Murali Chucking or NOT ?

[fardin]

Also Shoaib Malik is good bowler and can bat as high as no. 3. If saqlain has to come into the team then Shoaib malik will have to sit out.

saqlain play more test then onde day's these days' shoiab malik will be out of the test side' not onde day' just to correct you in that ocassion' :cheer

 

[vibs89]

Ya i must say i lik soaib malik batting the way he bat i liked it man

 

[angryangy]

Shoaib Malik is an average bowler, granted this very desireable in the one day format, but test teams are usually constructed to allow for 4 specialist bowlers. Pakistan however, seem to have gotten into a habit of constructing their test team to allow for as many all-rounders as is possible.

 

[h-mAin]

What kind of injury?
And a general question, why is a big deal with tests and odis? Isn't it almost the same? Like why are some players "odi" players, or "test" players or something? Why they don't make quick runs?? Cheers! :drinks

 

[angryangy]

And a general question, why is a big deal with tests and odis? Isn't it almost the same? Like why are some players "odi" players, or "test" players or something? Why they don't make quick runs?? Cheers! :drinks

A lot is to do with the unrestricted style of Tests. The captain can bowl his bowlers more than 10 overs each, batsmen can are unobligated to hit dangerous balls, there are no field restrictions, etc, etc.

Look at a great bowler's stats and see how his strike rate and economy vary between Test and ODI. It is more difficult to get a batsman out in Test cricket than in one day cricket. Looking at a great batsman's strikerate and average will verify this. His average in Tests would be higher, because in ODIs just as he scores quicker, he tends to get out quicker.

What this really means is that for Tests, a country picks it's four best specialist bowlers because they are the best men they have at getting batsmen out and these men do the greater part of the bowling for 5 days. In ODIs, four bowlers can only bowl 40 overs. At least one more bowler is needed. Adding another specialist bowler weakens the batting of the side, so this is why all-rounders can be particularly useful in ODI cricket, but need to be of an elite calibre to be competitive in Test cricket.

 

[h-mAin]

Yes, I know all this...but why is it a big deal playing odis and test? I mean why can't the best players play...why are somewone good at odi and tests?

btw thnx for answering

 

[angryangy]

It's hard to pick it now, great all-rounders like Kallis or Cairns tend to appear on both lists. Test cricket is generally regarded as the epitomy of cricket, so for one point, when players are picked for the Test side they are much prouder than if they were picked for the ODI side.
I think I see what you're asking though, why the best players can't play either game, why they're restricted. Players like Justin Langer, who are accomplished and easily capable of a high strikerate but still cannot make the ODI team. Obviously though, Langer will probably not make the ODI team because his prefered positions are taken by some of the best batsmen in the world and if they weren't, the selectors would most likely prefer to insert a young batsman, particularly in the case of Gilchrist, who will most likely be succeeded by Justin Haddin, therefore, an established high order batsman does not get a chance. Of course for Australia, it's easy to understand, their is a massive amount of talent at the fingertips of Cricket Australia. I will try narrow the reasons for selecting an ODI side down to as few as possible then. 1. for their performances, whether with bat and/or ball. 2. for their affinity with the team. 3. is for their youth/talent ratio; ie their ability to strengthen the team in future years and 4. is POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS. Particularly on the subcontinent, or so I hear...