DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[stephen]

Not saying you are wrong, but the style of batting matters too. Sachin's technique was exceptional, his shot making exceptional. Smith is nowhere on Sachin's level on those counts.

Run machine wise, sure.

Technique is for coaches. Tendulkar had probably the best classical technique but runs trump technique every day of the week.

 

[harsh.ag]

Technique is for coaches. Tendulkar had probably the best classical technique but runs trump technique every day of the week.

No, it is also for watchability. Though that is, of course, subjective.

 

[h_hurricane]

For once, agree with Stephen. Sanjay Manjrekar too had a classical technique but we all know he was a **** player. You need to find a way to score runs regardless of how you bat and Smith is a master of it.

 

[Logan]

Technique doesn’t matter as long as one can score runs. Steven Smith has had the best 75 Test run for any batsman ever. Unless his form drops drastically and his average plunges to mid-50s, he will finish his career as the greatest batsman post-WW 2.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Technique doesn’t matter as long as one can score runs. Steven Smith has had the best 75 Test run for any batsman ever. Unless his form drops drastically and his average plunges to mid-50s, he will finish his career as the greatest batsman post-WW 2.

This post is contradictory. A lot of Steve Smith's success is owing to his sensational self-developed technique. I think what you mean to say is that a classical technique doesn't matter as long as you score runs.

 

[ataraxia]

5th best? May I just ask which of Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Hutton he’s above if you already have Grace up there

What do you expect? Sutcliffe on his own without Hobbs isn't as good as Barrington IMO.

 

[Logan]

This post is contradictory. A lot of Steve Smith's success is owing to his sensational self-developed technique. I think what you mean to say is that a classical technique doesn't matter as long as you score runs.

When I wrote technique, I meant the “classical technique” that we commonly refer to.

 

[Logan]

From what I have read, Sutcliffe was exceptionally difficult to get out. Sutcliffe was actually better when the going got tough and earned his reputation as a performer for big match situations. Even Bradman said Sutcliffe had the best temperament for any batsman he has ever seen. If I am not mistaken, Sutcliffe never averaged below 60 in his entire career. Sutcliffe took the least innings to 1000 runs and retired as the highest century maker in Tests.

 

[trundler]

Also was a great player of fast bowling who hooked and pulled ferociously. Apparently being a complete bore puts people off everything else.

 

[vcs]

TBF, AB averages 57 or 58 in the past decade, the same period where Smith averages 63 and AB has done it playing his home games on the RSA wickets which are easily much much harder to make scores on than the Aussie roads. So while he has been amazing and it is astounding that he is maintaining a test average of 60+ for a while now, there have been periods of similar consistency and achievements from other players. Smith was also a bit like Hussey in the sense that the period he spent figuring out his game as a batsman happened away from the international scene, something that did not happen with blokes like Sachin, Kohli, AB or KW.

This is a good point.

 

[honestbharani]

I agree we've seen similar periods of brilliance but essentially Smith's entire career has been brilliant. And he hasn't really played the weaker teams too often either: SL at home, WI, Bang. I've never seen a player so consistently dominant against challenging attacks: india in India, England in England, runs vs Steyn, Morkel and Philander in RSA etc.

Well, again, not that he has not been brilliant, but his runs in England this season were without Anderson and esp. with a 3 man seam attack from England at home during that first test. He has runs but not so much more than the next best in RSA. Its only India in India where has been truly dominant compared to AB. I am not trying to say he has not been the best, I am just saying the next best is not as far off him as you may think at least for the last decade. Its really a very small thing but when the person you are being compared with is Bradman, these things have to be brought up.

Then again, the very fact that we can even consider them slightly comparable is credit to Smith and how good he has been though.

 

[honestbharani]

I felt like this at the time but thinking about it now, I dont know that Rahane and Rohit wouldve done well if theyd come into the team earlier.

They may have gotten to their fall period sooner but I do think they would have had longer careers and therefore learned more and reached their prime at this level quicker than they have. Also, still think they would have given us more than Sachin even in those two years.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well, again, not that he has not been brilliant, but his runs in England this season were without Anderson and esp. with a 3 man seam attack from England at home during that first test.

I can tell you didn't watch much, if any, of those matches. The First Test (especially second innings) was the only time that England's bowling wasn't deadly that series, and batting conditions were not easy all series. There's a reason no one else made many runs.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah HB, that’s a very poor take on his Ashes series tbh.

Anyway, presumably Tendulkar next in this list. Certainly not a top tenner imho.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think the SA is tougher to bat in argument has some truth to it but it rings a bit hollow in this case because AB only scored 4 tons away from home the whole decade. I don't think a smith vs ab comparison is particularly close tbh, the difference in average might even undersell how amazing Smith has been. The guy's scored literally twice the number of tons.

 

[honestbharani]

I can tell you didn't watch much, if any, of those matches. The First Test (especially second innings) was the only time that England's bowling wasn't deadly that series, and batting conditions were not easy all series. There's a reason no one else made many runs.

ROFL.. If you think the lack of Anderson in those conditions does not make a difference, there is not much cricket to be talked with you. And FWIW, I did watch the entire series, if only to feel vindicated about my call on Labuschagne. And coz England is usually a good watching zone both in India and the US.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This is a good point.

Is it relevant in a Smith vs AB comparison? AB's time figuring out his game as a batsman happened outside the decade itself.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah HB, that’s a very poor take on his Ashes series tbh.

Anyway, presumably Tendulkar next in this list. Certainly not a top tenner imho.

What is a poor take? I am not denying he was in God mode and made the difference to retaining the Ashes (with help from Marnus)... You really need to read what I wrote there. He has been great in England but not as much as the numbers indicate because to me playing England without Anderson is the same as playing India at home without Ashwin. There are other gun bowlers around but the one who is missing is at a different level and hence the challenge is, whether you like it or not, lesser. Again, when the comparison is with Bradman,the small things matter too, as I said earlier.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think the SA is tougher to bat in argument has some truth to it

never seems to be a factor when rating SA bowlers though. Do you mark them down because it's easier to bowl in SA?

 

[vcs]

Is it relevant in a Smith vs AB comparison? AB's time figuring out his game as a batsman happened outside the decade itself.

Probably not in this context, but overall a fair point I think.

His one-year ban was also timely, saved him from having to face the Indian attack.