The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Coronis]

Even if he flies high in the last phase of his career or sinks down fast, what he has achieved so far has already put him in this league of players. I don't think he can lose that legacy with a few bad years or soar even higher with an extra golden sunset phase.

See this line of thinking just makes no sense for me.

“No matter how good he is from now til career end there is 0 chance I’ll rate him higher”

 

[Prince EWS]

See this line of thinking just makes no sense for me.

“No matter how good he is from now til career end there is 0 chance I’ll rate him higher”

He might be just assuming Smith is about to retire. If he plays another series on home roads and averages 61, then retires, meh.

 

[bagapath]

See this line of thinking just makes no sense for me.

“No matter how good he is from now til career end there is 0 chance I’ll rate him higher”

Or lower - he has reached a plane where very few have. And that is as good as it gets.
He won’t become just a good player from this exalted position. And there is nowhere higher to go.

 

[Zinzan]

If he did somehow finish with an average of 60, or close to it, he should be held above all but Bradman IMO. That's almost certainly not going to happen though

Disagree with that & even if it did happen (& I agree it's unlikely), that would only see him with a similar record to the likes of Ponting (averaging 59.99 after 106 tests) and Sangakkara (averaging 58.94 after 127 tests). So even if Smith plays for another year or 2 & manages finishing up with an average of exactly 60, it would still only see him in a group of around 5-8 (depending on your criteria) batsmen who a case for 2nd best bat after Bradman could be made, and that as always will come down to individual preference as it does with those who prefer Tendulkar to Lara and vice versa.

He will not be universally held above all but Bradman except from a few Australians and even a fewer number of neutrals.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Disagree with that & even if it did happen (& I agree it's unlikely), that would only see him with a similar record to the likes of Ponting (averaging 59.99 after 106 tests) and Sangakkara (averaging 58.94 after 127 tests).

"Record" is not just "Career average". Sanga was a massive minnow basher and home track bully IIRC, not a comparable record at all

 

[Zinzan]

"Record" is not just "Career average". Sanga was a massive minnow basher and home track bully IIRC, not a comparable record at all

Suggest you revisit his (Sanga's) record because you don't seem to be recalling correctly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Suggest you revisit his (Sanga's) record because you don't seem to be recalling correctly.

Nope

He averages 52 without Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, which Sri Lanka played a lot (relatively) during his career and they were at their weakest. And averaged 53 away from home. Also played on average against weaker bowlers and on more batting-friendly pitches than Smith.

Their records are not similar at all. Just admit that all you did was compare career averages.

 

[centurymaker]

Like Sanga,
Steve Smith too has benefited a lot from easier home conditions. He averages 65 at home (and 54 away). And his teammate Labuschagne averages 70 at home so far. Because as we know Australian pitches are the easiest to bat on in the world, barring Pakistan. (Hence why I always rate Australian bowlers a lot higher). Put Smith in another country and his career average would be 3-5 points lower. So again career average is not everything. He's not necessarily played in a more bowling friendly era because of where he is from... I still remember that 2014/15 Border Gavaskar series where there was a batting feast going on. Kohli scored 4 tons in 4 tests and then Smith scored 4 tons in 4 tests as well. Each scoring 700-800 runs in half a dozen innings. Pitches in Australia have got a little better for bowling hence you are seeing less ridiculous averages. But on the whole, they have been bouncier roads.

I am not trying to say that Smith is not an ATG, he is. He found a unique style and flourished around the world. But there are things in all ATG batsmen's records that prevent them from being an out and out 2nd best of all time.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Nope

He averages 52 without Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, which Sri Lanka played a lot (relatively) during his career and they were at their weakest. And averaged 53 away from home. Also played on average against weaker bowlers and on more batting-friendly pitches than Smith.

Their records are not similar at all. Just admit that all you did was compare career averages.

Not saying Sanga and Smith have a similar record. But Smith himself is a minnow basher and home bully averages 150 against the WI and 54 away.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Not saying Sanga and Smith have a similar record. But Smith himself is a minnow basher and home bully averages 150 against the WI and 54 away.

Bit of a difference there in quality, quantity of games and magnitude of effect between the 2

 

[centurymaker]

Nope

He averages 52 without Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, which Sri Lanka played a lot (relatively) during his career and they were at their weakest. And averaged 53 away from home. Also played on average against weaker bowlers and on more batting-friendly pitches than Smith.

Their records are not similar at all. Just admit that all you did was compare career averages.

I agree Sanga benefited a lot too, even more than Smith. But if you start to exclude countries from Sanga or another player then obviously people will take Windies out from Smith and make his average fall too.

Point is all players have stat padded, some more than others and even if Smith ends up with an average of 59.5 by end of 2025 and retires, there will still be enough reasons that would prevent him from standing out amongst the ATGs.

If however he can play till 2027 Ashes and still average 59+ (after 135-140 tests) then I will start to consider him perhaps best after bradman.

 

[Zinzan]

Nope

He averages 52 without Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, which Sri Lanka played a lot (relatively) during his career and they were at their weakest. And averaged 53 away from home. Also played on average against weaker bowlers and on more batting-friendly pitches than Smith.

Their records are not similar at all. Just admit that all you did was compare career averages.

I'd love to say I only compared their averages because that would hide the fact I'm a stats geek and know both of their Test records inside out.

Sanga had more friendly batting conditions? Australia wickets have been very batter-friendly for Australian batting line-ups in Smith's era because Australia's bowlers are good enough, fast enough & skilled enough to make it exceedingly difficult for overseas batsmen to adapt to the bouncy tracks, even though the pitches have been flat for years. Meanwhile Australia batsmen find them relatively easy. And fair play to Australia for being able to dominate on such tracks, with a couple of exceptions like SA and India.

Anyway, the bigger point is there is no clear number 2 Test bat after Bradman.

 

[Zinzan]

I agree Sanga benefited a lot too, even more than Smith. But if you start to exclude countries from Sanga or another player then obviously people will take Windies out from Smith and make his average fall too.

Point is all players have stat padded, some more than others and even if Smith ends up with an average of 59.5 by end of 2025 and retires, there will still be enough reasons that would prevent him from standing out amongst the ATGs.

If however he can play till 2027 Ashes and still average 59+ (after 135-140 tests) then I will start to consider him perhaps best after bradman.

The old 'well if you remove his double hundred against them, and their 185 against them, their average drops" - Go figure.

 

[Zinzan]

If however he can play till 2027 Ashes and still average 59+ (after 135-140 tests) then I will start to consider him perhaps best after bradman.

That would still be similar to the likes of Sanga and Tendulkar after a similar number of Tests. Remembering Tendulkar was averaging 57 (56.96) after 171 Tests.

 

[Victor Ian]

That would still be similar to the likes of Sanga and Tendulkar after a similar number of Tests. Remembering Tendulkar was averaging 57 (56.96) after 171 Tests.

Surely you jest. Sanga is basically a sandwich.

Never has a career coincided with all the weakest attacks and easiest batting conditions ever. He'd struggle to get a 50 average today. You may know all his stats, but probably lack the context of them. Trust me...I studied this pretender. Have you seen the way he points his finger. WTF?

 

[Zinzan]

Surely you jest. Sanga is basically a sandwich.

Never has a career coincided with all the weakest attacks and easiest batting conditions ever. He'd struggle to get a 50 average today. You may know all his stats, but probably lack the context of them. Trust me...I studied this pretender. Have you seen the way he points his finger. WTF?

Of course the most amazing thing about Sanga's record is his average of near-on 67 in the 86 Tests when he wasn't wicket-keeping. Absolutely Phonmenal when you think about it.

 

[Victor Ian]

Not really. Dumbass stat where he gets to cut his teeth in test cricket and get his ****ter patch categorized differently. Anther way to look at it is that he averaged neigh on 67 once the remaining few good bowlers retired. I have no respect for keepers who give up the gloves to pad their stats. You are basically saying Gilchrist was an 80 averaging player if he didn't keep.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Surely you jest. Sanga is basically a sandwich.

Never has a career coincided with all the weakest attacks and easiest batting conditions ever. He'd struggle to get a 50 average today. You may know all his stats, but probably lack the context of them. Trust me...I studied this pretender. Have you seen the way he points his finger. WTF?

Did you forgot to switch multis, @Himannv?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'd love to say I only compared their averages because that would hide the fact I'm a stats geek and know both of their Test records inside out.

Sanga had more friendly batting conditions? Australia wickets have been very batter-friendly for Australian batting line-ups in Smith's era because Australia's bowlers are good enough, fast enough & skilled enough to make it exceedingly difficult for overseas batsmen to adapt to the bouncy tracks, even though the pitches have been flat for years. Meanwhile Australia batsmen find them relatively easy. And fair play to Australia for being able to dominate on such tracks, with a couple of exceptions like SA and India.

Sorry but still no. Smith still stands out even away from home, in a bowler dominated era. Home conditions being batting friendly is not a major factor in him standing above his peers at all.

If you want an example of what you're suggesting you need to look at the likes of Kane Williamson and Kohli, IIRC those guys average ~20 more at home than they do away.

You're trying real hard to discredit Smith but it's not going to work this way

 

[TheJediBrah]

Anyway if your point is that he's not a clear no. 2, and never will be no matter what he does, that's absolutely fine and perfectly reasonable.

However I'm just pointing out that the various reasons you are putting forward are not consistent with reality. A good reason would just be to say "not as much longevity as Sachin". Which is an inarguable fact.