Steve Smith - Test Batting Ranking

[Jimmy Cliff]

2 hours ago, express bowling said:

Not talking about stats but the batsmanship in the mid and late '80s.  Some of the most boring and flairless batters were there, who just hung on without any intent to score even against mediocre attacks.

There were still batsmen like Richards, Crowe, Gower, Azhar, Richardson, Greenidge et all who had flair. Whereas the likes of Miandad, Border and Gooch were grinders. Barring the likes of Mudassar Nazar, John Wright and the infamous Chris Tavare in the early 80s I'm not sure who were the other batsmen who just looked to hang on without scoring.

 

2 hours ago, express bowling said:

England, India and SL had very poor bowling attacks .... Australia and NZ were mediocre ... NZ poor if no Hadlee .... Pakistan ok and WI great

 

Most of the good bowlers of the '80s bowled well in the early '80s.

Agree with the assessment of Australia/England post the retirements of Lillee/Willis and the decline of Botham. Think India were mediocre rather than very poor. I'd rate NZ/Pak higher as well as they had Hadlee/Imran performing at an incredible level for most of the decade with Imran having the much better support. WI obviously were elite throughout. SL were poor yes.

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

27 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Even India defeated England in England in 1986 and drew with WI in 1987/88 ..... although we had a poorer bowling attack than Pakistan at that time.

 

England was a poor team at that time and the WI were going through transition.

 

 

 

 

India drew with WI in India thanks to Hirwani's 16-fer on a rank turner. In the WI, we were blanked 3-0. Pak went to WI and drew 1-1 and WI were lucky to escape with a draw. 

Edited December 23, 2017 by Jimmy Cliff

[express bowling]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

India drew with WI in India thanks to Hirwani's 16-fer on a rank turner. In the WI, we were blanked 3-0. Pak went to WI and drew 1-1 and WI were lucky to escape with a draw. 

 

Pakistan was definitely a better bowling side than India in the mid and late '80s. But, as far as I remember, in the later part of the '80s, the mighty WI team was going through a transition phase .... Lloyd, Holding, Roberts, Garner gone , Wash, Ambrose developing , Richards, Greenidge, Haynes all on the wrong side of 35

[express bowling]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

There were still batsmen like Richards, Crowe, Gower, Azhar, Richardson, Greenidge et all who had flair. Whereas the likes of Miandad, Border and Gooch were grinders. Barring the likes of Mudassar Nazar, John Wright and the infamous Chris Tavare in the early 80s I'm not sure who were the other batsmen who just looked to hang on without scoring.

 

Apart from the ones you named, and a few others like Vengsarkar, most others were.

 

When Ravi Shastri batted, there were constant chants of " Hai hai Shastri " on the grounds because of the unusual number of deliveries he blocked. Most of the English, Australian, NZ and Pakistani batters of that era were very nothing special.

[Jimmy Cliff]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Pakistan was definitely a better bowling side than India in the mid and late '80s. But, as far as I remember, in the later part of the '80s, the mighty WI team was going through a transition phase .... Lloyd, Holding, Roberts, Garner gone , Wash, Ambrose developing , Richards, Greenidge, Haynes all on the wrong side of 35

Yes. But the WI side in India didn't even have Marshall in any of the games. Pak were away from home and played against a full strength WI side in 2 of the 3 Tests. 

[express bowling]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Yes. But the WI side in India didn't even have Marshall in any of the games. Pak were away from home and played against a full strength WI side in 2 of the 3 Tests. 

They did well there.  Imran was an exceptional motivator and they punched above their weight.  Just like India did in WC 83.

[rtmohanlal]

5 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

" Development phase "  and  " drag-on phase " , if any, are very pertinent while analyzing the potency of both ATGs and really good players.

 

Going by names .... Kapil-Srinath, Srinath-Zaheer and then Zaheer-Shami may look like the best pace duos India have ever had, but people watching the game know that is not the case.

but then , any way it is better than an ATG bowler- good bowler combination .Isn't it? Two ATG bowlers pair(one may be at his peak & the other in the initial stages) would any way be better than an ATG bowler-good bowler combination at the same stages of their careers.Isn't it? That's why it is a futile exercise to dissect stats that way.For instance Sachin scored runs in 89 PAK series against 3 ATG bowlers in Wasim,Waqar & Imran.The stages in their respective  careers is   not that important.Any way Sachin was still a 16 year old was another matter altogether.Another case is Botham in that 81 ashes series against Lillee.If we watch the clips we can see that Lillee was in his final stages and no where near his supreme  best(infact bowling at far below par pace than his normal self).Yet it doesn't neglect the fact that Botham played that inns against an ATG bowler in Lillee.

[express bowling]

45 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

but then , any way it is better than an ATG bowler- good bowler combination .Isn't it? Two ATG bowlers pair(one may be at his peak & the other in the initial stages) would any way be better than an ATG bowler-good bowler combination at the same stages of their careers.Isn't it? That's why it is a futile exercise to dissect stats that way.For instance Sachin scored runs in 89 PAK series against 3 ATG bowlers in Wasim,Waqar & Imran.The stages in their respective  careers is   not that important.Any way Sachin was still a 16 year old was another matter altogether.Another case is Botham in that 81 ashes series against Lillee.If we watch the clips we can see that Lillee was in his final stages and no where near his supreme  best(infact bowling at far below par pace than his normal self).Yet it doesn't neglect the fact that Botham played that inns against an ATG bowler in Lillee.

 

I would beg to differ on this issue.

 

Botham's innings would carry more meaning for me if were against Kapil at his peak rather than Lillee dragging on  ( unless that Lillee was better than that Kapil )

 

I prefer considering on a case to case basis rather than going by names, while evaluating the quality of an innings.

Edited December 23, 2017 by express bowling

[rtmohanlal]

39 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

I would beg to differ on this issue.

 

Botham's innings would carry more meaning for me if were against Kapil at his peak rather than Lillee dragging on  ( unless that Lillee was better than that Kapil )

 

I prefer considering on a case to case basis rather than going by names.

But it is a tough task to get each and every detail  of the career flow of calibre bowlers.And it is even more tougher to compare great batsmen based on the 'bowlers they faced and their respective career stages' and there by reach conclusions as to who was the better of the batsman. Any way there are lot other factors too' if we are into dissecting stats that deeper.For instance, take Sachin against Akram & Brett Schultz . Akram avg:ed 23+ and is an ATG bowler but Schultz avg:ed only some 20+ while he had to curtail his career.Naturally it would have been a bit easier for Sachin to achieve his bat avg: against Akram  than what he achieved against Schultz.Like wise there are several such  cases for each and every batsman.Is it easy???? That's why the better option is to go the general way.

Edited December 23, 2017 by rtmohanlal

[express bowling]

6 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

But it is a tough task to get each and every detail  of the career flow of calibre bowlers.And it is even more tougher to compare great batsmen based on the 'bowlers they faced and their respective careers' and there by reach conclusions as to who was the better of the batsman. Any way there are lot other factors too' if we are into dissecting stats that deeper.For instance, take Sachin against Akram & Brett Schultz . Akram avg:ed 23+ and is an ATG bowler but Schultz avg:ed only some 20+ while he had to curtail his career.Naturally it would have been a bit easier for Sachin to achieve his bat avg: against Akram  than what he achieved against Schultz.Like wise there are several such  cases for each and every batsman.Is it easy???? That's why the better option is to go the general way.

 

There are so many tangible and intangible factors at play across eras and even for every country and player.

 

Which is why I don't beleive in comparing the best of different eras or even close cases of the same era.

[putrevus]

On 12/22/2017 at 12:50 PM, Muloghonto said:

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. 

What are those matches where par score average was 300. Was 954 which was scored by SL replying to India's 554  in 1997 series where pitches were graveyards.This is series where Sachin made most of his runs with Murali in SL and other major score Sachin scored in Sl after Murali's last test.First test as usual our genius went missing when his team needed him most.

 

We can discuss each of 200 tests and we can see how flawed Sachin stats are that is why all his fans keep shoving his average on other people.Show me innings and series where Sachin did something against a great bowling attack that too away from home.If he wast hat great as you are portraying him India would not be sitting ducks in 1990s away from home and score 66 and 100 or fail to score 120 to win a series.

Edited December 23, 2017 by putrevus

[Muloghonto]

8 minutes ago, putrevus said:

What are those matches where par score average was 300. Was 954 which was scored by SL replying to India's 554  in 1997 series where pitches were graveyards.This is series where Sachin made most of his runs with Murali in SL and other major score Sachin scored in Sl after Murali's last test.First test as usual our genius went missing when his team needed him most.

 

We can discuss each of 200 tests and we can see how flawed Sachin stats are that is why all his fans keep shoving his average on other people.Show me innings and series where Sachin did something against a great bowling attack that too away from home.If he wast hat great as you are portraying him India would not be sitting ducks in 1990s away from home and score 66 and 100 or fail to score 120 to win a series.

A lot of WI-Aus matches through those years for eg. Series had variety- 1 bowling paradise (suiting home team), 1 flat pitches and 3 matches where 1 & 2nd innings scores were 275-300, 3rd & 4th innings scores were 275-250. overall run-rates were around 2.5/2.7. 

 

We can discuss flaws in practically every players resume. There are plenty of innings of Sachin through the 90s when he singlehandedly slaughtered the opposition on their own turf and the whole team died around him and did nothing. 

 

India were sitting ducks in the 90s, because India had a crap bowling attack. Srinath and Kumble were both crap overseas and everyone else was even worse. When bowlers can take 20 wickets, the superior bowling attack wins, most of the time. This is basic knowledge of cricket. 

 

The only missing piece of Sachin's resume, in reality, is the Lara-esque 'when you score big,score REALLY BIG and slay the opposition'. Well, except for one or two innings here and there, its also missing from Viv's resume. 

 

And it is mostly irrelevant when talking about how important a player is - matches are won & lost, when good bowling attacks and lively pitches are the norm, by scoring 350-300 in both innings and preventing the other side from doing so. In that context, Sachin has dime-a-dozen 100+ in 70-75 strike rate : utter domination of bowler-friendly conditions. 

So does Viv.

 

There is a reason Sachin at his best drew direct comparisons to the greatest batsman who's ever lived, including by the man himself (and for the only time i might add). 

People like to pick at the missing pieces of Tendulkar's resume, simply to prove that he wasn't the great- all the while forgetting that his resume is more complete than *any* other batsman not named Don. There has never been a batsman who's scored as consistently, as heavily and as long-time as Tendulkar has, over ALL conditions. Outside the terror pitches of the 1800s nobody has faced as many great bowlers as Sachin and built such a stellar resume. 

These are all facts that Sachin-haters simply forget. 

 

[rtmohanlal]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The only missing piece of Sachin's resume, in reality, is the Lara-esque 'when you score big,score REALLY BIG and slay the opposition'. Well, except for one or two innings here and there, its also missing from Viv's resume. 

 

 

I think there is no truth at all in this matter too either, if we take into account the following data

In his peak period starting from 29 Jan 1993 (before that Sachin was still a teenager) to apr 30 2011(after which his terminal decline started) where he scored 13534 runs @ 59.35 ,Sachin played a mere 6 series of '>=4 no: of tests' where as Lara played 18 such series.

 

the details are as follows:

        no:of series   total no: of tests    tests/series     total  no: of inns    inns/test  not outs

lara    18                   85                     4.722                    152               1.79          5
srt       6                   26                      4.333                     43               1.65          5

The above details need no further explanation.And if we take above details into account there is virtually nothing to separate these 2 batsmen  in this factor too, if any Lara  was slightly better only.This points to only one factor, that is Sachin was denied by circumstances & factors which were out of his control.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, rtmohanlal said:

I think there is no truth at all in this matter too either, if we take into account the following data

In his peak period starting from 29 Jan 1993 (before that Sachin was still a teenager) to apr 30 2011(after which his terminal decline started) where he scored 13534 runs @ 59.35 ,Sachin played a mere 6 series of '>=4 no: of tests' where as Lara played 18 such series.

 

the details are as follows:

        no:of series   total no: of tests    tests/series     total  no: of inns    inns/test  not outs

lara    18                   85                     4.722                    152               1.79          5
srt       6                   26                      4.333                     43               1.65          5

The above details need no further explanation.And if we take above details into account there is virtually nothing to separate these 2 batsmen  in this factor too, if any Lara  was slightly better only.This points to only one factor, that is Sachin was denied by circumstances & factors which were out of his control.

Yes, which is why i am not worried about his 'lack of 500 runs in a series' criticism. How is the man supposed to score 500 runs in a 3 test series with 4-5 innings anyways ? Thats not having the opportunity like Lara or many others had, to bat 8-10 times per series (IIRC, Lara once batted 12 times in a series- a six match series). 

 

[rtmohanlal]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, which is why i am not worried about his 'lack of 500 runs in a series' criticism. How is the man supposed to score 500 runs in a 3 test series with 4-5 innings anyways ? Thats not having the opportunity like Lara or many others had, to bat 8-10 times per series (IIRC, Lara once batted 12 times in a series- a six match series). 

 

So... the basic point is this: Lara got  3.535 times the no: of inns ( 152:43) Sachin got in >=4 test series to build his mammoth aggregates.Not only that , had Sachin played 152 such inns by any  chance he would have remained not out in  (5*152/43) = 17.67 times.That means almost 18  times he would have been forced to discontinue thru the inns for no fault of his.Thus, this is a 2 dimensional disadvantage Sachin had to cope with all thru his career.I am sure had he got the same oppertunities as Lara, he would have   built at the least slightly more number of such mammoth aggregates.And to add to that Sachin played only 11 tests in 1998 & 2000 ( the 2 years with in a spree of 41 tests where he avg:ed 69.92, his most purple patch by far).Let this data be an eye opener for his critics.

[putrevus]

On 12/23/2017 at 4:19 PM, Muloghonto said:

A lot of WI-Aus matches through those years for eg. Series had variety- 1 bowling paradise (suiting home team), 1 flat pitches and 3 matches where 1 & 2nd innings scores were 275-300, 3rd & 4th innings scores were 275-250. overall run-rates were around 2.5/2.7. 

 

We can discuss flaws in practically every players resume. There are plenty of innings of Sachin through the 90s when he singlehandedly slaughtered the opposition on their own turf and the whole team died around him and did nothing. 

 

India were sitting ducks in the 90s, because India had a crap bowling attack. Srinath and Kumble were both crap overseas and everyone else was even worse. When bowlers can take 20 wickets, the superior bowling attack wins, most of the time. This is basic knowledge of cricket. 

 

The only missing piece of Sachin's resume, in reality, is the Lara-esque 'when you score big,score REALLY BIG and slay the opposition'. Well, except for one or two innings here and there, its also missing from Viv's resume. 

 

And it is mostly irrelevant when talking about how important a player is - matches are won & lost, when good bowling attacks and lively pitches are the norm, by scoring 350-300 in both innings and preventing the other side from doing so. In that context, Sachin has dime-a-dozen 100+ in 70-75 strike rate : utter domination of bowler-friendly conditions. 

So does Viv.

 

There is a reason Sachin at his best drew direct comparisons to the greatest batsman who's ever lived, including by the man himself (and for the only time i might add). 

People like to pick at the missing pieces of Tendulkar's resume, simply to prove that he wasn't the great- all the while forgetting that his resume is more complete than *any* other batsman not named Don. There has never been a batsman who's scored as consistently, as heavily and as long-time as Tendulkar has, over ALL conditions. Outside the terror pitches of the 1800s nobody has faced as many great bowlers as Sachin and built such a stellar resume. 

These are all facts that Sachin-haters simply forget. 

 

Care to enlighten us with those innings which Sachin slaughtered  opposition on their home turfs.Or for that matter enlighten us where Sachin slaughtered great bowling attacks at home .

 

All Don said  he looked like him playing, that does not mean he had Don's ability which he clearly did not based on his scores.

 

No said Sachin was a not a great batsman but don't put him on a pedastal which he does not belong and Steve Smith has done more than what Sachin did his 60 tests and it is not even close.

 

As I always Sachin was never the match winner  he is made out to be but he was a steady eddy . Just because  we don't accept Sachin as the greatest batsman , we are termed Sachin haters. 

[New guy]

2 hours ago, putrevus said:

Care to enlighten us with those innings which Sachin slaughtered  opposition on their home turfs.Or for that matter enlighten us where Sachin slaughtered great bowling attacks at home .

 

All Don said  he looked like him playing, that does not mean he had Don's ability which he clearly did not based on his scores.

 

No said Sachin was a not a great batsman but don't put him on a pedastal which he does not belong and Steve Smith has done more than what Sachin did his 60 tests and it is not even close.

 

As I always Sachin was never the match winner  he is made out to be but he was a steady eddy . Just because  we don't accept Sachin as the greatest batsman , we are termed Sachin haters. 

When you intentionally down play one batsmen and pick and choose his weakness which you never ever do for anyone else, yes, yes you ARE a hater. With every single batsman their strengths are pointed out and praised. With Sachin his weaknesses are. Why the double standards?

 

 Why on earth is 60 matches the criteria? If Smith gets a duck in every innings from now in his career, will his 60 tests matches make him super amazing? Since when is 60 matches criteria for an entire career or to compare with someone who played 2 decades?

 

In 2 decades I have seen many, many batsmen compared to Sachin based on their initial career. From Lara to now Smith. Every single batsman was compared with Sachin. It speaks volume that even years after his retirement Sachin is still the benchmark for comparison. Sachin's fans do not need to keep his name alive. His haters constantly do that by comparing every upstart with him. They don't realize that by this very comparison they acknowledge his greatness. Why is Smith not compared with Ponting, Lara. Richards, etc, etc? Why is Sachin the benchmark?

 

 

Edited December 25, 2017 by New guy

[Vijy]

How did this thread go so off-kilter? Someone should bring it back on course.

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, putrevus said:

Care to enlighten us with those innings which Sachin slaughtered  opposition on their home turfs.Or for that matter enlighten us where Sachin slaughtered great bowling attacks at home .

100s scored by Tendulkar away from home, against excellent bowling attacks :

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16523/scorecard/63567/australia-vs-india-5th-test-india-tour-of-australia-1991-92/

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/15744/scorecard/63866/australia-vs-india-2nd-test-india-tour-of-australia-1999-00/

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/15349/scorecard/63999/england-vs-india-3rd-test-india-tour-of-england-2002/

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/16126/scorecard/63737/south-africa-vs-india-2nd-test-india-tour-of-south-africa-1996-97/

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/13027/scorecard/463146/south-africa-vs-india-1st-test-india-tour-of-south-africa-2010-11/

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/13027/scorecard/463148/south-africa-vs-india-3rd-test-india-tour-of-south-africa-2010-11/

 

4 hours ago, putrevus said:

All Don said  he looked like him playing, that does not mean he had Don's ability which he clearly did not based on his scores.

he clearly did, based on his scores. Man averaged 59.6 over 150 tests, 13500 runs and 18 years. That is, spanning an era when there were only 3-4 batsmen around averaging 50+, Bradmansque. 

 

4 hours ago, putrevus said:

No said Sachin was a not a great batsman but don't put him on a pedastal which he does not belong and Steve Smith has done more than what Sachin did his 60 tests and it is not even close.

Steve Smith has not done even 1% of what Tendulkar has done against top notch bowling attacks. 

 

4 hours ago, putrevus said:

As I always Sachin was never the match winner  he is made out to be but he was a steady eddy . Just because  we don't accept Sachin as the greatest batsman , we are termed Sachin haters. 

Because you have a flawed understanding of cricket. In test cricket. batsmen are not match-winners, bowlers are. This is why Pakistan won more tests in the 90s, despite having worse batsmen than India. Sachin is the greatest batsman since Don and his resume isn't as good as the Don's but more complete. 

[rtmohanlal]

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

Care to enlighten us with those innings which Sachin slaughtered  opposition on their home turfs.Or for that matter enlighten us where Sachin slaughtered great bowling attacks at home .

 

All Don said  he looked like him playing, that does not mean he had Don's ability which he clearly did not based on his scores.

 

No said Sachin was a not a great batsman but don't put him on a pedastal which he does not belong and Steve Smith has done more than what Sachin did his 60 tests and it is not even close.

 

As I always Sachin was never the match winner  he is made out to be but he was a steady eddy . Just because  we don't accept Sachin as the greatest batsman , we are termed Sachin haters. 

I think you are either stubborn with your views(never going to accept even if you are proven wrong) or some body who can't never be convinced(trying to find faults for each and every thing).Other wise  how can a batsman who has scored 13534 runs(still the greatest aggregate of all time) @59.35 can be termed   in terms of  "don't put him on a pedastal which he does not belong" etc etc?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;spanmax1=14+apr+2011;spanmin1=29+jan+1993;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

just go thru the page above.Just go thru the country wise averages. 44.67 is the minimum average in any country.Note the home and away avg: .All this playing so many sub 25 bowlers. To add to that take his one day career.There is a reason as to why he is termed as the most complete batsman of all time.There are several batting factors.And Sachin has proved his brilliance in vast majority   of factors combined than any other batsman could achieve amidst the huge amounts of  pressure of expectations that perhaps no sportsperson ever born on this earth have had to deal with.What you are doing is  taking one factor among several,taking example of a batsman who was supreme in that factor,then arguing as to why Sachin didn't was equally brilliant in that particular factor and hence diminishing the over all brilliance of Sachin.  And what not, genuine reasons with crystal clear stats w.r.t Sachin's lack of mammoth aggregate series can't convince a doubter like you.