I won't say that coz he also had the time he was a keeper and was still shuttling around the order with Kallis and Amla being around. I don't think he had figured out his game at the beginning of the decade. Perhaps after the retirement of Smith but not until then for sure.
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.
You've just done the same thing again. You've clearly looked at the scorecards and seen "no Anderson" and decided that the England attack wasn't as good. It was the first time Archer played Tests for England too and I dare say he was more of a challenge to Smith than Anderson would have been.
And again why watching the game also means something more than just stats. Smith has easily been the #1 but he is not a Bradman level ahead of his next best. And the example for that is how good AB has been. I have already made my thoughts overall on Steve Smith clear in some other thread here but this is simply about him having been Bradman-esque. He has been better than everyone but not to those levels yet.
To call Archer a bigger challenge than Anderson... I mean, you did watch what he bowled with the new ball during that 4th test right? In what universe was that any kind of a "challenge"? It's always fun reading your posts where you pretend to be blind to facts to support your bias but you have outdone yourself here.
never change HBROFL.. The mental gymnastics you need to first assume I did not watch the series, which I did and I know its just another fact you refuse to acknowledge as you don't llike it but come on...
Not sure what point you’re trying to make here, you’re marking him down for playing with Hobbs? Besides, he averaged 66 against Australia, over a large sample size, by far the toughest competition of his era.
According to Charles Davis he averaged 164 balls per dismissal, the same as Bradman, more than anyone else in history. Of course, the difference between Bradman and the rest of the great batsmen during his career was that he had a strike rate around 60, where none of the other 50+ batsmen had a strike rate above about 45. (Maybe Hobbs but I can’t find his anywhere, and I presume his pre-war SR would’ve been higher than afterwards).
England had Anderson last time Australia toured and he made runs then.
Balls per dismissal should be used more than it is as a statistic imo. I'd like to see it right next to average and strike rate in career stats on cricinfo.
Pretty good point, this. Be worth having it there imo
Assuming their balls faced stat is accurate on cricinfo (surely they’ve been counted properly since 2010) for comparison, Smith has a SR of 55.3 and averages 114 balls per dismissal, whilst Kohli has a SR of 57.8 and averages 95 balls per dismissal. Comparing to Bradman, who had a SR of 61-62 and averaged 164 balls per dismissal.
You are free to your opinions but what was his average when Anderson did play in England and he played against them? And how much better was the next best? That is what I meant by context. I am not disputing he was great, just that the level of greatness argument based on that series has to factor in an obvious thing like Anderson missing the entire series and England playing the entire opening test their best bowler down and a 4 man attack.
In the 2010’s, SR of 55.7, averaging 103 balls per dismissal.
Yeah, can give you a good idea of a batsman's survivability. In isolation it definitely has more value than strike rate as a statistic imo. I should start a petition for stats sites to include this.
