Devon Smith

[iamdavid]

I've just been watching some taped footage of the recent Australia & West Indies test series & this fella really caught my eye.

To me he looked to have bucket-loads of potential , his driving was particularly brilliant in that series , he also didnt seem over-awed by the prospect of facing Lee & Gillespie , he occasionally got in trouble driving with an open bat face at wide balls but his technique looks generally pretty sound , he had a nice defence.

What role do you guys think he could play for the West Indies in future , if any.
I've heard some people say they think he's a little to aggresive for a test opener , I think he's also a little to over reliant on boundaries to be a great ODI exponent , however I do think he could do a job in the longer form.
He reminds me of a young Matt Hayden.

 

[luckyeddie]

He could do with just a tad of control - he does tend to get carried away when he starts to find the boundary.

Still, he's young.

 

[Langeveldt]

He has a lovely bat

He looked to be a good talent, its a tough one because you could tell him to stop being a dasher, but would the runs dry up?? He looked a bit of a flat track bully when I saw him in the WI.... Definitely a talent though

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nice technique with the ability to defend and attack. He needs to find a middle ground though. A definite talent.

I think he will feature v England next year.

 

[Craig]

More consisntantcy?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Please do explain.

 

[Craig]

Explain what? Have you been drinking all night?

I mean be more consistant and that was a question mark after meaning it was a question.

I shouldnt have to explain anything :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Explain what? Have you been drinking all night?

I mean be more consistant and that was a question mark after meaning it was a question.

I shouldnt have to explain anything :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Explain why you would ask for more consistency from Devon Smith. I don't understand what he has done wrong and how he has been inconsistent per se.

 

[Craig]

If you had read my post I did put a question mark asking whether or not he was consistant or not or does he require more consistancy.

His FC record is nothing flash. Ok 34 might be good for somebody who plays in the Caribbean and might be of one of the better averages.

I did notice him having 3 100s and 18 50s which does mean something.

Your turn.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Devon Smith 2003 Carib Beer Cup
572 runs @ 40.85 w/ 1x100 and 4x50
Runk total runs: #6

Devon Smith 2002 Busta Cup
750 runs @ 62.50 w/ 1x100 and 7x50
Rank total runs: #2

Take from it what you will.

 

[Craig]

Perhaps not converting enough of his 50s into 100s.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Very few West Indian batsmen do.

 

[Richard]

Either way...
Smith had two good Carib Beer cups, fair enough. I'm the first person to say judge on domestic records second, but Test records first.
Smith mightn't have been overawed by Gillespie, Lee or McGrath when he returned, but how many runs did he score? Not many. Even with batting conditions as easy as they come.
For me, Campbell is still a better option (if he's fit and still playing?), better than Ganga, and anyone who knows what they're talking about will tell you Wavell Hinds has never been an opener by preferance. IMO he's wasted there.
Campbell and Gayle for me, with Hinds at three. Maybe Smith to come in when Campbell retires, but even though you'll get less accurate attacks than McGrath and Gillespie around, from what I have heard and no more he is not an immidiate prospect.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Either way...
Smith had two good Carib Beer cups, fair enough. I'm the first person to say judge on domestic records second, but Test records first.

Mark Ramprakash.... :rolleyes:

Smith mightn't have been overawed by Gillespie, Lee or McGrath when he returned, but how many runs did he score? Not many. Even with batting conditions as easy as they come.

Smith scored 189 runs at 23.62 and many have done worse against lesser opposition. Steve Waugh scored 113 runs in his first 8 innings... he now has 10788. In fact, he took 7 more innings than Smith did to reach 189 runs in Test cricket. Good to see you're not too quick to judge. :rolleyes:

For me, Campbell is still a better option (if he's fit and still playing?), better than Ganga, and anyone who knows what they're talking about will tell you Wavell Hinds has never been an opener by preferance. IMO he's wasted there.

Campbell has crappy technique. He doesn't move his feet and only scores off bad bowling, getting out to good bowling.

Campbell and Gayle for me, with Hinds at three. Maybe Smith to come in when Campbell retires, but even though you'll get less accurate attacks than McGrath and Gillespie around, from what I have heard and no more he is not an immidiate prospect.

Thank God you're not a selector!

 

[Richard]

Mark Ramprakash.... :rolleyes:

As I have stated many times, Graeme Hick and Nick Knight are much better examples, as Ramprakash's recent Test record when you exclude innings where he batted totally out of position is very good.

Smith scored 189 runs at 23.62 and many have done worse against lesser opposition. Steve Waugh scored 113 runs in his first 8 innings... he now has 10788. In fact, he took 7 more innings than Smith did to reach 189 runs in Test cricket. Good to see you're not too quick to judge. :rolleyes:

The example of Stephen Waugh can always be used but for me he's an anomaly - not many endure as poor starts to their Test-careers as him and come back to have careers an eighth as good as his.
Almost all recent Australian batsmen (Mark Waugh and Gilchrist exceptions) have had a short spell in and a varying length spell out (eg Langer, Martyn, Lehmann and Hayden compared to Ponting) of the side. Smith could be another of them. I am not saying he's not a long-term prospect, not at all (he looked thoroughly good in 2001 for the u19s, though I'm always reluctant to make too much of u19s) but simply that I would say Campbell is at present a better option:

Campbell has crappy technique. He doesn't move his feet and only scores off bad bowling, getting out to good bowling.

Well, you've doubtless seen more of him that I have, but I have seen him play some good innings against accurate bowling (eg SCG, 2000\01). And he played for a long time; surely there must have been more?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well, you've doubtless seen more of him that I have, but I have seen him play some good innings against accurate bowling (eg SCG, 2000\01). And he played for a long time; surely there must have been more?

Perhaps I'm a bit harsh on Campbell, but IMO he was never really much more than average.

 

[Richard]

I've heard people say the same about Atherton.:rolleyes:

 

[marc71178]

As I have stated many times, Graeme Hick and Nick Knight are much better examples, as Ramprakash's recent Test record when you exclude innings where he batted totally out of position is very good.

And if you exclude all the innings in which Devon Smith has been dismissed, he has an infinite average.

He was not as out of position as you like to make out.

He'd been given warning of it and been acclimatising to the position.

Also, I would argue that with the practise he's had at number 3 (for me a harder position than 1st up), opening shouldn't be so hard.

He played those innings and failed, like the rest of his career to a major degree.

 

[Richard]

No, unlike the part of his career that it was contained within.
I "like" to make-out that Ramprakash is out of position if asked to open because he has batted there for a tiny proportion of his life and has not had any success there. Elsewhere, he has had big success. Whether the Test-matches were the first time he had ever opened an innings is totally irrelevant - the fact is, he was clearly not a good player when opening when he is proven class when batting basically anywhere from four to seven. He didn't bat at three much before moving to Surrey (after the opening saga).
There is a difference between a rational comparison between batting positions and a customary silly comment upon irrelevant matters.
Anyway, Smith has never been not-out in a Test-match so therefore he has scored no runs if you exclude the innings in which he was dismissed. Hardly impressive. See, one silly comment cancels-out another.

 

[Eclipse]

Well, you've doubtless seen more of him that I have, but I have seen him play some good innings against accurate bowling (eg SCG, 2000\01). And he played for a long time; surely there must have been more?

That was just about his only good inning's of the series he was horrible the rest of the time.

He looked very poor against McGrath, Gillespie, Lee he was never getting forward or back just playing from the crease and the number of cought behind's nicking to the slip's or keeper suggested to me he was not up to opening against quality bowling.

It truely was as if his feet were cemented into the pitch and he would just shove the bat at the line of the ball.