1) true; everyone is in agreement about Smith being THE difference,
however
2) Third Test was a cliffhanger without Smith. We rolled them for 67 in the first dig and had a good lead. Then we had three very strong chances to close it out but fluffed them all.
--- Harris dropped catch/ run-out throw to wrong end, take your pick (I'm counting that as ONE chance)
--- wasted referral which cost us Stokes plumb lbw, given not out, no referral left
--- Lyon snatching at the ball when he had plenty of time for the Leach run-out.
Take any one of those chances and we win the 3rd Test, without Smith. I get your point, though. Maybe (probably) we'd have had more runs if Smith had batted?
Really? I seem to be the only person arguing that. All I'm hearing is that if Smith played in the third test then he would have made a pair and Australia would still have lost.
I get your point, though. Maybe (probably) we'd have had more runs if Smith had batted?
Yes, the guy averaging 134 for the series would have likely effected the outcome of the match in Australia's favor. Shocking I know.