Where does Steve Smith rate?

[Seedsfan]

No, it means I watched his entire career and have formulated an opinion based on that, and numbers.

I dislike Justin Langer more than Matthew Hayden but I would consider ranking him higher.

What personal bias exactly do you think I have that surrounds players from Australia?

You aren’t being objective at all. It’s a brain dead argument. Let’s take out his good performances and he is a shit player

 

[PhatBoy]

You aren’t being objective at all. It’s a brain dead argument. Let’s take out his good performances and he is a s**t player

No mate.

He played 100 tests give or take and the biggest criticism was that he fattened his record in the most favourable conditions.


Have I said he COULDT olay overseas? No. When his overseas record is solid but unspectacular and it includes one freak series which was a huge exception, it is worth factoring that into the equation.
David Warner suffers from it and no one seems to care: he hit 540 at 90 against the best pace attack of the century in SA. It doesn’t alter the fact that his away record is suspect compared to his home numbers.



Stop trying to tell people why they think something and accept the fact that they think it.

This ‘bias’ bullshit that people pull out whenever someone disagrees with them - especially when as a non-Australian fan I don’t even have a dog in the fight - is f***ing juvenile.

Be like me telling you you’re biased for leaving Chris Gayle out of an all time West Indies XI.

Absolute half-wit level thinking.

 

[t_94]

It was 3 matches. It makes a 4 run impact.

It’s not saying take out this series, that series, this other series. It’s a month of cricket. It’s pretty fair to say it was the exception rather than the rule

He still made those runs. Players are entitled to have their best matches counted when his overall performance is considered.

The conventions of cricket mean that 42 is seen as a lot better than 38.

 

[PhatBoy]

He still made those runs. Players are entitled to have their best matches counted when his overall performance is considered.

The conventions of cricket mean that 42 is seen as a lot better than 38.

If I’m trying to formulate an overall view of someone’s output in certain conditions I’m not looking at their peak I’m looking at how often they are likely to get somewhere within sight of it.

Removing one outlier is a lot different to removing a multitude of them.

 

[Seedsfan]

If I’m trying to formulate an overall view of someone’s output in certain conditions I’m not looking at their peak I’m looking at how often they are likely to get somewhere within sight of it.

Removing one outlier is a lot different to removing a multitude of them.

So for Asia you could just look at 1,600 runs at 50.

 

[PhatBoy]

So for Asia you could just look at 1,600 runs at 50.

Yeah, or his 1373 runs at 32 in England, South Africa and New Zealand.

Either way is fine.

Tell me again about my bias against Australia impacting on my assessment of one Australian batsman against others though

Only a matter of time before the word ‘agenda’ makes an appearance im guessing

 

[Seedsfan]

Yeah, or his 1373 runs at 32 in England, South Africa and New Zealand.

Either way is fine.

Tell me again about my bias against Australia impacting on my assessment of one Australian batsman against others though

Only a matter of time before the word ‘agenda’ makes an appearance im guessing

You like to think you know it all don’t you? Obviously eliminating one outlier to fit a narrative does point to having a bias. I also notice that you don’t eliminate any other statistical outliers.

You are quick to point to a poor record in South Africa.

Yet if you eliminate the statistical outliers there as you like to do his average increases from 34 to 49.

 

[PhatBoy]

You like to think you know it all don’t you? Obviously eliminating one outlier to fit a narrative does point to having a bias. I also notice that you don’t eliminate any other statistical outliers.

You are quick to point to a poor record in South Africa.

Yet if you eliminate the statistical outliers there as you like to do his average increases from 34 to 49.

A) I do know it all
B) pointing to an outlier has nothing to do with bias. It relates to statistical analysis. I haven’t eliminated statistical outliers plural. I have eliminated a three match sequence.

Not 41 innings like you just did. I didn’t just point to a poor record in SA. I pointed to a poor record across 20-odd matches in roughly similar conditions. It’s a quarter of his career. Not 3 per cent of it.

 

[Seedsfan]

A) I do know it all
B) pointing to an outlier has nothing to do with bias. It relates to statistical analysis. I haven’t eliminated statistical outliers plural. I have eliminated a three match sequence.

Not 41 innings like you just did. I didn’t just point to a poor record in SA. I pointed to a poor record across 20-odd matches in roughly similar conditions. It’s a quarter of his career. Not 3 per cent of it.

That just shows how clueless you are. 41 innings?

It’s eliminating 4 tests from before he was a regular in the side. So only one more than you eliminated

 

[PhatBoy]

That just shows how clueless you are. 41 innings?

It’s eliminating 4 tests from before he was a regular in the side. So only one more than you eliminated

I was referring to my analysis of 24 tests across his SENZ career. I assumed that’s what you had removed.

You’re now breaking down to 1 of the 9 countries he played in, and removing 4 of the 10 tests he played in THAT nation, to give an analysis of his output in THAT nation, which still doesn’t add up to anything freakish anyway.

I removed 3 tests from a 47 match sample size when assessing his away record.

See the imbalance there?

One might almost accuse you of looking at his record from, dare I say it, a position of bias?

 

[Seedsfan]

I was referring to my analysis of 24 tests across his SENZ career.

Hayden’s overseas record:
86 innings, 3,415 at 42.69 with 9 100s and 13 50s

If you filter out India 01:

80 innings, 2,866 runs at 38.21 with 7 100s and 11 50s

If you then also filter out his worst series in South Africa before he was a test regular

It then becomes 73 innings, 2,782 runs at 40.91 with 7 100s and 11 50s

Now that would be a more objective way of looking at it as you have eliminated the best and the worst of his away record

You could also go the opposite way to you and just eliminate the bad:

79 innings 6 not outs. 3331 runs at 45.63 with 9 100s and 13 50s

Also if you were to be being objective you would also look to eliminate statistical outliers in his home record. Before just arbitrarily ignoring his best away tour and then pointing to the gap between his home and away average.

 

[PhatBoy]

Hayden’s overseas record:
86 innings, 3,415 at 42.69 with 9 100s and 13 50s

If you filter out India 01:

80 innings, 2,866 runs at 38.21 with 7 100s and 11 50s

If you then also filter out his worst series in South Africa before he was a test regular

It then becomes 73 innings, 2,782 runs at 40.91 with 7 100s and 11 50s

Now that would be a more objective way of looking at it as you have eliminated the best and the worst of his away record

You could also go the opposite way to you and just eliminate the bad:

79 innings 6 not outs. 3331 runs at 45.63 with 9 100s and 13 50s

Also if you were to be being objective you would also look to eliminate statistical outliers in his home record. Before just arbitrarily ignoring his best away tour and then pointing to the gap between his home and away average.

In which case if you eliminated both his best and worst you still come up with something unremarkable

 

[Seedsfan]

In which case if you eliminated both his best and worst you still come up with something unremarkable

A career average of 40 would have you vying to be the best opener in the world at the moment lol

 

[PhatBoy]

A career average of 40 would have you vying to be the best opener in the world at the moment lol

he retired 16 years ago and the discussion was prompted by the idea of an all-time Australian XI

 

[Seedsfan]

he retired 16 years ago and the discussion was prompted by the idea of an all-time Australian XI

And name one other opener in test history to maintain a career average of over 50 while making 8,000 runs. I’ll wait.

 

[PhatBoy]

And name one other opener in test history to maintain a career average of over 50 while making 8,000 runs. I’ll wait.

Sunil Gavaskar and Virender Sehwag. There’s two.

anything else I can help you with?

 

[Seedsfan]

Sunil Gavaskar and Virender Sehwag. There’s two.

anything else I can help you with?

Two? I am not sure where you went to school but can you explain to me how Sehwag’s average of 49.34 is greater than 50?

 

[PhatBoy]

Two? I am not sure where you went to school but can you explain to me how Sehwag’s average of 49.34 is greater than 50?

Um, because he started his career at #6.

His average as an opener is over 50 and he hit over 8000 runs.

Got any other queries?

My school explained the concept of a batting order

 

[Seedsfan]

Um, because he started his career at #6.

His average as an opener is over 50 and he hit over 8000 runs.

Got any other queries?

My school explained the concept of a batting order

Even if that is the case that’s two openers in the game’s history and Gaviskar is considered by many as one of the greatest Indians of all time. Obviously he was before my time

 

[PhatBoy]

Even if that is the case that’s two openers in the game’s history and Gaviskar is considered by many as one of the greatest Indians of all time. Obviously he was before my time

Because he was one of the greatest full stop.

Let me ask you something.

If you were to look at Graeme Smith and see that he averaged over 40 opening in the hardest conditions for opening batsmen, and 54 whenever he left South Africa, would it somehow diminish him because he averaged 49 overall instead of 50 and put him behind Matthew Hayden?

 

[eth-dog]

I think the Hayden debate is a little of both.

He was an excellent opener. The stats back that up and he's probably the best opener for the past 30 years in Australia.

He also definitely had trouble in South Africa and England.

 

[Seedsfan]

Because he was one of the greatest full stop.

Let me ask you something.

If you were to look at Graeme Smith and see that he averaged over 40 opening in the hardest conditions for opening batsmen, and 54 whenever he left South Africa, would it somehow diminish him because he averaged 49 overall instead of 50 and put him behind Matthew Hayden?

Every different nation always claims their conditions are the most difficult. I mean every Pom says that. The West Indies in their prime. I will say Australia has become too batsmen friendly for mine. Yet while we to tend to dish out roads other nations tend to struggle here and that’s a credit to our bowlers more than anything.

The discussion was about where Smith fits in Australia’s greatest IX then became more broadly about Australia’s greatest IX. The fact Hayden has a record that so few have been able to match in the game’s history absolutely has him in Australia’s best ever side.

What can I say about Graeme Smith, unfortunately I didn’t have access to Foxtel during his career so my memories of watching him is just when he played Australia. He was one of the few overseas players I always admired and loved to watch. But a comparison becomes difficult as I watched so much of Hayden and so little of him.

 

[Seedsfan]

I think the Hayden debate is a little of both.

He was an excellent opener. The stats back that up and he's probably the best opener for the past 30 years in Australia.

He also definitely had trouble in South Africa and England.

I don’t know if he struggled in South Africa as he averaged 49 there when he went there after establishing himself in the side. I think his poor record in South Africa is over exaggerated.

I think despite his strong county record in England his game of going hard at the ball was never suited to English conditions. I think the step up in the class of bowling exposed that.

Most successful English batsmen talk about having soft hands so when you edge the ball it doesn’t carry. I don’t think Hayden’s hands could ever have been described as soft

 

[PhatBoy]

Every different nation always claims their conditions are the most difficult. I mean every Pom says that. The West Indies in their prime. I will say Australia has become too batsmen friendly for mine. Yet while we to tend to dish out roads other nations tend to struggle here and that’s a credit to our bowlers more than anything.

The discussion was about where Smith fits in Australia’s greatest IX then became more broadly about Australia’s greatest IX. The fact Hayden has a record that so few have been able to match in the game’s history absolutely has him in Australia’s best ever side.

What can I say about Graeme Smith, unfortunately I didn’t have access to Foxtel during his career so my memories of watching him is just when he played Australia. He was one of the few overseas players I always admired and loved to watch. But a comparison becomes difficult as I watched so much of Hayden and so little of him.

I would say conditions are hard for an opener in NZ but get very comfortable if they get in as the ball stops seaming and swinging. I would say similar about England. South Africa has the added bounce and pace as well as the sideways movement so as a general rule I would nominate their conditions as being tougher again. Smith made runs everywhere bar India where he averaged 35 and he averaged 39.8 in Australia where he still made runs - that average jumps to 42 if you remove an innings where he batted one handed to save a game. At any rate it’s not especially relevant to an Australian discussion and yes for what it’s worth I would put Hayden in the mix for an all time Australian team but I would look beyond just his 8000 at 50 to do it and even then might have players like Simpson and Lawry, Morris, Ponsford, Langer etc all in the mix.

 

[Some Idiot]

Ponting averaged 60 for about 90 tests i think between his early years and late career slump, his peak was insane.

His Average peaked at around 60 after he made the twin hundreds in his 100th test IIRC. Didn't hold a 60+ average for as long as Smith has.
I still have Ponting slightly ahead of Smith for now though