What's new

Suggest ways to get Steve Smith out

Ellipsism

Ellipsism

First Class Captain
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Runs
5,124
If my short-span memory serves me correctly there haven't been many occasions where a bowler has "genuinely" dismissed Steve Smith. What I mean by genuinely is the bowler having the intention to dismiss the batsman off a particular type of delivery or set up the batsman etc. If I'm not wrong Smith, on most occasions gets himself out.

Opposition captains have tried a few methods to get Steve out, the most used "method" is ought to be the fast medium bowler bowling a 5-6 stump line, but that plan rarely works.

On most occasions Steve will not be facing the new ball, so that rules out conventional swing.

Steve Smith played Yasir with ease in the UAE back in 2014, meaning Smith wouldn't be troubled in Australia either.

That doesn't leave many options left to get Smith out.

Your thoughts?
 
4th/5th stump line. Need to let him drive and play away from his body. South African seamers caught him out driving a few time. He doesn't seem to move to far across his stumps though now.
 
Don't even try. Keep bowling 6th-7th stump channel and test his patience. He won't be able to leave the ball for too long.

If Wahab's bowling in tandem, then he has to pepper him with fielders in place. Basically dry all the runs on the front foot and force him to play cross batted shots. If he's going to score off the front foot then he has to reach for the ball.
 
Last edited:
He's not our biggest problem tbh.

Warner is the guy.
 
Tell him Glenn Maxwell said something mean, he'll run right off the crease to issue a fine
 
Steve Smith vs Pakistani Left handed bowlers

Survived an LBW dismissal today because Boult and Kane did not go for the review, otherwise he was out.

Smith has shown some weakness against left handed pacers. He shuffles too much on the crease. It is safe to say that Pakistan will play at least 2 left-handed fast bowlers in every match, be it Aamir and Wahab or Aamir and Rahat or Rahat and Wahab.

Do you think facing 2 left-handed bowlers will be a worry for Smith?
 
Maybe he does have some weakness to left arm pacers, but our pacers aren't good enough to exploit it
 
I think this is something Pakistani pacers should target. Don't give him anything wide and short. He will smash it throughout the day.
 
No.

Lots of bowlers have tried this, and it virtually never works.

What you have to do with Smith is be a right-armer (or go round the wicket if you are a left-armer) and bowl a full length almost a metre (three feet) outside his off-stump. Eventually he will nick a ball to third slip.

If Amir or Wahab or Rahat bowl over the wicket he will just hit every ball onto the onside.
 
Junaids said:
No.

Lots of bowlers have tried this, and it virtually never works.

What you have to do with Smith is be a right-armer (or go round the wicket if you are a left-armer) and bowl a full length almost a metre (three feet) outside his off-stump. Eventually he will nick a ball to third slip.

If Amir or Wahab or Rahat bowl over the wicket he will just hit every ball onto the onside.
Click to expand...

Has Smith recently faced any bowling attack with 2 left-handed pacers? Pakistan can go with even all 3 of Aamir, Rahat, and Wahab.
 
He's insane, six test centuries against us in last 7 matches.

I don't think there exist any plan which will yield his wicket tomorrow .
 
prtikul said:
He's insane, six test centuries against us in last 7 matches.

I don't think there exist any plan which will yield his wicket tomorrow .
Click to expand...

Nick him driving through covers angling the ball away from him just like Amir has done multiple times.
 
At the moment it's almost impossible. His hand eye coordination is almost unmatched in modern cricket and his recent spat with kohli has made him even more determined.

The only way I can think of is bowling dead straight to him and hope that he misses one and gets leg befored since he goes long way across the crease to play the ball.
 
SunRay said:
At the moment it's almost impossible. His hand eye coordination is almost unmatched in modern cricket and his recent spat with kohli has made him even more determined.

The only way I can think of is bowling dead straight to him and hope that he misses one and gets leg befored since he goes long way across the crease to play the ball.
Click to expand...

He will score 100 (150) if you continue this tactics.
 
Rayyman said:
He will score 100 (150) if you continue this tactics.
Click to expand...

I know. He never misses the straight ones (yes it's quite bizarre that he always whips it through mid wicket from the middle of the stump but always gives the vibe that he'll miss one). But that's the only way I can think of. Could be tried when he's new at the crease, not when he's set.
 
Bowl outside off trying to get him to knick in the slip cauldron, the way he opens up his stance it'd be difficult for him to drive through (extra) cover. He's also been caught, by keeper & others, way more than the number of lbws or bowled. Ideally the off or 5th stump line, depending on pitch & over head conditions, with the odd short ball & the surprise full drive right on the stumps would be ideal. The way he's opened up his stance in India, he'd have trouble driving & playing the short ball, considering the bounce is consistent. The key is the line, keep it consistent, then mix it with length & make the full ball on stumps count. Basically drag him wide outside off & then bowl the odd full ball or short delivery, he shouldn't be fed on his pads to unleash the flick.
 
Last edited:
NZ got him out a couple of times by bowling at his body and employing a leg slip. He has a habit of going too far across the stumps and if the bowl is fast and at his ribs then the only shot available to him is the glance to leg slip.


Even during the Pak series he played uppishly in that region a couple of times and the commentators pointed out this flaw in his technique as well but we never put in a leg slip.
 
I think he's only looked confused vs swing in England, and that would trouble anybody.
 
People give him a bad rap for his technique and stance but honesty I feel that has a lot to do with his success

The way he shuffles and changes his stance he ensures that he almost will never get out to an incoming delivery this taking Out a large percentage of dismissal forms

To me a weakness seems to be an away swinging delivery where he nicks it to slip but you also need quick bowlers operating at optimum level to pull it off

Otherwise depend on an error of judgement of some brain fade
 
Bowl the delivery that Amir bowled to him in 2010,absolutely unplayable even for the likes of him,pitching on leg stump and beautifully out swinging to hit the off stump with some serious pace.
 
Syed1 said:
NZ got him out a couple of times by bowling at his body and employing a leg slip. He has a habit of going too far across the stumps and if the bowl is fast and at his ribs then the only shot available to him is the glance to leg slip.


Even during the Pak series he played uppishly in that region a couple of times and the commentators pointed out this flaw in his technique as well but we never put in a leg slip.
Click to expand...
I remember Yadav getting Smith once or twice in that region as well.
 
The idea to get him out tomorrow must be to keep taking wickets on the other end and when he comes on to bat, he will want to keep the strike. So bowl a leg stump line, pack the on side with fielders to stop the single on the 5th and 6th deliveries. That will put pressure on him and he will make a mistake.
 
Arsalan Pro said:
Bowl the delivery that Amir bowled to him in 2010,absolutely unplayable even for the likes of him,pitching on leg stump and beautifully out swinging to hit the off stump with some serious pace.
Click to expand...
No one is bowling a delivery like that on a phatta.
 
a good out swinging delivery from over the wicket is the best bet, pitching in middle and off stump line and swinging away from him, best results will be with the new ball, but good reverse swing bowlers can do that as well.
 
Last edited:
Rabada, Abbott and Philander were very good last year against Smith by bowling at a tight channel around the fifth stump and not often straying towards the leg-stump. I think bowlers get carried away due to Smith's lop-sided technique and the high backlift, believing he's a prime lbw candidate but he's so good whipping balls through the onside that it's just feeding his strength. The margin of error is certainly small, but SA showed how it can be done.
 
Dry up runs completely and wait for him to play a loose shot.
 
Our Smith plans are working, says England's Broad

BRISBANE (Reuters) - Allowing the home captain to score an unbeaten century might not seem like ‘mission accomplished’ for an opposing team’s bowlers, but paceman Stuart Broad believes England have Steve Smith right where they want him in the series-opening Ashes test.

Smith strolled off the Gabba with 141 after tea on day three, having pushed his team to 328 and a slender lead over England’s first innings 302.

England then lost two wickets to be 33 for two and leave an enthralling test match still very much in the balance.

Having had to soak up 326 balls in his slowest ever century, Smith later said he was surprised at how defensive England captain Joe Root had set his fields and that he expected boundaries to be hard to come by further down the track.

All part of the plan, said Broad.

“Perfect. We know the Australians like to score quickly, if we can restrict them from scoring a lot of boundaries then we’ll have periods of taking wickets,” the wily paceman told reporters.

“The less balls we can bowl at Steve Smith, the more balls we can bowl to batsmen at the other end, and the better for us.”

”It must have been one of his slowest hundreds he’s scored for Australia.

“We didn’t let them get away from us at any stage and we’ve seen as a batting group, if someone shows a lot of patience and gets stuck in, it can be quite hard to get them out.”

Australia’s Josh Hazlewood removed Alastair Cook for seven and James Vince for two, but England’s rookie opener Mark Stoneman (19 not out) and Root (five not out) survived a nervous period before stumps.

The pair were peppered by short balls from Australia’s vaunted pace trio and Root took a sickening blow on the helmet from spearhead Mitchell Starc.

The captain smiled immediately in response, even if dizzy and with ears ringing, and dug in with courage to remain unbeaten at stumps.

”Crucial,“ said Broad. ”You can so easily lose four-five wickets and that’s the test match gone in those sessions.

”Obviously a bit disappointed to lose two wickets but as I said, it could have been a lot worse.

”It was just proper theatre wasn’t it, proper test match cricket.

“Fast bowling, batsmen playing it well, a few blows being taken but tomorrow will be difficult.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...are-working-says-englands-broad-idUKKBN1DP09V
 
Appears that Broad has it figured out; just try to slow him down and get the other wickets....
 
He's vulnerable against away swing shaping out from 5th stump but if you get your length wrong, he'll put you away with ease. Other than that, peg away at 6th stump as a unit. There isn't much you can do within his body range unless you've got pace or pinpoint accuracy. Vulnerable against the inswinging ball on an inbetween length which not many can ball. It will drag down more often than not, against someone who middles 100% of the ball off his pads, most bowlers won't take this risk.
 
I'd wait for the South Africans to expose a few cracks in his batting. Smith is pretty much invincible at the moment so other than keeping it tight and hoping he makes a mistake, I don't see what else the English can do.
 
Bilal7 said:
I'd wait for the South Africans to expose a few cracks in his batting. Smith is pretty much invincible at the moment so other than keeping it tight and hoping he makes a mistake, I don't see what else the English can do.
Click to expand...
They couldn't do it last time, what makes you think they'll do it now?
 
Bilal7 said:
I'd wait for the South Africans to expose a few cracks in his batting. Smith is pretty much invincible at the moment so other than keeping it tight and hoping he makes a mistake, I don't see what else the English can do.
Click to expand...

Lol he's scored against South African attack before.

He's going to surpass Amla so deal with it
 
I think left armers, 5th-6th stump line is the way to deal with him, coz he shuffles too much bowler look to bowl inswingers to him, when you need to bowl away swingers to him.
 
Bilal7 said:
POTW. :))



He played well in 2013 but it's just three matches. They're the best attack to figure out Smith.
Click to expand...


So you think Smith won't surpass Amla? People are talking about Smith being up there with Sachin and Punter LOL. A league which no one has ever put Amla in other than you.
 
Bring Jack leach because Smith avg against slow left arm is low.
He struggled against herath and jadeja
 
Hasn’t Junaid Khan/Amir clean bowled him in the Australia series in 2017.

Or was it David Warner?
 
leg spiner who can bowl a googly.
keep bowling leg spin on 4th 5th stump, fielders around the bat...bowl full, then slip in a top spinner and googly.
 
Smith is a street smart cricketer. He is not one of those guys who focus too much on holding the pose after a shot. He doesn't mind being ugly to play percentage cricekt. He has some real funky feet movements something no coach will prescribe.
 
i think left arm spinners bowling fuller lengths are a bit iffy to Smith. Maharaj,Elgar,Jadeja,Taijul Islam,Shakib ,Herath all had success against him.
 
I think a fast leg-stump yorker can get him in trouble. He shuffle around a lot.

But, then you have to set fielders accordingly.
 
was in the members box, day 3 edgedaston... most of the people i talked to were seriously ****** tht england didnt bowl yorkers on leg stump.. wat i was saying tht he wasnt tested with short balls.. and bang, he got hit .... but problem is tht he wasnt rattld after tht ... i think ball moving in from a left harmer will cause him problems
 
Slow Left Arm has a decent success rate. Worth trying out Leach out next game.
 
seam bowlers in general bowls to his pads when they finds him shuffle across in the thought of getting him bowled round his legs. Here they gets mistaken because he is too good with flicking those balls towards leg side. Unless it is a lightning yorker aimed at leg stump, there is no success with such balls.
The best option here is to bowl out side his off stump when he shuffles across.A left armer who can swing the ball at least a bit away from him is the most effective against him.No wonder left arm spinners too had troubled him more.
 
I have wondered long and hard about answering this question truthfully, but I will.

As some of you know, I am a doctor who is a practicing psychiatrist. American psychiatrists are prohibited under the "Goldwater Rule" from diagnosing public figures whom they have not personally examined, but that does not apply to the rest of us - in fact in the UK and Australia and New Zealand there is no such taboo.

Steve Smith exhibits clear symptoms of at least two psychiatric conditions, and possibly three. I am not going to name the conditions, but I am going to point out the symptoms.

Firstly, he clearly exhibits tics. Before every delivery he has a range of abnormal movements involving touching his pads, his box and various other routines. The last international cricketer I saw with such movements was Neil McKenzie, the South African opener.

Secondly, he has very fixed rituals, even by sporting standards. He tapes his shoelaces to his pads before every session of batting, and if you ever listen to an interview with him you learn that he is reliant upon complex processes of visualizing the play both in bed for half the night, but also when he is at the crease. He insists that the non-striker moves out of his line of vision before every delivery.

Thirdly, the basis of his superlative batting is that he practices far more than any other two players in the world combined. He knows nothing beyond the world of batting, and doesn't even watch cricket matches he is playing in when he's not batting or fielding - it's why he was such a mediocre captain, because unlike Michael Clarke he didn't really have the experience of watching cricket to understand when to declare.

This obsessionality with practicing every single ball has made him great, but it's not normal.

These symptoms are so obvious that everyone who watches cricket has seen them. In the West we live in a kinder, gentler world in which an eccentric individual like Smith is admired for his achievements rather than humiliated for his pathology.

But it is Smith's pathology and especially his obsessional training which have made him into a superlative batsman.

And exploiting the same psychopathology is probably the only way to bring him down to earth.

This, after all, is what Bodyline was. The Australian batsmen didn't have to get in line and try to hook and pull the endless leg-stump bouncers. The system had been invented to slow the scoring rate, but it turned out to be even more effective as psychological warfare to terrorise the opposition.

England on Day 2 started to exploit Smith's psychological issues, but then seemed to decide to pull back. Perhaps they realized that it is arguably unethical.

What they did was park a short mid-on in his line of vision in the same area that he hates having the non-striker stand.

That's probably part of what you have to do with Smith: take him out of his comfort zone by putting fielders in areas of his vision where he doesn't want them.

There are probably other actions too, but I'm not willing to publicise them because I think it's unethical.

Steve Smith has used his eccentricity to be a superlative batsman. The way to bring him down to earth is probably to attack those eccentric actions.
 
Last edited:
Junaids said:
I have wondered long and hard about answering this question truthfully, but I will.

As some of you know, I am a doctor who is a practicing psychiatrist. American psychiatrists are prohibited under the "Goldwater Rule" from diagnosing public figures whom they have not personally examined, but that does not apply to the rest of us - in fact in the UK and Australia and New Zealand there is no such taboo.

Steve Smith exhibits clear symptoms of at least two psychiatric conditions, and possibly three. I am not going to name the conditions, but I am going to point out the symptoms.

Firstly, he clearly exhibits tics. Before every delivery he has a range of abnormal movements involving touching his pads, his box and various other routines. The last international cricketer I saw with such movements was Neil McKenzie, the South African opener.

Secondly, he has very fixed rituals, even by sporting standards. He tapes his shoelaces to his pads before every session of batting, and if you ever listen to an interview with him you learn that he is reliant upon complex processes of visualizing the play both in bed for half the night, but also when he is at the crease. He insists that the non-striker moves out of his line of vision before every delivery.

Thirdly, the basis of his superlative batting is that he practices far more than any other two players in the world combined. He knows nothing beyond the world of batting, and doesn't even watch cricket matches he is playing in when he's not batting or fielding - it's why he was such a mediocre captain, because unlike Michael Clarke he didn't really have the experience of watching cricket to understand when to declare.

This obsessionality with practicing every single ball has made him great, but it's not normal.

These symptoms are so obvious that everyone who watches cricket has seen them. In the West we live in a kinder, gentler world in which an eccentric individual like Smith is admired for his achievements rather than humiliated for his pathology.

But it is Smith's pathology and especially his obsessional training which have made him into a superlative batsman.

And exploiting the same psychopathology is probably the only way to bring him down to earth.

This, after all, is what Bodyline was. The Australian batsmen didn't have to get in line and try to hook and pull the endless leg-stump bouncers. The system had been invented to slow the scoring rate, but it turned out to be even more effective as psychological warfare to terrorise the opposition.

England on Day 2 started to exploit Smith's psychological issues, but then seemed to decide to pull back. Perhaps they realized that it is arguably unethical.

What they did was park a short mid-on in his line of vision in the same area that he hates having the non-striker stand.

That's probably part of what you have to do with Smith: take him out of his comfort zone by putting fielders in areas of his vision where he doesn't want them.

There are probably other actions too, but I'm not willing to publicise them because I think it's unethical.

Steve Smith has used his eccentricity to be a superlative batsman. The way to bring him down to earth is probably to attack those eccentric actions.
Click to expand...


Wow this is really insightful. Thanks for sharing.
 
Left arm around the wicket. Try this get the ball to bounce just outside off and straighten. Needs to be full enough for LBW to be in play too
 
Junaids said:
I have wondered long and hard about answering this question truthfully, but I will.

As some of you know, I am a doctor who is a practicing psychiatrist. American psychiatrists are prohibited under the "Goldwater Rule" from diagnosing public figures whom they have not personally examined, but that does not apply to the rest of us - in fact in the UK and Australia and New Zealand there is no such taboo.

Steve Smith exhibits clear symptoms of at least two psychiatric conditions, and possibly three. I am not going to name the conditions, but I am going to point out the symptoms.

Firstly, he clearly exhibits tics. Before every delivery he has a range of abnormal movements involving touching his pads, his box and various other routines. The last international cricketer I saw with such movements was Neil McKenzie, the South African opener.

Secondly, he has very fixed rituals, even by sporting standards. He tapes his shoelaces to his pads before every session of batting, and if you ever listen to an interview with him you learn that he is reliant upon complex processes of visualizing the play both in bed for half the night, but also when he is at the crease. He insists that the non-striker moves out of his line of vision before every delivery.

Thirdly, the basis of his superlative batting is that he practices far more than any other two players in the world combined. He knows nothing beyond the world of batting, and doesn't even watch cricket matches he is playing in when he's not batting or fielding - it's why he was such a mediocre captain, because unlike Michael Clarke he didn't really have the experience of watching cricket to understand when to declare.

This obsessionality with practicing every single ball has made him great, but it's not normal.

These symptoms are so obvious that everyone who watches cricket has seen them. In the West we live in a kinder, gentler world in which an eccentric individual like Smith is admired for his achievements rather than humiliated for his pathology.

But it is Smith's pathology and especially his obsessional training which have made him into a superlative batsman.

And exploiting the same psychopathology is probably the only way to bring him down to earth.

This, after all, is what Bodyline was. The Australian batsmen didn't have to get in line and try to hook and pull the endless leg-stump bouncers. The system had been invented to slow the scoring rate, but it turned out to be even more effective as psychological warfare to terrorise the opposition.

England on Day 2 started to exploit Smith's psychological issues, but then seemed to decide to pull back. Perhaps they realized that it is arguably unethical.

What they did was park a short mid-on in his line of vision in the same area that he hates having the non-striker stand.

That's probably part of what you have to do with Smith: take him out of his comfort zone by putting fielders in areas of his vision where he doesn't want them.

There are probably other actions too, but I'm not willing to publicise them because I think it's unethical.

Steve Smith has used his eccentricity to be a superlative batsman. The way to bring him down to earth is probably to attack those eccentric actions.
Click to expand...

schizoid and OCD?
 
Junaids said:
I have wondered long and hard about answering this question truthfully, but I will.

As some of you know, I am a doctor who is a practicing psychiatrist. American psychiatrists are prohibited under the "Goldwater Rule" from diagnosing public figures whom they have not personally examined, but that does not apply to the rest of us - in fact in the UK and Australia and New Zealand there is no such taboo.

Steve Smith exhibits clear symptoms of at least two psychiatric conditions, and possibly three. I am not going to name the conditions, but I am going to point out the symptoms.

Firstly, he clearly exhibits tics. Before every delivery he has a range of abnormal movements involving touching his pads, his box and various other routines. The last international cricketer I saw with such movements was Neil McKenzie, the South African opener.

Secondly, he has very fixed rituals, even by sporting standards. He tapes his shoelaces to his pads before every session of batting, and if you ever listen to an interview with him you learn that he is reliant upon complex processes of visualizing the play both in bed for half the night, but also when he is at the crease. He insists that the non-striker moves out of his line of vision before every delivery.

Thirdly, the basis of his superlative batting is that he practices far more than any other two players in the world combined. He knows nothing beyond the world of batting, and doesn't even watch cricket matches he is playing in when he's not batting or fielding - it's why he was such a mediocre captain, because unlike Michael Clarke he didn't really have the experience of watching cricket to understand when to declare.

This obsessionality with practicing every single ball has made him great, but it's not normal.

These symptoms are so obvious that everyone who watches cricket has seen them. In the West we live in a kinder, gentler world in which an eccentric individual like Smith is admired for his achievements rather than humiliated for his pathology.

But it is Smith's pathology and especially his obsessional training which have made him into a superlative batsman.

And exploiting the same psychopathology is probably the only way to bring him down to earth.

This, after all, is what Bodyline was. The Australian batsmen didn't have to get in line and try to hook and pull the endless leg-stump bouncers. The system had been invented to slow the scoring rate, but it turned out to be even more effective as psychological warfare to terrorise the opposition.

England on Day 2 started to exploit Smith's psychological issues, but then seemed to decide to pull back. Perhaps they realized that it is arguably unethical.

What they did was park a short mid-on in his line of vision in the same area that he hates having the non-striker stand.

That's probably part of what you have to do with Smith: take him out of his comfort zone by putting fielders in areas of his vision where he doesn't want them.

There are probably other actions too, but I'm not willing to publicise them because I think it's unethical.

Steve Smith has used his eccentricity to be a superlative batsman. The way to bring him down to earth is probably to attack those eccentric actions.
Click to expand...

[MENTION=93712]MenInG[/MENTION] POTW.

Wow [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] well done.
 
sweep_shot said:
I think a fast leg-stump yorker can get him in trouble. He shuffle around a lot.

But, then you have to set fielders accordingly.
Click to expand...

Batsmen who shuffle around a lot usually get found out. He is not found out. That is why he is special.
 
Junaids said:
I have wondered long and hard about answering this question truthfully, but I will.

As some of you know, I am a doctor who is a practicing psychiatrist. American psychiatrists are prohibited under the "Goldwater Rule" from diagnosing public figures whom they have not personally examined, but that does not apply to the rest of us - in fact in the UK and Australia and New Zealand there is no such taboo.

Steve Smith exhibits clear symptoms of at least two psychiatric conditions, and possibly three. I am not going to name the conditions, but I am going to point out the symptoms.

Firstly, he clearly exhibits tics. Before every delivery he has a range of abnormal movements involving touching his pads, his box and various other routines. The last international cricketer I saw with such movements was Neil McKenzie, the South African opener.

Secondly, he has very fixed rituals, even by sporting standards. He tapes his shoelaces to his pads before every session of batting, and if you ever listen to an interview with him you learn that he is reliant upon complex processes of visualizing the play both in bed for half the night, but also when he is at the crease. He insists that the non-striker moves out of his line of vision before every delivery.

Thirdly, the basis of his superlative batting is that he practices far more than any other two players in the world combined. He knows nothing beyond the world of batting, and doesn't even watch cricket matches he is playing in when he's not batting or fielding - it's why he was such a mediocre captain, because unlike Michael Clarke he didn't really have the experience of watching cricket to understand when to declare.

This obsessionality with practicing every single ball has made him great, but it's not normal.

These symptoms are so obvious that everyone who watches cricket has seen them. In the West we live in a kinder, gentler world in which an eccentric individual like Smith is admired for his achievements rather than humiliated for his pathology.

But it is Smith's pathology and especially his obsessional training which have made him into a superlative batsman.

And exploiting the same psychopathology is probably the only way to bring him down to earth.

This, after all, is what Bodyline was. The Australian batsmen didn't have to get in line and try to hook and pull the endless leg-stump bouncers. The system had been invented to slow the scoring rate, but it turned out to be even more effective as psychological warfare to terrorise the opposition.

England on Day 2 started to exploit Smith's psychological issues, but then seemed to decide to pull back. Perhaps they realized that it is arguably unethical.

What they did was park a short mid-on in his line of vision in the same area that he hates having the non-striker stand.

That's probably part of what you have to do with Smith: take him out of his comfort zone by putting fielders in areas of his vision where he doesn't want them.

There are probably other actions too, but I'm not willing to publicise them because I think it's unethical.

Steve Smith has used his eccentricity to be a superlative batsman. The way to bring him down to earth is probably to attack those eccentric actions.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for the insight. In Pakistan we have be serious about science in sports.
 
Brilliant post from [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION]. England need to be creative about placing fielders in his eyeline, Vaughan did this with Hayden back in the day. A lot of Smith's brilliance is attributable to sheer bloody-minded repetition. If his training is based on a rigid set of visualizations, the bowlers need to upend those simulated conditions during a test match. I don't even think it's unethical, Steve Waugh or Douglas Jardine would have no compunction about it. It's professional sport at the end of the day and you are obliged to take any advantage.
 
5th/6th stump line is one way with a mixture of short stuff around the rib and above. But his temperament is so great he could survive that.
 
Junaids I am afraid whatever you said on public forum may not be unlawful but exceeded the limits posed by GMC responsibilities and ethical guidance.
I would suggest you to remove the post.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Worth bowling a yorker or two on middle or leg stump to Steve Smith for the first 20 balls he faces.. havent seen a bowler try that yet.</p>— Herschelle Gibbs (@hershybru) <a href="https://twitter.com/hershybru/status/1162321226418786305?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 16, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Why Steve Smith is still the undisputed second greatest Test batter of all time?
2 3 4
Replies
258
Views
4K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
RidiculousMan
Pakistan pacers need to learn the art of seam movement
Replies
49
Views
2K
Farabi
F
Mamoon
The Jasprit Bumrah workload myth: Is opting out of the 2nd Test against England justified?
8 9 10
Replies
740
Views
23K
DeadlyVenom
D
Buffet
The best Pakistani batter is Shaheen Shah Afridi and the best bowler is Saim Ayub
Replies
30
Views
1K
Vikram1989
V
mominsaigol
Are Yashasvi Jaiswal and Rishabh Pant the next hype machines for India?
2 3 4
Replies
285
Views
10K
DTrump
D
Back
Top