The legacy of Steve Smith

[trundler]

Yeah they have been for the vast majority of their careers. I rate Cummins much higher than Smith as a result.

Smith's away record is great. For someone rated as highly his him I find the home average of "only" 64 odd on primarily disgusting roads kind of underwhelming though. I know it sounds weird to criticise someone for averaging 64 but I'd have expected better from the best since Bradman at home given the state of the pitches.

It's because he doesn't really do those Sangakkara against Bangladesh daddy tons. Couldn't stacked on another 5 runs to his home average that way but those are the definition of wanker runs and I don't think that would make me rate him significantly higher. It would be less impressive if he averaged 60 in a Walcottesque manner though.

 

[subshakerz]

View attachment 34181

Smith's home summers. If I'm going to point at stats padding, I'll be looking at 15/16 and 16/17

The India series in 2014/5 absolutely was on the same level as the other cash grabs. That was a pretty ordinary Indian attack and Clarke was missing after the first test otherwise he would have cashed in also with Smith and Warner.

2017/8 Ashes also had Warner and the Marshes scoring heavily along with Smith. I see both series as somewhat soft runs.

 

[Gob]

The India series in 2014/5 absolutely was on the same level as the other cash grabs. That was a pretty ordinary Indian attack and Clarke was missing after the first test otherwise he would have cashed in also with Smith and Warner.

Australia were 247 for 6 at Brisbane replying to India's 408 before Smith put up a partnership with Johnson to get the total to 500 plus and eventually won the game by 4 wickets. They were 216 for 5 in Melbourne before Smith guiding the tail to 530 and India replied with 465. Even in the first test they were 6 for 350 (this was prior to day night games when the Adelaide par score was 550) and put up a partnership with Clarke to stretch the total over 500 and in the end they needed every bit of that runs.

So no I would not put those runs at the same level as Manus coming in at 150 fort 1 against West Indies and cashing in with out any pressure in the world. Yes wickets were good to bat but the runs were needed and without them, Australia were losing

 

[subshakerz]

Australia were 247 for 6 at Brisbane replying to India's 408 before Smith put up a partnership with Johnson to get the total to 500 plus and eventually won the game by 4 wickets. They were 216 for 5 in Melbourne before Smith guiding the tail to 530 and India replied with 465. Even in the first test they were 6 for 350 (this was prior to day night games when the Adelaide par score was 550) and put up a partnership with Clarke to stretch the total over 500 and in the end they needed every bit of that runs.

So no I would not put those runs at the same level as Manus coming in at 150 fort 1 against West Indies and cashing in with out any pressure in the world. Yes wickets were good to bat but the runs were needed and without them, Australia were losing

I guess I see your point but to me medium quality of attacks and easy batting pitches which have been constants throughout Smith's career at home matter more than just particular match situations in determining if he got a boost from soft runs. But ok Marnus maybe has had it easier of late.

 

[Gob]

The India series in 2014/5 absolutely was on the same level as the other cash grabs. That was a pretty ordinary Indian attack and Clarke was missing after the first test otherwise he would have cashed in also with Smith and Warner.

2017/8 Ashes also had Warner and the Marshes scoring heavily along with Smith. I see both series as somewhat soft runs.

Question - Did you watch them or reading the stats summery?

I watched the whole series. Smith played one of his best knocks at Brisbane and scored half of the team total in the first innings first test. They were 4 down for 80 odd and 7 down for 220 or something chasing 300 plus by England and this was an Ashes opener so the pressure was obvious and that hundred set the game up to be won. Aus were 4 down for 250 in response to England's 400 first innings total at Perth before Smith put up a big partnership to seal the series. Everyone cashed in after that point

Like I said, I sat down and watch the series right through and never at any point in the first 3 tests I felt he was making soft runs.

 

[Gob]

I guess I see your point but to me medium quality of attacks and easy batting pitches which have been constants throughout Smith's career at home matter more than just particular match situations in determining if he got a boost from soft runs. But ok Marnus maybe has had it easier of late.

You must be rating the runs Aust batsmen made this summer against SA very highly then

I mean they are great bowlers and wickets have been helpful. Its unfortunate that most of them bowled trash in this particular match situation unlike how they normally operate

 

[anil1405]

Match situations often tend to go unnoticed in most discussions. Although Australian pitches were batting friendly, there was a good 3-4 year period after 2015 where the batting was heavily reliant on Smith and Warner (at home).

Smith rarely disappointed when the match situation demanded runs from him.

 

[subshakerz]

Question - Did you watch them or reading the stats summery?

I watched the whole series. Smith played one of his best knocks at Brisbane and scored half of the team total in the first innings first test. They were 4 down for 80 odd and 7 down for 220 or something chasing 300 plus by England and this was an Ashes opener so the pressure was obvious and that hundred set the game up to be won. Aus were 4 down for 250 in response to England's 400 first innings total at Perth before Smith put up a big partnership to seal the series. Everyone cashed in after that point

Like I said, I sat down and watch the series right through and never at any point in the first 3 tests I felt he was making soft runs.

Fair enough, I remember that knock in Brisbane when he weathered a fair bit of pressure. Towards the end of the series more of the bats cashed in.

 

[subshakerz]

You must be rating the runs Aust batsmen made this summer against SA very highly then

I mean they are great bowlers and wickets have been helpful. Its unfortunate that most of them bowled trash in this particular match situation unlike how they normally operate

Yeah the SA attack apart from the first test truly wasted an opportunity this time. Which is odd given how well Rabada did in 2016.

 

[Slifer]

They played through 00s ffs. Wickets had never been flatter

Yeah but Lara specifically debuted in 1989 I believe and his prime years would've been in the 90s.

I honestly believe that had Lara debuted in the late 90s or so, then his average would've been in the high 50s. He already has a good record vs Australia so they are moot but he wouldn't have to deal with the Ws, and Donald and on flatter wickets he'd murder most bowlers. Just my "foolish" opinion.....???

 

[Slifer]

Match situations often tend to go unnoticed in most discussions. Although Australian pitches were batting friendly, there was a good 3-4 year period after 2015 where the batting was heavily reliant on Smith and Warner (at home).

Smith rarely disappointed when the match situation demanded runs from him.

Very very true. Smith carried Aus batting for a very long time and quite frankly, he still does whenever they tour.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Australia were 247 for 6 at Brisbane replying to India's 408 before Smith put up a partnership with Johnson to get the total to 500 plus and eventually won the game by 4 wickets. They were 216 for 5 in Melbourne before Smith guiding the tail to 530 and India replied with 465. Even in the first test they were 6 for 350 (this was prior to day night games when the Adelaide par score was 550) and put up a partnership with Clarke to stretch the total over 500 and in the end they needed every bit of that runs.

India would kill for 200-odd/5 or 360/5 these days

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Australian pitches are roads

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611680663807066116

Another atvg denied true greatness by Bangladesh.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah but Lara specifically debuted in 1989 I believe and his prime years would've been in the 90s.

I honestly believe that had Lara debuted in the late 90s or so, then his average would've been in the high 50s. He already has a good record vs Australia so they are moot but he wouldn't have to deal with the Ws, and Donald and on flatter wickets he'd murder most bowlers. Just my "foolish" opinion.....???

Yeah nah, for all this crap about cashing in on soft home wickets Ponting and Lara were both bigger HTB’s than Smith and even throughout the 00’s (Lara’s actual best statistical years, obviously Pontings too) still averaged significantly less than him. Tendulkar you may have a point.

 

[Socerer 01]

oh god how are we back to Smith being a bully on roads compared to other older greats who had to struggle on the noted deadly pitches of 2000s?

for all the talk of how impressive these older bowlers are by listing a few names at random, why not list all of the names that they faced? you would find a lot of crap that wouldn’t get a game today ahead of the average bowler. because the average bowler today is much better than the average one in the past even recent past due to the nature of sport improvement and that is something never brought up in any of these discussions

 

[Slifer]

Yeah nah, for all this crap about cashing in on soft home wickets Ponting and Lara were both bigger HTB’s than Smith and even throughout the 00’s (Lara’s actual best statistical years, obviously Pontings too) still averaged significantly less than him. Tendulkar you may have a point.

You need to read what I posted. I'm not even talking about Smith. I've moved past that. And I wasn't the one who claimed Smith played on roads or was a htb either.

But make no mistake Lara finished with an average of 53 with 4 not outs in his long career. That's much less than any of his contemporaries. It's not far fetched to assume that had he debuted and peaked at the same time as a Kallis he'd finish averaging around 56-58.

 

[Flem274*]

It's empirically harder to bat now than it was in the 00s by every statistical and eye measure. Even the WI attacks being disparaged here are much more successful than their 00s equivalents.

 

[Coronis]

You need to read what I posted. I'm not even talking about Smith. I've moved past that. And I wasn't the one who claimed Smith played on roads or was a htb either.

But make no mistake Lara finished with an average of 53 with 4 not outs in his long career. That's much less than any of his contemporaries. It's not far fetched to assume that had he debuted and peaked at the same time as a Kallis he'd finish averaging around 56-58.

Eh I always thought his 6 not outs just meant he was undisciplined. When he was really focused on something e.g 153* masterpiece, or breaking Hayden’s record he could stick it out. Oodles of talent but a lazy ****

 

[Slifer]

Eh I always thought his 6 not outs just meant he was undisciplined. When he was really focused on something e.g 153* masterpiece, or breaking Hayden’s record he could stick it out. Oodles of talent but a lazy ****

No he just wasn't a selfish sob like Shiv. There are several of his innings where because of the pathetic batting he was surrounded with, he had to hit out and make as many runs as possible. Case in point his 226 vs Australia etc.

 

[Flem274*]

Averaging in the 50s seems to be about the limit of what humans can do unless they're Bradman (or Smith so far...). If Lara debuted a tad later he'd probably average a bit more than he did due to getting in on the 00s boom a bit more, but the main effect of the homogenous CEO decks wasn't to raise peak averages but raise averages across the board. Guys who might average 45 averaging 50 etc.

That's the most impressive thing about Smith and to a lesser extent the Fab 4 - as the number of statistical 50+ers and even 45+ batsmen is being ruthlessly corrected, they're going against the grain and in Smith's case exceeding it. It strongly suggests Smith is far less environmentally controlled than almost all other batsmen, and the environment (pitch and conditions) have the most say on the outcome of a cricket game.