Putting Smith and KP level. Feels like English bias, but feel like Smith averaging 34 at home excluding two minnow attacks and one that was almost minnow level is an understated problem. In contrast to Hayden, who’s weaknesses are exceptionally well-documented.I’ll go:
They’re all same tier though and evenly matched imo. Any order is probably reasonable. Clarke doesn’t deserve to be last but someone has to be.
I think most people are taking this into account and giving it a fair weightingSo, for me there is an unfair aspect of this comparison, which is that 1 of the 4 is an opener. To me, facing the first new ball of the innings, is the most consistently repeated sort of challenge that batsmen have to face. For this reason I think it should add a certain amount of runs to their average.
Yeah this is fair. And KP played 10 tests against McWarne, not a small sample.The reason Pietersen is better then Smith is because Pietersen averaged over 50 vs Warne & McGrath. Whereas Smith was very dismissal.
Australia with McGrath and Warne were the benchmark team of their era. So performances against them should be heavily skewed in how a player is viewed.
Smith only had success against Australia after McGrath and Warne retired. He only averaged 22 vs Australia in South Africa.
Pietersen at certain times also dominated the likes of Muralitharan and Steyn. Can't recall any great bowler that Smith ever dominated.
Smith scoring runs against weak overseas attacks like England, New Zealand, etc isn't as impressive and is overblown.