• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Is it relevant in a Smith vs AB comparison? AB's time figuring out his game as a batsman happened outside the decade itself.
I won't say that coz he also had the time he was a keeper and was still shuttling around the order with Kallis and Amla being around. I don't think he had figured out his game at the beginning of the decade. Perhaps after the retirement of Smith but not until then for sure.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Probably not in this context, but overall a fair point I think.

His one-year ban was also timely, saved him from having to face the Indian attack. :ph34r:

TBF, his one year ban was too lengthy but he definitely looked like someone who needed a break, especially after that test. But he also lost a year in his prime age fitness wise, so there is that.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
because to me playing England without Anderson is the same as playing India at home without Ashwin. There are other gun bowlers around but the one who is missing is at a different level and hence the challenge is, whether you like it or not, lesser. Again, when the comparison is with Bradman,the small things matter too, as I said earlier.
You've just done the same thing again. You've clearly looked at the scorecards and seen "no Anderson" and decided that the England attack wasn't as good. It was the first time Archer played Tests for England too and I dare say he was more of a challenge to Smith than Anderson would have been.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I think the SA is tougher to bat in argument has some truth to it but it rings a bit hollow in this case because AB only scored 4 tons away from home the whole decade. I don't think a smith vs ab comparison is particularly close tbh, the difference in average might even undersell how amazing Smith has been. The guy's scored literally twice the number of tons.
And again why watching the game also means something more than just stats. Smith has easily been the #1 but he is not a Bradman level ahead of his next best. And the example for that is how good AB has been. I have already made my thoughts overall on Steve Smith clear in some other thread here but this is simply about him having been Bradman-esque. He has been better than everyone but not to those levels yet.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bradman-eqsue is just a saying. I don't think anyone is literally thinking that Smith is as good as Bradman or as good as he was compared to rest. Of course he isn't. I don't know why you're taking it literally.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
You've just done the same thing again. You've clearly looked at the scorecards and seen "no Anderson" and decided that the England attack wasn't as good. It was the first time Archer played Tests for England too and I dare say he was more of a challenge to Smith than Anderson would have been.

ROFL.. The mental gymnastics you need to first assume I did not watch the series, which I did and I know its just another fact you refuse to acknowledge as you don't llike it but come on... :laugh: To call Archer a bigger challenge than Anderson... I mean, you did watch what he bowled with the new ball during that 4th test right? In what universe was that any kind of a "challenge"? It's always fun reading your posts where you pretend to be blind to facts to support your bias but you have outdone yourself here.
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
ROFL.. The mental gymnastics you need to first assume I did not watch the series, which I did and I know its just another fact you refuse to acknowledge as you don't llike it but come on... :laugh: To call Archer a bigger challenge than Anderson... I mean, you did watch what he bowled with the new ball during that 4th test right? In what universe was that any kind of a "challenge"? It's always fun reading your posts where you pretend to be blind to facts to support your bias but you have outdone yourself here.
never change HB

ftr I was assuming you didn't watch the series to give you the benefit of the doubt, because you having watched it and still said what you did is so much worse
 

Coronis

International Coach
What do you expect? Sutcliffe on his own without Hobbs isn't as good as Barrington IMO.
Not sure what point you’re trying to make here, you’re marking him down for playing with Hobbs? Besides, he averaged 66 against Australia, over a large sample size, by far the toughest competition of his era.

From what I have read, Sutcliffe was exceptionally difficult to get out. Sutcliffe was actually better when the going got tough and earned his reputation as a performer for big match situations. Even Bradman said Sutcliffe had the best temperament for any batsman he has ever seen. If I am not mistaken, Sutcliffe never averaged below 60 in his entire career. Sutcliffe took the least innings to 1000 runs and retired as the highest century maker in Tests.
According to Charles Davis he averaged 164 balls per dismissal, the same as Bradman, more than anyone else in history. Of course, the difference between Bradman and the rest of the great batsmen during his career was that he had a strike rate around 60, where none of the other 50+ batsmen had a strike rate above about 45. (Maybe Hobbs but I can’t find his anywhere, and I presume his pre-war SR would’ve been higher than afterwards).
 
Last edited:

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
What is a poor take? I am not denying he was in God mode and made the difference to retaining the Ashes (with help from Marnus)... You really need to read what I wrote there. He has been great in England but not as much as the numbers indicate because to me playing England without Anderson is the same as playing India at home without Ashwin. There are other gun bowlers around but the one who is missing is at a different level and hence the challenge is, whether you like it or not, lesser. Again, when the comparison is with Bradman,the small things matter too, as I said earlier.
England had Anderson last time Australia toured and he made runs then.

Look, it doesn’t matter who is bowling to him if he’s in that sort of form, the bowling all comes the same to him. A lot of top players have a mode like that, but you either forget or down play (I suspect the latter, gotta get your Virat on) that the bloke came in at basically two fer **** almost every dig he played, only got out second test because he got sconed, then came back from concussion and made 200 next knock. In context, it’s the single most dominant series from a batsman in my time watching since Viv in 1976.

He doesn’t play, they lose 3-0. As it was, they were unlucky not to win 4-0, which would have been a fairer reflection. But it is all down to him.
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not sure what point you’re trying to make here, you’re marking him down for playing with Hobbs? Besides, he averaged 66 against Australia, over a large sample size, by far the toughest competition of his era.



According to Charles Davis he averaged 164 balls per dismissal, the same as Bradman, more than anyone else in history. Of course, the difference between Bradman and the rest of the great batsmen during his career was that he had a strike rate around 60, where none of the other 50+ batsmen had a strike rate above about 45. (Maybe Hobbs but I can’t find his anywhere, and I presume his pre-war SR would’ve been higher than afterwards).
Balls per dismissal should be used more than it is as a statistic imo. I'd like to see it right next to average and strike rate in career stats on cricinfo.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
never change HB

ftr I was assuming you didn't watch the series to give you the benefit of the doubt, because you having watched it and still said what you did is so much worse

Its always reassuring when TJB thinks your opinion on cricket is wrong. Usually, it is the highest validation that you are right.


Never change, TJB. :laugh:
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Bradman-eqsue is just a saying. I don't think anyone is literally thinking that Smith is as good as Bradman or as good as he was compared to rest. Of course he isn't. I don't know why you're taking it literally.

The context was comparison of Smith today and Sachin in 2001 and I think every point I brought up there was perfectly valid. Of course, I did project that slifer meant "Bradmanesque" when he said it was a level of dominance he had not seen in his lifetime..
 
Last edited:

Coronis

International Coach
Balls per dismissal should be used more than it is as a statistic imo. I'd like to see it right next to average and strike rate in career stats on cricinfo.
Assuming their balls faced stat is accurate on cricinfo (surely they’ve been counted properly since 2010) for comparison, Smith has a SR of 55.3 and averages 114 balls per dismissal, whilst Kohli has a SR of 57.8 and averages 95 balls per dismissal. Comparing to Bradman, who had a SR of 61-62 and averaged 164 balls per dismissal.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
England had Anderson last time Australia toured and he made runs then.

Look, it doesn’t matter who is bowling to him if he’s in that sort of form, the bowling all comes the same to him. A lot of top players have a mode like that, but you either forget or down play (I suspect the latter, gotta get your Virat on) that the bloke came in at basically two fer **** almost every dig he played, only got out second test because he got sconed, then came back from concussion and made 200 next knock. In context, it’s the single most dominant series from a batsman in my time watching since Viv in 1976.

He doesn’t play, they lose 3-0. As it was, they were unlucky not to win 4-0, which would have been a fairer reflection. But it is all down to him.
You are free to your opinions but what was his average when Anderson did play in England and he played against them? And how much better was the next best? That is what I meant by context. I am not disputing he was great, just that the level of greatness argument based on that series has to factor in an obvious thing like Anderson missing the entire series and England playing the entire opening test their best bowler down and a 4 man attack.


And honestly, this is piss poor posting even from your standards that you have to bring Virat into a discussion no one else was doing. Again, insecurities and all that.. :laugh:
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Assuming their balls faced stat is accurate on cricinfo (surely they’ve been counted properly since 2010) for comparison, Smith has a SR of 55.3 and averages 114 balls per dismissal, whilst Kohli has a SR of 57.8 and averages 95 balls per dismissal. Comparing to Bradman, who had a SR of 61-62 and averaged 164 balls per dismissal.

How does AB do on that metric in for the 2010s?
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pretty good point, this. Be worth having it there imo
Yeah, can give you a good idea of a batsman's survivability. In isolation it definitely has more value than strike rate as a statistic imo. I should start a petition for stats sites to include this.
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Isn't that some of the metrics the new English selectors are going by? Didn't they come up with something like "getting to 30" or similar when they selected the first Ashes team? :laugh:
 

Top