Steve Smith - Test Batting Ranking

[Jimmy Cliff]

Undisputed no. 2 now .

[velu]

1 hour ago, Shunya said:

Only 2 points for 76 & 102* . Nonsense. ICC ki saazish . Still 14 points away from immortality. Would need one more brutal year with bat.

 

2 points for scoring 76 and 102*

maybe england shitty ranking could also be the reason for such poor returns 

[Jimmy Cliff]

43 minutes ago, velu said:

 

2 points for scoring 76 and 102*

maybe england shitty ranking could also be the reason for such poor returns 

His own current rating is the main reason. The ratings top out at 1000 so once a batman reaches the heights of 940+, it is increasingly difficult to get a major boost.

[velu]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

His own current rating is the main reason. The ratings top out at 1000 so once a batman reaches the heights of 940+, it is increasingly difficult to get a major boost.

 

then i guess nobody will get 1000 ..

not aware of this 1000 pt ceiling 

Edited December 31, 2017 by velu

[SK_IH]

i want to see that bradman ranking breached next year,hopefully smith scores 250 next game and cross 950 atleast

[Vk1]

Success of Steven Smith =  50% his ability + the Australian bowling attack lead by the unplayable starc suited for all kinds of pitches plus playing on flat bouncy pitches in Australia where apart from south Africa no other team on the planet have the bowling resources to do well. 

Would have been interesting to see how Smith would have fared if we gave them the pitches that we gave to south Africa.

[rkt.india]

On 1/1/2018 at 8:48 AM, SK_IH said:

i want to see that bradman ranking breached next year,hopefully smith scores 250 next game and cross 950 atleast

it wont cross that in his life. he will have to score at 100 average for a considerable period of time to do that

[rkt.india]

On 12/31/2017 at 6:49 PM, velu said:

 

2 points for scoring 76 and 102*

maybe england shitty ranking could also be the reason for such poor returns 

no, that is not the reason. the higher he gets, tougher it becomes to gain points. Bradman scored at 100 average whole his life then he got that rating. Smith will have to do that too, to score at 100 average whole his life.

[CG]

On 12/27/2017 at 10:30 AM, rkt.india said:

people talking about quality of bowling. everything is correlated. Average batsmen can make bowlers look good and that happened through 80s and 90s when very few batsmen averaged 50 or more or even high 40s.  when you have s many batsmen averaging low and tailenders who cant hold bat, bowlers for sure will have great averages.   

You got to be Kidding Comparing  1990S to Today.Mordern Batsman cant play spin or swing except few.Most dont have patience to bat out a day.You get roads in australia.Its tougher to bat in sc nowadays,

[rkt.india]

6 minutes ago, CG said:

You got to be Kidding Comparing  1990S to Today.Mordern Batsman cant play spin or swing except few.Most dont have patience to bat out a day.You get roads in australia.Its tougher to bat in sc nowadays,

so batsman in 90s could play spin and swing?

[CG]

so batsman in 90s could play spin and swing?

Yes far better than modern batsman.Batting has gone to dogs Australia has 2 good batsman same with eng,less said about others better.

[rkt.india]

19 minutes ago, CG said:

21 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

so batsman in 90s could play spin and swing?

Yes far better than modern batsman.Batting has gone to dogs Australia has 2 good batsman same with eng,less said about others better.

if they could play swing and spin much better then why did very few batsmen average 50?

Edited January 4, 2018 by rkt.india

[CG]

if they could play swing and spin much better then why did very few batsmen average 50?

How many batsman currently AVG over 50 even though tracks are much flatter compared to 1990s.You just have to look through 1990s batting lineups many AVG 45+.

[Pollack]

No doubt quality of bowling is not so good as compared to 80-90s. On the other batting has improved in terms of innovation for scoring faster at the expense of slight compromise in technique.

[rkt.india]

33 minutes ago, CG said:

35 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

if they could play swing and spin much better then why did very few batsmen average 50?

How many batsman currently AVG over 50 even though tracks are much flatter compared to 1990s.You just have to look through 1990s batting lineups many AVG 45+.

you are saying 90s batsmen were better, so, lot of them must have averaged 50 plus in the 90s. if I remember only SRT and Lara averaged 50 in 90s. May be Steve Waugh too. 

[rkt.india]

8 minutes ago, Pollack said:

No doubt quality of bowling is not so good as compared to 80-90s. On the other batting has improved in terms of innovation for scoring faster at the expense of slight compromise in technique.

inept batsmen can make any bowling look good and that was the case in 80s and 90s. most teams had very few quality batsmen who could score consistently.  They may be good batsmen but they were not consistent enough the reason we had so many bowlers in 90s averaged U-25.  We talk about WI being a great team in 80s, but that as not because great WI team alone but because ineptness of other teams as well. Australia was going through bad phase, rebuilding in 80s. we had one great batsman in SMG, others were just mostly making the numbers. Vengsarkar did well to some extent but even he was not consistent enough, averaging 42.  Vengsarkar was as good as Ganguly of 2000s who also had a similar average and was no where our top test batsman.  We had openers like Shashtri and Srikanth. 

[Giant Tissue Box]

Sure the 90's had some great bowlers like Akram, McGrath, Warne, Mushtaq, Murali, Kumble, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Donald and Pollock to same a few but for all those bowlers you had like Raju, Penn, Wiseman, Mullally, and so on.

 

We don't remember the average bowlers of the 90's and 80's because they didn't transcend time. Since we live in this era, we can see more of the average bowlers and great bowlers but come next decade or two later and we won't forget people like Dernbach, Vinay Kumar and so on. 

[Jimmy Cliff]

37 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

inept batsmen can make any bowling look good and that was the case in 80s and 90s. most teams had very few quality batsmen who could score consistently.  They may be good batsmen but they were not consistent enough the reason we had so many bowlers in 90s averaged U-25.  We talk about WI being a great team in 80s, but that as not because great WI team alone but because ineptness of other teams as well. Australia was going through bad phase, rebuilding in 80s. we had one great batsman in SMG, others were just mostly making the numbers. Vengsarkar did well to some extent but even he was not consistent enough, averaging 42.  Vengsarkar was as good as Ganguly of 2000s who also had a similar average and was no where our top test batsman.  We had openers like Shashtri and Srikanth. 

Amarnath, Vengsarkar and Azharuddin all averaged higher than Gavaskar in the 80s. Ganguly averaged around 37 against non-minnows in the 2000s so there is no comparison with Vengsarkar in the 80s.

 

Most of the teams in the 80s had very good batsmen at some point or the other. Australia had Chappell/Border/Hughes until the mid 80s and Border/Jones/Boon in the mid to late 80s. Pak had Miandad/Abbas/Mudassar/Majid in the first half and Miandad/Malik/Mudassar/Imran in the 2nd half. India had 4 blokes averaging 46+ in Amarnath/Vengsarkar/Azhar/SMG with a couple of all-rounders averaging 30+ in Kapil and Shastri. Early on in the decade we had a guy like Vishy who could come up with a match-winning knock against Lillee and co. in AUS. NZ had their best ever bat in Crowe and England had Gower and Gooch. The reason most of these guys averaged in the 40s was that there just weren't enough buffet attacks like the ones today. Today a guy like Williamson barely averages 40+ against the top 5 sides but has an overall average of 50+ thanks to his bullying of SL/WI/BANG/ZIM. Batsmen in the 80s didn't have that luxury.

[velu]

scored 83 in the last game and  got 0 points