Smith versus Ponting and Clarke at the same age

[Sweet Jesus]

Smith's rapid emergence over the past 12 months got me thinking about how he compares to Ponting and Clarke at the same age. It's crazy to think Smith wasn't even in Australia's first-choice ODI side a few months ago. I can't imagine he'll be overlooked for any Australian side in the next decade.

Anyway, his stats make for an interesting comparison with his two predecessors as captain. At the moment, Smith is 25-and-a-half with 26 Tests, 2304 runs at 52.36; 48 ODIs, 1107 runs at 35.70.

Obviously his ODI numbers aren't super-impressive. But they're skewed by the fact he came in down the order when he started off. His average skyrockets to 57 when batting at No.3 or No.4.

How does that compare to Ricky Ponting? He was the same age as Smith is currently back in the middle of 2000.

At that point, he'd played 34 Tests and scored 2233 runs at 47.51. He'd played 104 ODIs and scored 3672 runs at 39.91.

Those Test numbers highlight the fact that it took Ponting a while to really get going in Test cricket, which is often forgotten. Of course, shortly after, he began a five-year period of dominance. And he was a high-quality ODI batsman from a very young age. Smith has some work to do to catch him on that front but you'd have to say he has Ponting covered at the same age when you look at their Test records.

How about Michael Clarke? For the purposes of the comparison, go back to October 2007, when Clarke was the same age Smith is now. The previous summer, he'd been recalled to the Test side for the Ashes whitewash after a period out of the team. He responded by scoring 389 runs at 77.80 that series, securing his position. Even so, his overall record was still nothing special.

At that stage, he'd played 27 Tests and scored 1512 runs at 42.00. He'd also played 112 ODIs and scored 3329 runs at 45.60.

Similar deal to Ponting. Very well established in the ODI side but still not truly world-class at Test level. Smith has arrived in the opposite order, nailing down a spot in the Test side before being an automatic selection in the ODI team, which is strange when you consider that he was initially viewed as a bit of a lower-order slogger. I guess Warner is also in that boat. I remember when Warner, Smith, Hughes and Khawaja all came on the scene at the same time - Khawaja was the one considered to have the most orthodox, organised technique best suited to Test cricket.

But I digress - the main point is that Smith, as a Test batsman, is clearly ahead of Clarke and Ponting at the same age. That's not to say it will remain that way but it does reinforce how freakishly rapid his improvement has been.

 

[The_Reaper]

I'd say it's an example of how misleading stats can be- neither Ponting or Clarke benefited from playing mediocre Indian bowlers on the wickets that were served up this summer.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'd say it's an example of how misleading stats can be- neither Ponting or Clarke benefited from playing mediocre Indian bowlers on the wickets that were served up this summer.

Ponting and Clarke never faced weak bowling attacks in batting-friendly conditions?

I don't think you can dismiss the point that Smith has been scoring a shitload of runs as 'misleading stats'.

A lot of runs were scored in the recent series, but it's not like all our batsmen were scoring centuries at will. In a series where runs were apparently so easy to score that you think they should be treated as meaningless and 'misleading', Watson still managed to be pretty s**t, didn't he?

 

[Richard Pryor]

Ponting and Clarke never faced weak bowling attacks in batting-friendly conditions?

I don't think you can dismiss the point that Smith has been scoring a shitload of runs as 'misleading stats'.

A lot of runs were scored in the recent series, but it's not like all our batsmen were scoring centuries at will. In a series where runs were apparently so easy to score that you think they should be treated as meaningless and 'misleading', Watson still managed to be pretty s**t, didn't he?

Harris and Johnson both dominated the Indian attack in the test series. Both probably better yardsticks of bowler/pitch quality than our middle order at the moment.

A better comparison to Ponting and Clarke would be to compare their breakout series stats to Smith, or their averages at the same amount of games rather than age, but even then there's too many factors to just use batting average to compare.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Harris and Johnson both dominated the Indian attack in the test series. Both probably better yardsticks of bowler/pitch quality than our middle order at the moment.

That seems pretty arbitrary.

You say Harris and Johnson "dominated" but they finished the series with one half-century each. Is there really an equivalence between that and Smith's four centuries and two half-centuries?

The bottom line is that he scored a shitload of runs. I'm not familiar with this business of runs against certain sides not counting. It's not like he scored them against the Netherlands. And, as I've pointed out, the Indian attack still managed to get the better of Watson, didn't they?

A better comparison to Ponting and Clarke would be to compare their breakout series stats to Smith, or their averages at the same amount of games rather than age, but even then there's too many factors to just use batting average to compare.

The point I am making is that Smith is better performed as a Test batsman than Ponting and Clarke were at this age. In light of that, age is surely the relevant frame.

But sure, if you want to do it on the basis of Tests played, then Smith is still miles in front at this stage. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Clarke and Smith are basically even when it comes to Tests played at the same age, with Smith much better performed. Ponting, after 26 Tests, had scored 1525 runs at 39.10. So by all means use a different metric, but I think you end up with the same conclusion.

You also seem to be saying that comparing batting averages is bogus because of "too many factors". Seriously? It's not particularly close. What factors mitigate that kind of gap in performance?

Why bend over backwards to avoid a straightforward empirical observation?

 

[Richard Pryor]

That seems pretty arbitrary.

You say Harris and Johnson "dominated" but they finished the series with one half-century each. Is there really an equivalence between that and Smith's four centuries and two half-centuries?

The bottom line is that he scored a shitload of runs. I'm not familiar with this business of runs against certain sides not counting. It's not like he scored them against the Netherlands. And, as I've pointed out, the Indian attack still managed to get the better of Watson, didn't they?

The point I am making is that Smith is better performed as a Test batsman than Ponting and Clarke were at this age. In light of that, age is surely the relevant frame.

Not sure why you're using a guy with a test average of 35 and four centuries in a decade as an example to prove a bowling attack is anything other than ordinary.

But sure, if you want to do it on the basis of Tests played, then Smith is still miles in front at this stage. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Clarke and Smith are basically even when it comes to Tests played at the same age, with Smith much better performed. Ponting, after 26 Tests, had scored 1525 runs at 39.10. So by all means use a different metric, but I think you end up with the same conclusion.

You also seem to be saying that comparing batting averages is bogus because of "too many factors". Seriously? You look at Smith averaging 52, while Ponting and Clarke were averaging 42 at the same age, but that's not clear-cut enough? It's not even close. What factors mitigate that kind of gap in performance?

One factor is that Ponting and Clarke both developed a lot more as batsman in the test side, whereas Smith has batted down the order befor his comeback after a lot of improvement. It's no knock against him, but Smith has had his average boosted in one series, and opinions might differ, but I think an average against Ishant Sharma and Varun Aaron has to be considered as lesser to a batting average against Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh.

Smith has ten runs extra on his average (despite five more centuries than Ponting and four more than Clarke) at the same age, but he's also played half the amount of games, which lets big scores, better pitches and poorer bowling distort his average more because of the smaller sample size.

Why bend over backwards to avoid a straightforward empirical observation?

An empirical observation requires empirical evidence, which I don't think a batting average is (not at 26 tests anyway).

The guy's a great batsman in great form no doubt though, regardless of any debate over the stats.

 

[copthat]

I don't really buy into this stats at same age/same games stuff anymore. The more I watch sport, the more I realise that everyone is different and that everyone reaches their potential at different times.

However, those stats do suggest that if Smith keeps going at a similar level to his recent form then he will be known as a great.

 

[Ducky Tie]

Whilst it is true that Smith's average is only coming from a small sample, it's worth noting that of his 26 test matches, 13 have been Ashes tests, three have been away to South Africa, two away to India, two in the UAE against Pakistan and two in England against a quality Pakistan attack so only four of his tests have been against 'lesser' opposition in favourable conditions.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Not sure why you're using a guy with a test average of 35 and four centuries in a decade as an example to prove a bowling attack is anything other than ordinary.

To make the point that Smith's runs in that series shouldn't be completely disregarded.

One factor is that Ponting and Clarke both developed a lot more as batsman in the test side, whereas Smith has batted down the order befor his comeback after a lot of improvement.

I don't know what this means.

Ponting and Clarke both spent time lower down the order. Both were dropped early in their careers.

If Smith improved more rapidly, that basically supports my point.

It's no knock against him, but Smith has had his average boosted in one series, and opinions might differ, but I think an average against Ishant Sharma and Varun Aaron has to be considered as lesser to a batting average against Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh.

Surely you can spot the obvious problem with this?

Ponting and Clarke didn't spend their entire careers batting against Ambrose and Walsh. Their batting averages also include runs made against weaker attacks. So why propose an obviously flawed comparison?

Smith has ten runs extra on his average (despite five more centuries than Ponting and four more than Clarke) at the same age, but he's also played half the amount of games, which lets big scores, better pitches and poorer bowling distort his average more because of the smaller sample size.

Not sure about your maths there, mate.

Smith has played 26 Tests. Clarke had played 27 at the same age. Ponting had played 42.

Half the amount?

Also, you wanted the comparison based on Tests played but that also favours Smith. So you've just dropped that and moved on?

An empirical observation requires empirical evidence, which I don't think a batting average is (not at 26 tests anyway).

A batting average is not empirical evidence? Seriously? And 26 Tests is plenty.

I don't know what to make of this determination to ignore facts.

Smith has been better-performed than Ponting and Clarke were at the same age. Do you disagree with that? What is it about that observation that offends you?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Whilst it is true that Smith's average is only coming from a small sample, it's worth noting that of his 26 test matches, 13 have been Ashes tests, three have been away to South Africa, two away to India, two in the UAE against Pakistan and two in England against a quality Pakistan attack so only four of his tests have been against 'lesser' opposition in favourable conditions.

Is 26 Tests really such a small sample?

 

[Ducky Tie]

Is 26 Tests really such a small sample?

It's not small but it's generally not an amount that reflects someone's stats at the end of a career. Hussey being a prime example of this averaging above 80 after 25 tests.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I don't really buy into this stats at same age/same games stuff anymore. The more I watch sport, the more I realise that everyone is different and that everyone reaches their potential at different times.

That's fine.

All I'm saying is that Smith has reached his potential earlier than Ponting and Clarke did. At 26, he is a world-class Test batsman. The same couldn't be said for Ponting or Clarke.

What's not to buy about that?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It's not small but it's generally not an amount that reflects someone's stats at the end of a career. Hussey being a prime example of this averaging above 80 after 25 tests.

But I'm not making any argument about Smith's stats at the end of his career. I'm looking at his career so far.

Ryan Harris has played 27 Tests. If he never played another, which is possible, would we be unable to offer any assessment of his career stats because the sample size is too small?

 

[Ducky Tie]

But I'm not making any argument about Smith's stats at the end of his career. I'm looking at his career so far.

Ryan Harris has played 27 Tests. If he never played another, which is possible, would we be unable to offer any assessment of his career stats because the sample size is too small?

Where did I argue against your argument? If anything my original post was in support of it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Where did I argue against your argument? If anything my original post was in support of it.

Yeah, I'm just questioning this notion that 26 Tests is an inadequate sample size.

 

[Ducky Tie]

Yeah, I'm just questioning this notion that 26 Tests is an inadequate sample size.

Fair enough, regardless of whether it is or isn't though, considering his age, it isn't all that relevant as it's likely that he'll only improve (not necessarily on his average but as a well rounded batsman).

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Fair enough, regardless of whether it is or isn't though, considering his age, it isn't all that relevant as it's likely that he'll only improve (not necessarily on his average but as a well rounded batsman).

What isn't all that relevant?

The point is that he has emerged as a world-class Test batsman at a younger age than Ponting and Clarke. I'm pointing to his batting average as evidence of that. Surely that's reasonable?

 

[Ducky Tie]

What isn't all that relevant?

The point is that he has emerged as a world-class Test batsman at a younger age than Ponting and Clarke. I'm pointing to his batting average as evidence of that. Surely that's reasonable?

You're preaching to the converted, I agree with you about Smith, you're overanalysing a technicality in what I said.

 

[Richard Pryor]

To make the point that Smith's runs in that series shouldn't be completely disregarded.

My point is that Watson not making runs doesn't really say anything about the batting conditions in a series. I don't think his runs should be completely disregarded either, irrespective of Watson's performance. This series clearly showed Smith is the best batsman in the country right now.

I don't know what this means.

Ponting and Clarke both spent time lower down the order. Both were dropped early in their careers.

If Smith improved more rapidly, that basically supports my point.

Fair point. Smith is certainly comparable to Ponting and Clarke, I just don't think it's 100% that he's better at this stage in his career

Surely you can spot the obvious problem with this?

Ponting and Clarke didn't spend their entire careers batting against Ambrose and Walsh. Their batting averages also include runs made against weaker attacks. So why propose an obviously flawed comparison?

So what are we comparing? Career averages or averages at the same age/matches? My point was that Ponting faced Ambrose/Walsh early in his career when big/low scores can have a bigger affect on a batting average while Smith faced Aaron and Yadav. I just don't think 26 tests is a big enough sample size for factors like a good or bad opposition/pitch to be discounted. It's not as big a factor as it would be if Smith had been dominating Zimbabwe recently, but it still has to be considered for a comparison

Not sure about your maths there, mate.

Smith has played 26 Tests. Clarke had played 27 at the same age. Ponting had played 42.

Half the amount?

Fair point, I was misreading the statsguru page. Pretty embarrassing for me.

Also, you wanted the comparison based on Tests played but that also favours Smith. So you've just dropped that and moved on?

I don't have some vendetta to knock Smith, I was genuinely interested in the comparison, and the comparison favouring Smith is also interesting, however I'd also point out Smith was averaging forty before the Indian series, which is still a decent average, and also comparable to Ponting/Clarke (although also indicating, as you say, he has developed as a worldclass batsman earlier, albeit in favourable conditions).

A batting average is not empirical evidence? Seriously? And 26 Tests is plenty.

If you say so. I'd argue if Ponting or Clarke got to face this Indian pace attack at around twenty tests on these pitches their averages would have taken a boost as well, although that's getting into hypothetical territory,

I don't know what to make of this determination to ignore facts.

People can have different opinions of statistics. Not exactly a new phenomenon

Smith has been better-performed than Ponting and Clarke were at the same age. Do you disagree with that? What is it about that observation that offends you?

I wouldn't argue that he hasn't been better performed, I would however argue that he was given a great opportunity in this India series to perform that I'm not sure Clarke/Ponting had at the same point in their careers. I'm not offended because I'm an adult capable of having a conversation without getting upset someone is disagreeing with me (unless it's on the SRP board).

 

[The_Reaper]

Richard Pryor basically said everything I wanted to say.

Smith's great and is world class at a young age (though not sure if he's better than Williamson).

His record is better than Ponting (who first started becoming world class at about the same time) because of this series. But Smith remains world class

 

[Sweet Jesus]

My point is that Watson not making runs doesn't really say anything about the batting conditions in a series. I don't think his runs should be completely disregarded either, irrespective of Watson's performance. This series clearly showed Smith is the best batsman in the country right now.

So Smith's runs against India shouldn't be disregarded. That's what I said.

Fair point. Smith is certainly comparable to Ponting and Clarke, I just don't think it's 100% that he's better at this stage in his career

Well, he's definitely been better performed at Test level.

Surely that's beyond question. And that's the only point I've been trying to make.

My point was that Ponting faced Ambrose/Walsh early in his career when big/low scores can have a bigger affect on a batting average while Smith faced Aaron and Yadav.

Why do you keep pretending that Ponting only faced great attacks while Smith has faced weak ones?

This is obviously not the case.

You're making a big deal about Walsh and Ambrose, like that renders any kind of comparison between Ponting's early career and Smith's early career impossible. But Ponting played a total of four Tests against West Indies sides including those players. So you are massively overstating the significance of him facing those players.

As for Smith, he has also faced England in three different series, South Africa away, India away and Pakistan away. So I don't think it makes sense to keep emphasising Ponting's four Tests against two West Indies greats while carrying on like Smith has only batted against Aaron and Yadav.

I just don't think 26 tests is a big enough sample size for factors like a good or bad opposition/pitch to be discounted. It's not as big a factor as it would be if Smith had been dominating Zimbabwe recently, but it still has to be considered for a comparison

Firstly, 26 Tests is plenty.

Secondly, none of these 'other factors' are significant enough to explain away the gap in performance.

I wouldn't argue that he hasn't been better performed, I would however argue that he was given a great opportunity in this India series to perform that I'm not sure Clarke/Ponting had at the same point in their careers.

Again, you repeat the fallacy that Ponting and Clarke never faced weak attacks early in their careers.

You accept that Smith has been better performed at this stage. So I'm not sure what part of my post you're disputing.

 

[Richard Pryor]

So Smith's runs against India shouldn't be disregarded. That's what I said.

Well, he's definitely been better performed at Test level.

Surely that's beyond question. And that's the only point I've been trying to make.

Why do you keep pretending that Ponting only faced great attacks while Smith has faced weak ones?

This is obviously not the case.

You're making a big deal about Walsh and Ambrose, like that renders any kind of comparison between Ponting's early career and Smith's early career impossible. But Ponting played a total of four Tests against West Indies sides including those players. So you are massively overstating the significance of him facing those players.

As for Smith, he has also faced England in three different series, South Africa away, India away and Pakistan away. So I don't think it makes sense to keep emphasising Ponting's four Tests against two West Indies greats while carrying on like Smith has only batted against Aaron and Yadav.

Firstly, 26 Tests is plenty.

Secondly, none of these 'other factors' are significant enough to explain away the massive gap in performance. Ponting and Clarke were still ticking along at 42, while Smith is going at 52. It's not even close.

Again, you repeat the fallacy that Ponting and Clarke never faced weak attacks early in their careers.

You accept that Smith has been better performed at this stage. So I'm not sure what part of my post you're disputing.

You take out this series against the Indian attack and Smith is only averaging forty, so the factors of pitch and bowling actually does explain the difference in average (although it's impossible yet to say if Smith wouldn't have scored at a comparable rate on different pitches and bowlers).

We both agree that Smith took the opportunity to prove himself at test level and did so.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You take out this series against the Indian attack and Smith is only averaging forty, so the factors of pitch and bowling actually does explain the difference in average (although it's impossible yet to say if Smith wouldn't have scored at a comparable rate on different pitches and bowlers).

Why would you arbitrarily disregard one series from a player's record?

That seems like a random distortion of Smith's overall Test performance, which is what's being assessed.

Besides, Ponting and Clarke also faced weak attacks in the early stages of their careers.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Why would you arbitrarily disregard one series from a player's record?

Because at this stage in a players career a bat-friendly series distorts the average more than one in an 80 test career would, so in my arbitrary opinion the career batting average as a result of the series doesn't really say a whole lot about a player compared to other players of the same age/games/etc.

To use a more extreme example, if Hayden scored his 380 against Zimbabwe twenty tests into his career his average would've taken a big boost, without really indicating he was a better player than any other opener twenty tests into their career. But on the same note a player can only bat in the circumstances their given so you can't underrate a series performance either. Either way Stats don't tell the whole story.

In any case I've put a lot more effort into seemingly trashing Smith's stats than I would've liked, I don't really lean one way or the other yet between Smith or Ponting as batsmen, just don't like to see any overemphasis of stats.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Because at this stage in a players career a bat-friendly series distorts the average more than one in an 80 test career would, so in my arbitrary opinion the career batting average as a result of the series doesn't really say a whole lot about a player compared to other players of the same age/games/etc.

It tells us who was better performed at that age.

Do you think Ponting and Clarke never played in bat-friendly conditions early on?

To use a more extreme example, if Hayden scored his 380 against Zimbabwe twenty tests into his career his average would've taken a big boost, without really indicating he was a better player than any other opener twenty tests into their career. Stats don't tell the whole story.

In this case, stats tell us that Smith has clearly been better performed than Ponting and Clarke at the same age.

We're not splitting hairs here. It's not even close.

May I make a suggestion? Go through the parts of your post where you're dismissing the use of stats to support an argument. Replace the word 'stats' with the word 'evidence' and see if it still sounds sensible.