Smith vs Kirsten

[membersstand]

hoggard worked him out beautifully

Says it all.

 

[JBH001]

Kirsten for me.

Smith, to my mind, is still a bit of a flat track bully.

 

[Sanz]

I will pick Gary Kirsten any day.

 

[Jono]

At the moment Gary Kirsten, but boy people on this board have a real tendency to overrate Kirsten's technique, and him as a batsman to an extent. He was very gritty, and mentally tough, but he was far from superior and as already pointed out, he did have a technical weakness which he eventually fixed. However for much of his career he chopped on to the stumps fairly often.

 

[marc71178]

Usually it depends on what type of nick he's in - if he's in poor touch, as in the recent series against us, he misses it quite a bit and looks wholly ordinary.

So he was in poor touch for the last 3 Tests of a series after scoring 2 massive scores as well then?

Convenient that, got nothing to do with England having him worked out is it...

 

[Langeveldt]

Smith for me..

More dominant than Kirsten at the crease, averaging more (and he's played quite a few tests now)

I rate Hoggard as a good swing bowler, I don't have a problem with his dominance over Smith this winter... And now the good runs are flowing again..

 

[Anil]

they cannot be compared....yet....smith is more talented but kirsten was one of the grittiest and one of the mentally toughest players of his era....if i had to choose between them today, i would pick kirsten...

 

[Piper]

They are both outstanding batsmen, but i would say Kirsten coz u could always count on him to stay in and get the runs u need. Im not saying that Smith cant do that, coz we all know he can... but Smith is relatively inexperienced compared to Kirsten, i can see Smith turning into that kind of player... but hes not there yet....

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

kirsten had a very very ordinary technique for an opener

Gary Kirsten's defensive technique allowed him to thrive in conditions that Smith simply cannot.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

More dominant than Kirsten at the crease, averaging more (and he's played quite a few tests now)

How can average be a factor in it? Smith has played 67 less Tests. He's done well to keep an average of 53podd for 38 Tests, but to do so for 101 is an entirely different proposition.

 

[Langeveldt]

How can average be a factor in it? Smith has played 67 less Tests. He's done well to keep an average of 53podd for 38 Tests, but to do so for 101 is an entirely different proposition.

Well then, Smith has done it as a 21,22,23 year old, as well as captaining at the start of his career.. Impressive?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well then, Smith has done it as a 21,22,23 year old, as well as captaining at the start of his career.. Impressive?

The captaincy cannot factor into it when comparing Kirsten and Smith either. Had Kirsten been granted the captaincy at that stage, he may have done as well if not better. Simply put, you can't compare the two players and factor in anything until Smith has played 101 Tests.

 

[Pratters]

Simply put, you can't compare the two players and factor in anything until Smith has played 101 Tests.

I do believe they can be compared which is why I made the thread.

Its interesting to note that you feel they cannot be compared and yet conclusively state that according to you Kirsten>Smith.

 

[tooextracool]

Gary Kirsten's defensive technique allowed him to thrive in conditions that Smith simply cannot.

did you read any of my last post? seriously how in the world can someone who played away from his body for a very large part of his career and had a weakness against the short ball have a great defensive technique?
if you ask me, 9 out of 10 openers with kirsten's technique would have failed miserably in their test careers. the fact that kirsten succeeded was testiment to his character and mental toughness.
even graeme smith, while he has a weakness against the in swinger, even he has a more solid defense than kirsten. whether he can work around his weakness like kirsten did though, is yet to be proven.

 

[Sudeep]

Its interesting to note that you feel they cannot be compared and yet conclusively state that according to you Kirsten>Smith.

Because Smith has a major technical glitch which he hasn't been able to solve so far?

 

[marc71178]

It's interesting how just about everybody is going for Kirsten, but Pratyush will continue to argue his corner, like a lone beacon.

 

[nookie_lk]

Kirsten no doubt....Smith gets on my nerves....

 

[Pratters]

It's interesting how just about everybody is going for Kirsten, but Pratyush will continue to argue his corner, like a lone beacon.

Langeveldt also believes the same and just because more people believe some thing else, it may not necessarily be true.

Try staying on topic rather than making below the belt remarks.

 

[Pratters]

Because Smith has a major technical glitch which he hasn't been able to solve so far?

Read the post on the West Indies vs South Africa thread I wrote about Sampras and Warne, greats facing problems. Smith is just a good player and can face problems as well.

 

[Jono]

It's interesting how just about everybody is going for Kirsten, but Pratyush will continue to argue his corner, like a lone beacon.

So what? Who cares? He's entitled to his opinion, there's no reason for him to change it just because others believe the opposite.

Rack up another ridiculous post to your name.