Smith vs Kirsten

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think all that highly of Smith, but I don't think he's complete rubbish either like some people here seem to, I more consider him talented but not completely proven yet. Kirsten was a very good, gritty player, and did very well despite his faults. I put him in a similar sort of category to Mark Taylor, as some who was far from flawless but has excellent mental toughness and had a good career regardless. A slightly better player than Taylor, though.

Certainly far more proven than Smith is right now, given that Smith hasn't faced Australia aside from his first test and as such hasn't faced a really excellent pace attack, which Kirsten did many times. If he runs into McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz/Lee (not to mention Warne) at the end of this year and does well, maybe then a claim can be made that he is better than Kirsten.

 

[marc71178]

He hasn't faced the Aussies and I think we can only judge after that has happened.

He did, and rather ironically had a big cry afterwards about being sledged...

 

[marc71178]

Certainly far more proven than Smith is right now, given that Smith hasn't faced Australia aside from his first test and as such hasn't faced a really excellent pace attack

But he's faced the next best thing in the England attack, and failed.

 

[Richard]

Which had nothing to do with being out-of-form, had it?

 

[Richard]

He did, and rather ironically had a big cry afterwards about being sledged...

Big cry? Do you remember the words used, then?

 

[Richard]

how in the world does someone whos average falls to miserable levels against swing bowlers suggest that he could negate the flaws in his technique?

Because so far it's only happened a handful of times.

 

[Richard]

absolute tripe, how many times do i have to say that a single inswinger is hardly ever going to get anyone with a weakness out to it? you have to be capable of putting it in the right place several times. seriously, thats like saying ponting is poor against spin, hence he must get out to the first turning ball he faces.

It is, and it's equally conceivable.
How many times do I have to say that a single or two or three inswingers can get a poor player of inswing out there and then? Plenty of times.

coincidence? how is it coincidence when you get out lbw to the same bowler 3 times in a series?

Because you can be out of form? A couple of days ago we had a match with 9 lbws - it happens sometimes.
Until it's happened a few times we can't say it means that much.

how is it coincidence that the bowlers who have caused him problems are all swing bowlers?

Because his weakest point is inswing - doesn't mean non-inswing bowlers haven't of times caused him problems - just not as much as inswing-bowlers have.

how is it coincidence that every single time hes faced a quality attack hes failed?

Because he's also failed against poor attacks?

 

[Link]

But he's faced the next best thing in the England attack, and failed.

you missed the 2003 series didnt you. that was away as well, on pitches he is not used to

 

[tooextracool]

Because so far it's only happened a handful of times.

except the handful of times have happened everytime hes played a quality attack. hence we can easily say that upto this point in this career hes been incapable of negating the flaws in his technique.

 

[tooextracool]

It is, and it's equally conceivable.
How many times do I have to say that a single or two or three inswingers can get a poor player of inswing out there and then? Plenty of times.

so ponting gets out on the third turning ball he faces on a turner everytime is it? it happens very rarely, more often it involves constant perseverance at the weak spot.

Because you can be out of form? A couple of days ago we had a match with 9 lbws - it happens sometimes.
Until it's happened a few times we can't say it means that much.

and all those lbws involved inswingers that had the batsman sticking his front foot far towards the off stump is it?
no its fairly obvious to anyone who watched that series that he was worked out.

Because his weakest point is inswing - doesn't mean non-inswing bowlers haven't of times caused him problems - just not as much as inswing-bowlers have.

your point being?

Because he's also failed against poor attacks?

how does this have even the slightest relevance?
hes failed against all the good pace attacks, whether or not hes failed against the poor ones is irrelevant.

 

[marc71178]

Which had nothing to do with being out-of-form, had it?

Out of form for 8 games in a row over 2 separate series.

That's a likely one...

 

[marc71178]

you missed the 2003 series didnt you. that was away as well, on pitches he is not used to

He had 2 games to get used to it when England served up buffet bowling.

Since then in 8 games his average is hovering about the 20 level I believe.

 

[Link]

ok, so we bowled so badly that the man could do no less then score like 600 runs in two matches ok.
what about the ODI series didnt he get a couple of hundreds there. You did say he fails against the england attack, he didnt there

 

[tooextracool]

ok, so we bowled so badly that the man could do no less then score like 600 runs in two matches ok.
what about the ODI series didnt he get a couple of hundreds there. You did say he fails against the england attack, he didnt there

because we have such a fabulous ODI bowling attack isnt it?
collingwood and kabir ali 1st and 2nd change
and of course hoggard, who cant bowl to save his life in ODIs.

 

[marc71178]

what about the ODI series didnt he get a couple of hundreds there. You did say he fails against the england attack, he didnt there

Nobody has mentioned ODI's at all.

 

[Link]

Nobody has mentioned ODI's at all.

yeah until i did, we was talking about Smith's success against the english bowling attack. So that is relevant

 

[Link]

because we have such a fabulous ODI bowling attack isnt it?
collingwood and kabir ali 1st and 2nd change
and of course hoggard, who cant bowl to save his life in ODIs.

i really hate this viewpoint that so many people have taken. in that batsmen are somewhat given runs because of a oppositions bowling attack. I cant remember how many times ive heard Haydens 380 being dismissed because of that. Millions of batsmen have faced the zimbabweans before but he was the first and last to score 380 runs against them.
But anyway what more can Smith do than bat against the opponents. And scoring a couple of hundreds against them is hard to 'rubbish'

 

[marc71178]

yeah until i did, we was talking about Smith's success against the english bowling attack. So that is relevant

Not really, because the whole issue of technique etc isn't anywhere near as relevant to ODI Cricket.

 

[Link]

yes really, because we was talking about his success against england, not how batsmen change in ODI and Test cricket.
So if your talking about how smith has done against england, how can you dismiss the LAST matches he played against us and scored those hundreds which happend to be one day games

 

[marc71178]

It is a completely different sort of game - the whole approach to bowling is different, and you might have noticed the attack he faced was a lot different to the Test one (in that Harmison, Hoggard, Jones and Flintoff weren't there)