Are tons really that impressive in this era?

[Spark]

Also, welcome to the forum, Noah.

 

[Noah]

He'd mentioned Kohli more so than Smith, I think more so the fact that Noah took so much offense at WW saying "You're entitled to your opinion" and started a **** fight indicates to me that A: He isn't actually new to the forums and B: He doesn't have much room to stand around play the point, not the man.

A. No, I am new to the forum; I got referred from Cricsim by Baxter a few days ago. Taking offense to WW's "you're entitled to your opinion" is just a manifestation of my aggressive, bitter and hateful personality.

B. Yes, like all internet forum posters I'm sure I have been guilty of playing the man rather than the point from time-to-time and I'm sure I'll do it here at some point. But I always hope that I attempt to address the point of the argument initially.

 

[Blocky]

A. No, I am new to the forum; I got referred from Cricsim by Baxter a few days ago. Taking offense to WW's "you're entitled to your opinion" is just a manifestation of my aggressive, bitter and hateful personality.

hah.

B. Yes, like all internet forum posters I'm sure I have been guilty of playing the man rather than the point from time-to-time and I'm sure I'll do it here at some point. But I still make an attempt to address the point of the argument initially and I wouldn't mind the same courtesy being returned.

I like your argument in general, but I think when a guy like Smith goes out and puts so many tonnes on the board having never shown that sort of ability previously, which also coincides with a series where batting records are being broken left right and centre, by both individuals and teams, which also coincides with a series that some of the worst bowlers in test cricket have happened to be playing in, it's hard to say anything other than "Well, they dispatched **** opposition on easy wickets" about the runs being scored.

In the case of Smith, nothing before this series indicated he was anything more than a guy who would score an occasional hundred but otherwise be out cheaply.

 

[sledger]

Spark plz stahp this horribleness.

 

[Furball]

This thread is a prime example of the **** posting that this community has to put up with from Blocky and WindieWeathers. If you stick both of them on your ignore list then the place is much more bearable.

 

[Blocky]

definitely 8 points next time.

ok?

 

[Dan]

Dan i wonder what you see when you read my posts...as some of your assumptions simply don't ring true

1. i'm not saying Kohli is rubbish

2. Conditions were very english granted but that didn't stop Rahane and Vijay getting runs in england

3. All i'm saying is Kohli's TECHNICAL FLAW was extremely apparent and the Aussies haven't been able to expose that...conditions or no conditions they've been all over the place when bowling to him

4. And also Kohli isn't the only one scoring tons in this series...The aussie attack is very good but not "great" when you have a guy with such a flaw constantly getting the better of them...

But hey that's just my opinion...i expect "great" attacks to start figuring things out by the third test at least...sorry [/QUOTE]


1. The "well he shouldn't have 4 tons because of a technical flaw and Australia not having a decent bowling attack" argument heavily infers that you're unwilling to admit that he might actually be a good batsman who has played well here.

2. That's wholly irrelevant. I never said anything excused Kohli for not scoring runs in England; Rahane/Vijay not failing and continuing to bat well here doesn't reflect on Kohli in the slightest.

3. Kohli's technical flaw is related to movement with the new ball. In England he was a) batting in conditions conducive to swing/seam, against b) English bowlers used to those conditions who know how to use them, while c) coming in at 2/not many each innings because Dhawan/Pujara never made runs -- that contributed to him failing so dramatically. His technical flaw matched with the situations he found himself in so perfectly that he constantly got out. It's hard, if not impossible, to get the ball moving the same way it does in England considering Australian conditions are wholly different, a different type of ball is used, and when he's not facing the new pill every innings.

This Test in particular, Australia have bowled very well. There have been few spells of poor bowling to the Indians all series. If you watched the innings in question, you would be well aware of this. Starc's bowled the best he has in Tests in a long time (if not ever), Ryan Harris is quality, and Hazlewood is bowling very good channels to keep it tight and attempt to prise out wickets. But the Indian batsmen have been up to the challenge.

4. There is no ****ing flaw in Australian conditions. The flaw Kohli has is innately linked to English conditions; it simply doesn't become apparent in Australia with the extra bounce, reduced sideways movement and pancake-flat decks. It's like arguing an attack that got hit around by Daryll Cullinan "isn't great" because he had an obvious flaw against Shane Warne and the attack couldn't exploit it. Not every flaw in a batsman's game is going to be tested in every given series -- lots of them are condition-dependent.


Yeah, sure, it's your opinion. But that doesn't put it above criticism, especially when the opinion is wholly uninformed, averse to evidence and unwilling to change. You're simply wrong to hold up Kohli's Sydney innings as an example of your "tons aren't valuable" idea.

 

[Blocky]

4. There is no ****ing flaw in Australian conditions. The flaw Kohli has is innately linked to English conditions; it simply doesn't become apparent in Australia with the extra bounce, reduced sideways movement and pancake-flat decks. It's like arguing an attack that got hit around by Daryll Cullinan "isn't great" because he had an obvious flaw against Shane Warne and the attack couldn't exploit it. Not every flaw in a batsman's game is going to be tested in every given series -- lots of them are condition-dependent.

Dan - do you really believe that the wickets on display here haven't been anything other than roads that require batsman to find creative ways to get themselves out? 4 Matches, 4 First Innings scores over 500+ for the first time ever. Smith about to break the record for most runs in a 4 test series, Kohli breaking records of the legendary greats of the last era, Rogers going from not being able to buy a run to scoring frequently, Watson almost getting centuries instead of almost getting fifties, Haddin even finding runs.

Re the Australian bowling in this game - I think they bowled good containing lines for most of the innings but they haven't looked lethal, the dropped chances have certainly helped them but I'd dare say after this test series people might even be asking for Siddle to come back.

 

[sledger]

I love how the myth being perpetuated here is that players who break records must be ****. Amazing logic.

 

[Blocky]

I love how the myth being perpetuated here is that players who break records must be ****. Amazing logic.

The players aren't ****, no one contests that. The players aren't as good as this series has made them out to be is what people are contesting.

 

[Noah]

I like your argument in general, but I think when a guy like Smith goes out and puts so many tonnes on the board having never shown that sort of ability previously, which also coincides with a series where batting records are being broken left right and centre, by both individuals and teams, which also coincides with a series that some of the worst bowlers in test cricket have happened to be playing in, it's hard to say anything other than "Well, they dispatched **** opposition on easy wickets" about the runs being scored.

Well I don't believe flat wickets are a dominant factor in the overall increase in runs worldwide but it obviously plays a more significant part in this India-Australia series.

In the case of Smith, nothing before this series indicated he was anything more than a guy who would score an occasional hundred but otherwise be out cheaply.

I don't see that as a fair assessment of Smith.

He made runs in the Ashes, he made runs against South Africa in South Africa, he played well when almost every other Australia batsman failed in the UAE and from all reports he has been dominating first-class cricket for the last few years. I don't think that suggested that he would produce the Bradman-esque series we've just seen; however, his potential and his growing list of performances over the last 12-18 months certainly suggests that he is more than a guy who would score an occasional hundred and potentially capable of dominating a series when he is in good nick.

 

[sledger]

The players aren't ****, no one contests that. The players aren't as good as this series has made them out to be is what people are contesting.

A few posts ago you were saying Steve Smith was ****.

 

[cnerd123]

This thread is a prime example of the **** posting that this community has to put up with from Blocky and WindieWeathers. If you stick both of them on your ignore list then the place is much more bearable.

That's about all you deserve. Not only are you the forum's ****test bloke but you're obviously an absolute ****ing moron who clearly doesn't watch any cricket.

Furball's gone for the big swing and might have nicked it behind. Blocky has gone up in appeal. Will the umpire give it out?

 

[Furball]

Bowling head high beamers more like. Will the umpires permit it or remove me from the attack?

 

[Blocky]

Well I don't believe flat wickets are a dominant factor in the overall increase in runs worldwide but it obviously plays a more significant part in this India-Australia series.

Brendon McCullum just broke the most amount of runs scored in a season by an NZ batsman, the highest score by an NZ batsman, the most hundreds over 150 in a calendar year, the fastest century by a NZ batsman and was about 20 metres away from the fastest double century of all time. Williamson lifted his average from 34 to 45 in the space of a year while that was happening too. Angelo Matthews has put runs on at almost 80 since being captain having been good, but not great before that.

A lot of batsmen who have been good, and great on their day, turning in legendary performances in the last 12 to 18 months.

I don't see that as a fair assessment of Smith.

He made runs in the Ashes, he made runs against South Africa in South Africa, he succeeded when almost every other Australia batsman failed in the UAE and from all reports he has been dominating first-class cricket for the last few years. I don't think any suggested that he would produce the Bradman-esque series we've just seen; however, his potential and his growing list of performances over the last 12-18 months certainly suggests that he is more than a guy who would score an occasional hundred and potentially dominating a series when he is in good nick.

Even the runs in the Ashes was generally boom or bust. Smith has never shown this type of consistency at test level before, nor had Chris Rogers. I'm probably being harsh on Smith but I really just don't see him being a guy who will spend much of his career averaging 50+ - good thing about that sort of prediction is that in a few years I'll either be right or wrong.

Case in point

Prior to 2014 - Smith had 2 centuries across 16 tests.
Since 2014, he's scored 6 centuries - 1 against South Africa, 1 against England, 4 against India in this test series.

 

[OverratedSanity]

In the case of Smith, nothing before this series indicated he was anything more than a guy who would score an occasional hundred but otherwise be out cheaply.

Do you and WW have some sort of contest where you try to talk about something you know absolutely nothing about? This is a trash post.

Btw, look forward to the strawman argument from you that Smith not scoring 4 hundreds in a series before this= shoeing 0 sign that he ever will.

 

[Blocky]

Do you and WW have some sort of contest where you try to talk about something you know absolutely nothing about? This is a trash post.

Btw, look forward to the strawman argument from you that Smith not scoring 4 hundreds in a series before this= shoeing 0 sign that he ever will.

"Strawman argument" - Yeah, using statistics in a discussion about a player in Cricket is an absolute strawman, you're right.

 

[Flem274*]

I still think it's because the worlds worst top eight bowling attacks are on tour atm. Even the most passionate Smith or Williamson fan has to admit the bowling on offer isn't what makes their scoring so remarkable, but the other qualities they show (concentration, grit, consistency, ruthlessness etc).

 

[Flem274*]

The fielding isn't helping either. Smith, Kohli and Kane have offered up plenty of chances.

If you're not going to take your catches then quality players are going to make lots of runs.

 

[Blocky]

I still think it's because the worlds worst top eight bowling attacks are on tour atm. Even the most passionate Smith or Williamson fan has to admit the bowling on offer isn't what makes their scoring so remarkable, but the other qualities they show (concentration, grit, consistency, ruthlessness etc).

This I agree with, but I also think they've been helped by pitches like the one at the Basin Reserve where a world record partnership was broken two years in a row and the one here in Sydney where I think Boycott's grandmother would score 400. I think you put these bowlers and batsman on surfaces like Hamilton or even Hagley Oval and you'll see different results.