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

[Adamc]

ABdeV and Smith gone at last...

 

[Pratters]

Ambrose looks COOOL

 

[Pratters]

And Gibbs is also gone. Very good session for the West Indies.

 

[The Baconator]

Price and Kallis doing well in the afternoon session, SA look on their way to a pretty big total.

 

[Pratters]

500 up for South Africa. The pitch is poor and West Indies havent bowled as badly as they did yesterday. There just isnt much talent in the bowling attack to get any thing out of the pitch.

Not too impressed with Prince despite his century. Plays a lot more risky shots which can lead to his demise against a good attack and isnt air tight technically.

 

[tooextracool]

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

smith is not poor against fast bowling, hes just poor against bowlers capable enough of exposing his weakness. martin in that serious was, he just didnt have the support or any help from the wickets to be able to do so.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

i dont see how irfan pathan and zaheer khan are capable of exposing a weakness in any batsman on any wicket in the world, let alone on the dead flat wickets that they got in that series in india.

 

[Pratters]

i dont see how irfan pathan and zaheer khan are capable of exposing a weakness in any batsman on any wicket in the world, let alone on the dead flat wickets that they got in that series in india.

There is the spin attack. I was referring India to show he is good against spin/in subcontinent. Ignore it as it is not what you are arguing I see.

 

[Pratters]

smith is not poor against fast bowling, hes just poor against bowlers capable enough of exposing his weakness. martin in that serious was, he just didnt have the support or any help from the wickets to be able to do so.

Fair point that only specific bowlers cable of exposing the weakness Hoggard for instance have proven Smith vulnerable. It is a matter of perspective, you think its a HUGE flaw in Smith's batting, he cannot improve upon. I believe the concern is over exaggerated and Kirsten's technical superiority more of some thing which is percieved by common impression rather than some thing which is a major factor in distinguishing the two players as the technical ability of Kirsten is inflated and of Smith deflated by the general masses.

 

[tooextracool]

There is the spin attack. I was referring India to show he is good against spin/in subcontinent. Ignore it as it is not what you are arguing I see.

exactly, and regardless of all of that averaging 38 against india isnt something particularly brilliant either, especially considering the kind of wickets he played on.

 

[tooextracool]

Fair point that only specific bowlers cable of exposing the weakness Hoggard for instance have proven Smith vulnerable. It is a matter of perspective, you think its a HUGE flaw in Smith's batting, he cannot improve upon. I believe the concern is over exaggerated and Kirsten's technical superiority more of some thing which is percieved by common impression rather than some thing which is a major factor in distinguishing the two players as the technical ability of Kirsten is inflated and of Smith deflated by the general masses.

2 things:
1) ive never once claimed that smith cannot improve, but its extremely premature to already put him ahead of kirsten, whos along with kallis are the 2 best batsmen since readmission.
2) i dont think that kirsten's technique was better, and ive already said that, i infact think that it was worse. but kirsten's used his temperament and concentration to play around it. smith hasnt yet shown us that he can do that, when he does, then and only then can we even compare the two.

 

[Pratters]

2 things:
1) ive never once claimed that smith cannot improve, but its extremely premature to already put him ahead of kirsten, whos along with kallis are the 2 best batsmen since readmission

2) i dont think that kirsten's technique was better, and ive already said that, i infact think that it was worse. but kirsten's used his temperament and concentration to play around it. smith hasnt yet shown us that he can do that, when he does, then and only then can we even compare the two.

Cullinan would rate much higher than Kirsten IMO but forget that arguement as its besides the point. No debying Kirsten was a very good batsman. Point is if even you do not think Kirsten not to be technically brilliant, the first comparison on the technical front can be laid to rest. Its more of an arguement of early stating of Smith>Kirsten, premature as you term it.

Then the arguement is more based on the powers of mental skills, the concentration and temperament as you put it. The key factor which separates the men from the boys.

Smith has not just hit the runs he has, he has done that as captain of his country, opening the batting at a VERY young age. These facets are often over looked in seeing how strong Smith is mentally.

Smith is arrogant, yes. Smith has shown immaturity in behaviour, yes (like in the case of telling off Klusener in the media) Smith is also a highly disliked, loathed figure for him being Graeme Smith, some one who got the captaincy when it was unjustly taken away from Pollock (as believed by some) and succeeding when many wanted him to fail.

The fact that Smith did not fail and came off superbly amidst the pressure of being national captain, disliked by a multitude of his own country's fans shows immense character and mental skills. Concentration? 275 even against a crap bowling would require concentration.

Perhaps 10-15 years from now when people will be able to loo more neutrally upon the past few years of Smith's career will they truly be able to appreciate his achievment as a batsman during the phase. He hasnt been as good as captain during the time. I wouldnt say he has been a good captain by any measure.

Kirsten - I admired his own mental grit and stroke play a lot. But I didnt think he was consistent enough, some thing Smith has shown he is very good at. Kirsten was talented with his stroke play but I think over all he was just a step lower than Smith.

I know you disagree but lets just agree to disagree on this then.

 

[jot1]

When Saffies played Zim someone said playing Zim was just a careers averidge boost for the players. Seems to me this is an even better one. Everyone's getting tons and some are getting one every match! We're going to have the 5 top scoring batsmen in our team if we don't get some competition soon. There's no way the stats can be a true reflection of best batters and bowlers if this continues.

 

[Craig]

Difference being Smith only scored runs when England bowled extremely woefully.

Gayle however scored runs when they were bowling better.

And it took two Tests for them to work it out, which shows something is wrong upstairs or the English way of not not researching his strengths and his weaknesses, because if they did, they would have exploited it from day one.

 

[Craig]

As for South Africa, how long should they bat for? IMO if Smith is interested in winning this Test (which he should) he should declare overnight, 525 is enough, Pollock and co have had plenty of rest and are rearing to go against Gayle and Hinds who have been out there for two days of cricket. But if he is looking for 600, then I think he should give the licenice to Kallis and Prince to go for it in the first hour, if they don't get it, too bad and call them in.

 

[tooextracool]

Cullinan would rate much higher than Kirsten IMO but forget that arguement as its besides the point. No debying Kirsten was a very good batsman. Point is if even you do not think Kirsten not to be technically brilliant, the first comparison on the technical front can be laid to rest. Its more of an arguement of early stating of Smith>Kirsten, premature as you term it.

Then the arguement is more based on the powers of mental skills, the concentration and temperament as you put it. The key factor which separates the men from the boys.

Smith has not just hit the runs he has, he has done that as captain of his country, opening the batting at a VERY young age. These facets are often over looked in seeing how strong Smith is mentally.

Smith is arrogant, yes. Smith has shown immaturity in behaviour, yes (like in the case of telling off Klusener in the media) Smith is also a highly disliked, loathed figure for him being Graeme Smith, some one who got the captaincy when it was unjustly taken away from Pollock (as believed by some) and succeeding when many wanted him to fail.

The fact that Smith did not fail and came off superbly amidst the pressure of being national captain, disliked by a multitude of his own country's fans shows immense character and mental skills. Concentration? 275 even against a crap bowling would require concentration.

Perhaps 10-15 years from now when people will be able to loo more neutrally upon the past few years of Smith's career will they truly be able to appreciate his achievment as a batsman during the phase. He hasnt been as good as captain during the time. I wouldnt say he has been a good captain by any measure.

Kirsten - I admired his own mental grit and stroke play a lot. But I didnt think he was consistent enough, some thing Smith has shown he is very good at. Kirsten was talented with his stroke play but I think over all he was just a step lower than Smith.

I know you disagree but lets just agree to disagree on this then.

i'll make it pretty clear........ just because you have a better technique, it does not mean that you will succeed just because someone else with a worse technique did. smith has problems, and its not a minor one either. and smith may have led his country at a very young age, and yes hes extremely mature for his age and experience. but again that doesnt mean that he can work around his weakness, nor does it in anyway mean that he will succeed. kirsten did something that very few players can do, to say that smith can do the same just because hes been consistent and scored runs against poor bowling attacks is an insane argument, and is not even worth arguing about.

 

[Craig]

Ambrose looks COOOL

What is he up to these days?

Still involved in cricket in a coaching role or not?

 

[Jono]

Four centuries. What the?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Four centuries. What the?

Actually, is that a first? 4 centuries in the same test innings. I vaguely recall Oz coming close against us in the 90s (IIRC Junior Waugh fell for 99), but I don't know if it has been done since then.

 

[shaka]

I think NZ might have done it a few years back