Is ODI cricket the true test of a batsman?

[Leo23]

in my view odi cricket is the true test of a batsman. if you can do well in odis then you know that you can play the game.

test cricket :- it is a format where batsmen with no shots and aggression can thrive. a true batsman has both good defense and attack but if you have no attack then you can still excel in this format. all you need is a good defense and those who say that it is the toughest format should look at how easy it is to defend balls on flat pitches like uae.

t20 cricket:- a format where batsmen with no defense and temparement can thrive. all you need is good hitting ability.

odi cricket:- the only format where one dimensional batsmen get exposed. if you do not have good attack you will be exposed and if you do not have good defense you will get exposed.

unlike tests and t20s it is an examination of all facets of batting. you need everything to be a good odi batsman. shots , defense , temperament , skill , strike rotation , ability to change gears , mental strength etc

basically tuk tuks (test) and sloggers (t20) have no place to hide in odis.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

You can argue it used to be. Not anymore though with two new balls that don't even swing.

 

[czar]

Yes, it is.

A format where not only you have to conserve your wickets but also score at a decent rate and sometimes more. There is no option of escaping with a draw if the run rate is too high.

That's why a Great Test Player like YK had no place in ODI Cricket. In Tests, YK can come dance on the wicket for a bit, struggle and struggle more, take his own lovely time without the pressure of run rate climbing, adjust to the pitch, go through the survival period and then start scoring.

An ODI will have no place for Test Specialists like YK because it doesn't give him and his likes the luxury to take their own time to adjust to the wicket. ODI demands conservation of wickets and also runs at the same time.

 

[Leo23]

You can argue it used to be. Not anymore though with two new balls that don't even swing.

correct but it still tests more aspects of batting than the other formats

 

[Haz95]

If such is the case then Martin Guptill and Rohit Sharma are legendary batsmen.

 

[aloo paratha]

No way! Flat pitches, 2 new balls, 65 meter boundaries. It's all too easy for batsmen.

In test matches, you need to have a good technique or you'll be found out and dropped in one series.

It's false that a batsmen can have no shots yet still be successful in tests, because last time I checked you still have to score runs and they only count when they come off the bat.

 

[hafeezrocks]

Azhar Ali
Misbah
Younis Khan
Sami Aslam

All could bat in Tests, but failures in Odis, strokeless wonders. Let them play like Viv Richards , if ODis are so easy.

 

[Rafa]

Yeah the Great Tests where that Fraud Adam Voges was averaging more than Bradman at one time )))

 

[Hasan123]

Odi rules certainly favour batsmen now. In tests the pitch vary from the flat decks seen in odis. So that also plays a part.

I would say tests is still harder than LO.

 

[aloo paratha]

Azhar Ali
Misbah
Younis Khan
Sami Aslam

All could bat in Tests, but failures in Odis, strokeless wonders. Let them play like Viv Richards , if ODis are so easy.

Martin Guptill is a good ODI batsmen. Since tests are so easy he should be good right? Why isn't he?

 

[Chrish]

OdI tests different skillet. Ability to chase/ defend certain target within limited number of overs. Tests ability to change gears to extreme in contrast to test cricket that primarily tests technique.

That's why players to succeed in both formats are few and far between

 

[Suleiman]

Tests and ODI are both.

If you are a master at both your value skyrockets.

Tests tests (heh) your technique and ability to adapt, because a test in India will have a stark contrast to a test in England with different challenges.

ODIs however, an ODI in India won't be too different, if at all, to an ODI in England. Similar pitches, and strategy. However it is a different test because it tests your ability to plan and structure an innings given that you are on a timer. Do you have the shots to regularly score runs and not just dead bat? Do you have the mental fortitude and intelligence to plan out a steep 300+ chase keeping in mind RRR, powerplays, etc?

Sure you might get 300+ chases in tests, but how often do you even get that and how often are they successful chases?

But for me personally, I'd rather be a successful ODI batsman.

 

[Markhor]

[MENTION=138493]Chrish[/MENTION] is right - its not a question of which format is more testing but that the formats test different skills. That's the beauty of cricket.

In ODIs you are tested in your ability to vary your strokeplay, to deal with scoreboard pressure, find gaps in the field and rotate strike. But it doesn't examine your technique, ability to construct long innings or your ability to play in adverse conditions as in Tests. They aren't a test of how to face lateral movement, play on turning pitches with uneven bounce or face long spells of reverse swing.

That is due to the advent of white Kookaburra balls that don't swing, lifeless pitches, free-hits, fielding restrictions, shortened boundaries and limited reverse swing with two new balls. Look at England's power hitters in the Champions Trophy semi-final the moment they faced adverse conditions and good bowling - they folded like a pack of cards and whined about the pitch after.

 

[Markhor]

Azhar Ali
Misbah
Younis Khan
Sami Aslam

All could bat in Tests, but failures in Odis, strokeless wonders. Let them play like Viv Richards , if ODis are so easy.

It cuts both ways.

Alex Hales and Martin Guptill are two of the most powerful opening batsmen in the world yet have been abject failures at Test level when conditions require them to rely on their technique and not just swing through the line of the ball.

Also, if Tests simply reward strokeless wonders, then why haven't obdurate and defensive batsmen like Chris Tavare, Gary Ballance and Nick Compton been successful ? There's more to blocking in Tests just like there's more than just power hitting to ODIs.

That's why I say - different formats test different skills. That's the beauty of cricket.

 

[aloo paratha]

[MENTION=138493]Chrish[/MENTION]
That is due to the advent of white Kookaburra balls that don't swing, lifeless pitches, free-hits, fielding restrictions, shortened boundaries and limited reverse swing with two new balls. Look at England's power hitters in the Champions Trophy semi-final the moment they faced adverse conditions and good bowling - they folded like a pack of cards and whined about the pitch after.

Also the 3rd ODI against SA. As soon as there is a bit of life in the pitch, these FTBs can't do anything apart from get out.

 

[Syed1]

Actually it is easier to bat in tests outside of SA/Eng/AUS... The ball only swings/seams for the first 15-20 overs and then it is easy pickings. If you conserve your wickets during the first session you can easily score 400+.

ODI used to be the real test for a batsman but not anymore thanks to the batsman friendly policies of BCCICC

 

[msb314]

ODI's more so than tests.

True ATG's of ODI's are also good test batsman (with the exception of Dhoni and Bevan)

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Guptill, Bevan, Klusener, Hick, Hales, Hughes, Dhoni, Morgan failed in Test but were gun in ODI's.

I doubt anyone would consider Guptill a great cause of being a walking wicket in Test in almost every condition.
Dhoni, Guptill, Hales, Hughes, Klusener had a very weak defense, so could not crack Tests totally. Hick had a mental meltdown in Tests despite absolutely killing it in FC. Morgan was just never good enough for Tests. Bevan was an anomaly.

 

[Stewie]

In tests, there is no over limit for bowlers and as a batsman you are always facing bowlers trying g to get you out. Survival is tough, while you have to worry about scoring runs as well. You have to be versatile as well because after 80overs as a middle order batsman you could end up facing an new ball. You have to be ready to pierce the gaps when there are no field restrictions. You have to face reverse swinging older balls, ball spinning at ninety one a day three, four and five pitch, etc




There are so many challenges waiting to test you before you can make your mark as a quality test batsman.

How many of the challenges listed above do you need to face in ODIs?

 

[hafeezrocks]

In tests, there is no over limit for bowlers and as a batsman you are always facing bowlers trying g to get you out. Survival is tough, while you have to worry about scoring runs as well. You have to be versatile as well because after 80overs as a middle order batsman you could end up facing an new ball. You have to be ready to pierce the gaps when there are no field restrictions. You have to face reverse swinging older balls, ball spinning at ninety one a day three, four and five pitch, etc




There are so many challenges waiting to test you before you can make your mark as a quality test batsman.

How many of the challenges listed above do you need to face in ODIs?

Sami Aslam
Azhar Ali
Misbah Ul Haq
Younis Khan
Asad Shafiq

All Champion batsmen in Tests who see through all challenges that you have noted but couldnt bat to save their lives in the less challenging Odis. Failure ODI Batsmen.

 

[hafeezrocks]

Test Champion Younis Khan on his way to another Match Winning Knock against India during the 2015 WC of the easy and less challenging Odis.

The Man had the greatest ability to pick gaps at will and always scored at S/R of 100.

 

[Stewie]

Sami Aslam
Azhar Ali
Misbah Ul Haq
Younis Khan
Asad Shafiq

All Champion batsmen in Tests who see through all challenges that you have noted but couldnt bat to save their lives in the less challenging Odis. Failure ODI Batsmen.

I am not going to compare the successes of batsmen here because it's folly. I just addressed what format requires a more well rounded and skilled player to succeed and that's tests.

Like someone said, it cuts both ways. Heck you can find T20 specialists who suck at ODIs (pollard being a well known example) but does that mean T20 requires higher batting skills than ODIs? Hell no... different skill set .. sure.. but this criteria doesn't identify which format is the most difficult to master for batsmen.

There are tons of exceptional ODI players who struggled or gave up on tests or didn't replicate the same successes in tests. Neil fairbrother, dean jones, afridi, gayle, imran Nazir, bevan, dhoni, yousaf Pathan, maroon samuels, the list goes on and on.

And there are test players who are not good enough for ODIs, but that comes from the modern day requirement of keeping a higher SR than lack of skills, some of these players like to completely cut off risk and take their time settling in, getting acclimatized to the wicket and conditions and mind you, that's not a weakness in test cricket but yes it is in ODIs. I believed that's the only area where "test experts" fail in ODIs, whereas LOI experts fail in tests for an number of reasons. They just seem to have a lot more flaws and fundamental technical flaws that inhibit their succes at the test level.

 

[todfod 11]

in my view odi cricket is the true test of a batsman. if you can do well in odis then you know that you can play the game.

test cricket :- it is a format where batsmen with no shots and aggression can thrive. a true batsman has both good defense and attack but if you have no attack then you can still excel in this format. all you need is a good defense and those who say that it is the toughest format should look at how easy it is to defend balls on flat pitches like uae.

t20 cricket:- a format where batsmen with no defense and temparement can thrive. all you need is good hitting ability.

odi cricket:- the only format where one dimensional batsmen get exposed. if you do not have good attack you will be exposed and if you do not have good defense you will get exposed.

unlike tests and t20s it is an examination of all facets of batting. you need everything to be a good odi batsman. shots , defense , temperament , skill , strike rotation , ability to change gears , mental strength etc

basically tuk tuks (test) and sloggers (t20) have no place to hide in odis.

Very true actually ODI cricket is real cricket You can see different type of batsmen playing in one game attacking defensive. Also bowlers have a chance of makinga comeback anytime in the game.

 

[Stewie]

View attachment 75535

Test Champion Younis Khan on his way to another Match Winning Knock against India during the 2015 WC of the easy and less challenging Odis.

The Man had the greatest ability to pick gaps at will and always scored at S/R of 100.

Assuming you are a huge fan of hafeez, have you ever bothered checking the strike rates of hafeez and Younis khan in ODIs?

 

[Abdullah719]

ODIs and Tests require varying skillsets but ODIs probably require a better all-round game. The best batsmen are the ones who can adapt to both, obviously.

 

[Nil Dhumrojal]

Test.

ODI little bit.

T20 JOKE of cricket.

 

[Talented]

ODI is the best format of cricket. Skills + Entertainment
Test is for jobless people to watch and skilless people to play. Yeah I know defending whole day is skill. Lmao. Boring
T20s are party.

 

[Leo23]

Assuming you are a huge fan of hafeez, have you ever bothered checking the strike rates of hafeez and Younis khan in ODIs?

forget hafeez. if test is the toughest format then why do people like younis struggle in the weaker format like odis. i think we can agree on the statement that different formats test different skills but odis tests the most skills because you cannot survive through one dimensional batting.

but surely the idea that test is the toughest format is a myth because if that was true than all good test players would have dominated odi and t20 cricket. you cannot logically defend the odi failures of younis or cook while at the same time claim that test is the toughest format. i hope you can spot the contradiction

 

[Blitz]

I think if you're going to use just one format, then you base how good a batsman is on Tests.

However in modern cricket (post ODI era), the truly great batsman have adapted and thrived in both. The likes of Richards, Lara, Tendulker, Ponting, Sangakara and so on.

I don't think you can call a batsman truly great, who has played from 1980s onwards, being successful in only 1 of the 2 formats. Its just not really possible.

 

[ammar_merry]

forget hafeez. if test is the toughest format then why do people like younis struggle in the weaker format like odis. i think we can agree on the statement that different formats test different skills but odis tests the most skills because you cannot survive through one dimensional batting.

but surely the idea that test is the toughest format is a myth because if that was true than all good test players would have dominated odi and t20 cricket. you cannot logically defend the odi failures of younis or cook while at the same time claim that test is the toughest format. i hope you can spot the contradiction

if you ever play cricket even at club level you will come to know which format tests batsman skill, and how different it is to bat on 4th and 5th day pitch with closing fielder.

 

[Leo23]

if you ever play cricket even at club level you will come to know which format tests batsman skill, and how different it is to bat on 4th and 5th day pitch with closing fielder.

my friend i play at a decent level and i aspire to become a professional player. i will tell you from my experience that trying to score at a good strike rate against quality bowlers and dealing with required run rate pressure is much more difficult than defending against quality bowlers with no intent to score

yes no doubt test batting in difficult conditions is not easy but those conditions are very rare. but test batting on flat wickets such as the ones in the uae etc is as easy as it gets as far as batting in international cricket goes

even a club level player can average 30 on flat test wickets , but ask him to bat at a strike rate of 90+ against 85+ bowling and he will be completely exposed

 

[ammar_merry]

players like cook younis azhar still have decent record in odi but players like raina, hafeez, yuvraj, guptill, bailey,white became instant laughing stock at test level.
its difficult for a bad test player to survive than a bad odi player

 

[Hawkeye]

If you're extremely good in both Tests and ODIs, you're going to become a great.

IF you're extremely good in Tests home n abroad, but not good in ODIs, you'll be considered excellent and possibly a great by old timers.

If you're good in ODIs but a dud in Tests, nobody would respect you much.


Get the idea?

It's Tests plus ODIs COMBINED that matter.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

players like cook younis azhar still have decent record in odi but players like raina, hafeez, yuvraj, guptill, bailey,white became instant laughing stock at test level.
its difficult for a bad test player to survive than a bad odi player

Actually all these guys you mentioned as 'laughing stock' have just as good record at Test as Younis, Cook and Azhar in ODI. Fact is your test guys are failures at ODI and that's a fact.

The whole point of an ODI is just surviving won't win you a game, so you need to have ability.

Meanwhile limited players like Pujara, Ballance, Jennings etc have no chance to play in shorter formats, but Rohit averages 37 at Tests. Sure, that's not good enough, but compare that to Rahane's ODI record and you'll see my point. Test specialists are limited players who can't play under pressure.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

If you're extremely good in both Tests and ODIs, you're going to become a great.

IF you're extremely good in Tests home n abroad, but not good in ODIs, you'll be considered excellent and possibly a great by old timers.

If you're good in ODIs but a dud in Tests, nobody would respect you much.


Get the idea?

It's Tests plus ODIs COMBINED that matter.

That's just false.

You ARE an old-timer yourself. Players like Pujara are nobodies, out of sight, out of mind for 75% of the season and very good players for 25%. Only old-timers respect him. Whereas Hardik Pandya is a superstar.

 

[Zaz]

No odis cricket isnt the true test of a batsman

As the name says, its test cricket

Theres no hiding in test cricket, you cant see off bowlers as they have unlimited no of overs they can bowl, if you have a weakness to the bouncer or a bowler it will be exploited

It requires patience, tests ur technique, ur swing, pace n spin playing ability

 

[Stewie]

No odis cricket isnt the true test of a batsman

As the name says, its test cricket

Theres no hiding in test cricket, you cant see off bowlers as they have unlimited no of overs they can bowl, if you have a weakness to the bouncer or a bowler it will be exploited

It requires patience, tests ur technique, ur swing, pace n spin playing ability

It's pointless. I have tried. You can't convince the new generation of test crickets true value.

 

[Haz95]

That's just false.

You ARE an old-timer yourself. Players like Pujara are nobodies, out of sight, out of mind for 75% of the season and very good players for 25%. Only old-timers respect him. Whereas Hardik Pandya is a superstar.

Since when does being a 'superstar' equal being a quality batsman? If so, Pollard and Afridi are GOATs.

 

[Leo23]

No odis cricket isnt the true test of a batsman

As the name says, its test cricket

Theres no hiding in test cricket, you cant see off bowlers as they have unlimited no of overs they can bowl, if you have a weakness to the bouncer or a bowler it will be exploited

It requires patience, tests ur technique, ur swing, pace n spin playing ability

It's pointless. I have tried. You can't convince the new generation of test crickets true value.

limited stroke-less batsmen can hide in test cricket

 

[Leo23]

Since when does being a 'superstar' equal being a quality batsman? If so, Pollard and Afridi are GOATs.

pollard and afridi were not great odi batsmen either. their defensive weakness was exposed. they are great batsmen for t20 cricket but not odi cricket.

 

[hafeezrocks]

Afridi was a much much better Batsman in Tests than Odis. That says it all.

 

[Leo23]

cook , younis , chanderpaul , shafiq , azhar , elgar etc are all limited batsman who do not have the skill to score quickly of quality bowling.

this lack of skill is not exposed in tests because they have the luxury to block balls and only score against loose balls but it takes great skill to get runs of good balls. that is why kohli root smith williamson kock warner morgan etc are superior to these players

but toughest format though

 

[Rafa]

cook , younis , chanderpaul , shafiq , azhar , elgar etc are all limited batsman who do not have the skill to score quickly of quality bowling.

this lack of skill is not exposed in tests because they have the luxury to block balls and only score against loose balls but it takes great skill to get runs of good balls. that is why kohli root smith williamson kock warner morgan etc are superior to these players

but toughest format though

I think you have summed it up perfectly.

Test Batsmen are the ones who are incapable of scoring against Good Balls and thus let them go and wait for tha bad balls to arrive. There is no pressure of run rate so they can play the waiting game and wait for the bad balls.

These same Test Legends fail in the Odis because they cannot afford to let go good calls and wait for the bad balls to score, as it increases the run rate and pressure on the team.

An ODI Batsman is expected to score runs against both the good as well as bad balls however a Test Batsman can afford to leave the good balls and wait for the bad balls to score.

That's the reason why good Test Batsmen like YK, Cook, Misbah, Azhar Ali and many others looker so miserable trying to play shots against good balls in Odis as they are accustomed to leaving them in the Tests. But the Odi game simply doesn't allow you to play the waiting game.

 

[Syed1]

cook , younis , chanderpaul , shafiq , azhar , elgar etc are all limited batsman who do not have the skill to score quickly of quality bowling.

this lack of skill is not exposed in tests because they have the luxury to block balls and only score against loose balls but it takes great skill to get runs of good balls. that is why kohli root smith williamson kock warner morgan etc are superior to these players

but toughest format though

Exactly in Tests the batsmen have the luxury of leaving ball after ball until one comes that is within their range. They do not have the same luxury in ODIs. They have to score whether its a good bowl or bad bowl.

In ODIs bowlers know they only have to bowl 10 overs and hence can go full throttle.In tests a pacer may have to bowl upwards of 20 overs in a day and has to conserve his energy.

There is a reason why average pace is higher in ODIs than Tests.


But Tests are much much harder tho

 

[Leo23]

I think you have summed it up perfectly.

Test Batsmen are the ones who are incapable of scoring against Good Balls and thus let them go and wait for tha bad balls to arrive. There is no pressure of run rate so they can play the waiting game and wait for the bad balls.

These same Test Legends fail in the Odis because they cannot afford to let go good calls and wait for the bad balls to score, as it increases the run rate and pressure on the team.

An ODI Batsman is expected to score runs against both the good as well as bad balls however a Test Batsman can afford to leave the good balls and wait for the bad balls to score.

That's the reason why good Test Batsmen like YK, Cook, Misbah, Azhar Ali and many others looker so miserable trying to play shots against good balls in Odis as they are accustomed to leaving them in the Tests. But the Odi game simply doesn't allow you to play the waiting game.

exactly. majority of tests are played on flat wickets and it does not test technique.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Not anymore unless you are facing Pakistani bowlers

 

[Leo23]

Exactly in Tests the batsmen have the luxury of leaving ball after ball until one comes that is within their range. They do not have the same luxury in ODIs. They have to score whether its a good bowl or bad bowl.

In ODIs bowlers know they only have to bowl 10 overs and hence can go full throttle.In tests a pacer may have to bowl upwards of 20 overs in a day and has to conserve his energy.

There is a reason why average pace is higher in ODIs than Tests.


But Tests are much much harder tho

well said. but sadly be prepared for more personal attacks and how you are a kid who does not understand test cricket.

all this "temperament" talk is nonsense too. what takes more temperament? chasing at over 7 in front of packed crowds against quality bowlers or doing tuk tuk against quality bowlers in front of empty stadiums?

 

[Leo23]

Not anymore unless you are facing Pakistani bowlers

we have the best attack in the world but it goes for all teams. azhar scored for fun against aus in aus in tests but failed miserably in odis.

same conditions same bowlers. as soon as he started to play the "easier" format he started to struggle

 

[czar]

Lol @ Temperament in Test Cricket. Offcourse, because Blocking full day is much harder than scoring runs all day.

Misbah and Younis showed their temperament against India at Mohali when it wasn't needed, turned out to be worst defeat ever for Pakistan. Another Test Batsman Asad Shafique was playing for Pakistan that day who perished quickly while trying to score fast because it simply isn't his game.

The Test Batsman would either be dismissed early if they try to score quickly or else they will tuk tuk so much that the run rate will be out of their teams reach. They lack the range of shots against good balls and ability to score runs at a good strike rate right from the word Go without getting themselves adjusted on the wicket for 30 Overs.

 

[Abdullah719]

we have the best attack in the world but it goes for all teams. azhar scored for fun against aus in aus in tests but failed miserably in odis.

same conditions same bowlers. as soon as he started to play the "easier" format he started to struggle

You're looking at things far too simplistically. Both formats require completely different disciplines. It's probably true that ODIs require a batsman to be more complete but for example Azhar's double ton in Australia - I'd love to see some limited overs champions like Guptill, Rohit, Dhoni, Raina, Yuvraj, Malik, Hafeez or Watson play innings of that sort.

You don't have to be dismissive towards one of the formats if you prefer the other.

There are varying pitches and conditions that are utilised in cricket. An ODI pitch where both teams score 400 is no 'true test of a batsman'. Similarly, completely flat Test pitches with clear skies aren't a true test of a batsman either.

 

[majiz]

''no''

 

[Leo23]

You're looking at things far too simplistically. Both formats require completely different disciplines. It's probably true that ODIs require a batsman to be more complete but for example Azhar's double ton in Australia - I'd love to see some limited overs champions like Guptill, Rohit, Dhoni, Raina, Yuvraj, Malik, Hafeez or Watson play innings of that sort.

You don't have to be dismissive towards one of the formats if you prefer the other.

There are varying pitches and conditions that are utilised in cricket. An ODI pitch where both teams score 400 is no 'true test of a batsman'. Similarly, completely flat test pitches with clear skies aren't a true test of a batsman either.

i don't have an issue with this. my only problem is the statement that test is much tougher than odis and "real" cricket. if odi was easier than test players would not have failed.

the reason why i consider odi the true test of a player is because it tests more aspects of batting than odis and t20is because tuks tuks and sloggers are exposed.

 

[Abdullah719]

i don't have an issue with this. my only problem is the statement that test is much tougher than odis and "real" cricket. if odi was easier than test players would not have failed.

the reason why i consider odi the true test of a player is because it tests more aspects of batting than odis and t20is because tuks tuks and sloggers are exposed.

I don't think Tests and ODIs can be directly compared as they require different skill-sets. However, the best players who have a complete all-round game excel in both formats.

One major flaw can make a good batsman mediocre in one format while still being very good in the other format. For example, someone who struggles to rotate the strike can still be a very good Test batsman while someone who struggles to play long innings or deal with lateral movement can still be a very good middle-order ODI batsman.

 

[Syed1]

I don't think Tests and ODIs can be directly compared as they require different skill-sets. However, the best players who have a complete all-round game excel in both formats.

One major flaw can make a good batsman mediocre in one format while still being very good in the other format. For example, someone who struggles to rotate the strike can still be a very good Test batsman while someone who struggles to play long innings or deal with lateral movement can still be a very good middle-order ODI batsman.

There have been more batsmen in the recent past alone that have performed in tests while struggled big time in ODIs, however, the reverse scenario is less common.

 

[Abdullah719]

There have been more batsmen in the recent past alone that have performed in tests while struggled big time in ODIs, however, the reverse scenario is less common.

That's just the perception we Pakistan fans will have because our selectors insist on trying to pigeonhole players across formats.

Most other teams have specialists for formats and don't try to utilise ODI specialists in Test cricket; if they do, they learn their lesson pretty soon. Batsmen I'd consider shorter format specialists currently: Guptill, Morgan, Hales, Roy, Rohit, Bailey, Finch, Head, Miller, Maxwell, Samuels, Sabbir, Jadhav, Yuvraj, Malik, Hafeez... and plenty more.

 

[MMHS]

I think, between 1980s to early 00's - ODI batting was the toughest. Because, it covered all 4 aspects of batting - one has to have a solid defense to survive good, penetrative batting, has to adjust the tempo, one has to plan the chase (be bat first or 2nd), & one has to improvise (for singles or hitting boundaries against 5 men on line). Only 4 areas that Test batting demanded more, but all 4 are significant part of batting - in terms of spin play, in terms of short ball play, in terms of concentrating for long hours (a 75 could be a match winner in ODI till then), & one can't plan to survive playing out 10 overs of Warne, Murali, Wasim, Mac or Waquar - they'll keep coming from one end unconditionally, as long as body permits. Therefore, the best players in that era were truly outstanding players, complete players of every type of bowling & both in Test & ODI.

But, now the game has gone to such a level that your judgement or defense isn't that important. Most ODIs are boring today, because batsmen can't chase (or post a decent total), if anything goes out of plot - a little bit of swing/seem, a bit of drier surface or rough on good length, a bit of awkward bounce - today's batting line-up crumbles like pack of cards. BUT, this is more or less same in both format - even in last 10 days both SAF & ENG collapsed batting 2nd against what has to be a just average attack (that too with poor catching). I still think, batting in ODI is slightly tougher in terms of overall impact of an innings, but there can be no comparison of a master Test innings - an innings like KP played at Mumbai, YK played in SRL, Rahne played at Lord's, Tamim played against Poms at Dhaka or Mendis played against AUS - just few examples.

I'll say playing an average innings (average in terms of impact, not volume) in ODI is tougher than Test, but playing a Test masterclass is the toughest job. Therefore, true test of a batsman for me is to play a match winning Test innings which needs a mixture of every qualities, and it has to be played at a faster rate to give bowlers enough time to get 20 wickets.

 

[Haz95]

pollard and afridi were not great odi batsmen either. their defensive weakness was exposed. they are great batsmen for t20 cricket but not odi cricket.

Did I claim they were?

 

[saifi]

You're looking at things far too simplistically. Both formats require completely different disciplines. It's probably true that ODIs require a batsman to be more complete but for example Azhar's double ton in Australia - I'd love to see some limited overs champions like Guptill, Rohit, Dhoni, Raina, Yuvraj, Malik, Hafeez or Watson play innings of that sort.

Hafeez is not a limited over champion batsman lol

 

[Abdullah719]

Hafeez is not a limited over champion batsman lol

That comment wasn't intended to praise Hafeez, don't take the word champion literally. I meant players who are more proficient in the shorter format.