[November 2017] Steve Smith reaches 941 points in best-ever Test ratings [Update Post #101]

[WebGuru]

Don Bradman is on top with 961 rating points. Ponting is joint number 3 in this list with 942 rating and Steve Smith need 10 more points to become #2 in the list after Don. These ratings doesn't mean batsman A is better thn B but these rating do show us the excellent form of a player over a prolonged period.

 

[WebGuru]

A graph to show his current batting form.

 

[WebGuru]

There are 5 current players with 900+ rating points in the list.

Smith
Sanga
ABD
Amla
Clarke

 

[shah_1]

Best in the World along with ABD

 

[Stallion__]

Some really great names in the list.

Was expecting to see Chappell as well, don't think he would have missed out by much.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Sachin is at 30

 

[Stallion__]

Some really great names in the list.

Was expecting to see Chappell as well, don't think he would have missed out by much.

Hammond as well.

 

[Sakss]

Moyo with that one good year in the list too but no way a great

 

[Bilal7]

Bradman first, Sachin last.

Good for Smith but I don't really rate him as one of the future greats.

 

[Strike Rate]

Sachin was consistent but never had a peak like others in the list that's why he is at 30 i am surprised to see he is the only one without 900 points in the list? I was expecting Kallis to be up there but surprised to see him so high in the list.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Monstrosity.

That's what thiis Steven Smith is.

 

[Haroon786]

Best batsman in Test Cricket for the last 2 years by a fair distance has been Steven Smith and you wouldn't be deemed foolish to say that he will also be the best Test batsman for at least the next 5-7 years either.

 

[cricketindiafan]

Another couple of 100s and he could go past even Bradman! He could surely become the first one to hit 1000 points

 

[Statsman]

How did Bradman never get to 2000 or 3000 something?

 

[Strike Rate]

How did Bradman never get to 2000 or 3000 something?

Maybe because he only played 52 matches?

 

[Statsman]

Maybe because he only played 52 matches?

Its more about peak than number of games. Eg. Smith has played only 30 and is soon about to cross him.

 

[Statsman]

Smith had an ordinary first half to those 30 as well.

 

[Indian_Supporter]

Sachin is at 30

Lol why do you always try to rile up Indian posters? I have noticed that in most of your posts. I am surprised you are an Indian fan.

What is the relevance of bringing Sachin here? This thread is about Steve Smith.

I see you are doing a good job here pleasing people...carry on. [emoji5] [emoji5]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Strike Rate]

Its more about peak than number of games. Eg. Smith has played only 30 and is soon about to cross him.

i am not a statguru but i think i read it in some thread here that it only get tougher and more tougher to get more points when you go above 900 and sometime a century give u only 1 or 2 more points and it comes to the point where a 50 gives you minus points and to stay there you have to keep scoring big it's something like that i remember last year AB was getting there and than he saw the fall when failed to score a century every Test match like he was doing before.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Lol why do you always try to rile up Indian posters? I have noticed that in most of your posts. I am surprised you are an Indian fan.

What is the relevance of bringing Sachin here? This thread is about Steve Smith.

I see you are doing a good job here pleasing people...carry on. [emoji5] [emoji5]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Pleasing people for what? Will i get few USD's? I have been here for almost 2 years surely nobody pleases people for free for 2 years. And I post what i feel. I was searching for sachin's name in the list, expecting him to be in the top 5 hence i was shocked to see him at 30. Is that ok? Or do i have to attach my voter id and aadhar card with my post too?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

i am not a statguru but i think i read it in some thread here that it only get tougher and more tougher to get more points when you go above 900 and sometime a century give u only 1 or 2 more points and it comes to the point where a 50 gives you minus points and to stay there you have to keep scoring big it's something like that i remember last year AB was getting there and than he saw the fall when failed to score a century every Test match like he was doing before.

This post makes a lot of sense. This could be true.

Jack Hobbs peak is 942 while Bradman's is 961 (who averaged twice his number).

I doubt Jack Hobb's absolute peak is the same as Bradman's absolute peak (which would be upwards of 100 for a certain time frame).

So its probably what you said.

 

[Strike Rate]

This post makes a lot of sense. This could be true.

Jack Hobbs peak is 942 while Bradman's is 961 (who averaged twice his number).

I doubt Jack Hobb's absolute peak is the same as Bradman's absolute peak (which would be upwards of 100 for a certain time frame).

So its probably what you said.

yes i just found that post from web guru in AB thread and i am quoting it here

There is no clear formula available for calculating these ratings by ICC. When ponting was at 940 rating points he scored 142 and 49 in next Test match against England and although Australia won that match but ponting gained only 2 points so he jumped from 940 to 942.

Maybe i am wrong but i think it shows us that gaining more points get harder and harder when you go upward otherwise i see no reason Bradman standing at 961 because almost his whole career was at peak.

Recent example is AB first Test. AB had 912 rating points before first Test and he jumped to 926 after scoring 91 and 48 in that Test which means he gained 14 points although his team lost but in second Test he scored 116 and 29 and gained only 9 points and jumped to 935 even though his team won the second Test match.

 

[Sidilicious]

i am not a statguru but i think i read it in some thread here that it only get tougher and more tougher to get more points when you go above 900 and sometime a century give u only 1 or 2 more points and it comes to the point where a 50 gives you minus points and to stay there you have to keep scoring big it's something like that i remember last year AB was getting there and than he saw the fall when failed to score a century every Test match like he was doing before.

Yes, because the player ranking, like the team rankings, takes a particular period in consideration.

Say the period is 2 years, and Smith has played 20 tests and has averaged 100 in them. Now, say in the first test of that period (2 years ago) he scored a hundred. In the next test, he will have to score a 100 in order to maintain the number of points, since the first test from 2 years back where he scored a 100 will now be removed from the calculations.

 

[Saqs]

A graph to show his current batting form.

The thread was created in September 2011. Direct correlation. Lol.

 

[Saqs]

Moyo with that one good year in the list too but no way a great

It's all about peaks though. And Yousuf peak was ridiculous where he was breaking every record there was to break.

 

[Stallion__]

Lol why do you always try to rile up Indian posters? I have noticed that in most of your posts. I am surprised you are an Indian fan.

What is the relevance of bringing Sachin here? This thread is about Steve Smith.

I see you are doing a good job here pleasing people...carry on. [emoji5] [emoji5]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Just because he don't posted the exact thing you wanted to hear, makes you doubt his Indian nationality?

I see you are doing a good job here pleasing people...carry on.

Such a solid argument. As if he is going to get Nobel prize by pleasing some people here.......

 

[Slog]

Moyo with that one good year in the list too but no way a great

this compares the relative peak a batsman achieves.

so a batsman who poor for 7 of hus 10 year career but has a beast 3 consecutive years in between would end up higher than a solid batsman who did well over his whole career.

Its a good measure though in terms of estimating how totally dominant a particular batsman was in his peak

 

[Slog]

lol why are people debating over sth which is fairly obvious

the higher rating you achieve it is harder to top that or even mantain that so every consequential point is harder to attain

unless smith hits some more big 100s or doubles or triples he should remain at similar rating points even if he averages around 70s and 80s for next few months

 

[Strike Rate]

Yes, because the player ranking, like the team rankings, takes a particular period in consideration.

Say the period is 2 years, and Smith has played 20 tests and has averaged 100 in them. Now, say in the first test of that period (2 years ago) he scored a hundred. In the next test, he will have to score a 100 in order to maintain the number of points, since the first test from 2 years back where he scored a 100 will now be removed from the calculations.

Agree that's also a factor but IIRC the period was 3 years for players and 4 years for teams? in those 4 years the recent 2 years get more value for teams.

 

[IndianWillow]

Getting to peak is possible with a solid one year, but remaining in the 900s isn't easy. ICC rules regarding these rating points:

a) Runs scored

b) Ratings of the opposing bowling attack; the higher the combined ratings of the attack, the more value is given to the batsman’s innings (in proportion)

c) The level of run-scoring in the match, and the team’s innings total; an innings of 100 runs in a match where all teams scored 500 is worth less than 100 runs in a match where all teams were bowled out for 200. And if a team scores 500 in the first innings and 200 in the second innings, a century in the second innings will get more credit than in the first innings (because the general level of run scoring was higher in the first innings)

d) Out or not out (a not out innings receives a bonus)

e) The result. Batsmen who score highly in victories receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams (i.e. win bonus against the current Australia team is higher than the bonus against Bangladesh.)

Players like Sachin and Dravid did not cross 900 because factor (e) wasn't very favourable for them due to India's bowling weaknesses. You see very few players in that list who played in weak bowling teams.

 

[Strike Rate]

Getting to peak is possible with a solid one year, but remaining in the 900s isn't easy. ICC rules regarding these rating points:

a) Runs scored

b) Ratings of the opposing bowling attack; the higher the combined ratings of the attack, the more value is given to the batsman’s innings (in proportion)

c) The level of run-scoring in the match, and the team’s innings total; an innings of 100 runs in a match where all teams scored 500 is worth less than 100 runs in a match where all teams were bowled out for 200. And if a team scores 500 in the first innings and 200 in the second innings, a century in the second innings will get more credit than in the first innings (because the general level of run scoring was higher in the first innings)

d) Out or not out (a not out innings receives a bonus)

e) The result. Batsmen who score highly in victories receive a bonus. That bonus will be higher for highly rated opposition teams (i.e. win bonus against the current Australia team is higher than the bonus against Bangladesh.)

Players like Sachin and Dravid did not cross 900 because factor (e) wasn't very favourable for them due to India's bowling weaknesses. You see very few players in that list who played in weak bowling teams.

home and away are they counted same for player performances? I know for team rankings they count equal

 

[WrexEverything]

If he scores another double he could go past Bradman. That's an insane record to beat, as the closest anyone came to it was Hutton. Only Ponting in recent times came close to that mark.

 

[justarslan]

Don Bradman is on top with 961 rating points. Ponting is joint number 3 in this list with 942 rating and Steve Smith need 10 more points to become #2 in the list after Don. These ratings doesn't mean batsman A is better thn B but these rating do show us the excellent form of a player over a prolonged period.

It is official now that MoYo is the greatest bat from Asia and Sunny is the Greatest from Hindustan. Sachin could not even break the 900 mark and idiot Hindustanis think he is greatest ever.

 

[Justcrazy]

Its a huge achivement , considering he started as a bowler , despite odd technique has done so well.

 

[IndianWillow]

home and away are they counted same for player performances? I know for team rankings they count equal

I think it is the same unfortunately.

 

[Strike Rate]

I think it is the same unfortunately.

oh ok ICC really need to do something about it away performances against high ranked team should have more weight

 

[Hitman]

It is official now that MoYo is the greatest bat from Asia and Sunny is the Greatest from Hindustan. Sachin could not even break the 900 mark and idiot Hindustanis think he is greatest ever.

Wasim Akram in his entire career was never rated #1 in ICC Test rankings. And yet so many Pak fans consider him the best ever.

 

[Indian_Supporter]

It is official now that MoYo is the greatest bat from Asia and Sunny is the Greatest from Hindustan. Sachin could not even break the 900 mark and idiot Hindustanis think he is greatest ever.

Agree bro. Mohammed Yousuf with 7k runs at at avg of 52 is definitely best in Asia. We idiot hindustanis are simply mad to consider Sachin better. What credentials he has anyway? 18k runs at an avg of 53?
BTW you cannot blame all hindustanis. Check this thread, there are many fellow Indians agree with you [emoji5] [emoji5]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Saqs]

Random question - why aren't more Australians named Bradman? I'd have thought that should be the most popular name ever.
[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] [MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] [MENTION=8418]Random Aussie[/MENTION]

 

[Enforcer]

Sachin was consistent but never had a peak like others in the list that's why he is at 30 i am surprised to see he is the only one without 900 points in the list? I was expecting Kallis to be up there but surprised to see him so high in the list.

I was searching for Miandad's name. surprised that even he could not able to make it. May be he was consistent but never had a 'peak' phase.

 

[Strike Rate]

I was searching for Miandad's name. surprised that even he could not able to make it. May be he was consistent but never had a 'peak' phase.

Exactly even Dravid isn't there in top 30 and these guys were consistent but never had a peak although Zaheer Abbas and Miandad both made it to Best Ever ODI Rating. Abbas at #2 after Viv and Miandad at #6

www.relianceiccrankings.com/alltime/odi/

 

[IndianWillow]

It is official now that MoYo is the greatest bat from Asia and Sunny is the Greatest from Hindustan. Sachin could not even break the 900 mark and idiot Hindustanis think he is greatest ever.

These are peak rankings.

The rankings are somewhat relative too. You cannot use these rankings to compare players across eras. A batsman may score a lot of runs in a weak bowling era and he will still rank high in this list because he is judged against his peers. Was MoYo ahead of Lara too as per your understanding of the table? And Smith better than G.Chappell? KP and Chanderpaul equivalent to Lara?

 

[Strike Rate]

A batsman may score a lot of runs in a weak bowling era and he will still rank high in this list because he is judged against his peers.

I don't agree with MoYo as best of Asia and he is not even best from Pakistan but don't you think this point of yours is a bit weak because these ratings are heavily based on performances against better bowling attacks of that era you get more points by performing against high ranked teams specially if your teams wins.

 

[IndianWillow]

I don't agree with MoYo as best of Asia and he is not even best from Pakistan but don't you think this point of yours is a bit weak because these ratings are heavily based on performances against better bowling attacks of that era you get more points by performing against high ranked teams specially if your teams wins.

Ratings are based on other teams of your era. If the bowling standards are generally lower (whether due to conditions or due to dearth of good bowlers), the batsman is still not affected and gets points based on performance against top sides. Today a batsman like Warner or Smith need to score against bowlers like Steyn, Anderson and Philander to get top rating. But batsmen like Gavaskar had to make runs against Marshall, Lillee and Imran to make the peak.

 

[Zeshan547]

So a pakistani is at number 2 in best ever odi ranking ever, only behind the King Viv. Richards, take that haters and my indian friends.

 

[Strike Rate]

Ratings are based on other teams of your era. If the bowling standards are generally lower (whether due to conditions or due to dearth of good bowlers), the batsman is still not affected and gets points based on performance against top sides. Today a batsman like Warner or Smith need to score against bowlers like Steyn, Anderson and Philander to get top rating. But batsmen like Gavaskar had to make runs against Marshall, Lillee and Imran to make the peak.

Agree with you bowling quality isn't same anymore it's not even 70% of what it was in past

 

[Indian_Supporter]

So a pakistani is at number 2 in best ever odi ranking ever, only behind the King Viv. Richards, take that haters and my indian friends.

Weird things do happen and hence everything cant be substantiated by stats. Its like saying Bhajji is a better bowler than Akram because he has more test wickets.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[IndianWillow]

Weird things do happen and hence everything cant be substantiated by stats. Its like saying Bhajji is a better bowler than Akram because he has more test wickets.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Agarkar has a serious case against Akram based on ODI stats (Agarkar has better bowling S/R, more wickets per match and so on) - but who will agree that there was any comparison between these bowlers?

 

[Buffet]

Agarkar has a serious case against Akram based on ODI stats (Agarkar has better bowling S/R, more wickets per match and so on) - but who will agree that there was any comparison between these bowlers?

Only if you don't take the all stats.

Agarkar Economy rate was 5.07
Wasim's Economy rate was 3.89

Even taking account different periods for ODI games, this Economy rate separates those two. Just talking stats here because in ODI , ER is very important factor.

 

[justarslan]

Random question - why aren't more Australians named Bradman? I'd have thought that should be the most popular name ever.
[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] [MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] [MENTION=8418]Random Aussie[/MENTION]

Bhai, Bradman is last name of Great Don. Even Don's son changed his last name because he did want to be recognized as the son of greatest batsmen ever.

 

[ShehryarK]

Ratings are based on other teams of your era. If the bowling standards are generally lower (whether due to conditions or due to dearth of good bowlers), the batsman is still not affected and gets points based on performance against top sides. Today a batsman like Warner or Smith need to score against bowlers like Steyn, Anderson and Philander to get top rating. But batsmen like Gavaskar had to make runs against Marshall, Lillee and Imran to make the peak.

Not really - the ratings are affected by the quality of the opposition as well as by the pitch and match conditions. These are two separately measures, and two of the five measures.

So, for instance, if you're scoring 200 each time you bat against a Bangladeshi attack who's average rating is 400, you would get a lot less ratings points than scoring 55 against an Aussie attack comprising McGrath, Warne and Gilly, with an average rating at that time above 850! This is criterion (b) above. This is one of the reason Bradman's rating isn't higher - Australia generally had the better bowlers in those days and barring Larwood and briefly Bedser, England never had top bowlers. Truman, Laker et al all came later.

Criterion (c) is equally relevant - scoring 200 when everyone else scores 150 too, and the match scores are 600/4 dec. plays 550/3 dec. and drawn doesn't get as much points as scoring 100 in a low-scoring game. This is criterion (c).

Finally, there's a separate criterion on match result - so draws are worth less.

Hence, your concern above is already duly addressed - a rating of 900 for a batsman means he scores his runs against top-ranked bowlers, other things being equal. For this reason, these ratings are indeed comparable across eras.

 

[last_knight]

It is official now that MoYo is the greatest bat from Asia and Sunny is the Greatest from Hindustan. Sachin could not even break the 900 mark and idiot Hindustanis think he is greatest ever.

For one year M.Y. had a rating better than other greats from Asia and for rest of his career his ratings were not better than those.
We can say it is 1/10 ( 1 out of 10 years or 10% ) . To be ranked as Best-Ever-from-Asia it has to be more than 3/10 (Ratings higher than others for 30% consecutive-years of career ) or 4/10 (Random ).

There must be some reason Why whole cricketing world has a concensus about Sachin being the best batsman from Asia and I don't have a reason to disagree.

 

[Random Aussie]

Random question - why aren't more Australians named Bradman? I'd have thought that should be the most popular name ever.
[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] [MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] [MENTION=8418]Random Aussie[/MENTION]

Imagine the kid trying to play any sport, he'd be sledged mercilessly. And in life, for all of his life.

 

[JibranAnsari]

8 tons in his last 27 innings averaging 88.

what a player.

 

[soso_killer]

I want to see more if this guy not sure where I stand with him. We saw the likes of Kohli and Pujara score heavily in SA, the flattest conditions I've seen in this country since readmission.
He also benefited from the lack of swing when Australia toured here (not taking any credit away).
I would like to see proper English wickets and see how he deals with sluggish wickets with lateral movement, reexamination in Asia and SA.
He's not is slouch though, but not as good as those ratings suggests, mostly benefited from playing a toothless Indian attack on disgraceful home pitches.

 

[soso_killer]

......too late to edit typos

 

[Gilly]

I want to see more if this guy not sure where I stand with him. We saw the likes of Kohli and Pujara score heavily in SA, the flattest conditions I've seen in this country since readmission.He also benefited from the lack of swing when Australia toured here (not taking any credit away).
I would like to see proper English wickets and see how he deals with sluggish wickets with lateral movement, reexamination in Asia and SA.
He's not is slouch though, but not as good as those ratings suggests, mostly benefited from playing a toothless Indian attack on disgraceful home pitches.

When you look at those conditions its easy to say the same about ABD De Villiers, or is that different?.

 

[Pantani]

Random question - why aren't more Australians named Bradman? I'd have thought that should be the most popular name ever.
[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] [MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] [MENTION=8418]Random Aussie[/MENTION]

'Donald' sounds too old fashioned and British for a modern day Australian name

 

[soso_killer]

When you look at those conditions its easy to say the same about ABD De Villiers, or is that different?.

the conditions for the two series against India and Australia were flat and disappointing. I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding AB, were the conditions not flat when he went in to bat? of course they were.

 

[Enforcer]

I want to see more if this guy not sure where I stand with him. We saw the likes of Kohli and Pujara score heavily in SA, the flattest conditions I've seen in this country since readmission.
He also benefited from the lack of swing when Australia toured here (not taking any credit away).
I would like to see proper English wickets and see how he deals with sluggish wickets with lateral movement, reexamination in Asia and SA.
He's not is slouch though, but not as good as those ratings suggests, mostly benefited from playing a toothless Indian attack on disgraceful home pitches.

It was not flat when kohli scored his hundred(1st innings) at Jo'burg. Mind you , southafrica bowled out for 239 later in their 1st innings on the same pitch.

 

[trogger]

the conditions for the two series against India and Australia were flat and disappointing. I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding AB, were the conditions not flat when he went in to bat? of course they were.

Cape town was flat for our series, centurion was very fast bowl friendly and smith came in with us reeling at 4/90 and made a great ton.

Might have been a bloodbath if india had got a similar pitch to centurion in their series.

 

[Convict]

Random question - why aren't more Australians named Bradman? I'd have thought that should be the most popular name ever.
[MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION] [MENTION=732]Gilly[/MENTION] [MENTION=8418]Random Aussie[/MENTION]

My uncle (born in the late 30s/early 40s) is the only person I know named Don.

It's too old fashioned a name.

Interestingly it seems that names like William used to be really popular but aren't any more

 

[Saqs]

Imagine the kid trying to play any sport, he'd be sledged mercilessly. And in life, for all of his life.

Big name to live up to is Bradman. But Donald, true, won't be a very playground friendly name for a kid.

 

[Strike Rate]

From 936 to 884 after 2 bad matches costing 52 points wow!

 

[Junaids]

As Geoffrey Boycott said on TMS yesterday:

"If that's the number one batsman in the world, I was a genius!"

 

[Strike Rate]

As Geoffrey Boycott said on TMS yesterday:

"If that's the number one batsman in the world, I was a genius!"

Root is the new number one in ranking.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Kohli and Smith, 2 exciting bats been found out vs Swing. Will be great to see how they come back from this slump in challenging conditions. Smith is going to be tested further by Nz if Boult and Southee are fit and firing albeit in conditions Smith enjoys.

Sent from my ASUS_Z008D using Tapatalk

 

[Haroon786]

Aggression doesn't win you Test matches on its own.

 

[Junaids]

Kohli was swing, but Smith is seam.

 

[ChachaCricket]

Kohli was swing, but Smith is seam.

It's been both. There have been dismissals where the ball swung too much and other times he got squared up with seam. Even in his 200, he was dropped on 50 where the ball swung more than he expected.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Underrated batsman.

Cant believe he hasn't reached 950 ranking points yet. The number of times he has crucial innings in difficult circumstances is second to none. Unfortunately runs in dead rubbers and runs in difficult situation count the same.

 

[leatherface58]

Underrated batsman.

Cant believe he hasn't reached 950 ranking points yet. The number of times he has crucial innings in difficult circumstances is second to none. Unfortunately runs in dead rubbers and runs in difficult situation count the same.

Lol he is not underrated. There are too many armchair quarterbackers here who have not seen a complete test match in their life but make decisions based on hearsay and cricinfo. Smith is highly rated by everyone worth listening to and is the best test batsman right now without question.

 

[Aman]

Wouldn't surprise me if he surpasses Bradman to set a new record.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Lol he is not underrated. There are too many armchair quarterbackers here who have not seen a complete test match in their life but make decisions based on hearsay and cricinfo. Smith is highly rated by everyone worth listening to and is the best test batsman right now without question.

Comparing likes of Kohli to him is an insult. Kohli is a nothing test batsman in comparison to Smith and hasn't done anything substantial in 60 test matches with 0 crucial and match winning inings. In that sense Smith is really underrated. How can someone with knowledge of game can compare Smith and Kohli? Just becaus eKohliis excellent in lois? Baffles me.

Also he is far ahead of the next 3 best batsman currently i-e Kane, Pujara and Root.

Smith should be compared to greatest of all time test batsmen.

 

[Gilly]

Comparing likes of Kohli to him is an insult. Kohli is a nothing test batsman in comparison to Smith and hasn't done anything substantial in 60 test matches with 0 crucial and match winning inings. In that sense Smith is really underrated. How can someone with knowledge of game can compare Smith and Kohli? Just becaus eKohliis excellent in lois? Baffles me.

Also he is far ahead of the next 3 best batsman currently i-e Kane, Pujara and Root.

Smith should be compared to greatest of all time test batsmen.

Kohli as a test batsman averages 60+ as captain. Smith is playing very good cricket but that in no way takes anything away from other batsmen, in 12 months time anyone of the top 10 batsmen could be replicating the form Smith is in. Dont use Smiths form as a guide to the quality of other batmen.

 

[leatherface58]

Comparing likes of Kohli to him is an insult. Kohli is a nothing test batsman in comparison to Smith and hasn't done anything substantial in 60 test matches with 0 crucial and match winning inings. In that sense Smith is really underrated. How can someone with knowledge of game can compare Smith and Kohli? Just becaus eKohliis excellent in lois? Baffles me.

Also he is far ahead of the next 3 best batsman currently i-e Kane, Pujara and Root.

Smith should be compared to greatest of all time test batsmen.

This is the kind of hyperbole nonsense why I will disregard whatever you write afterwards. Kohli has more than done well in the format. Smith is ahead of him but to disrespect Kohli's work is pathetic.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Kohli as a test batsman averages 60+ as captain. Smith is playing very good cricket but that in no way takes anything away from other batsmen, in 12 months time anyone of the top 10 batsmen could be replicating the form Smith is in. Dont use Smiths form as a guide to the quality of other batmen.

I have repeated in number of threads why I dont rate Kohli the test batsman. I would take Pujara, Kane, Root over him. Once he starts winning matches or atleast make a significant contribution in (semi) difficult situations than I will be the first one to praise him. Right now he hasnt done anything impactful in his 60+ test matches. Found missing in 2 of the toughest series India had recently (vs Aus at home and vs SL in SL 2015) Most of his scores are on dead rubbers, flat pitches or when the difficult work is done by others.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

This is the kind of hyperbole nonsense why I will disregard whatever you write afterwards. Kohli has more than done well in the format. Smith is ahead of him but to disrespect Kohli's work is pathetic.

May be Kohli is the King for you not for me. I have gave my reasons many times why I don't rate him as a test batsman but you guys as usual have no answers.

 

[Gilly]

Most of his scores are on dead rubbers, flat pitches or when the difficult work is done by others.

Maybe you just have never played cricket or know what it is like to actually bat. Getting runs as a batsman is not easier because its a dead rubber, bowlers dont suddenly be bad bowlers because its a dead rubber, batting in test matches is never easy regardless of what has happened earlier in the match or pitch conditions, batting against test quality bowlers is never easy. Scoring runs is scoring runs no matter what.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Maybe you just have never played cricket or know what it is like to actually bat. Getting runs as a batsman is not easier because its a dead rubber, bowlers dont suddenly be bad bowlers because its a dead rubber, batting in test matches is never easy regardless of what has happened earlier in the match or pitch conditions, batting against test quality bowlers is never easy. Scoring runs is scoring runs no matter what.

Yes with that logic Thilan Samaraweera is a better batsman than Laxman and Arvinda De Silva.

May be you have played too much cricket and my cricket knowledge and intellect is not reaching your level

You have a different way of rating players and I have different. Lets leave it that. Lets not go who has played cricket or who has 'actually' bat.