The other Steve Smith question - Who would you try and get him out ?

[TheJediBrah]

Yup

In the ATG exercises, I expect Tendulkar, Sobers etc to average 35-40 and Bradman to average 55-60 with the bat over a 5 match series.

Of course we'll never know, but I think it's highly unlikely that Bradman would average anywhere near that low, assuming appropriate adjustments. I expect Sobers and Tendulkar would average more than 35-40 too.

 

[Spark]

Of course we'll never know, but I think it's highly unlikely that Bradman would average anywhere near that low, assuming appropriate adjustments. I expect Sobers and Tendulkar would average more than 35-40 too.

In general I think CW tends to underrate just how good the truly top tier great batsmen were, and just assume that sufficiently good bowling will deal with any batsman. Throw whatever you like at them, chances are they'll find a way to score runs eventually, and once they do they probably won't stop.

 

[srbhkshk]

In general I think CW tends to underrate just how good the truly top tier great batsmen were, and just assume that sufficiently good bowling will deal with any batsman. Throw whatever you like at them, chances are they'll find a way to score runs eventually, and once they do they probably won't stop.

Well, great bowlers are also likely to find out ways to get good batsman out better and quicker. The average decent batsman averages about ~35-40 and the average decent bowler about ~28-32, that's basically how an ATG vs ATG scenario should probably go.

 

[Spark]

Well, great bowlers are also likely to find out ways to get good batsman out better and quicker. The average decent batsman averages about ~35-40 and the average decent bowler about ~28-32, that's basically how an ATG vs ATG scenario should probably go.

IMO batsmen of that calibre have more capacity to technically adjust and change their method in response to what a bowler is trying. Mind you, this debate is exactly what makes truly long Test series (4+) so compelling.

 

[Victor Ian]

If an ATG batsman is 2 X as good as an average one and an ATG bowler is 2 x as good as an average one and an average bat equals an average bowler, then surely an ATG batsman cancels out an ATG bowler and they both go home with an average average of about 30. But Bradman goes home with an average of about 60.

 

[Victor Ian]

IMO batsmen of that calibre have more capacity to technically adjust and change their method in response to what a bowler is trying. Mind you, this debate is exactly what makes truly long Test series (4+) so compelling.

Doesn't that go both ways? Bowlers of that calibre also adjust and change to counter what they see a batsman trying. That's why we enjoy the genius of certain bowlers.

 

[vcs]

I feel like bowlers have it harder to achieve and maintain an average of 21 compared to batsmen staying at the ~55 mark.

Bowlers are impacted by captaincy, fielding standards and the potency of the rest of the attack. These things have a direct impact on their numbers in a way that is hard to argue for a batsman. I have so much respect for ATG bowlers like Hadlee and Murali who averaged what they did with very little support from the rest of the attack, while being the main wicket-taking threat all the time.

I certainly find it hard to see how four ATG bowlers operating in tandem, under a competent captain and with decent slip fielders, wouldn't all average comfortably under 25, no matter how good a batting lineup they face.
Maybe it would be different if the batting lineup had more than one Bradman, but I think there is some merit to what Harsh says.

 

[andruid]

Keep him on the non strkers end?

 

[Spark]

Doesn't that go both ways? Bowlers of that calibre also adjust and change to counter what they see a batsman trying. That's why we enjoy the genius of certain bowlers.

Sure, hence the "more" capacity.

 

[Victor Ian]

Sure, hence the "more" capacity.

How do they have more capacity? Not trying to be difficult, just not understanding why batting has more capacity to adjust?

 

[Slifer]

You can argue this but it's dishonest to suggest that it has to be the case and expecting a batsman who averaged 100 to be, well, better than averaging 55 is unrealistic.



I have never seen as much effort put into "actually the guy averaging 65 in a bowler-friendly era is Bad" as I've seen with Steve Smith.

I don't think anyone has said or implied that steve Smith is bad. Quite the contrary Steve smith is a fkn gun. The op posted the topic of how to stop him, we simply provided our informed opinions.

 

[Slifer]

In general I think CW tends to underrate just how good the truly top tier great batsmen were, and just assume that sufficiently good bowling will deal with any batsman. Throw whatever you like at them, chances are they'll find a way to score runs eventually, and once they do they probably won't stop.

With all due respect, Bradman is a freak and your argument probably applies to him singly. He'd probably average 65+ imo vs WI of the 80s. Sobers, viv, sachin and co are not averaging much more than 40 against them though. Hell no. Sachin could hardly deal with Donald/Pollock or WW or Mcgrath/Gillespie.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sachin could hardly deal with Donald/Pollock or WW or Mcgrath/Gillespie.

This is such a laughable statement to make

 

[OverratedSanity]

In general I think CW tends to underrate just how good the truly top tier great batsmen were, and just assume that sufficiently good bowling will deal with any batsman. Throw whatever you like at them, chances are they'll find a way to score runs eventually, and once they do they probably won't stop.

I tend to agree with this, but also think that people look at series averages far too much to judge how someone did vs an attack. It's such a small sample that things like not outs/bad umpiring can skew things immensely. If you score one or two impactful knocks in a series vs a good attack, that should be viewed as a success. Series averages can lie. A lot.

 

[stephen]

I tend to agree with this, but also think that people look at series averages far too much to judge how someone did vs an attack. It's such a small sample that things like not outs/bad umpiring can skew things immensely. If you score one or two impactful knocks in a series vs a good attack, that should be viewed as a success. Series averages can lie. A lot.

Yeah the prime example for me was Hayden on his final tour to South Africa. He was immense and set up the series with the bat for Australia but only averaged 38.5. That series should have enhanced his reputation but the "cricket is just a set of stats" folks will look at it and think he was ordinary.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Bouncer at his head that doesn't bounce?

 

[kyear2]

I just wonder how he isn't lbw for every inswinger.

 

[Slifer]

This is such a laughable statement to make

How so?? Sachin didn't exactly excel against the above bowlers (bowling together). If you know otherwise I'll be glad to rescind my comment.

 

[Slifer]

I honestly think that if Smith wasn't concussed and was able to play fully fit in all 5 tests he'd get really close to 900 runs this series, possibly threatening Bradman's 974.

 

[ankitj]

Is he human?