Steve Smith vs Viv Richards

[subshakerz]

Yeah based on what I've seen from Smith facing up to the South African attack on the last tour in Australia when the wickets were more helpful and the working over Smith got from Archer and Wagner. I'd say he'd have gotten murdered facing Thommo et al in the 80s without bouncer restrictions and minimal protection.

Yeah this is why I feel uncomfy giving Smith the title as the best since Bradman given that I don't feel he has been as tested as I would have liked.

I would be interested to see how McGrath would work out someone with Smith's technique. Not really weak outside off.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah based on what I've seen from Smith facing up to the South African attack on the last tour in Australia when the wickets were more helpful and the working over Smith got from Archer and Wagner. I'd say he'd have gotten murdered facing Thommo et al in the 80s without bouncer restrictions and minimal protection.

This isn't a situation he has to score runs against though. Viv never had to bother learning how to bat on a sticky deck and if you were gonna get him before his decline it was probably through a bit of spin.

By this logic, if you sent modern day Archer and Wagner back in time to the era of no bouncer restrictions and minimal protection, they would be super effective and therefore we should rate them much higher (especially given Archer's outright empirically measured pace and Wagner's almost transcendent fitness able to outlast the mental endurance of batsmen and their expectations for how long bouncer barrages last) than we do. Johnson is another good example for someone you could do this with. I think you'd agree that would be bull****.

Also it's not like Smith was a pushover. He tonned up against Archer and scored a few 50s against NZ in the Wagner series. While those runs might have been scored at the other end, it took a lot of work for those two to prise him out.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Could somebody please remind me how many times Archer actually got Smith out in the 2019 Ashes?

 

[honestbharani]

This isn't a situation he has to score runs against though. Viv never had to bother learning how to bat on a sticky deck and if you were gonna get him before his decline it was probably through a bit of spin.

By this logic, if you sent modern day Archer and Wagner back in time to the era of no bouncer restrictions and minimal protection, they would be super effective and therefore we should rate them much higher (especially given Archer's outright empirically measured pace and Wagner's almost transcendent fitness able to outlast the mental endurance of batsmen and their expectations for how long bouncer barrages last) than we do. Johnson is another good example for someone you could do this with. I think you'd agree that would be bull****.

Also it's not like Smith was a pushover. He tonned up against Archer and scored a few 50s against NZ in the Wagner series. While those runs might have been scored at the other end, it took a lot of work for those two to prise him out.

its silly to compare skillsets exhibited across different eras and think those players will play the same way if they were playing during other eras.

Its why you just compare career and achievements and I think Smith has been ahead of the pack of his contemporary batsmen by more than Viv was in his time as far as tests go.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Could somebody please remind me how many times Archer actually got Smith out in the 2019 Ashes?

I've seen Australian fans say this about the Smith-Archer contest seemingly in an attempt to say Archer comprehensively lost because he couldn't get him out .

Smith got injured and missed a whole test, contributing 0 runs at Headingley. That's a direct result of him not playing an Archer bouncer well. It's an outcome that's actually better for England than just getting Smith out in that particular innings. It might sound callous, that's not my intention. But I really don't think Smith not getting out to Archer should be seen as some victory for him when what actually happened was worse than getting caught in the deep or something.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

I've seen Australian fans say this about the Smith-Archer contest seemingly in an attempt to say Archer comprehensively lost because he couldn't get him out .

Smith got injured and missed a whole test, contributing 0 runs at Headingley. That's a direct result of him not playing an Archer bouncer well. It's an outcome that's actually better for England than just getting Smith out in that particular innings. It might sound callous, that's not my intention. But I really don't think Smith not getting out to Archer should be seen as some victory for him when what actually happened was worse than getting caught in the deep or something.

Yes, braining Smith did obvoiusly have some effect, but did that carry over into any of the times Archer bowled to him subesqently in the series? Not in the slightest

Anyone claiming Smith was somehow "scarred" by Archer is talking out of their backside

 

[_00_deathscar]

Its why you just compare career and achievements and I think Smith has been ahead of the pack of his contemporary batsmen by more than Viv was in his time as far as tests go.

The fault with that method is that Steyn was far better than his contemporaries than any other bowler in recent times was.

But yea I get what you mean in that we can only go by what they do in their own era.

 

[honestbharani]

The fault with that method is that Steyn was far better than his contemporaries than any other bowler in recent times was.

But yea I get what you mean in that we can only go by what they do in their own era.

You really think I don't rate Steyn that high?

Its not exactly fool-proof, but its better than saying Smith was badged by Archer in 2019, so he obviously could not have handled Thommo in 75 without a helmet etc.

 

[subshakerz]

Smith got worked over once by Archer and the scored easily against him in the next two tests. My sense is that Smith is a very adaptable bat. I don't think outright pace would phase him consistently.

A Hadlee/McGrath type would have been more interesting.

 

[subshakerz]

Its why you just compare career and achievements and I think Smith has been ahead of the pack of his contemporary batsmen by more than Viv was in his time as far as tests go.

First half of Viv's career, he was even further ahead of his peers than Smith, second half is where he regressed significantly.

 

[trundler]

First half of Viv's career, he was even further ahead of his peers than Smith, second half is where he regressed significantly.

Chappell, Gavaskar and Lloyd were just as good in matches involving Viv during his peak.

 

[subshakerz]

Chappell, Gavaskar and Lloyd were just as good in matches involving Viv during his peak.

Except a) nobody regarded them nearly as good and b) they weren't.

 

[trundler]

Except a) nobody regarded them nearly as good and b) they weren't.

That's because peer reputation is a completely nonsensical metric to gauge anyone's worth by. Chappell and Gavaskar faced far superior bowling for similar returns and were therefore superior in every objective way.

 

[subshakerz]

That's because peer reputation is a completely nonsensical metric to gauge anyone's worth by. Chappell and Gavaskar faced far superior bowling for similar returns and were therefore superior in every objective way.

Not during his peak when he was averaging 70 plus.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[Coronis]

Not during his peak when he was averaging 70 plus.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

teeheehee

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

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[Spark]

The outright pace wasn't what troubled Smith at Lord's. It was the angle and, more than anything else, the inconsistent bounce, which meant he couldn't safely duck.

 

[Gob]

Yeah based on what I've seen from Smith facing up to the South African attack on the last tour in Australia when the wickets were more helpful and the working over Smith got from Archer and Wagner. I'd say he'd have gotten murdered facing Thommo et al in the 80s without bouncer restrictions and minimal protection.

ha ha this is such a foolish way of looking at things. Far worse batsmen than Smith faced Thomson in 75 and failed to die.

If Smith was brought up in that era, he would have developed his technique to counter the challenges he would be facing then. I mean why do you think so many batsmen get badged in the head these days? Even supposed good players of short bowling get knocked in the head more? Its obviously not because there was something in the water pre helmet era that made those batsmen so good against the short ball but they developed their game expecting the imminent threat of getting hit so they were mind full to not to plant their front foot forward and take on the short ball

 

[subshakerz]

teeheehee

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

stats.espncricinfo.com

6 tests doesn't mean anything.

 

[Slifer]

ha ha this is such a foolish way of looking at things. Far worse batsmen than Smith faced Thomson in 75 and failed to die.

If Smith was brought up in that era, he would have developed his technique to counter the challenges he would be facing then. I mean why do you think so many batsmen get badged in the head these days? Even supposed good players of short bowling get knocked in the head more? Its obviously not because there was something in the water pre helmet era that made those batsmen so good against the short ball but they developed their game expecting the imminent threat of getting hit so they were mind full to not to plant their front foot forward and take on the short ball

It's not foolish just an opinion. If you don't like it just say that. You don't have to be a complete jackazz about it.

 

[Coronis]

6 tests doesn't mean anything.

All I’m doing is responding to your post, they performed similarly in series against each other during Viv’s peak, and the Windies definitely had superior bowling.