Steve Smith best batsman in history of Test cricket, says Tim Paine

[Abdullah719]

Steve Smith is the best batsman in the history of Test cricket, says Australia captain Tim Paine.

Smith scored a century in each innings in his first Test since the ball-tampering scandal as Australia thrashed England by 251 runs at Edgbaston.

The 30-year-old - whose first-innings 142 lifted his side from 122-8 to 284 all out - averages 62.96 in Tests, a record only bettered by the great Sir Don Bradman (99.94).

"We were up against it earlier in the Test match but when you've got the best player in the world at the crease anything is possible," said Paine. "While he's there, I think our team's got real confidence.

"He showed his class in both innings and were lucky to witness him this week. He was unbelievable. Having someone like Steve controlling the game certainly helps.

"We are running out of things to say about him and I tend to agree that he is probably the best Test batsman we have ever seen. He's the best player in the world for Test cricket at the moment."

Off-spinner Nathan Lyon (6-49) and seamer Pat Cummins (4-32) starred on day five at Edgbaston, shredding England for 146 as Australia won at the ground for the first time in any format since 2001.

"Nathan rarely disappoints - it is hard to come to day five with all the pressure of winning the Test match on your shoulders," added Paine.

"I thought he handled the pressure superbly but our three quicks [Cummins, James Pattinson and Peter Siddle] took pressure off him.

"They were able to build pressure at the other end and I thought are attack all round were outstanding.

"We thought we could improve with the ball from the first innings and [Monday morning] all four of the bowlers were sensational."

Paine had said before the game that he could think of 15 more intimidating grounds than Edgbaston, which had become a fortress for England.

"It doesn't matter where it is, we know everywhere we go in England the crowd will be against us," said the 34-year-old, whose side will now look to take a 2-0 lead in the series at Lord's from August 14.

"I thought the guys handled it well, stuck to their guns but there is a long series ahead.

"You've got to keep a lid on [the celebrations] - we aren't here to win the first Test, we're here to win the Ashes and we've been really clear on that for some time.

"It's a huge step in the right direction, but we're certainly not satisfied with that."

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/n...st-cricket-says-tim-paine-after-edgbaston-win

 

[Mamoon]

Probably true. Personally speaking, I have never seen a better Test batsman.

 

[AdamM97]

Completely agree. Whatta batsman.

 

[Rana]

Definitely a great impact player. Not sure if he is the most pleasing to the eye

 

[satheesh]

don't agree with it . His is this era's best test batsman beyond a doubt. Sobers,Headly, Hutton ,Hobbs, G,Chappel,Gavaskar ,Lara, Richards,Sachin,Ponting, Dravid ,Kallis all were great test batsmen for their own eras.

 

[Dead Ball]

All batsmen seem to be GOAT level at their peak.

Just a couple of months back people on this forum were raving about Kohli, one failure in a semi final and now he is being called names like choker.

Smith is special, but i would reserve the GOAT comments till after he has played 120-130 tests...

 

[Hasan123]

We will know by the end of his career. But this carries for another 2/3 years, I would say he is. I love watching him bat.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

It's a subjective opinion.

Incredible batsman. One of the best ever for sure.

 

[JaDed]

Once again [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] prediction was wrong.. Smith has made an amazing comeback

 

[topspin]

The old era hype brigade will not take this well, but I'm glad Paine has the cojones to say this.

 

[satheesh]

Viv averages only 50.23 with 24 100s after scoring only 8540 runs. Sachin came along and scored
13534 runs @ 59.35 avg: with 46 100s. Going by the numbers there is no comparison between Sachin & Viv because then Sachin is far superior in every parameter.
But I can never place Sachin over Viv . So is the case with Smith and any other previous era great batsman.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

All batsmen seem to be GOAT level at their peak.

Just a couple of months back people on this forum were raving about Kohli, one failure in a semi final and now he is being called names like choker.

Smith is special, but i would reserve the GOAT comments till after he has played 120-130 tests...

Show me one modern batsman with 60+ average after 50 tests like Smith.

 

[SensiblePakFan]

Modern era please.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Viv averages only 50.23 with 24 100s after scoring only 8540 runs. Sachin came along and scored
13534 runs @ 59.35 avg: with 46 100s. Going by the numbers there is no comparison between Sachin & Viv because then Sachin is far superior in every parameter.
But I can never place Sachin over Viv . So is the case with Smith and any other previous era great batsman.

Tendulkar's highest career average was 58, that too in the 90s when he didn't cross 10k runs. Not sure where you get 59 from.

 

[satheesh]

Tendulkar's highest career average was 58, that too in the 90s when he didn't cross 10k runs. Not sure where you get 59 from.

in 1993 jan 29 - 2011 feb period.

 

[Titan24]

I agree as he is the best and most consistent test batsman across the conditions that I have seen.

 

[Titan24]

All batsmen seem to be GOAT level at their peak.

Just a couple of months back people on this forum were raving about Kohli, one failure in a semi final and now he is being called names like choker.

Smith is special, but i would reserve the GOAT comments till after he has played 120-130 tests...

Test and ODIs are different formats. Kohli is always rated highly and is probably the best ODI batsman world has seen however his test record is just like any other great batsman but not legendary like Steve Smith has at the moment.

 

[Titan24]

don't agree with it . His is this era's best test batsman beyond a doubt. Sobers,Headly, Hutton ,Hobbs, G,Chappel,Gavaskar ,Lara, Richards,Sachin,Ponting, Dravid ,Kallis all were great test batsmen for their own eras.

What makes Steve Smith great is that he is head and shoulders above in tests to his contemporaries. Sachin, Ponting, Lara, Sanga, Richards, Younus etc were definitely greats but it wasnt like one of them was as much above his contemporaries as Smith is.

Kaliis and Sobers are completely other kinds of beasts and probably amongst the greatest cricketers to play cricket as they were not only as good batsmen as you have mentioned above but really good bowlers as well. Personally I rate these two above the names you have mentioned.

 

[satheesh]

What makes Steve Smith great is that he is head and shoulders above in tests to his contemporaries. Sachin, Ponting, Lara, Sanga, Richards, Younus etc were definitely greats but it wasnt like one of them was as much above his contemporaries as Smith is.

Kaliis and Sobers are completely other kinds of beasts and probably amongst the greatest cricketers to play cricket as they were not only as good batsmen as you have mentioned above but really good bowlers as well. Personally I rate these two above the names you have mentioned.

Agreed Smith is head and shoulders above in tests to his contemporaries, but so was Sachin & Lara in their era for their own unique traits. Similarly Viv was convincingly ahead of his contemporaries in his era. My whole point is this- it is senseless to compare an undisputed great of one era with that of another era based on averages.
For instance Viv averaged only 50.23 where as Smith averages 62.96.If i take plain averages, then it will become an apple-orange comparison.This is because Viv's speciality was his dominance
in an era of far tougher batting conditions with far lesser protective gears where as Smith is a master of compiling consistant scores in these relatiely easier batting conditions.These two can't be compared by mere averages because they are chalk and cheese apart.

 

[ElRaja]

Bradman is too much of a statistical anomaly across all stat heavy sports to not the greatest ever.

smith will be the second best if he continues at this rate.

 

[ads101]

Seems crazy that he could be given how he started as an allrounder who looked like a hack.

Doesn't have a weakness, great on all surfaces. Never even looks like you can get him out.

Tendulkar still might be better. He like Smith pretty much looked a complete batsman in all conditions. And he averaged something like 57 before 2005 after 120 tests with excellent records in every country including a great record against a GOAT Australian side. Tendulkar just carried on when he was older which destroyed his average a bit.

Smith also was a bit of a late starter and didn't get picked regularly as a test batsman until later. On the other hand from 1997-2004, Tendulkar averaged similar numbers to Smith,at 62 average with 74 tests played.

Smith's already an ATG, but I think we need to see how he does overall in his latter career/after he reaches 100 tests at least. But I think he's already gone ahead of Ponting now.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

He's already played more match-winning innings than any great batsmen of the past. Viv is probably 2nd in that regard.

 

[Ab Fan]

You can be a GOAT with 50 average and you can't be a GOAT with even 60 average.

Steve Smith currently averages 62 but what separates him is that he is an absolute match winner and one of the most clutch batsmen I have ever seen. He has outperformed his competitors-Kohli,Root and Williamson both home and away in their particular series head-to-head.

For me, he would have been a GOAT with a 54-55 average only. Unlike a Kallis and Sangakkara, he takes the game away from opposition by the scruff of its neck and has performed against the big teams and in all kind of conditions. He averages 62 now and while there may be a decline but If he can maintain this form for two more years, he will be right up there with the greatest ever.

 

[James]

The numbers are obviously important but what stands out to me is just sitting and watching him. He seems so incredibly “ungetoutable”.

Apart from Bradman, Smith is the GOAT.

 

[RumiNYC]

The number and average is there, but it's too early to declare him "ATG".

 

[sweep_shot]

I would say Smith is the second best batsman of all time (as of now). Bradman is of course #1.

 

[ARK Rafay]

Greatest not sure, but in top 3 yes. A GOAT player

 

[Sam99]

It's not that he is soft runs scorer. Aus has won 3 tests in eng since 2015 (played 6) and smith has scored 4 centuries (inc double ton) in 5 innings of those. MOM in all matches. Biggest clutch batsman i have ever seen and to add he avg almost 63 in test.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

He's definitely the best of this era for sure. Will end up as GOAT too unless he declines rapidly. Incredible player!

 

[Titan24]

Agreed Smith is head and shoulders above in tests to his contemporaries, but so was Sachin & Lara in their era for their own unique traits. Similarly Viv was convincingly ahead of his contemporaries in his era. My whole point is this- it is senseless to compare an undisputed great of one era with that of another era based on averages.
For instance Viv averaged only 50.23 where as Smith averages 62.96.If i take plain averages, then it will become an apple-orange comparison.This is because Viv's speciality was his dominance
in an era of far tougher batting conditions with far lesser protective gears where as Smith is a master of compiling consistant scores in these relatiely easier batting conditions.These two can't be compared by mere averages because they are chalk and cheese apart.

Agreed, and that is why can have look at the SRs of the batsmen as well. Not that its important in tests but it can surely tell the dominance of players. Viv averages 50+ with a Sr of almost 70 which in itself is a rare feat as I doubt there is any player in the history of test cricket who had a SR of 70 while averaging 50+.

 

[satheesh]

Agreed, and that is why can have look at the SRs of the batsmen as well. Not that its important in tests but it can surely tell the dominance of players. Viv averages 50+ with a Sr of almost 70 which in itself is a rare feat as I doubt there is any player in the history of test cricket who had a SR of 70 while averaging 50+.

it was not merely dominance alone, it was the circumstances too... much bowling friendly conditions, far lesser protective gears etc etc .... and Viv never wore a helmet and still had str: of 70+ !!! . To take such a batsman from that era for instance and then compare him with Steven Smith based on pure average is as senseless as it can get.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

it was not merely dominance alone, it was the circumstances too... much bowling friendly conditions, far lesser protective gears etc etc .... and Viv never wore a helmet and still had str: of 70+ !!! . To take such a batsman from that era for instance and then compare him with Steven Smith based on pure average is as senseless as it can get.

Statistics is the only objective tool by which players can be compared. old era was comparatively tough for batting I agree. but then would you agree new era is comparatively more tougher for bowlers?I've seen many posters who glorify statistically inferior batsmen of old era because they played in a bowling friendly era and yet dosent apply that same logic when comparing the bowler. Modern bowlers dosent have those luxuries that old bowlers had. Also it's not true that we're in a batting era in test matches. people get that impression by watching too many LOI.Batting era in test matches was the decade of 2000. In recent past, it's mainly bowlers who are dominating the test arena. So Steve Smith absolutely deserves every accolades he's getting. He's having an absolute monster peak like Ponting and unlike Ponting, he has scored runs in India. But would definitely wait till his career ends to see where he stops.

 

[Slog]

All batsmen seem to be GOAT level at their peak.

Just a couple of months back people on this forum were raving about Kohli, one failure in a semi final and now he is being called names like choker.

Smith is special, but i would reserve the GOAT comments till after he has played 120-130 tests...

Kohli never entered GOAT conversation in Test cricket

 

[satheesh]

Statistics is the only objective tool by which players can be compared. old era was comparatively tough for batting I agree. but then would you agree new era is comparatively more tougher for bowlers?I've seen many posters who glorify statistically inferior batsmen of old era because they played in a bowling friendly era and yet dosent apply that same logic when comparing the bowler. Modern bowlers dosent have those luxuries that old bowlers had. Also it's not true that we're in a batting era in test matches. people get that impression by watching too many LOI.Batting era in test matches was the decade of 2000. In recent past, it's mainly bowlers who are dominating the test arena. So Steve Smith absolutely deserves every accolades he's getting. He's having an absolute monster peak like Ponting and unlike Ponting, he has scored runs in India. But would definitely wait till his career ends to see where he stops.

no... to compare different era batsmen based on pure averages is nonsense.Conversely current era bowlers too could not be considered inferior to those from previous eras based on pure averages.For instance take Suart Broad and Mcgrath. Broad averages 29 and Mcgrath averages 21.5. If some body told me that the difference in quality between them is exactly worth '7.5' , then I can't agree with that by any stretch. Again, 7.5 is so big a difference that I would definitely consider Mcgrath the better bowler, but by worth 7.5 ....no I can't.
On a side note, I think i have made clear the futility of mere avg: comparison using 'Viv-Smith case'

 

[Mercurial]

Definitely a great impact player. Not sure if he is the most pleasing to the eye

I find his batting pleasing to the eyes, to be honest. I can watch him bat all day long.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

It's not that he is soft runs scorer. Aus has won 3 tests in eng since 2015 (played 6) and smith has scored 4 centuries (inc double ton) in 5 innings of those. MOM in all matches. Biggest clutch batsman i have ever seen and to add he avg almost 63 in test.

He's insanely clutch in WC too. Has 3 fifties and a ton in 4 matches in WC elimination rounds with 100+ average.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

no... to compare different era batsmen based on pure averages is nonsense.Conversely current era bowlers too could not be considered inferior to those from previous eras based on pure averages.For instance take Suart Broad and Mcgrath. Broad averages 29 and Mcgrath averages 21.5. If some body told me that the difference in quality between them is exactly worth '7.5' , then I can't agree with that by any stretch. Again, 7.5 is so big a difference that I would definitely consider Mcgrath the better bowler, but by worth 7.5 ....no I can't.
On a side note, I think i have made clear the futility of mere avg: comparison using 'Viv-Smith case'

You should compare Rabada to McGrath, not Broad. Broad was never in ATG discussion ever, heck not even Anderson was before 2015.

 

[Mahee]

steve smith is the greatest....kohli cannot even be compared to smith

 

[Slog]

steve smith is the greatest....kohli cannot even be compared to smith

He can definitely be compared and is on same level

 

[Hawkeye]

Smith is great, Kane Williamson is probably more clutch though.

 

[Dead Ball]

Kohli never entered GOAT conversation in Test cricket

He was certainly in GOAT contention when he became the first batsman since Ponting to win back to back ICC cricketer of the year awards.

I still believe Kohli's 2018 season is the best i have seen an Asian batsman bat in SENA conditions in a calender year. Not even Tendulkar or Dravid. Centuries against Anderson, Broad, Cummins, Hazelwood, Starc, Ngidi, Rabada, Philander in testing conditions in matches where rest of the batsmen failed.

He has now drifted away from the GOAT contention after he failed in the WC semis.

I do feel Smith is the best test batsman at the moment. I would not hesitate calling him a GOAT even if he maintains 75% of his performances over the next 50 tests. But we have seen great batsmen like Viv , Tendulkar, Ponting fade away quietly after touching 58-60 average after a significant number of tests.

 

[kingusama92]

steve smith is the greatest....kohli cannot even be compared to smith

Kohli isn't that far off. He's performed everywhere including England (which was held against him for years).

But Smith is definitely ahead considering the weight of his performances and how clutch he's been in different conditions. The average of 62.96 is just icing on the cake.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Smith is to test match batting what Steyn was to test match fast bowling. So far ahead of their contemporaries that's it's hard to believe.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

no... to compare different era batsmen based on pure averages is nonsense.Conversely current era bowlers too could not be considered inferior to those from previous eras based on pure averages.For instance take Suart Broad and Mcgrath. Broad averages 29 and Mcgrath averages 21.5. If some body told me that the difference in quality between them is exactly worth '7.5' , then I can't agree with that by any stretch. Again, 7.5 is so big a difference that I would definitely consider Mcgrath the better bowler, but by worth 7.5 ....no I can't.
On a side note, I think i have made clear the futility of mere avg: comparison using 'Viv-Smith case'

Statistics never lie. Stuart Broad averages 29 because he was never consistently great like Mcgrath. His away average is like 32-33 so can never be discussed among great cricketers.

Coming to VIV-Smith.Yes VIV was a great batsman but gets overrated because of his playing style.Ponting always is rated below other greats because he played for a GOAT team but that same logic isnt applied to VIV. You have to admit VIV played for a stronger team than Smith, never faced best bowlers of his era as they were his team mates and yet when he did faced the 2nd best bowling side of the 80s(Pakistan) in it's backyard, he only scored a hundred in 14 innings and averaged 45. I wont say a bad record but also wont deem it as a goat performance.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Smith is to test match batting what Steyn was to test match fast bowling. So far ahead of their contemporaries that's it's hard to believe.

Smith is to test batting what Mcgrath was to test match bowling. A bit boring to watch for casuals, not much flair but when it comes to performances, they both have bullet proof records in every part of the world.

Steyn is the best modern bowler to have emerged after Mcgrath and they're both very much equal but with the style of play, I would say Steyn was to bowling what Lara was to batting. Absolute magical to watch them both perform. It would've been amazing to watch Mcgrath bowl to Smith( to see who loses the patients first) and Steyn to Lara( would've been box office entertainment)

 

[Slog]

I don’t buy this line that Smith is boring to watch. I actually find him very exciting.

Having an unorthodox technique doesn’t mean your batting is boring.

He plays at a good clip and has many innovative shots and is always putting pressure on the bowlers with aggressive running and a varied shot selection.

How is his batting boring?

 

[Dead Ball]

I don’t buy this line that Smith is boring to watch. I actually find him very exciting.

Having an unorthodox technique doesn’t mean your batting is boring.

He plays at a good clip and has many innovative shots and is always putting pressure on the bowlers with aggressive running and a varied shot selection.

How is his batting boring?

I don't find it boring, personally i just find it ugly. Too fidgety on the crease. Graeme Smith is another example of a great player who wasn't really pleasing to watch.

Batsmen who i found were pleasing to the eye were, Tendulkar before 2004 , Lara, MoYo, Kevin Pietersen etc. I think there would be almost universal consensus to these names...

I think sportsmen can be ugly to watch and yet be extremely effective. I think Djokovic isnt that great to watch but he has a mental edge over the more graceful Federer in big matches...

 

[Ab Fan]

no... to compare different era batsmen based on pure averages is nonsense.Conversely current era bowlers too could not be considered inferior to those from previous eras based on pure averages.For instance take Suart Broad and Mcgrath. Broad averages 29 and Mcgrath averages 21.5. If some body told me that the difference in quality between them is exactly worth '7.5' , then I can't agree with that by any stretch. Again, 7.5 is so big a difference that I would definitely consider Mcgrath the better bowler, but by worth 7.5 ....no I can't.
On a side note, I think i have made clear the futility of mere avg: comparison using 'Viv-Smith case'

Smith wont end with a career average of 62. This can very well go down to 55 or even less.

 

[topspin]

Smith is great, Kane Williamson is probably more clutch though.

This is not even a contest - seriously what's wrong with you?

 

[The_Odd_One]

Best of this decade? Absolutely
But GOAT since Bradman? No.

Ponting after 110 tests averaged 59. Tendulkar, Viv, Kallis, Dravid, Sanga, etc had ridiculous averages at one time.

Smith has the potential to be the GOAT since Bradman but he needs to keep his average close to 60 after playing 100 tests to be in contention for the title.

 

[sindhiboy]

if you count bradman as a batsman who was flawless and perfect in every technical . aspect, then i would not say he is the best

he has a few weaknesses, like left arm spin, also against fast bowling. he was not successful in south africa against rabada, he struggles when facing his own team mates, like cummins starc. yes he has scored in new zealand, but those were on flat pitches. these are a few examples among other weaknesses

but he is no doubt the most consistent. i am sure he will score in south africa next times and score on bouncy pitches

 

[satheesh]

Statistics never lie. Stuart Broad averages 29 because he was never consistently great like Mcgrath. His away average is like 32-33 so can never be discussed among great cricketers.

Coming to VIV-Smith.Yes VIV was a great batsman but gets overrated because of his playing style.Ponting always is rated below other greats because he played for a GOAT team but that same logic isnt applied to VIV. You have to admit VIV played for a stronger team than Smith, never faced best bowlers of his era as they were his team mates and yet when he did faced the 2nd best bowling side of the 80s(Pakistan) in it's backyard, he only scored a hundred in 14 innings and averaged 45. I wont say a bad record but also wont deem it as a goat performance.

Smith wont end with a career average of 62. This can very well go down to 55 or even less.

my whole point was this - Every era great batsmen comes against 'different sets of challenges' unique to their respective eras in general and comes out on top for their eras. Naturally I can't expect this era batsman, say Smith to average 63 in that era where say a Viv played in, and hence it is futile to compare them based on plain average values.

 

[Robert]

Steve Smith is the best batsman in the history of Test cricket, says Australia captain Tim Paine.

Smith scored a century in each innings in his first Test since the ball-tampering scandal as Australia thrashed England by 251 runs at Edgbaston.

The 30-year-old - whose first-innings 142 lifted his side from 122-8 to 284 all out - averages 62.96 in Tests, a record only bettered by the great Sir Don Bradman (99.94).

"We were up against it earlier in the Test match but when you've got the best player in the world at the crease anything is possible," said Paine. "While he's there, I think our team's got real confidence.

"He showed his class in both innings and were lucky to witness him this week. He was unbelievable. Having someone like Steve controlling the game certainly helps.

"We are running out of things to say about him and I tend to agree that he is probably the best Test batsman we have ever seen. He's the best player in the world for Test cricket at the moment."

Off-spinner Nathan Lyon (6-49) and seamer Pat Cummins (4-32) starred on day five at Edgbaston, shredding England for 146 as Australia won at the ground for the first time in any format since 2001.

"Nathan rarely disappoints - it is hard to come to day five with all the pressure of winning the Test match on your shoulders," added Paine.

"I thought he handled the pressure superbly but our three quicks [Cummins, James Pattinson and Peter Siddle] took pressure off him.

"They were able to build pressure at the other end and I thought are attack all round were outstanding.

"We thought we could improve with the ball from the first innings and [Monday morning] all four of the bowlers were sensational."

Paine had said before the game that he could think of 15 more intimidating grounds than Edgbaston, which had become a fortress for England.

"It doesn't matter where it is, we know everywhere we go in England the crowd will be against us," said the 34-year-old, whose side will now look to take a 2-0 lead in the series at Lord's from August 14.

"I thought the guys handled it well, stuck to their guns but there is a long series ahead.

"You've got to keep a lid on [the celebrations] - we aren't here to win the first Test, we're here to win the Ashes and we've been really clear on that for some time.

"It's a huge step in the right direction, but we're certainly not satisfied with that."

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/n...st-cricket-says-tim-paine-after-edgbaston-win

So he didn’t say he was the best in history, he said he is the best currently.

 

[Robert]

Statistics never lie. Stuart Broad averages 29 because he was never consistently great like Mcgrath. His away average is like 32-33 so can never be discussed among great cricketers.

Coming to VIV-Smith.Yes VIV was a great batsman but gets overrated because of his playing style.Ponting always is rated below other greats because he played for a GOAT team but that same logic isnt applied to VIV. You have to admit VIV played for a stronger team than Smith, never faced best bowlers of his era as they were his team mates and yet when he did faced the 2nd best bowling side of the 80s(Pakistan) in it's backyard, he only scored a hundred in 14 innings and averaged 45. I wont say a bad record but also wont deem it as a goat performance.

Statistics lie all the time. You have to understand the context of the numbers.

Clearly, you never watched Richards.

 

[Romali_rotti]

I would say Steve Smith is slightly better than Kohli but no way is Smith in the league of SRT & Lara...

 

[Dead Ball]

I would say Steve Smith is slightly better than Kohli but no way is Smith in the league of SRT & Lara...

Please remind me one time either SRT or Lara scored hundreds under pressure in both innings to help win a match for their country....Even one example against a minnow like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe would do.

Steve Smith single handedly carried the batting line up to post a fighting total for his country when Aus were 122/8 in the first innings, and helped Aus recover in the second innings when they had lost 2 wickets facing a deficit of 75 runs. And that too in a high profile Ashes test. I can only remember Lara's mammoth performance against Sri Lanka in 2001 during the third test, that comes close.

He may not have been in SRT/Lara league before but this performance has certainly put him in that league, or maybe even beyond if he continues the same way.

 

[Zahid87]

Im not sure how so many people, who have never even seen Bradman play, can claim that he is the best ever.

The guy played in an era where it was basically Australia vs England, and all other teams were poor.

 

[Abdullah719]

So he didn’t say he was the best in history, he said he is the best currently.

Didn't really have the time to read the article, so I used the same title as Sky Sports... surely some reasoning behind them using that, as they aren't a click-bait style outlet, generally.

 

[topspin]

Statistics lie all the time. You have to understand the context of the numbers.

Clearly, you never watched Richards.

The problem with you is you're part of the old era hype brigade. It doesn't matter to you whether Steve Smith averages 60+, 70+, 80+, 90+ or even 100+, he will always be inferior to Viv, Don Bradman et al.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Please remind me one time either SRT or Lara scored hundreds under pressure in both innings to help win a match for their country....Even one example against a minnow like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe would do.

Steve Smith single handedly carried the batting line up to post a fighting total for his country when Aus were 122/8 in the first innings, and helped Aus recover in the second innings when they had lost 2 wickets facing a deficit of 75 runs. And that too in a high profile Ashes test. I can only remember Lara's mammoth performance against Sri Lanka in 2001 during the third test, that comes close.

He may not have been in SRT/Lara league before but this performance has certainly put him in that league, or maybe even beyond if he continues the same way.

Smith played in a test match where Eng's best bowler bowled under 10 overs for the whole match. Anderson I also happen to think is an avg bowler and the bowlers which SRT/Lara dealt with were a few classes above. Smith is easily the best bat of his generation but NAH he will never be in SRT/Lara league..

 

[FreePalestine]

Please remind me one time either SRT or Lara scored hundreds under pressure in both innings to help win a match for their country....Even one example against a minnow like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe would do.

Steve Smith single handedly carried the batting line up to post a fighting total for his country when Aus were 122/8 in the first innings, and helped Aus recover in the second innings when they had lost 2 wickets facing a deficit of 75 runs. And that too in a high profile Ashes test. I can only remember Lara's mammoth performance against Sri Lanka in 2001 during the third test, that comes close.

He may not have been in SRT/Lara league before but this performance has certainly put him in that league, or maybe even beyond if he continues the same way.

Not offering an answer on the wider debate as I think comparisons across eras are often methodologically dubious... but Lara did carry their batting in a test series against Australia where he got crazy numbers. Remember, he played with a much, much weaker team for most of his career.. and that was a series against Warne and McGrath

 

[Hitman]

Not offering an answer on the wider debate as I think comparisons across eras are often methodologically dubious... but Lara did carry their batting in a test series against Australia where he got crazy numbers. Remember, he played with a much, much weaker team for most of his career.. and that was a series against Warne and McGrath

Don’t think that’s true. WI were the #1 ranked Test team till 1995, and they remained a good team till 2000. It was after Ambrose and Walsh retired in 2000 that WI became really weak. Lara played the last 6 years of his career when his team really struggled.

 

[Pakhs]

If he scores 10k runs at his current average he sure will be the best test batsmen we have seen. Even better than lara and SRT.

 

[FreePalestine]

Don’t think that’s true. WI were the #1 ranked Test team till 1995, and they remained a good team till 2000. It was after Ambrose and Walsh retired in 2000 that WI became really weak. Lara played the last 6 years of his career when his team really struggled.

Yes, some nuance is definitely important there. Six years is a long time though and as far as I remember WI did lose a lot, a lot despite Walsh and Ambrose in the late 90’s when they were nearing the end of their careers, so probably more like 8-9 years in a very weak side. That Australia series was in 98-99 or something, WI were definitely a very weak side, despite Walsh and Ambrose, but Lara stood up. It was Lara vs by far the best cricket team I have seen in my lifetime (Didn’t really see the Windies of ‘80’s) and he held them off. Again against Sri Lanka a few years later, it was Lara against a good SL side and he delivered big time. A reminder that all of this is in response to dead ball’s request: ‘Please remind me one time either SRT or Lara scored hundreds under pressure in both innings to help win a match for their country... Even one example against a minnow like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe would do.’ So here are two, one against a generation of Aussies who became undoubtedly one of the best teams in cricket history.

 

[satheesh]

Please remind me one time either SRT or Lara scored hundreds under pressure in both innings to help win a match for their country....Even one example against a minnow like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe would do.

Steve Smith single handedly carried the batting line up to post a fighting total for his country when Aus were 122/8 in the first innings, and helped Aus recover in the second innings when they had lost 2 wickets facing a deficit of 75 runs. And that too in a high profile Ashes test. I can only remember Lara's mammoth performance against Sri Lanka in 2001 during the third test, that comes close.

He may not have been in SRT/Lara league before but this performance has certainly put him in that league, or maybe even beyond if he continues the same way.

Once again, numbers are the results of the playing circumstances every great batsman come against in their respective eras. Quite naturally when the batting conditions gets tougher(due to more life in the pitches or superior bowlers or a mix of both) in general , it gets more tougher to stack up numbers which implies you can't expect a 'Viv in his era' to stack up numbers like a Smith.This is because, when the batting conditions get tougher, how ever great a batsman you are , you would come across those dangerous deliveries time and again in your stay at the crease. And we all know, then it is curtains for the batsman.

 

[Dead Ball]

Smith played in a test match where Eng's best bowler bowled under 10 overs for the whole match. Anderson I also happen to think is an avg bowler and the bowlers which SRT/Lara dealt with were a few classes above. Smith is easily the best bat of his generation but NAH he will never be in SRT/Lara league..

SRT/Lara faced a lot of poor attacks in his career. The NZ attack before Bond during the 90s was nowhere close to this attack. Check out the NZ attack during the 2009 tour when India travelled if you want to have a chuckle. The English attack during the 90s and 2002 that India faced was below average at best. (I don't think SRT ever faced Gough in a test) Check out Lara's spanking of Pakistan in 2006 in Pakistan and tell me that's not the worst bowling attack that Pakistan have put out in their entire history. Lara was average whenever he faced Wasim/Waqar in tests, never scored a ton against them. I could go on and on. Yes, they faced great attacks, but a LOT of poor bowling too against whom they made tons of runs.

My point being, despite facing a lot of poor attacks, they never could reach the performance level that Smith demonstrated in the last test. This English attack at least had Broad who was firing on all cylinders in the first innings. They were 122/8 at one point !

Let's stop over rating past greats please...

 

[Dead Ball]

Once again, numbers are the results of the playing circumstances every great batsman come against in their respective eras. Quite naturally when the batting conditions gets tougher(due to more life in the pitches or superior bowlers or a mix of both) in general , it gets more tougher to stack up numbers which implies you can't expect a 'Viv in his era' to stack up numbers like a Smith.This is because, when the batting conditions get tougher, how ever great a batsman you are , you would come across those dangerous deliveries time and again in your stay at the crease. And we all know, then it is curtains for the batsman.

I don't think this is an easy era for batsmen as people make out to be. I think I had read an article on Cricinfo stating that 2018 was the hardest year for batsmen in the last 40 years or so! That's why I rate Kohli's overseas exploits in 2018 more than any performance by even Tendulkar or Dravid in a calender year. He was simply amazing in 2018.

Only thing I feel this era lacks is ATG spinners like Warne and Murali. That was where the 90s bowling clearly was superior.

 

[satheesh]

I don't think this is an easy era for batsmen as people make out to be. I think I had read an article on Cricinfo stating that 2018 was the hardest year for batsmen in the last 40 years or so! That's why I rate Kohli's overseas exploits in 2018 more than any performance by even Tendulkar or Dravid in a calender year. He was simply amazing in 2018.

Only thing I feel this era lacks is ATG spinners like Warne and Murali. That was where the 90s bowling clearly was superior.

no much into this ...those eras were tougher in general to bat on...we can agree to disagree

 

[satheesh]

SRT/Lara faced a lot of poor attacks in his career. The NZ attack before Bond during the 90s was nowhere close to this attack. Check out the NZ attack during the 2009 tour when India travelled if you want to have a chuckle. The English attack during the 90s and 2002 that India faced was below average at best. (I don't think SRT ever faced Gough in a test) Check out Lara's spanking of Pakistan in 2006 in Pakistan and tell me that's not the worst bowling attack that Pakistan have put out in their entire history. Lara was average whenever he faced Wasim/Waqar in tests, never scored a ton against them. I could go on and on. Yes, they faced great attacks, but a LOT of poor bowling too against whom they made tons of runs.

My point being, despite facing a lot of poor attacks, they never could reach the performance level that Smith demonstrated in the last test. This English attack at least had Broad who was firing on all cylinders in the first innings. They were 122/8 at one point !

Let's stop over rating past greats please...

just into that bolded statement only .... no .... the NZL attack Sachin scored a 113 had Doull(29.4),Cairns(29.3),Nash(28.48) & Vettori(34.36). Man to man it is so better than Broad(28.78),Woakes(30.81),Stokes(32.18) & Ali(36.59).

 

[Robert]

The problem with you is you're part of the old era hype brigade. It doesn't matter to you whether Steve Smith averages 60+, 70+, 80+, 90+ or even 100+, he will always be inferior to Viv, Don Bradman et al.

Your problem with me is that I have the historical perspective, through being there, which you lack.

 

[Dead Ball]

just into that bolded statement only .... no .... the NZL attack Sachin scored a 113 had Doull(29.4),Cairns(29.3),Nash(28.48) & Vettori(34.36). Man to man it is so better than Broad(28.78),Woakes(30.81),Stokes(32.18) & Ali(36.59).

In my bolded statement i was comparing that NZ attack to the current NZ attack. Sorry for the misunderstanding, i should have made it clearer. I dont think there is a world of difference between bowlers averaging 31-32 and ones averaging 29.5.

But i would agree that this Anderson-less attack is slightly inferior to the full strength NZ attack of the 90s. We sould also throw in the numerous test hundreds tha SRT scored SL in that run fest of a series in 1997, or against a half strength WI attack in 1994, against Zim/Bang later etc etc. How would you compare this English attack to the third string Aus attack that SRT faced in 1998?

Its a myth that batsmen from 80's and 90's exclusively faced legendary attacks. They faced a lot of mediocre attacks and some truly legendary attacks when Aus/WI/SA/Pak were at their full strength. Nowadays a full strength Aus/SA/England/India/NZ attack is very challenging for batsmen.

The NZ attack of Boult/Southee/Wagner is better. And with Ferguson joining the ranks soon, it will arguably be their best ever attack.

 

[Dead Ball]

no much into this ...those eras were tougher in general to bat on...we can agree to disagree

Ok

But i could point out to some series in the 90's and 80's that were absolute run feasts played on airports.

You wouldnt have a 952/6 d kind of scoreline on pitches nowadays, in any country against any opposition.

Pitches in India nowadays for example, have become very competitive in general compared to the 80s 90s and 00's.

 

[satheesh]

Ok

But i could point out to some series in the 90's and 80's that were absolute run feasts played on airports.

You wouldnt have a 952/6 d kind of scoreline on pitches nowadays, in any country against any opposition.

Pitches in India nowadays for example, have become very competitive in general compared to the 80s 90s and 00's.

if it is w.r.t Sachin-Smith, Sachin avg:ed 57(home-abroad alike) after scoring 14692 runs , facing 22 bowlers in 'sub 26 avg: range' namely CEL Ambrose,IR Bishop,SE Bond (NZ),SR Clark (AUS),AA Donald,GD McGrath,Mohammad Asif,M Muralitharan,SM Pollock, Shabbir Ahmed,DW Steyn,CA Walsh,Waqar Younis,SK Warne,Wasim Akram,DW Fleming,Shoaib Akhtar,PS de Villiers,Sir RJ Hadlee,Imran Khan,BA Reid,BN Schultz of which 20 are 'sub 25 category'.
Apart from this he faced several 26-30 avgg bowlers too. This despite withstanding huge pressure of expectations of various sorts.

So whether some of the matches Sachin played were in 'airports or not', the above data is enough for me to convince the toughness in batting of those days. Hope I made it clear. Now ,we can agree to disagree.