Steve Smith

[BarneyBent]

His innings today simultaneously showed exactly why people are excited about him, and exactly why he shouldn't have been selected yet.

 

[aflcliche]

don't like those front foot pulls. they look very awkward. most players who pull off the front foot have a lot of trouble keeping them under control - it's almost impossible to consistently keep them on the ground because you'll always be hitting them with your shoulders undernearth the ball.

I agree. Front foot pull used to pass as a slog almost, now its trendy.

 

[The Passenger]

I agree. Front foot pull used to pass as a slog almost, now its trendy.

clarke used to do it at the start of his career. looked a much beter batsmen when he pretty much removed it out from his reportiore upon his return to the test team.

 

[aflcliche]

clarke used to do it at the start of his career. looked a much beter batsmen when he pretty much removed it out from his reportiore upon his return to the test team.

Yeah. Nothing wrong with back foot back and across. I really think quality bowlers sort out batsmen with dodgy techniques. There haven't been many top class bowlers since the 90s and there were flat decks throughout the 00s, but now bowling standards have improved and pitches are getting tougher. We are seeing the result of it.

 

[Partridge]

Yeah. Nothing wrong with back foot back and across. I really think quality bowlers sort out batsmen with dodgy techniques. There haven't been many top class bowlers since the 90s and there were flat decks throughout the 00s, but now bowling standards have improved and pitches are getting tougher. We are seeing the result of it.

Totally agree. A lot of batsmen all over the world generously benefitted from ordinary attacks in most countries. You immediately see the difference when a side actually knows how to perform the basics when bowling - maintain a good line and length, and sustain it over a whole day.

We saw it with Siddle, he was the one bowler who kept a good length and allowed the pitch to do some work for him. No wonder he got 6 wickets.

 

[dan warna]

In about the same number of tests smith batting 23, bowling 50...

if you apply the Cam white theory, he should be dropped now, he's had his chance right?

also andrew mcdonald outperformed him in the same time frame with the ball and is comparable with the bat?

And injury aside has been the best performed all rounder this season? and far superior with the bat than most others.

Or should we carry smith for longer because he has 'potential'?

 

[BarneyBent]

In about the same number of tests smith batting 23, bowling 50...

if you apply the Cam white theory, he should be dropped now, he's had his chance right?

also andrew mcdonald outperformed him in the same time frame with the ball and is comparable with the bat?

And injury aside has been the best performed all rounder this season? and far superior with the bat than most others.

Or should we carry smith for longer because he has 'potential'?

Both McDonald and White were ineffective in what was a much better team and more settled team. There were clearly better options available to replace them, and the side could afford to make some changes.

Now, Smith and Hughes have been brought in in quite different circumstances. They may be underperforming, but so is the entire team, and the side has been chopping and changing so much recently that a period of team stability is required. Furthermore, there are no obvious replacements banging the door down. With all this considered, while selecting Smith was a mistake, and arguably Hughes was as well, to drop them now would make little sense and only contribute to greater disarray and uncertainty within the team, especially given Smith and Hughes looked the best they had all series in their last innings.

 

[ROSEMVP]

White was good with the bat and was handy with the ball. smith should be dropped.

 

[dan warna]

Both McDonald and White were ineffective in what was a much better team and more settled team. There were clearly better options available to replace them, and the side could afford to make some changes.

Now, Smith and Hughes have been brought in in quite different circumstances. They may be underperforming, but so is the entire team, and the side has been chopping and changing so much recently that a period of team stability is required. Furthermore, there are no obvious replacements banging the door down. With all this considered, while selecting Smith was a mistake, and arguably Hughes was as well, to drop them now would make little sense and only contribute to greater disarray and uncertainty within the team, especially given Smith and Hughes looked the best they had all series in their last innings.

white was batting at 8 and averaged 30, smith was given 6 which allows far more room to perform and he hasn't mcdonald.

McDonald too 9 wickets at 33 or so from his limited opportunities, better form than Hilfy and Johnson this series.

Concur he's out injured but was in career best form till then.

Smith has already been given as long and has performed worse than white.

McDonald, Hodge and White were all dropped on short notice after being given a chance. All performed better than smith and hughes.

Frankly Even dizzy, an australian great, wasn't give as long as some after returning from injury.

There are plenty of better performed players than hughes, aside from the fact he is now the 'test opener' maddinson, a fit Katich and Watson would be better selection for NSW opening slot over Hughes atm on form.

You'd feel sorry for a young maddinson to get dropped for hughes who is turfing out rubbish this whole season.

 

[Furn]

Smith needs to go and work on his bowling and be the number one spinner otherwise he cant play test cricket.

he's got talent for sure, but he's neither a test standard batsman or bowler.

If you look at the top all-rounders over the years they were all great in one area and handy in the other. Bits and pieces players dont work in test match cricket.

Botham,Imran,Dev,Hadlee even Flintoff for a while etc, were world class bowlers they could play just as bowlers.

Sobers,Kallis etc were grest batsman that could bowl.

Now Smith doesnt need to be as good as these guys obviously, but the point stands he must be able to hold a place as either a batsman and bowler.

England went down the half/half road and it was a disaster, players like Chris Lewis, Derek Pringle, Mark Elheam or whatever. These players are ok in 1st class cricket and the thought is they can make a few runs and take some wickets adn be useful, but once you get test level they just fail at both.

Smith comes into that catergory. His bowling doesnt make up for the fact he's not a top 6 test batsman and his battting doesnt make up for the fact he's not a test quality spinner.

For me i'd work on the bowling only and have the batting as a bonus.

 

[BarneyBent]

Smith needs to go and work on his bowling and be the number one spinner otherwise he cant play test cricket.

he's got talent for sure, but he's neither a test standard batsman or bowler.

If you look at the top all-rounders over the years they were all great in one area and handy in the other. Bits and pieces players dont work in test match cricket.

Botham,Imran,Dev,Hadlee even Flintoff for a while etc, were world class bowlers they could play just as bowlers.

Sobers,Kallis etc were grest batsman that could bowl.

Now Smith doesnt need to be as good as these guys obviously, but the point stands he must be able to hold a place as either a batsman and bowler.

England went down the half/half road and it was a disaster, players like Chris Lewis, Derek Pringle, Mark Elheam or whatever. These players are ok in 1st class cricket and the thought is they can make a few runs and take some wickets adn be useful, but once you get test level they just fail at both.

Smith comes into that catergory. His bowling doesnt make up for the fact he's not a top 6 test batsman and his battting doesnt make up for the fact he's not a test quality spinner.

For me i'd work on the bowling only and have the batting as a bonus.

Absolutely, and this is why I disagreed with his selection in the first place. IMO he's a better batsman than bowler, he was in poor FC form when selected and this has translated to Test level, and he should have been allowed more time to work on his batting (and bowling) before coming into the side. Personally I see him as a guy who will average 45-50 with the bat and 32-35 with the ball (as a best case scenario), but he's a long way from that.

However, he is in the side now, and should be persevered with for a little while. If he's not improving after a few more Tests, then think about dropping him back to the Shield, but at the moment the side needs stability, and players, all players, need confidence in their place. The selectors made an error selecting him in the first place, but to drop him when the team is in the situation it is now would only compound the error.

Dan Warna, once again you miss the point. Yes, the players were treated differently, but this was because the situations were different, not because the states were different.

 

[Furn]

Absolutely, and this is why I disagreed with his selection in the first place. IMO he's a better batsman than bowler, he was in poor FC form when selected and this has translated to Test level, and he should have been allowed more time to work on his batting (and bowling) before coming into the side. Personally I see him as a guy who will average 45-50 with the bat and 32-35 with the ball (as a best case scenario), but he's a long way from that.

However, he is in the side now, and should be persevered with for a little while. If he's not improving after a few more Tests, then think about dropping him back to the Shield, but at the moment the side needs stability, and players, all players, need confidence in their place. The selectors made an error selecting him in the first place, but to drop him when the team is in the situation it is now would only compound the error.

Dan Warna, once again you miss the point. Yes, the players were treated differently, but this was because the situations were different, not because the states were different.

Thats the problem with Smith. Some say he's more a batsman, some say he's a bowler. He's gotta specialise in one or the other.

I thought he bowled ok in this test. He was better than i thought he was and i'd personally go with that. I dont see him being a test batsman over 10 years or so. He has a bit of Flintoff about him in that he hits them ok but it doesnt look right.

I would keep playing him but only batting at 8 and bowling. Being a test batsman is one of the hardest gigs in sports, its very unforgiving. If you take the Broad or Anderson approach and accept that he's going to be detrimental to the team for a couple of years, the payoff could be well worth it.

I think if he's played at 6 and hardly bowled it could destroy him.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

Yeh. His batting technique is pretty nasty. Leaves some ugly gaps between bat and pad.

 

[benny_cousins]

Steven Smith does not deserve to be playing cricket for Australia in any form of the game. He is a terrible number 6 batsman and their are 5 or 6 batsman playing domestic cricket at the moment who have the right to have the shits with his selection. His bowling is no better than most middle order batsman who can throw down a few pies from time to time. Hussey, Marsh, White, Klinger and Ferguson must really have the shits with cricket Australia.

Why he is even in the one day side is beyond me. He bats at 7 or 8 where he barely ever makes runs (highest score of 41) and bowls 2 or 3 overs a game (just to justify his selection I think). He obviously has some potential but he needs to improve.

But being Australias golden boy I can see him settled in the side batting at number 6 with an average of around 30 and bowling the odd over for another 2 years before not even our NSW media is enough to save him. Lets hope he's dropped sooner rather than later so a bloke that deserves to be in their gets a go!!

 

[The Passenger]

i really doubt he'll become a top quality spinner. he should be handy enough and occasionally take bags ala michael bevan.

his batting has talent but he should've been bought into the team for north for those new zealand tests when he was in good form. 4 centuries in one shield season is very very good. but he's been bought into the team when he hasn't been scoring runs and not suprisingly he has been scratchy for the test team.

hopefully he can prove his doubters wrong and score a load of runs in sydney.

he was the sort of player who was going to need a bit of time in shield cricket batting at number six before coming into the test team. he's got the sort of technique where he is just going to have to get experience at each level before going to the next. has to kinda work his game out i suppose. he's also going to be the style of batsmen who's going to go through really good trots when he is in form, so from a selectors point of view you would want to see him scoring runs in the shield for an extended period. he's not going to be a consistent cricketers, so you really probably need more than 7 or 8 shield games to decide whether he could take it to the next level.

but if you were to fasttrack him into the team early in his FC career than you had to strike when the iron was hot and do it while he was scoring runs (straight after last seasons shield).... and not bring him into the team as our frontline spinner and bat him number 8.

anyway, we'll see what happens.

 

[The Fonz]

Smith was picked for Perth as a guy who bats and could bowl a bit if needed.
If he's at 7, you want someone who is an out and out all-rounder ie Greg Matthews or Simon O'Donnell.
If neither his batting or bowling is good enough - what is he doing in the team?
At least at 6 they could justify it with his batting.

 

[Listed]

Smith was picked for Perth as a guy who bats and could bowl a bit if needed.
If he's at 7, you want someone who is an out and out all-rounder ie Greg Matthews or Simon O'Donnell.
If neither his batting or bowling is good enough - what is he doing in the team?
At least at 6 they could justify it with his batting.

If he's good enough to bat at 6, he's good enough to bat at 7.

 

[The_Reaper]

If he's good enough to bat at 6, he's good enough to bat at 7.

That's like saying if he's good enough to open he's good enough to bat at 11.

 

[The Fonz]

If he's good enough to bat at 6, he's good enough to bat at 7.

True, but you don't have a specialist batsman at 7.
Now suddenly because they dropped him to 7, his bowling is going to get better?

 

[Cooldude]

It makes more sense than him at 6

Should be at no.8

 

[The Fonz]

It makes more sense than him at 6

Should be at no.8

True - that's where he originally started. But that would mean he's in the side as a full-time bowler which apparently he didn't want.

 

[The_Reaper]

Smith as a full time bowler doesn't make any sense either.

 

[Listed]

True, but you don't have a specialist batsman at 7.
Now suddenly because they dropped him to 7, his bowling is going to get better?

Unless you have a Flintoff type player who can specialise at both, the top seven should all be batsmen (one of whom also needs to keep). If both Haddin and Smith are in the side, I don't think it's all that important that one bats ahead of the other.

Batting at 6 or 7 doesn't have anything to do with his bowling. It's not as if they're going to give him the keeper's gloves and the ball to Haddin.

That's like saying if he's good enough to open he's good enough to bat at 11.

What?

 

[SebastianVettel]

Not in a game that meant anything it probably doesn't. But Smith has the potential to be excellent with both bat and ball in the future, so I'm really happy they're going to carry him for a while and let him find his feet at this level.

This is the transitional period that should have happened 18 months ago. Delighted that they're looking towards the future with guys like Khawaja and Smith, who are clearly outstanding prospects.

They should have gone down this route a few years ago, but at least they've finally wised up that picking average shield journeymen isn't a strategy that's going to take us back to the top of world cricket.

 

[ManWithNoName]

It's a clear case of Clarke not rating enough as a batsman to want him in the side, but having no choice since he was named in the squad already.