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

[Spark]

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

Amazing how a one-man bowling attack has won three home series in a row.

 

[Blocky]

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

Because you hardly played anyone other than England for a few years there, and those that you did were West Indies, and India. That's why Smith (and others) have played so comparatively few tests against other nations except England.

 

[Blocky]

49 tests, 18 against the UK.

Outside the UK, he hasn't played more than 3 tests away from home against any other country and in most situations, it's only two tests.

Compared that to Williamson

56 tests, having played 5 teams 7 times and India 9 times, having had 7 tests in India.

Let's see what Smith's record is after 7 tests in India, it won't be as good as it currently is.

 

[Spark]

Because you hardly played anyone other than England for a few years there, and those that you did were West Indies, and India. That's why Smith (and others) have played so comparatively few tests against other nations except England.

Since 2011 everyone has toured here, and the only nation that has won a series or indeed looked even remotely close to winning a series was SA. So who is this mythical team that Australia was meant to beat to prove its credentials at home?

*edit except bangladesh and zimbabwe I guess, but come on.

 

[vcs]

(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.

Still sounds several light years better than what we'd get out of Rohit Sharma

 

[Blocky]

Since 2011 everyone has toured here, and the only nation that has won a series or indeed looked even remotely close to winning a series was SA. So who is this mythical team that Australia was meant to beat to prove its credentials at home?

*edit except bangladesh and zimbabwe I guess, but come on.

This is such basic arguments.

This has been the era of home town teams winning their home town matches, it's away wins that are harder to get, which is why any performance in India would be considered the toughest victory to take. Beating Australia in Australia would be the second hardest.

Smith hasn't had enough away tests outside of England to really be judged, yet you get people trying to state his away record is good enough to tell a picture - his away record is HEAVILY inflated by two series.

 

[Spark]

This is such basic arguments.

This has been the era of home town teams winning their home town matches, it's away wins that are harder to get, which is why any performance in India would be considered the toughest victory to take. Beating Australia in Australia would be the second hardest.

Smith hasn't had enough away tests outside of England to really be judged, yet you get people trying to state his away record is good enough to tell a picture - his away record is HEAVILY inflated by two series.

But you weren't talking about Smith in that post, you were talking about Australia:

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)

Still waiting on this imaginary injured SA cricketer who could have saved them in that series btw. Kallis doesn't count, as he'd retired.

 

[Blocky]

I can't be bothered with circular arguments against different people on the same point, so let's just leave it with...

Come back to me after the Indian series, if Smith manages to average over 45, I'll give him full credit... when he doesn't, you come back to me and explain why he struggled and why India dominated Australia just like they've done everyone else.

 

[Blocky]

But you weren't talking about Smith in that post, you were talking about Australia:



Still waiting on this imaginary injured SA cricketer who could have saved them in that series btw. Kallis doesn't count, as he'd retired.

Steyn was back from a recent injury, as was Philander, you didn't have Abbott or Rabada and Smith batted deep in the innings, came in after the tough work had been done ( you know, like he likes to do) so using that ONE scorecard versus say the three test series he lost in Australia when South Africa were missing De Villiers, Steyn broke down early and they were in some of the worst form in Duminy, Du Plessis and Amla and still managed to easily win the first two tests.

 

[Blocky]

I also love that you're arguing with me on Australia being average, just three tests removed from a five test losing streak that was unheard of in Aussie Cricket since 1990.

 

[Spark]

Steyn was back from a recent injury, as was Philander, you didn't have Abbott or Rabada and Smith batted deep in the innings, came in after the tough work had been done ( you know, like he likes to do) so using that ONE scorecard versus say the three test series he lost in Australia when South Africa were missing De Villiers, Steyn broke down early and they were in some of the worst form in Duminy, Du Plessis and Amla and still managed to easily win the first two tests.

Do you literally even know which series I'm talking about oh my god.

 

[Victor Ian]

I can't be bothered with circular arguments against different people on the same point, so let's just leave it with...

Come back to me after the Indian series, if Smith manages to average over 45, I'll give him full credit... when he doesn't, you come back to me and explain why he struggled and why India dominated Australia just like they've done everyone else.

Your credit is like that of a drunkard. No one wants it.

 

[Spark]

Blocky: they haven't had tough tours other than South Africa in South Africa! <then starts talking about a totally different series>

 

[Daemon]

I can't be bothered with circular arguments against different people on the same point, so let's just leave it with...

Come back to me after the Indian series, if Smith manages to average over 45, I'll give him full credit... when he doesn't, you come back to me and explain why he struggled and why India dominated Australia just like they've done everyone else.

Eh, depends on what pitches are served up. If he averages 45 on the decks that SA faved then it would probably be the best performance by a touring batsmen in a while.

 

[Blocky]

Blocky: they haven't had tough tours other than South Africa in South Africa! <then starts talking about a totally different series>

A series they won and did well in; with a much more established batting order (including Clarke, Rogers, Haddin) and a bowling attack that had Harris (your best since McGrath and a not yet spent Johnson)

What happened when Clarke wasn't there to hold his hand?

 

[Spark]

To be clear, the hard work Blocky is talking about was this:

End of over 34 (wicket maiden) Australia 98/4

 

[indiaholic]

And if he does that on the pitches England got, 45 would be mediocre. Not terrible but I expect better.

 

[Spark]

A series they won and did well in; with a much more established batting order (including Clarke, Rogers, Haddin) and a bowling attack that had Harris (your best since McGrath and a not yet spent Johnson)

What happened when Clarke wasn't there to hold his hand?

Uh... he did okay? Clarke did almost nothing until the final Test, and people were starting to get extremely worried.

I mean it's pretty obvious that you paid no attention to this series at all.

 

[Blocky]

Do you literally even know which series I'm talking about oh my god.

You're talking about ancient history, not the one where Smith just got done over at home against a bowling attack that was all over him. Because you argue points that no one else made.

 

[Blocky]

Uh... he did okay? Clarke did almost nothing until the final Test, and people were starting to get extremely worried.

I mean it's pretty obvious that you paid no attention to this series at all.

Did nothing until the final test... that's kind of Smith's thing isn't it? Unless he's playing popgun sides.