Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Watching the great man peel off his fourth century this series, and basically looking forward to the next 10 years, I felt that we needed a Steve Smith thread. Two questions need to be asked;

A) How good is he?
B) Sachin who?

A. A lot better than many thought.
B. Settle, Petal.

Yeah I didn't think he was all that at first but he's proved me wrong big style.

I think he's proved everybody wrong. He's in great form, but I don't think he'll ever be a great player.

A) a lot better then I thought.
B) cut down on what passes for beer over there.

He is in the phase of his career in the next 12-24 months which is most important, simply because he is now the man on the radar that people will assess and take very seriously.

I am not convinced he can maintain this average, I still see a player that defensively has pretty noticeable weaknesses that can be exploited, to the short ball and to good bowling at the stumps. He plays across the ball at times, and although his recent success is based on a level of solidity that has taken out the cheap dismissal, I think a good and committed bowler can get him out to plan . To the short ball, I still think he doesnt get his hands out the way well enough.

A good example I can think of is Gautam Gambhir, a player in 2008-09 that scored something ridiculous like 8 x 100 and 7 x 50 in a period of 13 test matches, yet when he became a focused batsman to which people had to really look into and assess, his technical frailties were exposed, and he struggled to get any kind of score after that. He ended his career at the top with 1 hundred in his next 30 odd tests.

Michael Hussey also went through a 25 match period after his initial burst onto the scene, where he rarely justified his place. He too struggled to adapt to bowlers properly looking into his technique, and it took his 2-3 years to really come to terms with that.

A batsman has three main phases of a career:-

1. Initial phase - Can he play international cricket at the top level - Smith obviously can
2. Adapting phase - Usually about 20-50 matches in, once bowlers are exposed more and know more about you, are there any weaknesses you have that let you down? If there are, do you have the mentality and quality to still score? Can you adapt your technique to meet the challenge?
3. Answer phase - 50 tests plus, essentially at this point is a batsman is then struggling to match initial achievements they will settle and eventually become what they really are, if they are still scoring then they are probably the real deal

Another good example is Pujara although his weakness was found out earlier than the time frame you suggested.
His trigger movement makes him struggle against inswing or any movement towards him and have issues against off spinners for the Same reason.

Bowlers have definitely worked that weakness out since he been far less fluent than before and he found it hard to get a big score although he does survive 50-100 balls a innings which isn't bad.

Pujara is definitely in the adapting phase now.

Smith is a class act, and i think the captaincy will help him score runs rather than hinder

From what i observed of him in one innings of this test match thus far:

Positives:
(1)Good form is on his side now. The best friend of a cricketer.
Good Form can make Shikhar Dhawan (taking his example because he is technically weaker) score more runs than Sachin in a particular series and bad form can make Sachin score like Jadeja. So until his form stays his technical weaknesses will not be noticed an he will give a feeling he is world class. Let this form go away and i am sure commies will find a lot of weaknesses, the reason being he has them in spite of scoring runs.

(2)Strokemaker

(3)Quick movement of foot which helps in certain instances.

Negatives
(1)Heavily reliant on hand and eye coordination rather than footwork and technique.

(2) Like playing away from the body especially away from off stump line without bending the front and back foot knee. Which essentially means he does not meet the ball under the eyes while playing those strokes and the body weight is not transferred well.

(3)When batsmen with lack of technique lose form an their weakness are well known to good bowlers, such batters will find it very tough to get out of bad form.

Although wouldn't steve smith be breaking your criteria Sussexpob.
in his first 26 test averaged 33 and last 14 72.
probably more of a case of good form, India touring.
Just like many batsman making merry of past poor attacks visiting over a long period of 12-18 months.
Australian batsman of the late 90-naughties generally saw the same thing where many bullied teams in Australia but not that great abroad or asia.
IE hayden was bad outside Australia barring India and WI, Although in India he was only good because of the sweep/big guy not sure he could have had a mad 2001 series without DRS/ umpires being strict on LBW.

bhaveshgor wrote:Although wouldn't steve smith be breaking your criteria Sussexpob.
in his first 26 test averaged 33 and last 14 72

The current test is his 26th, and you confusing innings?

sussexpob wrote:

bhaveshgor wrote:Although wouldn't steve smith be breaking your criteria Sussexpob.
in his first 26 test averaged 33 and last 14 72

The current test is his 26th, and you confusing innings?

Actually I miss read the Sky sports news graphic but it was first 12 test 33 and last 14 72

A. Colly-esque
B. unlikely to play the young Sachin in the upcoming biopic

I used to use him as an example of far the Aussies had fallen.... having to resort to a donkey like him.

Now I could use him as an example of what an idiot I am.

SpiderCam, SpiderCam, does whatever a SpiderCam does.

Durhamfootman wrote:A. Colly-esque
B. unlikely to play the young Sachin in the upcoming biopic

I used to use him as an example of far the Aussies had fallen.... having to resort to a donkey like him.

Now I could use him as an example of what an idiot I am.

I don't think you are an idiot -- far from it; when you used him as an example of how far the Aussies had fallen you were right. When he came on the scene he was a very ordinary player and one of the worst Aussie no 6 I had seen. He has improved at an alarming rate but time will tell if he becomes one of the greats. I can't see him batting at 6 again Sobers is the best no6 there has ever been -- possibly the best no; 5 and no 4 as well.