Ever wondered why some cricketers are termed ODI specialists?
We are not talking about Shahid Afridi. He is not good enough even to play T20 cricket. He falls into the “Hongkong sixes specialists” category.
By ODI specialists, i mean players like Michael Bevan, Jonty Rhodes, Mahendra Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh who can play the waiting game or switch to attacking mode according to the needs of the situation.
The above mentioned players are all exceptional fielders. Yuvraj signifies pretence, but he is still a capable fielder.
They are all quick runners between the wickets and can convert ones-to-twos and the twos-to-threes.
Another thing is common to all of them. They have not had a happy hunting at the test level, the acid test for any cricketer.
In 18 test matches, Michael Bevan averages a paltry 29 with the bat. Contrast that with his ODI average of 53.58. Numerous of his ODI innings have come at circumstances when Australia had lost early wickets that needed Bevan to consolidate and finish things off with a late flourish. These innings typify the way test innings are played. Then why did he fail in the test circuit?
Jonty Rhodes averages 35 with the bat in 52 test matches, which is not any great. By comparison, he has played the most number of test matches. However, he lost his place in the test side at the twilight of his career. His ODI average of 35 and his lightning quick fielding makes him an ideal ODI asset.
Mahendra Dhoni averages 33 in test cricket from 29 matches. His ODI average is quite high at 45 that makes him one of the modern day greats. His technique doesn’t help him in test cricket, though he has played a few noteworthy innings of repute. Since India lack a good keeper who can bat better than Dhoni, he will be given an extended run in test matches to prove himself.
Yuvraj Singh has a dismal test average of 32 from 23 test matches. He has been mostly roped in place of VVS Laxman when the latter has succumbed to injuries. Barring the odd centuries against Pakistan in losing/drawn causes, he hasn’t been any good for test cricket. If his recent test form in Australia is something to go by, he doesn’t qualify to replace anyone of the ‘fantastic four’. His ODI average is better at 36 and has donned the mantle of a finisher in the recent past.
It it some kind of a jinx that ODI specialists cannot do well at the test level? Or can Yuvraj and Dhoni reverse the trend in the future?
Only time will tell.
4 responses so far ↓
David Barry // June 23, 2008 at 12:11 pm |
ODI specialists are by definition not good enough at Test level. The question therefore is, Why are some players good (even very good) at ODI cricket but not at Test cricket?
In Bevan’s case, it was a weakness against the short ball. it’s possible that if he’d been recalled to the Test team a few years later, he would have been more successful – he continued to plunder bowlers in Shield cricket, despite the bowlers knowing about his short-pitch bowling problem.
In general, you’d expect that there would be some players who can score more runs in ODI’s, because the field is usually spread, there aren’t any slips in place, and pitches are usually made for easy batting.
12th Man // June 23, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
Agree with you David on the spread-out field and the batsman-friendly nature of ODI cricket. The players mentioned were all good at the ODI level. The fact that they failed at the test level led to their branding as ODI specialists. So i was just trying to draw a comparison.
Naked Cricket // June 23, 2008 at 8:41 pm |
A limited over specialist vs. a test cricket specialist – personally i think, in addition to the players’ own demons, the media and reputations sure help.
Take the case of VVS and Dravid, both should have accomplished far more in limited overs, but stronger ODI reputations were preferred. Perception is a big deal, esp in Indian cricket.
12th Man // June 24, 2008 at 8:15 am |
Yes, Gaurav, to a fair extent. I still remember how VVS was expecting a ODI comeback, only to be disappointed time and again.