Smith vs Kirsten

[tooextracool]

Samaraweera who played all his 8 Tests at home and faced just 3 teams in the process..

oh wow, he played a whole 1 team less! 3 is clearly a lot less than 4.
not to mention of course that smith had actually only played 3 and 2/5 teams, because at the end of the series against england his average was down to 60. and mind you smith himself played 3 of his 4 series at home, and samarweera averaged 74 after the series in the WI.

Vinod Kambli whose first 10 Tests, too, were all in the subcontinent against just 3 teams again...

yes clearly you have to score against 4 teams to be bradmanesque
and smith only played one series outside of home, and he failed in 2 out of his 4 series.

But who knows - people might have been talking of Kambli as the next Bradman after those Tests..

people? hold on a second here, you've spent god knows how long on this forum talking about how other peoples opinion is useless and now you the mighty expert on cricket put yourself on par with those people?
you were on here talking about smith being bradmanesque when he was averaging in the 50s, when hed never succeeded against a quality attack yet when i claim that there have been others who had done the same you claim that they played at home etc even though smith himself did almost the same thing.
and no, i certainly dont remember anyone claiming that kambli would be next best to bradman, most people would just settle for him being a very good player, and certainly any cricketing expert would wait till someones accomplished something other than scoring against rubbish attacksbefore claiming that he'll be the next bradman or what not.

 

[Richard]

It bothers me in no way whats so ever.

the only way you can tell if one bowler was troubling a batsman in a 16 ball spell or whatever is by watching it..whether he got 15 runs off him or whatever you said it was mean zip to me, coz 12 of those runs may have been edges for 4

Exactly - and I watched that (I presume you did too?) and it was very plain to see that Smith had the wood on Harmison, Harmison caused him no problems at all and Smith rarely missed the middle of the bat.

 

[Richard]

which doesnt mean that he conquered him, it just means that he didnt get out to him.
not to mention of course that it was 2 games not 1.

Shall we extend it to the 2 games, then?
In 2 innings, Smith faced 24 deliveries from Harmison, scored 20 runs and did not get out.
Far more significantly, as pointed-out ^^^, he rarely missed the middle of the bat and looked thoroughly at home when scoring those runs and keeping-out the dot-balls he faced.

 

[Richard]

The cut off varies with how much he likes the player in question.

No - it might vary as to how much I think it's significant (if I think someone bowled or batted poorly less deliveries might be neccessary to form that conclusion than if I it was inconclusive) but what I've thought of the player before that game comes nothing into it.

 

[Richard]

oh wow, he played a whole 1 team less! 3 is clearly a lot less than 4.
not to mention of course that smith had actually only played 3 and 2/5 teams, because at the end of the series against england his average was down to 60. and mind you smith himself played 3 of his 4 series at home, and samarweera averaged 74 after the series in the WI.

Indeed - which shows that to form judgements after short periods of time is only slightly wiser than to form them after slightly longer periods of time.

yes clearly you have to score against 4 teams to be bradmanesque
and smith only played one series outside of home, and he failed in 2 out of his 4 series.

Failed not significantly enough to stop him having a brilliant average.

people? hold on a second here, you've spent god knows how long on this forum talking about how other peoples opinion is useless and now you the mighty expert on cricket put yourself on par with those people?

Er, what? When the hell have I said anything like that?
Without other people's opinions I'd not have had anything to form my opinions on.

you were on here talking about smith being bradmanesque when he was averaging in the 50s, when hed never succeeded against a quality attack yet when i claim that there have been others who had done the same you claim that they played at home etc even though smith himself did almost the same thing.

I pointed-out that Smith's achievements were slightly - no more - more far-ranging than the 2 cases you named. I'm sure there are others with similar starts to their careers.

and no, i certainly dont remember anyone claiming that kambli would be next best to bradman, most people would just settle for him being a very good player, and certainly any cricketing expert would wait till someones accomplished something other than scoring against rubbish attacksbefore claiming that he'll be the next bradman or what not.

And funnily enough I did... I never once said "he'll be the next Bradman", I never said anything other than that there's a slim chance that he could be... amazingly enough, you weren't actually here when I first brought the subject up.
I'd like to know what the first comment you heard from me on the matter was.

 

[tooextracool]

Shall we extend it to the 2 games, then?
In 2 innings, Smith faced 24 deliveries from Harmison, scored 20 runs and did not get out.
Far more significantly, as pointed-out ^^^, he rarely missed the middle of the bat and looked thoroughly at home when scoring those runs and keeping-out the dot-balls he faced.

which still says that he played him well, it does not prove that he conquered him any way, which would involve total domination of a bowler.

 

[Richard]

Fine, then - he played him well enough to ensure that, correctly, he didn't get more than 2 games all series.
Of course it'd be nice if I could go back and edit the original comment.

 

[Pratters]

Bump.

 

[listento_me]

Bump.

Lazarus!

btw, it's Smith and it shouldn't even be a competition.

 

[kingkallis]

True! Smith >> Kirsten.

 

[smash84]

Kirsten >>>>>>>>>>>Smith
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
as coach