The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Teja.]

in fairness you can chop off the first two years similar to how you chop off Tendulkar's first three years cos he was a teen then.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Yeah but if you're only counting Smith's career from that point, Tendulkar from 93-01 averaged 64.2 which is still as good if not better and is longer than the batsman phase of Smith's career:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[aussie tragic]

Yea

Smith was 21 when he debuted though, compared to Sachin's 16.

Yeah, Smith was 21 when he debuted as a spin bowler batting #8, hardly comparable lol

 

[srbhkshk]

Yea

Yeah, Smith was 21 when he debuted as a spin bowler batting #8, hardly comparable lol

Who cares, point is Sachin has had comparable stats for a period of time equal to Smith's career.

 

[Teja.]

I rate Smith and think he has a shot of being greater than Sachin if he is excellent for another 80 tests or so but the idea that he is better now already is madness considering Sachin was as good as Smith when he was 21-30 and played 14 years outside of that lol.

That would mean Sachin should have been rated higher than he is now if he retired after 2002.

 

[Daemon]

I rate Smith and think he has a shot of being greater than Sachin if he is excellent for another 80 tests or so but the idea that he is better now already is madness considering Sachin was as good as Smith when he was 21-30 and played 14 years outside of that lol.

That would mean Sachin should have been rated higher than he is now if he retired after 2002.

Agreed, but I don't think he needs another 80 tests. Like 40-50 odd tests of similar or slightly less output than what he's done now would be enough for me to pretty much put him right behind Bradman.

 

[honestbharani]

There's just a bias against players who are still playing.

It's not a bias when you see how many careers turned out towards the end and the last 2 years. Its just prudence. I am saying Sachin > Smith, I am also not saying Smith > Sachin. One guy has completed his career, other guy has not. Its not an apples to apples comparison yet.

 

[honestbharani]

Agreed, but I don't think he needs another 80 tests. Like 40-50 odd tests of similar or slightly less output than what he's done now would be enough for me to pretty much put him right behind Bradman.

What if he has 80 tests, where 50 has similar output but last 30 has him being utter **** and he ends up averaging like 54?

 

[honestbharani]

Also, AB is another batsman who has simlar numbers to Smith in the same period, and we can easily argue he faced much better attacks than Smith.

 

[Daemon]

What if he has 80 tests, where 50 has similar output but last 30 has him being utter **** and he ends up averaging like 54?

No idea, I'll care when we get there. I haven't done the math but he'd have to average like 20 for those 30 tests to end up with 54 though right?

In general it's just too hard to rate current players unless they're nearing retirement imo.

 

[honestbharani]

No idea, I'll care when we get there. I haven't done the math but he'd have to average like 20 for those 30 tests to end up with 54 though right?

In general it's just too hard to rate current players unless they're nearing retirement imo.

Which was my point, so thank you.

 

[OverratedSanity]

2014- present, no one has numbers even close to Smith, and its included lots of series in tough batting conditions against probably the highest quality of bowling in decades. Its already the best 4-5 year stretch in history bar bradman. So another couple of years of him averaging something stupid like 70-80 and Ill definitely rank him the 2nd greatest ever. Even if he stinks it up dhoni style for 5 years. I'm not convinced he can keep it up for much longer but we'll see.

 

[Flem274*]

Haddin is 100 times a better bloke than McCullum.

Not relevant to their respected cricketing ability, but relevant all the same

yea nah, haddin's a coward. he gives a jesse ryder loose cannon type those send offs and he wakes up 6 months later in hospital from his well deserved coma.

say what you will about the sledging from the great australian rugby union side, they had to physically back up their verbals. following dismissed batsmen around sarcastically applauding them in your own national stadium while playing a non-contact sport epitomizes brad haddin as a man.

 

[trundler]

I rate Smith and think he has a shot of being greater than Sachin if he is excellent for another 80 tests or so but the idea that he is better now already is madness considering Sachin was as good as Smith when he was 21-30 and played 14 years outside of that lol.

That would mean Sachin should have been rated higher than he is now if he retired after 2002.

This is the crux of what I believe in. Tendulkar was already in the Wisden XI, Bradman XI and Benaud's XI by the early 2000s, based on already being 'a level above Chappell' according to Benaud. And then he had a 2nd peak years later. Also this isn't anti-recency bias at all. If anything, people who want to mark Tendulkar down for not having Laraesque series would overlook Smith not being very good in the second dig. Just an example, don't think Smith isn't among the very best but Tendulkar gets undersold in a reactionary way on here.

 

[stephen]

As I said earlier, the difference between the two is that Tendulkar was locked in for a century and other good contributions each series. Smith seems to be locked in for 3 centuries but only really in the biggest series'. It's like something clicked into overdrive in Smith when the stakes are highest. He's just insane.

 

[honestbharani]

Smith seems to be locked in for 3 centuries but only really in the biggest series'.

TIL the stakes were low in the SA tour that Aus had in 2018.

 

[trundler]

But then he has micro periods where he's coming off a big series and looks fatigued. He's been ridiculous, of course. Better peak than Ponting even but it's still too early. We're just falling for the age old would've been better if he'd played less fallacy for the millionth time here.

 

[mr_mister]

Tendulkar from the age of 20-30 averaged 62.3 with the bat in 85 tests which is 7 runs more than anybody else. That is a longer period than Smith's entire career and is comparable and if not better to Smith's dominance.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

He also casually played 14 more years, most of which being an excellent test batsman.

I am aware if you tinker with the stats you can produce different results. My comment was about the raw number

 

[stephen]

But then he has micro periods where he's coming off a big series and looks fatigued. He's been ridiculous, of course. Better peak than Ponting even but it's still too early. We're just falling for the age old would've been better if he'd played less fallacy for the millionth time here.

I genuinely think though that the bowlers have been better and decks have been fairer than they were during Ponting's peak.

Also Ponting never had any England or India series like those that Smith has had.

 

[Teja.]

I am aware if you tinker with the stats you can produce different results. My comment was about the raw number

Raw average is a pretty dumb way to compare a guy who's played 24 with a guy who's effectively played for 8 though. Might as well compare some dude who averages 80 over 2.5 years with Smith.

 

[stephen]

Since November 2013, Smith is only behind Root in terms of runs scored. Root has played 25 tests more than him. He's hit 25 hundreds in 61 tests at an average of 69. That's pretty incredible given he's spent an entire year on the sidelines during that time.