Smith V Hayden

[Son Of Coco]

As opposed to using matches against all 8 test-standard sides, home and away, which is ridiculously unfair. Obviously.

Because there was no difference between that Australian attack with Warne, McGrath, Gillespie etc etc and, say for arguments sake, the West Indies (obviously post-Ambrose etc)...I think it's fair to say that if you're making runs against an attack that was consistently the best for quite a while then you're pretty good. If you're playing well against teams with lesser attacks then failing against the better ones (i.e Australia, Pakistan, India in India) then you're inconsistent at best. An average over home and away for 8 teams always needs to be more closely looked at. If you've performed against everyone then there's no questions.

 

[Jono]

Because it so obviously worked, and you're obviously going to go "gee that blokes talks a lot, we'll forget about the rest". What was Nel's tactic? To share the load and bowl crap?

Wasn't Nel the best fast bowler on the tour to Aust?

 

[Burgey]

Because there was no difference between that Australian attack with Warne, McGrath, Gillespie etc etc and, say for arguments sake, the West Indies (obviously post-Ambrose etc)...I think it's fair to say that if you're making runs against an attack that was consistently the best for quite a while then you're pretty good. If you're playing well against teams with lesser attacks then failing against the better ones (i.e Australia, Pakistan, India in India) then you're inconsistent at best. An average over home and away for 8 teams always needs to be more closely looked at. If you've performed against everyone then there's no questions.

I think this must be correct. If you scored runs v Australia in the mid-late 80s, it really wasn't a big deal for top players, whereas to score v WI at that time was obviously a huge deal. Having said that, Smith's is an impressive record, no doubt.
I'd be surprised if he didn't bat well here this summer tbh.
Hayden's on the way out, but at this stage I would rate Hayden ahead of Smith but it's not that easy a comparison. Smith is around his peak and Hayen's pretty much done all he will do in his career. Looking back on Hayden's career, his record is formidable really (despite opinions to the contrary on here). It's a record Smith will do well to emulate, let alone surpass, which isn't a slight on Smith. He may well do it.
Overall: Hayden > Smith
Right now Smith > Hayden

 

[Son Of Coco]

Wasn't Nel the best fast bowler on the tour to Aust?

If he was I certainly wasn't impressed

 

[Son Of Coco]

Overall: Hayden > Smith
Right now Smith > Hayden

I'd agree with that. Although if Smith fails vs Australia this time he has no excuses...in current form I'd back him to do ok too.

 

[Richard]

All he had to do was wait for Slater to implode and he'd get another go in the Test side

Hmm, TBF he just had to wait for Blewett to go. Slater and he batted together at the top for 2 years or so.

It was middle-order batsmen Martyn and Langer who benefited from Slater's imploding.

 

[Richard]

Because it so obviously worked, and you're obviously going to go "gee that blokes talks a lot, we'll forget about the rest". What was Nel's tactic? To share the load and bowl crap?

Nel bowled well against Australia in 2005/06 though.

 

[Richard]

Because there was no difference between that Australian attack with Warne, McGrath, Gillespie etc etc and, say for arguments sake, the West Indies (obviously post-Ambrose etc)...I think it's fair to say that if you're making runs against an attack that was consistently the best for quite a while then you're pretty good. If you're playing well against teams with lesser attacks then failing against the better ones (i.e Australia, Pakistan, India in India) then you're inconsistent at best. An average over home and away for 8 teams always needs to be more closely looked at. If you've performed against everyone then there's no questions.

If you've only performed against the best around and not against anyone else your ability needs to be seriously questioned.

Fortunately such a thing is almost unheard of.

 

[Uppercut]

Because there was no difference between that Australian attack with Warne, McGrath, Gillespie etc etc and, say for arguments sake, the West Indies (obviously post-Ambrose etc)...I think it's fair to say that if you're making runs against an attack that was consistently the best for quite a while then you're pretty good. If you're playing well against teams with lesser attacks then failing against the better ones (i.e Australia, Pakistan, India in India) then you're inconsistent at best. An average over home and away for 8 teams always needs to be more closely looked at. If you've performed against everyone then there's no questions.

Yeah that would be fair enough if it wasn't cutting down the sample size by almost 90%. Smith played about 8 matches against Australia and rarely made the runs, but that's not many matches, it's not enough to say he couldn't. It could simply be the case that a lot of his bad days happened to come against Australia, that he got a disproportionate amount of literally unplayable ones, bad decisions or every mistake led to a dismissal in those games. I don't think this is the case for Smith, but the point still stands.

Also, aussie's suggestion was using game against Australia in Australia, which trims it down so much that it's not viable at all.

Not only that, but the definition of a good batsman isn't one who performs against the best team in the world at that time. Surely fans would prefer a batsman who performs generally well against everyone, rather than fantastically well against Australia and mediocre against everyone else. In truth, a poor record against Australia is just a glitch on a batsman's record, much like Warne in India.

 

[silentstriker]

8 matches is a trend though, at that point it's an actual problem. If someone gets a Test call up, and they fail 3-4 times, they may be given another chance - very few would keep getting chances after failures in 8 Test matches, so I use about 6 matches as the point where I take stats seriously. Obviously its an arbitrary line, but every match adds to it. After 8-10, it's definitely worth quite a bit, for me.

 

[Precambrian]

Yeah that would be fair enough if it wasn't cutting down the sample size by almost 90%. Smith played about 8 matches against Australia and rarely made the runs, but that's not many matches, it's not enough to say he couldn't. It could simply be the case that a lot of his bad days happened to come against Australia, that he got a disproportionate amount of literally unplayable ones, bad decisions or every mistake led to a dismissal in those games. I don't think this is the case for Smith, but the point still stands.

Also, aussie's suggestion was using game against Australia in Australia, which trims it down so much that it's not viable at all.

Not only that, but the definition of a good batsman isn't one who performs against the best team in the world at that time. Surely fans would prefer a batsman who performs generally well against everyone, rather than fantastically well against Australia and mediocre against everyone else. In truth, a poor record against Australia is just a glitch on a batsman's record, much like Warne in India.

Or to be more exact like Ponting's record in India. Puzzling really considering he has'nt been half bad against Murali in his own backyard.

Hope Smithy can put all such doubts to deep sleep with a good show this time.

 

[Richard]

What I always think needs to be remembered about Smith in 2005/06 is that he simply wasn't playing well. At all. Against any opponents. He struggled plenty against New Zealand immediately after (showing his character with an outstanding game at the end of that series but having it better characterised by being caught-and-bowled having got himself in on the flattest pitch you'll see with a massive score just begging to be taken, something he just never does when batting well) and also struggled against India and Pakistan the following summer.

Australia kept him down whereas against other opponents he managed the odd breakout score, but it's not like he was bashing everyone else and doing nothing at all against Australia.

The trouble is, the errors in his game (playing too many defensive shots at balls not aimed at the stumps and to a lesser extent trying to cover-drive too much) have not been cleared-up at all. Australia are almost certain to bowl nowhere near as well in 2008/09 as 2005/06, because their attack is simply inferior. But it's not as if Smith is back to his best form of 2002/03, 2003 and 2003/04 where his technique was penetrable almost only by the inswinger once he'd got in.

 

[aussie]

Also, aussie's suggestion was using game against Australia in Australia, which trims it down so much that it's not viable at all.

Not really. More along the lines of making runs againts Australia circa "95-06/07" really would be the benchmark to judge any player given they where the best team in the world.

Same thing could be said for performances againts the great West Indies side for 19 years too.

Not only that, but the definition of a good batsman isn't one who performs against the best team in the world at that time.

No it isn't yea. But at the end of the day when they retire & we look at their career's especially players of this era who have played on FLAT pitches most of the time & the Australian attack was the only good one. It will be the difference in them being judged as a great player or just a good player surely?

If Inzi or Kallis had better records in Australia they would be rated higher right now..

Surely fans would prefer a batsman who performs generally well against everyone, rather than fantastically well against Australia and mediocre against everyone else.

Well yea, but as i just cleared up i'm not using "making runs in Australia" as a default variable on a batsman just as a benchmark on their overall status.

In truth, a poor record against Australia is just a glitch on a batsman's record, much like Warne in India.

A HUGE glitch that at the end of the day, would be the difference in them being rated as good/very good or great..

 

[aussie]

What I always think needs to be remembered about Smith in 2005/06 is that he simply wasn't playing well. At all. Against any opponents. He struggled plenty against New Zealand immediately after (showing his character with an outstanding game at the end of that series but having it better characterised by being caught-and-bowled having got himself in on the flattest pitch you'll see with a massive score just begging to be taken, something he just never does when batting well) and also struggled against India and Pakistan the following summer.

No he was exposed by Australia. Smith came into the test series with recent test form of smashing a woeful windies attack. Plus even though that was months apart, immediately before that was in good form in an ODI series in IND.

Whatever he did subsequently afterwards as you have highlighted there isn't of much relevance.

Australia kept him down whereas against other opponents he managed the odd breakout score, but it's not like he was bashing everyone else and doing nothing at all against Australia..

Ok, So what did he do againts Australia?

The trouble is, the errors in his game (playing too many defensive shots at balls not aimed at the stumps and to a lesser extent trying to cover-drive too much) have not been cleared-up at all. Australia are almost certain to bowl nowhere near as well in 2008/09 as 2005/06, because their attack is simply inferior. But it's not as if Smith is back to his best form of 2002/03, 2003 and 2003/04 where his technique was penetrable almost only by the inswinger once he'd got in.

Its inferior overall yea, but Lee & Clark in good bowling conditions ATM i can see being too much for him again.

 

[Uppercut]

8 matches is a trend though, at that point it's an actual problem. If someone gets a Test call up, and they fail 3-4 times, they may be given another chance - very few would keep getting chances after failures in 8 Test matches, so I use about 6 matches as the point where I take stats seriously. Obviously its an arbitrary line, but every match adds to it. After 8-10, it's definitely worth quite a bit, for me.

Yeah, 8 matches is a much more notable trend in isolation, so if a player plays 8 tests and fails in all of them it's not likely that he'd improve a great deal. But if a player has 75 tests, and averages in the 20s against Australia as opposed to a career average of over 50, there's always a chance that it was merely anomalous. Not so in Smithy's case IMO, but that's besides the point.

Anyway, i'm not arguing that matches against the best team in the world aren't a useful measure of skill, or even that they shouldn't be given more weighting. More that using a players whole career>>>using the matches that player played against the best team at that time.

 

[Uppercut]

Or to be more exact like Ponting's record in India. Puzzling really considering he has'nt been half bad against Murali in his own backyard.

Hope Smithy can put all such doubts to deep sleep with a good show this time.

I think the fallacy some Indians often fall into with Ponting is that his poor record in India means he's a susceptible player to spin. In truth he's just a susceptible player to Harbhajan and Kumble. Rarely has he ever gotten out to pretty much any other spinner.

 

[IndGunner]

Not only that, but the definition of a good batsman isn't one who performs against the best team in the world at that time. Surely fans would prefer a batsman who performs generally well against everyone, rather than fantastically well against Australia and mediocre against everyone else. In truth, a poor record against Australia is just a glitch on a batsman's record, much like Warne in India.

i guess a certain VVS laxman fits that mould.

 

[Jono]

i guess a certain VVS laxman fits that mould.

Laxman averages 20 vs. Bangladesh

 

[Ikki]

I think the fallacy some Indians often fall into with Ponting is that his poor record in India means he's a susceptible player to spin. In truth he's just a susceptible player to Harbhajan and Kumble. Rarely has he ever gotten out to pretty much any other spinner.

Actually, at home he belts the crap out of Kumble.

It's really weird how Ponting has not succeeded in India. I can't really pin-point why. He's good against spin, he's played in similar conditions before and he's even belted the same team at home.

 

[Precambrian]

Actually, at home he belts the crap out of Kumble.

It's really weird how Ponting has not succeeded in India. I can't really pin-point why. He's good against spin, he's played in similar conditions before and he's even belted the same team at home.

And his failure against Ishant Sharma. A batsman of his calss shouldnt be getting out to a 20 yr old rookie, and that too consistently. Guess, it's called being outdone by some really good bowling.