who is test specialist...?

there are many players who get labeled as 'test specialists'... coz it is perceived their game... their temperament suits more to the longer format of the game rather than the shorter format...

from past... players like rahul dravid faced consistent scrutiny through out their LOI career despite scoring ten thousand runs... to the present one murali vijay who is denied opportunities for the same perception... though both have and are playing some scintillating t20 innings... the shortest format... without much altering their game... but for the prejudice...

on the other hand there are players like our own jatman, virender sehwag, who despite their tailor made game for shorter (or shortest version) are more successful in the longer format of the game...

just coz their strike rate is higher in short format and when stars align perfectly in sky they play some match winning knocks too... they get away with most of the things... despite leaving their team high and dry coz of their 'natural' game more often than not...

when we expect players like murali vijay, the so called test specialists, to adjust their game to the demands of shorter format and thereby team's interest... why we do not expect the same from players like sehwag...?

why we should not brand players like sehwag as 'test specialist' by same token...?

click to translate »

« back to original...

why a bowler gets branded as test match bowler…?

i came across this headline...

amit mishra refuses to be tagged test specialist...

"I want to remove the tag of being a test specialist," Mishra said. "For the last two seasons, I have performed well in the shortest format of the game, which is more challenging than the ODIs. I have worked on my batting as well and I think I can be very handy in 50-over games as well."

one can sense the desperation of this small little unglamorous but earnest bowler...he is literally pleading to be given at least a chance to prove that he can be good in limited over games as well...

for the ones who do not know...amit mishra was the second highest wicket taker in emerging players trophy in australia...which happens to be a limited over tournament...

this got me thinking...being a batsman myself...i can understand why a batsman is branded as a test batsman...

one who’s technique is too solid to be considered for the unorthodoxy of limited over games...one who gets stuck in the crease coz he cannot rotate the strike enough...one is considered slow in running between wickets when the pressure of converting singles into two’s is even more...and the one who when the time comes to up the ante...don’t have strokes to match the requirement of situation and hence his strike rate is very low...

but why a bowler gets branded as test match bowler...?

when bowler hardly gets surface which support his style of bowling and he has to rely on line, length and variations to get that wicket...

if a bowler can dismiss the batsman when there is no added pressure on him to score quickly…and is cautious to settle in for a long haul...

if a bowler bowls attackingly but takes wicket then even on that account he can’t be branded as test bowler coz we know that nothing slows the scoring rate more, than a wicket...

then on what count you can play him in tests but not in odis and for that matter even in t20s...?

or is it just an excuse to keep unfavorable, unglamorous but earnest players like amit mishra...danish kaneria...out of team without giving them due right to fail...?

click to translate »

« back to original...