Smith vs Kirsten

[Richard]

so show me then, the number of times ponting has been out on the first turning ball hes faced? or perhaps more conveniently, show me how many times an innaccurate spinner has got ponting out on the first accurate turning ball that hes bowled?
you really have no idea what you're talking about, how in the world you expect bowlers who bowl 1 in swinger on target every 10 overs to get them out on that very first inswinger i'll never know.

Because it does happen.
And I've never said 1 every 10 overs, more 2 or 3 every 5 overs or so, which is still poor bowling but it's got a reasonable chance of dismissing someone with a weakness there.
There are quite a few instances - mainly involving Harbhajan - where Ponting has got out after only a handful of deliveries against spinners.

yes, yet with those 3 dismissals he had 'bradman' hiding all the way down the order, just so that he wouldnt have to face hoggard early on.

Which was the logical and sensible thing to do - and I really wish you'd stop calling Smith Bradman, because I've never, ever said he's close to being as good as him.

nor have i claimed that. fact of the matter is that inswing has worked him out until now, whether it does that in the future or not is irrelevant. so to claim something like his technical glitch hasnt been exposed because he averages over 50 is ludicrous.

So look at the big innings he's played and see how many on-target inswingers he's had to negate.

thats absolute garbage, people dont average in the mid to late 20 against good attacks. thats only what the FTB's do. just like hayden, if he were playing in the 80s, hed be averaging in the mid 20s.

He might be, but he's not, and unlike Hayden, who has another weakness aside from the inswinger, he plays the short ball well, and he's also 22 and has had the weakness for a very short time as opposed to Hayden who's had it for a decade and more. Smith has plenty of time to iron-out what may be a fault and I'm wholly confident he'll do it.

 

[Richard]

and any fool can see that you dont have to be dismissed by that particular bowler to be worked out by him.

Oh, no, you don't - Mills worked Hayden out without getting his wicket to his name more than once. Amazingly, Smith the bowler worked Thorpe out, and should have had his wicket at least 3 times but only got it once.
But you do have to get them out at least once.
And while Hoggard and Bicknell certainly sorted Smith out, people (marc especially) are talking as if the whole attack did, when they categorically did not.

 

[tooextracool]

That the South Africans conquered him, and Smith (especially in his 47) played a part in that is enough.

give him a medal, he conquered him when he scored a whole 47!

 

[tooextracool]

No, you didn't, but you said something along those lines by saying that every time he's faced a quality attack he's failed.
And I'd not have said that, because if you ask me it's just coincidence.

no when i said that hes failed every time hes faced a quality attack i meant exactly that. whether or not he manages to succeed in the future is irrelevant, it doesnt change the fact that hes been mediocre when hes faced quality bowlers thus far.

 

[tooextracool]

Because it does happen.
And I've never said 1 every 10 overs, more 2 or 3 every 5 overs or so, which is still poor bowling but it's got a reasonable chance of dismissing someone with a weakness there.
There are quite a few instances - mainly involving Harbhajan - where Ponting has got out after only a handful of deliveries against spinners.

and how often was that? very rarely indeed.
and there have been times when smith has been dismissed by poor bowlers capable of bowling inswingers early on in his innings.
and you might want to note that if someone bowls 2 -3 every 5 overs, you have to assume that a) its accurate at the weakness and b) its bowled to graeme smith and not his partner. and as i've said a million times 2 or 3 every 5 overs doesnt trouble batsmen, because its consistently exposing the weakness that counts.

Which was the logical and sensible thing to do - and I really wish you'd stop calling Smith Bradman, because I've never, ever said he's close to being as good as him.

yet you claimed that he had a shot of being 2nd to, a claim thats laughable. im sure sobers and 50 other test players would be laughing at that.

So look at the big innings he's played and see how many on-target inswingers he's had to negate.

probably 10-15 accurate inswingers at his weakness at the most. and its quite possible to not be exposed by that.

He might be, but he's not, and unlike Hayden, who has another weakness aside from the inswinger, he plays the short ball well, and he's also 22 and has had the weakness for a very short time as opposed to Hayden who's had it for a decade and more. Smith has plenty of time to iron-out what may be a fault and I'm wholly confident he'll do it.

why? if hayden didnt, who is to say smith would?
its all speculation, hes had the weakness now for over 2 years, so its certainly not a 'very short time'.

 

[Link]

so what then? so now we should pick players that score solely against the weak teams is it? i mean if you want to be the best team in the world, you must find players that are the greatest minnow bashers. why dont we all just pick attapattu then?

how the hell did you get that from what i said

 

[Link]

2) tests and ODI are not interchangeable, as people have said since god knows how long. what smith does in ODIs bares absolutely no relevance to what he does in tests.

of course it does, are OD hundreds not valuable or something to consider. The WC is an ODI tournament

 

[tooextracool]

how the hell did you get that from what i said

because you were using hayden's 380 as a guide to suggest something along the lines off " oh no one else has done that against zimbabwe, hence he must be brilliant"

 

[tooextracool]

of course it does, are OD hundreds not valuable or something to consider. The WC is an ODI tournament

good god, ODIS have no relevance to test. what smith does in ODIs is irrelevant, because its not going to change smith the test player or make him any better.

 

[Link]

good god, ODIS have no relevance to test. what smith does in ODIs is irrelevant, because its not going to change smith the test player or make him any better.

ha ha, ohh would you excuse me please im going to go outside and talk to my brick wall

 

[Link]

because you were using hayden's 380 as a guide to suggest something along the lines off " oh no one else has done that against zimbabwe, hence he must be brilliant"

i wouldnt say that he is brilliant because of scoring 380 against Zim. I would say haydos is brilliant though. Scoring 380 runs in a match from like 4 sessions demands respect

 

[tooextracool]

ha ha, ohh would you excuse me please im going to go outside and talk to my brick wall

yes because cleary test and ODIs are the same thing. bevan is the best test batsman ever.

 

[tooextracool]

i wouldnt say that he is brilliant because of scoring 380 against Zim. I would say haydos is brilliant though. Scoring 380 runs in a match from like 4 sessions demands respect

it demands respect yes, it was a very good innings yes. but to say that that innings puts him ahead of any great player is an absolute joke, as is any performance by anybody against non-test class opposition. its meant to be respected and then thrown into the thrash can.

 

[Link]

yes because cleary test and ODIs are the same thing. bevan is the best test batsman ever.

i really dont like it when people dont listen to me, look this is the end of this game

 

[Link]

but to say that that innings puts him ahead of any great player is an absolute joke,

look dont put words in my mouth, i didnt even say that. read the post that you quoted

 

[Richard]

give him a medal, he conquered him when he scored a whole 47!

If he scored runs of him (and he did) it doesn't matter what happened after that. Smith outdid Harmison, that is the only significance of the matter.

 

[Richard]

and how often was that? very rarely indeed.
and there have been times when smith has been dismissed by poor bowlers capable of bowling inswingers early on in his innings.
and you might want to note that if someone bowls 2 -3 every 5 overs, you have to assume that a) its accurate at the weakness and b) its bowled to graeme smith and not his partner. and as i've said a million times 2 or 3 every 5 overs doesnt trouble batsmen, because its consistently exposing the weakness that counts.

And I've said a million times that 2 or 3 times every 5 overs is enought to expose a weakness if it's bad enough.
If someone only bowls 2 or 3 deliveries that swing in 5 overs they're the worst bowler in Test history. Even the worst bowlers still usually bowl at the very least 1 delivery per over in the right area, and plenty of bowlers swing at least 4 out of 6. So combining those 2 probabilities you get the idea that he'd probably have faced up to 10 inswingers in the first 20 overs even against a very poor attack.

yet you claimed that he had a shot of being 2nd to, a claim thats laughable. im sure sobers and 50 other test players would be laughing at that.

I don't doubt they would, but it's not a laughable claim, it's something that was perfectly conceivable after his Lord's 2003 Test.

probably 10-15 accurate inswingers at his weakness at the most. and its quite possible to not be exposed by that.

Yes, it is (I'd still estimate it's a few more than that).
It's equally possible, as shown by the number of times he's got out to poor bowlers, that these might cause him problems. Of course not as many problems as bowlers who bowl them more often, but problems nonetheless, and problems he's negated when scoring runs.

why? if hayden didnt, who is to say smith would?
its all speculation, hes had the weakness now for over 2 years, so its certainly not a 'very short time'.

2 years is nothing; players have weaknesses for far longer than that and solve them eventually.

 

[Richard]

no when i said that hes failed every time hes faced a quality attack i meant exactly that. whether or not he manages to succeed in the future is irrelevant, it doesnt change the fact that hes been mediocre when hes faced quality bowlers thus far.

No, it doesn't, but as I've said you have implied that this means something - ie that he's not really that good a player.
I've said it's so far attributable to nought but coincidence so proves nothing.

 

[tooextracool]

If he scored runs of him (and he did) it doesn't matter what happened after that. Smith outdid Harmison, that is the only significance of the matter.

and he couldnt have outdone harmison if he barely scored 15 runs against him.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it doesn't, but as I've said you have implied that this means something - ie that he's not really that good a player.
I've said it's so far attributable to nought but coincidence so proves nothing.

ive implied that hes not as good as hes made out to be thus far in his career, and that hes not as good as his average makes him out to be. because until you score against quality attacks you cant be anything such, especially when you've managed to fail every single time against them.