What skills does T20 require or test more than Test cricket does?

[bujhee kom]

Tests are a great physical, technical and tempremental test. What core skills do T20s test?

 

[bujhee kom]

I guess athleticism and power hitting.

 

[Rafa]

Look at the standards of fielding in T20 Cricket compared to boring, tedious, lethargic Test Cricket and you will notice the difference.

There is so much energy on the field in T20 at all times.

 

[Leo23]

playing shots under pressure

strokeless wonders can hide in test cricket

 

[bujhee kom]

I said athleticism and power hitting. Pressure play is one - thanks. Others? I guess mental agility as each ball is much bigger in context.

 

[Rafa]

Test Cricket is a laid back activity , like Fishing and Golf, no pressure, no urgency, no energy just take your own sweet little time and get adjusted to the pace of the pitch by leaving good deliveries and wait for 50 balls to get that one bad one against which you can score. There is hardly any challenge or pressure to do well against good balls.

Compared to T20s or Odis, where more often than not, every ball counts and shots have to be played against bad as well as good balls. There is a lot of pressure to get things done at the right time, within specific number of deliveries which adds more value to the runs scored or wickets taken.

 

[Buffet]

You should be able to play multiple shots on same ball to make it big in T-20.

Who are the top 3 T20 batsmen in history of T20?

I think all of them will be good in having multiple shots. That is a huge skill set when combined with other skills.

 

[hafeezrocks]

Fast running between the wickets.

Ability to bat at Higher S/R Rates. No place for strokeless wonders like Alistair Cook.

 

[hadi123]

Fast running between wickets, power hitting are the two that spring to mind.

Another one is being able to keep up with scoreboard/RRR pressure. As there are only 20 overs, run rates/required run rates can change drastically after just 2-3 overs so it is up to the batsmen to keep up with this.

Also for bowlers they need to bounce back. Only 4 overs max so just three boundaries in a row could ruin your figures so they need to get back to their best quickly after conceding boundaries.

 

[Gabbar Singh]

Fielding, hitting 6s, running between the wickets.

 

[Bilal7]

Test Cricket is a laid back activity , like Fishing and Golf, no pressure, no urgency, no energy just take your own sweet little time and get adjusted to the pace of the pitch by leaving good deliveries and wait for 50 balls to get that one bad one against which you can score. There is hardly any challenge or pressure to do well against good balls.

Compared to T20s or Odis, where more often than not, every ball counts and shots have to be played against bad as well as good balls. There is a lot of pressure to get things done at the right time, within specific number of deliveries which adds more value to the runs scored or wickets taken.

You know nothing about test cricket so stop posting fictional accounts of what takes place in a test match.

Watch highlights of MJ's Ashes again or the following South Africa vs Australia series and then tell me that there is no pressure to do well against good balls.

There is a reason why the best test batsmen if this generation have been exceptional batsmen such as Amla, Sangakkara, Younis, Cook, Clarke and AB while the best T20 batsmen have been Pollard, Afridi, Yuvraj, Gayle, etc.

 

[Bilal7]

Fielding is much more difficult in a test match, just like bowling and batting. Very difficult to being switched on for 90 overs a day over the course of multiple days, especially when you are in the slips compared to fielding in a 20 overs innings.

Once again, the best fielders and catchers made their reputation in whites, not colored jerseys. Kamran was a very good T20 keeper but is known as a poor keeper overall because he couldn't keep his performance up for more than 20 overs.

 

[Bilal7]

Apart from slogging, there are no skills that a test player would need to develop in order to become successful at T20 cricket. T20 players however, would have to totally reinvent themselves in order to become passable test players.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

You know nothing about test cricket so stop posting fictional accounts of what takes place in a test match.

Watch highlights of MJ's Ashes again or the following South Africa vs Australia series and then tell me that there is no pressure to do well against good balls.

There is a reason why the best test batsmen if this generation have been exceptional batsmen such as Amla, Sangakkara, Younis, Cook, Clarke and AB while the best T20 batsmen have been Pollard, Afridi, Yuvraj, Gayle, etc.

You are actually begging the question.

Clearly Cook, Clarke, Younis have been relatively weak at T20, even considering thanks to a World-class team Younis did win a T20 WC when format wasn't very developed.

On the hand, Gayle has amazing Test stats while Afridi and Yuvraj are not totally awful. Averaging 33, 35 while not good is much better than the comparative performance of Test cricket greats at T20.

Clearly there is a skill-set which many Test greats lack

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Fielding is much more difficult in a test match, just like bowling and batting. Very difficult to being switched on for 90 overs a day over the course of multiple days, especially when you are in the slips compared to fielding in a 20 overs innings.

Once again, the best fielders and catchers made their reputation in whites, not colored jerseys. Kamran was a very good T20 keeper but is known as a poor keeper overall because he couldn't keep his performance up for more than 20 overs.

Close-catching in test is more challenging, but ground-fielding and boundary fielding are more demanding in T20.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Apart from slogging, there are no skills that a test player would need to develop in order to become successful at T20 cricket. T20 players however, would have to totally reinvent themselves in order to become passable test players.

As mentioned already, aggressive batting is also effective in Tests, while defensive batting just can't work in T20.

Also, defensive bowling is a skill. This is why England's ATG test bowlers broad and Anderson can't play T20 or ODI; they don't have the ability to take it on batter friendly wickets when they get hammered.

 

[IndianWillow]

Apart from slogging, there are no skills that a test player would need to develop in order to become successful at T20 cricket. T20 players however, would have to totally reinvent themselves in order to become passable test players.

Slogging is not the only additional skill - finding the gaps, having many shots for the same delivery, innovations like dilscoop or the helicopter shot were mostly a result of shorter formats. Many test batsmen don't become good at T20 and viceversa. Some adapt to both. T20 doesn't give you the luxury of leaving balls swinging away from the middle-offstump as they would,nt get called as wides - you need to have the skill and guts to put it away else you have a dot ball. And many other nitty gritty stuff. On the whole test cricket demands greater skills overall but by no means it is a superset of T20 skills. They have overlap and also vast disjoint areas. In future, we might see complete specialist players who play only one of the formats - at this time first class cricket structure is heavily built around test cricket due to legacy so we think test cricket is a superset. But things will change as T20 specialization further evolves.

 

[Bilal7]

Close-catching in test is more challenging, but ground-fielding and boundary fielding are more demanding in T20.

I wouldn't say "more demanding". It is true that a T20 fielder has to be more athletic than a test fielder but once again, the test fielder is chasing balls, maintaining concentration for 90 overs a day - sometimes multiple days - while the T20 fielder only fields for 20 overs.

Slogging is not the only additional skill - finding the gaps, having many shots for the same delivery, innovations like dilscoop or the helicopter shot were mostly a result of shorter formats. Many test batsmen don't become good at T20 and viceversa. Some adapt to both. T20 doesn't give you the luxury of leaving balls swinging away from the middle-offstump as they would,nt get called as wides - you need to have the skill and guts to put it away else you have a dot ball. And many other nitty gritty stuff. On the whole test cricket demands greater skills overall but by no means it is a superset of T20 skills. They have overlap and also vast disjoint areas. In future, we might see complete specialist players who play only one of the formats - at this time first class cricket structure is heavily built around test cricket due to legacy so we think test cricket is a superset. But things will change as T20 specialization further evolves.

Let's not be silly. Finding the gaps is how the majority of classical test batsmen get their runs. Whether it's Amla, Sanga or Sachin, they all had that ability to find the smallest of gaps in the field and they learned this from test cricket, not T20s. What gaps are there in T20s anyways? The ropes are brought in and sixes are glorified and every hack worth his pay is trying to clear the rope.

Dilscoop and the helicopter shot were innovations of the ODI format, IIRC. Having several shots for the same delivery is once again, a prior skill developed by 50 overs cricket. ODI cricket has definitely contributed to creating more well-rounded cricket players compared to the 50s and 60s.

Slogging is the only thing that T20 has taught batsmen to do. On the bowling side, several variations have become very important for a bowler's livelihood but once again, these were founded by bowling greats in ODI cricket.

As mentioned already, aggressive batting is also effective in Tests, while defensive batting just can't work in T20.

Also, defensive bowling is a skill. This is why England's ATG test bowlers broad and Anderson can't play T20 or ODI; they don't have the ability to take it on batter friendly wickets when they get hammered.

Exactly. Test cricket demands that a batsman learn how to play aggressively and defensively. T20 cricket just doesn't teach defensive batting which is why 99 out of 100 T20 hacks get blown away at the first sign of swing, seam or spin.

Once again, defensive bowling is something that every test bowler knows how to do. T20 cricket won't teach you how to bowl the channels for example, or patience and given the pitches that T20s are played on, seam and spin.

You are actually begging the question.

Clearly Cook, Clarke, Younis have been relatively weak at T20, even considering thanks to a World-class team Younis did win a T20 WC when format wasn't very developed.

On the hand, Gayle has amazing Test stats while Afridi and Yuvraj are not totally awful. Averaging 33, 35 while not good is much better than the comparative performance of Test cricket greats at T20.

Clearly there is a skill-set which many Test greats lack

Slogging is what many of these test greats lack.

 

[troodon]

Improvisation.
Ability to outsmart the bowler.
Athleticism.
Raw Power.
Hand Eye coordination.
Timing.

You can survive Test Cricket if you have incredible patience and concentration. That can make up for the lack of many of the things listed above.

Someone like Gavaskar or Boycott, Cook..... simply cannot adopt to the modern game. They are all Test greats. But will not survive in T20 cricket.

 

[IndianWillow]

I wouldn't say "more demanding". It is true that a T20 fielder has to be more athletic than a test fielder but once again, the test fielder is chasing balls, maintaining concentration for 90 overs a day - sometimes multiple days - while the T20 fielder only fields for 20 overs.



Let's not be silly. Finding the gaps is how the majority of classical test batsmen get their runs. Whether it's Amla, Sanga or Sachin, they all had that ability to find the smallest of gaps in the field and they learned this from test cricket, not T20s. What gaps are there in T20s anyways? The ropes are brought in and sixes are glorified and every hack worth his pay is trying to clear the rope.

Dilscoop and the helicopter shot were innovations of the ODI format, IIRC. Having several shots for the same delivery is once again, a prior skill developed by 50 overs cricket. ODI cricket has definitely contributed to creating more well-rounded cricket players compared to the 50s and 60s.

Slogging is the only thing that T20 has taught batsmen to do. On the bowling side, several variations have become very important for a bowler's livelihood but once again, these were founded by bowling greats in ODI cricket.



Exactly. Test cricket demands that a batsman learn how to play aggressively and defensively. T20 cricket just doesn't teach defensive batting which is why 99 out of 100 T20 hacks get blown away at the first sign of swing, seam or spin.

Once again, defensive bowling is something that every test bowler knows how to do. T20 cricket won't teach you how to bowl the channels for example, or patience and given the pitches that T20s are played on, seam and spin.



Slogging is what many of these test greats lack.

What made Sachin and Dravid great test players but made Sachin a greater ODI player? It was about having more shots - especially on the offside. Sachin had much more ability playing all around the wicket, so he was always piercing the gaps. So Dravid could afford to have a great test career without being able to pierce the gaps consistently, but he could not become a great ODI player.

In T20 we are talking of a faster form of ODIs where you need to get better at these kind of skills, even than good ODI players, obviously including the slogging ability. Modern ODIs have much more in common with T20s compared to tests.

 

[yasir]

Cricket administrators had made lot of concessions in T20, to make wild hitting easy, wickets have made absolutely flats, boundaries are 20m shorter and a harder ball that hardly swings...skills are out of equation, power and atheletism are front and center...

 

[hafeezrocks]

Cricket administrators had made lot of concessions in T20, to make wild hitting easy, wickets have made absolutely flats, boundaries are 20m shorter and a harder ball that hardly swings...skills are out of equation, power and atheletism are front and center...

And inspite making Wild hitting easy, certain Test Greats like Younis Khan still struggle in the format.

 

[IndianWillow]

Do you notice that 'test advocates' conveniently classify ODIs with tests rather than T20s? ODIs were played very similar to tests for a long time - until the early 90s. It was improvisation given to ODIs by the likes of Jayasuriya, Sachin, Lara etc that generated considerable interest and revenue in ODIs - this improvised ODIs were the forerunners of T20, not the original 'test derived' form of ODIs. T20s is geared towards power hitting but it is not all about power hitting. Many test batsmen don't do well here, since they don't have the skill to adapt.

You need a better range of shots as a T20 player compared to a test player, and can't wait for the bad balls to put away to the fence. Ability to tackle good balls with attack rather than a passive leave or defense is a primary skill requirement for T20s - even more than for ODIs. Rahane, Pujara were both struggling to find their feet in ODIs and T20s, inspite of being solid test players. Captain Cook will struggle as well.

Bowling in T20s and even ODIs requires its own skills. Fielding standards and skills are obviously not the same standard or kind as well.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

It's a matter of preference I believe, for instance, and this is just my opinion on the matter, people with low attention spans normally find T20 cricket as a perfect form of entertainment.

I only associate myself with Tests and ODIs though and may watch a global T20 tournament if an only Pakistan makes it to the Semi stages. Other than that T20 viewing for me is only when something historical is happening like the W11 1st game PSL final in Lahore (That's about it.....)

As far as skills are concerned tests are superior...

 

[IndianWillow]

When the ODIs came along, many test "purists" opined that ODIs were not cricket and would harm the game in the long run. For example, during the first WC match in 1975, Sunil Gavaskar, the great test opener and purist made his statement public by deliberately knocking off 36 runs off 174 balls, that led to a toothless humilating match loss for India as India made 132/3 off 60 overs chasing 335. But many years later Gavaskar said he regretted the selfish knock, and that he now conceded that ODIs deserved their place in cricket. The purist army died out completely as years went by.

Same thing is going on with T20s now, which is a shorter variant of ODI. The voices will die out completely in the next decade. Most likely we will see all three formats - tests, ODIs and T20s accepted universally as the three eyes of cricket. Just like ODIs influenced the way test cricket is played today, T20s will influence both ODIs and tests, both of which will change in color and form. Better accept the reality and move on. The days of the purist brand of cricket is over.

 

[bujhee kom]

Of all the guys here [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] has the best debating skills. I like all cricket but T20 is the future and the best entertainment. I accept RIGHT NOW that tests are regarded as the pinnacle but in time market forces will change that.

Youngsters growing up now will not care for Tests in the main. The format is drawn out and yes it tests skills but it is boring as hell. I would much rather BD dominate ODIs and T20s as this is where world titles are won and hearts pleased.

Back to skills:

T20s demand innovation and quick thinking. You cannot rely on metronomic accuracy as batsmen will adjust their game in pursuit of runs.

 

[Bilal7]

When the ODIs came along, many test "purists" opined that ODIs were not cricket and would harm the game in the long run. For example, during the first WC match in 1975, Sunil Gavaskar, the great test opener and purist made his statement public by deliberately knocking off 36 runs off 174 balls, that led to a toothless humilating match loss for India as India made 132/3 off 60 overs chasing 335. But many years later Gavaskar said he regretted the selfish knock, and that he now conceded that ODIs deserved their place in cricket. The purist army died out completely as years went by.

Same thing is going on with T20s now, which is a shorter variant of ODI. The voices will die out completely in the next decade. Most likely we will see all three formats - tests, ODIs and T20s accepted universally as the three eyes of cricket. Just like ODIs influenced the way test cricket is played today, T20s will influence both ODIs and tests, both of which will change in color and form. Better accept the reality and move on. The days of the purist brand of cricket is over.

You have got it all wrong. No one here at least, is saying that T20 cricket is not going to be a part of cricket in the forseeable future - at least until T10 cricket catches on - this discussion is simply about the skills that a batsman needs to possess in addition to ones he already has by playing tests and ODIs. The answer is and will remain, slogging.

ODIs are their own format and there is a difference considerable enough in the two one day formats that grouping them together makes no sense. ODIs did require batsmen to reinvent themselves but T20s don't require the same sort of upgrading of skills because it is such an easy format to play.

Don't attribute the innovations that were made in ODIs to T20s. The only thing T20 cricket has taught the batsmen is the ability to slog. Rotating the strike, an expanded repertoire of shots, attacking the good balls, etc were developed in ODIs, if not tests.