2015 Final Test Rankings - Steve Smith #1, Williamson #2, Voges #11

[TheJediBrah]

No team travels well nowadays barring SA (which has just recently changed).. And having a home advantage is also nothing new. It's just that OZ wickets make their batsmen look lot better than they actually are ( as proven by their oversea records). If they create wickets with some life in it (like the last one vs NZ), less people would be dissatisfied

That's pretty much what we've been trying to say all thread

 

[Daemon]

Lets all just agree that the rankings are flawed and leave it at that

 

[Chrish]

Kane Williamson averages over 60 in NZ and 30 in England 36 in India and 10 in SA. and all at SR of 40 Are people dissatisfied with KW. I don't know which Australian batsmen you are talking about but if Voges had a bad series in England do we call all Aussies bats poor, look at India when they played a five test series in "England, all their batsmen failed, at least some of the Aussie bats scored.

Smith for ex has done reasonably well in oversea tours.. But do I think he is good enough to be averaging 57.9 at this point? His average is inflated from batting on these dead tracks.. Look at Williamson and Kohli's perfomences in recent Aussie tours. They too benefitted from these tracks after playing just one series. Smith plays here every time he plays home

Mind you I rate him highly and he is good enough to average 50 but not quite 58.. That's the difference

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Smith for ex has done reasonably well in oversea tours.. But do I think he is good enough to be averaging 57.9 at this point? His average is inflated from batting on these dead tracks.. Look at Williamson and Kohli's perfomences in recent Aussie tours. They too benefitted from these tracks after playing just one series. Smith plays here every time he plays home

Mind you I rate him highly and he is good enough to average 50 but not quite 58.. That's the difference

He'll be averaging about 54 after the tour of NZ

 

[TheJediBrah]

Smith for ex has done reasonably well in oversea tours.. But do I think he is good enough to be averaging 57.9 at this point? His average is inflated from batting on these dead tracks.. Look at Williamson and Kohli's perfomences in recent Aussie tours. They too benefitted from these tracks after playing just one series. Smith plays here every time he plays home

Mind you I rate him highly and he is good enough to average 50 but not quite 58.. That's the difference

Williamson averaged more in NZ last year than he did in Aus, and other than Kohli playing well most other touring batsmen struggled. Hardly having their average boosted by playing on roads lol.

You mention Williamson and Kohli's success (2 very good players) as proof that the decks are inflating averages? Absolutely nonsensical. If it were **** players like Guptill or Rohit Sharma averaging 50+ then you might have a point. But it's not. If anything recent seasons have shown that you still have to be a good player to score runs in Australia, for the most part, and that lesser players are being found out and struggling.

As to whether Smith deserves to average 58 or 50 . . . impossible to quantify or analyse really. He's rightfully the no. 1 ranked batsman atm as he's good as anybody, but it's very close.

 

[Adders]

Probably no point saying this, it will go in one ear and out the other, but Australia genuinely do not go out of their way to prepare pitches to help them at all. In any sense. In fact the opposite, recent pitches have hurt them more then helped them and the players and management have been very vocal about changing that. It's not hard to see either, it's blindingly obvious. Baffling that this is so hard for you guys to accept.

And no, it has nothing to do with moral high ground, and no, no one said or implied anything about "dirty POMS" or it being a "dastardly act", that's just trolling plain and simple and idiotic posting. Quite the opposite if you were to actually pay any attention to where the conversation started. I and several others said that Australia need to start doing this better and preparing more pitches to suit them and help them win better, not that other countries should stop.

This thread shows a massive failure of basic reading comprehension and honestly is starting to sound like some weird anti-Australian agenda which is outright bizarre but the only other explanation is that a plethora of otherwise sensible posters are turning into raving idiots upon entering this thread for some reason.

There's a lot that needs to be responded to here, tbh though I cbf with most of it.......but there are 2 things I like to say.

- You are making a habit of questioning the comprehension skills of posters that disagree with you......I've seen it a few times now and it's poor form. I understand your point perfectly but I believe you are being naive and are just plain wrong.

- If Australia don't "go out of their way to prepare pitches that help them" can you explain the green top that was the MCG wicket in 2010 as a case in point??. Before you respond, the result of that test and how it panned out is irrelevant to this question.

 

[Cabinet96]

Williamson averaged more in NZ last year than he did in Aus, and other than Kohli playing well most other touring batsmen struggled. Hardly having their average boosted by playing on roads lol.

You mention Williamson and Kohli's success (2 very good players) as proof that the decks are inflating averages? Absolutely nonsensical. If it were **** players like Guptill or Rohit Sharma averaging 50+ then you might have a point. But it's not. If anything recent seasons have shown that you still have to be a good player to score runs in Australia, for the most part, and that lesser players are being found out and struggling.

As to whether Smith deserves to average 58 or 50 . . . impossible to quantify or analyse really. He's rightfully the no. 1 ranked batsman atm as he's good as anybody, but it's very close.

Almost like Australia have a better bowling attack than Sri Lanka.

 

[Dan]

tbf Australians are overwhelmingly very good at batting on Australian decks. And New Zealanders are overwhelmingly very good at batting on New Zealand-ish decks.

It's almost as if being exposed to a lot of them through FC cricket and learning your trade on them might actually, well, be an advantage of playing at home.

 

[TNT]

Smith for ex has done reasonably well in oversea tours.. But do I think he is good enough to be averaging 57.9 at this point? His average is inflated from batting on these dead tracks.. Look at Williamson and Kohli's perfomences in recent Aussie tours. They too benefitted from these tracks after playing just one series. Smith plays here every time he plays home

Mind you I rate him highly and he is good enough to average 50 but not quite 58.. That's the difference

That's where stupidity comes into it, he averages 57 because he scored the runs required to get that average, if he wasn't good enough then he wouldent have scored the runs and have the average.

 

[TNT]

He'll be averaging about 54 after the tour of NZ

Congratulations to the Kiwi bowlers on a magnificent performance then.

 

[Daemon]

It's more of touring teams generally bowling crap. That plus the nature of the decks and having grown up in the conditions mean Australian batsmen of late have just been tonning up for fun. The reason why mediocre batsmen from other sides don't do well is because two of those factors (crap bowling and being used to the conditions) are taken away.

 

[Dan]

Exactly. The flatness of recent pitches has cost Australia many Test wins in recent times. A couple v India last year, 1 or 2 v SA in 2012-13 come to mind. And not once has it helped Australia, there hasn't really been a draw where Australia have "saved" a Test thanks to a flat wicket.

hb just fails to understand the basic fact that the slow, dead roads Australian pitches have become has not helped them not has it significantly reduced opposition chances of winning any more than it has Australia's

I think you're partially wrong here.

Producing a slow, dead road obviously makes Australia's quest to take 20 wickets far, far harder -- and in some cases they simply won't do it because they've bowled poorly -- but the supremacy of Australia's seam attack essentially means that if Australia can't do it, the opposition has next to no chance. If Hazlewood, Starc, Pattinson and Lyon can't take 20 wickets on that type of deck, the chances of Ishant, Bhuvi, Yadav, Ashwin and Jadeja doing it is infinitesimal. It doesn't help Australia win, per se, but it certainly makes it a hell of a lot harder for them to lose.

Contrast that with producing a bouncy greentop. You'd expect that Aussie attack to skittle India regularly, but it also means that Ishant, Bhuvi and Yadav suddenly have a lot to work with; it essentially narrows the gap between the two sides. It almost certainly guarantees a result, but it makes it more likely that one of the Indian quicks bowls the spell of his life to win them the game (all of a sudden having pitch assistance)

 

[Cabinet96]

They're roads but foreign batsmen aren't used to the pace and bounce. This isn't a problem for the Aussie batsmen because it something they've had to deal with since grade days.

 

[Dan]

That's where stupidity comes into it, he averages 57 because he scored the runs required to get that average, if he wasn't good enough then he wouldent have scored the runs and have the average.

I think Chrish means he's good enough to average 50 over a career. Lots of players have averaged ~60 for decent chunks of their careers, but eventually have a bad run for some reason or another. Smitteh's good, but there's a lot of water left to flow under that bridge.

And, well, runs have context. Averages are hardly perfect, unquestionable rankings of ability.

 

[Dan]

It's more of touring teams generally bowling crap. That plus the nature of the decks and having grown up in the conditions mean Australian batsmen of late have just been tonning up for fun. The reason why mediocre batsmen from other sides don't do well is because two of those factors (crap bowling and being used to the conditions) are taken away.

Yeah, Australia's attack is good enough to take 20 wickets on all but the roadiest of roads. The touring teams generally aren't.

 

[Shady Slim]

Yeah, Australia's attack is good enough to take 20 wickets on all but the roadiest of roads. The touring teams generally aren't.

i'd like to footnote this

australian roads with pace and bounce and roads with a twist that hinders everyone who isn't australian or named dale steyn

 

[TNT]

I think Chrish means he's good enough to average 50 over a career. Lots of players have averaged ~60 for decent chunks of their careers, but eventually have a bad run for some reason or another. Smitteh's good, but there's a lot of water left to flow under that bridge.

And, well, runs have context. Averages are hardly perfect, unquestionable rankings of ability.

Read what he wrote:
Smith for ex has done reasonably well in oversea tours.. But do I think he is good enough to be averaging 57.9 at this point? His average is inflated from batting on these dead tracks.. Look at Williamson and Kohli's perfomences in recent Aussie tours. They too benefitted from these tracks after playing just one series. Smith plays here every time he plays home

Does he not know that Smith averages 56 without any home matches. Take the Australian component out of Williamson and it drops to 43 plus if you take away his home ground advantage then Williamson is no better than Voges in away matches.

 

[TNT]

just out of curiousity is your signature from a moral standpoint or because of stuart broad, TNT?

Nothing to do with Broad, when we play and umpire ourselves that's what we tell the batsmen, its very costly if you force a umpire to fire you.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There's a lot that needs to be responded to here, tbh though I cbf with most of it.......but there are 2 things I like to say.

- You are making a habit of questioning the comprehension skills of posters that disagree with you......I've seen it a few times now and it's poor form. I understand your point perfectly but I believe you are being naive and are just plain wrong.

- If Australia don't "go out of their way to prepare pitches that help them" can you explain the green top that was the MCG wicket in 2010 as a case in point??. Before you respond, the result of that test and how it panned out is irrelevant to this question.

Yeah this isn't going to get anywhere. You can "disagree" with me if you like, but I'm not stating an opinion, it's an obvious fact that Australia aren't in any way deliberately preparing pitches to suit them. If you disagree with that then I honestly don't know what to say to you lol, it's not even ambiguous if you've followed Australian cricket even casually over the last few years. No point saying anything else about that.

re. the 2010 MCG Test, no, nothing was deliberately prepared that way. Feel free to think that if you want. And regardless of what you think about that, again has no relevance. The discussion ITT re preparing of pitches was specifically referring to the last 2-3 years (I should know, I started it), as was explicitly stated several times. And you wonder why your comprehension skills are being questioned. Mind blowing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

tbf Australians are overwhelmingly very good at batting on Australian decks. And New Zealanders are overwhelmingly very good at batting on New Zealand-ish decks.

It's almost as if being exposed to a lot of them through FC cricket and learning your trade on them might actually, well, be an advantage of playing at home.

I don't see why this is so hard to understand

I think you're partially wrong here.

Producing a slow, dead road obviously makes Australia's quest to take 20 wickets far, far harder -- and in some cases they simply won't do it because they've bowled poorly -- but the supremacy of Australia's seam attack essentially means that if Australia can't do it, the opposition has next to no chance. If Hazlewood, Starc, Pattinson and Lyon can't take 20 wickets on that type of deck, the chances of Ishant, Bhuvi, Yadav, Ashwin and Jadeja doing it is infinitesimal. It doesn't help Australia win, per se, but it certainly makes it a hell of a lot harder for them to lose.

Contrast that with producing a bouncy greentop. You'd expect that Aussie attack to skittle India regularly, but it also means that Ishant, Bhuvi and Yadav suddenly have a lot to work with; it essentially narrows the gap between the two sides. It almost certainly guarantees a result, but it makes it more likely that one of the Indian quicks bowls the spell of his life to win them the game (all of a sudden having pitch assistance)

very good point. But when you think about it, it doesn't really seem to have helped Australia win or "not lose" any tests over the last few years. There haven't really been any instances of Australia playing a draw where they weren't dominating.

And it still doesn't change the fact that none of these pitches are being deliberately prepared to help Australia (which was the whole point of the discussion), and that if they wanted to, harder and faster wickets could be prepared to help Australia a lot more than the recent pitches have been.

Read what he wrote:
Smith for ex has done reasonably well in oversea tours.. But do I think he is good enough to be averaging 57.9 at this point? His average is inflated from batting on these dead tracks.. Look at Williamson and Kohli's perfomences in recent Aussie tours. They too benefitted from these tracks after playing just one series. Smith plays here every time he plays home

Does he not know that Smith averages 56 without any home matches. Take the Australian component out of Williamson and it drops to 43 plus if you take away his home ground advantage then Williamson is no better than Voges in away matches.

huh good post. Funny how cold hard facts can show some relatively commonly-held sentiments and beliefs by fans to be absolute rubbish.