Smith vs Kirsten

[tooextracool]

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..

oh so he hammered a bowling attack led by anderson, surely he must be a cricketing god!
and of course it must have been perfectly conceivable that clarke was the next bradman after the series in india, given that he hammered a far more capable attack on better pitches than smith.

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

and many many players dont, your point being? you cant guarantee me that smith will solve them. hes more likely not to than actually doing so.

 

[Richard]

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

Why not? He didn't get out to him, never looked like doing so and scored 15 off 16 deliveries. I'd say that's victory to batsman.

 

[Richard]

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.

Right, I'll give you that one and simply say I'm fully confident that he'll prove himself as and when he gets the chance to face enough quality attacks.

 

[Richard]

oh so he hammered a bowling attack led by anderson, surely he must be a cricketing god!
and of course it must have been perfectly conceivable that clarke was the next bradman after the series in india, given that he hammered a far more capable attack on better pitches than smith.

Because of course Smith hadn't faced any other attacks, and Clarke had?
Smith had by Lord's 2003 played 8 Tests against 4 different teams and averaged 83.58, something virtually no-one has ever done before.

and many many players dont, your point being? you cant guarantee me that smith will solve them. hes more likely not to than actually doing so.

No, I can't gurantee anything and I never said I could. What I did say was that as far as I am concerned he's more likely to solve what may be a problem than not.

 

[tooextracool]

Why not? He didn't get out to him, never looked like doing so and scored 15 off 16 deliveries. I'd say that's victory to batsman.

so if someone scored 2 off 3 deliveries, didnt get out to the bowler, didnt look like doing so in 3 balls it means that he conquered him isnt it?

 

[tooextracool]

Because of course Smith hadn't faced any other attacks, and Clarke had?
Smith had by Lord's 2003 played 8 Tests against 4 different teams and averaged 83.58, something virtually no-one has ever done before..

and pretty much all of that had to do with the 2 double hundreds, without which he was averaging 42.44 which is decent, but certainly nowhere near bradmanesque. not to mention of course that you claimed that he was 2nd only to bradman far far after that series. also you might want to note that there was this bloke named kambli who averaged 99.75 after 8 tests, which is as close to bradman as anyone will ever get, and lets hear ou talk about how he deserved to be called 2nd only to bradman.
no wait, theres thilan samaraweera who averaged 103 after 8 tests, clearly he must be the next bradman.

 

[honestbharani]

no, obviously Samaraveera is greater than bradman, by 4 runs or so.....


There is a helpful stat for the Stats company guys.

 

[Richard]

so if someone scored 2 off 3 deliveries, didnt get out to the bowler, didnt look like doing so in 3 balls it means that he conquered him isnt it?

No, it doesn't, because 3 deliveries is nothing.
16 deliveries, though, is something.
In fact, it's over 1\4 of a full ODI spell.

 

[Richard]

and pretty much all of that had to do with the 2 double hundreds, without which he was averaging 42.44 which is decent, but certainly nowhere near bradmanesque. not to mention of course that you claimed that he was 2nd only to bradman far far after that series. also you might want to note that there was this bloke named kambli who averaged 99.75 after 8 tests, which is as close to bradman as anyone will ever get, and lets hear ou talk about how he deserved to be called 2nd only to bradman.
no wait, theres thilan samaraweera who averaged 103 after 8 tests, clearly he must be the next bradman.

Samaraweera who played all his 8 Tests at home and faced just 3 teams in the process.
Vinod Kambli whose first 10 Tests, too, were all in the subcontinent against just 3 teams again.
But who knows - people might have been talking of Kambli as the next Bradman after those Tests.
We now have the context of his next 7 Tests in which he averaged 14.70 to see that in fact he was rather on the rubbish side of average.

 

[Swervy]

No, it doesn't, because 3 deliveries is nothing.
16 deliveries, though, is something.
In fact, it's over 1\4 of a full ODI spell.

so where is the cut off point....is say 9 balls not important but 10 is.

 

[Richard]

There isn't one - like so many things in cricket statistics, it's down to basic common-sense, something the detractors of statistics are always keen to employ a lack of.

 

[Swervy]

There isn't one - like so many things in cricket statistics, it's down to basic common-sense, something the detractors of statistics are always keen to employ a lack of.

well to whoever said it, maybe its common sense that 16 balls isnt really enough

 

[Richard]

It isn't?
So a batsman has to face half the deliveries bowled by a bowler to have dominated him?
Find me the times that's happened and I'll show you how rare it is.

 

[Swervy]

It isn't?
So a batsman has to face half the deliveries bowled by a bowler to have dominated him?
Find me the times that's happened and I'll show you how rare it is.

when did I say he did have to face half the deliveries?

 

[Richard]

By implying that a quarter wasn't enough... anywhere near, almost.

 

[Swervy]

By implying that a quarter wasn't enough... anywhere near, almost.

I just said that to the person who said 16 balls wasnt enough, it might have been common sense that it was enough...I never said either way whether it is or not

 

[Richard]

Hmm... so do you think it's enough.
Because I sure do.
As I say - 1\4 of an innings-spell is plenty as far as I'm concerned.

 

[marc71178]

so where is the cut off point....is say 9 balls not important but 10 is.

The cut off varies with how much he likes the player in question.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it doesn't, because 3 deliveries is nothing.
16 deliveries, though, is something.
In fact, it's over 1\4 of a full ODI spell.

which doesnt mean that he conquered him, it just means that he didnt get out to him.
not to mention of course that it was 2 games not 1.

 

[Swervy]

Hmm... so do you think it's enough.
Because I sure do.
As I say - 1\4 of an innings-spell is plenty as far as I'm concerned.

It bothers me in no way whats so ever.

the only way you can tell if one bowler was troubling a batsman in a 16 ball spell or whatever is by watching it..whether he got 15 runs off him or whatever you said it was mean zip to me, coz 12 of those runs may have been edges for 4