Are tons really that impressive in this era?

[cnerd123]

An average of 54, with two centuries across three series.
vs an average of 134 with four centuries in four matches

So?

It's pretty apparent I think Smith is **** and will go back to being **** post this match. (**** is unfair, he's an above average batsman probably capable of a 40-45 average)
Keep up.

Averaging 54 in the past year in 3 different countries with 2 centuries is ****?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah look I agree about Johnson but your point about "just look at his stats" is what is frustrating people. Maybe his stats are bad because India played a blinder? Obviously it's not that simple, it's a bit from A and a bit from B. However, what you're doing is making the assumption that someone like Kohli isn't good enough to do this, then when he does, instead of readjusting your opinion on him, you're readjusting your opinion on the Australian bowlers, thinking "actually they're not as good as I thought they were because this player is doing something I didn't consider him capable of". The pitches are flat and Johnson hasn't been as good as he was last season, but that core logic makes no sense and it's used all the time to justify not crediting good performance.

I don't think his posts deserved an explanation as nice as this tbh.

 

[Spark]

given that johnson's best was to average about twelve i don't see how being "down on his best" is particularly striking

 

[Blocky]

quite, but the point remains that to use that to lampoon the idea that aus 2014/5 > aus 2003/4 (which no one has said) is ridiculous, because the conditions are significantly different, and forgets the basic point that we were missing arguably our best bowler in the uae.

Remind me again how Australia did against Sri Lanka in the series directly following their one against India? I remember watching it too, I just don't remember the ins and outs of whether or not Australia bowled well or not. The same team certainly bowled well enough to beat a pretty handy Sri Lankan side directly after that Indian series. And those Indian players I mentioned certainly get credited as being amongst all time greatest batsmen to have played the modern era.

 

[Blocky]

So?

Averaging 54 in the past year in 3 different countries with 2 centuries is ****?

Yes. Compared to other players during the year.

 

[cnerd123]

Remind me again how Australia did against Sri Lanka in the series directly following their one against India? I remember watching it too, I just don't remember the ins and outs of whether or not Australia bowled well or not. The same team certainly bowled well enough to beat a pretty handy Sri Lankan side directly after that Indian series. And those Indian players I mentioned certainly get credited as being amongst all time greatest batsmen to have played the modern era.

Remind us again how this is relevant plz.

 

[Blocky]

I never argued otherwise.

You didn't, but others certainly have.

"This bowling attack is far better than xxx..."

 

[cnerd123]

Yes. Compared to other players during the year.

Classic Blocky. Realises he is wrong, adds a caveat at the end to make him seem less wrong.

 

[Spark]

Yes. Compared to other players during the year.

i'll take high pressure tons against anderson, broad, steyn, philander, morkel and the pakistani spinners every year in tough conditions for the rest of his career, thanks

 

[cnerd123]

You didn't, but others certainly have.

"This bowling attack is far better than xxx..."

No one has compared Boult in UAE vs. Johnson in UAE except you mate.

 

[Noah]

Johnson's form in the UAE vs say Trent Boult's form in the UAE is also another tell, also watching Johnson in this series will show anyone that he's down on pace, erratic and not at his best.

From what I saw, I thought Johnson relatively bowled well in the UAE and was arguably the pick of the Australia bowlers. He bowled well without luck and was playing in conditions that were completely unsuited to him and still managed to be threatening for periods.

 

[Cabinet96]

You didn't, but others certainly have.

"This bowling attack is far better than xxx..."

Not really. Because as Spark said, Johnson's best was averaging about 12 and getting 8-9 wickets per match. Even a slightly downscaled version of that is a good bowler, as are Harris, Lyon. The 03/04 series was a bit before my time, so I don't really know how good that attack was but I wouldn't have thought it would be used as a benchmark for a good attack if this one is used as a benchmark for an average/poor one.

 

[Blocky]

Remind us again how this is relevant plz.

Do you understand what relevance means?

The argument - "2003/2004 was not as good of a side as 2014/2015" and "The bowlers then were worse than the bowlers now"

Yet, the only "bad" series (which was still a draw) Australia had that year was against India, India who I might add had one of the strongest batting line-ups seen in modern test cricket. They had a very credible win against a strong Sri Lanka at home in Sri Lanka.

But in 2014/2015 - they sucked **** in the UAE, they've sucked **** here (bowling) - they've just been lucky enough that the opposition sucks more..

How is that all relevant? Because if the bowlers both suck ****, in a series where pretty much every match has more batting records broken by a number of different players across the teams, and teams themselves.... it's pretty clear that the tonnes in this series aren't as spectacular as tonnes made against other bowling attacks in other conditions.

 

[Blocky]

From what I saw, I thought Johnson relatively bowled well in the UAE and was arguably the pick of the Australia bowlers. He bowled well without luck and was playing in conditions that were completely unsuited to him and still managed to be threatening for periods.

Do you know much about Boult? Kid that relies on swing, doesn't really threaten anyone unless the ball is swinging, in the UAE, bowling with an older ball and taking wickets?

 

[Blocky]

i'll take high pressure tons against anderson, broad, steyn, philander, morkel and the pakistani spinners every year in tough conditions for the rest of his career, thanks

High pressure tonnes? He batted 5 behind Warner and Clarke having great seasons.

 

[cnerd123]

Do you understand what relevance means?

The argument - "2003/2004 was not as good of a side as 2014/2015" and "The bowlers then were worse than the bowlers now"

Yet, the only "bad" series (which was still a draw) Australia had that year was against India, India who I might add had one of the strongest batting line-ups seen in modern test cricket. They had a very credible win against a strong Sri Lanka at home in Sri Lanka.

But in 2014/2015 - they sucked **** in the UAE, they've sucked **** here (bowling) - they've just been lucky enough that the opposition sucks more..

How is that all relevant? Because if the bowlers both suck ****, in a series where pretty much every match has more batting records broken by a number of different players across the teams, and teams themselves.... it's pretty clear that the tonnes in this series aren't as spectacular as tonnes made against other bowling attacks in other conditions.

Yea so in summary, you haven't watched any cricket and just read scorecards.

Thanks for that.

 

[Spark]

Do you understand what relevance means?

The argument - "2003/2004 was not as good of a side as 2014/2015" and "The bowlers then were worse than the bowlers now"

Yet, the only "bad" series (which was still a draw) Australia had that year was against India, India who I might add had one of the strongest batting line-ups seen in modern test cricket. They had a very credible win against a strong Sri Lanka at home in Sri Lanka.

But in 2014/2015 - they sucked **** in the UAE, they've sucked **** here (bowling) - they've just been lucky enough that the opposition sucks more..

How is that all relevant? Because if the bowlers both suck ****, in a series where pretty much every match has more batting records broken by a number of different players across the teams, and teams themselves.... it's pretty clear that the tonnes in this series aren't as spectacular as tonnes made against other bowling attacks in other conditions.

the only reason you can say this is because we can't catch. if we could, the statistics would reflect the reality i.e. a very solid bowling performances on pitches offering ****-all.

as for the last point. no one has argued against this. ever. at all. no one is saying that smith's tons in this series are what makes him quality. no one is saying smith's tons in this series are more significant than the scores he made in the previous year. but the ****ing point is that he made those scores, so there's no basis to suggest that he wouldn't do well against good attacks when he's spent 18 months doing little but do well against good attacks.

 

[OverratedSanity]

High pressure tonnes? He batted 5 behind Warner and Clarke having great seasons.

Lol. Again, great job not watching any cricket.

 

[Blocky]

Rather than death by a thousand out of context paper cuts, like you guys seem to be focusing on at the moment by taking small pieces of my argument out of context, then asking me to answer points on them, then asking relevance to the overall point, let's go back to the overall point

1. Steven Smith has been made to look awesome due to how bad the Indian bowling attack is.
2. The Australian team has been setting batting records this series due to how bad the Indian bowling attack is
3. The Australian bowlers aren't that much better, as seen by their time in UAE and other results, they're just fortunate India is so bad
4. The pitches in Australia have been so easy to bat on, that every time a side batting first bats, they're scoring over 500 for the first time in a series, ever.
5. We'll confirm for sure the next time either Kohli or Smith play a series against a half decent bowling attack whether this was flat track minnow bashing or something else.

 

[Spark]

High pressure tonnes? He batted 5 behind Warner and Clarke having great seasons.

righteo. didn't watch any of those series then.