Smith vs Kirsten

[Link]

you keep talking about ODI games are differnt to Test matches, honestly i know that. What i was saying is that you was talking about Smiths success against England so therefore the time when he scored a couple of tons against them in the ODI matches needs to be mentioned.

 

[Richard]

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.

We can indeed - we can't say that it won't mean he's not going to do so in the (probably near) future.

 

[Richard]

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.

The more perseverence, the more likely, of course - but it doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly possible to get one shot at a weakness and succeed - there are several instances of Ponting, and many others, being out almost the second a spinner comes on.

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.

"All those" being a sum-total of 3.

your point being?

Point being just because inswing has caused him problems it simply means inswing is his biggest achillies-heel, not that it's something that will always see the back of him.

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.

It is relevant, because of the simple fact that failures will always happen - and people will always do less well against good attacks than poor ones.

 

[Richard]

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

That's a likely one...

No, out of form in a single 5-Test-series, which is very possible, we've seen it hundreds of times.
Any fool could see that Smith was not worked-out in the 2nd half of the home series.

 

[Richard]

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)

Harmison and Hoggard were, and both are rubbish ODI bowlers.

 

[Richard]

yWhat i was saying is that you was talking about Smiths success against England so therefore the time when he scored a couple of tons against them in the ODI matches needs to be mentioned.

Yet he needs to score runs in the Test-matches again, to dismiss this ludicrous notion from Englishmen who find the idea of working-out Smith something that to fail to do is an injury to pride, that between Trent Bridge 2003 and Centurion 2004\05 he was worked-out, when any fool can see that he was not worked-out in the 2003 series, at all.

 

[marc71178]

you keep talking about ODI games are differnt to Test matches, honestly i know that. What i was saying is that you was talking about Smiths success against England so therefore the time when he scored a couple of tons against them in the ODI matches needs to be mentioned.

When he faces a different attack in completely different circumstances it bears little relevance to the question.

 

[marc71178]

Harmison and Hoggard were, and both are rubbish ODI bowlers.

Oh I am sorry, because playing a total of 2 and 4 games out a 7 match series is clearly him facing them both throughout isn't it

 

[honestbharani]

I meant the Smith of today.....being captain and being an established opener in his side, I think it will be interesting to see how he copes with Australia at this stage, with all these responsibilities on him.

 

[Richard]

Oh I am sorry, because playing a total of 2 and 4 games out a 7 match series is clearly him facing them both throughout isn't it

The main reason both didn't play is because he conquered the both of them, battered them round the park to such an extent they were deemed, correctly, not good enough.

 

[Langeveldt]

And the Smith train keeps rolling

 

[tooextracool]

The main reason both didn't play is because he conquered the both of them, battered them round the park to such an extent they were deemed, correctly, not good enough.

oh yes he conquered harmison, especially since in both those games that he played he managed 16 & 47 respectively. and no im not implying that harmison bowled brilliantly in that series, nor am i implying that smith wouldnt have conquered him, but for you to sprout some rubbish like that that clearly didnt happen is quite ludicrous.
as far as hoggard is concerned, i said it 1 billion times before he was even drafted into the ODI squad. HOGGARD IS NOT AN ODI BOWLER, hes not even close. it takes an incredible amount of stupidity and lack of knowledge on the game to even think that he would succeed in ODIs, but then again stupidity and lack of knowledge comes first when the selectors select their players.

 

[tooextracool]

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'

so what then? so now we should pick players that score solely against the weak teams is it? i mean if you want to be the best team in the world, you must find players that are the greatest minnow bashers. why dont we all just pick attapattu then?

 

[tooextracool]

yes really, because we was talking about his success against england, not how batsmen change in ODI and Test cricket.

2 things:
1) we were talking about smith's success against a quality bowling attack. england came in because they have a quality bowling attack in tests, its glaringly obvious to anyone whos even switched on his tv set that gough,hoggard,kabir ali and collingwood would be a disgrace to the word 'rubbish'.
2) tests and ODI are not interchangeable, as people have said since god knows how long. what smith does in ODIs bares absolutely no relevance to what he does in tests.

 

[tooextracool]

We can indeed - we can't say that it won't mean he's not going to do so in the (probably near) future.

yet of course, i never said anything like that?

 

[tooextracool]

The more perseverence, the more likely, of course - but it doesn't change the fact that it's perfectly possible to get one shot at a weakness and succeed - there are several instances of Ponting, and many others, being out almost the second a spinner comes on..

so show me then, the number of times ponting has been out on the first turning ball hes faced? or perhaps more conveniently, show me how many times an innaccurate spinner has got ponting out on the first accurate turning ball that hes bowled?
you really have no idea what you're talking about, how in the world you expect bowlers who bowl 1 in swinger on target every 10 overs to get them out on that very first inswinger i'll never know.

"All those" being a sum-total of 3.

yes, yet with those 3 dismissals he had 'bradman' hiding all the way down the order, just so that he wouldnt have to face hoggard early on.

Point being just because inswing has caused him problems it simply means inswing is his biggest achillies-heel, not that it's something that will always see the back of him.

nor have i claimed that. fact of the matter is that inswing has worked him out until now, whether it does that in the future or not is irrelevant. so to claim something like his technical glitch hasnt been exposed because he averages over 50 is ludicrous.

It is relevant, because of the simple fact that failures will always happen - and people will always do less well against good attacks than poor ones.

thats absolute garbage, people dont average in the mid to late 20 against good attacks. thats only what the FTB's do. just like hayden, if he were playing in the 80s, hed be averaging in the mid 20s.

 

[tooextracool]

No, out of form in a single 5-Test-series, which is very possible, we've seen it hundreds of times.
Any fool could see that Smith was not worked-out in the 2nd half of the home series.

and any fool can see that you dont have to be dismissed by that particular bowler to be worked out by him.

 

[tooextracool]

Yet he needs to score runs in the Test-matches again, to dismiss this ludicrous notion from Englishmen who find the idea of working-out Smith something that to fail to do is an injury to pride, that between Trent Bridge 2003 and Centurion 2004\05 he was worked-out, when any fool can see that he was not worked-out in the 2003 series, at all.

yet bicknell magically managed to expose his weakness.

 

[Richard]

oh yes he conquered harmison, especially since in both those games that he played he managed 16 & 47 respectively. and no im not implying that harmison bowled brilliantly in that series, nor am i implying that smith wouldnt have conquered him, but for you to sprout some rubbish like that that clearly didnt happen is quite ludicrous.

That the South Africans conquered him, and Smith (especially in his 47) played a part in that is enough.

as far as hoggard is concerned, i said it 1 billion times before he was even drafted into the ODI squad. HOGGARD IS NOT AN ODI BOWLER, hes not even close. it takes an incredible amount of stupidity and lack of knowledge on the game to even think that he would succeed in ODIs, but then again stupidity and lack of knowledge comes first when the selectors select their players.

Why you need to emphasise this when my thoughts are exactly the same I don't know, I've never, ever been in favour of Hoggard playing ODIs since he made his debut in 2001\02.

 

[Richard]

yet of course, i never said anything like that?

No, you didn't, but you said something along those lines by saying that every time he's faced a quality attack he's failed.
And I'd not have said that, because if you ask me it's just coincidence.