Placing our bets on "Test Cricket's Young Fab Four"

[Blocky]

All you need to say is "Adam Voges" or "Khawaja away from Oceania" in response to "Australia doesn't have roads"

 

[Spark]

I really don't want to big up KW atm because he's had such an ordinary last 9 months, but I found it interesting that he commented that it was like being in heaven batting at the Gabba & the WACA wickets last year & went on to say he kind of envy's Aust batsmen having those as their home tracks. Of course he averaged 85 in that series against your bowlers who we keep getting told in other arguments are such good bowlers.. Hazel, Starc, Johnson & co.

So there's possibly something about them being good wickets to bat on for certain batsmen.

They're definitely good wickets to bat on for good batsmen. Australian cricket tends to accentuate the difference between good and mediocre to a massive extent; if you're good enough then happy days, but if you're not quite good enough then you can look like a park cricketer.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Feel free to remind me of all I've said, should Smith actually score some runs against Jadeja and Ashwin. He's about to have the type of series that shows why his technique relies on popgun attacks bowling on road like pitches.

completely unrelated, but this reminds me of a year ago when all the Kiwi posters were hyping up how much Australia's bats would be demolished by Southee and Boult. Good times.

 

[Victor Ian]

You can only play against the crap that stands before you. Either the whole world is crap, or Smith is good. If the whole world is crap then Kohli and Root are also crap (and Kane not even fit to be called a turd).

 

[Zinzan]

They're definitely good wickets to bat on for good batsmen. Australian cricket tends to accentuate the difference between good and mediocre to a massive extent; if you're good enough then happy days, but if you're not quite good enough then you can look like a park cricketer.

Fair overall,, but batting style is also a factor. Duminy seemingly batting above his par in Australia is a good example that comes to mind.

 

[Blocky]

They're definitely good wickets to bat on for good batsmen. Australian cricket tends to accentuate the difference between good and mediocre to a massive extent; if you're good enough then happy days, but if you're not quite good enough then you can look like a park cricketer.

I'd say that's more your bowling attack, when Starc is in his pomp, there are few that can match him (Steyn / Broad / Abbott / Philander ), Haze has been phenomenal and looks like he's going to be your best bowler, and for some reason, Lyon has been able to golden arm wickets out when those guys aren't taking them.

The thing every bowling attack needs to be successful in Australia is a combination of hostile pace, and relentless accuracy - Haze and Starc give you that; but Starc has been much less effective than I expected him to be, and a lot of that is down to the fact that combined with the pitch offering next to nothing to the bowlers in Aussie, the ball hasn't been going in the air as much as we're used to either.

Australia also seem to have the mockers (similar to the All Blacks in Rugby) on teams, a lot of teams are strongly competitive and even better than Australia, only to throw it away in a single session of batting. NZ did that, Pakistan did that in this test.

 

[Spark]

Fair overall,, but batting style is also a factor. Duminy seemingly batting above his par in Australia is a good example that comes to mind.

Yeah good example, but in fairness SA is an exception because they find these pitches more docile versions of what they bat on all the time.

 

[indiaholic]

Batting style is the predominant factor.. Players who are comfortable attacking pace and bounce in the knowledge that lateral movement won't be an issue will thrive.

 

[Blocky]

completely unrelated, but this reminds me of a year ago when all the Kiwi posters were hyping up how much Australia's bats would be demolished by Southee and Boult. Good times.

I wasn't one of those, I've been saying either Southee or Boult should be dropped for years, funny how when Wagner came in, he hustled up your batsmen just like he's done all around world cricket for the rest of the time.

Southee and Boult are one trick ponies, if the ball doesn't swing, they're back to being mediocre military medium pace bowlers, especially since Boult's injury.

 

[morgieb]

Is Blocky really playing the "when you take away all his good innings then Smith is crap argument"?

It looks like it hahaha.

I'll grant him that his average probably masks his overall Sri Lanka performance. But the runs he scored in England actually led to victories there, so hardly useless. And his South Africa series....I don't know what to say. At this stage he's basically trolling.

 

[Spark]

I'd say that's more your bowling attack, when Starc is in his pomp, there are few that can match him (Steyn / Broad / Abbott / Philander ), Haze has been phenomenal and looks like he's going to be your best bowler, and for some reason, Lyon has been able to golden arm wickets out when those guys aren't taking them.

The thing every bowling attack needs to be successful in Australia is a combination of hostile pace, and relentless accuracy - Haze and Starc give you that; but Starc has been much less effective than I expected him to be, and a lot of that is down to the fact that combined with the pitch offering next to nothing to the bowlers in Aussie, the ball hasn't been going in the air as much as we're used to either.

Australia also seem to have the mockers (similar to the All Blacks in Rugby) on teams, a lot of teams are strongly competitive and even better than Australia, only to throw it away in a single session of batting. NZ did that, Pakistan did that in this test.

Hazlewood and Starc have only been around for two years (or, in Starc's case, good for two years as opposed to a very fast pie chucker), so that doesn't explain the last decade of this happening. We've had good bowlers for most of that time but tough ****, that's what you expect when you come down here.

 

[Zinzan]

completely unrelated, but this reminds me of a year ago when all the Kiwi posters were hyping up how much Australia's bats would be demolished by Southee and Boult. Good times.

All of the Kiwi posters was it? Haha

That's like me painting all the Aussies on the forum with the same brush every time you make a stupid statement.

The only person who I recall bigging Boult and Southee up was KiwiVictor, and then of course Burgey had a bit of fun with it and implied it was all of us & started his 'White Akram' comments, but he was just jiving us.

 

[centurymaker]

(Someone brought up Smith & Kohli's 2014, 2015 & 2016 figures)-

Stats at face value mean little... It's a relative thing, and context matters a lot.

For example,
In 2015, India literally played on bunsens, where team totals were usually 150-200. On the other hand, Australia played on highways where team totals were something like 500/6 dec.

Given the context, 40 on a bunsen was more or less equivalent to a 100 on a road.. So how can one then take raw statistics seriously?

Averaging 35 on bunsens was far better achievement than averaging 70 on highways.

If India starts preparing beautiful roads as well like the recent one in Chennai, a guy like Karun Nair (guy who scored a 303*) could be the next big thing.. he might average 78 at home on featherbeds and somehow manage to average 50 away on the back of 100s in Bangladesh, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Napier in NZ, MCG SCG Adelaide in Australia, Lords & Oval in England or when the "Sun" is out & pitch is doing nothing..

You see what I am saying.. one can still have a good overall record without actually being a 'complete player'

Suppose Karun Nair goes to England, looks poor against the moving ball & fails, but manages to cash-in when the pitch is a beauty..He can still have great overall figures..

1st Test Green Pitch
4 & 18
2nd Test at Lords & its sunny
17 & 125
3rd Test Edgbaston
0 & 7
4th Test
3 & 25
5th Test Oval
221*

420 runs @ 52.5 avg

The 125 at Lords coming in the 3rd innings when trailing by 320 runs.. i.e. in a big losing cause where Nair simply tried his hand and came away with a ton..

Tour of New Zealand

1st Test Hamilton (flat pitch)
20 & 35
2nd Test Napier (Highway)
160*
3rd Test Wellington!! (Proper pitch)
5 & 0

220 runs @ 55 avg


Basically what I am alluding to is that even series by series face-value statistics can be misleading. One big cashing-in innings could immensely bump up your average and hide your flaws.

That is why you have to actually watch or check the context.. the pitch, the opposition, the match situation.. etc.

 

[Blocky]

It looks like it hahaha.

I'll grant him that his average probably masks his overall Sri Lanka performance. But the runs he scored in England actually led to victories there, so hardly useless. And his South Africa series....I don't know what to say. At this stage he's basically trolling.

Where was he against RSA in Aus when their bowling attack had some venom in it? He didn't score runs until the final test when Philander and Rabada were shells of themselves due to the extra bowling they took on with Steyn being injured. Where was he in Sri Lanka when it mattered to winning matches? His English performances are OK; but realistically Broad is the only threat England have anymore, Anderson is well past his best and Broad is mercurial, either brilliant or basic.

 

[Daemon]

They're definitely good wickets to bat on for good batsmen. Australian cricket tends to accentuate the difference between good and mediocre to a massive extent; if you're good enough then happy days, but if you're not quite good enough then you can look like a park cricketer.

Yeah this. The answer lies in between what the two sides are arguing atm.

 

[Blocky]

Hazlewood and Starc have only been around for two years (or, in Starc's case, good for two years as opposed to a very fast pie chucker), so that doesn't explain the last decade of this happening. We've had good bowlers for most of that time but tough ****, that's what you expect when you come down here.

Yeah, but to be fair to Australian cricket, they're been pretty average in the last 6 years except for inspirational performances from Mitchell Johnson. They're beating teams like India, West Indies and NZ in Australia, but to be perfectly honest, they shouldn't lose to those teams at home, unless NZ unearth another Bond like performer, or West Indies find their ability to bowl fast again.

The last three years have looked pretty good for Aus, because they've not had the tough tours (with exception to playing South Africa in South Africa, but they've not even faced the best side South Africa could put out due to injuries)

 

[Spark]

Yeah this. The answer lies in between what the two sides are arguing atm.

I mean to an extent I couldn't care less what the wicket is doing so long as his batting helps us post a winning score. Smith and none of the other batsmen named here are interested in some vague competition, they're trying to win Test matches for their country.

 

[Zinzan]

(Someone brought up Smith & Kohli's 2014, 2015 & 2016 figures)-

Stats at face value mean little... It's a relative thing, and context matters a lot.

For example,
In 2015, India literally played on bunsens, where team totals were usually 150-200. On the other hand, Australia played on highways where team totals were something like 500/6 dec.

Given the context, 40 on a bunsen was more or less equivalent to a 100 on a road.. So how can one then take raw statistics seriously?

Averaging 35 on bunsens was far better achievement than averaging 70 on highways.

If India starts preparing beautiful roads as well like the recent one in Chennai, a guy like Karun Nair (guy who scored a 303*) could be the next big thing.. he might average 78 at home on featherbeds and somehow manage to average 50 away on the back of 100s in Bangladesh, West Indies, Sri Lanka, Napier in NZ, MCG SCG Adelaide in Australia, Lords & Oval in England or when the "Sun" is out & pitch is doing nothing..

You see what I am saying.. one can still have a good overall record without actually being a 'complete player'

Suppose Karun Nair goes to England, looks poor against the moving ball & fails, but manages to cash-in when the pitch is a beauty..He can still have great overall figures..

1st Test Green Pitch
4 & 18
2nd Test at Lords & its sunny
17 & 125
3rd Test Edgbaston
0 & 7
4th Test
3 & 25
5th Test Oval
221*

420 runs @ 52.5 avg

The 125 at Lords coming in the 3rd innings when trailing by 320 runs.. i.e. in a big losing cause where Nair simply tried his hand and came away with a ton..

Tour of New Zealand

1st Test Hamilton (flat pitch)
20 & 35
2nd Test Napier (Highway)
160*
3rd Test Wellington!! (Proper pitch)
5 & 0

220 runs @ 55 avg


Basically what I am alluding to is that even series by series face-value statistics can be misleading. One big cashing-in innings could immensely bump up your average and hide your flaws.

That is why you have to actually watch or check the context.. the pitch, the opposition, the match situation.. etc.

Hey, don't provide context, it's much better we just look at overall averages from the last few years and assume all the batsmen faced the same conditions and scenarios when batting.

 

[morgieb]

Where was he against RSA in Aus when their bowling attack had some venom in it? He didn't score runs until the final test when Philander and Rabada were shells of themselves due to the extra bowling they took on with Steyn being injured. Where was he in Sri Lanka when it mattered to winning matches? His English performances are OK; but realistically Broad is the only threat England have anymore, Anderson is well past his best and Broad is mercurial, either brilliant or basic.

Anderson was still a quality bowler the two times he toured there FFS.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, but to be fair to Australian cricket, they're been pretty average in the last 6 years except for inspirational performances from Mitchell Johnson. They're beating teams like India, West Indies and NZ in Australia, but to be perfectly honest, they shouldn't lose to those teams at home, unless NZ unearth another Bond like performer, or West Indies find their ability to bowl fast again.

The last three years have looked pretty good for Aus, because they've not had the tough tours (with exception to playing South Africa in South Africa, but they've not even faced the best side South Africa could put out due to injuries)

Literally only SA has beaten us since England in 2010/11, so "teams like" is the rest of the cricketing world, in which case one has to ask what the **** more you're meant to do.

As for the bolded, please point out the injured cricketer who could have improved this SA team: 1st Test: South Africa v Australia at Centurion, Feb 12-15, 2014 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo