***Official*** South Africa v West Indies

[tooextracool]

He has made runs in other instances against quality pacers. You make it sound as if he is incapable of playing fast bowling of any good quality.

there are no instances where hes succeeded consistently throughout a series against quality bowlers. im not saying that he isnt capable of it, because all players can improve, but to even suggest that hes in the same league as kirsten is absurd, let alone putting him down as an all time great.

 

[Pratters]

let alone putting him down as an all time great.

I never put him down as an all time great.

He has played very little against what you would call QUALITY attacks like all players in the modern game today.

 

[tooextracool]

ok then i assumed that by putting him down as better than kirsten,you were implying that hes an all time great. either way though, he has a long long way to go before he can prove himself to be better than kirsten, and that would involve him scoring runs against quality pace attacks.

 

[Pratters]

ok then i assumed that by putting him down as better than kirsten,you were implying that hes an all time great. either way though, he has a long long way to go before he can prove himself to be better than kirsten, and that would involve him scoring runs against quality pace attacks.

Wisden Asia cricket once did a statistical analysis and showed that against the 4 srong pace attack, even Gavaskar who is acknoledged as being a great player of pace bowling, had an average record. Ian Chappell has an average record against quality pace over a long career as well.

Now we can break Smith's career as follows :-

No of series - 14

No of series against your defination of weak bowling/flat pitch/poor which may result in good average - 9

No of series against quality pace attacks - 5 (including a series in India where he managed an average of over 38 which is creditable)

Even a series which he had a good recor vs the kiwis is put down to flat pitches when the pace attack was far from NOT good.

I would say that in this fashion every player dissected could be said to be NOT good except the truly great ones. Even the good inning by Dravid in Pakistan can be discounted on the bowling attack being poor.

 

[tooextracool]

Wisden Asia cricket once did a statistical analysis and showed that against the 4 srong pace attack, even Gavaskar who is acknoledged as being a great player of pace bowling, had an average record. Ian Chappell has an average record against quality pace over a long career as well.

yet all i was referring to was 2 good bowlers in the same attack(and neither of those 2 were anywhere near the quality of the 4 you speak off), seeing as how that was good enough to stop smith from scoring

Now we can break Smith's career as follows :-

No of series - 14

No of series against your defination of weak bowling/flat pitch/poor which may result in good average - 9

No of series against quality pace attacks - 5 (including a series in India where he managed an average of over 38 which is creditable)

Even a series which he had a good recor vs the kiwis is put down to flat pitches when the pace attack was far from NOT good.

I would say that in this fashion every player dissected could be said to be NOT good except the truly great ones. Even the good inning by Dravid in Pakistan can be discounted on the bowling attack being poor.

yet dravid has succeeded against several other quality pace attacks, smith hasnt.
and i dont see how smith scoring runs(at 38 odd) against the average indian pace bowlers on flat wickets in india is supposed to prove something

 

[Pratters]

yet all i was referring to was 2 good bowlers in the same attack(and neither of those 2 were anywhere near the quality of the 4 you speak off), seeing as how that was good enough to stop smith from scoring

From 4 it becomes two

And I think Vaas and Murali in South Africa in a test, the Engilsh attack he scored consecutive double centuries agianst (oh poor crap bowling!) and the like are all poor bowlers

yet dravid has succeeded against several other quality pace attacks, smith hasnt.
and i dont see how smith scoring runs(at 38 odd) against the average indian pace bowlers on flat wickets in india is supposed to prove something

Not a lot of players have succeeded in Indian pitches, the one syou say are just FLAT. It is spinner friendly where the best of batsmen have sturggled. averaging 38 in India isnt poor. It shows you can play a bit atleast.

 

[Natman20]

WI vs. RSA

This is a great partnership with Smith and De Villiers

 

[tooextracool]

From 4 it becomes two .

when did i say 4 bowlers? i said a quality pace bowling which is completely different.

And I think Vaas and Murali in South Africa in a test, the Engilsh attack he scored consecutive double centuries agianst (oh poor crap bowling!) and the like are all poor bowlers

murali is a spinner, so in effect its against vaas, who switches between absolute garbage and very good, with the absolute garbage coinciding when he plays away from home.

Not a lot of players have succeeded in Indian pitches, the one syou say are just FLAT. It is spinner friendly where the best of batsmen have sturggled. averaging 38 in India isnt poor. It shows you can play a bit atleast.

he averaged 38 on the flattest wickets in india. nothing special that, even hall scored runs in india. and AFAIC his weakness is against pace, not spin.

 

[Pratters]

[/quote]

he averaged 38 on the flattest wickets in india. nothing special that, even hall scored runs in india. and AFAIC his weakness is against pace, not spin.[/QUOTE]

He scored runs against Kiwis vs good pace attack. vs england vs good pace attack. now you bring up it was cos of flat pitch/poor bowling.

Smith could never make you happy could he.

 

[Right arm fast]

This is a great partnership with Smith and De Villiers

are they becoming the new hayden/langer ???

 

[tooextracool]

He scored runs against Kiwis vs good pace attack.

umm other than chris martin, that attack was very poor, chris martin pretty much saved NZ on his own during that series.

vs england vs good pace attack. now you bring up it was cos of flat pitch/poor bowling.

how in the hell is an attack that is led by anderson supposed to be a good pace attack?

 

[Pratters]

umm other than chris martin, that attack was very poor, chris martin pretty much saved NZ on his own during that series.

Being as poor as Smith is against fast bowling, how did Smith ever managed to face Chris Martin.

 

[marc71178]

I meant two series taken combined.

Cheers.

Which only serves the point that I and others are making.

 

[marc71178]

No of series against quality pace attacks - 5 (including a series in India where he managed an average of over 38 which is creditable)

Hang on a minute - how has he ever faced a quality pace attack in India?!

 

[marc71178]

From 4 it becomes two

And I think Vaas and Murali in South Africa in a test, the Engilsh attack he scored consecutive double centuries agianst (oh poor crap bowling!) and the like are all poor bowlers

Anderson, a past-it Gough, a non-attacking Flintoff, Harmison before he gained potency and Giles.

And of course I assume you watched it all?

 

[Pratters]

Hang on a minute - how has he ever faced a quality pace attack in India?!

That would be number of series which TEC would count in analysing Smith.

 

[marc71178]

That makes no sense

 

[Pratters]

Which only serves the point that I and others are making.

I mentioned it. It was two series combined as I lucidly said in the earlier post. I dont know why you bring it again even after I did the same about me saying the bowling I included was of two series combined. Also mentioning 'every one' when it was just you raising the point of it not being a good start in the two series but in just one.

I have never denied he faced problems versus England.

 

[Pratters]

That makes no sense

Well by his logic we should take only those 4 series where he faced quality attacks and pitch was not flat or it wasdifficult to bat in any way.

He would think its just those 5 series including the series in India if he does not discount it too.

If he discounts the series in India too you would be left with analysing Smith in 4 of the 14 test series he has played in. Of the series too specific innings where Smith have scored runs should not be taken of meaning any thing to show he can face good bowling as in the series as a whole he does not average exceptionally.

Indeed makes no sense

 

[marc71178]

No, I still can't make sense of anything you said there either.