Virat Kohli versus Steve Smith - Tests

[ManFan]

And yet he batted first in 3 tests & under less pressure, the last two tests had much better batting tracks. When under pressure, not the second innings at Pune as Aus had a huge lead, he failed 3~4 times.

Now compare that to the runs Kohli scored against England, albeit in India, under pressure virtually all the time. For anyone who says that Smith is a level above Kohli, on current form, needs to look at the kind of (big) innings Kohl;i has played under pressure in the last year or so.Doesn't change my opinion of Kohli, or that of Smith.

Smith played an equally under-pressure knock in the First Ashes Test. If Kholi scores in swinging conditions in ENG, than he will go down as this generation's best on the condition that Smith fails there also.

 

[Ab Fan]

And yet he batted first in 3 tests & under less pressure, the last two tests had much better batting tracks. When under pressure, not the second innings at Pune as Aus had a huge lead, he failed 3~4 times.

Now compare that to the runs Kohli scored against England, albeit in India, under pressure virtually all the time. For anyone who says that Smith is a level above Kohli, on current form, needs to look at the kind of (big) innings Kohl;i has played under pressure in the last year or so.Doesn't change my opinion of Kohli, or that of Smith.

You are talking rubbish. He scored 3 hundreds in 4 test series against Ashwin/Jadeja in India. It just doesn't get any better. In comparison, none of his rivals did anywhere close to him.

What pressure was there against England at home for Kohli? England were no match to India in that series when pitches were much better and flatter than what Australia got. India was having fun in that series.

Pressure was when for the first time India got stiff competition against any overseas side at home and we all know how much Kohli averaged in that series.

Let's not do meaningless talks. And have not said anything here about these two earlier.

 

[Buffet]

For people who bash Kohli excessively, for his record against England, they need to check Smith's record in the 3 tests where it swung in England! He was looking no better today with the pink ball doing all sorts of things under the light, also before you bring up Pune check the number of lives he got en route to his hundred, the best player on that track was Rahul in the first innings before he lost his head & his wicket!

Smith has issue when ball is swinging for sure, but you are mixing two things here. Kohli just had one test in Eng where ball did a lot. He is bashed for not scoring anything in 10 innings.

 

[WengerOut]

Smith has issue when ball is swinging for sure, but you are mixing two things here. Kohli just had one test in Eng where ball did a lot. He is bashed for not scoring anything in 10 innings.

Exactly right. He had a poor series not because he had any special difficulty there but rather woefully out of form.

 

[R0H1T]

You are talking rubbish. He scored 3 hundreds in 4 test series against Ashwin/Jadeja in India. It just doesn't get any better. In comparison, none of his rivals did anywhere close to him.

What pressure was there against England at home for Kohli? England were no match to India in that series when pitches were much better and flatter than what Australia got. India was having fun in that series.

Pressure was when for the first time India got stiff competition against any overseas side at home and we all know how much Kohli averaged in that series.

Let's not do meaningless talks. And have not said anything here about these two earlier.

And you are talking out of your backside, only his Pune hundred can be rated, even though he was dropped like 5 or 6 times. At Ranchi Pujara made Aus go to sleep, it was that flat, especially batting first for smith & the last test as well the track was pretty good to bat on day 1 & 2.

And you glorifying his hundreds is doing what exactly? Virat's hundreds in the England series were just as good if not better, especially the double ton at Mumbai, Smith's Pune ton was not better than that!

Smith has issue when ball is swinging for sure, but you are mixing two things here. Kohli just had one test in Eng where ball did a lot. He is bashed for not scoring anything in 10 innings.

I'm not, Kohli was badly out of form. Though I do see he has problem with the cover drive, especially when it;s swinging. Let's see if he can put it away like SRT in 2004 at the SCG.

 

[Buffet]

Exactly right. He had a poor series not because he had any special difficulty there but rather woefully out of form.

Kohli did more than fine in SA when ball was swinging against Steyn and Co. Most batsmen find it hard in swinging conditions and Kohli is not an exception, but not scoring anything in 10 innings gets harsh criticism. If Kohli scores runs in the next series in Eng then not many are going to criticize him even if ball doesn't swing much.

 

[Proactive_]

So Pakistan is not a Weak team lol ? A team that lost multiple tests to WI , ZIM and then subsequently whitewashed by SL ? They havent even been able to draw a test in AUS in last 10-15 yrs.

Well they did draw a Test series in England and were close to being No.1 when they visited Austalia so I'd say they were definitely much stronger than what you're giving them credit for.

For starters Kohli does not Avg 46.5 ... and the Gap isnt always linear or static. One good or bad series and the Gap suddenly changes.

Ricky Ponting even after starting many years after Tendulkar had at one point almost caught up with Tendulkar by 2006/07. So Iam talking more than 3000 runs worth of difference at avg of 50

We will talk when Kohli catches up and Smith has faced the likes of SL and Bangladesh at home. Until then, the bottom line is that Smith, even though he has played much less against the weakest teams as compared to Kohli is comfortably ahead by just about every batting metric.

Just one match here and there doesn't make a difference. Even in this match it was bad batting that led to Aus collapse. Look at SAF inngs how much they made and the 2nd inngs collapse. Imagine what might have happened if Steyn was there.
Kohli bats in a much stronger batting unit therefore rare for everyone to shoot themselves in the foot.

Kohli bats in a much stronger unit which is also why he gets all these 100/2 and 150/2 positions to come out and start bashing the bowling. Case in point being the Kolkata Test recently -


Came in at 13/2 in the first innings - Result - 0 (11)
Came in at 192/2 in the second innings - Result - 104(119)

Your point actually favors Smith.

 

[Ab Fan]

And you are talking out of your backside, only his Pune hundred can be rated, even though he was dropped like 5 or 6 times. At Ranchi Pujara made Aus go to sleep, it was that flat, especially batting first for smith & the last test as well the track was pretty good to bat on day 1 & 2.

And you glorifying his hundreds is doing what exactly? Virat's hundreds in the England series were just as good if not better, especially the double ton at Mumbai, Smith's Pune ton was not better than that!

1) Innings against Moen and Rashid at home should not be compared with innings against Ashwin/Jadeja in India.

2) Kohli's knock in Mumbai was high quality but others aren't even close. Smith got three hundreds in that series and pitches weren't pattas as you are making of. It was tougher than what Kohli and others got in other games in England.

Ranchi wasn't flat either. What was Australia's score in first inning and how much Smith got out of that?

You are turning out to be very similar to those people who dont credit Kohli for smashing four hundreds vs Australia in a series because those pitches were absolute pattas.

 

[Ab Fan]

And you are talking out of your backside, <B>only his Pune hundred can be rated</B>, even though he was dropped like 5 or 6 times. At Ranchi Pujara made Aus go to sleep, it was that flat, especially batting first for smith & the last test as well the track was pretty good to bat on day 1 & 2.

And you glorifying his hundreds is doing what exactly? Virat's hundreds in the England series were just as good if not better, especially the double ton at Mumbai, Smith's Pune ton was not better than that!I'm not, Kohli was badly out of form. Though I do see he has problem with the cover drive, especially when it;s swinging. Let's see if he can put it away like SRT in 2004 at the SCG.

Really? You won't rate a 178 in 3rd test and 111 in 4th test against one of India's strongest attacks in Indian conditions.

 

[WengerOut]

1) Innings against Moen and Rashid at home should not be compared with innings against Ashwin/Jadeja in India.

2) Kohli's knock in Mumbai was high quality but others aren't even close. Smith got three hundreds in that series and pitches weren't pattas as you are making of. It was tougher than what Kohli and others got in other games in England.

Ranchi wasn't flat either. What was Australia's score in first inning and how much Smith got out of that?

You are turning out to be very similar to those people who dont credit Kohli for smashing four hundreds vs Australia in a series because those pitches were absolute pattas.

Kohli second innings at Visakhapatnam v England is his best inings of that series , Mumbai innings , Rajkot second innings etc to name a few.

PS: if anything , Dharamsala was more Australian than Indian. You can just look at some articles of that time. Ranchi was flat as well. Maxwell scored a century there

 

[R0H1T]

1) Innings against Moen and Rashid at home should not be compared with innings against Ashwin/Jadeja in India.

2) Kohli's knock in Mumbai was high quality but others aren't even close. Smith got three hundreds in that series and pitches weren't pattas as you are making of. It was tougher than what Kohli and others got in other games in England.

Ranchi wasn't flat either. What was Australia's score in first inning and how much Smith got out of that?

You are turning out to be very similar to those people who dont credit Kohli for smashing four hundreds vs Australia in a series because those pitches were absolute pattas.

When you're facing a first innings deficit of 400 & 5 or 6 wickets down, that knock should count for much more especially when it was (virtually?) chanceless.

Ranchi wasn;t flat? India batted 210 overs with our top batters scoring less than 200 between them & Jadeja smacked a quickfire 50, could've easily scored a 100 if India didn;t want to declare.

I have watched the series & his knocks, like I said only Pune can be rated highly Dharamshala was still very good to bat on day 1, unlike day 4 when we were chasing, Ranchi ~ let;s just say you don;t know what dead (track) as a dodo means!

Really? You won't rate a 178 in 3rd test and 111 in 4th test against one of India's strongest attacks in Indian conditions.

Strongest ~ Shami was missing, Ashwin was hamstrung literally!

 

[Ab Fan]

Kohli second innings at Visakhapatnam v England is his best inings of that series , Mumbai innings , Rajkot second innings etc to name a few.

PS: if anything , Dharamsala was more Australian than Indian. You can just look at some articles of that time. Ranchi was flat as well. Maxwell scored a century there

Rajkot 2nd innings ? Wasn't that the flattest track of the season?

Yes, now every Kohli inning has come against high quality spinners on rank turners.

Fact is Smith is a level ahead of Kohli who himself is a fantastic batsmen in tests and I dont see people convincing here. So I am sorry for that and I am out of this now.

 

[R0H1T]

Rajkot 2nd innings ? Wasn't that the flattest track of the season?

Yes, now every Kohli inning has come against high quality spinners on rank turners.

Fact is Smith is a level ahead of Kohli who himself is a fantastic batsmen in tests and I dont see people convincing here. So I am sorry for that and I am out of this now.

Keep telling yourself that, maybe it;ll come true when both of their careers end

 

[WengerOut]

Rajkot 2nd innings ? Wasn't that the flattest track of the season?

Yes, now every Kohli inning has come against high quality spinners on rank turners.

Fact is Smith is a level ahead of Kohli who himself is a fantastic batsmen in tests and I dont see people convincing here. So I am sorry for that and I am out of this now.

Haven't you ever seen a flat track turning bad on 5th day? Have you not seen green track turning flat as days go by ? Or you just assume that pitch condition should not be same as days go by?

 

[Savage]

ATM

Kohli is Second best Batsmen in the world.Let's not forget that he was outclassed by Smith in "India" this year.Smith was best batsmen of the series and kohli was worst.His stats across all formats are also overrated this year.

Kohli(2016)>>kohli(2017)

However his stats might show different story

 

[Ab Fan]

[MENTION=134809]sensible-indian-fan[/MENTION]!

 

[Ab Fan]

Haven't you ever seen a flat track turning bad on 5th day? Have you not seen green track turning flat as days go by ? Or you just assume that pitch condition should not be same as days go by?

I have seen all of them and I saw all home matches of India except the current series.

 

[Ab Fan]

Keep telling yourself that, maybe it;ll come true when both of their careers end

Now I think it never will be in India.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Present Smith > Kohli

Future I believe Kohli leave everyone in his generation to dust when he retires. Seen Sachin, Dravid so many guys. But this guy is the hungriest of all with excellent work ethic. Yuvraj once mentioned that he wished he had the work ethic of Kohli. Already the greatest run chaser of all time in ODIs. In Tests his early part was little iffy as he had struggle switching between formats. I think now he has improved much better.

 

[Mr.Q]

Hi guys making my debut here. Here are my thoughts on the matter.

As a batsman, Virat Kohli is the best in the world right now irrespective of the format. The range of shots, technique, gift of timing, temperament, fitness, desire to score runs... He has everything. It's hard to find another batsman who is so complete. Test cricket is one format where he hadn't delivered. Fluent stroke players are often not up there in the list of best test batsmen. They have a wider range of shots and the temptation to play at the ball is high and comes naturally to them. More scoring shots (read opening the bat face or playing away from the body) means greater probability of getting out. The commentators were showing the other day how two balls at pretty much the same line and length were played differently by Kohli and Pujara. Kohli opened the face of the bat towards cover for a single whereas Pujara just defended it.

Now where Smith has been better in Tests is effectiveness. He has been more effective and successful as a batsman in Tests simply because he stays longer at the crease without getting out and scores runs consistently. Apart from him having great hand-eye coordination and skills, there are some important technical reasons. By the time the ball leaves the bowler's hand, the guy is at middle and off stump. This can limit a batsman's shot range (even his cover drive sometimes look more like a dab than a fluent swing of the bat) but what it does is take out the danger of off stump, fourth and fifth stump lines to a great extent which is a huge advantage. He can play the deliveries outside off stump close to his body. The closer your bat is to the body the lesser the chance of getting an edge (this is where you need footwork with a conventional batting style). He can even play balls on that line on the on side which he often does. He can also leave the balls at wider lines because he's already pretty much covering the off stump line. The problem with this stance/shuffling is getting trapped in front of the wicket. This can happen when you fall over on the front foot getting beaten by movement of the ball or get caught on the back foot misjudging the length or playing a cross batted shot. But despite of the shuffle across the stumps, Steve Smith is so well balanced and still when he faces the ball that he can monouevre the ball on his pads with pretty much no foot movement at all. This makes it extremely difficult to trap him in front of the stumps. And against the spinners he stays leg side of the ball and has very good foot work. Smith's batting style is something that incidentally happened to suit cricket. A technique that helps him preserve his wicket in exchange for fluent shot making, which is basically why I don't rate him above Kohli.

Kohli had not been batting like a really great test batsman. Batting in tests is all about a balance between good shot selection and a conservative mindset to prolong your stay at the crease. His recent performances point towards a marked improvement in that regard. Maintaining this consistency against tougher opponents will be the challenge for him. If he can continue batting like this, he will go past Steve Smith. As a batsman Kohli is at a totally different level to anybody in the arena.

For now until Kohli converts his potential into consistent performances like the recent ones in Test cricket one will have to say Steve Smith is more effective in Tests as he has climbed greater heights.

 

[Mamoon]

Hi guys making my debut here. Here are my thoughts on the matter.

As a batsman, Virat Kohli is the best in the world right now irrespective of the format. The range of shots, technique, gift of timing, temperament, fitness, desire to score runs... He has everything. It's hard to find another batsman who is so complete. Test cricket is one format where he hadn't delivered. Fluent stroke players are often not up there in the list of best test batsmen. They have a wider range of shots and the temptation to play at the ball is high and comes naturally to them. More scoring shots (read opening the bat face or playing away from the body) means greater probability of getting out. The commentators were showing the other day how two balls at pretty much the same line and length were played differently by Kohli and Pujara. Kohli opened the face of the bat towards cover for a single whereas Pujara just defended it.

Now where Smith has been better in Tests is effectiveness. He has been more effective and successful as a batsman in Tests simply because he stays longer at the crease without getting out and scores runs consistently. Apart from him having great hand-eye coordination and skills, there are some important technical reasons. By the time the ball leaves the bowler's hand, the guy is at middle and off stump. This can limit a batsman's shot range (even his cover drive sometimes look more like a dab than a fluent swing of the bat) but what it does is take out the danger of off stump, fourth and fifth stump lines to a great extent which is a huge advantage. He can play the deliveries outside off stump close to his body. The closer your bat is to the body the lesser the chance of getting an edge (this is where you need footwork with a conventional batting style). He can even play balls on that line on the on side which he often does. He can also leave the balls at wider lines because he's already pretty much covering the off stump line. The problem with this stance/shuffling is getting trapped in front of the wicket. This can happen when you fall over on the front foot getting beaten by movement of the ball or get caught on the back foot misjudging the length or playing a cross batted shot. But despite of the shuffle across the stumps, Steve Smith is so well balanced and still when he faces the ball that he can monouevre the ball on his pads with pretty much no foot movement at all. This makes it extremely difficult to trap him in front of the stumps. And against the spinners he stays leg side of the ball and has very good foot work. Smith's batting style is something that incidentally happened to suit cricket. A technique that helps him preserve his wicket in exchange for fluent shot making, which is basically why I don't rate him above Kohli.

Kohli had not been batting like a really great test batsman. Batting in tests is all about a balance between good shot selection and a conservative mindset to prolong your stay at the crease. His recent performances point towards a marked improvement in that regard. Maintaining this consistency against tougher opponents will be the challenge for him. If he can continue batting like this, he will go past Steve Smith. As a batsman Kohli is at a totally different level to anybody in the arena.

For now until Kohli converts his potential into consistent performances like the recent ones in Test cricket one will have to say Steve Smith is more effective in Tests as he has climbed greater heights.

Welcome to PP. The best first post I have read in years.

 

[Tusker]

Well they did draw a Test series in England and were close to being No.1 when they visited Austalia so I'd say they were definitely much stronger than what you're giving them credit for.

They were No.3 before the tour started because India had cleaned up England and WI had managed to beat them in UAE ( actually came within 50 runs of winning the series lol ) Last year they got to #1 because the India - WI Test match was washed out.

After the Aus series they went to #5 and then 7-8 months and whitewashes to SL, NZ later they are now below 90 points and below SL. Had it not been for that Series we would have never heard the end of your ranting and raving on how India is a home bully and all the usual Rona Dhona that comes with it. Spare me the "Closer to No.1 clap trap" ... lol.

We will talk when Kohli catches up and Smith has faced the likes of SL and Bangladesh at home. Until then, the bottom line is that Smith, even though he has played much less against the weakest teams as compared to Kohli is comfortably ahead by just about every batting metric.

See above.

Kohli bats in a much stronger unit which is also why he gets all these 100/2 and 150/2 positions to come out and start bashing the bowling. Case in point being the Kolkata Test recently -


Came in at 13/2 in the first innings - Result - 0 (11)
Came in at 192/2 in the second innings - Result - 104(119)

Your point actually favors Smith.

Except that Kohli has done this too ... few times despite lesser opportunities ....


1st inngs:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...-1st-Test-india-tour-of-south-africa-2013-14/


1st and 3rd inngs
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...gland-2nd-Test-england-tour-of-india-2016-17/


4th inngs:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...ndia-3rd-Test-border-gavaskar-trophy-2014-15/



http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...a-2nd-Test-india-tour-of-new-zealand-2013-14/



Now lets see if you want to venture into the 4th inngs comparison

 

[Mr.Q]

Welcome to PP. The best first post I have read in years.

Thanks! Means a lot coming from a senior poster. I was forced to start with a long post to keep keyboard warriors at bay. Quite a few of them here from both sides of the border

 

[Proactive_]

They were No.3 before the tour started because India had cleaned up England and WI had managed to beat them in UAE ( actually came within 50 runs of winning the series lol ) Last year they got to #1 because the India - WI Test match was washed out.

After the Aus series they went to #5 and then 7-8 months and whitewashes to SL, NZ later they are now below 90 points and below SL. Had it not been for that Series we would have never heard the end of your ranting and raving on how India is a home bully and all the usual Rona Dhona that comes with it. Spare me the "Closer to No.1 clap trap" ... lol.

None of this proves that they were "one of the weakest teams". India takes a nose dive as well after it's overseas tours. Until that point they were one of the strong home teams with a Test series draw in England. That's a pretty competent Test record up until that point.

See above.

Except that Kohli has done this too ... few times despite lesser opportunities ....


1st inngs:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...-1st-Test-india-tour-of-south-africa-2013-14/


1st and 3rd inngs
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...gland-2nd-Test-england-tour-of-india-2016-17/


4th inngs:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...ndia-3rd-Test-border-gavaskar-trophy-2014-15/



http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/... as well in the 1st half as you do in second.

 

[Tusker]

None of this proves that they were "one of the weakest teams". India takes a nose dive as well after it's overseas tours. Until that point they were one of the strong home teams with a Test series draw in England. That's a pretty competent Test record up until that point.

So since when did you start believing in Home records ? Let me guess - when it became convenient for you to do so ... ok I will play along. Have you looked at Indias and Pakistans home record in the last 5 years?

Here it is:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...span;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=team

One Single Test Loss to Aus vs 6 Tests Lost to Teams like SL, WI, NZ, SA - Teams that dont do well in Asia and most importantly teams that you don't rate especially in Asian conditions ... This is the reason why Pakistan is considered one of the weakest teams now. In contrast Last time India lost a home test to WI was nearly 25 yrs ago. Last time SL won was .... never.


Even far better Pakistan teams from the past 15 yrs or so are never considered as any serious contenders to win anything in AUS. Never have even drawn a Test in last 3 series to Aus .. main reason why Aus do not invite them on a 4 year rotation.

LOL at you posting the NZ innings, an innings in which he had the clearest nick to the keeper when he was around 15. No wonder BCCI only realized they needed to start using DRS once the home leg started,

So BCCI who you don't consider to have any morals is suddenly a paragon of virtues and India obviously never suffered from Umpiring blunders ehh ?

and even in those innings you've posted there are people giving him more than decent company with their 50s and 100s.

Shifting goal posts by adding more filters to suit your agenda I see ... So its Kohli's fault that his fellow batsmen don't shoot themselves in the foot ?

There are dozens of instances in which he's miserably failed when faced with a precarious position with early wickets down, almost every innings on the English tour, Test matches against Australia recently immediately com to mind, not to mention the painful innings in Kolkata as I mentioned earlier.

So has Smith. Go ahead clearly write down your criteria for failure and justify it. Then post the score cards and I will post similar inngs for Smith.

I'd much rather have my players perform in the 1st half of a Test match to put the match beyond the opposition. It isn't like ODI when you don't have a choice of choosing the 1st or 2 innings in every match. Every player gets a 1st and 2nd innings in every Test match. There's no excuse for not performing as well in the 1st half as you do in second.

Arbitrary , unilateral and baseless points can be made by me as well. The reason this is baseless is because there is no option for batsmen to not play in the 4th inngs. Regardless of how well you do in the 1st inngs you will be left with no other options to bat in the 4th inngs and its not like you can say well I did well in the 1st inngs so I really dont have to play well in the 2nd as I have done my job. Doesnt work like that.

 

[Proactive_]

So since when did you start believing in Home records ? Let me guess - when it became convenient for you to do so ... ok I will play along. Have you looked at Indias and Pakistans home record in the last 5 years?

Here it is:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...span;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=team

One Single Test Loss to Aus vs 6 Tests Lost to Teams like SL, WI, NZ, SA - Teams that dont do well in Asia and most importantly teams that you don't rate especially in Asian conditions ... This is the reason why Pakistan is considered one of the weakest teams now. In contrast Last time India lost a home test to WI was nearly 25 yrs ago. Last time SL won was .... never.


Even far better Pakistan teams from the past 15 yrs or so are never considered as any serious contenders to win anything in AUS. Never have even drawn a Test in last 3 series to Aus .. main reason why Aus do not invite them on a 4 year rotation.

Of course when compared to the likes of WI and SL, it's definitely stronger at home. SL has lost to Ind, Pak, SA at home in the last 5 years. Pak lost to SL and has a few drawn series. Pak at home is still miles better than SL and especially WI.

Also, what does India's home record have anything to do with this? The point was that India too takes a nose dive when it visits overseas which is true. In the last 21 Tests in SA, Eng, NZ and Aus, India's record reads 1 Win, 15 Losses and 5 Draws. It really isn't any better than Pakistan who won 2 Tests in a single series in these countries. Something India hasn't done since.. I can't even remember.

So BCCI who you don't consider to have any morals is suddenly a paragon of virtues and India obviously never suffered from Umpiring blunders ehh ?


Shifting goal posts by adding more filters to suit your agenda I see ... So its Kohli's fault that his fellow batsmen don't shoot themselves in the foot ?


So has Smith. Go ahead clearly write down your criteria for failure and justify it. Then post the score cards and I will post similar inngs for Smith.

There is no filter. Kohli failed in the entire series in England when he was more often than not in the crease under 10 overs in challenging conditions. But for the sake of specificity, here are more:


2nd Innings:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10716/scorecard/1030215/India-vs-New-Zealand-2nd-Test/

1st and 2nd innings:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10839/scorecard/1062573/India-vs-Australia-1st-Test/

1st and 2nd Innings:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10839/scorecard/1062574/India-vs-Australia-2nd-Test/

And I'm not even posting the innings during the India-SA series.

Arbitrary , unilateral and baseless points can be made by me as well. The reason this is baseless is because there is no option for batsmen to not play in the 4th inngs. Regardless of how well you do in the 1st inngs you will be left with no other options to bat in the 4th inngs and its not like you can say well I did well in the 1st inngs so I really dont have to play well in the 2nd as I have done my job. Doesnt work like that.

By the same line of reasoning, why hasn't Kohli done as well in the first and second innings as Smith has to set up the game better? There is no point to be made here.

 

[Tusker]

Of course when compared to the likes of WI and SL, it's definitely stronger at home. SL has lost to Ind, Pak, SA at home in the last 5 years. Pak lost to SL and has a few drawn series. Pak at home is still miles better than SL and especially WI.

Also, what does India's home record have anything to do with this? The point was that India too takes a nose dive when it visits overseas which is true. In the last 21 Tests in SA, Eng, NZ and Aus, India's record reads 1 Win, 15 Losses and 5 Draws. It really isn't any better than Pakistan who won 2 Tests in a single series in these countries. Something India hasn't done since.. I can't even remember.

You were the one that brought up home records thats why I put up India's home record to show you what Strong teams records look like.

And no SL is better than PAK despite having had to face India twice at home in the last 5 yrs.

Home record:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...am=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=team


Away Records (Excl Neutral) :
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...am=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=team

Away Records (incl Neutral) :
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...am=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=team

and then you go on wondering why People question your nationality.

There is no filter. Kohli failed in the entire series in England when he was more often than not in the crease under 10 overs in challenging conditions. But for the sake of specificity, here are more:

Something tells me you will declare performance in Eng as the decider

2nd Innings:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10716/scorecard/1030215/India-vs-New-Zealand-2nd-Test/

1st and 2nd innings:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10839/scorecard/1062573/India-vs-Australia-1st-Test/

1st and 2nd Innings:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10839/scorecard/1062574/India-vs-Australia-2nd-Test/

And I'm not even posting the innings during the India-SA series.

Look at Smiths perf in the current ongoing Test match . Are you for real trying to argue that Smith does not have failures ? Seriously ?

By the same line of reasoning, why hasn't Kohli done as well in the first and second innings as Smith has to set up the game better? There is no point to be made here.

Smith
Ist inngs: 3880 in 57 inngs
2nd Inngs: 1677 in 50 inngs

Kohli:
Ist inngs: 3596 in 61
2nd Inngs: 1672 in 45


Kohli scores more in the 2nd inngs and Smith does that in the 1st inngs. However there is no doubt whatsoever as to when the conditions are worse for batting by and large. Werent you harping about this earlier in some other thread. You keep talking about flat pitches and what have you but now you want to completely re-locate the goal post ? I wonder why lol

So decide and pick on one parameter that you think will earn you a win in this debate and I will respond to it. Dont have the time for responding to all points.

 

[Proactive_]

You were the one that brought up home records thats why I put up India's home record to show you what Strong teams records look like.

And no SL is better than PAK despite having had to face India twice at home in the last 5 yrs.

Home record:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...am=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=team


Away Records (Excl Neutral) :
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...am=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=team

Away Records (incl Neutral) :
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...am=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=team

and then you go on wondering why People question your nationality.

Seems like you messed up the numbers. Your own table shows that Pakistan is much ahead as a Test team, they haven't played Zimbabwe at home like SL either..and how are you so sure that India would blank Pakistan in the UAE if they were to play?

Something tells me you will declare performance in Eng as the decider
Look at Smiths perf in the current ongoing Test match . Are you for real trying to argue that Smith does not have failures ? Seriously ?



Smith
Ist inngs: 3880 in 57 inngs
2nd Inngs: 1677 in 50 inngs

Kohli:
Ist inngs: 3596 in 61
2nd Inngs: 1672 in 45


Kohli scores more in the 2nd inngs and Smith does that in the 1st inngs. However there is no doubt whatsoever as to when the conditions are worse for batting by and large. Werent you harping about this earlier in some other thread. You keep talking about flat pitches and what have you but now you want to completely re-locate the goal post ? I wonder why lol

So decide and pick on one parameter that you think will earn you a win in this debate and I will respond to it. Dont have the time for responding to all points.

When the conditions are worse for batting? Cricket is played in some other countries besides India too pal. For instance, in England the 1st day is easily the hardest for the batsmen, so it is for SA and NZ. Since assumption though.

Also, I hope you do realize that averages are calculated for a reason. Someone can be chasing a target of 60 in the 4th innings and end up being 5* which according to your astute analysis should not just be counted as a full innings but also be neglected since it ended with a not out. That's why almost every cricket analysis is done on the basis of averages and not innings. By your line of reasoning, Kumble was almost as good a bowler as Warne only because their Wickets/ innings is comparable. Laughable really.

 

[ind_win]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION] & [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] - please try to discontinue this seemingly neverending discussion.
Both Smith and Kohli are among world cricket's best now. We could take a call after 2 years as Kohli seems to have taken interest/liking to test cricket now. And if Smith could scale greater heights or not.

 

[Savage]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION] & [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] - please try to discontinue this seemingly neverending discussion.
Both Smith and Kohli are among world cricket's best now. We could take a call after 2 years as Kohli seems to have taken interest/liking to test cricket now. And if Smith could scale greater heights or not.

One is trying hard to prove kohli is Great in Test while other is trying to prove he is rubbish in Test

 

[Tusker]

Seems like you messed up the numbers. Your own table shows that Pakistan is much ahead as a Test team, they haven't played Zimbabwe at home like SL either..and how are you so sure that India would blank Pakistan in the UAE if they were to play?

The Away stats are in response to your comment about India being worse than Pakistan away.

The Home stats are in response to your claim that SL are worse than Pakistan. It was your idea to use home stats to separate Pak and SL. Also Zim is not easy to bear as Pak found out last time they played them.

When the conditions are worse for batting? Cricket is played in some other countries besides India too pal. For instance, in England the 1st day is easily the hardest for the batsmen, so it is for SA and NZ. Since assumption though.

Not supported by stats and is a telling indicator as to how little you know about Test Cricket nuances or you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.. In this Decade the difference between 1st inngs avg and 4th inngs Avg is quite huge ( 36 vs 24 ) .

4th inngs in Eng:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team


1st Inngs in Eng:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

Also, I hope you do realize that averages are calculated for a reason. Someone can be chasing a target of 60 in the 4th innings and end up being 5* which according to your astute analysis should not just be counted as a full innings but also be neglected since it ended with a not out. That's why almost every cricket analysis is done on the basis of averages and not innings. By your line of reasoning, Kumble was almost as good a bowler as Warne only because their Wickets/ innings is comparable. Laughable really.

So a openers Avg has the same value as say No.6 batsman in your world ?

 

[Proactive_]

The Away stats are in response to your comment about India being worse than Pakistan away.

I didn't say India is worse, I said India's ranking also takes a nosedive when it travels which is a fact.

The Home stats are in response to your claim that SL are worse than Pakistan. It was your idea to use home stats to separate Pak and SL. Also Zim is not easy to bear as Pak found out last time they played them.

And the stats don't prove your point either that Pakistan is as bad a team as SL or WI.

Not supported by stats and is a telling indicator as to how little you know about Test Cricket nuances or you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.. In this Decade the difference between 1st inngs avg and 4th inngs Avg is quite huge ( 36 vs 24 ) .

4th inngs in Eng:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team


1st Inngs in Eng:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

Didn't WI chase like 300+ recently quite easily in England? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that a typical Day 5 English pitch is much easier to bat than a Typical Day 1 pitch with green cover unless you have ATG spinners to exploit whatever rough there is. Such a drastic decrease in Averages only shows the competence of teams rather than the conditions. There is nothing different in the conditions in 2010s as opposed to the 2000s. to warrant such a decrease.

It isn't like India where the Averages in the 4th innings have been below 30 in both the decades.

So a openers Avg has the same value as say No.6 batsman in your world ?

No, I'm just saying that your yardstick of Runs/Innings in itself is inaccurate at ascertaining the worth of batsmen as I explained in that example.

 

[Tusker]

I didn't say India is worse, I said India's ranking also takes a nosedive when it travels which is a fact.

Not as much as anyone else including your fav Non-Indian teams

And the stats don't prove your point either that Pakistan is as bad a team as SL or WI.

A W/L ratio equal to SL proves exactly my point.

Didn't WI chase like 300+ recently quite easily in England? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that a typical Day 5 English pitch is much easier to bat than a Typical Day 1 pitch with green cover unless you have ATG spinners to exploit whatever rough there is.

Such a drastic decrease in Averages only shows the competence of teams rather than the conditions. There is nothing different in the conditions in 2010s as opposed to the 2000s. to warrant such a decrease.It isn't like India where the Averages in the 4th innings have been below 30 in both the decades.

Who said that Iam comparing across decades. ? Batting Avg for the 1st inngs in Eng are way higher than the 4th inngs avg in the same decade. Now go ahead and explain how this means batting conditions are easier in the 4th inngs when compared to the 1st inngs.

No, I'm just saying that your yardstick of Runs/Innings in itself is inaccurate at ascertaining the worth of batsmen as I explained in that example.

let me use a different example ... so according to you ... Lara, Ponting and Chanderpaul are all comparable batsmen because their avgs are in the same vicinity ? This is your understanding ?

 

[Ab Fan]

Another fantastic inning by Smith in a high pressure game against their biggest rivals.

Match winning hundreds in Aus vs everyone (bar SA), SA, Ind, Eng and NZ.

In tests, he is well on his way to be at Tendulkar and Lara level.

Its lame to compare softies like Root with Smith.

 

[bujhee kom]

In Tests, it's not even close.

 

[Pakalulu]

Steven Smith makes centuries in tests against tougher opposition

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Smith is clearly better at the moment, but he is going to decline earlier than Kohli, who will certainly beat him as far as longevity is concerned.

However, Smith has also outmatched him in head to head so far. Nonetheless, Kohli’s best years in Tests are ahead of him and he can bridge the gap - and surpass Smith - in the next few years.

You said that last 2 years ago as well.
I doubt Kohli will match upto Smith in Tests. Smith is well ahead of Kohli in Tests.

 

[aniket1911]

Kohli is a very competitive player. Knowing him, I won't be surprised if he continues to close in the gap between the two and might as well overtake Smith someday in test. Given he is about to enter the years where batsman generally peaks, a miraculous riegn of form or Ponting-esque peak isn't out of realm of possibilities. He is the only one who may surpass Smith, it will an uphill task though.

 

[Pakalulu]

Kohli's peak might finally come to an end now that he is a married man.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Smith is clearly better at the moment, but he is going to decline earlier than Kohli, who will certainly beat him as far as longevity is concerned.

However, Smith has also outmatched him in head to head so far. Nonetheless, Kohli’s best years in Tests are ahead of him and he can bridge the gap - and surpass Smith - in the next few years.

Plus don't know why you think Smith will decline earlier than Kohli, cause the way I see it, Smith properly started his career in 2013, before that he was merely a passenger in the team for 3 years, on the other hand Kohli had been a mainstay of ODI and T20i team since 2010. In addition to that, Smith is a year younger than Kohli as well. I think Smith has recently started to come on his own in LOIs which have been expanding his Test game. I feel Smith will only get better from here, while Kohli with all the consistent wear and tear for last 7 years will soon run out of steam in a 4-5 years at max, while Smith is relatively fresher as an All-format guy.

 

[Gubol123]

Plus don't know why you think Smith will decline earlier than Kohli, cause the way I see it, Smith properly started his career in 2013, before that he was merely a passenger in the team for 3 years, on the other hand Kohli had been a mainstay of ODI and T20i team since 2010. In addition to that, Smith is a year younger than Kohli as well. I think Smith has recently started to come on his own in LOIs which have been expanding his Test game. I feel Smith will only get better from here, while Kohli with all the consistent wear and tear for last 7 years will soon run out of steam in a 4-5 years at max, while Smith is relatively fresher as an All-format guy.

Smith game is based more on hand eye coordination. Usually players like that tend to decline faster (like Sehwag did). Virat, on the other hand, depends on classic technique and tends play conventional cricket. Kohli is also very fit and looks good to go for a decade. But Smith is a once in a lifetime kind of player with his unique style of cricket, just like Sehwag, Chandrapual's of this world. They cannot be evaluated using the same measures we use for others.. so for all we know he might continue to pile up runs well into late thirties. If he does that he will obviously become the greatest test player of modern time and leave Kohli behind.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Kohli's peak might finally come to an end now that he is a married man.

Kohli hasn't attained his peak yet in Tests.

 

[Ab Fan]

Kohli's peak might finally come to an end now that he is a married man.

Well, overseas tours are coming.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Smith game is based more on hand eye coordination. Usually players like that tend to decline faster (like Sehwag did). Virat, on the other hand, depends on classic technique and tends play conventional cricket. Kohli is also very fit and looks good to go for a decade. But Smith is a once in a lifetime kind of player with his unique style of cricket, just like Sehwag, Chandrapual's of this world. They cannot be evaluated using the same measures we use for others.. so for all we know he might continue to pile up runs well into late thirties. If he does that he will obviously become the greatest test player of modern time and leave Kohli behind.

I don't think Kohli will be able to play for another decade. He has already been playing for 8 years now consistently, for last 3 years captaincy burden has been added on him as well. India play around 300 days a year. Regardless of how fit or how mentally tough you are, it's bound to take a toll on your body and mind. I don't see Kohli playing after 35. He is the kind of the guy who will leave earlier, unlike other subcontinental players.

Smith is a year younger than Kohli, was able to cement his place in the high octane international cricket around 2014 in all formats, plus he's a natural leader. I think he is bound to play longer than Kohli.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Hi guys making my debut here. Here are my thoughts on the matter.

As a batsman, Virat Kohli is the best in the world right now irrespective of the format. The range of shots, technique, gift of timing, temperament, fitness, desire to score runs... He has everything. It's hard to find another batsman who is so complete. Test cricket is one format where he hadn't delivered. Fluent stroke players are often not up there in the list of best test batsmen. They have a wider range of shots and the temptation to play at the ball is high and comes naturally to them. More scoring shots (read opening the bat face or playing away from the body) means greater probability of getting out. The commentators were showing the other day how two balls at pretty much the same line and length were played differently by Kohli and Pujara. Kohli opened the face of the bat towards cover for a single whereas Pujara just defended it.

Now where Smith has been better in Tests is effectiveness. He has been more effective and successful as a batsman in Tests simply because he stays longer at the crease without getting out and scores runs consistently. Apart from him having great hand-eye coordination and skills, there are some important technical reasons. By the time the ball leaves the bowler's hand, the guy is at middle and off stump. This can limit a batsman's shot range (even his cover drive sometimes look more like a dab than a fluent swing of the bat) but what it does is take out the danger of off stump, fourth and fifth stump lines to a great extent which is a huge advantage. He can play the deliveries outside off stump close to his body. The closer your bat is to the body the lesser the chance of getting an edge (this is where you need footwork with a conventional batting style). He can even play balls on that line on the on side which he often does. He can also leave the balls at wider lines because he's already pretty much covering the off stump line. The problem with this stance/shuffling is getting trapped in front of the wicket. This can happen when you fall over on the front foot getting beaten by movement of the ball or get caught on the back foot misjudging the length or playing a cross batted shot. But despite of the shuffle across the stumps, Steve Smith is so well balanced and still when he faces the ball that he can monouevre the ball on his pads with pretty much no foot movement at all. This makes it extremely difficult to trap him in front of the stumps. And against the spinners he stays leg side of the ball and has very good foot work. Smith's batting style is something that incidentally happened to suit cricket. A technique that helps him preserve his wicket in exchange for fluent shot making, which is basically why I don't rate him above Kohli.

Kohli had not been batting like a really great test batsman. Batting in tests is all about a balance between good shot selection and a conservative mindset to prolong your stay at the crease. His recent performances point towards a marked improvement in that regard. Maintaining this consistency against tougher opponents will be the challenge for him. If he can continue batting like this, he will go past Steve Smith. As a batsman Kohli is at a totally different level to anybody in the arena.

For now until Kohli converts his potential into consistent performances like the recent ones in Test cricket one will have to say Steve Smith is more effective in Tests as he has climbed greater heights.

Woaaahhh impressive post.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

Woaaahhh impressive post.

this won the post of the week. Just saying.

 

[Gubol123]

I don't think Kohli will be able to play for another decade. He has already been playing for 8 years now consistently, for last 3 years captaincy burden has been added on him as well. India play around 300 days a year. Regardless of how fit or how mentally tough you are, it's bound to take a toll on your body and mind. I don't see Kohli playing after 35. He is the kind of the guy who will leave earlier, unlike other subcontinental players.

Smith is a year younger than Kohli, was able to cement his place in the high octane international cricket around 2014 in all formats, plus he's a natural leader. I think he is bound to play longer than Kohli.

Sure lots of if and buts, but he is at least setting himself to play for a decade

http://www.republicworld.com/s/6877/virat-kohli-says-he-will-play-for-another-decade-if-he-stays-fit

whether he will be able to do it or not is anybody's guess. He has an excellent work ethic and is very fit. India is anyway looking to reduce the amount of international cricket they play. If he stays fit he will play past 35 but not sure if he can actually play for a decade more. Even if he plays for a decade he woulnd't play as many tests and ODIs as Sachin did. He will probably end up with around 150 test matches and 550+ LOIs. And Indians don't play too many T20 Leagues like other players. They play around 15 T20 matches in IPL over a period of two months. So if he manages his fitness and still has drive I don't see why he cannot play close to a decade..

 

[Gubol123]

I don't think Kohli will be able to play for another decade. He has already been playing for 8 years now consistently, for last 3 years captaincy burden has been added on him as well. India play around 300 days a year. Regardless of how fit or how mentally tough you are, it's bound to take a toll on your body and mind. I don't see Kohli playing after 35. He is the kind of the guy who will leave earlier, unlike other subcontinental players.

Smith is a year younger than Kohli, was able to cement his place in the high octane international cricket around 2014 in all formats, plus he's a natural leader. I think he is bound to play longer than Kohli.

he is pretty average in T20. ODIs we will have to wait and see how he shapes up in the coming years. He is certainly not a big match winner yet in LOIs. He is a monster in Tests.

 

[Mobashir]

he is pretty average in T20. ODIs we will have to wait and see how he shapes up in the coming years. He is certainly not a big match winner yet in LOIs. He is a monster in Tests.

Just performed very well i quarter final and final of the last world cup and won the semi final with the best innings of the world cup.
But not a big match winner. He can't score hundreds every game against Sri Lanka.

 

[Mobashir]

So Kohli was considered a very good batsman in tests and after he scored 6-7 hundreds runs vs Sri Lanka in 2-3 months he is now comparable to Smith.

Shows how people don't actually watch games but just look at stats on cricinfo.

With no disrespect to Kohli, or even Root and Williamson or others, Smith is not in the same league at the moment. He is on his way to be the best ever lets forget the best at the moment.

 

[Darkrai]

For now i'd say smith is well ahead of kohli. It all depends on how kohli does in SA and other overseas tours. Kohli has had some great innings but mostly against weak oppositions. When he starts playing like this in SA, Aus, Eng then we'll talk about smith vs kohli.

 

[Ab Fan]

Another fantastic hundred. 22 in 59 tests!

But hey, Gabba and Perth are Australian type pitches. So its too easy for him. Hence they shouldn't be taken into consideration.

He missed out on Adelaide when it swung.

 

[MMHS]

This guy is unreal - for last 3 years, I am expecting his decline, he is getting better & better!!! Might retire with 60+ average, because I feel, first sight of decline, he'll retire prematurely like Clarke.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I seriously don't remember anyone bailing out his team as often as Smith does.

Every time Australia is in trouble, Smith scores a fantastic 100.

There really is no competition. He's far ahead of Kohli in tests.

 

[Ab Fan]

He still has to do a lot more here. Australian batting is so poor bar Smith.

Warner disappoints at home when the bar set was very high and pitches weren't as easy.

 

[Gilly]

He still has to do a lot more here. Australian batting is so poor bar Smith.

Warner disappoints at home when the bar set was very high and pitches weren't as easy.

But hey, Gabba and Perth are Australian type pitches. So its too easy for him. Hence they shouldn't be taken into consideration.

So Warner disappoints because the pitches weren't easy and Smiths hundreds shouldn't be taken into consideration because the pitches were easy.

 

[Ab Fan]

So Warner disappoints because the pitches weren't easy and Smiths hundreds shouldn't be taken into consideration because the pitches were easy.

Yup, Warner was definitely disappointing. Smith I was trolling on that part because some people aren't giving him credit I dont know why when he has already proved that he is at the moment the best test batsmen from his era by far.

 

[Stallion__]

Smith will have highest rating points for a batsman in last 60 years after this game.

 

[Buffet]

So Warner disappoints because the pitches weren't easy and Smiths hundreds shouldn't be taken into consideration because the pitches were easy.

I am sure that second comment was a sarcastic one.

 

[WengerOut]

Smith is definitely the best batsman now. But to solemnise his every century by claiming he rescued Aus from dire straits is too much. He is playing beautifully and had fantastic partnership with others. It is fair to say he rescued them in first test match but not so much this one.

 

[Ab Fan]

Smith is definitely the best batsman now. But to solemnise his every century by claiming he rescued Aus from dire straits is too much. He is playing beautifully and had fantastic partnership with others. It is fair to say he rescued them in first test match but not so much this one.

Yes, not so much but still some.

Runs at home will be valued when it comes against good sides not against average or below par sides though.

Runs vs Aus, SA, Eng will be valued higher always even if those came at home.

Runs vs Pak will also be valued for India in particular because they will have to face Yasir in India and generally the heat is strong when these two sides face. Same for Aus when they face England.

 

[WengerOut]

Yes, not so much but still some.

Runs at home will be valued when it comes against good sides not against average or below par sides though.

Runs vs Aus, SA, Eng will be valued higher always even if those came at home.

Runs vs Pak will also be valued for India in particular because they will have to face Yasir in India and generally the heat is strong when these two sides face. Same for Aus when they face England.

It has to be consistent and fair to others as well. When Root , Kohli or Williamson scores these types of runs , it is termed as Soft. Smith is better , but it doesn't have to be established at the expense of his rivals.

 

[Ab Fan]

It has to be consistent and fair to others as well. When Root , Kohli or Williamson scores these types of runs , it is termed as Soft. Smith is better , but it doesn't have to be established at the expense of his rivals.

There will always be anti fans doing that. In case of Kohli, it is higher I agree. But you can see the situation here. If Smith runs won't have come or if he got out at 50-60 then Aus would have been in big trouble.

I rate Kohli's performance vs England, Root vs Australia, Williamson vs SA recently very highly, all at home.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Yes, not so much but still some.

Runs at home will be valued when it comes against good sides not against average or below par sides though.

Runs vs Aus, SA, Eng will be valued higher always even if those came at home.

Runs vs Pak will also be valued for India in particular because they will have to face Yasir in India and generally the heat is strong when these two sides face. Same for Aus when they face England.

But this English side freaking lost to West Indies of all the teams at home. So they are not exactly an inform side. I expect Smith to set a record in this series.

 

[troodon]

Steve Smith scoring tons of runs with Courtney Walsh's technique.

Almost gets squared up at least once an over, but very effective.

Unbelievable.

 

[Ab Fan]

Steve Smith scoring tons of runs with Courtney Walsh's technique.

Almost gets squared up at least once an over, but very effective.

Unbelievable.

He has got Walsh kind of technique. True. So ugly to watch.

 

[WengerOut]

He has got Walsh kind of technique. True. So ugly to watch.

Are you guys saying Walsh under performed as a batsman !

 

[jnaveen1980]

Steve Smith scoring tons of runs with Courtney Walsh's technique.

Almost gets squared up at least once an over, but very effective.

Unbelievable.

He has unbelievable hand eye coordination. It just comes naturally to him. Real talent. Phil Hughes also had an odd technique. Almost all teams have tried all kind of things. He just keeps middling the ball. He has lifted Australia single handedly.

 

[jnaveen1980]

He has got Walsh kind of technique. True. So ugly to watch.

He is like Chanders. Both effective.

 

[Ab Fan]

But this English side freaking lost to West Indies of all the teams at home. So they are not exactly an inform side. I expect Smith to set a record in this series.

Generally , Ashes are intense and brings lots of pressure among sides and there was assistance for pacers in Brisbane and a bit here in Perth too.

England aren't uniform . That's true but still you have to value the runs.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

I quite enjoy watching Smith bat. It's so unique. His cover drives are great to watch. They race off the bat.

 

[Ab Fan]

He is like Chanders. Both effective.

Chander wasn't as effective. Not even close. Actually he batted at 5 with no quality batter in his side at top after Lara retired. He limited his effectiveness.

 

[troodon]

I quite enjoy watching Smith bat. It's so unique. His cover drives are great to watch. They race off the bat.

All the while exposing his leg stump.

I think someone like Akhtar or Akram who could swing at pace can cause Smith problems. They can attack his legs and Smith will be out LBW.
Bowlers who trundle at 130-135k are not going to cause Smith any problems. He will have enough time to adjust.

 

[troodon]

Kohli is Kohli.

Smith is Bradman.

 

[MenInG]

Kohli is Kohli.

Smith is Bradman.

And with that, we come to the end of ALL comparison discussions EVER!

 

[Smudger]

All the while exposing his leg stump.

I think someone like Akhtar or Akram who could swing at pace can cause Smith problems. They can attack his legs and Smith will be out LBW.
Bowlers who trundle at 130-135k are not going to cause Smith any problems. He will have enough time to adjust.

All of this is ifs and buts. If kohli palyed against mcgrath , lee wasim ,akhtar he would have got out 3 times in10 balls

 

[Sam99]

Virat was averaging around 49 before srilanka series. If smith stars playing srilanka every month in home conditions he will avg around 80 - 90.

 

[troodon]

Virat was averaging around 49 before srilanka series. If smith stars playing srilanka every month in home conditions he will avg around 80 - 90.

This English attack in Aus is worse than Lankan attack in India.

 

[Sam99]

This English attack in Aus is worse than Lankan attack in India.

Yeah that's why aus failed to score 500 yet. Against srilanka it looked like even tailender can get 100 or 200 and be not out.

 

[Hadephobia]

Smith is averaging 63 before this innings guy is a great of the game and the greatest ever forget Tendulka and Kohli.