Give me an example of this and I'll give you three of a slower opener's efforts winning the team a game by just being cautious and making runs consistently while deterring the opposition.
Cricket is about winning, there's no concept of daring here, especially with Hutton who'd make 40(50) or 40(500) if the game so requires. I value that versatility.
You are ignoring like 11-12 series in between in his peak where he is scoring aggressive and picking these examples to make a general statement on Smith the bat. Also notice you don't mention his best series in Ashes 2019 where he is scoring fast.
Sure as a necessary evil. All else equal I am going with bats who have demonstrated consistent aggressiveness since that is the full extent of batsmanship.
can you show me serieses against good bowling/in difficult conditions where Smith maintained a 60+ SR? on the matter of Hutton and Smith, Hutton also just has a longer career and was way more successful once his era became difficult, while Smith happens to have lost his prime when the era became challenging.
there's nothing evil about it bruh, you're acting like a batsmen being versatile is a negative and they should always be monotone.
Yeah it just seems from my perspective you have a fundamental misreading if the game if you don't see how being aggressive can affect the tempo of a game. To me its self evident and there is vast player testimony in this regard.
If in my equation aggressiveness leads to net more positive results, I will value the aggressive top bat over Hutton who is performing the necessary evil of defensive scoring to blunt a new ball.
You are moving goalposts. The point was how does Smith generally score and it's clearly based on his peak aggressive.
I prefer the aggressive bat who can be defensive based on the circumstances to the defensive bat who can be aggressive depending on the circumstances, all else equal.
I think it goes both ways, both Walter Hammond and Herbert Sutcliffe would agree with me so I think I'm in good company regarding that.
They all have inferior output and inferior on difficult wickets though, at most Unless you overvalue aggression, it still won't breach the statistical and completeness gap between a Lara/Smith and a Hutton
he is about as behind the modern day dashers (Root, Brook) as Hutton was behind the old day Dashers (Hammond, Compton), they are gonna have a relatively similar perception.
and what if someone is bad at grinding it out but aggression is their default, and someone is good at aggression but defensive is their default and they are completely situation based?
One should be proud be biased towards his home country.
Would wager they also valued bats who could score freely quicker than others. But even if they didn't, plenty of counter examples.
Different debate. We are assuming equal or close output.
True
Smith isnt seen as a slowpoke nor was he like that in his peak. Hutton was.
Hard to say, would need to look at records and how much they max out with aggressiveness.
Not with their openers, they were more receptive of the idea with their #4 and #5 in Compton, not with their opener, Hammond wasn't receptive of the idea with Compton either.
still the defensive opener is more valuable than the aggressive one, Boycott vs Gooch for example.
Well I don't mind someone being patriotic but I try to reign in nationalistic biases and be objective as possible when arguing as I hope the other also tried to do.
Hutton was not seen as incapable of attacking, the opposite actually, nor was he considered a slow poke, again, different eras, the dashers of the time played at 41 (Compton), 44 (Headley) and 45 (Hammond). All MO bats, ofcourse, a opener being marginally slower than them doesn't make them a slowpoke
Ah well, I'll just take the one with actual versatility
Right so more in line with my views, openers are a necessary exception.
Depends on the player but generally yes defensive openers are more useful in that specific role.
Right so we go back to the argument of general style of play.
Sure. I think we are done with this debate at this point, no?
kind of? not fully though, they'd never deduct points off Hutton for SR.
Ok, so as I always said, Hutton played to his batting role and match situation.
sure
Which I am not blaming him for, but my preferences for top tier will naturally value capacity for consistent aggressiveness over defensiveness.
A 50s English opener will always be better to have a lower SR than a higher one. Think it's common sense.