Steven Smith is officially the BEST BATSMAN in the World!

[putrevus]

What do you think about the guy:

 

Matches: 54

Innings: 98

Runs: 5210

100s: 21

Avg: 57.25

HS: 221

 

stands in comparison of Smith:

Matches: 54

Innings: 99

Runs: 5234

100s: 20

Avg: 61.57

HS: 215

 

P.S. Former had that record in 70s and that too as an opener.

 

 

I totally forgot about Sunny he was just amazing before his dip in his form.He was castigated as selfish player but unlike Sachin after 2000 he never got play with strong batting lineups.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

I am not talking about style, Steve Waugh scored 32 hundreds in 160 plus tests this guy has scored 20 in 53. Smith is almost playing like modern day Bradman churning hundreds for fun and scoring runs everywhere.

Steve Waugh in comparison scored 4 hundreds after 53 tests. Steve Waugh was a fighter who made himself into a very good batsman in later part of his career.There is no comparison at all.

He is at 941 rating right now and it is bound to increase after his first innings 100 and he might end up only batsman after Bradman to reach 950 rating.

Steve Waugh also faced bowling attacks orders of magnitude greater than Smith, on pitches where 300-350 was a dominant 1st innings score.

There have been other batsmen too, who averaged 60+ after the first few years of their careers, but stabilized in the low 50s zone.

 

[putrevus]

Steve Waugh also faced bowling attacks orders of magnitude greater than Smith, on pitches where 300-350 was a dominant 1st innings score.

 

There have been other batsmen too, who averaged 60+ after the first few years of their careers, but stabilized in the low 50s zone.

 

Show me one batsman who had 60 plus average with 20 hundreds after 54 tests.

 

You are comparing Steve Waugh, 4 versus 20 should be more than enough to put that nonsensical comparison to bed.

 

20 hundreds is not a small sample , Sachin had 11 after 54 tests.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Muloghonto]

20 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Show me one batsman who had 60 plus average with 20 hundreds after 54 tests.

 

You are comparing Steve Waugh, 4 versus 20 should be more than enough to put that nonsensical comparison to bed.

 

20 hundreds is not a small sample , Sachin had 11 after 54 tests.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Time is a small sample. If batsmen like Viv, Gavaskar, etc. played 50 tests in a 4 year period, they too would be averaging 60+ after 50 tests..considering that they averaged 60+ in Tests and FC cricket for the first 5-7 years of their careers. Viv actually averaged 60+ after the first 45 tests of his career spread over 8 years. To me, that is far more dominant than what Smith has done in less than 1 world cup cycle.  Domination is far harder to maintain over a longer period of time, than over a greater number of matches squeezed into a smaller timeframe. 

 

 

As far as steve waugh goes- as i said, if he'd faced the significantly lower bowling quality and easier pitches to bat on as Smith has, he too would be averaging significantly higher. Unless of course, you believe that today's bowling attack is anywhere comparable to facing Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Wasim, Waqar, Qadir, Mushie, Hadlee, Donald, Pollock, DeVilliers, etc. 

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by Muloghonto

[rtmohanlal]

A potentially ATG    batsman is scoring heavily  and suddenly  he is thought of as ' would be overtaking even Sachin'.  Knee jerk reactions at its very best.We must  not forget that after 177 tests Sachin had 14692 runs @ 56.94 avg:. Also there is a phase  with in this 177 tests( after chopping off first  few tests of his   where he still was a child prodigy ) of Sachin  from 1993 jan 29  - 2011 apr  where he scored 13534 runs @ 59.35 avg:. And the bowlers  faced by Sachin include Hadlee,Imran,Wasim,Waqar,Ambrose,Walsh,Bishop,Mcgrath,Warne,Murali,Donald,Pollock & Steyn ,all sub25 avg: bowlers. Now  for Smith whom? Apart from a sure Steyn may be Philander  in the long run.More over Sachin is way more aesthetically pleasing than Smith & he bore the amount of pressure  that no one in the history of game had to withstand.t  

[putrevus]

44 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Time is a small sample. If batsmen like Viv, Gavaskar, etc. played 50 tests in a 4 year period, they too would be averaging 60+ after 50 tests..considering that they averaged 60+ in Tests and FC cricket for the first 5-7 years of their careers. Viv actually averaged 60+ after the first 45 tests of his career spread over 8 years. To me, that is far more dominant than what Smith has done in less than 1 world cup cycle.  Domination is far harder to maintain over a longer period of time, than over a greater number of matches squeezed into a smaller timeframe. 

 

 

As far as steve waugh goes- as i said, if he'd faced the significantly lower bowling quality and easier pitches to bat on as Smith has, he too would be averaging significantly higher. Unless of course, you believe that today's bowling attack is anywhere comparable to facing Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Wasim, Waqar, Qadir, Mushie, Hadlee, Donald, Pollock, DeVilliers, etc. 

 

What great bowling attacking did Steve Waugh overcome in scoring 4 hundreds in his first 54 tests which we have missed. Steve Waugh's coming out party was in 1995 ten years after his debut. He rarely was best batsmen in his own team.

 

What is more amazing about Smith is he started as a bowler and to become this great batsman is nothing short of a miracle.He essentially scored 20 hundreds in his last 44 tests.Greatness was expected from all those other great batsmen.I do not think we have ever seen a more drastic transformation.

 

Richards averaged that high due to his monster year in 1976 where he scored one third of his career hundreds, he never reached 1000 calendar year runs again his career.Richards was great but he never was this consistent. and in spite of that monster year he still scored only 13 hundreds in 54 tests.

 

Playing too many tests in short time works both ways if you are not scoring runs then you will sink that fast too,Kohli is prime example of fall from high to low ,so to use that as some kind on excuse against this guy is ridiculous.

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by putrevus

[Muloghonto]

26 minutes ago, putrevus said:

What great bowling attacking did Steve Waugh overcome in scoring 4 hundreds in his first 54 tests which we have missed. Steve Waugh's coming out party was in 1995 ten years after his debut. He rarely was best batsmen in his own team.

Err West Indies, South Africa, Pakistan all had better bowling attacks than ANY team today bar South Africa. 

Those teams regularly gave away less than 300 runs for 1st innings scores. Makes a huge difference.

 

Quote

What is more amazing about Smith is he started as a bowler and to become this great batsman is nothing short of a miracle.He essentially scored 20 hundreds in his last 44 tests.Greatness was expected from all those other great batsmen.I do not think we have ever seen a more drastic transformation.

Err sure. Sobers also started as a leg spinner- not just as a leg spinner, he got selected in his first few series as a leg spinner. 

So yes, we've seen such a drastic transformation before. And in Sobers' case, it came under far tougher conditions & attacks. 

 

Quote

 

Richards averaged that high due to his monster year in 1976 where he scored one third of his career hundreds, he never reached 1000 calendar year runs again his career.Richards was great but he never was this consistent. and in spite of that monster year he still scored only 13 hundreds in 54 tests.

Richards actually had 4 years out of his first 8 that he averaged 65+ and one more in the same cycle that he averaged 57. Only difference is Richards played more than 11 tests in a year only ONCE in his entire career and he played 11 or more tests in a calendar year only 4 times in a 17 year career. Smith on the other hand, regularly plays 12-15 tests per annum. 

So yes, i'd call averaging 65+ in 4 out of 8 year span and 5 out of 8 years averaging 57+  to be very consistent. He also racked up 29 scores of 50+ in 70 innings during the same period. That is a consistency of 41% of innings at 50+ scores. That is the very definition of consistency.

 

Quote

 

Playing too many tests in short time works both ways if you are not scoring runs then you will sink that fast too,Kohli is prime example of fall from high to low ,so to use that as some kind on excuse against this guy is ridiculous.

 

Yep. Absolutely correct- if you play too many tests a year, your great patches are exgaggerated statistically and so are your lean patches.

Which is why, i go by time. And considering that a great batsman usually lasts 12-15 year span at the very minimum, 4 years is nothing. Like i said, i don't consider Kohli or Root or Williamson or Smith to be the foremost batsman today. That tag is between Amla and DeVilliers. Because they've proven that they are top class batsmen over a decade's worth of sample space.

Smith/Kohli/Root/Williamson- they can all turn out as a great batsman or just be a flash in the pan, riding a 3-5 year high point. We won't know till they too have played for 10+ years and have had time to normalize their good patches with their low ones.

 

[DeftTouch99]

His purple patch has been on an extended run. The Question is when will we start seeing his decline?

[putrevus]

41 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Err West Indies, South Africa, Pakistan all had better bowling attacks than ANY team today bar South Africa. 

Those teams regularly gave away less than 300 runs for 1st innings scores. Makes a huge difference.

 

Err sure. Sobers also started as a leg spinner- not just as a leg spinner, he got selected in his first few series as a leg spinner. 

So yes, we've seen such a drastic transformation before. And in Sobers' case, it came under far tougher conditions & attacks. 

 

Richards actually had 4 years out of his first 8 that he averaged 65+ and one more in the same cycle that he averaged 57. Only difference is Richards played more than 11 tests in a year only ONCE in his entire career and he played 11 or more tests in a calendar year only 4 times in a 17 year career. Smith on the other hand, regularly plays 12-15 tests per annum. 

So yes, i'd call averaging 65+ in 4 out of 8 year span and 5 out of 8 years averaging 57+  to be very consistent. He also racked up 29 scores of 50+ in 70 innings during the same period. That is a consistency of 41% of innings at 50+ scores. That is the very definition of consistency.

 

Yep. Absolutely correct- if you play too many tests a year, your great patches are exgaggerated statistically and so are your lean patches.

Which is why, i go by time. And considering that a great batsman usually lasts 12-15 year span at the very minimum, 4 years is nothing. Like i said, i don't consider Kohli or Root or Williamson or Smith to be the foremost batsman today. That tag is between Amla and DeVilliers. Because they've proven that they are top class batsmen over a decade's worth of sample space.

Smith/Kohli/Root/Williamson- they can all turn out as a great batsman or just be a flash in the pan, riding a 3-5 year high point. We won't know till they too have played for 10+ years and have had time to normalize their good patches with their low ones.

 

Richards played more than 10 plus tests/calendar year 6 times  and score 1000 runs once in 1976 and this guy scored 1000 runs every year (3 times a row and will score 4th time again this year) since he became regular batsman. 

 

It is not just average which is mind boggling but no of hundreds with that average which makes him so special.He has scored 18 hundreds in his last 38 tests which is comparable only to Bradman. If he scores another 11 hundreds in next 14 tests highly improbable he will end up scoring 29 hundreds in 52 tests.Let us say he scores another 5 hundreds in next 14 tests which is quite possible he will  have a streak which is next to only Bradman. 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

Richards played more than 10 plus tests/calendar year 6 times  and score 1000 runs once in 1976 and this guy scored 1000 runs every year (3 times a row and will score 4th time again this year) since he became regular batsman. 

 

It is not just average which is mind boggling but no of hundreds with that average which makes him so special.He has scored 18 hundreds in his last 38 tests which is comparable only to Bradman. If he scores another 11 hundreds in next 14 tests highly improbable he will end up scoring 29 hundreds in 52 tests.Let us say he scores another 5 hundreds in next 14 tests which is quite possible he will  have a streak which is next to only Bradman. 

 

Yeah. So what ?

As i keep saying and you keep completely ignoring, Viv averaged 60+ after nearly 50 tests, in an era where 300 was a par score. You know what that means ? it means, 1st innings of 300 usually won you the game back then for the best teams.

Plus, Viv played way less innnings/test than Smith too. You cant ignore that. Like, how the heck does it matter, if i've played 10 tests and batted only 15 times, while you played 10 tests and batted 19 times, if 'i score less runs than you' ? I am supposed to. If two are equal, one playing less, has lesser records. Duh. 
Like, Smith bats 1.7+ innings per test. Runs are easier to score now and Guy is going through a "Kallisian- patch". Sure. But nothing is really mind-boggling about this. Scoring a mountain of runs, over a 3-5 year period, conistently, had been done before. Yeah, his patch is pretty impressive, but as i said, is just a 3-4 year period. 25% of expected career. He is putting himself in the conversation, at the moment, for 'great' batsmen. But until he is still sitting at 50+ average after 10-12 years of batting, it doesnt entitle him to ATG territory, IMO, unless you can satisfy all other 'benchmark' criterias and produce a reasonable excuse for limited sample space (political, such as RSA ban, for e.g.). 

 

 

[Gollum]

7 hours ago, putrevus said:

I totally forgot about Sunny he was just amazing before his dip in his form.He was castigated as selfish player but unlike Sachin after 2000 he never got play with strong batting lineups.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indian team of mid 80s was one of the greatest batting lineups ever assembled by any team.

[HippoSucks]

Australia is the greatest cricket team overall. Smith wouldn't make their 2nd all time XI at the moment.

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, HippoSucks said:

Australia is the greatest cricket team overall. Smith wouldn't make their 2nd all time XI at the moment.

In term of depth, sure. But in terms of the best XI ? I think West Indies is the best XI ever - both in terms of a real actual XI to've played together and the all-time XI.

 

[King Tendulkar]

Flopped when mattered

 

 cracked 

[Gambit]

As good as this series was for Smith, Hayden made 50 more runs in 2 fewer innings at a 20+ higher SR during the 2001 series.

[CG]

Flopped when mattered

 

 cracked 

He batted well in the series but you have to remember we dropped him 3 times at Pune to allow him to score 100.

[Gollum]

4 hours ago, Gambit said:

As good as this series was for Smith, Hayden made 50 more runs in 2 fewer innings at a 20+ higher SR during the 2001 series.

But Pune and Bengaluru were very challenging pitches. 

[King Tendulkar]

Poor innngs 

 

went in all guns blazing and of course played one shot too many . 

 

Irresponsible knock 

 

good for us lost his head

[Gollum]

What a series for him !!! For a gora a big series in India indicates greatness. This will spur him on and he may rise to even greater heights in the coming years. 

[mancalledsting]

The one knock they counted the most, a chance to lead his team to a historic series win in India and he fluffed it. I hope those who were bigging him up over kohli have taken note of their hero's shortcoming at a crucial moment.