*Official* 3rd Test at Edgbaston

[Tangles]

Nope, but he has quite a few runs in conditions where no-one else really notched any.

Fair enough I just don't think he can score runs against an attack as good as Aus. I don't think he's more likely than Ballance either since most ppl are shuffling the batting order to fit him in which could negatively affect Root and Stokes if they are moved.

 

[viriya]

I think Ponting at 942 (Hobbs is 942 as well) is a more realistic target or even Hutton at 945. Smith is a real chance of being No2 on ICC points system...
Purely on ICC ranking he would make the Australian side ATG ICC points side.


3 Bradman 961, 4 Ponting 942 , 5 Smith 936

Hayden 935 as one opener, Gilchrist at 874 as keeper at 7

Leaves only one opener and 6 open.
6 would be between Hussey 921, Walters 922, Harvey 921 but of course many would opt for Miller (681 batting, 862 bowling) at 6 to give a genuine all rounder.
Openers is Warner at 880 and Lawry 871 but you could crib a little and make Hussey the opener.

Can't help but feel that the number of games played at a higher frequency has warped ICC point system significantly, as a player in amazing forum can rack up many more tests in that period.
As good as Smith is, it is hard to perceive him as the 10th best of all time.....

He is not and he would struggle to make in to top 40 atm but thats because he has only played 30 tests

Australia play close to 30 tests over the next 18 months including the rest of the Ashes,6 home and away tests against NZ,3 in SL,4 against SA and 4 in India. By the time they are done Smith would still be 27 and if his average remains in the mid to high 50s, we'd probably have the youngest ATG since Sachin

Interesting that Smith is so highly rated in the official rating system. It's supposed to be a combination of career + current form, but it seems to me that him getting into the top 10 so quickly suggests that relatively new players (<40 tests) are slightly overrated.

I just updated my system and I have him at 899 points and behind AB who is at 956. Just to be clear my system doesn't have a ceiling (the highest ever is 1154), but the basic premise is the same. A player's past matches are taken into account but less so with time, and his rating is discounted if he is still a "new" player. Right now Smith is on the cusp of being an established player, but his rated is still slightly discounted.

I think there is a fair argument still that AB > Smith as the best Test batsmen right now. Just for a quick comparison, checking their last 20 innings:
AB: 121 (Pak), 19, 90, 164 (Pak), 13, 103 (Ind), 74, 91 (Aus), 48, 116 (Aus), 29, 14, 43, 21, 51, 37, 12, 7, 152 (WI), 10, 148*(WI)
Smith: 36*, 22, 55, 0, 97, 162* (Ind), 52*, 133 (Ind), 28, 192 (Ind), 14, 117 (Ind), 71, 25, 5*, 199 (WI), 54*, 33, 33, 215 (Eng), 58*

They both made 6 tons, with AB facing the tougher opposition (similar except for facing Aus and not as much of Ind). Just based on these innings I think it's close. But then if you add the diminishing returns from the prior innings, AB has much more of positive history.

Considering how it's not clear that Smith is even the best Test batsman around right now, I think putting him to be having the 10th best "peak form" rating of all time is a bit of a stretch. He has the potential to get there in the next year imo, but right now it's too soon.

In terms of career ratings, I have him at #66 all-time (he just jumped past Cook who is at #67). I think it's fair considering his run, but his position is very volatile and a few bad scores and he will drop out of the top 100 quickly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not sure what your personal experience or viewing perspective does to change the fact that no one has ever put forward a proper argument to prove that form is anything other than a clump of good scores that, by chance, happen to be grouped together.

I can't even comprehend how anyone with cricket experience can say something like this

You can know when you're in form, or when you're not. I've had both. It's not solely psychological, nor is it just a result of a few lucky innings. You can be in form and make ducks, or be out of form and make 50s, but you can still often tell if you're "seeing them well"

Randomly putting together a few good scores or a few failures can happen as well, and some people may call that "form", But that's completely different to what people generally refer to as "being in form".

 

[hendrix]

But the best batsman is the one who's putting together a consistent run of decent scores, isn't he? That is, the bloke who's in form.

Yeah exactly,hendrix's argument doesn't make much sense. The better batsman currently is simply the one who is scoring more runs (ie) in better form.

Read the rest of the conversation. Others were advocating picking Bairstow over Taylor not because they think Bairstow is a better batsman, but because this is the do-or-die-Ashes and you must pick the guy on a hot streak.

I'm saying that entire premise is faulty.

 

[cnerd123]

Wouldn't change anything tbh. At most drop Ballance, but tbh Australia would love to have forced England to replace their number 3 mid-Ashes yet again.

Keep the same XI, back them, and try harder.

 

[harsh.ag]

Interestingly the Gillespie article for the guardian suggests they haven't worked technically with Bairstow since he played his last test for England.

Jonny Bairstow is good enough for the Ashes but be brave and back him | Sport | The Guardian

'So we made a pact: the Yorkshire coaches – myself included – agreed we would not speak to him about his method and instead judge him solely on his returns. This would be our only feedback. No longer would he have support staff stopping him every second ball in the nets, telling him to change his grip, stance, backlift or alignment. Instead, the only advice would be when he sought it and based solely on his gameplan for any given day. Sure, we still discuss conditions and what his approach for an innings will be, but in the 18 months that have followed his technique has not been brought up.'

That's such a good plan. This is how most players should be allowed to develop their game after a certain point of time - work on their temperament and developing game plans against the opposition and according to the conditions. Dizzy's a dude.

 

[hendrix]

I can't even comprehend how anyone with cricket experience can say something like this

You can know when you're in form, or when you're not. I've had both. It's not solely psychological, nor is it just a result of a few lucky innings. You can be in form and make ducks, or be out of form and make 50s, but you can still often tell if you're "seeing them well"

Randomly putting together a few good scores or a few failures can happen as well, and some people may call that "form", But that's completely different to what people generally refer to as "being in form".

Whether or not you feel in form or not; if you can't observe the difference between "real" good form and a run of a few good scores as a selector (don't expect to call up a batsman and hear "oh nah, I'm not really seeing it all that well, just have got a few out of the middle luckily enough"), how can you use it as any sort of guide as to who to pick?

 

[hendrix]

Depends completely how you define form. I think a player's definition of form would be far removed from how you've raised it.

yes, that's fine, but the POV is the selector's isn't it?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Whether or not you feel in form or not; if you can't observe the difference between "real" good form and a run of a few good scores as a selector (don't expect to call up a batsman and hear "oh nah, I'm not really seeing it all that well, just have got a few out of the middle luckily enough"), how can you use it as any sort of guide as to who to pick?

Now that's a completely different issue

9 times out of 10 it would be a safe bet that the guy who all of sudden keeps making runs is in good form rather than just having a very lucky period of high scores

Steve Smith has been in freakishly good form for like a year and it's not just a co-incidental run of not getting out, and you don't need to be him to see that, IMO

 

[Swingpanzee]

Wouldn't change anything tbh. At most drop Ballance, but tbh Australia would love to have forced England to replace their number 3 mid-Ashes yet again.

Keep the same XI, back them, and try harder.

yeah this is my thought as well. Unless England have a concrete replacement it'd be best to just stick with the current line-up. England chopping-and-changing their lineups after a heavy loss is exactly what happened so many times in 2013-14

 

[Swingpanzee]

Now that's a completely different issue

9 times out of 10 it would be a safe bet that the guy who all of sudden keeps making runs is in good form rather than just having a very lucky period of high scores

Steve Smith has been in freakishly good form for like a year and it's not just a co-incidental run of not getting out, and you don't need to be him to see that, IMO

yeah and just to add to that I think one could see that even when Smith had an average game (Cardiff) he was batting with so much ease until he got out

 

[GIMH]

"Form" doesn't necessarily mean much but equally I think people have a tendency to write off batsmen based on past performances when there's evidence they may have improved. Bairstow is what, 25? A lot of highly successful international batsmen have poor periods early in their career and look to have been found out in one way or another and come back a while later with a much better idea of how to play to their strengths. Sometimes it's a technique overhaul like Clarke and sometimes its just experience etc. If Bairstow is making a ton of runs and there's clear opportunities to bring him in for an underperforming player, he's worth another shot IMO. If he was 35 or this had happened several times in the past it might be a bit different.

I think form not mattering applies more when a player is a known quantity. Weight of runs in domestic cricket could be evidence that someone is legitimately better than before.

100% agree with this

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, agree with that too. And even if someone's technique does not appear much different to the eye, their temperament and game plan development and ability to construct an innings may have improved considerably.

 

[Swingpanzee]

it seems no one wants to address the elephant in the room

why pick a ginger with a punchable face in your team when you already have one?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

My point is that a player knows whether he is in or out of form, before the results actually come. You know when you're feet are moving right, your body is getting into the right position, whether or not you're making runs. Sometimes you're in good enough form to nick a good outswinger.

Yeah "form is just a randomly clumped group of scores" veers a bit too much towards the cricket played on paper style of thinking for my tastes. I mean, we all acknowledge that confidence is a thing right? Players can get into a headspace where they feel comfortable with their game and it can actually result in them playing better, or can doubt their game causing them to fail in ways they otherwise might not? That alone is an argument for form having some meaning.

I think it is also true that sometimes people read too much into it etc, and it can be hard to distinguish from other factors that might result in good/bad performances, but it certainly exists. You can see when players are in good touch and you can see a player who is otherwise good but struggling for a period. And of course it's that much more significant for the actual player.

 

[harsh.ag]

Chris Rogers is set to be clear to play in the third Test of the Investec Ashes series in Birmingham after scans cleared him of serious damage following his retired hurt on the final morning of the Lord's Test.

On day two of the Test, Rogers was struck on the helmet near the right ear by James Anderson, and two days later had to leave the field as he complained of dizziness while standing at the non-striker's end.

..."It appears the most likely diagnosis is a delayed ear problem related to being struck on day two of the Test match. We are confident that this is something we can manage in the lead up to the third Test at Edgbaston...."

.

 

[hendrix]

I feel like you're not actually reading what I've written.
Steve Smith has scored very well recently because he's very good. That's not to say he's always going to score that highly, but that group of scores is within his bell curve, so to speak.

The argument for picking a worse batsman over a better batsman because one is "in form" is ridiculous.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's almost like this is why we need real people selectors instead of adding everyone's name to a spreadsheet and pressing

For what it's worth, some people have investigated the form thing but they never claimed an all-encompassing definition so it's still pretty arguable. I honestly don't think selectors put that much stock in form if they have other info about a player anyway.

 

[hendrix]

9 times out of 10 it would be a safe bet that the guy who all of sudden keeps making runs is in good form rather than just having a very lucky period of high scores

you're not quite understanding what I'm saying. It's not a "lucky period". It's just that scores are seldom distributed perfectly evenly.

say your average is 2, across 10 innings.

that could be:

1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3
just as often as it could be:
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
The point being, the run of good scores can just be a random grouping of scores that aren't distributed for perfect sampling.

If a batsman has a genuine, permanent upswing (say, from fixing his technique), that's not said to be good form; it's understood that he's genuinely better than he once was.

If you think Jonny Bairstow is genuinely better than he once was, and is genuinely a better batsman than James Taylor, by all means pick him. But you're not picking him "on form", are you? You're picking him because he's better.

 

[harsh.ag]

The argument for picking a worse batsman over a better batsman because one is "in form" is ridiculous.

It really isn't. If someone you think is a worse batsman is making bucketload of runs, then you pick him, because you might be wrong about how good that player is. The attitude above is that of an elitist.