The other Steve Smith question - Who would you try and get him out ?

[Daemon]

I should also add that it's apparent Steve Smith would average 4.8 vs the West indies team of the 1980s and Bradman all of 8.7 because those bowlers only have to turn up to make every batsman in history turn to a puddle of excrement, while the West Indies side of that era would generally make 597 for 2 (dec) from 43 overs against any Australian attack in history, or any combo of bowlers from any country on earth, ever. And they were also terrific sports who never put a foot out of line anywhere, ever.

That should hopefully make Slifer feel better.

About a hypothetical match up.

Between teams of different eras playing under different conditions.

You seem more invested in this than him tbh. He never suggested any of the above.

Perhaps a bit of jealousy as to why that dominant Australian side is rightly remembered today as a pack of (cheating) ****s while the dominant Windies side isn't.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Here's a hypothetical: How much closer to Bradman's average would Smith's be if he had more support from his teammates? In the last 4 and a half years he averages almost 80 and he's had quite a few innings where he's been left to slog a few with the tail. I reckon if he had a few great batsmen in the top 5, it's possible he'd average quite a bit more. Especially if he'd got those easy declaration not out runs.

 

[Burgey]

Here's a hypothetical: How much closer to Bradman's average would Smith's be if he had more support from his teammates? In the last 4 and a half years he averages almost 80 and he's had quite a few innings where he's been left to slog a few with the tail. I reckon if he had a few great batsmen in the top 5, it's possible he'd average quite a bit more. Especially if he'd got those easy declaration not out runs.

Difficult to say, really. maybe they'd score a higher % of runs and he'd trade off a few not outs with lower scores overall.

 

[Daemon]

If he truly wanted to he could easily do a Chanderpaul and rack up the not outs while everyone else fell around him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Difficult to say, really. maybe they'd score a higher % of runs and he'd trade off a few not outs with lower scores overall.

Not outs can balloon your average greatly though. I think in a way he'd probably be rated lower than he is right now. That he's made runs without support and been unselfish in going about it has helped enhancing his reputation, which he'd probably miss out on if he'd been in a great side.

 

[Spark]

Not outs can balloon your average greatly though. I think in a way he'd probably be rated lower than he is right now. That he's made runs without support and been unselfish in going about it has helped enhancing his reputation, which he'd probably miss out on if he'd been in a great side.

It really should be emphasised how ridiculous it is that he's putting up these numbers in what is otherwise probably the most bowler-dominated era of cricket since the mid-90s. It's not like he's doing this against medium pacers on the SSC in 2007.

 

[Burgey]

You seem more invested in this than him tbh. He never suggested any of the above.

Perhaps a bit of jealousy as to why that dominant Australian side is rightly remembered today as a pack of (cheating) ****s while the dominant Windies side isn't.

Someone's woken up with sand in their crack today.

I wouldn't say I'm particularly invested, given both Slifer and AMZ basically responded to the initial post with a disproportionate degree of personal investment - you know, calling people high, launching a frankly national/ race-based diatribe alleging bias etc etc. Which is pretty odd considering I've defended blokes like Richards' on here for years and against younger imbos who look at his average and say he wasn't that great. But sure, despite saying I'd have Marshall take the new ball with McGrath in my AT XI and ranking Richards ahead of blokes like Ponting, I'm apparently deeply invested in it and really biased.

 

[Burgey]

Not outs can balloon your average greatly though. I think in a way he'd probably be rated lower than he is right now. That he's made runs without support and been unselfish in going about it has helped enhancing his reputation, which he'd probably miss out on if he'd been in a great side.

Yeah that's probably a fair point.

 

[jimmy101]

Not sure if it'd make all that much of a difference. Smith seems to be on a planet unto himself.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It really should be emphasised how ridiculous it is that he's putting up these numbers in what is otherwise probably the most bowler-dominated era of cricket since the mid-90s. It's not like he's doing this against medium pacers on the SSC in 2007.

His peak is the equivalent of averaging 85 odd in the mid 2000s imo. Pretty incredible.

 

[Burgey]

Not sure if it'd make all that much of a difference. Smith seems to be on a planet unto himself.

He certainly bats in a bubble all his own, doesn't he. I haven't seen someone change their set up within overs the way he does. The way he increased the size of his trigger movement when the field was off side based so he could work to leg, compared to minimizing it when they stacked the leg side is not something I've seen blokes do before, and it has to be a conscious decision to do it. And it must be incredibly hard to do it, too. And sure he was doing it second dig with a big lead, but it was 4/40 odd at one stage and the bloke was just impervious to whatever they threw at him

I mean, I've seen fellas adjust their guard, give themselves room etc, all of which he's done too, but this was somehow different - a different variation of the same trigger movement to balls on the same line and length, depending on field settings.

How do you bowl to that? It's given me an insight into what they used to say about Bradman having two shots for every ball depending on the field, and maneuvering the ball accordingly. It's somehow noticeable but subtle all at once, and there's nothing you can do about it.*

 

[_00_deathscar]

Not outs can balloon your average greatly though. I think in a way he'd probably be rated lower than he is right now. That he's made runs without support and been unselfish in going about it has helped enhancing his reputation, which he'd probably miss out on if he'd been in a great side.

He has 6 or 7 more not outs in the 50-ish test comparison than Bradman did.

 

[Slifer]

To the original question. From the looks of it, it seems RSA and SL (away in SL's case) seem to have Smith pretty much figured out. Son whatever they have done to keep him relatively quiet is obviously working. I follow RSA more closely, so I suppose relentless quality pace on spicy wickets should do the trick.

 

[jimmy101]

He certainly bats in a bubble all his own, doesn't he. I haven't seen someone change their set up within overs the way he does. The way he increased the size of his trigger movement when the field was off side based so he could work to leg, compared to minimizing it when they stacked the leg side is not something I've seen blokes do before, and it has to be a conscious decision to do it. And it must be incredibly hard to do it, too. And sure he was doing it second dig with a big lead, but it was 4/40 odd at one stage and the bloke was just impervious to whatever they threw at him

I mean, I've seen fellas adjust their guard, give themselves room etc, all of which he's done too, but this was somehow different - a different variation of the same trigger movement to balls on the same line and length, depending on field settings.

How do you bowl to that? It's given me an insight into what they used to say about Bradman having two shots for every ball depending on the field, and maneuvering the ball accordingly. It's somehow noticeable but subtle all at once, and there's nothing you can do about it.*

He's simply a master of control, footwork, shot selection & by all means the most intelligent batsman I've had the pleasure to watch. Yes, his style ain't that pretty, but it means nothing when he makes the kinds of scores he does on a regular basis. I even feel that he's better than he was pre-ban, which is saying quite a bit.

 

[Slifer]

Just out of curiosity but who do Australia face off against in the next 4 or 5 test series???

 

[Burgey]

I think we have NZ touring here this summer and Pakistan. I'm not sure who the away tours, if any, are next year. Must be almost due for a WI tour you'd reckon, which would potentially be good series as well if all the quicks on offer for both sides stay fit. I think someone said the other day Australia is touring India again for tests, but that seems too soon to me for some reason.

Edit: looking at the future tours program, there's meant to be two tests vs Bangladesh in February as well. then no tests til November (World T20 is here in October) whenit's Afghanistan for one and then there's four tests v india late 2020.

 

[Gob]

To the original question. From the looks of it, it seems RSA and SL (away in SL's case) seem to have Smith pretty much figured out. Son whatever they have done to keep him relatively quiet is obviously working. I follow RSA more closely, so I suppose relentless quality pace on spicy wickets should do the trick.

Got out to Mahraj twice and Elagar once the last time tbh. Dunno what to make out of it

 

[Slifer]

Ok so I got off my lazy butt and looked myself lol.
According to the ftp :

Vs Pak home 2 tests
Vs Nz home 3 tests

2020

Away Ban 2 tests
Vs Afg one off
Vs India home 4 tests

Curious to know why Australia are playing so few tests in 2020. Anyway unless he's under the weather, fully expect Steve Smith and Australia in general to feast over the next few series.

 

[TheJediBrah]

To the original question. From the looks of it, it seems RSA and SL (away in SL's case) seem to have Smith pretty much figured out. Son whatever they have done to keep him relatively quiet is obviously working. I follow RSA more closely, so I suppose relentless quality pace on spicy wickets should do the trick.

You'd suppose wrong IMO. He was famously dismissed by Maharaj a few times and even Dean Elgar a couple of times IIRC. We talked about this the other day but I really think it's just a coincidence more than anything that he's struggled against SA, relatively speaking.

SL is another matter, because Fatty bowled really well on that 2016 tour and the wickets were very helpful.

edit: didn't see that Gob literally just said the exact same thing

 

[Bolo]

It really should be emphasised how ridiculous it is that he's putting up these numbers in what is otherwise probably the most bowler-dominated era of cricket since the mid-90s. It's not like he's doing this against medium pacers on the SSC in 2007.

Lack of batting quality flatters the bowlers, particularly the spinners.

But bowling quality has still been really good for several years, and outstanding for the last couple. Hardly any weak attacks around, which even the 90s couldn't claim.