Steve Smith- Why is he "Special"

[outabounds]

I am sick of Mark Taylor and Slats pumping this guy up. The profile on Cricinfo says he is the most promising Australian spinner since Warnie. Ok somebody has their hand on it when they said that. The Channel 9 boys get aroused every time he takes a catch. He is a part time spinner who bats a bit in the Cameron White mould. Why does that make him a star?

[Bucking Beads]

Meanwhile all the Victorians did the same and still do the same about Cameron White. It is just the way things are..

[Smokey_22]

Years ago the poms threw everything they could to try to get this guy to play for them.
He captained his grade side at just 19 - those familiar with the sydnet grade system will know what an achievement this is. He is a leader. At one stage when he was 18 he was the top wicket taker and run scorer for the entire grade. This just highlights his enormous potential.

Obviously for a spinner its a big step up to domestic cricket and even more so to international cricket. Dougherty was the standout spinner in the u-19 WC but took years to stand out on the domestic scene. He will take time to develop, but he has an x-factor and confidence about him that players rarely have.
As a batsman I think he is already test ready.
He is the best slipper in the NSW team.

He will be an important player in the future. Enormous upside.

Well since I posted this a while back hes gone on and averaged 77 with the bat for the shield season and took a bag with the ball in the last game. His statistics suggest that he is a better batsman than White, and those that have seen him know he is a class above in the field.

If anyone has seen my thread on the statistics of the batsmen it shows White hasn't made the most of his shield opportunities. He needs to do more.

[Plugger35]

Well he looks a bit like a young Warnie and bowls leg spin so that's probably good enough for most people to pump him up.

He does have some talent but his performances so far haven't justified all the hype.

[bombersno1]

Perhaps becuase he made 5 tons last season whilst he is 100 times better bpwler than White. He will never be a full time spinner but he is a gun batsman.

[ManWithNoName]

Because he's blonde and bowls leg spin. Ignore the fact he's a batsman who bowls a bit, the selectors will try to turn him into Warney. They ruined Cameron White the same way.

[amer]

Or he could come through and deliver on both fronts. Hard to say at this stage. One of the best talents in Australia on batting alone though.

[Santana]

England tried to steal Smith? Christ they're scum.

[The Falcon Strike]

Or he could come through and deliver on both fronts. Hard to say at this stage. One of the best talents in Australia on batting alone though.

Absolutely - his bowling is pedestrian at best - people should just consider it a nice addition.

Any bloke that scores 4 tons in a season at 20 years of age - has talent - I can only think of Ponting and Marto in the past 20 years that have done that.

We should be looking at batting the guy at 6 - would be in a lead group of about 3 or 4 for that position.

[Bucking Beads]

Absolutely - his bowling is pedestrian at best - people should just consider it a nice addition.

Any bloke that scores 4 tons in a season at 20 years of age - has talent - I can only think of Ponting and Marto in the past 20 years that have done that.

We should be looking at batting the guy at 6 - would be in a lead group of about 3 or 4 for that position.

Phil Hughes????

[TheColeTrain]

Because he's blonde and bowls leg spin. Ignore the fact he's a batsman who bowls a bit, the selectors will try to turn him into Warney. They ruined Cameron White the same way.

Anybody that bats as well as he did last season is a special talent, but we still have fools talking him up as a bowler:rolleyes:
Focus on your batting, we can't let his batting go to waste in our desperation to get the next Warne, it's just not going to happen.

[The Falcon Strike]

Phil Hughes????

Thought he was 21 - but happy for him to be in that company - the boy can bat!!

Class batsmen make centuries - average batsmen make 50's

[rhaz]

He is a very young all-rounder. Cricketers take longer to mature than footballers which is something that people seem to forget on this forum. For him to already be in the Australian ODI team and playing fairly well is a great thing, and he has nothing but upside to his game. Just needs more experience and mature with the bat and ball which will come with time.

[peternorth]

the next michael clarke

[Byron_Clanger]

Just cos he's a young blonde spinner everyone wants to flop it out over him, I don't see why he's so great

[outabounds]

The commentators were crapping on about how good he was when he dropped a catch today, imagine if he had caught it. Talk about the Golden Child.

[legend166]

I think instead of using milk in my cereal tomorrow I'll use the bitter tears of Victorians in this thread.

Get over the fact that Cam White turned out to be a dud in Tests and embrace Steve Smith.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Just cos he's a young blonde spinner everyone wants to flop it out over him, I don't see why he's so great

I'm sure the selectors took his hair colour into consideration.

the next michael clarke

We can only hope.

[Cousin Jed]

5 centuries in a season.

An excellent fieldsman.

Leg spin bowler (though its not up to the top level at the moment)

20 years of age.

Whats not to like?

[Bucking Beads]

The commentators were crapping on about how good he was when he dropped a catch today, imagine if he had caught it. Talk about the Golden Child.

Imagine, one of the better catches you are likely to ever see.. Haters gonna hate..

[HFF_07]

I wonder, if Warne had said nothing he would just be the young blonde batting tyro?

[amer]

Absolutely - his bowling is pedestrian at best - people should just consider it a nice addition.

Any bloke that scores 4 tons in a season at 20 years of age - has talent - I can only think of Ponting and Marto in the past 20 years that have done that.

We should be looking at batting the guy at 6 - would be in a lead group of about 3 or 4 for that position.

Yeah spot on mate - the bowling is something that might, MIGHT see him with the capacity to be labeled as an all rounder down the track. But he's special because of all the other things he can do; the possibility that he could come good with the ball is the not the reason we should be getting excited; though it's a nice excuse to send Hauritz on his way.

[legend166]

5 centuries in a season.

An excellent fieldsman.

Leg spin bowler (though its not up to the top level at the moment)

20 years of age.

Whats not to like?

He's not Victorian.

[mattf83]

The commentators were crapping on about how good he was when he dropped a catch today, imagine if he had caught it. Talk about the Golden Child.

The reaction time to get 2 hands on that was awesome, most wouldnt have got a finger to it,

nice leg break to pollard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbpv65uQvZc&feature=related
best catch ever?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cTeFrqYgMA

in 2 tests he already has a 77 and a 3/50.

[peternorth]

i dont mind him tbh

[BluesMan]

He's gunna be a ripper!

[Bomber Bears]

He's already an excellent batsmen in his own right, I hope they back off his bowling. Seriously, Warne was a freak for being good so young, but give Smith a bit of time and see how it develops, and make the most of his batting for now

[jko'neal]

Exciting cricketer no doubt and will turn games as time rolls on, but his bowling reminds me of a right arm version of Micheal Bevan at this point in time. It's just all over the shop.

[outabounds]

5 centuries in a season.

An excellent fieldsman.

Leg spin bowler (though its not up to the top level at the moment)

20 years of age.

Whats not to like?

Nobody is saying they don't like him but he is being built up into something he isn't- yet

[apollo_creed]

5 centuries in a season.

An excellent fieldsman.

Leg spin bowler (though its not up to the top level at the moment)

20 years of age.

Whats not to like?
I think the part where his visibly average bowling is for some reason being regarded as threatening.

Don't see him ever being successful as anything other than a part time bowler.

He'll be a batsman. That much is obvious. And assuming his current path - a very good one.

And any criticism of Slater for being an annoying twat is inevitably warranted.

[BarneyBent]

Exciting cricketer no doubt and will turn games as time rolls on, but his bowling reminds me of a right arm version of Micheal Bevan at this point in time. It's just all over the shop.

His bowling is very hit and miss right now, definitely. He gets a good amount of turn, flight, drift, etc, he has all the ingredients to be a very good spinner indeed, but too often he bowls a long-hop, or a ball down leg, or a ball wide outside off. If he can develop consistency, learn to maintain pressure on the batsmen, he'll take a lot more wickets. As it is, he only really usually takes wickets with ripping deliveries (like that one to Pollard in mattf83's post), and no bowler bowls that sort of delivery often enough to rely upon it.

People compare his bowling to White, but they are very different bowlers. White was always reasonably consistent, but there was just nothing special about his bowling. He got barely any turn, he extracted a bit of bounce to make up for it but not much, he was accurate enough but not deadly, etc. To be a good bowler with those, you have to be very, very smart, very, very disciplined, and very, very consistent. Kumble is that bowler. White simply wasn't, so his bowling was quickly found out to be part-timer quality at the most (personally I think people are critical of White's bowling, I reckon he is better than people give him credit for, and the main reason he doesn't bowl himself is both his captaincy style, generally not looking to part-timers, and his own focus on his batting).

Smith, on the other hand, does more with the ball than White could ever dream of, but, while White is not nearly as consistent or clever as a Kumble, Smith pales compared to White in this regard. If Smith could bring his consistency with ball in hand up to a semi-decent level, which with a bit of work should be possible, then he'll be a very handy bowler indeed.

Personally, I reckon Smith should give priority to his batting, but he should by no means abandon his bowling, and over the next few years look to bring it up to a better-than-part-time level, and maybe even better than that looking beyond.

[King Elvis]

He's already a gun, and deserves selection purely as a batsmen.

He's a batter who can bowl a bit; you'd probably use him as your main spinner with support from Kat/Pup, but he's not quite an All-Rounder just yet.

[The Falcon Strike]

He's already a gun, and deserves selection purely as a batsmen.

He's a batter who can bowl a bit; you'd probably use him as your main spinner with support from Kat/Pup, but he's not quite an All-Rounder just yet.

It's a pity about Kat's shoulder - because IMO he is the most threatening test spinner in the country - which is an absolute blight on our spinning stocks.

[TheColeTrain]

He's already a gun, and deserves selection purely as a batsmen.

He's a batter who can bowl a bit; you'd probably use him as your main spinner with support from Kat/Pup, but he's not quite an All-Rounder just yet.
This forum has people under rating his batting far too much and over rate his bowling.
The last two men to score as many 100s as he did last year at the same age was a guy named Ricky Ponting and a guy called Damien Martyn.
May have heard of them.

[mattymac]

yeah i reckon if we played him we'd gain an extra bat (very good one) and we could lose hauritz. between kat, clarke and smith one of them would have to find the mark on any given day and hauritz prolly just isn't good enough to waste a spot on except on the occasional raging turner maybe. plus he's a demon in the field and brings some keenness to the team. i like him.

[skipper kelly]

5 centuries in a season.

An excellent fieldsman.

Leg spin bowler (though its not up to the top level at the moment)

20 years of age.

Whats not to like?

He's not Victorian.

edit. someone already posted this.

[King Elvis]

This forum has people under rating his batting far too much and over rate his bowling.
The last two men to score as many 100s as he did last year at the same age was a guy named Ricky Ponting and a guy called Damien Martyn.
May have heard of them.

Preaching to the converted mate.

[TheColeTrain]

I know I just get closer and closer to smashing my computer screen every time I see somebody put him in at 7/8 in their Test XI

[BarneyBent]

I know I just get closer and closer to smashing my computer screen every time I see somebody put him in at 7/8 in their Test XI

In fairness, this stems from the fact that he was first selected as a bowler at 8 in T20Is, and he's a much better bowler, and somewhat poorer bat, in that format than he is in OD and FC formats. Selecting him at 8 in T20Is is understandable, and I'm sure that plays a role in people putting him at 8 in Tests, even though he's a much better bat than that in the longest form of the game.

[Kim Hagdorn]

I am sick of Mark Taylor and Slats pumping this guy up. The profile on Cricinfo says he is the most promising Australian spinner since Warnie. Ok somebody has their hand on it when they said that. The Channel 9 boys get aroused every time he takes a catch. He is a part time spinner who bats a bit in the Cameron White mould. Why does that make him a star?

The thread was started by a Victorian. What surprise...

[Kim Hagdorn]

If the bloke wore a Bushranger uniform there would be massive cries around here that the selectors were in a conspiracy to keep him out of the Test side.

[big_e]

And if he played for any other state no-one would have heard of him.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

And if he played for any other state no-one would have heard of him.

Don't be ridiculous.

[BarneyBent]

And if he played for any other state no-one would have heard of him.

That's just bullshit. Nobody would have heard of a guy who averaged 77 in his first full season of FC cricket, hitting 4 tonnes along with way from just 8 games, and finished off the season with a 7 wicket haul? Not to mention taking over a wicket a game at less than 20 in T20.

Come off it. The kid is a fantastic talent. His state has nothing to do with it.

[King Elvis]

That's just bullshit. Nobody would have heard of a guy who averaged 77 in his first full season of FC cricket, hitting 4 tonnes along with way from just 8 games, and finished off the season with a 7 wicket haul? Not to mention taking over a wicket a game at less than 20 in T20.

Come off it. The kid is a fantastic talent. His state has nothing to do with it.
He is a gun.

Only negative is that he's almost a ranga.

[HFF_07]

Let me ask again..

Would Smith even be in consideration if Warne had not made those comments about his bowling?

The three players bantied around would all be ahead of him (Smith) but if not for his bowling he would not even rate a mention in these times of rebuilding.

He batted in the top 6 for NSW, where he made his runs, then was talked up about his bowling then how did he do with the bat after this? how did his bowling go from here?

[King Elvis]

His bowling is irrelevant, most of us want him in the side as a batsmen in the Clarke/Katich mould.

[BarneyBent]

Let me ask again..

Would Smith even be in consideration if Warne had not made those comments about his bowling?

The three players bantied around would all be ahead of him (Smith) but if not for his bowling he would not even rate a mention in these times of rebuilding.

He batted in the top 6 for NSW, where he made his runs, then was talked up about his bowling then how did he do with the bat after this? how did his bowling go from here?

Smith would absolutely be in consideration. He was the best batsman in the competition last Shield season.

How did he go with the bat after what? His bowling has been talked up since the start, and in T20, he has been arguably the best spinner in Australia, which was why he was called up. He needs much further development as an OD and FC bowler, but that's always been the case.

In any case, he hit 4 tons last season, at 77, and his bowling steadily improved, culminating in a 7 wicket haul in the final match of the season. I fail to see your point.

[legend166]

Let me ask again..

Would Smith even be in consideration if Warne had not made those comments about his bowling?

The three players bantied around would all be ahead of him (Smith) but if not for his bowling he would not even rate a mention in these times of rebuilding.

He batted in the top 6 for NSW, where he made his runs, then was talked up about his bowling then how did he do with the bat after this? how did his bowling go from here?

All the talk about Smith started at the end of the 09/10 season. So it terms of 'where did he go from there', he played a couple of Tests and hit a 77 coming in at number 8 and got 3 wickets at 27. In ODI's he's averaging 27 coming in at number 8 and in 9 ODIs got 9 wickets at 33.

All the while easily being our best fielder.

So in terms of 'where did he go from there', he debuted for Australia and showed a lot of promise, but hasn't had a lot of opportunities because it was the off season.

[big_e]

http://www.cricinfo.com/the-ashes-2010-11/content/current/story/486424.html

Murali speaks:

---
Australia will announce their squad for the first Test on Monday and they might include both Hauritz and the legspinning allrounder Steven Smith, to leave themselves plenty of options. However, Test cricket's leading wicket taker, Muttiah Muralitharan, who played against Smith in the recent ODI series, believes Hauritz is the man to carry Australia's spin burden during the Ashes.

"Smith does not have much control and he must learn more about bowling spin before he plays Test cricket again," Muralitharan said. "There are many things he must learn. He is not good for Test cricket at the moment.

"I don't think Smith would do any better than Hauritz. I know Hauritz did not bowl well in India but lots of spinners have struggled there against Indian batsmen, who play spin very well. Hauritz should play in the Ashes."

---

[BarneyBent]

http://www.cricinfo.com/the-ashes-2010-11/content/current/story/486424.html

Murali speaks:

---
Australia will announce their squad for the first Test on Monday and they might include both Hauritz and the legspinning allrounder Steven Smith, to leave themselves plenty of options. However, Test cricket's leading wicket taker, Muttiah Muralitharan, who played against Smith in the recent ODI series, believes Hauritz is the man to carry Australia's spin burden during the Ashes.

"Smith does not have much control and he must learn more about bowling spin before he plays Test cricket again," Muralitharan said. "There are many things he must learn. He is not good for Test cricket at the moment.

"I don't think Smith would do any better than Hauritz. I know Hauritz did not bowl well in India but lots of spinners have struggled there against Indian batsmen, who play spin very well. Hauritz should play in the Ashes."

---

Yep, a pretty good summary of where Smith is at. His bowling isn't Test standard yet, and hey, it may never be. However, if he gets into the side on his batting in the immediate future (very, very possible), he'll be handy with the ball.

[King Elvis]

Still wouldn't lose much by replacing Hauritz with him.

But I'd happily see him in for North.

[360noscope]

His bowling is irrelevant, most of us want him in the side as a batsmen in the Clarke/Katich mould.

Interesting point.

I personally think that he is in the side almost entirely for his bowling and if he was not as good / couldn't bowl then I think he would be well down the pecking order for a spot in the top half of the team.

In saying that though, his runs will probably keep him in the team if his bowling doesn't come along.


I do agree though that those channel nine commentators need to stop waffling on about him being the new "Warnie".

Also Smith will be a gun. He may even become one of the best all-rounders of all time (Kapil Dev, Ian Botham)

[360noscope]

Still wouldn't lose much by replacing Hauritz with him.

But I'd happily see him in for North.

This.

6 characters.

[aussie1st]

Smith bowling definitely helps him at the selection table but if he didn't bowl then his batting wouldn't be so underrated and he'd still come under consideration.

[Bomber Bears]

One of the most impressive things about Smith's batting in the shield is his maturity. Looking at his scores you might think he's a slogger, but he really plays himself in, make sure he gets in, and its not unusual for him to be going along as he is at present (12/50 or so). Once he gets his eye in however he can really up the ante, and he's hard to stop then

[HFF_07]

Smith would absolutely be in consideration. He was the best batsman in the competition last Shield season.

How did he go with the bat after what? His bowling has been talked up since the start, and in T20, he has been arguably the best spinner in Australia, which was why he was called up. He needs much further development as an OD and FC bowler, but that's always been the case.

In any case, he hit 4 tons last season, at 77, and his bowling steadily improved, culminating in a 7 wicket haul in the final match of the season. I fail to see your point.

The >insert player who has performed consistently for a number of seasons name here<.

Even the newly dubbed great Phillip Hughes had to bide his time for a second consecutive season.

All the talk about Smith started at the end of the 09/10 season. So it terms of 'where did he go from there', he played a couple of Tests and hit a 77 coming in at number 8 and got 3 wickets at 27. In ODI's he's averaging 27 coming in at number 8 and in 9 ODIs got 9 wickets at 33.

All the while easily being our best fielder.

So in terms of 'where did he go from there', he debuted for Australia and showed a lot of promise, but hasn't had a lot of opportunities because it was the off season.

You both talk about him (Smith) as being a batsmen, why does he come into the team and bat at 8? :cool:

seems they are picking wrong players in the wrong positions hey.

Ponting should bat at 9, Johnson and Hilfenhause should definitely open the batting together, Clarke at 4 is silly, should bat at 7 or 8, much better suited to when the ball is older.

God, people are actually listening to Warne a little to much.

Listen to the other bloke who has played a fair bit of cricket, and taken a few test wickets as well!

As it stands, Smith would not be first in line to be given a test spot as a batsmen. Who's spot would he take any ways?

You need a variety of batsmen who can play a variety of games to suit the situation.

I think Smith only has one gear, and that is full throttle (led the Shield highest runscorers with the best strike rate of 78).

I am honestly not going to bother trying to put some perspective on this, the obsession with youth blinds the facts that he is not ready to play full time test match cricket as a bolwer (which is what he has been selected to play as).

[BarneyBent]

The >insert player who has performed consistently for a number of seasons name here<.

Even the newly dubbed great Phillip Hughes had to bide his time for a second consecutive season.

Smith showed promise in his first season, and dominated with the bat in his second. It's not like he hit a few streaky runs here and there and got a few not outs to boost his average, he averaged 77, with 4 centuries and over 800 runs in just 8 matches, as well as averaging 40 with the ball and taking 15 or so wickets. He absolutely dominated Shield attacks.

His selection in the Test squad as a bowler was on the understanding that there wasn't really anybody else better (a FC average of 40 with the ball in a season is actually generally about as good as it gets in Aus these days), he would benefit from the experience, and if he ended up getting a game, he could make up from his lack of readiness with his batting.


You both talk about him (Smith) as being a batsmen, why does he come into the team and bat at 8? :cool:

seems they are picking wrong players in the wrong positions hey.

Ponting should bat at 9, Johnson and Hilfenhause should definitely open the batting together, Clarke at 4 is silly, should bat at 7 or 8, much better suited to when the ball is older.

Hilarious. :rolleyes:

If you hadn't noticed, he batted the last few ODIs at 7, and was the second spinner. Additionally, he made his international debut in T20Is, and in that format, he's actually a better bowler than he is batsman. He averages 17 with the ball in T20Ds, and takes more than a wicket a game. In T20, that's a very good record.


God, people are actually listening to Warne a little to much.

Listen to the other bloke who has played a fair bit of cricket, and taken a few test wickets as well!

What about it? Few people are arguing Smith is ready to be a Test match bowler. Those arguing for his inclusion at 8 are basically suggesting that while he's not good enough (yet), neither is Hauritz, but at least Smith can bat.


As it stands, Smith would not be first in line to be given a test spot as a batsmen. Who's spot would he take any ways?

You need a variety of batsmen who can play a variety of games to suit the situation.

I think Smith only has one gear, and that is full throttle (led the Shield highest runscorers with the best strike rate of 78).

I don't think he'd be first in line. He's definitely in the queue, as a batsman with his record at his age should be. As for the spot he'd take, North or Hussey. Take your pick.

And if you think Smith has only one gear, then you've just totally discredited your own opinion. You have clearly paid no attention to Smith's batting at FC level. Smith played many innings in which he was forced to rebuild, started cautiously, and only once he had returned stability did he up the tempo. Smith is in fact a very versatile batsman, capable of scoring runs at whatever rate necessary.

Seriously, you clearly don't know anything about Smith as a player, so why on earth are you commenting?


I am honestly not going to bother trying to put some perspective on this, the obsession with youth blinds the facts that he is not ready to play full time test match cricket as a bolwer (which is what he has been selected to play as).

He's not ready to play full time test match cricket as a bowler. The only format that he could play as a full time bowler at international level is T20. He's a balanced allrounder in the 50 (or 45) over format, and a batting allrounder in FC cricket.

If Smith was to be selected to replace Hauritz, it would still be as a batting allrounder, even if he batted at 8 (which would be ludicrous, he's a better batsman than Haddin, but those in charge won't care). It would be a trade-off of somewhat better bowling for much better batting. A good trade-off? I don't think so. I don't think Smith should be in the Test team yet. I think he should stick to FC level and work on his game, and follow up his work from last year. But he has earnt his place in the T20I and ODI squads, and he definitely deserves to be in discussions about a Test place.

[HFF_07]

FWIW

I know Smith can bat

[krusden]

I am sick of Mark Taylor and Slats pumping this guy up. The profile on Cricinfo says he is the most promising Australian spinner since Warnie. Ok somebody has their hand on it when they said that. The Channel 9 boys get aroused every time he takes a catch. He is a part time spinner who bats a bit in the Cameron White mould. Why does that make him a star?

because he plays for NSW thats why.

he is also more marketable with his looks

[aussie1st]

This isn't directed at anyone in particular but those that believe he is a slogger needs to go out to the game or watch the live stream or for this week the Aus A game. In both his innings I don't recall anything out of the ordinary, he was playing normal shots and had a very solid defence.

[wavefall21]

Smith showed today he will play a big part in the future of Aus cricket, toughing it out in bowler friendly conditions against bowlers with with plenty of international exposure, aside from Shahzad

I've been saying it for the last year, he will eventually be picked in the Aus team long term as a batsman, he might have a strange technique but he has the temperament to cope at the level with the bat, and can mix it up with some very exciting batting, didn't he average something like 78 at FC level last summer?

His bowling will be a real slow work in progress, he has plenty of time to work on that

[Damon_3388]

Why is everyone so intent on labelling him either a batsmen or a bowler in the future? Why can't he just be a talented all-rounder?

[wavefall21]

Why is everyone so intent on labelling him either a batsmen or a bowler in the future? Why can't he just be a talented all-rounder?

Prob cos he hasn't got any bowling stats to back it up?

[BarneyBent]

Prob cos he hasn't got any bowling stats to back it up?

He averages <20 in T20 cricket with the ball, and he has taken a 7 wicket haul at FC level, as a 21 year old leggie. Those are very good stats. Yes, his FC average of 49 isn't flash, but compare it to any other spinner in Australia and it actually stacks up reasonably favourably. 4 day games on Australian wickets don't lend themselves to spin bowling, plain and simple. When you consider that leggies traditionally take time (Warne was 23 before he broke into the Aussie side, and was still developing), then there's a lot to be excited about by his bowling.

He isn't a Test bowlers arsehole, YET. But to say he doesn't have bowling talent is ludicrous. He lacks control, which is his main problem, but he bowls very, very nice legbreaks. With a bit more experience and development, his bowling will become very dangerous.

[Stan Van Gundy]

He's a good batsman but he's got an ugly technique. It works for him though I guess. As others have said his bowling isn't yet up to scratch, but he'll be alot more dangerous when he develops some more control.

[Smokey_22]

Agree with this or not, but he is likely to be our next long term captain.

At 21 he has a leadership background (captained Australia u-19s, NSW u-19s and his grade side at 19) and is already entrenched in all forms of the Australian team. Clarke is already grooming him. He backs himself - which is a great attribute for a captain.

Mitch Marsh is of course another contender, but is well behind at the moment.

[Belnakor]

Mitch isn't making any runs in shield, very close to being dropped back to grade

[Sasquatch]

If spinners want to play for Australia all they need to do is blonde their hair and bowl leg spin. They will be called up instantly.

[King Elvis]

He's a good batsman but he's got an ugly technique. It works for him though I guess. As others have said his bowling isn't yet up to scratch, but he'll be alot more dangerous when he develops some more control.

Wait until the Selectors drop him because his technique is unorthodox, and ruin him.

Phil Hughes.

[Cousin Jed]

Hughes hasn't been "ruined" by the selectors. He's got a technique problem.

[King Elvis]

I'm of the belief that his technique, which had worked to the point he dominated every single level of Cricket he played, while unorthodox, worked for him.

We've argued this before, so let's just agree to disagree.

[Black Thunder]

This forum has people under rating his batting far too much and over rate his bowling.


not just on this forum but everywhere. i think it's just people creaming themselves over any sought of leg spinning prospect even though his bowling is very erratic at the moment and to be honest, i don't think he's ever going to be a test match bowler.

his batting however is very explosive and could definately be test level.

[frankrizzo]

Personally i rate katich and north as better test bowlers than smith.

I think smith will play more tests in the future but i doubt he will bowl more than few overs an innings.

[aussie1st]

Smith's bowling will get better, Terry Jenner said he needs at least 5 years before hes ready as a test spinner and that was a couple of years ago. Hes only 21 which is dam young for a leg spinner, you will hardly find any leg spinners that are on the Test scene at that age.

[Cooldude]

I'm of the belief that his technique, which had worked to the point he dominated every single level of Cricket he played, while unorthodox, worked for him.

We've argued this before, so let's just agree to disagree.

Sorry but don't agree. Loads of players have scored loads of runs in the first class scene, play internationals and get found out when there are more video scrutiny on their techniques and everyone analyse their weaknesses to the death, then fail to make runs afterwards

It was just like how Gilly smashed bowlers all around the park, then Flintoff starts going around the wicket and messed him up. Then all other bowlers started doing it and Gilly stopped scoring runs. Incidently, the Saffers did the same thing back in 99 World Cup and messed Gilly up, too, but for some reason they stopped doing it ever since then

Hughes is a fisher outside off and his back foot backs away when he plays shots. That's why he's been nicking loads of deliveries. What's more, he clearly has the Michael Bevan itchy pants when it comes to the short ball. No one except Tendulkar has a perfect technique, but his weaknesses are way too glaring and needs to be fixed

[BarneyBent]

Hughes is a fisher outside off and his back foot backs away when he plays shots. That's why he's been nicking loads of deliveries. What's more, he clearly has the Michael Bevan itchy pants when it comes to the short ball. No one except Tendulkar has a perfect technique, but his weaknesses are way too glaring and needs to be fixed

Dude, Tendulkar does NOT have a perfect technique. He's actually got one of the worse techniques in world cricket. He's a phenomenal player, but his technique is loose, and it makes him vulnerable early in his innings.

[ManWithNoName]

Hughes hasn't been "ruined" by the selectors. He's got a technique problem.
His technique seemed fine when he was belting around Dale Steyn in South Africa.

[Reincarnation]

Steve Smith falls away to the offside when he bowls with his left arm. Until this gets fixed he is going to be too short too often and outside off stump too frequently. Through this the amount of dangerous wicket taking balls is diminished and his capacity to break partnerships follows.

Hughes has an awful technique and when he is not in good touch it does and continue to look plain awful and amateur. Whether he can counteract this by scoring heavily when in touch remains to be seen. If I was an international player I would be happy seeing Hughes in oppositions top order than not. He gives you chances consistently through poor footwork, body position and shot selection.

[Cooldude]

Dude, Tendulkar does NOT have a perfect technique. He's actually got one of the worse techniques in world cricket. He's a phenomenal player, but his technique is loose, and it makes him vulnerable early in his innings.

Plays perfectly straight, has perfect balance, technically perfect when playing every shot in the book, a coaching manual's dream. I dunno what rubbish you're talking

I think you confused Tendulkar with Sehwag

Yeah so vulnerable early in his innings that he has dominated for 20 odd years. I dunno which Tendulkar you watch but certainly not the same one I know

[Buddy]

Dude, Tendulkar does NOT have a perfect technique. He's actually got one of the worse techniques in world cricket. He's a phenomenal player, but his technique is loose, and it makes him vulnerable early in his innings.

Are we watching the same Tendulkar?

I'm of a similar belief to King Elvis. People don't realise how talented a prospect Smith was whilst coming through the ranks. I was fortunate (or perhaps unfortunate) enough to play against him and he brutalised us. His technique is very unorthodox, but like the Sehwag's and Gayle's of the world, has a fantastic eye. Once he gets used to the pace of international cricket, his eye will adapt accordingly and he will star.

[Bucking Beads]

Smith is a very good bat, sure his technique isn't perfect but whose is??? Smith still makes plenty of runs with his technique so I don't see a problem. Hughes has a bad technique but it is his temperament that will see him score thousands of runs for Australia. Sure he will get out early on occasions but what operner hasn't??

[placebo]

Dude, Tendulkar does NOT have a perfect technique. He's actually got one of the worse techniques in world cricket. He's a phenomenal player, but his technique is loose, and it makes him vulnerable early in his innings.

No. Just no.

[BarneyBent]

Those of you saying Tendulkar's technique is great, just have a look at him closely. It's far from textbook. Don't get me wrong, it's effective, especially when he has his eye in, and it's certainly better than a Sehwag or a Hughes, but his footwork is minimal, especially off the back foot. He plays away from his body quite often, and relies on his eye.

It's great to watch, it isn't jerky or unconvincing-looking like Hughes', but it does make him vulnerable early on in his innings. And yes, he is vulnerable as a result. He's quite a boom or bust player, not to the extent of North, and he's a much better player than North (he's the best batsman in the world FFS!) so he's worth waiting for, but you're always a chance of nabbing Tendulkar early on. That's why he can have 49 Test centuries and 58 Test centuries, streets ahead of his competition, while averaging under 57 overall. If he gets his eye in, gets 20 or so, he's pretty much guaranteed a 50, and from that, is a good chance of making a hundred. However, he gets out a lot for under 20, which pulls his average back to the pack, and this is because he has a loose technique which is exposed when he doesn't have his eye in.

[krisholio14]

I just wanted to stop in to say this guy is the improved Cameron White - hard hitting batsman, who bowls a bit of so so leg spin, and who has class in the field.

I just hope they don't make the dame mistake with him as they did with White.

Give him his head now.

[aussie1st]

Former Australia captain Richie Benaud, whose spin bowling captured 248 wickets in 63 Tests, said developing great practitioners of the art took time.

The octogenarian broadcaster recalled Bill "Tiger" O'Reilly, another of Australia's great spinners, taking him to dinner soon after he made his Test debut in 1952 and explaining what he had to do -- before adding that it would take four years to achieve.

"Shane Warne asked me what advice I had for him and I told him what O'Reilly had told me," Benaud recalled in the Member's Pavilion at the SCG this week.

"I gave him the four-year bit but he was so good he did it in two. But it did take him two years to do it.

Read more: Australia still in a spin about how to replace Warne - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/top-stories/Australia-still-in-a-spin-about-how-to-replace-Warne/articleshow/6953883.cms#ixzz15lYAOZB1

Pretty similar to what Terry Jenner said about Smith and I'm sure Warne gave him the same advise.

[legend166]

I genuinely believe in two years Steve Smith could be a legitimate leg spinner good enough to be our only spinner.

The thing I'm worried about, is there's so much cricket around he's not going to get the opportunity to bowl enough to get good. He'll be playing T20, ODIs, IPL, etc.

Cricket Australia really need to make sure they don't just drag him around on tours for no reason. But we all know that's going to happen because Cricket Australia is ridiculous.

[peternorth]

he has talent no doubt.

i think the media pump up whoever they want, and CA buy into it, whoever the player is.

[Cooldude]

Those of you saying Tendulkar's technique is great, just have a look at him closely. It's far from textbook. Don't get me wrong, it's effective, especially when he has his eye in, and it's certainly better than a Sehwag or a Hughes, but his footwork is minimal, especially off the back foot. He plays away from his body quite often, and relies on his eye.

It's great to watch, it isn't jerky or unconvincing-looking like Hughes', but it does make him vulnerable early on in his innings. And yes, he is vulnerable as a result. He's quite a boom or bust player, not to the extent of North, and he's a much better player than North (he's the best batsman in the world FFS!) so he's worth waiting for, but you're always a chance of nabbing Tendulkar early on. That's why he can have 49 Test centuries and 58 Test centuries, streets ahead of his competition, while averaging under 57 overall. If he gets his eye in, gets 20 or so, he's pretty much guaranteed a 50, and from that, is a good chance of making a hundred. However, he gets out a lot for under 20, which pulls his average back to the pack, and this is because he has a loose technique which is exposed when he doesn't have his eye in.

:D

That's as funny a post as I've read for a long time

Comparing Marcus North who has 5 Test centuries in 19 Tests yet averages 38 (Genuine ton or nothing player), to Tendulkar, who apart from the odd season, averages at least mid 50s year in year out and is one of the most consistent run scorers in the game?

And I'm sorry, big footwork isn't what makes a good technique. It's all about balance and alignment when you hit a shot. Tendulkar himself even said that it's impossible to always get to the pitch of deliveries, particularly with the speed of some of the quicks at international level, but it's all about having a straight back lift so your bat comes down straight, and perfect balance when you play a shot.

Tendulkar is the best straight player I've ever seen, he plays straight lines better than anyone, and playing straight is far more important than having massive footwork. And fyi, Tendulkar's footwork is also beautiful to watch, always gets himself into the best position with minimal fuss

So basically you're saying if any batsman is vulnerable early but he'll make runs once he gets in. Thank you, captain obvious? Whoever doesn't that apply to? Tendulkar just does it a heck lot better than others, and a nigh on perfect technique helps

[TheColeTrain]

Those of you saying Tendulkar's technique is great, just have a look at him closely. It's far from textbook. Don't get me wrong, it's effective, especially when he has his eye in, and it's certainly better than a Sehwag or a Hughes, but his footwork is minimal, especially off the back foot. He plays away from his body quite often, and relies on his eye.

It's great to watch, it isn't jerky or unconvincing-looking like Hughes', but it does make him vulnerable early on in his innings. And yes, he is vulnerable as a result. He's quite a boom or bust player, not to the extent of North, and he's a much better player than North (he's the best batsman in the world FFS!) so he's worth waiting for, but you're always a chance of nabbing Tendulkar early on. That's why he can have 49 Test centuries and 58 Test centuries, streets ahead of his competition, while averaging under 57 overall. If he gets his eye in, gets 20 or so, he's pretty much guaranteed a 50, and from that, is a good chance of making a hundred. However, he gets out a lot for under 20, which pulls his average back to the pack, and this is because he has a loose technique which is exposed when he doesn't have his eye in.
Are you high.
Tendulkar's technique is textbook perfect

[dan warna]

tendulkar is the great batsman of the modern era for consistency, skill, concentration, discipline and sheer flair.

Punter, is possibly the second best of the modern era.

North isn't in the same league as either of these and is lucky to be playing test cricket let alone likened to slashin'

[Plugger35]

Are you high.
Tendulkar's technique is textbook perfect

Not sure about textbook perfect but it's closer than most other batsmen. Bradman actually said that Tendulkar reminded him most of himself so his technique can't be too bad.

You don't score as many runs as Tendulkar either without having a pretty solid technique. Great batsmen to watch when he is in full flow.

[placebo]

Those of you saying Tendulkar's technique is great, just have a look at him closely. It's far from textbook. Don't get me wrong, it's effective, especially when he has his eye in, and it's certainly better than a Sehwag or a Hughes, but his footwork is minimal, especially off the back foot. He plays away from his body quite often, and relies on his eye.

It's great to watch, it isn't jerky or unconvincing-looking like Hughes', but it does make him vulnerable early on in his innings. And yes, he is vulnerable as a result. He's quite a boom or bust player, not to the extent of North, and he's a much better player than North (he's the best batsman in the world FFS!) so he's worth waiting for, but you're always a chance of nabbing Tendulkar early on. That's why he can have 49 Test centuries and 58 Test centuries, streets ahead of his competition, while averaging under 57 overall. If he gets his eye in, gets 20 or so, he's pretty much guaranteed a 50, and from that, is a good chance of making a hundred. However, he gets out a lot for under 20, which pulls his average back to the pack, and this is because he has a loose technique which is exposed when he doesn't have his eye in.

There's a big difference between Tendulkar having some deficiencies and saying he has one of the worst techniques in world cricket, which he doesn't.

[BarneyBent]

tendulkar is the great batsman of the modern era for consistency, skill, concentration, discipline and sheer flair.

Punter, is possibly the second best of the modern era.

North isn't in the same league as either of these and is lucky to be playing test cricket let alone likened to slashin'

I didn't say he was in the same league. Two players can be similar in certain respects without being anywhere near each other in overall performance. North and Tendulkar both have a large number of big scores, and a large number of small scores, and few in between, within the context of their overall performances. That doesn't change the fact that Tendulkar's overall performances have been much, much better.

There's a big difference between Tendulkar having some deficiencies and saying he has one of the worst techniques in world cricket, which he doesn't.

I didn't say he had one of the "worst", I said he has one of the "worse" techniques. As in, worse than the average Test batsman, bottom half. Notably deficient in certain areas, but not ludicrously so.

Tendulkar is loose and "fishy" outside off, especially short. He has a fantastic eye and fantastic balance so he can generally get away with it, it doesn't stop him from playing very straight to straight deliveries, and it's beautiful to watch in any case, but it does open up some particular vulnerabilities early on. Once he gets past it and gets his eye in, it's negated and he can go on and make big scores.

Not sure about textbook perfect but it's closer than most other batsmen. Bradman actually said that Tendulkar reminded him most of himself so his technique can't be too bad.

You don't score as many runs as Tendulkar either without having a pretty solid technique. Great batsmen to watch when he is in full flow.

From what I've seen of Bradman, he had a very unusual technique. And quite similar to Tendulkar's as well. Plays very straight, but some weird foot work.

[legend166]

Bradman was considered to have a very unorthodox technique.

[Admiral Afterworld]

His name always makes me think of the character from American Dad!

80WxJV2sslo

[Cleavy]

His name always make me think of the character from American Dad!

80WxJV2sslo

Thankfully the cricketer is far more athletic than the cartoon character.

[Bomber Bears]

He does look a bit like Cubert Farnsworth tho

[its just sporn mum]

tendulkar is the great batsman of the modern era for consistency, skill, concentration, discipline and sheer flair.

Punter, is possibly the second best of the modern era.



Brian Charles & Sachin. Punter is good but BC Lara has him covered in most areas.

[Bomber Bears]

Punter>Lara.

Lara underachieved a little bit IMO. But this debate could go on for a while