Steve Smith vs Everton Weekes

[indiaholic]

Should I go around adding 27 centuries to Tendulkar's international tally?

 

[indiaholic]

And it is not a huge weakness or anything. 25 of Lara's 48 half centuries were in the 70-99 range. For Tendulkar it was 35 out of 68.

 

[vcs]

In 2007 alone, Tendulkar must have had around 10-15 90+ scores.

 

[Howe_zat]

75 is not a wasted start. Getting 20 is a waste. 75 is just 75.

The fact that Root is consistent in a lineup full of bad starters like Stokes and Moeen is a trait to be valued.

 

[Slifer]

Sutcliffe 61.66 after 50 tests. Never went below 60, underrated af, 5 best century to match ratio (behind Bradman, Walcott, Smith, Pollock, Weekes.. Younis is actually next after Sutcliffe!)

As in Younis Khan?

 

[Coronis]

As in Younis Khan?

Yes, 33 centuries in 112 tests.

 

[Cabinet96]

Look at who Weekes scored his runs against: Laker, Lock, Bedser and Statham; Lindwall, Miller and Benaud; Fazal Mahmood.

Tbf the majority of Smith's runs have been scored against the likes of Steyn, Philander, Morkel, Anderson, Broad and Yasir Shah, Herath, Ashwin and Jadeja in Asia. He's obviously cashed in against India at home, the West Indies and some poor New Zealand bowling performances, but I'm sure Weekes did to an extent as well. A quick Statsguru shows he scored a third of his test runs against India (averaging over 100).

 

[Gnske]

Weekes was a great and all, but besides being a minnow basher, he was pretty much a home track bully if memory serves me correctly. Hence why he's not in the top tier of great WI batsmen IMHO. May he rest in peace!!!

Oops it seems Sir Everton is very much alive and going strong at 91, disregard the RIP bit...

Posts of the year

 

[Dan]

Tbf the majority of Smith's runs have been scored against the likes of Steyn, Philander, Morkel, Anderson, Broad and Yasir Shah, Herath, Ashwin and Jadeja in Asia. He's obviously cashed in against India at home, the West Indies and some poor New Zealand bowling performances, but I'm sure Weekes did to an extent as well. A quick Statsguru shows he scored a third of his test runs against India (averaging over 100).

Yeah, I think Smith and Weekes both sit in a category where their average of 58 is 'worth' an average of 50 or so for most others, based on being able to cash in (and cash in extremely well -- a skill in and of itself) in favourable conditions/against weak opposition.

Both are still incredibly serious Test match bats -- as evidenced by their worst locational average being ~40 -- but probably aren't 8 runs per wicket better than all their contemporaries averaging ~50.

 

[TNT]

Yeah, I think Smith and Weekes both sit in a category where their average of 58 is 'worth' an average of 50 or so for most others, based on being able to cash in (and cash in extremely well -- a skill in and of itself) in favourable conditions/against weak opposition.

Both are still incredibly serious Test match bats -- as evidenced by their worst locational average being ~40 -- but probably aren't 8 runs per wicket better than all their contemporaries averaging ~50.

There are batsmen that don't play weak opposition and cash in on favourable conditions over a period of 48 test matches.

 

[honestbharani]

In 2007 alone, Tendulkar must have had around 10-15 90+ scores.

Not to forget the agony of 2011 and all those 90s before the 100th 100. I know we are talking tests here but since you brought up 90+ scores...


In b4 OS says 100s are 90+ scores too..

 

[Burgey]

Not to forget the agony of 2011 and all those 90s before the 100th 100. I know we are talking tests here but since you brought up 90+ scores...


In b4 OS says 100s are 90+ scores too..

One of my happiest days watching cricket was sitting in the SCG Members with Jono when Tendulkar got out in the 70s just as he looked like scoring his 100th ton. The disappointment on Jono's face was was magical.

Gave the little **** a standing o, mind you (Tendulkar, not Jono).

 

[stephen]

Yeah, I think Smith and Weekes both sit in a category where their average of 58 is 'worth' an average of 50 or so for most others, based on being able to cash in (and cash in extremely well -- a skill in and of itself) in favourable conditions/against weak opposition.

Both are still incredibly serious Test match bats -- as evidenced by their worst locational average being ~40 -- but probably aren't 8 runs per wicket better than all their contemporaries averaging ~50.

Smith boosting his average by cashing in against weak attacks is a myth. He's cashed in against every attack since 2014 in South Africa (his break through series). He's averaged 58 overseas in that time against all opposition (excluding the west indies - if you add them in his overseas average gets even higher).

He's averaged no less than 40 in any series in any country since 2014.

And he hasn't played against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh.

 

[mr_mister]

yeah even when he has a 'bad' series he still manages to find a way to ton up


really you can't look at his matches played, 100s scored and batting average and still try to claim he's not an awesome batsman

 

[morgieb]

I'm pretty sure Smith has averaged over 40 in every country he's played in against every side. That's pretty impressive.

 

[Red]

There are batsmen that don't play weak opposition and cash in on favourable conditions over a period of 48 test matches.

Who?

 

[mackembhoy]

that is just absurd. Concentrating over long periods of time day in and day out is a fundamental skill for a test batsman. Like many others he will have to learn how to fix that. Saying that he should have had 20 tons by now is honestly just bollocks.

A tad silly I know. It's just for me Root has looked effortless is so many innings and then has gone all KP over it and has got himself out.

When you look that easy at the crease you should be converting. When the bowler doesn't have to get you out you've unperformed.

I think Root has unperformed. Harsh cos the guys amazing. But It's why Kohli/Smith are on a different level at the minute.

 

[TNT]

Who?

Yeah I should of had a question mark at the end of the sentence, it was in response to this post from Dan.

Yeah, I think Smith and Weekes both sit in a category where their average of 58 is 'worth' an average of 50 or so for most others, based on being able to cash in (and cash in extremely well -- a skill in and of itself) in favourable conditions/against weak opposition.

 

[viriya]

Welcome to CW: where not doing well against weak opposition and at home is a sign that the batsman was good.

 

[Dan]

It takes some serious work to be so intentionally dense that my post becomes 'Smith is **** and apparently the best batsmen don't make runs against poor teams'.

I really do not think it is that controversial to suggest that Smith has played a higher proportion of his innings on some of the flattest Australian pitches known to man, than those being compared to him. I really do not think it is that controversial to suggest that Smith has had a couple of factors here and there in his favour, such that a pure average comparison between him and Root/Kohli/Williamson is not the be all and end all of cricketing analysis.

And I love that there's this apparent dichotomy that me saying Smith isn't 8 runs per innings better than his contemporaries means he's actually ****. If anyone genuinely thinks I don't rate Smith, I've got nearly a decade of posting history about how good a batsman I reckon he is. I'm not saying he's a bad batsman. I'm not suggesting he's a home-track bully or **** away from home. I'm not suggesting he can't make runs against good attacks. All I'm suggesting is that a pure career average comparison that puts Smith about 5 runs ahead of any of his contemporaries is not accurate in judging their relative abilities.

I kind of see it like a reverse Cook. People have generally accepted that Cook's career average underplays him somewhat on the basis that a) he opens and b) he bats in England, where conditions are slightly more bowler-friendly than average, and where bowling attacks generally have a clue how to bowl somewhat effectively. Meanwhile Smith bats on Australian pitches, in an era where literally nobody bar the South Africans appear to be able to competently bowl. The average of 58 overplays him slightly relative to his peers IMO; he's not definitively ahead of his contemporaries at this stage.