Boycott vs Greenidge vs Smith

[Coronis]

Let's try this again.

I'm not going to ignore stats and go with peer ratings. I do not overly trust peer ratings. Former players are notoriously poor assessor's of talent and go with favorites.

I've argued with Subz about same and I stand by that.
Journalists are almost as bad and tend have an Aussie / British bias. That's just how it is.

In this instance I have nothing but references to go on. He out played even Greenidge in the same club and was almost universally acclaimed as among the very best.

He played well in WSC and in most tours that he was a participant in.

As per my initial reference @fredfertang speaks extremely high of him as does a couple of other members that are from that era that I've specifically asked about him, both of whom's opinions I trust. One ranked him along with Sachin and Viv as the best batsmen they've seen, just ahead of Sobers, Pollock and Lara (going by memory here). Fred rates him, if I recall correctly alongside Sobers (again going by memory). Every innings, every highlight reel I've seen of him screams class. So the eye test matches the peer rating which matches the stats for the few opportunities that he did have.

If you want to dig even further, because obviously you have the time, I've also said that peer rating, though notoriously unreliable still has a place. Though be it below stats and eye test. I know you saw that post, because as usual you responded with a snarky comment about pretty yorkers don't mean anything if it didn't take a wicket. I had to then explain full what eye tests fully involved. Because why make contributing s when you can just pick at what others are saying.

Yes I understand your opinion and doubt very much it will change and vice versa. I’m not going to dissect every post and respond point by point to parts that I agree with, or there’s no point arguing because its just opinion vs opinion. You just seem to have a problem being called out on inconsistencies… but thats ok.

Also re: the bolded part most innings and highlights recorded and saved (especially from earlier eras) are the best of that batsman - for instance if we only had highlights to go off I’m sure Lara would be clear of Tendulkar, and Laxman would be clear of Dravid.

I get it, Richards was a great first class player and he could have been a great test player, but he wasn’t. And I’m sick of him being brought up in such discussions where other players who were equally or arguably more talented are not, so I’ll continue to call it out.

Bringing him up didn’t add anything meaningful or relevant to the topic aside from this lovely little interaction we’ve had, which has clearly offended you somehow.

 

[kyear2]

Yes I understand your opinion and doubt very much it will change and vice versa. I’m not going to dissect every post and respond point by point to parts that I agree with, or there’s no point arguing because its just opinion vs opinion. You just seem to have a problem being called out on inconsistencies… but thats ok.

Also re: the bolded part most innings and highlights recorded and saved (especially from earlier eras) are the best of that batsman - for instance if we only had highlights to go off I’m sure Lara would be clear of Tendulkar, and Laxman would be clear of Ponting.

I get it, Richards was a great first class player and he could have been a great test player, but he wasn’t. And I’m sick of him being brought up in such discussions where other players who were equally or arguably more talented are not, so I’ll continue to call it out.

Bringing him up didn’t add anything meaningful or relevant to the topic aside from this lovely little interaction we’ve had, which has clearly offended you somehow.

But all I said is "if". I didn't say he deserves to be in the conversation, which technically he wasn't.

And it easily could have gone sideways, guess Hick and others are an example of that. If I were to go deeper into it, I would say yes, he was special, that had that extra something.

And Lara vs Sachin is arguable, I agree that Sachin wins, but it's arguable. Still maintain that at his best, no one was better. And while I get your point, there are some things that mere mortals can't do, and some shots they can't play. And I know that has more of an impression on me than you, so understood.

 

[Coronis]

But all I said is "if". I didn't say he deserves to be in the conversation, which technically he wasn't.

And it easily could have gone sideways, guess Hick and others are an example of that. If I were to go deeper into it, I would say yes, he was special, that had that extra something.

And Lara vs Sachin is arguable, I agree that Sachin wins, but it's arguable. Still maintain that at his best, no one was better. And while I get your point, there are some things that mere mortals can't do, and some shots they can't play. And I know that has more of an impression on me than you, so understood.

Also sorry dunno why I said Ponting there, I meant Laxman > Dravid

 

[kyear2]

Also sorry dunno why I said Ponting there, I meant Laxman > Dravid

Meh, wasn't he?

Just kidding, but you know I'm not the biggest fan.

 

[Bolo.]

No, but neither is Sunny.

Also the statement was that Smith, and I guess Gordon, wasn't that far behind....

And again I have to stress this, he isn't in the same tier, and neither is Sunny. And Sunny is only as high as he is because of the opener tax and because he's the highest of the post war guys and as such elevated. If he was in the middle order, he would have been judged much harsher and ranked somewhat lower.

Definitely more comfortable jamming with you after this one.

 

[Bolo.]

In a era of "dead" tracks, Smith played in the one set of home conditions that bucked the trend. Would of been helpful to Steyn, but would have been challenging for him and anyone else.

Greenidge undoubtedly faced better bowlers, but his home conditions would have been somewhat of a mixed bag in comparison.

Gavaskar (yes, I'm bypassing Boycs), had the easiest home conditions by far, and while he too had some ATG bowlers to contend with, the first half of his career had the easiest opposition of the other two.

Smith was the quickest scorer of the 3, with Greenidge then Gavaskar being up the rear.

Sunny has undoubtedly the best career and numbers if the 3, the number of hundreds alone is just insane. While Sir Gordon's career fell off a cliff when his eyes started to go, in his prime was the equal of anyone. Smith also tailed off a bit at the end, but not as precipitous a drop as GG.

Greenidge had his troubles in Australia, Lillee and Thompson temporarily forced him out of the team and he struggled in Pakistan as well. Smith too had his issues in Australia, and similarly it was an ATG attack and was a little below par vs India and SL as well. Gavaskar's record shows him to be the most well rounded, but he took had his struggles somewhat with the English attack and the post WSC encounters with full strength Australia and WI, especially away from home.

Secondary and tertiary skills / other advantages. Smith was left handed and the faster scorer, but Greenidge and Sunny had better techniques. All three were proficient catchers with Smith being the much more acclaimed of the 3. He also brought captaincy to the table, and had that added burden for the vast majority of his career.

Why do you think this matters for openers?

I'm a fan of golidlocks career SRs. For openers, the goldilocks range is lower, typically 40 to 50, depending on average (could be a lot lower).

For Smith, I watched enough of him not to hold his high SR against him. He killed the new ball by leaving stuff alone. And accelerated brutally when he was on top. I actually like his high SR. But it's not typically good to strike that fats as an opener IMO.

 

[Coronis]

Why do you think this matters for openers?

I'm a fan of golidlocks career SRs. For openers, the goldilocks range is lower, typically 40 to 50, depending on average (could be a lot lower).

For Smith, I watched enough of him not to hold his high SR against him. He killed the new ball by leaving stuff alone. And accelerated brutally when he was on top. I actually like his high SR. But it's not typically good to strike that fats as an opener IMO.

In fact, of the top 4 openers (who are generally seen as easily clear of the others), two struck below 40, one at 45 and one at 51.

Generally lower compared the top middle order batsmen (Bradman, Sobers, Tendulkar, Smith, Lara etc. - Hammond being an exception at 45)

 

[kyear2]

Why do you think this matters for openers?

I'm a fan of golidlocks career SRs. For openers, the goldilocks range is lower, typically 40 to 50, depending on average (could be a lot lower).

For Smith, I watched enough of him not to hold his high SR against him. He killed the new ball by leaving stuff alone. And accelerated brutally when he was on top. I actually like his high SR. But it's not typically good to strike that fats as an opener IMO.

To start off, I'm not talking about guys like Sehwag who just goes gun go from the get-go. But there are benefits to proactive approaches by openers. Greenidge and Haynes, Hayden and Langer, Smith and Gibbs all gave decent starts without overly undue risks while getting the bowlers off lines and plans. Potentially sets the tone for the innings and doesn't allow the attack to settle in.

 

[Bolo.]

To start off, I'm not talking about guys like Sehwag who just goes gun go from the get-go. But there are benefits to proactive approaches by openers. Greenidge and Haynes, Hayden and Langer, Smith and Gibbs all gave decent starts without overly undue risks while getting the bowlers off lines and plans. Potentially sets the tone for the innings and doesn't allow the attack to settle in.

Momentum is good if it doesn't come at the expense of seeing off the new ball. 20(45) is typically going to be better than 20(30)

 

[Coronis]

To start off, I'm not talking about guys like Sehwag who just goes gun go from the get-go. But there are benefits to proactive approaches by openers. Greenidge and Haynes, Hayden and Langer, Smith and Gibbs all gave decent starts without overly undue risks while getting the bowlers off lines and plans. Potentially sets the tone for the innings and doesn't allow the attack to settle in.

I would not call Haynes aggressive.

 

[kyear2]

Momentum is good if it doesn't come at the expense of seeing off the new ball. 20(45) is typically going to be better than 20(30)

You can also score 5 from 30 and get out.

 

[Coronis]

You can also score 5 from 30 and get out.

You can also score 1 from 1 and get out.

 

[BazBall21]

I would not call Haynes aggressive.

Haynes was balanced.

 

[Coronis]

Haynes was balanced.

He could play aggressive innings no doubt, as could almost all quality batsman, but comparing him to Hayden, Smith or Langer in terms of being proactive is pretty disingenuous.

 

[BazBall21]

He could play aggressive innings no doubt, as could almost all quality batsman, but comparing him to Hayden, Smith or Langer in terms of being proactive is pretty disingenuous.

Agree that he was a different style of batsman to Hayden. More compact and defensive than him. But I'd say a similar tempo to JL.

 

[Coronis]

Agree that he was a different style of batsman to Hayden. More compact and defensive than him. But I'd say a similar tempo to JL.

That may have been your impression but idk about that. More like Cook or Khawaja.

 

[Bolo.]

You can also score 5 from 30 and get out.

Which is better than 5(5), cos you have dealt with a chunk of the new ball.

I'm not using seeing off the new ball as a substitution for scoring. But it is a really valuable part of an opener's job.

 

[BazBall21]

That may have been your impression but idk about that. More like Cook or Khawaja.

My impression only from videos and research tbh. I'm 22. More range than Cook/Usman.

 

[BazBall21]

Haynes maybe had a more attritional outlook but his technique and strokeplay against pace is similar to Michael Slater and Alec Stewart I think.

 

[kyear2]

He could play aggressive innings no doubt, as could almost all quality batsman, but comparing him to Hayden, Smith or Langer in terms of being proactive is pretty disingenuous.

Dude, I was just naming the partnerships. And Haynes, while not overly aggressive, was balanced and capable of pushing the over rate. He wasn't a 38 s/r guy, at least not from my watching .