The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[trundler]

if he's still averaging 60 after 100 tests i think he's done enough

Nah those extra 30ish tests after the 100th make a massive difference imo. Many a career has fallen steeply there. 125 @ 60 would though.

 

[Daemon]

@Daemon Dunno i just remember being impressed by Kohli and Smith going ton for ton

It shouldn’t be discounted but I think Smith’s had at least 3 more impressive series than that one against crap bowling in the flattest Australian conditions I’ve seen.

Ashes 19
BG 16/17
Ashes 17/18

And then maybe it’s on par with the NZ or WI away series. Probably only slightly better just because it was a longer series.

 

[srbhkshk]

Sachin averaged 59 for 156 tests between 1993 and 2010.

 

[Daemon]

Tendulkar has 2 such periods

34th - 93rd test - 22 centuries [60 tests]
54th - 112th test - 22 centuries [59 tests]

that’s a bit dodgy, you could do like 35th-94th and say it’s another period

 

[Teja.]

Sachin averaged 59 for 156 tests between 1993 and 2010.

Haha yeah which is why I think this argument that averaging 60 over 100 tests is better than Sachin is really weird.

A stretch of 140-150 tests averaging 58-62 is probably what would equal Sachin IMO.

 

[srbhkshk]

that’s a bit dodgy, you could do like 35th-94th and say it’s another period

Yes there are others like that but I didn't include them. Technically he has 21 stretches of 60 tests with 21 hundreds[Not Kidding]

 

[honestbharani]

that’s a bit dodgy, you could do like 35th-94th and say it’s another period

Just as dodgy as Mr2 taking only the tests that Smith made his first 100 to his latest into consideration for his calculations. FWIW, even if you wanna consider only the test where he made his first 100 a starting point, he is currently on 26 from 62 and 109 innings. Not that far away from many of the other ATGs. And if you limit to when he made his place as a proper middle order bat, that goes to 26 from 68 and 121 innings, which is basically what Sachin, Ponting and I guess a few other ATGs averaged for various runs of their careers. Even the 7 year period is something that has been bettered.

EDIT: Actually srb's is not as dodgy as Mr2's stats cherry picking.

 

[Daemon]

I wasn't taking a side

 

[honestbharani]

I wasn't taking a side

Neither am I. Just pointing out the dodgy take was a response to a dodgier take.

 

[bagapath]

Well he hit 26 tons in 56 tests from his first to his most recent so let's go with that number. Has anyone hit more than 20 in 56 tests discounting Bradman?

SM Gavaskar in his first 50 tests

50

93

7

4947

221

57.52

20

21

6

v England

30 Aug 1979

Smith after 50 tests

50

92

13

4752

215

60.15

8213

57.85

17

20

4

531

33

v Pakistan

3 Jan 2017

Gavaskar after 56 tests

56

101

7

5372

221

57.14

22

23

6

v Australia

3 Nov 1979

Smith after 56 tests

56

104

14

5370

215

59.66

9445

56.85

20

21

4

598

33

v Bangladesh

4 Sep 2017

 

[smash84]

Sobers too

Sobers peak is less impressive than Sachin or Smith's mostly because the latter faced not only better bowling attacks but did pretty well against the best teams of their eras (Smith has done really well in this regard). Sobers wasn't quite as impressive in this sense.

 

[honestbharani]

FWIW, I do think Smith is an ATG as of now and I fully expect him to finish his career as one. But I dont think he is gonna go down as the greatest since Bradman, rather he will be fighting it out with the other Tier 1 folks around him (Bradman is Tier 0 God) or with Tier 2 folks depending on how the rest of his career goes.

EDIT: The same goes for Kohli but I would say his place is currently in the Tier 2 of the batting ATGs, unlike Smith (Who is in Tier 1 currently, for me).

 

[stephen]

If it wasn't for Smith we'd be singing Kohli's praises. He's averaged 57 since Smith got good and only scored two less tons than him. Insane.

 

[mr_mister]

Haha yeah which is why I think this argument that averaging 60 over 100 tests is better than Sachin is really weird.

A stretch of 140-150 tests averaging 58-62 is probably what would equal Sachin IMO.

Because it'd be Smiths full career not just a cherry picked peak. That's an important difference right?

Like are you saying if Smith retired averaging 60 after 150 tests hed only be equal to Sachin averaging 53 after 200 because Sachin had a period in the middle of 150 tests averaging 60?

That's silly. I know he debuted young and played on til he was grey but can't pretend that period didn't happen

 

[Teja.]

Because it'd be Smiths full career not just a cherry picked peak. That's an important difference right?

Like are you saying if Smith retired averaging 60 after 150 tests hed only be equal to Sachin averaging 53 after 200 because Sachin had a period in the middle averaging 60?

That's silly

If Smith plays 200 with a stretch of 150 tests that good, that would work as well.

And Smith would have to play less years than Tendulkar to get 200.

 

[mr_mister]

Well he's got no chance of hitting 200 tests

 

[srbhkshk]

Sanga averages 57+ for 134 tests and is typically considered a level below Tendulkar.

 

[mr_mister]

Sanga averages 57+ for 134 tests and is typically considered a level below Tendulkar.

Which is why the raw averages stats do have merit and we can't just push forward everyone's peak as an argument

Hayden had a 80 test period averaging like 58 scoring 29 tons.

 

[srbhkshk]

Which is why the raw averages stats do have merit and we can't just push forward everyone's peak as an argument

Hayden had a 80 test period averaging like 58 scoring 29 tons.

Dude 57+ for 134 tests is Sanga's whole career, it's not his peak.

 

[Teja.]

Sutcliffe averages 61, Hobbs 57, Hutton 57, Sobers 58, Hammond 58 all over full 20 year careers or close to that. All raw stats not peak.

Why are Smith's 8 years of averaging low 60s better than that to make him some him such a definitive case for being the second best after Bradman.