Cricket

[DJDonegal]

Hey guys. As you can see, X-Ray closed the other one. So I'm starting the new one.

Ser Stubby - your link didn't work. So I got to the story myself, and the ABC link didn't work. So I know it's not you. Just letting you know.

[Jeor]

Sarwan predictably installed as the Windies captain. I'm not sure this is a good move if he captains like he bats; he's a good batsman, but of a bit of a cavalier one with not much sense of responsibility. To be sure the talent was thin, Gayle and supposedly Ganga were the only other options (since Chanderpaul isn't a long term one and probably doesn't want it) and none of the bowlers are particularly experienced. Perhaps Sarwan will grow up with the captaincy.

Other cricinfo news, the Australian national contracts have been done. Kasprowicz and Katich miss out, which is no real surprise. Shame because I'm a bit of a Katich fan. Hogg, Cullen, Bailey, MacGill and White are the spinners; MacGill is probably the only one who has the requisite incision required for long Test matches. Other changes include Hilfenhaus coming in - which is a good move, if his matches in the ODI series and Twenty20 were any indicaton - and the surprising non-change of Gillespie being kept on a contract. With all these retirements and all these newbies they probably wanted some insurance - although that being said, you can select people whether they have a contract or not. They probably wanted to keep one of their loyal men on a national retainer rather than hand another young guy a six-figure salary too quickly.

According to cricinfo the smallest contract is $155,000, which doesn't include any endorsements, prizemoney or match fees. I'm sure there are some seven-figure players out there already if you take into account all their sponsorships. Pretty cool life. Apparently that was one of the problems with the English cricket system up until recently. Before the whole new central contract system in England was installed, it was possible for a county cricketer to be on a higher salary than a national player. I remember Atherton saying that there wasn't enough incentive, and there were a number of career first-class cricketers (normally county captains) walking around on rich contracts, endorsements and domestic prizemoney who would have actually taken a massive pay cut just to play for England. Thankfully that's not the case anymore.

[Xray the Enforcer]

OK -- so what happens now? Back to international Test matches, I presume? I know next to nothing about how cricket regularly goes about its business. Are there ODI leagues playing as well?

[Vestrit]

OK, basically all the countries tour each other and play a Test series and a separate ODI series (ie: if you win all the tests, you still start the ODI series 0-0 regarding ODIs. The results of the Test series have no impact on the ODIs and vice versa, as they are different games). These are all self-contained competitions.

So, this summer for example, England host the West Indies and then India.

So West Indies tour England, they play a four match Test series followed by a three game ODI series.

Then India arrive and play a three-match Test series followed by a seven game ODI series.

Depending on where it's summer, there'll be other series going on. For example, while WI are touring England, India will be touring Bangladesh. England will tour Sri Lanka later this year and India will tour Australia.

While all these series are self-contained in their own rights, each team earns 'ranking points' after each game, which go towards an overall ranking table (one for Tests, one for ODIs) based on performances and results over the past few years. The current tables for Tests and ODIs is here. Australia are currently top of both tables.

Players are also judged on their performances and points go towards tables of who are the best batsmen and bowlers in test and ODIs. Ricky Ponting is currently the best Test batsman, while Kevin Pietersen in the best ODI batsman. Muralidaran is the best Test bowler and Pollock the best ODI bowler.

Again, these tables cover a certain period of time, so while Pollock didn't perform so well at the World Cup, he holds his place due to the carryover points from performances prior to the WC.

[Jeor]

Vestrit pretty much hit on what happens. Apologies if I'm wrong but I think you're a US boarder, Xray? The league-style competitions that you're probably familiar with from the US (eg baseball, basketball, etc) still happen in cricket but they tend to be on a first-class (another word for domestic) basis.

So for example in Australia, we have domestic competitions amongst the various teams of each state. In most countries there is a domestic one-day competition (which uses rules like one-day internationals) and a domestic four-day competition (which uses rules like Test matches). Teams tend to play a match every fortnight or something like that, and scuffle for position on a league table. In England, county cricket is along the same lines with league-style tables for the various domestic competitions in each form of cricket.

Internationally it just tends to be an arbitrary hodge-podge of teams alternately touring and hosting various other teams. I may be wrong in remembering this but I think the ICC passed a resolution some time recently which mandated that each Test nation has to play each other a minimum of twice (once home and once away) every four or five years (or some other timeframe that I've forgotten). There are also some clear traditions based on climates and timeframes.

For instance, Australia's home schedule is fairly set in stone. The Australian cricket season is from about November to February. In any given year, we will host at least five Test matches during this period, sometimes more. Last season (ie a few months ago) we hosted England for five Tests. But we might also split it up - one year I think we hosted New Zealand for three Tests, and South Africa for three Tests. Either way, there will be an extended series of Test matches from November-January. And then in January and February, Australia always hosts a triangular ODI tournament, consisting of round robin matches between three nations (one of whom is Australia), culminating in a three-game finals series for the best two teams.

Other countries have similar sort of traditions (eg England's international cricket season also has a triangular ODI tournament) and it's just a matter of deciding which team you're going to invite to come over in any particular year.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Thanks Vestrit and Jeor (and yes, J, I'm American). It clears up a bit of the confusion as to the how and when. I was particularly curious about the "first-class" level of play, because your big-time National players have to come from somewhere, and I couldn't figure out where the hell that might be.

It also means that I can now start looking out for when Test match highlights might show up at a local watering hole.

[Hereward]

I am in the minority amongst the world's cricket watchers, though possibly not in the minority on the board in thinking that Test cricket is vastly superior to ODI cricket. The game is slower, subtler and has much more ebb and flow than ODIs, but for the same reasons it can be very difficult to get into. Though we're very lucky in having Jeor and Vestrit, in particular, to talk people through it if they want to understand the intricacies better.

In short, ODI cricket is a pint of lager on a hot day, Test cricket is a particularly smoky Islay malt on a winter's evening.

[Vestrit]

Thank you for your kind words H.

I also much prefer tests to ODIs for a number of reasons.

I think the main thing I like about tests is that every game can be so different. You have five days in which anything can happen.

And the fate of the game is so much more in the players’ hands. In ODIs, the rules dictate to the players: you have 50 overs each, your bowlers can only have ten overs each, you have three powerplays (with a certain number of ‘catchers’ in place) and there will be a result.

Test cricket the players can do what they like, and this determines what the results of the game will be. In the words of an old friend: ‘Test matches unfold…’

Also, I think the skills are purer in test cricket and the accomplishments greater. The batsmen play correctly, rather than the final ten overs slog of an ODI (otherwise known as ‘clear the front leg and hit like hell…’), the bowlers bowl properly, rather than just trying to stem runs, and the field placements and bowling plans for each batsman are cleverer and subtler. In tests the players have time to try out a theory and to lure/frustrate a player into a trap.

Only in tests can a batsman bat for 10 hours to save a match (like Atherton against SA or Lara’s 153 not out* against Australia) or a bowler bowl unchanged for hours despite injury because his captain needs him (Flintoff against Australia, Oval, 2005; Warne loads of times).

* the greatest innings ever IMHO, for reasons that you can only get in a test match.

[DJDonegal]

I've only read Jeor's first post, and saw Dan Cullen has a central national contract. I really hope you give this guy a run, even against the better Test Nations. I know it's a while until your next Test (like, October?) but seriously. He's your future.

ETA: And Tests are totally superior to ODI's for the exact reasons Vestrit gave.

ETA2: And Essex just fell from 289-3 to 289-6!! :cry:

[Multaniette]

I'll join the test >>>>>>>>> odi bandwagon as well.

test cricket is da shit.

edit: yorkshire will win the league this year!

[delete this account pls]

I think most of us here prefer test matches. Nothing like five whole days of cricket to sink one's teeth into.

England are hosting the West Indes soon, yes? I don't think Australia have anything for a while, besides a well earned break.

[Jeor]

Looking at the international Test fixtures, there doesn't seem to be a lot on. It seems we have:

England hosting the Windies from mid-May to mid-June

India hosting Bangladesh around the same time

England hosting India from mid-July to mid-August

Two-test series of Australia hosting Sri Lanka in November

England have a three-Test tour of Sri Lanka after that

Australia host India for four Tests in December.

There's also the supposed Australian-Zimbabwe series, but I don't think that's confirmed yet. Looks like a fairly light schedule all around, anyway. England vs the Windies will be an interesting series; two traditionally fierce rivals, but both playing below par at the moment.

[Hereward]

But recent Test series have not been close, and with Lara gone I don't expect a tight contest. England are pathetically awful at ODIs, but in Tests, particularly at home, they are still a good team, whatever humiliation to Australia says.

[Vestrit]

It'll be interesting to see if Sarwan finally stands up and gets counted in the test arena.

It'll also be interesting to see how the West Indies play without Lara. They lose a genius of a batsman, but, judging from much of what's been written recently, they lose a bully and domineering influence and an interference in selection. Many of the younger WI players might feel more freed up and relaxed and perform better as a result.

That said, they can be as relaxed and focussed as they like, there's just not a huge amount in the way of sheer talent in the current WI side.

As Hereward says, England are a good test side and have an excellent home record over recent years (starting with that 4-0 drubbing of the West Indies the last time they were here in 2004).

[Ser Barry]

Tests > ODI Agreed

Am I talking out of my arse when I think that England would be better off running the test and ODI teams as seperate entities with seperate Captains, squads and coaches?

ETA. With some overlap of players off course.

[Jeor]

I think England will win too - they always have a very good home advantage due to the swing/seam and uniquely English conditions, and they have more talent than the Windies.

But I think this West Indies team might be surprising; I have a feeling they will actually perform better than expected without Lara. Instead of having some guy who puts up monster scores they're going to have to do it themselves and step up to the plate, and Lara copped all that bad press about his captaincy and dressing room influence. Sarwan may just find it the right time to transfer his ODI success to the Test arena. Like I said, as a batsman he's a stylish one with no sense of responsibility, but maybe the captaincy will bring that out in him.

Ser Barry, I too think that England should separate their Test and ODI teams. Vaughan's not cutting it in the ODI arena, so by putting Strauss in for him they get better batting in the bargain. An ODI team with its own identity performs better, and there's not much room for variation in ODI captaincy so I don't think Vaughan's superior skills count for so much there.

[DJDonegal]

Agreed. The ODI and Test structures need to be treated as different entities if England are going to go anywhere in the future. They require different styles of players and you can't carry a batsman in an ODI just because he's a good captain - it negates the attempt to lengthen your batting line up.

[Jeor]

I was trying to find my post on this a while ago but I lost it somewhere in that World Cup thread. Vaughan just isn't a limited-overs batsman, his first-class limited-overs statistics are similarly poor, an average of about 28 over 250+ matches. He's not going to make it as an ODI batsman, so put Strauss in there instead.

If you have the same teams for both, then all you're going to get is all the players going, "Great, just finished a long Test series, now we have to go through the motions for these silly one-dayers". If you give it a separate identity and a few more fresh players then it becomes an ODI team with pride; there will be a bunch of players who only play in the ODI team, and Strauss will be only captain of the ODI team, and they will certainly want to forge a good ODI identity.

[Vestrit]

What Jeor said (yet again).

Also, the ODI captaincy does tend to be a good place to blood your future test captain, like they did with Vaughan and Waugh.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Thanks to everyone's explanations, I am finally able to navigate cricinfo with some measure of a clue. Jesus, you people and your sports are so confusing!

I've gotten a couple of my coworkers curious about cricket, though. We'll see if I can somehow figure out how to see some of these matches in the next few months.