What's new

[VIDEOS] Is Steven Smith the best batter you have ever seen?

Steve Smith is coming back to the pack in Tests and if his average drops mid to late 50s by the end of his career, I doubt he would be considered better than Ponting overall as Australia's 2nd best Test batsman after Bradman.
 
Steve Smith is coming back to the pack in Tests and if his average drops mid to late 50s by the end of his career, I doubt he would be considered better than Ponting overall as Australia's 2nd best Test batsman after Bradman.

He just going through a weird patch where Labuschagne stole his runs against Pakistan and New Zealand last year and now India has strangled his scoring areas.

However, his class in beyond any doubt and he would be back scoring hundreds any time soon.

As a Test batsman, he is ahead of Ponting.
 
Top 10 batsman that I have ever seen:-

1. Sachin Tendulkar
2. Virat Kohli
3. Steve Smith
4. Brian Lara
5. Ricky Ponting
6. AB de Villiers
7. Kumar Sangakkara
8. Jacques Kallis
9. Virender Sehwag
10. Kevin Pietersen

Hence, Smith is third best.
 
As a Test batsman, he is ahead of Ponting.

I'll reserve judgement on that for a while yet.

Ponting averaged 59.99 by his 107th Test, while Smith averages 61.33 after just 75 Tests.

I don't think Smith will maintain that level but we'll see.
 
Smith is one of those Gibbs/Sehwag-type hand-eye reliant players.

We know those fade quicker than others who are rooted in technique like Kallis/Dravid.
 
Sachin was obviously more complete, even Kohli is more complete all format batsman but in tests Smith is easily the best batsman i have ever seen.
Best after Bradman
 
1st innings are where tests are won, and his 1st innings record makes Sachin look like a tailender
Don't be too arrogant. He has played just 76 1st innings while Tendulkar had played exactly 200, so he isn't even half way there! Despite that Tendulkar averages 66 in 200 1st innings he batted in!
 
In tests,

1. Bradman
2. S Smith/Tendulkar
3. Lara/Viv/Hobbs/Sobers
4. Chappell/Gavaskar/Ponting/Kohli
 
Australia's Steve Smith ended his 16-month wait for a Test hundred on day two of a finely poised third Test against India.

Smith scored 131 from 226 balls, his first century since the fourth Ashes Test against England in September 2019.

Marnus Labuschagne made 91 but, after he fell, Smith received little support, the final seven wickets falling for 106 as the hosts were dismissed for 338.

India battled to 96-2 at the close in Sydney, 242 runs behind.

Openers Rohit Sharma and Shubman Gill put on 70 for the opening wicket before Rohit was caught and bowled for 26 by Josh Hazlewood and Gill was caught at gully off Pat Cummins for 50, his maiden Test fifty.

Both wickets came within six overs, and Cheteshwar Pujara and captain Ajinkya Rahane batted defensively until the close.

Should Pujara and Rahane form a significant partnership on Saturday, India will be favourites to win this Test and take a 2-1 lead in the four-match series.

On a good batting pitch, Australia - resuming on 166-2 - should have posted a far greater first-innings total from 206-2 with Smith and Labuschagne sharing a stand of 100.

Instead, Smith could only form small partnerships with the middle and lower order. Mitchell Starc, with 24, was the only other Australian to pass 20 on the day.

Smith was last man out, brilliantly run out by Ravindra Jadeja by a direct hit from square leg, having brought up his 27th Test hundred.

His celebration upon reaching the landmark suggested relief and frustration - the 14 innings between centuries was the longest spell in his career since going 22 innings from debut to maiden hundred in 2013.

"I'm reading lots of things people say about out of form, but think there's a difference between out of form and out of runs so it was just nice to score a few and maybe keep a few people quiet," said Smith, who had scored 10 runs in four previous innings in the series.
 
Don't be too arrogant. He has played just 76 1st innings while Tendulkar had played exactly 200, so he isn't even half way there! Despite that Tendulkar averages 66 in 200 1st innings he batted in!

Sorry, maybe saying tailender is too extreme.
However, Smith averages 11 more and scores centuries at a 50% greater rate.

This is a huge difference
 
So far, only Don averages more than him. He is a beast and could end up as the greatest batsman of this century.
 
He is simply the greatest after Bradman in test at the very least. Indians on this thread putting kohli and Sachin above him is ironic. They keep saying this is an all time great Indian attack and yet almost every time he plays against them he smashes a century.
 
how many Test hundreds did Ponting have after his 100th test> I rememneber he got a hundred in each innings vs South Africa.
Back then it looked like Ponting couldnt ever be stopped, but eventually he started getting LBW where as in the past he would hit straight balls for four.
I have a feeling that once Smith losses a touch from age his decline will be cruel, perhaps in 5 years Williamson and Kohli will be rated higher, although Kane is easily number 1 in the world atm.
 
Last edited:
how many Test hundreds did Ponting have after his 100th test> I rememneber he got a hundred in each innings vs South Africa.
Back then it looked like Ponting couldnt ever be stopped, but eventually he started getting LBW where as in the past he would hit straight balls for four.
I have a feeling that once Smith losses a touch from age his decline will be cruel, perhaps in 5 years Williamson and Kohli will be rated higher, although Kane is easily number 1 in the world atm.
Kohli himself is past his best. And Williamson is'nt in the class of Smith (even Kohli is a class below in tests).
In this decade
Tier 1 : Steve Smith
Tier 2: Kohli, Sachin,Lara, Sangakara
Tier3: Williamson, Ponting,Ab,Amla,Dravid
Tier4: Root,Warner,Yousuf
 
Gotta wait till his career is over to judge him, right now he is going through a peak, we will see how he plays in his latet years.

There is a reason why bradman is considered the best, even after long layoffs, cause of the war, he was just as good.

But back then i heard they wouldnt give him out because people paid to see him. I take his avg with a grain of salt.
 
Smith is obviously the best test bat of this generation but across formats, Kohli is comfortably ahead of him.

In tests, Smith is probably a top 3-4 level batsman in 150 years of cricket history but Bradman and Tendulkar are still ahead, latter because he has 14000+ test runs during his peak period between 1992-2010 at an average of 58. That in itself is bigger than Smith's entire career.

To surpass Tendulkar, you have to either average close to 65 or if you score 14,000 test runs then 60 average would do it.
 
Last edited:
Best I've seen was Lara. I am not going by stats here though. Just saying ability wise. I've never seen better players than Lara & ABD. Even with great records, I still think they underachieved. Steven Smith is a monster no doubt but have to wait till he retires. Most insane peak of all time would still of Ponting's though. Ponting playing @3 batted with SR of 60-70+ while averaging over 70. Besides Ponting, I dont think cricket world has ever seen such a dynamic number 3 bar Sir ViV maybe.
 
Best I've seen was Lara. I am not going by stats here though. Just saying ability wise. I've never seen better players than Lara & ABD. Even with great records, I still think they underachieved. Steven Smith is a monster no doubt but have to wait till he retires. Most insane peak of all time would still of Ponting's though. Ponting playing @3 batted with SR of 60-70+ while averaging over 70. Besides Ponting, I dont think cricket world has ever seen such a dynamic number 3 bar Sir ViV maybe.

Talent wise Lara is up there.

But impact and performance wise, Smith is something else.
 
Smith is a potential GOAT batsman.

As I always say:

He grinds it out when it's tough, and piles it on when it's easy.

No batsman that I have seen does it as well as Smithy.

But hoping he flops badly this series.
 
Smith is obviously the best test bat of this generation but across formats, Kohli is comfortably ahead of him.

In tests, Smith is probably a top 3-4 level batsman in 150 years of cricket history but Bradman and Tendulkar are still ahead, latter because he has 14000+ test runs during his peak period between 1992-2010 at an average of 58. That in itself is bigger than Smith's entire career.

To surpass Tendulkar, you have to either average close to 65 or if you score 14,000 test runs then 60 average would do it.

No you dont 100 test matches is enough to know who is better more is not necessarily better. If you have played 100 that big enough sample size to judge with anyone. Tendulakar over all average was not even the best among the player he played with he is largely credited above them just because of his over all game and number of games. But smith with his unbelievable numbers is definitely ahead as of now and will be ahead for sure if he average around 60 after 100 matches permanently.

We need to also add that most Indians consider this Indian attack to be ATG and definitely their best of all time whenever he plays against them he spanks a 100 for fun compare that to Sachin record againt Pakistan for instance. So Indians of all people should consider him better than Sachin you cant have it both ways.
 
By the end of his career, I reckon he will end up with average of 55-57. Will be in discussion for 2nd best Aussie batsman along with Ponting and Gregg.
 
By the end of his career, I reckon he will end up with average of 55-57. Will be in discussion for 2nd best Aussie batsman along with Ponting and Gregg.

Most likely case.
 
Smith reads the situation beautifully. When there is a need to attack he attacks. When there is a need to grind he grinds. And is pretty selfless too. Played a scoop on 192 when Aussies were looking for a declaration. One thing a lot of people overlook is how well he plays with the tail. Probably the best batsman batting with tail atm. Australia were 120/8 and ended up with 284. Here Aus scored 106 off last 4 wickets and he contributed 71. Was similarly brilliant at Adelaide vs Eng
 
No you dont 100 test matches is enough to know who is better more is not necessarily better. If you have played 100 that big enough sample size to judge with anyone. Tendulakar over all average was not even the best among the player he played with he is largely credited above them just because of his over all game and number of games. But smith with his unbelievable numbers is definitely ahead as of now and will be ahead for sure if he average around 60 after 100 matches permanently.

We need to also add that most Indians consider this Indian attack to be ATG and definitely their best of all time whenever he plays against them he spanks a 100 for fun compare that to Sachin record againt Pakistan for instance. So Indians of all people should consider him better than Sachin you cant have it both ways.

100 test matches are enough but Tendulkar's greatness is such that I am considering as many as 164 tests for him. He has 14000+ test runs between 1992 Jan to March 2011 with a test average of 58.

The bowling equivalent of this is probably 550 test wickets at 21 which is McGrath level. But if you take peak for Anderson, he probably has 400 wickets since 2010 at average of 24 with even worse away average. So, you can see the difference.

Regarding second point, I agree Smith has performed against Indian ATG attack although in this series, it took him a flat wicket to score runs on board after four failures. Let Smith get to 100 tests, he has 75 now. Averages decline in final years.
 
Last edited:
He will play an awesome inning from time to time but he is past his best I reckon..
 
Hes got brilliant consistentcy if only he was more pleasing on the eye
 
Hes got brilliant consistentcy if only he was more pleasing on the eye

Enjoy watching him more than any other player; he is an "abstract" artist. His batting invokes feeling of wonder rather than beauty.
 
Not four but 3 failures as he was not out in one the the innings and he still has the highest score across teams already. Tendulkar certainly didn't spank a century every time he played against Pakistan or other ATG attacks. Agree that bowling was stronger over all during the time Sachin played but he is given more than enough credit for that given even in his own era he didnt have the best average as a pure batsman.
 
He is a better Test batsman than Ponting. Those who claim that he is facing easier bowlers are wrong. In fact, Ponting faced easier attacks in his peak years from 2002 to 2007.

He never faced McGrath and Warne, Wasim and Waqar retired in 2003, Ambrose and Walsh retire by 2001-2002, Donald retired in 2002, Pollock was past his prime years, Bond made his debut against Australia in 2001 and never played a Test against them again.

Steyn’s peak started from 2008 onwards and Ponting was past his best by then. James Anderson also became a legendary bowler in the 2010s.

Apart from Muralitharan and to an extent Kumble and Zaheer, Ponting mostly played against B class attacks during his peak years.

Smith in his peak years (2014 onwards) has played against a better English, Indian, South African and New Zealand attack than Ponting did from 2002 to 2007.

Even West Indies current attack can be considered their best pace attack since the retirement of Ambrose and Walsh.

The only attacks that can be considered genuinely weaker today are Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Ponting was a devastating batsman against slightly weaker attacks, but I would back Smith to outperform Ponting against better attacks more often than not. He is a batting genius and Australian’s greatest since Don.
 
He is a better Test batsman than Ponting. Those who claim that he is facing easier bowlers are wrong. In fact, Ponting faced easier attacks in his peak years from 2002 to 2007.

He never faced McGrath and Warne, Wasim and Waqar retired in 2003, Ambrose and Walsh retire by 2001-2002, Donald retired in 2002, Pollock was past his prime years, Bond made his debut against Australia in 2001 and never played a Test against them again.

Steyn’s peak started from 2008 onwards and Ponting was past his best by then. James Anderson also became a legendary bowler in the 2010s.

Apart from Muralitharan and to an extent Kumble and Zaheer, Ponting mostly played against B class attacks during his peak years.

Smith in his peak years (2014 onwards) has played against a better English, Indian, South African and New Zealand attack than Ponting did from 2002 to 2007.

Even West Indies current attack can be considered their best pace attack since the retirement of Ambrose and Walsh.

The only attacks that can be considered genuinely weaker today are Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Ponting was a devastating batsman against slightly weaker attacks, but I would back Smith to outperform Ponting against better attacks more often than not. He is a batting genius and Australian’s greatest since Don.

Interesting post and perspective. Agreed 100%.
 
Second best test batsman of all time and insanely clutch, I have never seen any batsman perform under pressure as well as Smith. Been watching cricket since 2002.
 
Current era actually is one of the hardest to bat on. Aus, India, Eng, NZ, SA all these teams have threatening bowling attacks. Moreover wickets have also become bowler friendly as home teams aren't shy away from making pitches more favorable to their own bowlers.
 
Smith is better than Kohli, quicker than Kohli to reach 27 centuries, another record for Smith, the pretend Kohli is nothing.
 
Smith is better than Kohli, quicker than Kohli to reach 27 centuries, another record for Smith, the pretend Kohli is nothing.

The actual difference between the two is not just numbers.
Smith is so clutch, Smith has already played the most number of brilliant test innings, along with BC Lara.

It was such a joy to watch him bat last night. It was unSmith like to not perform in the 2nd test.
 
Not even close. Doesn't even rank in the top 5 for me.

The best batsman I've ever seen is Brian Lara.

Steve Smith is the GOAT at scoring runs. He just knows the art of scoring runs. But I don't think he's the best batsman. There are other things apart from scoring runs that goes into being the best batsman.
 
The actual difference between the two is not just numbers.
Smith is so clutch, Smith has already played the most number of brilliant test innings, along with BC Lara.

It was such a joy to watch him bat last night. It was unSmith like to not perform in the 2nd test.

This, Smith is a gun, and last night he proved how great he is. He is clutch as well and has won so many matches for Australia of his own bat.

Even in ODI he is clutch much better than Kohli who is just a pretender, while Kohli just talks crap and does nothing in big games.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not even close. Doesn't even rank in the top 5 for me.

The best batsman I've ever seen is Brian Lara.

Steve Smith is the GOAT at scoring runs. He just knows the art of scoring runs. But I don't think he's the best batsman. There are other things apart from scoring runs that goes into being the best batsman.

The batsman has only one job, to score runs.
 
I don't think I've ever seen a player go from mediocre from debut / first few games to straight up GOAT level comparisons after 100+ games...
 
Smith is better than Ponting for the simple fact that he can play spin.
 
He is a better Test batsman than Ponting. Those who claim that he is facing easier bowlers are wrong. In fact, Ponting faced easier attacks in his peak years from 2002 to 2007.

He never faced McGrath and Warne, Wasim and Waqar retired in 2003, Ambrose and Walsh retire by 2001-2002, Donald retired in 2002, Pollock was past his prime years, Bond made his debut against Australia in 2001 and never played a Test against them again.

Steyn’s peak started from 2008 onwards and Ponting was past his best by then. James Anderson also became a legendary bowler in the 2010s.

Apart from Muralitharan and to an extent Kumble and Zaheer, Ponting mostly played against B class attacks during his peak years.

Smith in his peak years (2014 onwards) has played against a better English, Indian, South African and New Zealand attack than Ponting did from 2002 to 2007.

Even West Indies current attack can be considered their best pace attack since the retirement of Ambrose and Walsh.

The only attacks that can be considered genuinely weaker today are Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Ponting was a devastating batsman against slightly weaker attacks, but I would back Smith to outperform Ponting against better attacks more often than not. He is a batting genius and Australian’s greatest since Don.

Ponting made his Test debut in 95/96; he played all the fast bowlers you mentioned for a good 3-4 years when they were still great bowlers.

Smith has faced only Anderson + Broad (in ENG), AUS (Cummins, Hazlewood and Starc), Bumrah, and Rabada, who can be compared to those greats.

Other than that, the pace and spin attacks of this era are weaker than those Ponting faced.

For example, Ashwin is the best spinner today but he can’t be compared to Murali.
 
Ponting was a very good player of spin bowling, his failures in India in Tests are exaggerated.

I’m not sure they are; an average of 26 after multiple tours and 1 100.

Poor for an ATG of his standard.
 
Ponting was a very good player of spin bowling, his failures in India in Tests are exaggerated.

Exaggerated? He scored 662 runs in 25 innings at an average of 26.48 in India. That's exaggeration?
 
Exaggerated? He scored 662 runs in 25 innings at an average of 26.48 in India. That's exaggeration?

What’s his record in Sri Lanka? I know he did well in Pakistan/UAE.
 
Lol at people comparing Ponting to Smith, Ponting isn't half the batsman Smith is in Tests. Smith has produced more GOAT quality innings than Ponting already, not even taking batting stats into consideration. Current era is arguably the most bowling friendly era since 90s.
 
Exaggerated? He scored 662 runs in 25 innings at an average of 26.48 in India. That's exaggeration?

He was literally Harbhajan's bunny which destroyed all his self-respect in India. But he's had decent-good tours of SL vs Murali. So not a great player of spin but not as bad as his India record shows.
 
Ponting is better player against pace scored centuries against Walsh,Ambrose,Donald.
 
Ponting made his Test debut in 95/96; he played all the fast bowlers you mentioned for a good 3-4 years when they were still great bowlers.

Smith has faced only Anderson + Broad (in ENG), AUS (Cummins, Hazlewood and Starc), Bumrah, and Rabada, who can be compared to those greats.

Other than that, the pace and spin attacks of this era are weaker than those Ponting faced.

For example, Ashwin is the best spinner today but he can’t be compared to Murali.

I am referring to Ponting’s peak years, not his entire career.

Ponting averaged mid 40s until 2000-2001, and his career took off from 2002 onwards where he averaged 70+ over a 6-7 year period where he established himself as one of the most devastating batsmen of all time.

He did not enter the league of Tendulkar and Lara until the great bowlers of 90s retired or were past their best.

Now there are two possibilities: (1) he was yet to peak as a batsman until his late 20s and early 30s, and his peak simply coincided with the retirement of the aforementioned bowlers

OR

(2) He peaked only because those bowlers retired around 2001-2002. Had he faced the same class of bowling from 2002 to 2007, he would not be averaging 70+.

Either way, Smith’s peak has come at a time where only Pakistan and Sri Lanka have weaker bowling attacks than they did from 2002 to 2007 period. All other teams have better attacks now than they did at that time.

I already marked Sri Lanka as having an inferior attack now than they did at that time, but I think Ashwin would have troubled Ponting considerably. He is comfortably better than Harbhajan and the latter had his number in Test cricket.
 
I am referring to Ponting’s peak years, not his entire career.

Ponting averaged mid 40s until 2000-2001, and his career took off from 2002 onwards where he averaged 70+ over a 6-7 year period where he established himself as one of the most devastating batsmen of all time.

He did not enter the league of Tendulkar and Lara until the great bowlers of 90s retired or were past their best.

Now there are two possibilities: (1) he was yet to peak as a batsman until his late 20s and early 30s, and his peak simply coincided with the retirement of the aforementioned bowlers

OR

(2) He peaked only because those bowlers retired around 2001-2002. Had he faced the same class of bowling from 2002 to 2007, he would not be averaging 70+.

Either way, Smith’s peak has come at a time where only Pakistan and Sri Lanka have weaker bowling attacks than they did from 2002 to 2007 period. All other teams have better attacks now than they did at that time.

I already marked Sri Lanka as having an inferior attack now than they did at that time, but I think Ashwin would have troubled Ponting considerably. He is comfortably better than Harbhajan and the latter had his number in Test cricket.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

I agree.
 
I am referring to Ponting’s peak years, not his entire career.

Ponting averaged mid 40s until 2000-2001, and his career took off from 2002 onwards where he averaged 70+ over a 6-7 year period where he established himself as one of the most devastating batsmen of all time.

He did not enter the league of Tendulkar and Lara until the great bowlers of 90s retired or were past their best.

Now there are two possibilities: (1) he was yet to peak as a batsman until his late 20s and early 30s, and his peak simply coincided with the retirement of the aforementioned bowlers

OR

(2) He peaked only because those bowlers retired around 2001-2002. Had he faced the same class of bowling from 2002 to 2007, he would not be averaging 70+.

Either way, Smith’s peak has come at a time where only Pakistan and Sri Lanka have weaker bowling attacks than they did from 2002 to 2007 period. All other teams have better attacks now than they did at that time.

I already marked Sri Lanka as having an inferior attack now than they did at that time, but I think Ashwin would have troubled Ponting considerably. He is comfortably better than Harbhajan and the latter had his number in Test cricket.

Both Smith and Cummins are GOAT test players but still Australia aren't the best team going around in the world.
 
Both Smith and Cummins are GOAT test players but still Australia aren't the best team going around in the world.
Their middle order is very weak and one opening spot is unsettled. With the arrival of Green and Pucovski. They might become very hard to beat. Next Aus tour to Ind will be a cracker
 
Their middle order is very weak and one opening spot is unsettled. With the arrival of Green and Pucovski. They might become very hard to beat. Next Aus tour to Ind will be a cracker

Pucovski and Green will be devoured by Ashwin and Jadeja on Indian tracks at this stage of their careers. It is very unfair to expect them to perform in India at this point.

They will need 2-3 Asian tours to get going in such conditions.

India will walk over Australia. It would be surprising if that series is as competitive as the 2017 one, mainly because Kohli couldn’t buy a run in that series.
 
I agree with [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION].
Steve Smith is better test batsmen than Ponting.
Smith dominated spinners, he had fabulous 100 on square turning pune pitch. I never seen Ponting domination against spin.

Order wise:
Bradman
Steve Smith
Ponting
 
Their middle order is very weak and one opening spot is unsettled. With the arrival of Green and Pucovski. They might become very hard to beat. Next Aus tour to Ind will be a cracker

No good keeper batsman & an average skipper who mishandles reviews all the time. Also they have bang average guys like wade in middle order. It would be an one sided affair.
 
Pucovski and Green will be devoured by Ashwin and Jadeja on Indian tracks at this stage of their careers. It is very unfair to expect them to perform in India at this point.

They will need 2-3 Asian tours to get going in such conditions.

India will walk over Australia. It would be surprising if that series is as competitive as the 2017 one, mainly because Kohli couldn’t buy a run in that series.

Any idea why Kholi couldn't buy a run in that series?
 
I agree with [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION].
Steve Smith is better test batsmen than Ponting.
Smith dominated spinners, he had fabulous 100 on square turning pune pitch. I never seen Ponting domination against spin.

Order wise:
Bradman
Steve Smith
Ponting

Smith is the best since Bradman period. Look at how he has demolished Bumrah the ease at which he plays Bumrah who is at his peak tells you everything you need to know about Smith.
 
Steve Smith Ready To Sacrifice T20 World Cup To Be Fit For Ashes

Former Australia captain Steve Smith called Test cricket "my main goal" and hoped to remain fit for the upcoming Ashes starting in Brisbane on December 8, less than a month after the conclusion of T20 World Cup.

Steve Smith is prepared to sacrifice playing at this year's Twenty20 World Cup to ensure he is fit for the Ashes series against England, with the star batsmen making clear Test cricket is his priority. The former Australia captain pulled out of their current limited-overs tour of the West Indies with an elbow injury and said recovery was proving a slow process. "There's still a bit of time between now and (the World Cup), and I'm tracking okay at the moment -- it's slow, but I'm going okay," he told cricket.com.au on Friday.


The World Cup is scheduled to take place from October 17 to November 14 in the United Arab Emirates and Oman after being moved out of India due to the coronavirus situation.

"I'd love to be part of the World Cup, for sure," he added.

"But from my point of view, Test cricket, that's my main goal -- to be right for the Ashes and try to emulate what I've done in the last few Ashes series I've been involved in."

Smith was the standout performer during the last Ashes on his return from a ban for ball-tampering.

Despite bearing the brunt of hostile English fans, he smashed an incredible 774 runs in four Tests, at an average of 110.57, including twin centuries on his Test return at Edgbaston.

It underlines how crucial he will be to Australia over the five-Test series due to get under way on December 8 in Brisbane.

"I want to put myself in a position where I can have that kind of impact," he said.

"If that does mean not partaking in the World Cup, then we'll have to go down that path, but hopefully we don't have to go there."

Smith said his injury began with pain in his left wrist at the start of last summer following a change in his batting grip, then moved to the elbow.

He needed painkillers and anti-inflammatory medication while batting during the recent Indian Premier League and has been working on rehab ever since.

"I've made a bit of progress with it the last few weeks," he said. "I started some batting, just 10 minutes at a time, and basically my path now to getting back to playing is building up from there.

"Because it's a tendon (injury), it's basically how you (feel when you) wake up the next day, so I start at 10 minutes and if I wake up the next day and I'm good, then I can go up to 12 minutes, and if I wake up well again, I go up to 15.

"Currently that's where I'm at -- 15 minutes -- and I've got to build up to 45 to get myself to a point where the medicos believe I can be comfortable."

https://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/steve-smith-ready-to-sacrifice-t20-world-cup-to-be-fit-for-ashes-2478195
 
"I'd love to be part of the World Cup, for sure," he added.

"But from my point of view, Test cricket, that's my main goal -- to be right for the Ashes and try to emulate what I've done in the last few Ashes series I've been involved in."

And people still think here that "world trophies" matter the most in cricket. For the very best players, only the ODI world cup is above the stature of marquee test series, and that too the Ashes might have a bigger stature for many English and Australian players. The best players always try to prioritise Test cricket more because it is what creates the biggest legacy for them as players in cricket.

I know it's the Ashes, but the Aussies have just never taken WT20 seriously enough as a competition. I've found that even their fans aren't as interested as fans in other parts of the world are for the WT20, and if the Australian team actually gave a care about the competition, I'm sure they would've won that trophy at least once if not more.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top