Placing our bets on "Test Cricket's Young Fab Four"

[Coronis]

Smitteh tied with Len Hutton as the 2nd greatest in ICC ratings

Not bad, should pass him next test I'd say. Not a great way of rating players necessarily, but impressive nonetheless. In more Smith related news, if he's able to score 214 runs in his next two innings, he'll become the 2nd fastest to 6000 runs. If he scores a century his next innings, he'd equal Gavaskar as the 2nd fastest to 23 centuries. (third fastest to 21, 22 already)

 

[randycricfreak]

Would replace TPC with Pujara/Rahane/Bravo

Hahah whadda a classic

 

[Daemon]

I was joking, obviously

 

[OverratedSanity]

**** I love all those Balance>Root posts I made

Balance:4 hundreds, 11 50+ scores (ie) conversion rate of 36%
Root: 13 hundreds, 47 50+ scores (ie) conversion rate of 28%

Vindicated

 

[Slifer]

What I find maddening is any article on cricinfo where Smith is praised you have the Kohli posse coming in saying how Smith isn't the best batsman because Kohli is better in two other formats.

Afaic when anyone mentions the best in anything, I automatically think of tests without any qualifications needed. I'll give them credit though, atleast Kohli fans know better than to argue that he's better than Smith in tests.

 

[Burgey]

Damn it, I was hoping some Smith fan would pick up on this and attack me

But you were right. He is in a different conversation to those guys.

 

[srbhkshk]

What I find maddening is any article on cricinfo where Smith is praised you have the Kohli posse coming in saying how Smith isn't the best batsman because Kohli is better in two other formats.

Afaic when anyone mentions the best in anything, I automatically think of tests without any qualifications needed. I'll give them credit though, atleast Kohli fans know better than to argue that he's better than Smith in tests.

Still an enormous improvement over Sachin > Bradman,

 

[Slifer]

Still an enormous improvement over Sachin > Bradman,

I suppose it is lol

 

[Black_Warrior]

So it's possible that Root might get that hundred in Australia finally. But even if he does, that's his 9th Test in Australia, on second attempt.

Given how Smith and Kohli have really set the bar very high in the current season, does Root still belong in this list?

Think of it this way. Look at how people rate a Pujara or a Mahela or a Yousuf. They are considered below the best of their times precisely for this factor. Even if Root gets that solitary hundred, and that too after the series is well and truly surrendered, is it really enough?

Kohli got a hundred in his first series in Australia, 4 in his second

Williamson struggled on his first tour here (in a 2 match series which is an important distinction because Kohli also failed in his first 2 tests here) but came out with back to back hundreds on his second tour in the first 2 test matches


Right now for me, Root does not really belong in this category.

Tier 1: Smith

Tier 2: Kohli, Williamson

Tier 3: Root, Pujara, Warner, Azhar.

 

[Black_Warrior]

What I find maddening is any article on cricinfo where Smith is praised you have the Kohli posse coming in saying how Smith isn't the best batsman because Kohli is better in two other formats.

Afaic when anyone mentions the best in anything, I automatically think of tests without any qualifications needed. I'll give them credit though, atleast Kohli fans know better than to argue that he's better than Smith in tests.

A majority of cricket fans/watchers are unable to differentiate between formats. Broadcasters, Cricinfo, ICC repeatedly making "international hundreds, international runs" a thing by adding your records across formats only conflates this more. It creates the illusion that they are equatable - you can add an ODI hundred with a Test hundred and say you got 2 international hundreds, as if an ODI hundred = a Test hundred = a T20 hundred.

 

[Zinzan]

Tests currently: Smith>>>>Kohli>>>Root>KW for me.

All forms combined: Kohli>>>Smith>>>Root>>>KW

 

[Black_Warrior]

Lol that's what I just argued. Don't think you can really combine the formats like that. There is no all formats best batsman/bowler.

 

[Zinzan]

Lol that's what I just argued. Don't think you can really combine the formats like that. There is no all formats best batsman/bowler.

I don't particularly care for combined either & prefer assessing each individual format, but I just wanted to point out that things swap between Smith and Kohli at the top when you do.

 

[GIMH]

I’ll consider Kohli in the argument ahead of Root when he averages more than 12 in the home of cricket

 

[CricAddict]

A majority of cricket fans/watchers are unable to differentiate between formats. Broadcasters, Cricinfo, ICC repeatedly making "international hundreds, international runs" a thing by adding your records across formats only conflates this more. It creates the illusion that they are equatable - you can add an ODI hundred with a Test hundred and say you got 2 international hundreds, as if an ODI hundred = a Test hundred = a T20 hundred.

CW forummers are actually under the illusion that Tests are the only cricket form even in the modern world. Outside the forum, not many agree to that. Before I joined this forum, even I was giving equal importance to tests and ODIs.

Also, while we cannot add the runs, hundreds etc, we can determine who is the better player overall considering all formats. That way, clearly Kohli is the best. In Tests, it is the indisputable Don Part II who rules the roost.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lol that's what I just argued. Don't think you can really combine the formats like that. There is no all formats best batsman/bowler.

Of course you can. Obviously you can't be definitive because different people prioritise different things.

What I find maddening is any article on cricinfo where Smith is praised you have the Kohli posse coming in saying how Smith isn't the best batsman because Kohli is better in two other formats.

Afaic when anyone mentions the best in anything, I automatically think of tests without any qualifications needed. I'll give them credit though, atleast Kohli fans know better than to argue that he's better than Smith in tests.

lol @ actually reading the comments from Indian cricket fans on any media

 

[Victor Ian]

Tests are worth 5 x ODIs which are worth 2.5 x T20, Therefore Smith is best across all formats.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Tests are worth 5 x ODIs which are worth 2.5 x T20, Therefore Smith is best across all formats.

Can't really argue with that

 

[Black_Warrior]

CW forummers are actually under the illusion that Tests are the only cricket form even in the modern world. Outside the forum, not many agree to that. Before I joined this forum, even I was giving equal importance to tests and ODIs.

Also, while we cannot add the runs, hundreds etc, we can determine who is the better player overall considering all formats. That way, clearly Kohli is the best. In Tests, it is the indisputable Don Part II who rules the roost.

CW does tend to have a bias against LO formats which is also a bit silly. I just tend to separate personal enjoyment of a format from assessing and analysing players.
For example - I think a Bangladesh vs India contest is far more exciting over ODIs than in Tests. Just like the England-Australia ODIs now are going to be more of a contest and provide more excitement.

ODIs are a format I have tremendous love for and I will never devalue them. However, when assessing a player, Test cricket is what I look at because it challenges and tests you in a way no other format does.

Therefore Smith's superior record in Tests just places him ahead of Kohli. His superiority in the LO formats is not enough to make up for the difference in Tests.

The common argument on Social Media is
Kohli > Smith in ODIs + T20s
Smith > Kohli in Tests

Since Kohli > in 2 formats, overall he is better. This is ludicrous to say the least. When talking specifically for LO formats, we can compare their LO records and reasonably conclude that Kohli is the better LO batsman.

 

[TheJediBrah]

CW does tend to have a bias against LO formats which is also a bit silly. I just tend to separate personal enjoyment of a format from assessing and analysing players.
For example - I think a Bangladesh vs India contest is far more exciting over ODIs than in Tests. Just like the England-Australia ODIs now are going to be more of a contest and provide more excitement.

ODIs are a format I have tremendous love for and I will never devalue them. However, when assessing a player, Test cricket is what I look at because it challenges and tests you in a way no other format does.

Therefore Smith's superior record in Tests just places him ahead of Kohli. His superiority in the LO formats is not enough to make up for the difference in Tests.

The common argument on Social Media is
Kohli > Smith in ODIs + T20s
Smith < Kohli in Tests

Since Kohli > in 2 formats, overall he is better. This is ludicrous to say the least. When talking specifically for LO formats, we can compare their LO records and reasonably conclude that Kohli is the better LO batsman.

Really good post from you. Would have been perfect if you hadn't messed up your > and < symbols