Cricket: what is a "test match"? a "friendly"?

[Stanislaus]

To add to what notquitekarpov said, the reason batters go out more easily in 50-over (or 20-over) cricket*is that the time-limit puts pressure on them to score runs.

For every ball a batter faces, he has to decide (broadly speaking) whether to defend or attack. He defends by blocking the ball, or by leaving it (if he judges he can do so safely). He attacks by hitting it hard enough that he’ll have time to make at least one run. But the problem he faces is this - hitting runs is riskier (generally speaking) than blocking or leaving.

The result is that in Test matches, the batter is free to not score off dangerous balls and simply wait for a bad ball to hit for runs. The opportunity cost of not trying for runs is negligible, because there will be so many balls bowled. In limited over-cricket, the pressure to score is greater, so the batters take more risk and consequently get out more often. It’s better, in limited overs, to lose your wicket having scored say 20 runs off 20 balls than be not out with 30 runs off 100 balls. In Test cricket the reverse is true. (Broadly - of course, the match situation can create exceptions.)

*Purists will argue that 20-over cricket is not, in fact, cricket. They are right, but this isn’t the time to bring it up.

[Molesworth_2]

@Freddy_the_Pig

What is the primary rules difference that makes test matches last so much longer? It sounds like both versions are ten outs to an innings and two innings to a game. I’ve watched a little of the short-form version on TV, and it was more difficult to retire a batter than in baseball, but not inordinately so. Is it even harder to retire a batter in a test match?

The difference between Test cricket and one-day cricket is similar to the difference between snooker and pool. Snooker requires more technical and strategic ability than pool, and the participants play more cautiously so that they can wait for a true opening in order to exploit the weaknesses of their opponent.

@SanVito

And just to add to everyone else’s comments, the reason a ‘test match’ is so called is because it is regarded as, literally, the ultimate test in the game. So it is by no means a ‘friendly’.

This bears repeating. A Test match is two nations pitting themselves against each other in a true “Test” of their skills. No quarter is asked, and none is given. It is by no means equivalent to a “friendly”. Indeed, it’s quite often the very opposite.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Molesworth_2

A Test match is two nations pitting themselves against each other in a true “Test” of their skills. No quarter is asked, and none is given. It is by no means equivalent to a “friendly”. Indeed, it’s quite often the very opposite.

Very much so, Pakistan v India, Aus v NZ, Aus v England…actually Aus v everyone else come to think of it.

And one more complication, the preparation of the various pitches adds greatly to the variation in scoring amounts and scoring rates. It is a very difficult task to prepare the pitch with just the right amount of deterioration in mind. And the amount and speed of deterioration required depends very much on the strengths of the home side (as they get to choose the preparation of the pitch). It is an artform and worthy of a thread all by itself but I shall go no further here other than to raise it for your consideration.