4 & 5

[subshakerz]

3 years from now, I very much doubt Smith will be averaging over 60.

It doesn’t need mumbo jumbo about bodies of work or context adjustment of stats. It just takes a bit of common sense to realise how good Smith is.

Nobody contests he is best of this decade. Calling someone the best since Bradman is a big claim though and the only way he can cement that is showing his dominance over a large period of time. And his form has already shown signs of returning to merely good rather than godly.

 

[trundler]

He doesn't need to average 60. He rarely goes missing like Tendulkar and has incredible series like Lara.

 

[subshakerz]

He doesn't need to average 60. He rarely goes missing like Tendulkar and has incredible series like Lara.

How a modern day batsman handle their post-peak phase determines somewhat how they get rated in the end. Some like Lara and Tendulkar are good enough to have a second peak. Viv declined slowly while Ponting declined a bit quicker.

Kohli and perhaps Smith are both in post-peak phase now and it will be interesting to see how they end up doing a few years from now.

 

[kyear2]

He doesn't need to average 60. He rarely goes missing like Tendulkar and has incredible series like Lara.

I tend to agree. If he's still averaging 60 in 3 to 5 years, then it's no longer even a conversation. At least when it comes to the question of this thread.

And if he doesn't, he's still in the conversation with Viv, Lara, Sachin and Sir Garry.. not bad at all

 

[Flem274*]

Smith, if he retired today, would be a very debateable batsman in general regarding his standing among the greats. You could argue for anywhere from top handful to 'normal' ATG.

As it stands he has been the #1 batsman of his era in a strong bowling period where he has thoroughly outplayed the other 3 ATGs of his generation. You can't take that away from him.

Australia without Smith and Cummins would be...interesting. #1 batsman and bowler, then two ATVG players in Haze and Warner, Starc and Lyon are good....below that it gets interesting doesn't it. Having the big dogs of your time makes such a difference and covers so much. You don't need solidity from 1-11 to be in the top 4 if you can pull Smith and Cummins out of your arse.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not when you adjust for era and relative ease of Aussie pitches specifically now vs then

Smith averages 60 playing away, "relative ease of Aussie pitches" is clearly not a factor

 

[Bolo.]

Smith averages 60 playing away, "relative ease of Aussie pitches" is clearly not a factor

His away average (57, not 60) is outstanding even by ATG standards. But this doesn't change the fact that his record is boosted by averaging 68 on easy home pitches.

See ABDV, who averaged nearly the same away and was light years ahead of Smith in matches they played together, but doesn't enter top tier conversations on account of not scoring heavily enough on tough home pitches.

 

[TheJediBrah]

His away average (57, not 60) is outstanding even by ATG standards. But this doesn't change the fact that his record is boosted by averaging 68 on easy home pitches.

See ABDV, who averaged nearly the same away and was light years ahead of Smith in matches they played together, but doesn't enter top tier conversations on account of not scoring heavily enough on tough home pitches.

AB was very good, but never in the same league as Smith. Yes btw I gamed the system a bit very specifically ignoring "neutral" venues to bump him up to 60 "playing away", worded very carefully.

Averaging more on home pitches is not unusual in any case, regardless if they are "easy" pitches or not. Smith averaging 68 at home v 61 in total is not a big difference. His own contemporaries Kohli and Williamson have way bigger differences in home v away average, and hence their "records are boosted" by home conditions more than Smith's are.

 

[Coronis]

It doesn’t need mumbo jumbo about bodies of work or context adjustment of stats. It just takes a bit of common sense to realise how good Smith is.

Common sense, sadly not so common these days.

 

[Bolo.]

AB was very good, but never in the same league as Smith. Yes btw I gamed the system a bit very specifically ignoring "neutral" venues to bump him up to 60 "playing away", worded very carefully.

Averaging more on home pitches is not unusual in any case, regardless if they are "easy" pitches or not. Smith averaging 68 at home v 61 in total is not a big difference. His own contemporaries Kohli and Williamson have way bigger differences in home v away average, and hence their "records are boosted" by home conditions more than Smith's are.

Averaging more at home is normal. The 40 home, 60 away guys that Aus have been producing this century are not. It is clearly a remarkably easy place to bat for home bats (yip, this is a thing. The country rewards bowlers who utilise bounce well better than most other places, but is bad for swing and flatter spin, which is most foreign bowlers).

Smiths split is fine. The fact that it is fine indicates either he has underperformed at home or overperfomed away relative to the quality of player he is. He is ridiculously far ahead of the other modern Aus bats away, and only slightly so at home.

Say he had been South African and (to be remarkably generous) averaged 57 at home, which would be the highest home average in many decades, 10 clear of the second best average (of more than 1 innings), and a really good split by RSA standards with all the recent top bats averaging similarly home/away or better away. Would he be rated so highly? I doubt it. Plenty of people have managed this type of career average over much longer periods of playing before declining, and most of these include getting their stats butchered by playing a lot while young and relatively poor, instead of getting dropped.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Averaging more at home is normal. The 40 home, 60 away guys that Aus have been producing this century are not. It is clearly a remarkably easy place to bat for home bats (yip, this is a thing. The country rewards bowlers who utilise bounce well better than most other places, but is bad for swing and flatter spin, which is most foreign bowlers).

Smiths split is fine. The fact that it is fine indicates either he has underperformed at home or overperfomed away relative to the quality of player he is. He is ridiculously far ahead of the other modern Aus bats away, and only slightly so at home.

Say he had been South African and (to be remarkably generous) averaged 57 at home, which would be the highest home average in many decades, 10 clear of the second best average (of more than 1 innings), and a really good split by RSA standards with all the recent top bats averaging similarly home/away or better away. Would he be rated so highly? I doubt it. Plenty of people have managed this type of career average over much longer periods of playing before declining, and most of these include getting their stats butchered by playing a lot while young and relatively poor, instead of getting dropped.

You're really stretching. This is the "Hilfenhaus would have 500 test wickets if he was English" or "Jimmy Anderson would not have played tests if he was Australian" kind of logic.

Smith wouldn't be rated any less highly. He already averages more away than any contemporaries and his overall record is not owed to home conditions any more than most others, actually less than a lot of them.

 

[Burgey]

But Anderson wouldn't have played any test if he was Australian. Everyone knows that.

 

[Bolo.]

You're really stretching. This is the "Hilfenhaus would have 500 test wickets if he was English" or "Jimmy Anderson would not have played tests if he was Australian" kind of logic.

Smith wouldn't be rated any less highly. He already averages more away than any contemporaries and his overall record is not owed to home conditions any more than most others, actually less than a lot of them.

Your example is an utter non sequitur. See Warner is you dont understand what I am talking about. Or 2000s Lanka.

There is a reason why Smith is rated ahead of, for example, AB, and it is the fact that he averages 20 more at home. The fact that Smith played in a tougher era notwithstanding, nobody would sensibly rate Smiths away performances ahead of ABs. What would Smith have averaged at the age of 21 if, instead of being dropped, he had been forced to open like AB? 10?

Would AB have averaged 68 home in Smiths boots? I doubt it, but it would have been a big number. Would Smith have averaged 47 in ABs? Who knows, but it would have been nowhere near 68.

And I am using an example of a player not considered even good enough to make this poll.

Smiths real peak was 4 calender years when he averaged something like 60 away. Kallis had a peak 4 calender years averaging about 80 away, and still ended with an overall average for the period a couple of runs lower than Smith. I'm not going to pretend I think Kallis peaked as hard as Smith (bowling quality, flat away pitches, pacing an innings etc.), but you cant handwave the home conditions advantage away.

 

[ataraxia]

But Anderson wouldn't have played any test if he was Australian. Everyone knows that.

yeah, we all do know that Australia ruins quality bowlers

 

[_00_deathscar]

I think the folly is in thinking Smith is already a clear #2. He isn't.

There's a (very) good chance he might become that once he hangs up his cricket gear (or whatever it is cricketers do with their gear) a few years down the line of further sustained excellent, but we can only wait and see on that front.

If he retired now, he wouldn't be a clear #2 either because of his relatively smaller (albeit ridiculously excellent) period of work in relation to others who have played 2x (and in some cases even more) more than he has.

 

[Burgey]

Indeed. Anderson's lack of quality would ensure he never got a game.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Your example is an utter non sequitur. See Warner is you dont understand what I am talking about. Or 2000s Lanka.

What other Australian players did or any one else is irrelevant. You're drawing erroneous conclusions from irrelevant data. If you really want to push it, all Smith's average in Australia tells me (as someone that has watched nearly every innings live) is that he does what is needed without bullying and capitalising when it's not necessary. This has been one of the hallmarks of his career, he's the opposite of a downhill skiier, throws his wicket away toward the end of an innings or nearing a declaration without a care. Comes in at 2-10 in the 2019 Ashes every innings and averages 100. Then the next summer on home roads against NZ and Pak comes in at 2-300 and averages 40. If he was more like Warner and bullied weak teams on flat tracks then who knows maybe he'd average way more at home. That's why his average in Australia isn't as much higher than his overseas average as you would think.

 

[sunilz]

Home average:68
Away average : 57
Now difference of 11 is not much .
These pearls of wisdom can be heard only from Steve Smith Fans.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Home average:68
Away average : 57
Now difference of 11 is not much .
These pearls of wisdom can be heard only from Steve Smith Fans.

11 is nothing these days

Virat Kohli
Home average: 64
Away average : 43
Difference of 21

Kane Williamson:
Home average: 65
Away average : 41
Difference of 24

 

[sunilz]

11 is nothing these days

Virat Kohli
Home average: 64
Away average : 43
Difference of 21

Kane Williamson:
Home average: 65
Away average : 41
Difference of 24

So , you are comparing Smith to Kohli and Williamson . I doubt anyone rates them as top 15 Test batsman ever let alone no.2