Where will Steve Smith end up being ranked?

[SillyCowCorner1]

Steve Smith almost have the same technique as a Carl Hooper…the hand-coordination is immaculate.

 

[Slifer]

He might not be as polished a batsman as Tendulkar was or as freak of a genius as Lara was or let's say having an aura of dominance like Viv. But he surpasses all the above 3 in run scoring ability.

Steve Smith is the ultimate run machine.

I don't quite understand what this means? As in monster series? Because if that's the case, Lara certainly matches him there. He surpasses Lara in doing well overseas and consistency though.

 

[Chrish]

Lara’s 375, 400, and 226 were made in a dead-rubber when series was already decided. Also, 375 and 400 were played just to make records and were draws.

Hard for me to rate those innings tbh..

 

[Slifer]

Lara’s 375, 400, and 226 were made in a dead-rubber when series was already decided. Also, 375 and 400 were played just to make records and were draws.

Hard for me to rate those innings tbh..

What do those innings have to do with my comment? Lara has series of 798, 765, 688 etc. Lara doesn't need those supposed dead rubber innings when he has plenty of live memorable knocks many under ridiculous circumstances: 277, 213, 153*, 182, 202, 196, 176 etc.

 

[Kirkut]

I don't quite understand what this means? As in monster series? Because if that's the case, Lara certainly matches him there. He surpasses Lara in doing well overseas and consistency though.

Not really stats wise but by judging the way they approach their game.

Lara was an artist and depended on his mood while Smith is more like a computer by finding ways to score runs without worrying about batting aesthetics or swagger.

 

[Chrish]

What do those innings have to do with my comment? Lara has series of 798, 765, 688 etc. Lara doesn't need those supposed dead rubber innings when he has plenty of live memorable knocks many under ridiculous circumstances: 277, 213, 153*, 182, 202, 196, 176 etc.

I wasn’t referring to your comment. Just an observation some of his knocks including two mammoth innings were overrated and actually prevented possible wins for the team.

 

[Slifer]

I wasn’t referring to your comment. Just an observation some of his knocks including two mammoth innings were overrated and actually prevented possible wins for the team.

Nobody and I repeat nobody rates his 400 and 375 beyond being world records. All they show is what he's capable of if he cuts loose. The 226 came in a dead rubber but still came against McWarne, Lee and MacGill. Great knock that.

 

[Slifer]

I wasn’t referring to your comment. Just an observation some of his knocks including two mammoth innings were overrated and actually prevented possible wins for the team.

The 400 I agree. But the 375, the WI had already won the series and he was given free rein by Walsh to bat as long as he wanted. I can't think of any of his other "mammoth " knocks that cost the team a win. As a matter of fact, most of his knocks saved the team from being embarrassed more than they would've been. Ex: 4th test vs England 1995 Lara made 145 after Cork took a hat trick. Had Lara made even 30 or 40 odd more the WI may have had enough to win that test.

 

[Broken Cricket Dreams]

The best Test batter of the current era (post 2010), maybe in the Top 3 Australian Test batters of all time. Regardless of what more he achieves now, I doubt that Smith's legacy will surpass that of Ricky Ponting or Sir Donald Bradman.

 

[Victor Ian]

Lara's 375 seems he batted 2 days while Windies scored just shy of 600. He did not bat slow. Playing it down because it was a draw isn't right.
His 400 is better. Scored at a brisk rate and had the Windies bowled as well in the last innings, there was a win for the taking.
You don't declare your first innings until you start eating into the 3rd day. This is what he did. In both games his batting gave the Windies the chance of winning with no chance of losing. It's dumb to play these performances down for not winning as if they happened in the 3rd innings or so. How many other performances where teams racked up 500+ first innings do we hang **** on? All other greats would have them, but they don't top 300 because they don't score as fluently as Lara did.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lara's 400 was absolutely an unnecessarily long innings that cost his team a good chance of winning the game. If winning the game was the most important thing (clearly it wasn't) to him the declaration would have come a lot earlier

You don't declare your first innings until you start eating into the 3rd day.

That's just not true, it's very rare to bat much more than 5 sessions batting first. Declaration usually comes during the last session on Day 2 if the option is there

 

[Victor Ian]

I disagree. I think you are being an expert with hindsight.
If Windies have already lost, then key points are not losing again, and making runs when batting is best, rather than after it has deteriorated. A good way to win is to bat until the opposition has no chance. You can see it worked for England's first innings, but they got their **** together in the second. Declarations vary a lot and intent declarations are not necessarily the only way.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's a lot of justification after the fact. Fact is they batted nearly half the game for 1 innings, and it's very rare to bat that long in the 1st innings. If Lara wasn't there chasing a record there's no way they would have batted that long

 

[subshakerz]

I think as a feat of runscoring, getting the world record and then 10 years later doing it again is an achievement.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Thanks captain obvious

 

[subshakerz]

Thanks captain obvious

It's not though, I see posters who dismiss those innings given that they were in draws.

 

[Victor Ian]

That's a lot of justification after the fact. Fact is they batted nearly half the game for 1 innings, and it's very rare to bat that long in the 1st innings. If Lara wasn't there chasing a record there's no way they would have batted that long

So, I just looked up to see how rare it is to bat into the 3rd day. Yeah, pretty rare. Is that because it is not the done thing, or just because it is pretty rare to go that big? Hard to tell. I was also thinking Lara only batted a little bit into that 3rd day, but for some reason England were slow as **** and only bowled 157 overs to the end of day 2 (those ****ers!).
Based on the scorecard only, I still don't think it was wrong to declare as he did. Whether they batted once for half the match, or twice is the same thing. He could have declared earlier and had to bat again, at risk of collapsing and losing. He used up half the time when batting was best and gave his bowlers half the game, if they were good enough. They almost were. The fact that he continued on to 400 before declaring makes it clear that that target was a big influence on the actual timing, but I kind of think it was a justified total - sort of.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So, I just looked up to see how rare it is to bat into the 3rd day. Yeah, pretty rare. Is that because it is not the done thing, or just because it is pretty rare to go that big? Hard to tell.

It's not hard to tell. It's because you need to bowl a team out twice to win a game. And if you can bat 2 days on it then it's probably a pitch you need plenty of time to bowl on. Also you want to bat again in the 2nd innings to give your bowlers a rest rather than trying to bowl a team out again straight away following on.

 

[BazBall21]

400* was a selfish innings. That and the 375 both came on the Antigua pudding.

 

[BazBall21]

I remember watching a game where the ball moved off the seam at 91 mph and Smith just covered the line of the ball and defended it like an off break.

I was like....

Freak