I can understand that all Cricket fans would care about WC. But there is no comparison between bilateral ODI series/ T20 vs Test. Test format will always remain gold standard for players' greatness because:
1) That's the only format that has been played for 100 years and still has remained relatively unchanged. Therefore, only way to compare Sobers to Lara is through Test format as Sobers didn't play ODI.
2) It's a real test of character and player's stamina. 5 day contest is grueling. Momentum can keep shifting dramatically like pendulum. Being successful in test is far more mentally and physically taxing than other formats.
3) In tests, there is no limit to how many overs a bowler can bowl. They can bowl short and also use the full crease without being called wide. There is also no such rubbish as free hits after no ball. So, basically for a batsman there is no where to hide.
I can understand if two players are really close in test, then you can compare them across other formats. But when there is as big of a gap as Smith vs next best test batsman, shorter formats are practically irrelevant.
It is pointless to compare Sobers and Lara because Sobers never played ODIs. However, if two players have played both Tests and ODIs in the same era, then the one who has done better across both formats is obviously the better player.
Tendulkar and Lara was almost neck to neck in Tests, but there was no comparison between the two in ODIs after 1999. Lara was a mediocre ODI batsman in the 2000s, but Tendulkar was world class till 2011. Hence, it is pretty easy to deduce that Tendulkar was a better batsman than Lara.
The skills that you pointed out in points 1,2 and 3 are Test-specific skills. They are not superior or greater than white ball skills. Both Tests and ODIs/T20s require a different set skills. They are not superior or inferior, they are just different and I will explain.
A Test specialist can play a textbook front-foot defense, but he cannot hit a ramp shot to a 90 mph bowler. Why? Because he doesn’t have the skill or the talent for it.
Similarly, a Test specialist like Pujara cannot bat for two days to save a Test, but he cannot score 50 in 20 balls if the situation demands. He has the character and stamina to bat for two days, but not the skill, the technique or the talent for power-hitting and improvisation.
Proponents of Test cricket often say that Test skills are superior. If that was true, then the Test specialists would have easily performed the inferior Limited Overs skills but they cannot. Hence, they are not superior. They are just different.
Similarly, someone like Pollard can score 50 in 17 balls but he cannot grind in Test cricket. Does that make Pollard superior? No, because he has the skills for power-hitting but not the character, technique and stamina to grind in Test cricket.
Pujara is a better Test batsman than Rohit, but he is actually a better overall batsman? Clearly not. Pujara is rubbish at Limited Overs cricket but Rohit is not rubbish at Test cricket.
The batsmen (and the bowlers) who excel in all three formats are the true elite players, and the best among these elite players is the one who excels across these three formats better than others.
Smith is a wonderful Limited Overs batsman, but the gap between him and Kohli is massive. However, the gap between the two is not that big in Tests. Smith is undoubtedly better, but not by the same margin as Kohli is in Limited Overs.
There are the two best batsmen in the world today but Kohli is better because he is more complete and versatile.
As far as ODI results are concerned, it is true that bilateral Tests have a lot more significance than bilateral ODIs. Some would argue that winning a Test series in India, Australia and England is better than winning the World Cup. However, you cannot win a World Cup without working hard in bilateral ODIs. That is where you prepare your team for the World Cup and thus, the results matter because they reflect your preparation.
