Steve Smith - Test Batting Ranking

[express bowling]

On 12/22/2017 at 1:35 PM, rkt.india said:

Attacks are all relative to their respective eras.   80s, 90s all had poor quality batsmen so certainly those bowlers looked good against them.

 

Very true 

 

 And lack of sufficient practice against bowling machines also played a part. ... add to that easier ball tampering, easier drug usage etc .... and bowlers had a field day.

 

And ..... most bowling attacks of the the mid and late 1980-s were poor , barring the great West Indian attack and a couple of ok attacks.

 

Some people just like to glorify the past for the sake of it.

 

And there were lots of flat pitches too.

 

In the 2010s ..... Aswin, Jadeja and Shami bowling in Asia........Johnson, Harris and then Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins ..... Steyn, Philander , Morkel, Rabada ..... Boult, Wagner, Southee in NZ ... Anderson, Broad, Woakes bowling in England ..... all are really tough attacks in tests.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Very true 

 

 And lack of sufficient practice against bowling machines also played a part. ... add to that easier ball tampering, easier drug usage etc .... and bowlers had a field day.

 

And ..... most bowling attacks of the the mid and late 1980-s were poor , barring the West Indies.

 

Some people just like to glorify the past for the sake of it.

 

And there were lots of flat pitches too.

 

In the 2010s ..... Aswin, Jadeja and Shami bowling in Asia........Johnson, Harris and then Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins ..... Steyn, Philander , Morkel, Rabada ..... Boult, Wagner, Southee in NZ ... Anderson, Broad, Woakes bowling in England ..... all are really tough attacks in tests.

 

 

1. 1 or 2 bowlers doing ball tampering doesn't make the whole lot of them cheaters. 

2. Even in the late 80s, WI and Pak attacks were better than anything going around today, Australia was on par with everyone but RSA today. 

3. Nobody is glorifying the past for the sake of it. There are periods in cricket, like in every sport, when a 'golden age' happens. Cricket's golden age was mid 70s to mid 80s and early-mid 90s to early-mid 2000s. Those standards overall have not been achieved in other eras. Same can be said for tennis, ice hockey, etc.

 

4. of the 2010s bowlers you've named, only Ashwin and Jadeja (spinners) and Steyn,Anderson and maybe Boult can walk into their own respective teams of the 90s. Johnson/Starc/Hazlewood/Cummins would all be battling for the 3rd seamer's spot, behind Gillespie and McGrath, Morkel & Rabada would be carrying drinks for the likes of Donald, Pollock, deVilliers. 

 

The attacks of 2010s are B grade attacks, nowhere comparable to the top-4 attacks of the 90s or the top 3 attack of the mid 70s-mid 80s. 

 

5. People like you, accuse others of glorifying the past, when it is clear that ALL past is not being glorified, but specific periods of high excellence. Yet people like you specialize in glorifying the present, under the assumption that there is a perpetual 'growth of quality' in sport, like an investment portfolio. 

[express bowling]

The biggest challenge faced by the all-format 2010s batsman in test matches is to get rid of the the bad habits he has picked up while playing  innumerable T20s .....  it is a huge huge ask but , intangible issue that this is, it is almost always ignored by fans.

 

Indian all-format batters face the  added issue of not getting any county cricket practice to learn playing swing bowling.

 

All these issues need to be recognised, just like the issues that the '70s batters faced regarding poor protective gear.

Edited December 22, 2017 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, express bowling said:

The biggest challenge faced by the all-format 2010s batsman in test matches is to get rid of the the bad habits he has picked up while playing  innumerable T20s .....  it is a huge huge ask but , intangible issue that this is, it is almost always ignored by fans.

 

Indian all-format batters face and added issue of not getting any county cricket practice to learn playing swing bowling.

 

All these issues need to be recognised, just like the issues that the '70s batters faced regarding poor protective gear.

The cause is recognized - advent of T20s has made batsmen an 'all attack, no defence' people. Its turned a tank into an artillery (incase you don't get the analogy, an artillery is toast the moment it is hit, as it has no protection. Tanks are...well..something is called a 'tank' not because of its ability to blow holes into something, but because of its resilience). 

 

Recognition of the 'cause' does not change the fact that batsmen today are lesser test batsmen in general than their counterparts in the 80s & 90s. 

I'd easily pick someone like Miandad over Kohli/Smith, if the situation is '5th day after lunch, 300 behind, 5 wickets in hand and need to put up a wall'. 

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Muloghonto

[express bowling]

18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

2and Pak attacks were better than anything going around today, Australia was on par with everyone but RSA today. 

LOL 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

4. of the 2010s bowlers you've named, only Ashwin and Jadeja (spinners) and Steyn,Anderson and maybe Boult can walk into their own respective teams of the 90s. Johnson/Starc/Hazlewood/Cummins would all be battling for the 3rd seamer's spot, behind Gillespie and McGrath, Morkel & Rabada would be carrying drinks for the likes of Donald, Pollock, deVilliers. 

    Bullcr**p

 

 

18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

The attacks of 2010s are B grade attacks, nowhere comparable to the top-4 attacks of the 90s or the top 3 attack of the mid 70s-mid 80s. 

 

Your opinion

 

[express bowling]

9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I'd easily pick someone like Miandad over Smith, if the situation is '5th day after lunch, 300 behind, 5 wickets in hand and need to put up a wall'. 

 

I know YOU would 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

LOL 

 

 

    Bullcr**p

 

 

 

Your opinion

 

Alright then, Imran + Wasim + Qadir is less than Australia or England or India. 

 

when you state 'bullcrap and your opinion', it means you have no counter. Keep trucking along with your 'newest is the best' mantra. 
 

Quote

I know YOU would 

Yep. So would the experts and virtually anyone who's seen cricket from the 80s onwards. 

 

[express bowling]

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

5. . Yet people like you specialize in glorifying the present, under the assumption that there is a perpetual 'growth of quality' in sport, like an investment portfolio. 

 

Generally, I don't try to compare the best cricketers of different eras in terms of relative excellence.

 

There are too many different parameters involved to do this scientifically or objectively.

 

However, poor teams of different eras are identifiable much more easily.

[express bowling]

17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Alright then, Imran + Wasim + Qadir is less than Australia or England or India.

Imran and Wasim did not have that many peak years together as bowlers.  Just putting 2 well known names is  just huh !

 

Quadir LOL .... the guy averaged almost 33 in a supposed bowling era and was piss poor away from home

 

Quote

 

when you state 'bullcrap and your opinion', it means you have no counter. Keep trucking along with your 'newest is the best' mantra. 
 

Countering you with logic and banging one's head on the wall is pretty much similar   

 

Quote

Yep. So would the experts and virtually anyone who's seen cricket from the 80s onwards. 

 

 

I don't think more than 10% of such people would choose Miandad over Smith    

 

I have watched Miandad bat a lot in tests and he had a major issue with converting 50s into 100s. Did not give the dependability of a Smith either.

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Imran and Wasim did not have that many peak years together as bowlers.  Just putting 2 well known names is  just huh !

 

Quadir LOL .... the guy averaged almost 33 in a supposed bowling era and was piss poor away from home

 

Countering you with logic and banging one's head on the wall is pretty much similar   

 

 

Again, just your opinion   

 

1. Wasim debuted in 85. Straight-away got a 10-fer. Imran stopped bowling in tests in 1990 or so. Thats 5 years together and longer than almost any other bowling combos of the 2010s together.  Definitely counts. 

 

2. Qadir averaged 33 because Pakistan used to roll out pitches with 1 inch of grass on it. What is Kumble or Ashwin's overseas average again ?? Sure, Qadir wasn't in their class, but not far off of it either. Definitely way better than Lyon or some other hack. 

 

3. So is yours. Your opinion simply boils down to fallacy of recency : anything newer, is automatically, better.

 

Quote

Generally, I don't try to compare the best cricketers of different eras in terms of relative excellence.

 

There are too many different parameters involved to do this scientifically or objectively.

 

However, poor teams of different eras are identifiable much more easily.

Sure. Failure to accurately compare does not mean all comparisons are equal either. You also ignore the very definite trend of 'golden ages' in sports, that has seen multiple sports 'over-perform' over a given era due to the above average abundance of prime talents.

 

[express bowling]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Wasim debuted in 85. Straight-away got a 10-fer. Imran stopped bowling in tests in 1990 or so. Thats 5 years together and longer than almost any other bowling combos of the 2010s together.  Definitely counts. 

Wasim started off with a bang but was ordinary from 1987 to 89 in tests. Picked up very strongly from 1990

 

Imran bowled well till early 1988

 

 

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

2. Qadir averaged 33 because Pakistan used to roll out pitches with 1 inch of grass on it. What is Kumble or Ashwin's overseas average again ?? Sure, Qadir wasn't in their class, but not far off of it either. Definitely way better than Lyon or some other hack. 

Quadir was an ok bowler, that was about it.  No one considered him a great even in the late '80s.  He was nore well known for his habit of tossing the ball in his hand before bowling and giving the impression of a mystery bowler

 

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

3. So is yours. Your opinion simply boils down to fallacy of recency : anything newer, is automatically, better.

I try not to compare relative excellence of the top players of different eras.

 

Defending modern players against rather simple-minded  criticism does not mean I think that they are necessarily better  ( for example , I consider Marshall as perhaps the best pacer I have even seen in my 35 years of watching cricket  )

 

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Sure. Failure to accurately compare does not mean all comparisons are equal either. You also ignore the very definite trend of 'golden ages' in sports, that has seen multiple sports 'over-perform' over a given era due to the above average abundance of prime talents.

 

I just don't agree with YOUR golden eraa.

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Wasim started off with a bang but was ordinary from 1987 to 89 in tests. Picked up very strongly from 1990

 

Imran bowled well till early 1988

 

Thats nothing more than parroting statistics and not actually having seen them. Wasim ran into the 'dreaded sophomore slump'- again, a common sports phenomena. He was still easily as good as Starc at his best throughout all this. Again, you are talking about bowling to batsmen who will block 100 balls, score 25 not out during first morning when the ball is seaming a foot away from the deck at 85+mph. Not today's batsmen who will either try to score 70 off of those 100 balls or perish at 20 off of 25. 

 

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Quadir was an ok bowler, that was about it.  No one considered him a great even in the late '80s.  He was nore well known for his habit of tossing the ball in his hand before bowling and giving the impression of a mystery bowler

Qadir was a deadly bowler- as deadly as it comes- when the pitch suits them. Very ordinary and unthreatening on pitches that had grass on it and didnt let the ball 'rip'. Sure. That more or less defines Ashwin as well, the only difference is, Ashwin is a bigger threat- but not a big threat per se- on flat pitches. Qadir isn't an ATG bowler, but he is considered an excellent spinner and one of the top 25 to play the game. This makes it a greater attack, especially given that they also had VERY VERY GOOD 2nd spinner and mostly,serviceable but short-lived 3rd pacers from 85, till emergence of Waqar in 89-90. 

 

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

I try not to compare relative excellence of the top players of different eras.

 

Defending modern players against rather simple-minded  criticism does not mean I think that they are necessarily better  ( for example , I consider Marshall as perhaps the best pacer I have even seen in my 35 years of watching cricket  )

 

I just don't agree with YOUR golden eraa.

None of the criticisms are simplistic. Analysis of technique, by nature, isn't simplistic either.  What is simplistic, is to use stats only to drive the conversation. 

You may not agree with 'my' golden era, except most experts agree and the stats do bear out : the 'golden era of bowling + batsmanship' saw first innings par scores hover around the 275-330 for the TOP teams, along with a few ace batsmen who either survived the test to score a mountain of runs (Gavaskar usually) or utterly annihilated the bowling when they got going ( Viv, Tendy, Lara). The two Golden eras of test cricket, widely seen in the last 50 years, is the mid 70s-mid 80s and then early 90s to early-mid 2000s. 

You can cook up your BS about modern players being better in general, with your opinion as well, i will keep countering it. 

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Thats nothing more than parroting statistics and not actually having seen them. Wasim ran into the 'dreaded sophomore slump'- again, a common sports phenomena. He was still easily as good as Starc at his best throughout all this. Again, you are talking about bowling to batsmen who will block 100 balls, score 25 not out during first morning when the ball is seaming a foot away from the deck at 85+mph. Not today's batsmen who will either try to score 70 off of those 100 balls or perish at 20 off of 25. 

 

Pacers don't become great or even really good overnight.  Every one takes some time to learn the tricks of the trade. Wasim , great bowler that he was, became so after a few years of experience.  
 

Quote

Qadir was a deadly bowler- as deadly as it comes- when the pitch suits them. Very ordinary and unthreatening on pitches that had grass on it and didnt let the ball 'rip'. Sure. That more or less defines Ashwin as well, the only difference is, Ashwin is a bigger threat- but not a big threat per se- on flat pitches. Qadir isn't an ATG bowler, but he is considered an excellent spinner and one of the top 25 to play the game. This makes it a greater attack, especially given that they also had VERY VERY GOOD 2nd spinner and mostly,serviceable but short-lived 3rd pacers from 85, till emergence of Waqar in 89-90. 

 

NO

 

Quote

None of the criticisms are simplistic. Analysis of technique, by nature, isn't simplistic either.  What is simplistic, is to use stats only to drive the conversation. 

I am saying that there is no real basis for this conversation.  Technique is immaterial as long as effectiveness is there.

 

The simplicity comes from an attempt to arrive at a conclusion ...  the process of which requires analysis of multiple parameters, most of which are not quantifiable and often abstract.

 

 

Quote

 

You may not agree with 'my' golden era, except most experts agree and the stats do bear out : the 'golden era of bowling + batsmanship' saw first innings par scores hover around the 275-330 for the TOP teams, along with a few ace batsmen who either survived the test to score a mountain of runs (Gavaskar usually) or utterly annihilated the bowling when they got going ( Viv, Tendy, Lara). The two Golden eras of test cricket, widely seen in the last 50 years, is the mid 70s-mid 80s and then early 90s to early-mid 2000s. 

 

Again, an over-simplistic attempt at analysis.

Quote

You can cook up your BS about modern players being better in general, with your opinion as well, i will keep countering it. 

 

I am not cooking up anything ... I really don't know whether modern or older players are better

 

I don't see any scientific basis of comparison with so many different parameters at play.

 

You can live with your beliefs, lets stop this here.

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

30 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Pacers don't become great or even really overnight.  Every one takes some time to learn the tricks of the trade. Wasim , great bowler that he was, became so after a few years of experience.  
 

Yes, no body is at their peak when they debut. However, there are plenty of great bowlers (and batsmen), who've hit the ground running, even in their early version being 'world class'. Akram was such. 85 onwards Pakistan attack was a GREAT attack. nearly brought the West Indies to their knees and beat almost everyone else. You have no idea what you are talking of. 

Quote

 

NO

Multiple professional experts disagree with you. your 'no' is irrelevant to their expert knowledge & analysis. 

Quote

 

I am saying that there is no real basis for this conversation.  Technique is immaterial as long as effectiveness is there.

Defensive technique is about effectiveness. I didn't say perfect textbook defence, i simply said that modern batsmen are defensively MUCH weaker than their 80s counterparts. And against top notch bowling attacks, even today, its DEFENSIVE TECHNIQUE that primarily matters in terms of success. Every single person who's succeeded against top notch bowling attacks, barring perhaps ONLY Sehwag, had excellent, top of the shelf defensive technique. Modern batsmen are missing that element. 

 

Quote

The simplicity comes from an attempt to arrive at a conclusion ...  the process of which requires analysis of multiple parameters, most of which are not quantifiable and often abstract.

Which is why, i tend not to comment on cricket and cricketers I haven't seen. Hence i don't delve into the Rohan Kahnhais and Garry Sobers or Gupte type discussions much. 

 

Quote

 

Again, a over-simplistic attempt at analysis.

I am not cooking up anything ... I really don't know whether modern or older players are better

 

I don't see any scientific basis of comparison with so many different parameters at play.

 

You can live with your beliefs, lets stop this here.

 

The most relevant parameter, is how well they have done against bowlers with sub 25 averages ( hallmark of GREAT in any era) for pacers and low 30s/sub-30 average for spinners, on wickets where 300-350 are par scores for first innings, declining to 250-225 as par scores on the 4th innings. 

Test cricket, when its facing top notch bowling & catching unit, is primarily about survival. Even the blasters, blast by defending balls that'd take the top of off-stump for 99.99% batsmen. Which is why i can tell, you haven't watched much test cricket from the 70s or 80s. Only video clips here and there. 

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Muloghonto

[express bowling]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, no body is at their peak when they debut. However, there are plenty of great bowlers (and batsmen), who've hit the ground running, even in their early version being 'world class'. Akram was such. 85 onwards Pakistan attack was a GREAT attack. nearly brought the West Indies to their knees and beat almost everyone else. You have no idea what you are talking of. 

Multiple professional experts disagree with you. your 'no' is irrelevant to their expert knowledge & analysis. 

Defensive technique is about effectiveness. I didn't say perfect textbook defence, i simply said that modern batsmen are defensively MUCH weaker than their 80s counterparts. And against top notch bowling attacks, even today, its DEFENSIVE TECHNIQUE that primarily matters in terms of success. Every single person who's succeeded against top notch bowling attacks, barring perhaps ONLY Sehwag, had excellent, top of the shelf defensive technique. Modern batsmen are missing that element. 

 

Which is why, i tend not to comment on cricket and cricketers I haven't seen. Hence i don't delve into the Rohan Kahnhais and Garry Sobers or Gupte type discussions much. 

 

The most relevant parameter, is how well they have done against bowlers with sub 25 averages ( hallmark of GREAT in any era) for pacers and low 30s/sub-30 average for spinners, on wickets where 300-350 are par scores for first innings, declining to 250-225 as par scores on the 4th innings. 

Test cricket, when its facing top notch bowling & catching unit, is primarily about survival. Even the blasters, blast by defending balls that'd take the top of off-stump for 99.99% batsmen. Which is why i can tell, you haven't watched much test cricket from the 70s or 80s. Only video clips here and there. 

 

 

I have said what I have to on this topic.

 

There is no point going over the same thing 25 times.

[Jimmy Cliff]

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

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

How are they "flawed"? They only include his stats where the opposition had at least one bowler with a career average of 25.xx or below.

 

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

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

It only counts the games against SL when Murali was in the side. For instance his double in 2010 when Murali had retired is not counted.

 

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

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

The stats only includes his innings when Pakistan had either of Imran/Wasim/Waqar/Asif/Akhtar (bowlers averaging 25.xx or below) playing.

 

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

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.

Then why bother asking others which sub-25 bowlers did he do well against? 

 

 

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

5 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

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.

Well yeah even Warne averages a smidgen above 25 so I included all bowlers averaging 25.xx or lower (with a cut off of 20 wkts). 

[rtmohanlal]

46 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Well yeah even Warne averages a smidgen above 25 so I included all bowlers averaging 25.xx or lower (with a cut off of 20 wkts). 

We have to consider the longevity of Warne.Before his terminal decline for the last digital no: of tests it was below 25.

[Jimmy Cliff]

15 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

We have to consider the longevity of Warne.Before his terminal decline for the last digital no: of tests it was below 25.

Did he ever go in terminal decline? His worst phase was during 1998-2001. Post the Ashes in 2001, he was just ridiculously good, especially away from home.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Did he ever go in terminal decline? His worst phase was during 1998-2001. Post the Ashes in 2001, he was just ridiculously good, especially away from home.

Thats coz Warne had a serious finger injury on his right third finger, which forced him to bowl less googlies (or the flipper,i am not sure), moving forward. He also had a few distracting 'scandals' off the field IIRC during that period.