Pietersen V Smith

[Jono]

No, not really. Pressure situations can't really be quantified statistically by dividing runs into who they were scored against or, as Smith fans often try, which innings they were scored in.

Last time South Africa toured Australia, Smith hit 48 and 108 (when chasing 414) in the opening test then 62 and 75 (chasing 183 to win) in the second test. It was in the dead rubber that he scored 30 rh and 3.

Pressure isn't measured by who your opponents are.

Obviously he hurt himself in the 3rd test, but a dead rubber isn't a 'no pressure' match.

If there was nothing in it for SA Smith wouldn't have batted in the Sydney dead rubber test risking further injury.

Sure, a live test is more important than a dead one, but it doesn't mean dead tests should be discarded.

 

[Uppercut]

Pressure can be measured by lots of things. Games being the biggest ones of your career being one of them.

You're not a fan of the scoring against the best matters more theory, okay fair enough. But when two players have similar records, and one earned his runs against Australia and the other Bangladesh, well...

There's more to it than that. But Pietersen's performances against Australia in his debut series, and then away to the best Australian team ever count for a LOT.

Mmm, not to me. I mean, obviously they're good runs and you don't ignore them, but they're not any more useful than runs against poorer attacks. A few more runs against Jerome Taylor and Suliemann Benn in Jamaica would have done his side a lot more good than his runs on a tour horrendously doomed from the moment it began.

You seem to like runs against good attacks- most people, on here at least, do- I don't give a damn about the quality of attack. I like runs that make the difference between winning and losing. At the end of the day runs are runs and I'd much rather just count them as runs. But if I'm going to rank some as more important than others it'll generally only be because I think they made more of a difference to the match situation.

 

[superkingdave]

I voted for Bret but i should probably say, England need a Pietersen more than they need a Smith imo. South Africa need a Smith more than they do a Pietersen.

 

[Uppercut]

Obviously he hurt himself in the 3rd test, but a dead rubber isn't a 'no pressure' match.

If there was nothing in it for SA Smith wouldn't have batted in the Sydney dead rubber test risking further injury.

Sure, a live test is more important than a dead one, but it doesn't mean dead tests should be discarded.

Obviously you don't discard dead rubbers, but my point still stands. Runs against good teams =/ pressure runs.

 

[Jono]

Obviously you don't discard dead rubbers, but my point still stands. Runs against good teams =/ pressure runs.

Same with runs in a 4th innings. Some of Yuvraj's knocks are a testament to that

 

[Uppercut]

Same with runs in a 4th innings. Some of Yuvraj's knocks are a testament to that

Absolutely right.

People try to measure pressure statistically all the time, but I don't think it can be done.

 

[Sanz]

Example?

Tendulkar. Exaggerated performance of 30000 runs over 20 years.

 

[wpdavid]

I suppose I'd vote for Smith as I've seen him do so much damage to England over the years. Also KP's habit of giving it away counts against him in this particular contest. And I do think that opening the innings is far tougher than battingin the middle order.

 

[aussie]

Never been a fan of detailed comparison between openers & middle-order batsmen, since their roles are obviously different.

But overall as pure batsmen i'd have to say KP has a better all-round game at his best vs the quicks & especially the spinners.

 

[pasag]

Smith now, KP later. Rather watch KP though.

 

[Jono]

Both players strong on the on side, but look kind of weird when playing on the off side.

 

[aussie]

Mmm, not to me. I mean, obviously they're good runs and you don't ignore them, but they're not any more useful than runs against poorer attacks. A few more runs against Jerome Taylor and Suliemann Benn in Jamaica would have done his side a lot more good than his runs on a tour horrendously doomed from the moment it began.

Ha thats fairly daft view i must say.

Firslty of course runs againts AUS in a big Ashes series is worst more than runs he made vs WI 09. Any poor/average batsman can score runs againts a poor attack on roads - WI 09, but only the top batsmen will stand up when bowling & bowling conditions get though - Ashes 09.

Secondly you make it sound as if he threw away his wicket againts Jermone Taylor, he got a fantastic delivery.

Thidly his dismissal to Benn is just a weird KP syndrome againts joke spinners. He has dominated Warne, Murali & Harbhajan before, so that is something he indeed needs to work on mentally.

You seem to like runs against good attacks- most people, on here at least, do- I don't give a damn about the quality of attack.

See above.

I like runs that make the difference between winning and losing. At the end of the day runs are runs and I'd much rather just count them as runs.

But if I'm going to rank some as more important than others it'll generally only be because I think they made more of a difference to the match situation.

Use the ENG team as an example in 4th innings run chase againts NZ or WI or something. Its is possible even Swann/Braod could aid the top-order in a victory. But againts lets say a top-quality AUS attack of McGrath/Warne, as it has been proven in the past KP the only true great batsman in the side, maybe that will stand up. Like what Lara did vs AUS 99.

You got to look at it in context. Someone like MoYo who smoked runs against the bottom four rated test teams/joke attacks on flat wickets, but what will truly end up separating him from the upper echelon of players is the fact that againts the best attacks as we saw againts AUS recently he didn't look so dominaNt. Unfortunately its irrelevant how many games he won for Pakistan against WI, NZ, IND, and Bangladesh.

 

[slowfinger]

I don't think Peiterson knows how to play 'normally'.

 

[Faisal1985]

Will take Smith over KP any day.

 

[thatguy]

Definitely Smith based on recent form

 

[GIMH]

Form is temporary etc etc etc

 

[four_or_six]

Been thinking about this a bit again, and really it is difficult to split them as batsmen, you can put a pretty good argument either way. So I've gone for Smith for non-batting reasons, in that he's managed about 5 years in one of the more difficult captaincies in the world and he seems to be both successful and well-respected by his team. He comes across as a real leader, and I think that's a big plus for him.

 

[G.I.Joe]

KP all the time except when playing in England against England.

 

[Kyle]

It's really close. Smith for me. An opener averaging 50 is generally a lot harder to come by than a middle-order batsman averaging 50, particularly in South Africa where the new ball is lethal.

I don't think anyone's saying KP scores easy runs, ftr. It's just that Smith plays some unspeakably tough innings in seriously sticky situations for South Africa. I'd rank his ability under pressure as the best in the world.

Couldn't say it better. KP is very good, but Smith's temperament puts him ahead for mine.

As an aside, KP is worrying me at the moment. Not looked right since his achilles injury, he's even looked uneasy in the field in this test.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, would agree that he's just not himself. Is it the injury, is it still a hangover from the captaincy issue (you could argue he's not quite been himself since then, only one of the innings I highlighted came following that) or is it just a loss of form, after all every player suffers them at some point, right?

Been trying to work out whether or not we should take him to Bangladesh.