI cricket as well. Pujara, Azhar Ali, Elgar, Rahane, Shafiq, Cook etc. Who would have been automatic choices in the previous eras of ODI cricket.

So as mentioned all the formats require different level of skillset and unless you are world class player, none of these different skills are easy to master. However, yes the basics of batting based upon the history of cricket which revolve around technique are obviously tested more in test cricket.

 

[Ab Fan]

The problem with such statements is that they are simply illogical.

If Test cricket is a far higher level of skill, that means that ODI cricket is a much lower level of skill.

If that is true, then why do plenty of players who have attained the far higher level of skill fail to perform the much lower level of skill?

If every single Test great was dominating ODIs, this statement would have been true. However, they don’t and hence, this statement stands falsified.

Would a PhD in mathematics fail a high school math exam? Never. And that shows that PhD level math requires far greater knowledge and application than high school mathematics.

However, plenty of Test greats with the so-called far greater skill have flunked the Limited Overs examination which is supposedly the much inferior skill.

Yes, the reverse is also true. Plenty of LOI stars have also failed to adapt to Test because they do not have the skills to succeed in the format.

Except that Test cricket and LOI cricket are two different subjects and require different level of skill sets. It is like Science and Commerce and Test cricket is harder because it is Science and LOI cricket is like Commerce. Now, every science student can't do the commerce student work but it is a fact that the study that you do in Science is harder. It is harder to master it than mastering Commerce. No disrespect to Commerce students but that's a basic level of explanation that I can come up.

 

[Marooned]

The problem with such statements is that they are simply illogical.

If Test cricket is a far higher level of skill, that means that ODI cricket is a much lower level of skill.

If that is true, then why do plenty of players who have attained the far higher level of skill fail to perform the much lower level of skill?

If every single Test great was dominating ODIs, this statement would have been true. However, they don’t and hence, this statement stands falsified.

Would a PhD in mathematics fail a high school math exam? Never. And that shows that PhD level math requires far greater knowledge and application than high school mathematics.

However, plenty of Test greats with the so-called far greater skill have flunked the Limited Overs examination which is supposedly the much inferior skill.

Yes, the reverse is also true. Plenty of LOI stars have also failed to adapt to Test because they do not have the skills to succeed in the format.

Lolwat? You literally yourself chose one format over the other right in this very thread. Maybe say that to yourself?

Alternatively, if you are done being silly,
I literally explained why in the 2nd point itself.

Test cricket requires far higher skill because it tests a batsman in much more complete way than white ball cricket.

Smaller spells means a batsman is able to get away from the most threatening bowler without standing up to him.

No slip to worry about for most of the game means countless edges go unpunished. The room for error is much smaller in test cricket.

Fielding restrictions, luxury of 2 balls (ie barely any spin) , no pitch deterioration give the batsman far less to worry.

The only point in odi's favour is the runrate pressure which is only occasional.


There isn't a complete overlap of skills if you want to find silly logical traps and indeed, certain odi innings can be more difficult than scoring same amount in tests but if we want to make a general statement, there are sufficient reasons to say
that test batting requires a higher level of skills.

 

[Mamoon]

Lolwat? You literally yourself chose one format over the other right in this very thread. Maybe say that to yourself?

Alternatively, if you are done being silly,
I literally explained why in the 2nd point itself.

Test cricket requires far higher skill because it tests a batsman in much more complete way than white ball cricket.

Smaller spells means a batsman is able to get away from the most threatening bowler without standing up to him.

No slip to worry about for most of the game means countless edges go unpunished. The room for error is much smaller in test cricket.

Fielding restrictions, luxury of 2 balls (ie barely any spin) , no pitch deterioration give the batsman far less to worry.

The only point in odi's favour is the runrate pressure which is only occasional.


There isn't a complete overlap of skills if you want to find silly logical traps and indeed, certain odi innings can be more difficult than scoring same amount in tests but if we want to make a general statement, there are sufficient reasons to say
that test batting requires a higher level of skills.

If you are done waffling and you are done with your mental gymnastics, you’d realize that I didn’t ask a difficult question.

If Test cricket requires a far higher level of skill, then why do a lot of batsmen who have mastered this higher level of skill unable to perform the so-called lower level of skill?

If Test cricket was actually harder, every successful Test cricket would have dominated ODIs and T20s.

The bottom-line is that Test cricket is not harder. It is simply a test of different skills and characteristics.

If you have those skills and characteristics, you will do well in Tests. If you don’t, you won’t.

Similarly, ODIs and T20Is require a different skill-set.

The truly great batsmen are the ones who have the versatility to meet the demands of both red ball and white ball cricket.

Again - Test cricket cannot be harder than white ball cricket if a lot of successful Test cricketers are failures in white ball cricket.

Is the reverse true? Sure. So what does that mean? It means that the only logical and factual conclusion that we can draw is that no format is harder than the other. They simply test different skills and attributes.

If you have Test-specific attributes, you will be a good Test player. If you have LOI-specific attributes, you will be a good LOI player. If you are a complete batsman, you will excel in all formats.

As far as the prestige is concerned, it is a completely different argument. Test is the purest format considering it’s stature throughout the course of the history of the game cricket, so if you want to say that it is better to have Test cricket skills than Limited Overs cricket skills, that is perfectly fine.

 

[Mamoon]

Except that Test cricket and LOI cricket are two different subjects and require different level of skill sets. It is like Science and Commerce and Test cricket is harder because it is Science and LOI cricket is like Commerce. Now, every science student can't do the commerce student work but it is a fact that the study that you do in Science is harder. It is harder to master it than mastering Commerce. No disrespect to Commerce students but that's a basic level of explanation that I can come up.

It is not a logical explanation because the basics of batting do not change from one format to the other. It is not a completely different subject.

Sure, they test different skills and attributes as I explained previously, but it is still batting, and
the differences between batting in Tests and ODIs is not the same as the difference in a science subject and a business subject.

It is like comparing cricket batting to being a striker in football.

Would a person with an MBA in finance fail a business 101 undergrad course? Never. Hence, it shows that a person with MBA level knowledge of business administration will have more than sufficient knowledge and application to breeze through a 101 business course.

It clearly proves that MBA level courses are harder than BBA level courses.

However, if Test was actually harder than LOIs, every great Test player would have excelled in LOIs.

 

[Marooned]

If you are done waffling and you are done with your mental gymnastics, you’d realize that I didn’t ask a difficult question.

If Test cricket requires a far higher level of skill, then why do a lot of batsmen who have mastered this higher level of skill unable to perform the so-called lower level of skill?

If Test cricket was actually harder, every successful Test cricket would have dominated ODIs and T20s.

The bottom-line is that Test cricket is not harder. It is simply a test of different skills and characteristics.

If you have those skills and characteristics, you will do well in Tests. If you don’t, you won’t.

Similarly, ODIs and T20Is require a different skill-set.

The truly great batsmen are the ones who have the versatility to meet the demands of both red ball and white ball cricket.

Again - Test cricket cannot be harder than white ball cricket if a lot of successful Test cricketers are failures in white ball cricket.

Is the reverse true? Sure. So what does that mean? It means that the only logical and factual conclusion that we can draw is that no format is harder than the other. They simply test different skills and attributes.

If you have Test-specific attributes, you will be a good Test player. If you have LOI-specific attributes, you will be a good LOI player. If you are a complete batsman, you will excel in all formats.

As far as the prestige is concerned, it is a completely different argument. Test is the purest format considering it’s stature throughout the course of the history of the game cricket, so if you want to say that it is better to have Test cricket skills than Limited Overs cricket skills, that is perfectly fine.

1. Ok first things first, You yourself said in this very thread that batting in tests was easier. Op's question : Is batting in tests easier....
Your answer: Yes it is.
And now you are saying no such logical conclusion can be drawn. So which one is you? Cuz it's no fun arguing with a shape shifter with no conviction.

2. Why do some test players not do well in odis?
I already said but saying it again. It is because their isn't a complete overlap in terms of required skills but it's not a different thing altogether as well (I see you think the same as well) and that being so, there are sufficient reasons to say test cricket is harder- I literally stated the reasons one by one in my last reply.
A given odi innings maybe more difficult than a given test innings but generally, it is much more likely that a test knock was more difficult than an odi knock.

3. It is a lot harder to average 50 in tests than odis (this one isn't even a debate) and so competences in the 2 formats can't be treated on an equal basis.

4. I don't know how to quote line by line or I would have, so do read it carefully if you want to reply.

 

[street cricketer]

This example is highly illogical.

If Mayweather, Tyson etc. would have competed in the amateur circuit during their peak and got whooped, the argument that professional boxing is harder would not have any credibility.

Plenty of Test greats have failed in LOIs during their peak, which dispels the notion that batting in Test cricket is tougher.

If it was tougher, then all Test greats would have found LOIs to be a piece of cake.

I did not say either pro boxing or amateur boxing was harder. My point is both these versions test different skills of a player that they might as well be different games.

It was the OP who said batting in Test cricket is easier, which is simply a silly opinion because even the style of play required to ace both formats is different. Test cricket requires you to be calm and composed at the crease, and make as less unforced errors as possible. LOI cricket requires you to be pro active and grab the game by the scruff of the neck, dominating the proceedings in the game even if it means you take more risks and thereby more errors. A very attacking approach (that's required in LOI cricket) if used in Test cricket will not always work and an ultra cautious approach (that's required in Test cricket) if used in LOI cricket will more often than not fail.

Comparing Test cricket with limited overs cricket is like comparing football with futsal. LOI cricket reduces the obstacles and challenges for a batsman from a bowler's pov (except for the time limit) and tests who can score the maximum runs in that state of relatively reduced obstacle zone for a batsman. Test cricket increases the challenges of a batsman from a bowling and conditions pov, and tests who can survive and score the most in that state of increased obstacles/challenges for a batsman. This is not different from football and futsal, where in futsal there is reduced obstacles for a player with the ball, i.e., less opposition players to beat and score, less distance to goal, etc., except for the time limit which is shorter just like in case of LOI cricket. It is why you see more goals scored in an average futsal match than an average football match even if a futsal match has only about half the duration of a normal football match.

Saying batting in LOI cricket is tougher than Test cricket is like saying playing futsal is tougher than playing football. Now you point out examples of players like Cook, Pujara, Trott, Dravid, etc., who weren't great in LOI cricket but very good in Test cricket. That is no different to a player like Xavi or Busquets whose style of dictating the pace of the game in the midfield, without scoring a lot of goals, being misfits in a futsal match, where the urgency to score more goals is higher and the style of play is a lot more direct. People are still free to view futsal as a more tougher sport than football, if they feel the skills tested in a futsal match are more than the skills tested in a football match. But that view would not be popular, just like the view mentioned in the OP. If you disagree, just ask professional cricketers whether they feel Test cricket is a more difficult game or T20 cricket..

 

[Abhilash93]

For Tests, we need to differentiate between scoring on flat pitches or against mediocre bowling attacks VS scoring on pitches that have assistance for swing, bounce, spin.

Shikhar Dhawan made 180 on debut vs Australia on a flat Indian pitch but struggled outside the subcontinent on tougher pitches.

The same Shikhar Dhawan has absolutely no problems scoring in ODI cricket all over the world.

 

[Farabi]

2. People are saying they just require different skills which is true but the two can't be equated. Test requires a far far higher level of skill. This is because test cricket gives a bowler Carte Blanche of sorts. Throw on whatever you have got in your arsenal with field placements of choice, long spells etc. and take the wicket! That is the challenge. It also gives the batsmen a Carte Blanche. Bring out all the skills you have in whatever way possible and make the runs! This is obviously a much more complete test of skills than batting with no slips, powerplays, barely any spin(since the 2 new ball rule) and no pitch deterioration with only the occasional run rate pressure.

\

So basically test cricket tests more diverse skills than ODIs do because of "Carte Blanche of sorts". Let's assume this is true. Then ODI tests less diverse skills, which means players need to compete in those fewer skills, driving up intensity?
So its less intensity of more diverse skills vs more intensity of less diverse skills.
Who is to say 1 is "harder/easier" than the other.

This is important because Azhar Ali or Pujara are not regulars in their national team's ODI 11, which means "more diverse" skills doesn't always mean that its "always better" as indeed is true in their case.

 

[Snatch]

The question itself smacks of ignorance. While they are different skillsets, Test cricket is and always has been the more challenging and difficult pursuit for batsmen.

Aside from the obvious like having to bat on more difficult surfaces, surfaces that change through the match. New ball, old ball, reverse swing etc.

But more than anything, there's nowhere to hide your deficiencies as a Test batsman. You can't 'see off' the top bowlers & if you do have a slight weakness, bowlers will expose you relentlessly.

 

[BDfanforever]

Many ODI greats are also pretty good Test batsman like Warner, Rohit, de kock, etc. You cannot say the same thing for someone like Pujara or Mominul.

Ask ABD if he would rather be great in LOI and make millions in IPL or be Test Cricket giant and make pennies like Pujara.

What OP was saying is that even tailenders tends to find it significantly easier to bat in Tests then they do in ODI. Even Mitchell Johnson was a pretty good test batsman.

I totally get it for people to respect Test cricket, and even if we agree that it is tougher/original format, this is way exaggerated.

 

[Rajdeep]

Why is chasing 350 also looks easy in modern ODI cricket but even 250 looks a herculean task to chase in tests. Can anyone answer this?

 

[Abu_Hamza]

Its due to bowl turning a lot in 4th innings.

 

[street cricketer]

Many ODI greats are also pretty good Test batsman like Warner, Rohit, de kock, etc. You cannot say the same thing for someone like Pujara or Mominul.

For every Pujara and Azhar Ali who are good in Test cricket but poor in LOIs, there is Michael Bevan, Aaron Finch, Martin Guptill, Johnny Bairstow, Jason Roy, Yuvraj Singh, Suresh Raina, Glenn Maxwell and many more batsmen who are/were great in LOI cricket but failures in Test cricket.

 

[shortbread]

The biggest example of this is Faheem Ashraf. He bats pretty well in Tests when the fielders are in but being the same player in LOI, he averages in 10s. Ashwin is kind of same batsmen too who would score important runs in Test but is not even half as good as in white ball (though not as useless as Faheem). You can also use the example of players like Azhar Ali, YK, Pujara, Misbah all of them who are very good Test batsmen but we’re exceptionally poor in white ball cricket.

It depends on the conditions. This is how I would rank it for batsmen in terms of the most challenging to the least:

1. Test cricket in tough batting conditions (pitches assisting seam and spin on all days)
2. Limited overs in tough batting conditions
3. Limited overs on flat pitches
4. Test cricket on flat pitches

Playing test cricket in UAE or the flat Sub continent pitches must be the easiest ride. Bowlers have zero assistance and the batsman are under no run rate pressure. This is where the likes of Imam, Faheem etc plunder their runs and carry glorified stats!

 

[PakPremi]

England will flop for Test matches in India but can win ODIs in the same country, and vice versa for India in England. Tests surely is more difficult in alien conditions.

 

[shortbread]

England will flop for Test matches in India but can win ODIs in the same country, and vice versa for India in England. Tests surely is more difficult in alien conditions.

Correct, Indian batsmen will meet the same fate when they start their England tour next month. They hold zero chance against the likes of Anderson, Broad, Archer, Robinson, Woakes, Stone..... in English conditions especially if the pitches are susceptible to seam.

Just hope Root can select a decent team rather than this zero sense rotation policy that will see Lewis friggin Gregory take the new red cherry!

 

[AMSS]

England will flop for Test matches in India but can win ODIs in the same country, and vice versa for India in England. Tests surely is more difficult in alien conditions.

This is not an argument for test batting being difficult though.

 

[AMSS]

Once you agree that Tests and ODIs/T20s demand different skillsets then I don't see how you can also argue , in the same breath, that tests are somehow harder and a superior format.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Think the most comparable sport where we have distinctly separate formats is rugby, with a clear demarcation between union and league.

There is no real consensus on which is the better format: in New South Wales, Queensland, and the north of England it'll always be stated that league is tougher due to the quick transitions involved and the need for explosive athleticism to make the most of those transitions.

Whereas, in New Zealand, South Africa, France, and the south of England, union is considered more technical with a greater tactical emphasis on tackles, scrummages, rucks, and defensive plays. In general, it's the wingers that are lithe and explosive runners with fast-twitch muscles, which is why you'd see a lot of wingers that have hopped between formats.

It's different skillsets involved, it's very much down to the eye of the beholder to judge which skills are tougher to master. It's much the same between tests and white ball cricket.

 

[BDfanforever]

For every Pujara and Azhar Ali who are good in Test cricket but poor in LOIs, there is Michael Bevan, Aaron Finch, Martin Guptill, Johnny Bairstow, Jason Roy, Yuvraj Singh, Suresh Raina, Glenn Maxwell and many more batsmen who are/were great in LOI cricket but failures in Test cricket.

Bairstow is a decent test batsman. So, he would be another example of ODI specialist transitioning into Test well.

Can we show test specialists only who used his skillset to transition into ODI cricket? Even ODI hack like Colin De Grandomme has done ok in Tests.

 

[King-Misbah]

Why is chasing 350 also looks easy in modern ODI cricket but even 250 looks a herculean task to chase in tests. Can anyone answer this?

1. You are allowed to ball more then one bouncer an over. Your best bowlers can ball all day.

2. Pitches get worn out in Test cricket.

3. There are no fielding restrictions in Tests.

4. The ball that is used is different and it does not have to be changed.

5. Batting mindset is different as not only you can win or lose but can also draw.

These are some reasons.

 

[street cricketer]

Bairstow is a decent test batsman. So, he would be another example of ODI specialist transitioning into Test well.

Can we show test specialists only who used his skillset to transition into ODI cricket? Even ODI hack like Colin De Grandomme has done ok in Tests.

Lol Bowledstow is a failure at test level. Just ask some English cricket fans and they will tell you whether Bairstow deserves a place in the England test XI or not.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Then what about Pujara, YK, Azhar Ali etc? There are countless examples of Test players failing in ODIs.

I don't agree with your opinion but to give weight to your argument you could have used better examples. Pujara hardly played any ODIs. Let me help you. Rishabh Pant for example averages 43 in tests but looks like a proper hack in ODI's where he finds it difficult to finish matches and averages 33. In T20s too he isn't that good.

 

[street cricketer]

"iT iS mUch EaSieR tO bAt in TEst CricKet tHan LOI cRicKet"

 

[OMB]

Not easy to bat on test cricket. ODI is simpler.

In ODI's, the bowlers have been complaining for ages about difficulty due to limitation on the bowlers with fielding restrictions, number of overs. Conversely batsmen find it easy (relatively speaking).
No such restrictions in tests.

In T20's, bowlers are so far disadvantaged that they have given up and stopped complaining.

 

[someone21]

The greatest pressure is time. And time is secondary in Tests, whereas ODI/T20s is time-bound, run rates. The mental game, calculations, strategies is far more intensive in ODI/T20s than Tests. The pressure of time brings mistakes out of the players, thus the survival of the fittest happens.

You need to shift gears, each runs matters in ODI/T20s. Then, run-outs has little role in Tests, compared to the other formats. It's difficulty is far more in ODI/T20s.

 

[Mamoon]

View attachment 110408

"iT iS mUch EaSieR tO bAt in TEst CricKet tHan LOI cRicKet"

The problem is with the use of the word “easier”.

If you have mastered a harder task you should have no difficulty performing an easier task. If you cannot do that, then you are in no position to call it an easier task.

Thus, the failure of a single successful Test batsman to succeed in LOI cricket is sufficient to disprove that Test cricket is harder.

For the batsmen who have dominated Tests and failed in LOIs, Test cricket is easier than LOI cricket.

Similarly, for those on the opposite end of the spectrum, the reverse is true.

Hence, the only sensible and logical conclusion is that words like harder and easier should not be used to distinguish between formats.

It entirely depends on the individual. Test cricket is harder or easier depending on the skill-set that you possess.

 

[street cricketer]

The problem is with the use of the word “easier”.

If you have mastered a harder task you should have no difficulty performing an easier task. If you cannot do that, then you are in no position to call it an easier task.

Thus, the failure of a single successful Test batsman to succeed in LOI cricket is sufficient to disprove that Test cricket is harder.

For the batsmen who have dominated Tests and failed in LOIs, Test cricket is easier than LOI cricket.

Similarly, for those on the opposite end of the spectrum, the reverse is true.

Hence, the only sensible and logical conclusion is that words like harder and easier should not be used to distinguish between formats.

It entirely depends on the individual. Test cricket is harder or easier depending on the skill-set that you possess.

It is true that different individuals specialise in different formats.

But what is the reason, in your opinion, for the much lower aggregate batting average for batsmen in Test cricket compared to LOI cricket currently?

 

[someone21]

But what is the reason, in your opinion, for the much lower aggregate batting average for batsmen in Test cricket compared to LOI cricket currently?

That's because of "not outs", and that skewed the averages in LOI. Take that away, the per average batting in tests is higher than LOIs. Irrelevant of your batting position, be it no.1 or no.11, the batting runs numbers is higher in tests than LOIs on runs per innings.

It's easier to score a run in Tests, whereas each run matters more in ODIs. And that's the contradiction with Test cricket...

 

[street cricketer]

That's because of "not outs", and that skewed the averages in LOI. Take that away, the per average batting in tests is higher than LOIs. Irrelevant of your batting position, be it no.1 or no.11, the batting runs numbers is higher in tests than LOIs on runs per innings.

It's easier to score a run in Tests, whereas each run matters more in ODIs. And that's the contradiction with Test cricket...

Including not outs in batting average has always been the case for limited overs cricket since its inception but what is the reason for the "current" trend of batting averages increasing in ODIs and decreasing in Test cricket.

 

[someone21]

Including not outs in batting average has always been the case for limited overs cricket since its inception but what is the reason for the "current" trend of batting averages increasing in ODIs and decreasing in Test cricket.

First point, is batting averages comparison is invalid. As not outs, skew figures for ODIs. Test cricket is easier to make runs,

Next, the current trend is due the unstable weather conditions and noncompetitive cricket. The real concern should be why many Test cricket matches don't make it to 5th day itself? It's a really bad state now, and how is test cricket a sport itself, should be questioned.

 

[Executioner]

To me test cricket might the more important format, the debate of Test Runs vs ODI Runs hinges on the pitch conditions provided in tests and ODIs. If we are to compare ODI and Test matches on flat pitches, in tests you will see more runs being scored and this boils down to the fact that you have a lot of time to bat. However, what we often see is that ODIs often have flat pitch, barely a sporting one which is why you will see ODI averages ballooning in recent times.

Also, it needs to be kept in mind that the difficulty of scoring runs for a Middle order batsman in ODIs is far more difficult than an opener in ODIs or middle order batsman in Tests.

Some batsmen will find it easier in tests, some find it easier in ODIs. At the end of the day, pitch, weather truly dictates terms.

 

[Titan24]

First point, is batting averages comparison is invalid. As not outs, skew figures for ODIs. Test cricket is easier to make runs.

You can argue about the not outs point for the finishers like Dhoni, Bevan etc batting at the end but in 90s how many top 3 batsmen of each side you saw that were averaging around 50 and +? Surely not out isnt a new rule.

Today their are multiple batsmen in top 3 with such kind of high 40s and 50s averages so dynamics of the ODIs have changed.

It is pretty easy to understand what changed, most of these high averages started appearing with the two new balls rule and field restrictions. If you are a good player with some shots then after surviving first 5-7 overs there isnt much thats going to bother you regularly. Previously with one ball reverse swing used to come into play challenging and making it difficult for batsmen to continue and make one big 100 after another.

So comparison with test cricket aside for the moment, batting in ODI cricket has become easier for top order batsmen. Yes the skill levels of batsmen have also increased to an extent but by not as much as their averages and 100s have gone up. Reverse swing almost going out of ODI cricket along with field restrictions have completely changed the dynamics of the current ODI era.

 

[sam_ahm]

Forget everything, T10 is toughest to bat. Literally every ball your are under pressure.

To be honest, I also want return of Hong Kong cricket sixes to test the best of batsman under pressure.

 

[jusarrived]

Some may find one format easier than the other, but both require different skills.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

It's like comparing a NeuroSurgeon to a Pediatrician .Both are doctors, you see
Its not a given that if you master a harder task you might ace the easier one too.

 

[street cricketer]

First point, is batting averages comparison is invalid. As not outs, skew figures for ODIs. Test cricket is easier to make runs,

Next, the current trend is due the unstable weather conditions and noncompetitive cricket. The real concern should be why many Test cricket matches don't make it to 5th day itself? It's a really bad state now, and how is test cricket a sport itself, should be questioned.

If not outs skew the batting averages, then how come batting averages of Test cricket was higher than the aggregate batting averages of ODI cricket since the 1970s to around mid 2010s?

 

[street cricketer]

Forget everything, T10 is toughest to bat. Literally every ball your are under pressure.

To be honest, I also want return of Hong Kong cricket sixes to test the best of batsman under pressure.

You're a dinosaur for liking the Hong Kong sixes tournament. Batsmen can play it easily without the pressure of time constraints in a hong kong sixes tournament.

I can't wait for the super over tournament that's going to be invented in a few years. Every ball is going to have the highest amount of pressure!