The legacy of Steve Smith

[Spark]

Decades from now some muppet will statsguru it and go "wow Smith dominated all time great Rabada" not knowing Rabada bowled complete dross.

Decades? I was already grumbling in the tour thread that some dick is going to roll up in a few years on here to claim that Rabada was actually good in Australia #actually based on a decent series average and ignore everyone who watched the series and insisted that no he was absolute garbage.

Genuinely as bad a fast bowling performance as there's been from a fast bowler of his calibre in Australia in many a year.

 

[Slifer]

Yes. Lara/Tendulkar were good/medium vs great attacks and dominating of lesser attacks.

Smith by comparison, faced a much lesser percentage of great attacks and was much more dominant of lesser attacks, and on more helpful pitches.

Actually, I just thought about it and to some extent you are correct. The best attack Smith would've faced would be India in India and RSA with Steyn Philander Rabada or combination of two of those bowlers. And Smith was middling vs RSA. But he's done well vs India and England away. And with respect, neither of those attacks imo are particularly weak. Matter of fact, India is great at home. So there's that.

 

[Godard]

I would say Smith and Tendulkar have an equally good home/away record. During the 90s, SA was kind of a bogey team for SRT, but he more than proved himself later in his career circa Steyn/Morkel in SA 2010. Tendulkar has done well vs great attacks in the 90s as well tho, in WI 1996, Aus 1999 and some good attacks 92 Aus, 96 SL.

 

[social]

I am not a Smith “fan” as I don’t actually enjoy watching him bat all that often

In my time, Viv was incredible in the way that he dispatched the world’s best ever array of fast bowlers without a helmet

Greg Chappell and Tendy were elegance personified & great technicians

Border carried Australia for years

Etc etc

IMO, Smith is the closest we have come to Bradman

It’s like watching a machine

Nobody doubts that Kohli is a great player but he’s averaging in the 20s for nearly 3 years

People question Smith when he averages in the 20s for 3 tests

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Respectfully, bear in mind what I listed as great attacks from the 90s. Some of those series listed wouldn't count. For example, the WI tour in '94 to India only Walsh played. The other bowlers included the likes of Dhanraj, Cuffy. Australia '98 again no McGrath. That was Warne, Reifel and Gavin Robertson (lol). The series in '92 self explanatory.

For Lara, his 93 series in Oz wouldn't count because that was pre McGrath.

So my point still stands that Lara/Sachin were middling vs the actual great attacks of the 90s and made hay vs the weaker teams and or vs teams like Australia where their attacks weren't at full strength.

Still, I don't want to you to get this notion that I don't rate either of Lara or especially Sachin; I do. But people keep saying they played in a tougher bowling era, which imo is true but we shouldn't pretend that Sachin averaged 58 inclusive of the great attacks.

Gee it took me about an hour to put those stats together too ?

 

[subshakerz]

Actually, I just thought about it and to some extent you are correct. The best attack Smith would've faced would be India in India and RSA with Steyn Philander Rabada or combination of two of those bowlers. And Smith was middling vs RSA. But he's done well vs India and England away. And with respect, neither of those attacks imo are particularly weak. Matter of fact, India is great at home. So there's that.

The thing is that it doesnt matter how great a batsman you are, your averages cumulatively against worldclass attacks will inevitably be lower than your overall career and against medium/lower attacks, with certain exceptions.

The question is how much have you played against such attacks and whether you have still maintained a good enough performance to show your class.

Tendulkar played 200 games overall, and probably played around 50 games against attacks with at least one of McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Shoaib, Steyn, Ambrose, Murali and Warne, with an average somewhere in the mid-40s.

In Smith's case, how many tests has he faced such quality? Maybe 15-20? Asif, Steyn, Rabada not including this series, Bumrah and Ashwin/Jadeja in India, and he probably doesnt average nearly as much as his career when you add those numbers. Thats about it. Unless we want to be charitable and count tests he played against Anderson.

So yeah, Smith has a better record, but I will always caveat it with that his average wasn't lowered by facing a higher percentage against tough foes.

 

[Slifer]

Gee it took me about an hour to put those stats together too ?

Lol.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Lol.

seriously it did. Give me a lotto ticket

 

[Slifer]

The thing is that it doesnt matter how great a batsman you are, your averages cumulatively against worldclass attacks will inevitably be lower than your overall career and against medium/lower attacks, with certain exceptions.

The question is how much have you played against such attacks and whether you have still maintained a good enough performance to show your class.

Tendulkar played 200 games overall, and probably played around 50 games against attacks with at least one of McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Shoaib, Steyn, Ambrose, Murali and Warne, with an average somewhere in the mid-40s.

In Smith's case, how many tests has he faced such quality? Maybe 15-20? Asif, Steyn, Rabada not including this series, Bumrah and Ashwin/Jadeja in India, and he probably doesnt average nearly as much as his career when you add those numbers. Thats about it. Unless we want to be charitable and count tests he played against Anderson.

So yeah, Smith has a better record, but I will always caveat it with that his average wasn't lowered by facing a higher percentage against tough foes.

That's all true but then someone also stated that you can't just look at a name and assume Sachin just did well against. For all we know, that player may have been bowling "complete dross" . I know it wasn't you but I'm just showing one can use that chain of thought for anyone.

Still, Sachin did generally face better bowling in the 90s but also faced much worse attacks in the 2000s. For example, Sachin faced west indies in one test series with a quality attack : 97. But thereafter, he played 13 tests vs the absolute worst wi attacks of all time.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Respectfully, bear in mind what I listed as great attacks from the 90s. Some of those series listed wouldn't count. For example, the WI tour in '94 to India only Walsh played. The other bowlers included the likes of Dhanraj, Cuffy. Australia '98 again no McGrath. That was Warne, Reifel and Gavin Robertson (lol). The series in '92 self explanatory.

For Lara, his 93 series in Oz wouldn't count because that was pre McGrath.

So my point still stands that Lara/Sachin were middling vs the actual great attacks of the 90s and made hay vs the weaker teams and or vs teams like Australia where their attacks weren't at full strength.

Still, I don't want to you to get this notion that I don't rate either of Lara or especially Sachin; I do. But people keep saying they played in a tougher bowling era, which imo is true but we shouldn't pretend that Sachin averaged 58 inclusive of the great attacks.

The problem with this over the top filtering is that Smith’s 2019 Ashes runs didn’t come against Jimmy Anderson (or something to that effect).

 

[Slifer]

seriously it did. Give me a lotto ticket

Power ball?

 

[Slifer]

The problem with this over the top filtering is that Smith’s 2019 Ashes runs didn’t come against Jimmy Anderson (or something to that effect).

He has the previous Ashes runs to cover for that though. Not as spectacular but I'll take 500 runs at 56 vs Broad and Anderson in England.

 

[_00_deathscar]

It is a phenomenal achievement from Tendulkar. But you have to give it to Smith if his entire career can match or exceed that sample.

I think it’s why as far as consistency/longevity goes it’s going to be really really hard to match Sachin. I know 100-120 tests is of course a **** ton, but the man was averaging 57 after 170 tests! It’s seriously insane.

 

[_00_deathscar]

He has the previous Ashes runs to cover for that though. Not as spectacular but I'll take 500 runs at 56 vs Broad and Anderson in England.

Yea just saying, it starts getting a little silly. I don’t think there’s that much in it if we look at great attacks - @subshakerz is right there for once. The difference is Smith has gone absolutely bonkers vs the weaker attacks to a level Sachin never did.

There is also something to be said for Smith’s home averages propping up his overall average, even during “bowling friendly era”. You only have to look at other Aussie batsmen’s home averages - Warner, Khawaja etc
Which isn’t to suggest he’s crap or anything but the overall is massively massively inflated as a result of him absolutely dominating at home.

 

[Slifer]

Yea just saying, it starts getting a little silly. I don’t think there’s that much in it if we look at great attacks - @subshakerz is right there for once. The difference is Smith has gone absolutely bonkers vs the weaker attacks to a level Sachin never did.

There is also something to be said for Smith’s home averages propping up his overall average, even during “bowling friendly era”. You only have to look at other Aussie batsmen’s home averages - Warner, Khawaja etc
Which isn’t to suggest he’s crap or anything but the overall is massively massively inflated as a result of him absolutely dominating at home.

I agree with the home assessment but then, he's also dominant outside Australia as well. This is quite unique among his contemporaries.

 

[Burgey]

There is also something to be said for Smith’s home averages propping up his overall average, even during “bowling friendly era”. You only have to look at other Aussie batsmen’s home averages - Warner, Khawaja etc
Which isn’t to suggest he’s crap or anything but the overall is massively massively inflated as a result of him absolutely dominating at home.

Do you run this sort of analysis by the other dominant players of his (and every other) era? Because Smith averages 60 away and 64 at home. Disavowing those raw numbers, the discrepancy itself is pretty low compared with the vast majority of players.

 

[Coronis]

Do you run this sort of analysis by the other dominant players of his (and every other) era? Because Smith averages 60 away and 64 at home. Disavowing those raw numbers, the discrepancy itself is pretty low compared with the vast majority of players.

Quite.

Some big Home/Away differences for 50+ players.


Voges (duh) 86/49
Labu 70/39
Headley 77/47
Walcott 69/40
Compton 60/36
Yousuf 65/44
Weekes 69/49
Williamson 65/45
Pollock 68/49
Hussey 61/42
Hayden 57/41
Sobers 66/50!
Miandad 61/45
Shiv 58/45
Lara 58/47
Ponting 56/46

and flipping the coin

Barrington 50/69
Hammond 50/66
Border 45/56

Little surprised at Sobers difference, not that 50 away isn’t still outstanding of course.

 

[Slifer]

Quite.

Some big Home/Away differences for 50+ players.


Voges (duh) 86/49
Labu 70/39
Headley 77/47
Walcott 69/40
Compton 60/36
Yousuf 65/44
Weekes 69/49
Williamson 65/45
Pollock 68/49
Hussey 61/42
Hayden 57/41
Sobers 66/50!
Miandad 61/45
Shiv 58/45
Lara 58/47
Ponting 56/46

and flipping the coin

Barrington 50/69
Hammond 50/66
Border 45/56

Little surprised at Sobers difference, not that 50 away isn’t still outstanding of course.

And Smith averages 60 home and away. WAG !!

 

[Slifer]

Quite.

Some big Home/Away differences for 50+ players.


Voges (duh) 86/49
Labu 70/39
Headley 77/47
Walcott 69/40
Compton 60/36
Yousuf 65/44
Weekes 69/49
Williamson 65/45
Pollock 68/49
Hussey 61/42
Hayden 57/41
Sobers 66/50!
Miandad 61/45
Shiv 58/45
Lara 58/47
Ponting 56/46

and flipping the coin

Barrington 50/69
Hammond 50/66
Border 45/56

Little surprised at Sobers difference, not that 50 away isn’t still outstanding of course.

For Sobers his unusual record in NZ really screwed up him up.

 

[Coronis]

For Sobers his unusual record in NZ really screwed up him up.

True. 55/56 was before he’d made his mark as a batsman but no excuse for 68/69.