Steve Smith vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Coronis]

Why you say 'intimidated'? The bowlers of that era themselves attest to that, and the time he was intimidating them he was averaging in the 55-60 range.

And it's a moot point since the other bats didn't intimate the bowlers the same way.

So the truth comes out.

 

[trundler]

Genuinely don't understand how someone watches a game of cricket and sees the tangible downstream benefits of quick scoring and thinks they're outweighed by batting time. Also, Kallis's slow scoring was definitely a matter of ability too and not just team philosophy because he got left behind in the dust in ODIs in the early 2000s along with Chanderpaul and Dravid. If he was capable of scoring quickly for most of his career, he would've.

Also, I can see how grinding out runs can be a viable strategy but to suggest the pace at which you score runs is irrelevant is just straight up nonsensical. There's a reason declaration batting is a thing. It's not even a rare thing.

 

[Socerer 01]

Yeah it's not like Cummins wasn't affected by getting smashed by Crawley recently.

Viv was ahead of his time. But even watching clips you can tell he was also unique as he combined power and timing with exceptional reflexes.

its far more likely that Cummins was affected by the recent passing of his mother in tragic circumstances combined with the pressures of captaincy where he is criticised for being himself by boomer media and fellow boomers and sheer exhaustion of playing all 5 tests in close proximity than getting smashed by Crawley

 

[Bolo.]

So the truth comes out.

Nobody got on top of bowlers quite like Viv.

 

[Burgey]

tbf if bowlers from then were intimidated and demotivated by Viv smashing it then the bowling standards then were not good enough to be comparable to today which is the elephant in the room nobody will want to discuss because nostalgia good here

Wut? Half this forum has just done a collective load over a side slogging everything and not winning a series, yet you don't think a bloke who batted like Richards didn't have an impact on the psyche of the sides he played against?

 

[Burgey]

So the truth comes out.

The swingin' seventies babeh

 

[subshakerz]

Genuinely don't understand how someone watches a game of cricket and sees the tangible downstream benefits of quick scoring and thinks they're outweighed by batting time. Also, Kallis's slow scoring was definitely a matter of ability too and not just team philosophy because he got left behind in the dust in ODIs in the early 2000s along with Chanderpaul and Dravid. If he was capable of scoring quickly for most of his career, he would've.

Also, I can see how grinding out runs can be a viable strategy but to suggest the pace at which you score runs is irrelevant is just straight up nonsensical. There's a reason declaration batting is a thing. It's not even a rare thing.

To be fair to Kallis, in his late career peak, his SR bumped up to 54, likely because he was surrounded by aggressive bats at that point. So he was perfectly capable of playing faster. Recall some great cameos versus Johnson at that time.

Which makes his one dimensional runscoring for most of his career more damning. At the very least, he needed to be capable of firing it up when the team needed. Yet his slow predictability was a disadvantage to his team.

 

[kyear2]

When Australia were at their peak, it wasn't just that they occupied the crease, they were scoring at such a clip that you could feel the game slipping away.

Some believe Kallis lacked the ability or desire to ever take over the game and out away the opposition. I assume that's why so many with the notable exception of PEWS and Coronis, don't have him rated as high.

Coronis's English AT XI features, or used to feature Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hammond. How the hell that team would even win a match, far less entertain anyone is completely beyond me.

 

[subshakerz]

Wut? Half this forum has just done a collective load over a side slogging everything and not winning a series, yet you don't think a bloke who batted like Richards didn't have an impact on the psyche of the sides he played against?

There is nostalgia, and then there is this weird breed of anti-nostalgia here among certain CW posters that seeks to pretend everything great about cricket was discovered in the last 10 years and any claims of greatness before that is just people making stuff up.

 

[subshakerz]

When Australia were at their peak, it wasn't just that they occupied the crease, they were scoring at such a clip that you could feel the game slipping away.

Some believe Kallis lacked the ability or desire to ever take over the game and out away the opposition. I assume that's why so many with the notable exception of PEWS and Coronis, don't have him rated as high.

Coronis's English AT XI features, or used to feature Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hammond. How the hell that team would even win a match, far less entertain anyone is completely beyond me.

Yup. Here's the thing, every team is capable of having a bad day. But if that bad day is costing you 300/3 plus versus 230/2, it makes a huge difference. The former basically means you are almost out of the game, the latter means you can come back the next day and have some breathing room to make up ground.

 

[Coronis]

When Australia were at their peak, it wasn't just that they occupied the crease, they were scoring at such a clip that you could feel the game slipping away.

Some believe Kallis lacked the ability or desire to ever take over the game and out away the opposition. I assume that's why so many with the notable exception of PEWS and Coronis, don't have him rated as high.

Coronis's English AT XI features, or used to feature Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton and Hammond. How the hell that team would even win a match, far less entertain anyone is completely beyond me.

When Hobbs Sutcliffe and Hammond all played England won 7 out of 11 matches. I guess you’re right…Hutton would drag that down.

I don’t give a **** about entertainment. Whats more important, entertainment or winning? (don’t ask Ben Stokes)

Pray tell, what other batsman are you adding?

 

[kyear2]

When Hobbs Sutcliffe and Hammond all played England won 7 out of 11 matches. I guess you’re right…Hutton would drag that down.

I don’t give a **** about entertainment. Whats more important, entertainment or winning? (don’t ask Ben Stokes)

How many of those victories were timeless?

 

[subshakerz]

Outside of allowing other more freescoring bats to bat around you, there is virtually no advantage for a slow scoring bat over a faster scoring one, assuming output is similar.

 

[Socerer 01]

Wut? Half this forum has just done a collective load over a side slogging everything and not winning a series, yet you don't think a bloke who batted like Richards didn't have an impact on the psyche of the sides he played against?

which backs up PEWS point about it being a spectators thing rather than a players thing

ffs you guys were making a mockery out of it by using the spooked meme because Cummins set defensive fields

 

[Coronis]

How many of those victories were timeless?

4 ran over 5 days. Shockingly both teams batted slower in a timeless test. It’s almost like that may have had an effect.

Also gj ignoring my question about who else you would select

 

[Socerer 01]

There is nostalgia, and then there is this weird breed of anti-nostalgia here among certain CW posters that seeks to pretend everything great about cricket was discovered in the last 10 years and any claims of greatness before that is just people making stuff up.

except nobody said that, stop strawmanning

 

[subshakerz]

except nobody said that, stop strawmanning

It's not a direct statement but an underlying assumption.

 

[Burgey]

which backs up PEWS point about it being a spectators thing rather than a players thing

ffs you guys were making a mockery out of it by using the spooked meme because Cummins set defensive fields

They’re saving test cricket

 

[kyear2]

4 ran over 5 days. Shockingly both teams batted slower in a timeless test. It’s almost like that may have had an effect.

Also gj ignoring my question about who else you would select

So why raise the point in the first place.

I can't recall the rest of the batting lineup, but I do remember having the discussion with regards to same at the time. But Root, KP, Gower

 

[Coronis]

So why raise the point in the first place.

I can't recall the rest of the batting lineup, but I do remember having the discussion with regards to same at the time. But Root, KP, Gower

I didn’t bring it up, you did. Root is the only one I think is at that level and atm I do have him in my England ATXI - KP and Gower compromise the batting too much imo. Its Englands own fault for not having many quality batsmen since timeless tests were ended - and (relatively) not having many quality batsmen in modern times.

SRs
Sutcliffe 37
Barrington 41
Hammond 45
Hobbs 51
Hutton 38
Root 56
Compton 41
Boycott 35
Pietersen 61
May 40
Cook 47
Gower 50
Gooch 49

(Botham 61)