The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[mr_mister]

Hobbs was ridiculously good. Most 100s in Australia. Barrington averaged about 70 in Australia, which is what Sutcliffe averaged against them overall. I think it's clearly Hobbs 2nd still.

Hobbs's record looks great, but it seems he was a fair bit weaker at home. Didn't make much of an impact except in the '26 home series.

Barrington same story.

Sutcliffe a good shout but hell so many of these players are good shouts. Hammond's 900+ series, Huttons 364. Even Michael Slater had amazing resume in these contests til his final bout in '01(150 in his second test at Lords in '93, 3 centuries each in the 94/95, 98/99 series). Point is a lot of batsman have really stepped up on both sides during ashes contests


I just think what Smith has now achieved has pushed him to the next level. cracking 687 runs at home then 774 in the return away series is pretty special.

dont think anyone other then Bradman has had a 600+ run series both home and away in ashes contests. Australia's success in them pretty much all came off his bat

 

[TheJediBrah]

Smith v Anderson is not even close to a "stalemate"

I'd be surprised if he averaged less than 65-70 against him (not sure how you would even go about getting those stats though)

 

[mr_mister]

Smith v Anderson is not even close to a "stalemate"

I'd be surprised if he averaged less than 65-70 against him (not sure how you would even go about getting those stats though)

it seems Anderson simply managing to avoid the onslaught of last year has given him a point in his favour for some reason

 

[trundler]

I suspect the lower average at home has to do with 3-day tests in England before the War. He averaged 39 at home pre-War and 52 afterwards. This is only against Australia. I cbf digging pre-War averages in England again but they were something in the region of 28 in the first decade of the previous century.

What I find hilarious is that Hobbs and Sutcliffe loved Aussie tracks way more than English ones but just a little later you had Ponsford and Brown averaging way more in England than at home. What's going on there?

 

[mr_mister]

Without checking anything, Ponsford I guess only had a handful of home ashes tests and his record would be heavily influenced by bodyline, which he was possibly not good enough against

His shield record is ridiculously high so he could certainly handle the pitches normally

 

[honestbharani]

Gotta love how the usual gang wanna argue a strawman which no one stated. Let's see. What I said -


I don't think Smith dominated Anderson in England - FACT - Smith averages 47 in tests in England where Anderson played and did not limp off after the first over. And this over 8 test matches, which, in other words, is a sample size larger than whatever is used to say he has "dominated" in India.

I said he would have had to work harder to accelerate had Anderson been part of the attack in the 2019 Ashes - FACT - he scores lesser runs on average at a lesser SR (~ 8 lower) than he does when Anderson is not playing against him in England.

And I said it will be a stalemate as Anderson hates giving runs away and Smith hates giving his wicket away. That is just an opinion on a match up. It is funny how insensible someone has to be to post that it is some kind of lie.


Gotta love how the usual suspects get so ticked off about a simple factual observation on Smith and then accuse Indian supporters of doing the same when something is said about Tendulkar.

 

[stephen]

No, it's just you hb. You're counting basically two series in what you're saying, both before he had become the beast he would become later in his career.

And even if Anderson was fit for 2019 and he only averaged 47 against England in England, averaging 47 in England IS dominating. It's not a stalemate, it's better than every bloody Englishman averages.

 

[ankitj]

47 is a great average for a condition and/or opponent you have fared worst against.

 

[trundler]

It's how much Rohan Kanhai averaged full stop and he's considered an ATG

 

[honestbharani]

ROFL.. Chris Rogers averages 50 for the same period against England in England and that is over 10 tests, 2 more than Smith. And Hashim Amla averages 68. KP averages 56 for that period over more games...

And none of this negates my point anyway, which was that I do not think Steve Smith "dominated" Anderson in England and that it is a match up which I see becoming a stalemate, which is, by itself, a win given the batsman is Steve Smith.

And ankit, not sure what your point is here, as Smith does have worse stats against other countries and no one even claimed England with Anderson in England as his kryptonite or anything. I agree he has dominated England in England overall but I was simply asking about the post that said he has dominated Anderson in England, which I don't think happened. That is all. As great as Smith is, I don't see anyone "dominating" Anderson in England, you do well if you negate him and score off the others and do not get out to him. Which Smith has done more than enough times.

 

[stephen]

His double ton against Anderson is dominating him. He also made 138* against him. If hitting a couple of centuries and averaging 47 against sides with him in* isn't dominating I don't knows what is.

*especially when over half of those tests are from your debut series** when you're still rubbish.

** It wasn't his debut but the 2013 tour was before he really came good.

 

[honestbharani]

This came good nonsense is not the way I rate people. He was an important batsman for Aus even in the 2013 series and I think I may have a few posts here on CW indicating that. And yes, scoring a 200 and a 100 in 7 or 8 tests is not really dominating in my book.

And trundler, if you think averaging 47 in a small sample size against a particular opponent in particular conditions is your idea of "domination' I will simply beg to differ with that thought. To me dominance is what Smith did to India in 2017 in India. I don't think he has done that to Anderson, even though he has done that to England. Which was my point all along, if you could see through the strawmen others were putting up for whatever reason.

 

[trundler]

I don't really believe in the average against x bowler stats tbh. In such a small sample size a dropped catch or an unfair LBW can have too big an impact. Unless you're averaging 12 or 120, it doesn't tell you much. 30-70 can all be good or unimpressive depending on context.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I genuinely feel like going through every single test they have ever played ball by ball just to find out how wrong you are

 

[honestbharani]

@trundler: But that is not the stat I was going by. I do not believe in that stat either. I am going by memory coz I watched a lot of the Ashes this decade and I don't remember Smith dominating Anderson in England. I simply then looked up the stats that showed his output was not the same when Anderson was playing compared to when he was not and he never really "dominated" a series where Anderson played.

 

[trundler]

If you watched the battle a lot and that's what you think then I don't have a problem with you saying that at all. I don't think coming good is generally a good excuse for discounting failures but 2010 Smith was a totally different player with a totally different role.

Think Lara vs McGrath is widely accepted to be a stalemate and that's a 40 average I think. Make of that what you will.

 

[Flem274*]

overall, smith has been a resounding success in england

in fact, you could argue he was the difference in the series just gone.

 

[morgieb]

overall, smith has been a resounding success in england

in fact, you could argue he was the difference in the series just gone.

That's an understatement. England easily win that series without him.

 

[vcs]

In a series with a lot of outstanding performers (Stokes, Cummins, Archer etc.), Smith was MoTS by a country mile.

 

[TheJediBrah]

ROFL.. Chris Rogers averages 50 for the same period against England in England and that is over 10 tests, 2 more than Smith. And Hashim Amla averages 68. KP averages 56 for that period over more games...

And none of this negates my point anyway, which was that I do not think Steve Smith "dominated" Anderson in England and that it is a match up which I see becoming a stalemate, which is, by itself, a win given the batsman is Steve Smith.

And ankit, not sure what your point is here, as Smith does have worse stats against other countries and no one even claimed England with Anderson in England as his kryptonite or anything. I agree he has dominated England in England overall but I was simply asking about the post that said he has dominated Anderson in England, which I don't think happened. That is all. As great as Smith is, I don't see anyone "dominating" Anderson in England, you do well if you negate him and score off the others and do not get out to him. Which Smith has done more than enough times.

That's fine, if you refuse to believe something for whatever reason then that's your prerogative. Don't expect people to agree with you though, or be surprised when people treat your statements with derision.

Also if, as it seems, you really want to turn this into a semantic discussion about the definition of "domination" then the whole thing is pointless anyway. Any of us could now just say we define "dominate" as something different to suit whatever our arguments are