• 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.

Steve Smith vs Viv Richards

Who is the better test batsman?

  • Total voters
    64
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Slifer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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*

Flem274*

123/5
Slifer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 bullshit.

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.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Flem274* said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
GoodAreasShane said:
Could somebody please remind me how many times Archer actually got Smith out in the 2019 Ashes?
Click to expand...
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

GoodAreasShane

Cricketer Of The Year
OverratedSanity said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
honestbharani said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
_00_deathscar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
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.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
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.
Click to expand...
First half of Viv's career, he was even further ahead of his peers than Smith, second half is where he regressed significantly.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
subshakerz said:
First half of Viv's career, he was even further ahead of his peers than Smith, second half is where he regressed significantly.
Click to expand...
Chappell, Gavaskar and Lloyd were just as good in matches involving Viv during his peak.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
subshakerz said:
Except a) nobody regarded them nearly as good and b) they weren't.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Gob

Gob

International Coach
Slifer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Gob said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top