In the mould of Chris Rogers and Ed Cowan, I wonder, is the idea of a ‘Test-only’ cricketer slowly becoming rarer?
When I think of Test-only cricketers I think of the two batsmen named above that have opened for Australia, I think of Nathan Lyon and I think of Peter Siddle.
But with so much cricket being played all year round, more more limited-overs matches than Tests, will these types of players who only ply their trade in the longer forms become a thing of the past?
I thought Justin Langer’s comments earlier this week regarding up-and-coming West Australian batsman Cameron Bancroft were really interesting. Despite having the patience and grafting style of a traditional longer form batsman, Langer believes Bancroft still has the tools and ability to succeed at ODI and Twenty20 level.
The modern-day prototype batsman can adjust their batting given the format and circumstance, and is capable of both the patience and ‘digging in’ style but also the whirlwind slather approach for short-form cricket. But then again, maybe not everyone can be like David Warner.
As interesting as I found Langer’s comments I was surprised. I often felt the same about Queenslander and possible Test incumbent Joe Burns. I thought he would be similar to Rogers, a purely Test player. Soon enough he was in the Australian ODI side partnering David Warner against England.
I suppose some players are just suited to the longer forms for a range of reasons. In the case of Rogers and Cowan their signature ability to see of the swinging new ball and desire to occupy the crease meant first-class and Test cricket is really the only game for them.
Siddle has become more of a pressure building and steady quick in recent years since no longer being the fierce leader of a young bowling attack. He just doesn’t have the firepower or weaponry of either Mitchell Starc, Mitchell Johnson or Nathan Coulter-Nile, meaning he just isn’t as useful in one day or T20 cricket.
This is now an era where players simply must become more versatile and flexible between formats, such is the constant nature of modern cricket. With the opportunity and big dollars available, especially in the lucrative T20 competitions, it is no wonder we are seeing less and less of the old school traditional types like Rogers.
Most of the best players around the world still have an involvement in shorter formats of the game, and one could only wonder whether this a trend on the rapid decline.
Naveen Razik
Roar Pro
personally I think a test only player will be remembered more than a limited overs specialist.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
I'm really not sold on Faulkner as a Test match bowler. His wickets do tend to come from batsmen having to take him on. That said, on relatively docile pitches in Bangladesh being able to change pace is one weapon that might induce some errors. Batsmen and bowlers have to patient in those condition, but the guy who bowls genuine cutters ratehr than relying on hitting the seam, or can mix up the pace (up and down) can take advantage of frustrated batsmen. As fore the article, surely if there are going to be T20 only players, or players specialised in both limited forms, then there must be others who only play the long form. There is certainly going to be an increased focus from young players on the short form, its where the easier money is as a player. Sadly the Test specialists might be the second string players from the short forms, rather than the best of the best. And the premium format might no longer attract the premium players (it already doesn't in the West Indies).
Andrew
Guest
Faulkners variety is in there too. I also wonder if Faulkners slow delivery should be considered in test cricket more as I doubt any bowlers in the Aussie side really use one. It's always 150km thunderbolts.
James B
Guest
If T20 cricket has taught us anything it's that good batsmen playing good cricket shots will be very successful in any form of cricket that they choose to play. Just look at guys like Katitch, Hodge, klinger, Hussey ect For example. Last season Mike Hussey and Jaques Kallis had close to a 200 ri opening stand for the Sydney Thunder. If anything Australia should focus more on picking good batsmen to play in T20games and let the Allrounders tonk till their hearts content. As for Peter Siddle. He was never the leader of the Aussie attack. He was a good bowler who could keep it tight and in patches get some swing. An ideal compliment to Mitch Johnson, but nothing special. In saying that bowlers like Siddle, fast mediums with good control and fierce determination have been excellent limited overs cricketers. Nathan Bracken and Clint McKay are some good recent examples
Bovs
Guest
David Warner, Glenn Maxwell and Craig Simmons may be the prototypes for Twenty20 superstardom, but in any format of the game how many of them can you really carry? Even in a T20 game, would you want those 3 plus Afridi, Gayle and MCullum as your top 6, or would you want some balance in the form of Hussey, Klinger and Lynn who have also all been very successful T20 players without dominating the "most 6s" and "highest runs from boundaries" categories? Similarly, in test cricket, you may love having a Warner/Gayle/Sehwag opening the batting and successful teams have been built with those guys at the top, but you don't want 6 of them. It's a matter of balance. And as such, a good enough cricket of either style is going to get opportunities in all forms of the game. Langer should know more than anyone how different perception is from reality... he was perceived as a test only player, but regularly dominated domestic ODI comps with a strike rate in the 80s or 90s which at the time was top-of-the-pile stuff. But he could never shake the perception. He knows, though, that if Bancroft can become good enough he'll be good enough in all formats.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
I actually feel that test-only players will be a thing of the future. In reality not many Australian players have been test only, and usually only the older ones in specialist positions like opener. In the past the test and ODI teams were pretty much the same. However, now we seem to use limited overs games to introduce young players to international cricket, not because they are suited to the game but for the exposure. Stoinis is an example of this. However, I think the future will bring more distinction between the skill sets in cricket. Limited overs specialists will be more common as the games move further apart. Australia will eventually accept this and stop playing ill-suited players in T/20 etc.