Smith vs Kirsten

[Pratters]

Who would you say over all is a better test batsman.

For me : G.Smith

He has an average of 53.5 in 38 tests compared to 45.27 for Kirsten from 101

People have argued Smith has struggled against balls on his off stump (Neil) but every player goes through a bad phase in his career.

Averages are not every thing but the difference between the two is too stark in my opinion.

{EDITED the average I had written as 43 by mistake}

 

[Pratters]

During the one-day games in England there were mutterings about Smith's "closed-face" technique and propensity to play across the line, but he soon silenced the doubters, gloriously. The series was not yet halfway through and England were sick of the sight of him and still trying to work out any plan at all. He is leg-side dominant, unlike many other left-handers, but with an ability to cut the ball well outside off stump. Throughout most of the series, England's fielders in the slips waited in vain; by not opening the face he made them redundant.

Michael Atherton said this about Smith's technical difficulties which was made a mole hill about in his article on Smith for Wisden Cricketer of the year.

http://statserver.cricket.org/almanack/?select=article;type=alm;alm=17502

 

[Dasa]

Without a doubt, Kirsten for me.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As much as I respect Michael Atherton's opinions at the moment...

There's a school of sensible thought that states that Smith has played a lot less Tests than Kirsten, thus the difference in average is not quite as stark. When you further consider the conditions that Smith has prospered in as opposed to those he hasn't, as well as the clear technical faults in Smith's game... well, it's not as one-sided as you seem to think.

Some food for thought:

Kirsten averages 45.27. Get your basic facts straight.

If you're using a 38-match period to fight a case for Smith, I bring you this. In the last 38 Test matches of his career, Kirsten averaged 53.16 with 11 hundreds, 12 fifties, 3 ducks. That compared to Smith's 53.52 with 10 hundreds, 11 fifties and 4 ducks.

 

[Top_Cat]

Kirsten; the hard-man of SA cricket. Never had a great time of it against Australia but scored too many tough runs against too many other teams in varying conditions for Smith to be even close to him yet.

 

[Pratters]

If you're using a 38-match period to fight a case for Smith, I bring you this. In the last 38 Test matches of his career, Kirsten averaged 53.16 with 11 hundreds, 12 fifties, 3 ducks. That compared to Smith's 53.52 with 10 hundreds, 11 fifties and 4 ducks.

Which shows that Kirsten average much lower in the earlier 63 tests he played.

I doubt you have seen MOST of Kirsten's career. He was very good in the later part of his career agreed. But over all he was an average batsman. A good servant of south african cricket neverthless.

Even Walsh improved in the latter part of his career. Would you say then that some one like Ambrose who had a much better career over all would be better than a Walsh? I doubt.

Yes when I bring this arguement, you will bring up that the comparison of Ambrose and Smith is not true. Smith has played far LESS tests as you are saying. Compare them at the start of their careers then. Just because Smith has played less (and 38 tests isnt a small number like 10-15 tests is) for most of which he has been consistent, scoring runs at a tremendous average, it would be unfair to say Kirsten is better than Smith just because he has played more.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Which shows that Kirsten average much lower in the earlier 63 tests he played.

I doubt you have seen MOST of Kirsten's career. He was very good in the later part of his career agreed. But over all he was an average batsman. A good servant of south african cricket neverthless.

You can't predict the future (except where Tendulkar is concerned) and thus, I don't see how you can differentiate between a 38-match period at the start of a career and one at the end. Both are just that - 38 matches! Smith is going to play more Tests before he retires and Kirsten has already played several Tests and is now retired. It's absurd to state that Smith is better because he averages more than a 101-Test veteran, having only played 38 Tests.

You do amaze me somtimes.

 

[deeps]

without a doubt gary kirsten. Excellent batsman with a great temperament. Has performed against quality bowling, as opposed to smith and his scores against yum-cha bowling

 

[Pratters]

You can't predict the future (except where Tendulkar is concerned) and thus, I don't see how you can differentiate between a 38-match period at the start of a career and one at the end. Both are just that - 38 matches! Smith is going to play more Tests before he retires and Kirsten has already played several Tests and is now retired. It's absurd to state that Smith is better because he averages more than a 101-Test veteran, having only played 38 Tests.

You do amaze me somtimes.

Without going into the Tendulkar bit, and amzing you which I have no intention of..

Why would you forget the first 63 tests of Kirsten where he averaged much lower. I wouldnt say Smith is better JUST because of his average. It is one of the telling things which shows a huge difference.

Smith : consistent against opponents he has faced. No reason to believe his career will go absoultely go down hill from here and he will be doomed

Kirsten : Already has had a 63 test period of mediocrity and improved with experience, like Walsh did.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Smith: consistent against bad bowling on good pitches (except perhaps a couple of innings). Weak outside the offstump. Hopeless against the swinging ball.

Kirsten: consistent against good bowling with clutch runs in varying conditions. Largely excellent technique.

 

[Pratters]

Smith: consistent against bad bowling on good pitches (except perhaps a couple of innings).

Smith in a few series :-

South Africa in New Zealand, 2003/04 [Series]
- 3 290 125* 58.00 1 1 1 1/19 33.00 0 1 0
South Africa in Sri Lanka, 2004 [Series]
SL 2 179 74 44.75 0 2 0 - - 0 0 0
South Africa in India, 2004/05 [Series]
Ind 2 155 71 38.75 0 1 0 - - 0 3 0

Kirsten: consistent against good bowling with clutch runs in varying conditions. Largely excellent technique.

You have seen just the later part of his career where he was good no doubt. Not the average Kirsten earlier on.

South Africa in Australia, 1993/94 [Series]
- 3 174 67 34.80 0 1 1 1/62 62.00 0 2 0
Australia in South Africa, 1993/94 [Series]
- 3 162 47 32.40 0 0 0 - - 0 4 0
South Africa in England, 1994 [Series]
- 3 190 72 31.66 0 2 0 - - 0 1 0
Australia in South Africa, 1996/97 [Series]
Aus 3 82 43 13.66 0 0 - - - - 1 0
Pakistan in South Africa, 1997/98 [Series]
- 3 130 44 26.00 0 0 - - - - 3 0
Sri Lanka in South Africa, 1997/98 [Series]
SA 2 165 75* 55.00 0 2 - - - - 3 0
South Africa in England, 1998 [Series]
Eng 5 257 210 36.71 1 0 - - - - 4 0
West Indies in South Africa, 1998/99 [Series]
SA 5 336 134 37.33 1 2 - - - - 4 0

Notice the last 4 series. For every good series he had a poor one. Hardly what I would call consistent.

I agree with you that Kirsten showed good application in the latter part of his career but over all he has been pretty much average.

Smith has shown a lot of promise, is still a very young batsman which people forget when they write him off for one technical weakne being exposed on an ocassion. Smith has been very good for South Africa as a batsman. I wouldnt say the same on his captainy but thats another matter.

 

[Top_Cat]

Kirsten : Already has had a 63 test period of mediocrity and improved with experience, like Walsh did.

Fair go, mate. Mediocre? Hardly. Most openers in history DON'T average 45+ in their careers (Haynes and Greenidge were in that vicinity, in fact). Smith's average is somewhat inflated by his good start and flat decks he's played on. Kirsten's runs came along in a much tougher era for batsmen.

Smith is certainly a more natural stroke-maker but Kirsten did the business on so many occasions when SA really needed it that surely his reputation and performances can't be doubted.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes when I bring this arguement, you will bring up that the comparison of Ambrose and Smith is not true. Smith has played far LESS tests as you are saying. Compare them at the start of their careers then. Just because Smith has played less (and 38 tests isnt a small number like 10-15 tests is) for most of which he has been consistent, scoring runs at a tremendous average, it would be unfair to say Kirsten is better than Smith just because he has played more.

smith has largely succeeded against the poor bowling attacks. hes still got a long way to even be in the same league as kirsten. hoggard worked him out beautifully in the recent series and exposed his weakness of sticking his front foot too far towards off stump and being prone to the inswinger( got him lbw 3 times in that series). even martin bicknell had him playing all over the inswinger when he got him lbw twice in england in 2003.

 

[tooextracool]

Kirsten: consistent against good bowling with clutch runs in varying conditions. Largely excellent technique.

really? kirsten did by no means have an excellent technique. he played away from his body and it resulted in his getting an inside edge onto his stumps many many times. his weakness against the short ball was also well known. kirsten had a very very ordinary technique for an opener, the fact that he managed to succeed bares testiment to his mental toughness and character, which allowed him to play around all those weaknesses more often than not.

 

[Tastigersfan]

If this were a debate on raw talent it would be Smith hands down, but it's not.

Gary Kirsten did the tough stuff, average down a bit against Australia (34.36 in 18 tests) but so were most and it could of be worse, he had his days were he made the Aussie bowlers work hard to get him.

Smith is certainly more expansive in the shot making category but as stated a lot of weak bowling attacks so far inflating that average a bit, though he has scored runs against England so he is no hack. Very early in his career he played two tests against Australia at an average of (28.50) so I think we need another series to start comparing that one.

I think the important thing here is comparing the 101 tests of Kirsten and 38 of Smith. The time for comparison is not yet but when Smith is closing in on his career but if I had to pick one right now it would be Kirsten.

Apologies to rest of the world for using vs Australia statistics but across this period of time they are the benchmark side.

 

[aussie]

most of smith's runs have come againts mediocre bowling attacks, he has a big series in AUS this year lets see how he goess their, plus Kirsten completed his carrer with a commendable avearge of 45, dont let his hard face fool you he is young in international cricket an avearge of 53 is good, lets see if he can maintain of better that by the end of his career.

But for now i would go for Kirsten

 

[marc71178]

People have argued Smith has struggled against balls on his off stump (Neil) but every player goes through a bad phase in his career.

Yes, but the best players actually correct the faults.

 

[marc71178]

Smith is certainly more expansive in the shot making category but as stated a lot of weak bowling attacks so far inflating that average a bit, though he has scored runs against England so he is no hack.

Hmm, first 2 Tests against England - 3 innings, 621 @ 207 when England bowled the biggest load of tripe in a long time.

Last 8 Tests against England - 16 innings (1 not out), 362 @ 24.13

 

[Richard]

Graeme Smith's technical faults, like Gary Kirsten's at times, have been exaggerated to a large degree. Yes, he gets out to the inswinger of times, but equally for every one he gets out to he generally hits about 40 through mid-wicket, often to the boundary.
Usually it depends on what type of nick he's in - if he's in poor touch, as in the recent series against us, he misses it quite a bit and looks wholly ordinary.
One thing that's beyond question is that Kirsten at present is a far better player than Smith at present. Who will be the better come the end of Smith's career we will only find-out. Beyond question Smith is the more talented if you ask me and has the potential to average in the mid-50s and beyond - especially if people try to bowl outside his off-stump early on rather than going for the lbw.
Kirsten, meanwhile, had several periods in his career where a certain technical hitch would get him out consistently in the same way - chopping onto his stumps, and earlier getting caught behind down the leg-side. However he managed to iron-out both flaws. His Test-career is characterised by bouts of merciless heavy scoring and gluts - never better demonstrated than in England in 1998 when he made double-figures twice - 12 in the 1st innings of the series and 210 in the 4th.
Towards the end of his career - the very end by which he was batting out of position - he cashed-in on flat pitches in the same way Smith has. Despite 3 of his last 4 innings ending in scores of 1, he averaged 64 in his final 12 Tests.
One thing we can say for certain is that the position of South African left-handed opener couldn't have been better passed-down. Smith and Kirsten are very different batsmen (indeed their strokeplay limits are polarised opposites) but in character very similar.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, first 2 Tests against England - 3 innings, 621 @ 207 when England bowled the biggest load of tripe in a long time.

No, England have bowled every bit as poorly plenty of times in the last 4 years.