Steve Smith vs Everton Weekes

[Dan]

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

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

Like, seriously, read what I actually wrote.

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 is literally no way you can read that and come to the conclusion that I'm trying to claim he's not an awesome batsman. You don't average 58 in Test cricket and average 40 everywhere (ok, fine, Weekes' worst was 39.66 or something close enough) without being an awesome batsman.

 

[DriveClub]

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.

True some people aren't able to comprehend such simple concepts

 

[TNT]

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.

It all evens out in the long run, especially after 50 odd test matches. But that would be an interesting theory to apply to the bowlers also, would you reduce the Australian bowlers averages to account for these flat wickets. would you say for instance that Lyon should have his average dropped by 8 runs when comparing against other spin bowlers from say India. I'm not knocking your opinion but exploring how far it extends and is it just applicable to Smith.

 

[Dan]

I just think that the statistics need to be placed into proper context tbh. Same as how people tend to recognise that Voges isn't the second best batsman of all time, or that Sangakkara vs Tendulkar is an actual debate rather than a clearly-defined eight run difference (to use two examples, without wanting to get caught up in those particular discussions).

 

[Coronis]

I just think that the statistics need to be placed into proper context tbh. Same as how people tend to recognise that Voges isn't the second best batsman of all time, or that Sangakkara vs Tendulkar is an actual debate rather than a clearly-defined eight run difference (to use two examples, without wanting to get caught up in those particular discussions).

Calling Voges to return for Maddinson.

 

[TNT]

I just think that the statistics need to be placed into proper context tbh. Same as how people tend to recognise that Voges isn't the second best batsman of all time, or that Sangakkara vs Tendulkar is an actual debate rather than a clearly-defined eight run difference (to use two examples, without wanting to get caught up in those particular discussions).

Stats are simply a record of what a player has done. I don't think that there should be a mutilation of stats to make a players standing conform to a system of ranking each player against one another. I agree that the ranking system used by the ICC is not absolute.

I'm not criticizing you for having that opinion but to me its just creating a scenario to achieve a desired outcome. In other words stats don't rank players and you cant adjust them to make it work.

 

[Red]

I just think that the statistics need to be placed into proper context tbh. Same as how people tend to recognise that Voges isn't the second best batsman of all time, or that Sangakkara vs Tendulkar is an actual debate rather than a clearly-defined eight run difference (to use two examples, without wanting to get caught up in those particular discussions).

I'd hope most people around here understand this. It's one of the things I like about CW.

Stats need context.

 

[Dan]

Stats are simply a record of what a player has done. I don't think that there should be a mutilation of stats to make a players standing conform to a system of ranking each player against one another. I agree that the ranking system used by the ICC is not absolute.

I'm not criticizing you for having that opinion but to me its just creating a scenario to achieve a desired outcome. In other words stats don't rank players and you cant adjust them to make it work.

Yeah, exactly. I agree with you completely on this. Stats record what actually happened in real life, with all its messy variables and playing fields that are far from level. Read in a vacuum, they mean nothing -- if I walk up to my girlfriend and say "Don Bradman averaged 99.94 in Test cricket", her reaction would be along the lines of "that means nothing to me. Is that good?" Only when I introduce the context of the next highest batsman in history averaging about 60 does it have meaning.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a 'mutilation of stats', but if you're referring to my back-of-the-envelope calculation that Smith's now-59 is equivalent to Root's 54 or Williamson's 49 or Kohli's 51, I'm not meaning it in a literal sense. I'm meaning that they're all about as good as one another, and I don't think Smith is 5-10 runs ahead of the pack as a batsman. I'm not meaning to dispute the record of what he's actually done.

The idea that stats don't rank players is the crux of my argument. I'm not attempting to alter the stats to make it work, I'm trying to illustrate that very point!

 

[Daemon]

stats don't rank players and you cant adjust them to make it work.

It really comes down to this doesn't it.

They can sort of help you group players when adjusted well enough, but ultimately there's just too many intangibles involved in each run and wicket to dissect players with very similar records.

 

[Bijed]

I do wonder if we'll ever see some kind of computer program that just absorbs all the data in existence about cricket and runs an unbelievably in depth analysis to statistically rank players after considering literally every factor there is. Would be interesting, though of course a lot of the data would be missing for older players.

 

[Dan]

I can't wait to see whether it thinks Michael Vandort (1144 @ 36.90) is better than Jack Gregory (1146 @ 36.96) based on a comparison of runs scored on an overseas greentop during an overcast Wednesday featuring a rain delay, while on a suboptimal amount of sleep.

I'd also like to see the computer control for food poisoning in India while comparing Jonty Rhodes (2532 @ 35.66) and Sadiq Mohammad (2579 @ 35.81).

And damn, I'm sure the computer could give us a definitive answer on that most unsolvable of quandaries: Marcus North (1171 @ 35.48) vs Arthur Shrewsbury Jr (1277 @ 35.47) vs Graeme Fowler (1307 @ 35.32). I'm sure that runs scored while feeling a little bit flu-y during a long northern winter will come into play, and the quality of decks and attacks certainly vary.

 

[honestbharani]

There will surely be an awesome algorithm that tells you why Murali Vijay is the #1 opener in the world..



And you would still argue against a freakin' computer.

 

[Burgey]

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.

Nah **** that. TPC über alles.