Just in case you thought that it was serious...

[Occasional Fan]

Rachael - in an earlier post, which I am sure was yours, I saw a proposal that there should be a two or three division test circuit. As you were suggesting that Australia should be in division one and England in division two, my immediate thought was that this would jeopardise future Ashes series (at least until Australia get relegated). I see that you list winning the Ashes as priority number one for England, and I agree with that. Were you thinking that teams in different divisions would routinely be able to play one another (and if so, what would be the objective of the multi-divisional structure?), or were you planning an exception for the only series that really matters, namely the Ashes? I realise this is off the subject of this thread, but I am interested in the idea.

Apologies if this message, or something similar, turns up twice: I'm not quite used to this board and I just hit a key combination which caused the first draft to disappear! It may have been posted somewhere, or it may have gone into the ether.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

You've got me wrong here. If a guy is good enough to play a ODI for England he should have his technique more or less sorted out. What I'm talking about is your 18 and 19 year olds, just starting in the county game, who get blooded in one day cricket and their career is made or broken by how effectively they can swing at the ball with 20 needed off the last 10 balls.

I strongly favour players like Strauss getting a chance to find their feet in ODIs before being thrust in to open on a May greentop against a strong attack. Certainly, the policy of trying players like Clarke, Strauss, Troughton, and Solanki has been a good one. They haven't found a real gem yet, but in part that's been due to the fact that this winter more games have been rained off than completed and most of the ones played were against awful opposition - not a lot that one can do in those circumstances.

I think we are all agreed that test cricket is the best of the two different types.

one day cricket is here now,there is nothing no one can do about that,but i wonder Mark how many people wish it had never started in the first place.

Could we do without one day cricket?and the revenue it brings in higher gates,and sponsership,Should young players like the ones you have mentioned above,play one day cricket before they have fully learned their trade,or will it learn them batters and bowlers the wrong technique wwhich they will carry with them into test cricket,a post from rachael got me thinking a little.

Attendances at twst matches on the whole seem to be slipping,it will be interesting to see what this year brings.Pity the rain has ruined the one dayers in the Windies there was a lot to prove.

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Farmer Giles

Afternoon MK, and anyone else. I haven't got a lot to add to this debate, because I agree with all of you. I am certain, however, that the long game is more important than the ODIs. Even so, there have been disappointing crowds for Tests in England of late, and I believe the turnouts for matches in Pakistan were not spectacular. There are certain series that will pack them in, and others that won't. Interesting to see what happens here in England this summer.

The turn out for the Tests in Pakistan was awful and that when the rival was India. That is probably a lot to do with the packaging of the game and the way that ODIs are sold to get an instant result and in a short timeframe - nobody can guarantee a result in a Test and if you go to a Test for one day you see only a tiny fraction of the game.

ODIs in my book are important for bringing cricket to the masses and for introducing players to the pressures of the game, but they are not the right place to learn correct technique! We are seeing though that in England at least, the Test and ODI squads are very different and that apart from a few players who can do a job in both versions (the two openers and Freddy, plus the opening bowlers - the ones whose role in a ODI is most similar to in Test cricket), the personal are different. Your classic Test batsmen like Thorpe and Butcher are not in the ODI squad.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Your classic Test batsmen like Thorpe and Butcher are not in the ODI squad.

But surely that is a fault with our selection policy?

I thoroughly enjoy One Day cricket, but i don't pretend it's the real thing. When I need the real thing I watch a four or five day game.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

The turn out for the Tests in Pakistan was awful and that when the rival was India. That is probably a lot to do with the packaging of the game and the way that ODIs are sold to get an instant result and in a short timeframe - nobody can guarantee a result in a Test and if you go to a Test for one day you see only a tiny fraction of the game.

ODIs in my book are important for bringing cricket to the masses and for introducing players to the pressures of the game, but they are not the right place to learn correct technique! We are seeing though that in England at least, the Test and ODI squads are very different and that apart from a few players who can do a job in both versions (the two openers and Freddy, plus the opening bowlers - the ones whose role in a ODI is most similar to in Test cricket), the personal are different. Your classic Test batsmen like Thorpe and Butcher are not in the ODI squad.

I agree with your post ,not sure about Freddy Flintoff playing in ODIs,doubts have been played in my mind,there are opinions that ODI are making Freddy bowl defensive in test matches,my reply to that was that if players had held on to catches of his bowling he would have looked more penatrating.not sure though.

Cricket, Mark needs a big marketing boost,The turn out for the Tests in Pakistan says a lot,what will the attendances be like for the New Zealand games,with all respect to them they have no stars with the crowd pulling power of Lara,and Ponting and the like.
This Zimbabwe affair is hanging over the heads of English cricket,and should be sorted pronto.....

[sostenurter]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ernest - did I hear somewhere that in domestic cricket in India, participation in the one day game is now limited to the over-25s or something like that: I'm not sure what the exact ruling is.. and suspect the only authority I have for that comment is another contributer on this board.. but I must admit.. it sounds a decent idea.

Guys in the 19-25 age group are clearly very much in their formative years: going through the learning curve we've been witnessing in Flintoff of late as he's struggled to get beyond defensive, ODI bowling (learning to pitch the ball up a bit and risk doing a bit more with it) and aggressive ODI batting (partly technique: blocking the balls into gaps; parly shot selection: leaving balls that don't HAVE to be hit, refusing the riskier strokes, taking a safe 2 ahead of a riskier 4).

I guess it should do little harm in domestic cricket to allow people like Harmison, Jones and Hoggard to bowl... but I really do object to Anderson or Mahmood playing pyjama cricket anywhere, anytime: they have a lot to learn about playing real cricket.. and Gough's defensive bowling techniques for bowling at the death in a ODI are NOT what they will need to help us win the Ashes.

Same with batsmen: you might as well let Collingwood, Strauss and pietersen play all forms of the game... adding improvisational skills to their armoury so they can score in any and all situations... but the youngsters in the academy who played on the A-tour.. and the U-19 players who just performed so well... should be playing 4 day cricket and 4 day cricket alone.

Depends on your priorities really: if you give a damn about the pyjama stuff then all the above might seem a bit retrograde.. but if it's the Ashes that remain objective no 1... then I think something like the above is eventually going to be needed.

Rachael - I'm all for your suggestion that young players shouldn't play domestic one day matches - but I think we differ here because I believe that one day Internationals are more of a test for a player than county games. I also think that playing in 4-day county games has as much a chance of massacring technique, because very often, batsmen have to play against one good bowler, who they can see off and score runs against the weaker bowlers. Then they get into international cricket where top bowlers are bowling all the time, and they have real problems. Ian Blackwell, a player who does not have the greatest technique in the world, has scored 250-odd in as many balls in a county game - you can't tell me that would be worth more than an one-day 70 or 80 against one of the top Test nations.

I think the solution is, as you say, to accept that Tests are more important, and treat the one day side as a kind of A team. Bear in mind as well, that, as someone else has pointed out, some of the roles in ODIs and Tests are similar - opening batsmen have to be adept at seeing off the new ball. Top-order batsman have to get themselves set for a big score, and be able to face a reasonable number of overs. Opening bowlers have to take wickets. Even at-the-death bowlers have skills which are useful in Tests - against India two years ago, England managed to bowl out one of the best batting line-ups in the world bowling what was "defensive" bowling. In fact, Rachael, I'm surprised to see you attacing "defensive" bowling, because in general, ODIs teach bowlers that they HAVE to be accurate, or they will get punished - it teaches them that very often, control of the ball and line and length is far more important than excessive pace. I thought this was one of your real bugbears!

I can understand that you might therefore want the domestic game to be improved so four day matches offer a real test, and I've read some of your suggestions for this, but there's a limit to how far this can go. Even the Australians, who, with the Sheffield Shield, have what is generally considered the best domestic competition in the world, view it as inferior to international cricket, and generally try out players in the one-day format, or in easier Tests, before throwing them in the deep end in crunch Test matches.

The only solution I can see to this is to bring back the A team. It's true that England didn't have great success with this in the past, but I was looking at the current NZ side and about four or five of their best players were on the A team tour of England in 2000 - Mark Richardson, Scott Styris, Michael Papps, Daryl Tuffey and Chris Martin. The A team gives the best chance of allowing fringe players to experience high quality opposition and different pitches in a four or five day format.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by ernest

what will the attendances be like for the New Zealand games,with all respect to them they have no stars with the crowd pulling power of Lara,and Ponting and the like.

The Trent Bridge Test against NZ has near enough sold out. But then Trent Bridge sells out more often than not. And most Notts fans want to see Chris Cairns again!

[honestbharani]

Rachael, India do have that rule now that there is no overs limit cricket at the under -22 level........It was a move mainly done to give more security to the spinners that we were losing..... But I think ODIs are very important... They have different requirements than Test cricket.....In Tests, you can play with injuries and the like but ODIs demand superior fitness......Also Test cricket requires more stamina than ODIs and most of all, Test cricket batting needs better technique while ODI batting needs more street-smartness, if you can call it that way....... They are two very different forms and the really good ones adapt themselve.........The others will have trouble doing so and that is when the specialists come in.

[Goatman]

I find the one day game a bit boring really. It has none of the cut and trhust of the real game. There's less building partnerships, no swinging of the intiative and certainly no real tactics in the field. Its formulaic. You don't get wickets with that clever bit of field placement. You can't set traps for batsmen. You don't get bowlers wokring together to do batsmen, or bowling entire overs in preparation for a wicket taking ball. Its just a lot less cerebral. The last time Walsh toured ENG he embodied what cricket is for me. Two or three times he moved square leg back to the fence, and then bowled entire overs of yorkers. The famous slower deliveries he gave to Read and Thorpe were simply exemplary craftsmanship. You get none of that in the one day game. The only thing I watch it for is the bowling at the death - there is some craft in that, use of slower balls and so on. Other than that though....

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Goatman

I find the one day game a bit boring really. It has none of the cut and trhust of the real game.

You are hard to please Goatman,I respect your opinion that Test Match cricket is superier to one day cricket,i am at one with you on this.

Boring it is not,whatever your preferance over cricket mode.

Ond day cricket no cut and thrust(the one days games finest atribute).