Graeme Smith vs Kevin Pietersen - better test batsman?

[Spooony]

Haha! Self perpetuating myth regarding KP that. He is actually the best among current english batters scoring consistently high scores and not giving away wicket cheaply. Just that people remember KP's failure better because of all the brouhaha surrounding him but statistically that is not true.

What? Test match cricket is not about high scores. Its about accessing the situation. Let me give you a example. SA vs Eng some ions ago. England had to survive the last day for a draw which Atherton and Jack Russell were the heroes in saving it. One of Athertons best innings yet its one of the slowest send boring centuries ever. But Atherton thought sbout the team by batting the day out when there was no chance of winning and saved the match. Scoring a 150 from 150 balls and get out exposes lesser batsman and you lose the match.

Shahid Afridi the same. Still couple of runs behind Englands total he came in and 2nd ball out after slogging the first for 4. Instead of hanging in there ticking time over they try and smash record fast cameo's when the amount of runs is less of importance than the time spent at the crease. Brian Lara saved the Windies like that numerous times by occupying the crease long amounts of times. After all that's what test match batting is mostly about.

One dayers its different as a quick cameo can win you through game where time is much less shorter.

 

[L Trumper]

What? Test match cricket is not about high scores. Its about accessing the situation.

 

[Spooony]

2nd Test: South Africa v England at Johannesburg, Nov 30-Dec 4, 1995 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

What? Test match cricket is not about high scores. Its about accessing the situation. Let me give you a example. SA vs Eng some ions ago. England had to survive the last day for a draw which Atherton and Jack Russell were the heroes in saving it. One of Athertons best innings yet its one of the slowest send boring centuries ever. But Atherton thought sbout the team by batting the day out when there was no chance of winning and saved the match. Scoring a 150 from 150 balls and get out exposes lesser batsman and you lose the match.

Shahid Afridi the same. Still couple of runs behind Englands total he came in and 2nd ball out after slogging the first for 4. Instead of hanging in there ticking time over they try and smash record fast cameo's when the amount of runs is less of importance than the time spent at the crease. Brian Lara saved the Windies like that numerous times by occupying the crease long amounts of times. After all that's what test match batting is mostly about.

One dayers its different as a quick cameo can win you through game where time is much less shorter.

There is a world of difference between someone like Afridi and Pietersen. Pietersen gets his runs in fairly quick time and tries to dominate an attack not by "slogging". There is a method in his counter attack. Yes, occupying the crease and playing lesser risk shots are important but for some batsmen playing aggressively is their best form of defense and Pietersen is one of them. Also it's not like he comes in and just tries to bang, bang and bang; a strike rate of 63 for a batsman whose average is around 50 suggests that he also occupies the crease for fair bit as well e.g. 158 (257), 115 (223), 202*(326) etc. The game is changing every day and there is nothing wrong as Pietersen tries to play his natural game and impose pressure on opposition straight away. Some of the best knocks in test cricket came in quick time- Bradman 270 (375), McCabe 232 (277) etc, so sometimes scoring with authority is required as well.

Some batsmen are successful by occupying the crease for longer period of time and some batsmen are successful by stroke-making including higher risky shots although they will give more chance to the opposition for picking their wickets but that's just the way they play. The part where I agree with you is that if a situation arises where a batsman is required to bat out a whole day and if he throws his wicket away by blind slogging, that's not on the cards then. But Pietersen is far away from that.

 

[Spooony]

There is a world of difference between someone like Afridi and Pietersen. Pietersen gets his runs in fairly quick time and tries to dominate an attack not by "slogging". There is a method in his counter attack. Yes, occupying the crease and playing lesser risk shots are important but for some batsmen playing aggressively is their best form of defense and Pietersen is one of them. Also it's not like he comes in and just tries to bang, bang and bang; a strike rate of 63 for a batsman whose average is around 50 suggests that he also occupies the crease for fair bit as well e.g. 158 (257), 115 (223), 202*(326) etc. The game is changing every day and there is nothing wrong as Pietersen tries to play his natural game and impose pressure on opposition straight away. Some of the best knocks in test cricket came in quick time- Bradman 270 (375), McCabe 232 (277) etc, so sometimes scoring with authority is required as well.

Some batsmen are successful by occupying the crease for longer period of time and some batsmen are successful by stroke-making including higher risky shots although they will give more chance to the opposition for picking their wickets but that's just the way they play. The part where I agree with you is that if a situation arises where a batsman is required to bat out a whole day and if he throws his wicket away by blind slogging, that's not on the cards then. But Pietersen is far away from that.

Chasing 198 to win against Pakistan he was caught after a horrible slog on 19 and England lost the test by 22 runs

Against India in 2006 he gave his wicket away on 64 England lost the test.

Against Sri Lanka top edged a sweep shot while on 41
South Africa first test he threw his his wicket away when England were trying to save the match

I can pull up numerous situations like that. Tell me what is so good about scoring a ton in record time only to lose because you did not bat intelligently and try and preserved your wicket getting the team through the day? There Atherthon scored a slow 186 way slower but he did that for the team saving that match. If you do not get it now you never will

 

[Satyanash89]

Chasing 198 to win against Pakistan he was caught after a horrible slog on 19 and England lost the test by 22 runs

Against India in 2006 he gave his wicket away on 64 England lost the test.

Against Sri Lanka top edged a sweep shot while on 41
South Africa first test he threw his his wicket away when England were trying to save the match

I can pull up numerous situations like that. Tell me what is so good about scoring a ton in record time only to lose because you did not bat intelligently and try and preserved your wicket getting the team through the day? There Atherthon scored a slow 186 way slower but he did that for the team saving that match. If you do not get it now you never will

you just dont get it... citing incidents where he throws his wicket away (according to you) proves nothing... if youre trying to prove hes a slogger who plays rash irresponsible idiotic shots you're getting nowhere. I could cite multiple instances where he's single handedly put England in a commanding position but i wont. Since youre rambling on about how he cant save the match for his side, did you not see his maiden hundred?
First test hundred in the deciding test of the best ashes series ever to rescue England from a precarious position against Warne in peak form... doesnt get better than that. Consuming deliveries is well and good but Pietersen and Ponting in Manchester 2005 showed you can play your natural game to save a match too... cant believe you dont understand such a simple concept

 

[harsh.ag]

Chasing 198 to win against Pakistan he was caught after a horrible slog on 19 and England lost the test by 22 runs

Against India in 2006 he gave his wicket away on 64 England lost the test.

Against Sri Lanka top edged a sweep shot while on 41
South Africa first test he threw his his wicket away when England were trying to save the match

I can pull up numerous situations like that. Tell me what is so good about scoring a ton in record time only to lose because you did not bat intelligently and try and preserved your wicket getting the team through the day? There Atherthon scored a slow 186 way slower but he did that for the team saving that match. If you do not get it now you never will

Completely agree with AndyZaltzHair and Satyanash89. I think you are missing out on a crucial point here. Pietersen does not throw his wicket away. He is an aggressive batsman. There is a difference. And there are more than 5 possible ways to win a match that way. Add to that the fact that you don't rank a batsman lower than what he should be ranked because his teammates were a bunch of nitwits (Not saying the other English batsmen are, of course not. In fact the English batting line up is quite strong, and hence this argument of exposing lesser batsmen in Pietersen's case is even more silly.)

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Chasing 198 to win against Pakistan he was caught after a horrible slog on 19 and England lost the test by 22 runs

Against India in 2006 he gave his wicket away on 64 England lost the test.

Against Sri Lanka top edged a sweep shot while on 41
South Africa first test he threw his his wicket away when England were trying to save the match

I can pull up numerous situations like that. Tell me what is so good about scoring a ton in record time only to lose because you did not bat intelligently and try and preserved your wicket getting the team through the day? There Atherthon scored a slow 186 way slower but he did that for the team saving that match. If you do not get it now you never will

 

[uvelocity]

 

[vic_orthdox]

Haha! Self perpetuating myth regarding KP that. He is actually the best among current english batters scoring consistently high scores and not giving away wicket cheaply. Just that people remember KP's failure better because of all the brouhaha surrounding him but statistically that is not true.

But he's referring to how he gets out, not what he is on when he gets out.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

But he's referring to how he gets out, not what he is on when he gets out.

Yep, the stupid slogs trying to get a 6 to reach a landmark and so on that he has done on numerous occasions when he is playing really well and should play for the team rather than his ego. His reaction is always "It's the way I play" hasn't learnt though by mistakes over the years.

 

[smash84]

 

[kingkallis]

No matter what people say - Smith > KP in tests

The guy never loses when he scores a ton and he has scored when his team needed him the most.

 

[harsh.ag]

A lot of argument has been on the lines that batsmen like Smith win the day through grit and staying on the crease when the team needs to save the match or is chasing a big total etc. That is completely true, yes. But aggressive batsmen like Pietersen also win the match and do not seem to get the same credit. The difference is that they usually win it either on the 1st/2nd day, or do it in such style on the later days that no one notices that the team was in trouble in the first place. I remember having a talk with a friend once who was saying that Dravid was better than Tendulkar because "he played well when India was in trouble". I asked him: When Sachin's at the crease, do you even for a moment feel that India are in trouble. Of course not. We define "India being in trouble" as Sachin having gotten out. If that is the case, how can he get us out of trouble. Similarly, if England are struggling but KP is on song, the situation doesn't seem that bad. It's only when he gets out does everyone suddenly realize how much trouble England is in.

 

[grecian]

A lot of argument has been on the lines that batsmen like Smith win the day through grit and staying on the crease when the team needs to save the match or is chasing a big total etc. That is completely true, yes. But aggressive batsmen like Pietersen also win the match and do not seem to get the same credit. The difference is that they usually win it either on the 1st/2nd day, or do it in such style on the later days that no one notices that the team was in trouble in the first place. I remember having a talk with a friend once who was saying that Dravid was better than Tendulkar because "he played well when India was in trouble". I asked him: When Sachin's at the crease, do you even for a moment feel that India are in trouble. Of course not. We define "India being in trouble" as Sachin having gotten out. If that is the case, how can he get us out of trouble. Similarly, if England are struggling but KP is on song, the situation doesn't seem that bad. It's only when he gets out does everyone suddenly realize how much trouble England is in.

It's an argument that some make, but there's been plenty of arguments to say an aggressive batsman is better for the team.

Smith does both IMHO, his strike-rate certainly isn't bad considering all the time he would have had to grind against the new ball against fresh bowlers at their best. There's only a boundary in a 100 balls difference anyway. He's quite capable of taking the game away from teams. We're not talking Boycott v Viv here.

I find both of them inelegant to watch myself, would much rather watch Amla and Bell.

 

[vic_orthdox]

A lot of argument has been on the lines that batsmen like Smith win the day through grit and staying on the crease when the team needs to save the match or is chasing a big total etc. That is completely true, yes. But aggressive batsmen like Pietersen also win the match and do not seem to get the same credit. The difference is that they usually win it either on the 1st/2nd day, or do it in such style on the later days that no one notices that the team was in trouble in the first place. I remember having a talk with a friend once who was saying that Dravid was better than Tendulkar because "he played well when India was in trouble". I asked him: When Sachin's at the crease, do you even for a moment feel that India are in trouble. Of course not. We define "India being in trouble" as Sachin having gotten out. If that is the case, how can he get us out of trouble. Similarly, if England are struggling but KP is on song, the situation doesn't seem that bad. It's only when he gets out does everyone suddenly realize how much trouble England is in.

Yes, that would apply between KP and another middle order batsman (say AB DeV) but we're talking about Smith here. When he makes runs, they are never in trouble, he's got it sorted.

Smith controls cricket games and snuffs sides out. He's a giant, physically and metaphorically in each game he plays.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Interesting one. I would have said Pietersen a few years ago, mainly because I felt he played higher quality attacks better than Smith. Smith was an absolute failure against Mcgrath, Warne etc while Pietersen did very well against them in his 2 ashes series home and away.

However, it's Smith who has played the more crucial innings and responded better to pressure than Pietersen in the last 5 years. Pietersen's stock went down significantly in the UAE series against Pakistan. He was unable to buy a run against a 2 quality spinners and couldn't respond to the pressure and for me that was forgotten all to0 easily when he made a brilliant 150 against a weaker SL attack after the top 3 had already piled on the runs.

Overall I'd have Smith just ahead.