The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Isn't the discrepancy here that one of you is excluding both Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, whereas the other is excluding only Zimbabwe?
-
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.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
Seems he just forgot to include mentioning Bangers in the OP while looking at the stats for both.
Smith doesn't really get extra points for being OK in tough home conditions. These come from his away record.
I don't think there is much point in comparing his away record to their home records, even if the numbers are similar. Apples and oranges. Away to away is easy- Smith is far ahead. Home to home is much trickier. Both of them are ahead of in my book, but there is obviously a smaller gap than what the averages suggest. IDK at what averages they would be equivalent, but it would be a pretty sizable gap.
I don't think he is on a different plane. Clearly better, but not by too much.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think a 40/60 home away split isn't better than 60/40 home away split as it leads to essentially the same output overall. I don't think Smith was better at all and think the difference between them comes down to personal preference.
shortpitched713
International Captain
Hayden is the best of the 3, because he scored the most runs. I mean come on, their MOs were very similar, they had similar weaknesses, and one of them scored the most. Why isn't that guy considered the best of the 3?
Eh.
Home/away value add is distinctly debatable.
Home/away quality assessment does get debated a lot. It is idiocy IMO to regard someone who was good in 1 country as someone who was good in X countries. I really don't feel like debating this. If you disagree, cool. Many People do, and it is just a different judgement call.
It is categorically idiocy not to take how easy a player had it into account. I know you agree with this. And I know you are aware that Smith had much harder conditions than Sehwag And Hayden. If you disagree on how heavily we should weigh this, coolio. But you consider Mcgrath a better bowler than Lohmann, so you very much agree with the principle, irrespective of degree of application.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not when you play you play half of your conditions in those conditions. You still add the same value to your team overall. Yeah, Smith had tougher home conditions but you yourself said he doesn't get bonus points for merely being ok in those conditions. And it's not like Smith went toe to toe with Hayden in Australia. I don't think he averages 58 there in any universe. Even if Hayden was an FTB, he was the most consistently brutal one irrespective of opposition strength.Smith wasn't that. Being a consistent match winner in conditions you are most likely to face is worth something. The obvious retort is that Smith had a much harder shot of achieving this which is true but I would certainly put him above Hayden if he had shown any proof that he would be capable of it if he had the chance. Obviously, I'm not saying averaging 58 in Australia and 58 in SA are equivalent. Far from it. If Smith had an Elgar or Amla record at home I wouldn't hesitate to put him significantly ahead of Hayden. But he didn't. To me the difference between meh and ok in conditions A is worth less than between great and elite in conditions B regardless of what those conditions are. Hayden is much more likely to wreck an ATG attack on a good batting deck than Smith. Smith has his strengths too which is why he's about equal with Hayden for me but both also have weaknesses that largely cancel out. The McGrath example seems like a wilful misinterpretation of what I mean. McGrath didn't average 29 at home. He gets extra points because he was elite at home which was the biggest challenge during his career. You want to give Smith brownie points for tough conditions when he didn't master those tough conditions without saying so. Smith wasn't Kallis. Skill wise Smith was a much better player in English/NZ conditions but I'm taking Hayden on turners and bouncy decks.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Agree and Alistair Cook is the opening GOAT.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
I took it to mean that Hayden was the most prolific insofar his average was the highest. He didn't actually score the most total Test runs of the three - that was Smith.
shortpitched713
International Captain
Eh, I actually messed up there. I meant he scored at the best average. Didn't mean to fall into the English Test spam Anderson GOAT meme.
bagapath
International Captain
nope. i am saying he belongs in this group. and that wont change. he is not going to be nasser hussein; neither will he be the unequivocal second best to bradman
Coronis
International Coach
So no matter what he does the rest of his career he can’t be? Seems a bit harsh. What if he scores 975 runs next Ashes?
bagapath
International Captain
hahahah
there is no shame in being a member of this group... bradman was superhuman... for regular homo sapiens this is as good as it gets... over time Smith has shown to be good enough to be one of them... and there is nothing more anyone can do.
we clearly saw the best of him taking his numbers above this bunch in an early phase of his career. whereas for the rest of these champions those phases were hidden within their long careers that their averages probably never went 60+ after 30/40 tests but, ultimately, after 100 tests they are all alike. Sobers and Hammond had 60+ averages too. before they too ended in high 50s
to be honest Sachin predicted this back in 2016 that Smith is very good but no one could average above 60 over a long career.
Flem274*
123/5
I've never really had much time for best innings to score runs chat.
You need to score enough runs to win the game. Most players will average less as the pitch deteriorates unless they're a statistical quirk. Who really cares? Just score runs.
I think Graeme Smith was a more reliable opener to take around the world but Sehwag could win games by himself in Asia and Hayden casually walking at 135kph bois and bopping them over their heads was so infantilizing to the opposition. I'd probably take Smith by a small margin but there are strong cases for all of them.
You need to score enough runs to win the game. Most players will average less as the pitch deteriorates unless they're a statistical quirk. Who really cares? Just score runs.
I think Graeme Smith was a more reliable opener to take around the world but Sehwag could win games by himself in Asia and Hayden casually walking at 135kph bois and bopping them over their heads was so infantilizing to the opposition. I'd probably take Smith by a small margin but there are strong cases for all of them.
kyear2
International Coach
That's a small elite group though
Sobers
Richards
Lara
Hobbs
Hutton
Tendulkar
Smith
Takes a lot to unequivocally separate yourself from this lot.
Coronis
International Coach
All I’m saying is Smith still has the time to do this.
bagapath
International Captain
hmmm... I would say he belongs in this group... even if he rapidly falls off (like Ponting did from 59.99 to 51.something) or if he manages to pull himself up by a point or two, because this is as good as it gets... and he has been as big a high impact player as those illustrious names already... not more/ not less
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Smith's home record is vastly over-rated and I suspect he'll retire soon anyway.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
No, given Steve Smith's age, he can't really improve his legacy, which is usually made/enhanced on big away tours.
He just had his most important tours this year (India & England). And he was well below par, even more so in India.
He couldn't really make a difference in helping win either series. Add in that he doesn't see himself returning to India (& Eng), so any potential upside to his legacy is all but done. (Also considering that South Africa is where he's had least success and Aus is not planning to tour there anytime soon either. So he can't make any gains.)
On the other hand, doing well against mainly easier opposition or particularly at home over the next 1-2 years won't add anything to his legacy. In fact, he can only diminish it more if things don't go well...
So in all likelihood, he will retire by 2025/26. But if his average falls, he will retire sooner. If it goes up/stable (playing at home), he may play a little longer but likely look to end on a relative high like after winning 2025 Ashes. This would be the ideal way for him to safeguard his existing legacy. Average is what he has going for him. Longer career would mean lower average especially after age 34 and onwards.
Last edited:
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
In the last 4 years (post-2019 Ashes), Steve Smith has averaged 46.01 in 34 Tests. So aged 30-34, he has been a bit below world class but still very good. And thus if he were to somehow continue till say age 38+ (full 4 year cycle), there is every chance that he'd end up below 54/55 career average, after playing 140 tests.
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
I think his legacy is pretty set. He has been immense and he's still in that group and not even particularly at the top of it.
So if nothing he has done so far has separated him, I don't think anything he does going forward can. And that's if he manages to buck the tend and get better at the end of such a long career.
For me Lara is still the best I've seen, but I respect the opinion that Sachin was more consistent and that Richards in his hey day was more destructive.