Steven Smith vs Viv Richards

[Johan]

Does it even need to be explained? Just check the stats. This guy averaged near 80. And he did in the modern game, against objectively the highest level that has ever been in cricket so far. Just dominated series, nothing fragiled him.

Insane how one can even say Peak Smith doesn’t have an argument over Viv. He was better imho and tbh very clearly better at least as far as I am concerned.

Peak Smith being better than Peak Viv is a fine take overall to have (I'll argue against it) and but his decline is even steeper, Viv was still a beast until early 1989 whereas Smith has done nothing since Ashes 2019 bar a good WTC final knock against a Bumrahless India, if he plays for as long as Viv did, he won't even average 50 honestly seeing how he is falling

 

[DrWolverine]

I prefer 5 calendar years. Who wins with that measurement?

That would be good measurement.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Peak Smith being better than Peak Viv is a fine take overall to have (I'll argue against it) and but his decline is even steeper, Viv was still a beast until early 1989 whereas Smith has done nothing since Ashes 2019 bar a good WTC final knock against a Bumrahless India, if he plays for as long as Viv did, he won't even average 50 honestly seeing how he is falling

Smith does average around 50+ from 2021-2023 tbf.

If he plays till 2027/2028, I think he will retire with a low 50s average.

 

[DrWolverine]

Peak Smith being better is a fine take overall but his decline is even steeper, Viv was still a beast until early 1989 whereas Smith has done nothing since Ashes 2019 bar a good WTC final knock against a Bumrahless India, if he plays for as long as Viv did, he won't even average 50 honestly seeing how he is falling

Smith’s decline isn’t really that bad.

2024 is his worst year. But 2021-20023 was good.

2021 - 5 Tests. 430 runs @ 53.75. 1 ton.

2022 - 11 Tests. 876 runs @ 58.4. 2 tons.

2023 - 13 Tests. 929 runs @42.23. 3 tons.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Genuinely

Can't really take anyone who thinks there aren't any valid reasons seriously tbh.

 

[Johan]

Smith is better than Viv “I scored 25% of my runs in one year” Richards
24 hundreds in 121 tests
Excluding that one year, 17 in 110

Man was a Dravid level bat at best with AuRaZ

"I'll exclude the ATG year! Hah! let's see how he stacks up then!"

Viv from 79-88 averaged 50+ anyway over 75-76 tests, Dravid doesn't belong in this convo lol.

 

[Johan]

Smith’s decline isn’t really that bad.

2024 is his worst year. But 2021-20023 is good.

2021 - 5 Tests. 430 runs @ 53.75. 1 ton.

2022 - 11 Tests. 876 runs @ 58.4. 2 tons.

2023 - 13 Tests. 929 runs @42.23. 3 tons.

he averages 42 odd since Ashes 2019, which includes his 200* on an extreme flattie against Windies, post-prime Viv was better.

all you've to do is bowl an offcutter with pace to him these days, he'll either miss and get LBWed or nick it to the keeper.

 

[ankitj]

Can't really take anyone who thinks there aren't any valid reasons seriously tbh.

Yeah. IMO Smith still has a case to be considered the greatest ever non-fictitious test batsmen.

 

[DrWolverine]

Yeah. IMO Smith still has a case to be considered the greatest ever non-fictitious test batsmen.

What?

 

[subshakerz]

Smith is better than Viv “I scored 25% of my runs in one year” Richards
24 hundreds in 121 tests
Excluding that one year, 17 in 110

Man was a Dravid level bat at best with AuRaZ

So let's ignore the greatest batting year in history when evaluating him?

 

[OverratedSanity]

So let's ignore the greatest batting year in history when evaluating him?

Well no, but it shows a relative lack of consistent output

 

[ankitj]

What?

Historians are divided on whether Bradman actually existed.

 

[Line and Length]

Forget the peaks (and troughs). Viv's presence was far greater than Smith's.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Forget the peaks (and troughs). Viv's presence was far greater than Smith's.

Trumpers presence was far greater than Sutcliffe or Hutton or Gavasker. Doesn’t mean he was better than either of them.

 

[Johan]

Trumpers statistically way off those guys

 

[Coronis]

Historians are divided on whether Bradman actually existed.

iirc he was a fable constructed to get Australia through the great depression. Like Baby Ruth

 

[Coronis]

I prefer 5 calendar years. Who wins with that measurement?

Hmm. 5 calendar years for Viv would probs be 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

30 tests 46 innings 3158 @ 70.17 10 tons 15 fifties

For Smith.. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 probs just beats out 15-19

48 tests 86 innings 5229 @ 71.63 21 tons 19 fifties

If you want 5 best calendar years over a career thats a whole different discussion. Could be a fun side distraction for me at some point though.

 

[DrWolverine]

If you want 5 best calendar years over a career thats a whole different discussion.

Ponting(2002-2006)
57 Tests. 99 inn. 6141 runs @ 72.25. 24 tons.

Sanga(2006-2010)
41 Tests. 69 inn. 4422 runs @ 71.32. 16 tons.

Bradman(1928-1932)
20 Tests. 28 inn. 2798 runs @ 112. 13 tons.

 

[Coronis]

Ponting(2002-2006)
57 Tests. 99 inn. 6141 runs @ 72.25. 24 tons.

Sanga(2006-2010)
41 Tests. 69 inn. 4422 runs @ 71.32. 16 tons.

Bradman(1928-1932)
20 Tests. 28 inn. 2798 runs @ 112. 13 tons.

I mean thats not what I said but yeah.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Does it even need to be explained? Just check the stats. This guy averaged near 80. And he did in the modern game, against objectively the highest level that has ever been in cricket so far. Just dominated series, nothing fragiled him.

Insane how one can even say Peak Smith doesn’t have an argument over Viv. He was better imho and tbh very clearly better at least as far as I am concerned.

I can accept Smith being above Viv. But highest level of what exactly? Bowling? Because if that's your contention, that's patently false. The highest level of bowling was in the 90s.