One for the road

Hello and welcome back to my blog

I understand that around this time of year many of us retreat from our normal lives of work and grind so I don't expect many to read this post until well after it is published. Therefore there seems little point in finding a gripe or current event to analysis, other than to say that the current MCG test match is wonderful to watch, instead I shall end 2011 with an addition to the cricket discussion I began earlier in the year with a cricket-mad friend of mine who graciously replied to my first points (here) with a long and well argued essay in September (here). I would recommend a quick skim through at least the latter post before proceding to my thoughts below

My Friend

Thank you for taking me up on the offer of an on-going cricket discussion and if we continue in the same form presented thus far then I am encouraged. I did warn readers that we may agree on many things but I am glad to find in your first reply that there are important areas of difference between us - if people wanted to view two idiots just agree all the time they would watch Hannity and Colmes. I can easily split your points into those that are misguided out of ignorance or laziness and those that I disagree with, but first I would mention the one that gave me pause for thought; that I might concede a point to your good self before I take you to task (or the cleaners as it might be) on a couple of points.

I believe your strongest point is when you talk about the T20 format as a different format requiring and providing a different skill set. I have heard and agreed with that point before but what you provide is a sincere and ultimatley accurate feel for what that really means and the extent to which it is serious. The increased need for accuracy of bowling and shot placement, the battle represented by the yorker and the Dilshan/McCullum 'scoop' to counteract this once guaranteed dot-ball and the general intensity of such a short format. When I read your honest belief in this I did begin to question my own dismissal of T20 as a bit of 'carnival-cricket' not to be taken too seriously; I'm not sure if I have changed my mind on whether it need be anything other than a bit of fun but at least I better understand what it means to the players themselves. I would point out though that the scoop shot that has appeared throughout this form is actually older than T20 cricket, I remember seeing Hamish Marshall play a similar shot at the MCG in 2004 to help get runs in the dying overs of an ODI; although naturally the new form of the game has developed it further.

I agree with you when you assert that a quality player in one form will be so in another - Ricky Ponting made 90 odd in the very first 2020 international match at Eden Park by playing aggressive cricket strokes, showing true class adapted to a new format and at this point convinced me of his modern greatness. However you also mention the other side of this argument which is that some players can be excellent at one form and garbage at another (you cite Micheal Bevan who averaged 56 in ODIs and invented 'finishing' but failed at test level while someone like Geoffrey Boycott opened England's test team innings with aplomb but maintained an ODI strike rate of just 54). I would caution in you in using Boycott's ODI record in this way, you sir must realise that strike rates have increased over the years and Boycott played in the very first match of this format at the MCG in 1971 (he was I believe the first wicket in ODI cricket too) and many of the early matches in 1970s where opening was to have a low strike rate as long as you lasted 30-40 overs. Your point is correct, just use a better example like Mark Richardson perhaps (although that might be too easy). Mind you, then you have to look at examples of aggressive test batsmen like Slater and Langer who never established themselves in limited overs cricket; it is a difficult area and perhaps one to look more closely at.
To make my point on this matter I would highlight the new Indian sensation Kohli who has impressed in ODI cricket but been, so far, disappointing at test level. I have only seen him play the pure form of cricket a couple of times but what strikes me as his problem is a need to hit every ball. His movements at the crease and defensive game are all about getting bat on ball. Now you my friend are quite able to see the problem here, test cricket requires the use of the 'positive leave' which is a statement in itself to a bowler and opposition, test bowlers would love nothing more than to have you play at every ball - that is their main aim for heaven's sake. Kohli suffers at test level at the moment for the very reason he excels at ODI cricket. Now I think this is slightly different from your points about players being unable to adapt for the following reason: the diet of limited overs cricket, which so far has been increased by playing T20 matches ON TOP of ODI cricket, destroys the culture of test match batting. T20 cricket is where the players will now make their money and if you don't think that is going to damage an entire generation of batsmenship then you would be naive. Before, the case was a more balanced environment of test and one-day cricket but T20 is changing that forever, to the detriment of some of the game's oldest skills
Your suggestion that the players who are in it for the $ in the IPL and other tournaments cannot and will not make it at test level and therefore the pure form of the game is safe from them is misguided for this reason. What happens when Ponting, Dravid and Kallis retire and we find ourselves watching the T20 generation of cricketers? Will they be able to adapt? If they do then I will admit I was wrong but I currently fear for the quality of test cricket in ten years.
Call me a padantic old fart if you will but I always felt that ODI cricket didn't change test cricket enough to kill off its basic skills and principles but with T20, if it is to be the new format that you say it is (and that I agreed with) then you cannot ignore the real possibility that it will have a major impact on test cricket - you can't have it both ways

To finish I would just pick at one point you made, nothing major - just couldn't let it pass without proving how much of an insuffereable know-it-all I am. You express a desire to have an Indian fast bowler stand up and fight the status quo on batting over bowling in that country - I think you may find one Kapil Dev (100+ tests, 5000+ runs and 434 wickets) may have done that in the 1980s. That's not to say they couldn't use one now, athough this Yadav fellow looks mighty impressive...

Well that's it from here, in 2011 and I hope you join me again in 2012
It's good bye for now and happy holidays to you