Smith v Kohli (test match batting)

[harsh.ag]

Hey even Bradman's median is 56. His average comes from going big as well.

 

[stephen]

It's kind of weird. We are all lauding Smith's far superior brilliance, yet he is only gettting to 7000 a handful of innings quicker than the next bunch of ATG contenders. Smith is not a shade on what Bradman was like. Just merely what Hammond was like.

No, but he's the closest in our lifetimes.

 

[MrPrez]

It's kind of weird. We are all lauding Smith's far superior brilliance, yet he is only gettting to 7000 a handful of innings quicker than the next bunch of ATG contenders. Smith is not a shade on what Bradman was like. Just merely what Hammond was like.

Also, Sehwag > Tendulkar and Yousuf > Viv Richards.

This isn't the ultimate stat for batting brilliance.

And even so, Smith's 5 innings quicker than Hammond is pretty substantial considering that the entire top 10 quickest to 7,000 is only split by 10 innings.

Finally, as others have mentioned, Smith started out as a bowling AR. Which obviously just makes his (possible) achievement that much more impressive.

 

[rtramdas]

So you just ignored what was explained to you by multiple people (the fact that the exact tactic you mention has been tried regularly without success) and repeated your shortsighted suggestion in a lot more words?

I think Burgey has subsequently and indirectly answered your post. I agree Smith's movements made the Archer ball that struck him more dangerous than it otherwise would have been. From memory Cummins and then Siddle batted out that same Archer spell and played his short stuff very well. It gave me reason to think that maybe Smith's movements could make him vulnerable to shorter balls aimed around off stump. Couple of things: I still think the variable nature of that pitch contributed to Smith getting hit on the arm before he was eventually felled by the bouncer. (Wade also said that pitches without much bounce make it difficult for batsmen to avoid Archer's bumpers so maybe that played a part as well). I think Smith was rattled by that blow to the arm and he batted thereafter like an angry man bent on vengeance. This bravado made him more vulnerable to taking on a rapid ball he would have normally avoided if he was playing with a more level mind, imo. So you could claim that he may have avoided the bumper that hit him if wore an arm guard in the first place.

If there was any lingering weakness I think England would have subsequently exploited it. But as has been explained Smith spent the time away thinking about that delivery and you would have to say that from the success he enjoyed found an adequate solution. When you get a bloke as good as him people often read too much into a mode of dismissal and are too optimistic in delivering results. Remember when Australia found the solution to KP in the form of Doherty ..? I think the ball on the hip is worth a try against Smith. But you can see the danger in committing to a leg side line against him. And unlike the Archer ball Smith wont have to make too many adjustments to accommodate that line of attack. For the lack of any better suggestions I still think a wide off side line and patience, patience, patience is the way to tackle him.

Smith as of now has been hugely successful in AUS,NZL,WI & ENG. In SAF & subcontinent he has been not that much successful when compared to the other countries.You people are saying that in these highly succesful countries of Smith , the bowlers have tried every thing till now to contain him and they failed. This is where I still have my reservations. I still feel there is some matter in what I said
earlier. Smith as of now has developed his own technique where he would gain an upper hand when compared to other great batsmen in scoring runs against bowlers in general. But , to be successful against such a batsman who makes that trigger movement in advance, the bowler has to adjust his line & length at the last minute to counter that.Even the slightest bit of variation of trajectory on the part of bowler in the last minute can cause more unease for Smith when compared to other orthodox technique based batsmen in general. I don't think it has been the case till now in countries where Smith has been that hugely succesful. Any way to alter the trajectory of their delivery at the last minute too is not at all an easy task for a bowler. But if a bowler manages to do that more often, he can cause troubles for Smith lot more than what can be against any other orthodox great batsman , This is all my point has been about.

I think Arher & Broad did exactly that in those 2 inns. I hope more and more bowlers would be watching that and tryng to apply just that against him moving forward. Any way this is just my belief.Let us wait and watch.

 

[Daemon]

Could you elaborate on what "slightest bit of variation of trajectory at the last minute" means?

Variation from what?

 

[rtramdas]

So you just ignored what was explained to you by multiple people (the fact that the exact tactic you mention has been tried regularly without success) and repeated your shortsighted suggestion in a lot more words?

Could you elaborate on what "slightest bit of variation of trajectory at the last minute" means?

Variation from what?

It is not that for each and every ball against him , Smith makes that trigger movement in advance. So when ever he makes that trigger movement in advance, the bowler should be able to adjust his line and length at the last minute.If you watch that last dismissal of Smith against Broad, you can clearly grasp as to what I said. When Smith made that movement, Broad purposefully put in a bit more effort and made the ball to bounce bit more high.This is what I meant by "slightest bit of variation of trajectory at the last minute".You can hear even commentators talking 'that was a plan well executed'. A Geoff Boycott or Gavaskar or Dravid or Kallis would have been able to put that ball down at least with a bit of difficulty because of them being well balanced at the crease.But since Smith had already committed to playing thru the leg side more because of that trigger movement, he found it difficult to keep it down because of the imbalance he created there by. Not only this, suppose that a seam bowler(preferably a left hander) who can swing the ball at least a bit manages to swing across him at around the 5th stump line on a bit short of fuller length(if it is fuller length Smith would easily drive that thru the covers) with Smith in the same position, Smith would be in lot more trouble than the earlier set of batsmen I specified. The earlier set of batsmen would have left that ball alone because they would be well balanced to counter that where as Smith would be a bit off balanced not to poke at it. This is what I meant. But fortunately for him now a days, there are not much bowlers who can do that on a regular basis to Smith(may be the different playing conditions to can be reason for that).
I have seen Mcgrath,Ambrose, Akram Hadlee etc etc doing that a lot , I mean altering the line and length at the last moment.But now a days that are far and few in between. May be the conditions too are reasons for that

 

[Burgey]

Errrgh. This is awful. Just because someone has a large trigger movement doesn't mean they are off balance at the point of delivery. This idea bowlers don't alter their plans these days is also just not true. The leg slip/ gully tactic was tried from time to time over the past four or five years against him. The fifth stump line has been tried against him. The in-ducker has been tried against him. Do you think people aren't trying to get him out? Honestly, if people want to consistently bowl at Smith's hip with a leg gully, they'll probably get him out eventually, but he will score even more than he already is and the only reason he'll get out is through fatigue when he's on about 340..

 

[TheJediBrah]

It is not that for each and every ball against him , Smith makes that trigger movement in advance. So when ever he makes that trigger movement in advance, the bowler should be able to adjust his line and length at the last minute.If you watch that last dismissal of Smith against Broad, you can clearly grasp as to what I said. When Smith made that movement, Broad purposefully put in a bit more effort and made the ball to bounce bit more high.This is what I meant by "slightest bit of variation of trajectory at the last minute".You can hear even commentators talking 'that was a plan well executed'. A Geoff Boycott or Gavaskar or Dravid or Kallis would have been able to put that ball down at least with a bit of difficulty because of them being well balanced at the crease.But since Smith had already committed to playing thru the leg side more because of that trigger movement, he found it difficult to keep it down because of the imbalance he created there by. Not only this, suppose that a seam bowler(preferably a left hander) who can swing the ball at least a bit manages to swing across him at around the 5th stump line on a bit short of fuller length(if it is fuller length Smith would easily drive that thru the covers) with Smith in the same position, Smith would be in lot more trouble than the earlier set of batsmen I specified. The earlier set of batsmen would have left that ball alone because they would be well balanced to counter that where as Smith would be a bit off balanced not to poke at it. This is what I meant. But fortunately for him now a days, there are not much bowlers who can do that on a regular basis to Smith(may be the different playing conditions to can be reason for that).
I have seen Mcgrath,Ambrose, Akram Hadlee etc etc doing that a lot , I mean altering the line and length at the last moment.But now a days that are far and few in between. May be the conditions too are reasons for that

You're still not paying attention. It's great that you're thinking about this and analysing it but you keep ignoring the fact that what you say is evidently, practically speaking, not correct. It's been tried over and over, and doesn't work.

It would be like me, right now, writing a well though-out essay about how Donald Trump could never be elected president of the United States. I might have plenty of great points but they are all meaningless because my contention is obviously wrong.

 

[TheJediBrah]

As others have said, best way to bowl to Smith is 4th or 5th stump, good length. Simple as that. It's incredibly frustrating how little patience teams have for trying it before resorting to stupid tactics like leg theory with men in the deep feeding him singles.

England were atrocious during the Ashes with this. Smith wasn't perfect, in fact he was very lucky a few times. It was astounding how often they'd have Smith in a bit of trouble outside off playing and missing, edging to the ground etc. but then give up after a few overs and resort to leg side tactics or whatever and then he was never in trouble from then on.

 

[Burgey]

You’ve got about 20-30 balls to get him out. If you don’t you’re ****ed, frankly. But certainly agree the 4th-5th stump line is where you need to be, and wait him out. That way you limit his scoring, and by about tea on day two he’ll make a mistake and you’ll get him for about 140 odd instead of 240, which is what he’s make if you bowled at his hip instead.

 

[SteveNZ]

Errrgh. This is awful. Just because someone has a large trigger movement doesn't mean they are off balance at the point of delivery. This idea bowlers don't alter their plans these days is also just not true. The leg slip/ gully tactic was tried from time to time over the past four or five years against him. The fifth stump line has been tried against him. The in-ducker has been tried against him. Do you think people aren't trying to get him out? Honestly, if people want to consistently bowl at Smith's hip with a leg gully, they'll probably get him out eventually, but he will score even more than he already is and the only reason he'll get out is through fatigue when he's on about 340..

This was someone's point of view? I imagine if biomechanically you drew a centre of gravity line from where Smith's head is at the point of delivery. it would be right over his front leg - therefore if he's not on the move at that point, he's balanced. And how he would be able to achieve what he does off balance, well that makes no level of sense.

4th 5th stump is the tactic, but human beings let alone meat head bowlers aren't equipped with the level of patience it would take to make it effective. The lure of stumps behind his pads is always too much for fast bowlers, often subconsciously. The same demon in your head that when you pick up a driver in golf, knowing a smooth swing is the way to go, still bashes the living hell out of it.

 

[Burgey]

This is true. I always remember Greg Norman doing a golf tutorial, picking up his driver and saying "Never, ever overhit this club", right before he gassed up trying to drive the green in one at a US PGA.

Phil Jaques has a video he carries around with him which has snippets of a heap of players in it. He uses it to illustrate the variable trigger movements- blokes from Chanderpaul through Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Katich, Smith etc etc. And the video also has still shots of them all at the point of release. The thing is, at that point they are all in line, balanced and head still. What comes before that point is just a talking point for the comms and us pundits.

 

[jimmy101]

That'd be really fascinating to watch by the sounds.

 

[the big bambino]

Smith as of now has been hugely successful in AUS,NZL,WI & ENG. In SAF & subcontinent he has been not that much successful when compared to the other countries.You people are saying that in these highly succesful countries of Smith , the bowlers have tried every thing till now to contain him and they failed. This is where I still have my reservations. I still feel there is some matter in what I said
earlier. Smith as of now has developed his own technique where he would gain an upper hand when compared to other great batsmen in scoring runs against bowlers in general. But , to be successful against such a batsman who makes that trigger movement in advance, the bowler has to adjust his line & length at the last minute to counter that.Even the slightest bit of variation of trajectory on the part of bowler in the last minute can cause more unease for Smith when compared to other orthodox technique based batsmen in general. I don't think it has been the case till now in countries where Smith has been that hugely succesful. Any way to alter the trajectory of their delivery at the last minute too is not at all an easy task for a bowler. But if a bowler manages to do that more often, he can cause troubles for Smith lot more than what can be against any other orthodox great batsman , This is all my point has been about.

I think Arher & Broad did exactly that in those 2 inns. I hope more and more bowlers would be watching that and tryng to apply just that against him moving forward. Any way this is just my belief.Let us wait and watch.

Smith's ave in the subcon (if you include UAE) is 48. That is still good and hardly the return of someone who's been found out.

I don't agree with your point where a bowler adjusting his line at the last minute is necessarily a benefit to the bowler. In my admittedly very modest time bowling I hated a batsman moving around the crease. There's alot more info to process in the time available. Besides someone like Smith has the movements to cover the bowler's change up whether planned or spontaneous. Smith will notice the bowler's plans by the shape of his field. I would guess his movements at crease are designed to cover the bowler's predominant line and yet be in position to adjust for the variation.

The two examples you give (Archer and Broad) where in conditions where he has otherwise generally excelled. He faced and scored runs off Archer after being felled and previously punished Broad off his hip. I think the bowler that gave him most trouble relatively, was Woakes and I think he was able to do that by bowling a tight offside line and vary it up with an in ducker.

 

[rtramdas]

Errrgh. This is awful. Just because someone has a large trigger movement doesn't mean they are off balance at the point of delivery. This idea bowlers don't alter their plans these days is also just not true. The leg slip/ gully tactic was tried from time to time over the past four or five years against him. The fifth stump line has been tried against him. The in-ducker has been tried against him. Do you think people aren't trying to get him out? Honestly, if people want to consistently bowl at Smith's hip with a leg gully, they'll probably get him out eventually, but he will score even more than he already is and the only reason he'll get out is through fatigue when he's on about 340..

You're still not paying attention. It's great that you're thinking about this and analysing it but you keep ignoring the fact that what you say is evidently, practically speaking, not correct. It's been tried over and over, and doesn't work.

It would be like me, right now, writing a well though-out essay about how Donald Trump could never be elected president of the United States. I might have plenty of great points but they are all meaningless because my contention is obviously wrong.

As others have said, best way to bowl to Smith is 4th or 5th stump, good length. Simple as that. It's incredibly frustrating how little patience teams have for trying it before resorting to stupid tactics like leg theory with men in the deep feeding him singles.

England were atrocious during the Ashes with this. Smith wasn't perfect, in fact he was very lucky a few times. It was astounding how often they'd have Smith in a bit of trouble outside off playing and missing, edging to the ground etc. but then give up after a few overs and resort to leg side tactics or whatever and then he was never in trouble from then on.

Smith's ave in the subcon (if you include UAE) is 48. That is still good and hardly the return of someone who's been found out.

I don't agree with your point where a bowler adjusting his line at the last minute is necessarily a benefit to the bowler. In my admittedly very modest time bowling I hated a batsman moving around the crease. There's alot more info to process in the time available. Besides someone like Smith has the movements to cover the bowler's change up whether planned or spontaneous. Smith will notice the bowler's plans by the shape of his field. I would guess his movements at crease are designed to cover the bowler's predominant line and yet be in position to adjust for the variation.

The two examples you give (Archer and Broad) where in conditions where he has otherwise generally excelled. He faced and scored runs off Archer after being felled and previously punished Broad off his hip. I think the bowler that gave him most trouble relatively, was Woakes and I think he was able to do that by bowling a tight offside line and vary it up with an in ducker.

not further into this .. But one thing for sure.Despite no denying the fact that Smith truly is a certified ATG, he has been troubled by the likes of Rabada,Morkel,Maharaj, Herath,Taijul Islam etc etc.All right Smith averaged some 111 in the Ashes but in the immediately preceeded SAF series he averaged a mere 23.66 . Similarly in the 5 first class innings intermingled with the Ashes scores Smith has only
9,8,23,0,21 . Hence it is naive to think that Smith would have approached these first class games with a completely casual frame of mind.These all points to some chinks in the armour based on the point I specified. So I still feel that there is some substance in what I believe. So despite appreciating your view points I slightly beg to differ.

Any way let us wait and watch moving forward as to how things will turn out . If I am proven wrong that time, I shall admit that I was wrong.

 

[TheJediBrah]

not further into this .. But one thing for sure.Despite no denying the fact that Smith truly is a certified ATG, he has been troubled by the likes of Rabada,Morkel,Maharaj, Herath,Taijul Islam etc etc.All right Smith averaged some 111 in the Ashes but in the immediately preceeded SAF series he averaged a mere 23.66 . Similarly in the 5 first class innings intermingled with the Ashes scores Smith has only
9,8,23,0,21 . Hence it is naive to think that Smith would have approached these first class games with a completely casual frame of mind.These all points to some chinks in the armour based on the point I specified. So I still feel that there is some substance in what I believe. So despite appreciating your view points I slightly beg to differ.

Any way let us wait and watch moving forward as to how things will turn out . If I am proven wrong that time, I shall admit that I was wrong.

Not in the slightest but ok

 

[Burgey]

I’ll have a lazy 50 with the first person who wants the bet that next time Smith plays SA he takes their bowlers apart like he has everyone else.

 

[Burgey]

For those from other countries, $50AUD is roughly £0.00000008, $680,000 NZD, and roughly the gross domestic product of Chennai.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes India is so poor haha

 

[h_hurricane]

For those from other countries, $50AUD is roughly £0.00000008, $680,000 NZD, and roughly the gross domestic product of Chennai.

One could just about have a trip from Chennai or Bangalore city to airport with that much money, if the cab driver is gracious enough not to rob you.