Steve Smith - Test Batting Ranking

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Attacks are all relative to their respective eras.   

Nope. Best attack of 2010s is not equal to best attack of the 1980s or 1990s, best attack of 1960s is not equal to the best attack of the 2000s. 

 

Quote

 80s, 90s all had poor quality batsmen so certainly those bowlers looked good against them.

 

Sorry but no. In tests, the poorest quality batsmen across the whole spectrum, are batsmen of today in general. Those who cannot defend for an hour and crawl to 15 off of 70 balls on a lively pitch = definition of poor test batsmen. 

80s batsmen were generally better than the batsmen today, though the biggest difference today, is that there are no true tail-enders anymore. You won't find a Walsh or a Chandra with the bat anymore. But overall ? 80s batsmen were superior test batsmen. That doesn't mean every single batsman of the 80s was a better batsman than any batsman today, either. 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Muloghonto

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Nope. Best attack of 2010s is not equal to best attack of the 1980s or 1990s, best attack of 1960s is not equal to the best attack of the 2000s. 

 

 

Sorry but no. In tests, the poorest quality batsmen across the whole spectrum, are batsmen of today in general. Those who cannot defend for an hour and crawl to 15 off of 70 balls on a lively pitch = definition of poor test batsmen. 

80s batsmen were generally better than the batsmen today, though the biggest difference today, is that there are no true tail-enders anymore. You won't find a Walsh or a Chandra with the bat anymore. But overall ? 80s batsmen were superior test batsmen. That doesn't mean every single batsman of the 80s was a better batsman than any batsman today, either. 

how many 80s batsmen averaged 50 or more?

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

how many 80s batsmen averaged 50 or more?

 

Not many. Kinda tough to do when a par score on a balanced pitch back then was 300 for the first innings. Its easier to average 50+ today, because pitches are a lot flatter in general and bowling attacks a lot more toothless.

 

btw, your logic is flawed. If 80s bowlers have inflated numbers by feasting on too many batsmen with <50 average, then 2000- onwards batsmen have inflated numbers by feasting on too many bowlers with >25 average. 

 

I maintain that test batsmen were, in general, better in the 80s - playing with less protection and far better at defence than today's batsmen. 

[Gollum]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

But how many runs against a quality attack like the ones Lara-Tendulkar/Viv dominated against ? less than 500 by my account (only RSA comes close to having the kind of attack RSA-Pak-Aus-WI had in the 90s/early 2000s) and even then, not on pitches where 300 is a par first innings score. 

I don't rate Smith as high as Viv-Lara-SRT, I only put him as number 1 post 2010 era. He is however far far ahead of his contemporaries. 

[rtmohanlal]

12 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Anyone who's seen test cricket from the 80s onwards, should know, that when it comes to being the absolute best, as far as middle order goes, its:

Tendulkar > Lara >Viv.  These three are a step ahead of the rest, who are also ATG batsmen- the likes of Ponting, Dravid, Steve Waugh, Andy Flower,Border, Kallis, Miandad,Sangakkara and they are a step ahead of the likes of Youhana, Inzamam, Jaya, etc.

 

Kohli, at the moment, is in the Jaya-Inzamam-Youhana class, in tests. 

Reason being, like these batsmen, Kohli can dominate any attack, but not anywhere (in England, he's been exposed as a tail ender) but are also not consistent enough to merit the upper echelons like 'not succeeded everywhere but has beaten up most attacks in most parts of the world' ala Ponting/Dravid/Kallis. 

 

Smith, as impressive as his record is, he slots in the tier below Viv, Sachin, Lara. For the simple reason that Smith has not faced any fearsome attacks in his time or atleast, its rare enough that it doesn't merit domination against ATG attacks like which Lara-Tendulkar-Viv did. 

Viv became less consistent as he got older, but still retained the ability to dismantle any attack on any ground, anywhere. Which is why i rate him behind Lara and Tendulkar, the two best test batsmen i've ever seen. 

 

The reason being, these two could dominate the best attacks, on the type of pitches that Smith, Kohli etc. would crap themselves on (or have so far) and that was the standard fare of their time. Australia, West Indies, Pakistan & South Africa had fearsome attacks for most/all of these two guys careers and they also played the bulk majority against them. 

The reason i consider Tendy > Lara is pretty simple- Tendy had an unbelievable consistency in a nearly 18-19 year span, where he got to dominate the attacks as well as get almost 60 average over something absurd like 150 tests. Lara makes a strong case, because once his eye was in, he was even more dominating and invincible than Tendulkar- hence his glut of much, much higher scores and match-changing innings- but he simply didn't do it consistently enough as Tendulkar's lower 100s. 

 

Spot on.....Several  members here evaluate Smith  as next only to Bradman based on his recent performances and there by his 60+ avg: .But the general bowling attack in the  90s was some thing else.I don't  think the  flaws in Smith's technique have been adequately exploited by  today's set of  bowlers.The likes of Ambrose,Mcgrath,Akram,Warne etc had that level above ability to produce unplayable deliveries in frequent intervals to undo even the best of well settled batsmen.  

[Gollum]

@Muloghonto I agree with your posts, test match batting standard is at its lowest ebb, probably the lowest since the 50s. Modern day batsmen are defensively too weak and mentally fragile compared to their great predecessors. But you are wasting your time making this point here, a majority of ICFers are too fickle minded and low on cricketing knowledge to appreciate your posts. I tried reasoning with them by raising similar points as you are doing in this thread, but to no avail.

[rtmohanlal]

Sachin in his peak scored 13534 runs @59.35 facing 11 or 12    <25 avg:ing bowlers. Smith, in my book  needs to avg: 69+  scoring that much amount of runs to surpass Sachin.Why 69+ ??? For 3 reasons, most importantly difference in general  quality of bowling,pressure of expectations Sachin had to cope with & aesthetic pleasure element.

[Gollum]

19 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

Sachin in his peak scored 13534 runs @59.35 facing 11 or 12    <25 avg:ing bowlers. Smith, in my book  needs to avg: 69+  scoring that much amount of runs to surpass Sachin.Why 69+ ??? For 3 reasons, most importantly difference in general  quality of bowling,pressure of expectations Sachin had to cope with & aesthetic pleasure element.

That isn't a factor in deciding a batsman's greatness . 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Gollum

[putrevus]

Who are these sub 25 average bowlers which people are talking about Sachin faced and scored huge runs, did we miss anything.

 

Sachin like all other batsmen made merry on batting pitches and was sitting duck like many other greatest batsmen on bowling pitches.

[rtmohanlal]

28 minutes ago, Gollum said:

That isn't a factor in deciding a batsman's greatness . 

cricket is a spectator sport too.Isn't it? Naturally those who looks pleasing to the eye  appeals more to the public.That's why some one like Kallis is never rated as a Lara despite better avg:  apart from Lara's other positives. I would sacrifice an avg: of 2 for being aesthetically pleasing.Any way it is a subjective matter.

[putrevus]

Fans care more about winning, Joe Roots is elegant and pleasing on eye every England fan will take Steve Smith over Joe Root.Elegance without performance is not appreciated.

[Khota]

Important as these runs are they still dont have any context. This is the weakest English attack I have seen in a decade.

[Jimmy Cliff]

48 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Who are these sub 25 average bowlers which people are talking about Sachin faced and scored huge runs, did we miss anything.

 

LINK

[Gollum]

49 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

cricket is a spectator sport too.Isn't it? Naturally those who looks pleasing to the eye  appeals more to the public.That's why some one like Kallis is never rated as a Lara despite better avg:  apart from Lara's other positives. I would sacrifice an avg: of 2 for being aesthetically pleasing.Any way it is a subjective matter.

Kallis isn't rated that high because he is a vulture who did zilch in the 90s and became good only when bowling attacks across the world became weaker and the conditions more conducive for batting. Moreover Lara had more impact and had some truly memorable knocks where he single handedly carried his team against tougher opponents. 

 

If aesthetics decide a player's greatness then Bell would be a greater batsman than Gooch. 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Gollum

[Vijy]

14 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Anyone who's seen test cricket from the 80s onwards, should know, that when it comes to being the absolute best, as far as middle order goes, its:

Tendulkar > Lara >Viv.  These three are a step ahead of the rest, who are also ATG batsmen- the likes of Ponting, Dravid, Steve Waugh, Andy Flower,Border, Kallis, Miandad,Sangakkara and they are a step ahead of the likes of Youhana, Inzamam, Jaya, etc.

 

Kohli, at the moment, is in the Jaya-Inzamam-Youhana class, in tests. 

Reason being, like these batsmen, Kohli can dominate any attack, but not anywhere (in England, he's been exposed as a tail ender) but are also not consistent enough to merit the upper echelons like 'not succeeded everywhere but has beaten up most attacks in most parts of the world' ala Ponting/Dravid/Kallis. 

 

Smith, as impressive as his record is, he slots in the tier below Viv, Sachin, Lara. For the simple reason that Smith has not faced any fearsome attacks in his time or atleast, its rare enough that it doesn't merit domination against ATG attacks like which Lara-Tendulkar-Viv did. 

Viv became less consistent as he got older, but still retained the ability to dismantle any attack on any ground, anywhere. Which is why i rate him behind Lara and Tendulkar, the two best test batsmen i've ever seen. 

 

The reason being, these two could dominate the best attacks, on the type of pitches that Smith, Kohli etc. would crap themselves on (or have so far) and that was the standard fare of their time. Australia, West Indies, Pakistan & South Africa had fearsome attacks for most/all of these two guys careers and they also played the bulk majority against them. 

The reason i consider Tendy > Lara is pretty simple- Tendy had an unbelievable consistency in a nearly 18-19 year span, where he got to dominate the attacks as well as get almost 60 average over something absurd like 150 tests. Lara makes a strong case, because once his eye was in, he was even more dominating and invincible than Tendulkar- hence his glut of much, much higher scores and match-changing innings- but he simply didn't do it consistently enough as Tendulkar's lower 100s. 

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with the precise order but I do think this trio were on a different level. Greg Chappell would be closely behind in that 2nd category

[rtmohanlal]

46 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Kallis isn't rated that high because he is a vulture who did zilch in the 90s and became good only when bowling attacks across the world became weaker and the conditions more conducive for batting. Moreover Lara had more impact and had some truly memorable knocks where he single handedly carried his team against tougher opponents. 

 

If aesthetics decide a player's greatness then Bell would be a greater batsman than Gooch. 

Not aesthetic' alone, if the comparison is between 2 more or less  hugely  avg:ing batsmen & they are chalk & cheese apart in being attractive, I would provide a consideration of an avg: of 2  in favour of the attractive batsman.For instance if two batsmen avg:s 55 and 57 respectively  and the first one is lot more attractive to watch,then I would consider both of them as of same calibre.Ofcourse, other factors like home-abroad disparity,evenly distributed avg:s in all countries  etc etc are altogether different matters that need further analysis.

[putrevus]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

LINK

These stats are very flawed and it does not say anything about Sachin scoring heavy against sub 25 bowlers.

 

For example Sachin scored heavily in SL in 1997 when SL had no bowlers and again in 2010 when it was same case.

 

Pakistan:He never did anything great other than 136 in 1999.

 

I can give you chapter and verse about how Sachin did against everyone.Sachin was MR.Consistent Eddy without ever being dominant especially in tests.There is is a reason why he never scored 2 hundreds in a match or never crossed 500 or 600.It took him nearly one decade to score his double hundred.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by putrevus

[rtmohanlal]

2 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

LINK

quite a revealing piece of data. 23 bowlers in all.Of these Fleming & Akhtar are a bit over 25.Yet truly legendary stats.And this include 61 runs in  4 inns of his against Ryan Harris when he was in terminal decline period  after 2011 world cup.Other wise it stands at 58.65 in AUS, 46.77 abroad &  46.98 overall.Out of the world  stats against 23 calibre bowlers.

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Vijy said:

I'm not sure I'd agree with the precise order but I do think this trio were on a different level. Greg Chappell would be closely behind in that 2nd category

Yep. Knew i was forgetting someone. 

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

Who are these sub 25 average bowlers which people are talking about Sachin faced and scored huge runs, did we miss anything.

 

Sachin like all other batsmen made merry on batting pitches and was sitting duck like many other greatest batsmen on bowling pitches.

Well yes, everyone SHOULD be a sitting duck on a bowling pitch against great bowlers, just like how great bowlers should be slaughtered by great batsmen on flat pitches. 

Sachin averaged almost 60 in an era (the 90s-early 2000s) when the average par score for first innings was 300. Against bowling attacks with MULTIPLE bowlers with <25 average. That makes his runs far more valuable than the ones Smith/Kohli are scoring.