Steve Smith: Best since Bradman?

Moderator: Assistant Moderator

Steve Smith: Best since Bradman?

Joined: December 28th, 2003, 2:48 am

December 16th, 2017, 11:37 pm #1

"The scale of the damage done to England by Steve Smith's double century in the third Ashes Test is only matched by the sense of inevitability that the Australia skipper would get a monster score when he had only a few runs to his name." - BBC

BBC article


Reply
Like
Share

Joined: June 4th, 2015, 6:32 pm

December 19th, 2017, 2:43 pm #2

The lack of replies suggests a lack of interest or we are all secretly afraid to admit it?
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: April 2nd, 2014, 5:47 pm

December 19th, 2017, 4:19 pm #3

"The scale of the damage done to England by Steve Smith's double century in the third Ashes Test is only matched by the sense of inevitability that the Australia skipper would get a monster score when he had only a few runs to his name." - BBC

BBC article

The statistics suggest he is but wait till the end of his career. My choice would be Tendulkar or Viv Richards.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: September 7th, 2015, 9:28 pm

December 19th, 2017, 4:31 pm #4

"The scale of the damage done to England by Steve Smith's double century in the third Ashes Test is only matched by the sense of inevitability that the Australia skipper would get a monster score when he had only a few runs to his name." - BBC

BBC article

He is up there and I would put him as the best Aussie batsman since Bradman certainly.

Doesn't help being called Smith of course, he might get lost a little in history whereas Tendulkar, Richards, Lara, Ponting, Sobers and Kallis might not.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: June 21st, 2017, 2:21 pm

December 19th, 2017, 5:34 pm #5

"The scale of the damage done to England by Steve Smith's double century in the third Ashes Test is only matched by the sense of inevitability that the Australia skipper would get a monster score when he had only a few runs to his name." - BBC

BBC article

Far too early to say - at one point Voges was on course to have an average as high as Bradman's but best since, i think not. So we need to wait and see what his final figures are - but no one will ever talk about his technique in the same breath as Richards et al.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:51 am

December 19th, 2017, 6:28 pm #6

"The scale of the damage done to England by Steve Smith's double century in the third Ashes Test is only matched by the sense of inevitability that the Australia skipper would get a monster score when he had only a few runs to his name." - BBC

BBC article

How is best defined? Most runs? Highest average? Best technique? Most attractive? Most exciting?

In which of these senses was Bradman the best?
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: June 21st, 2017, 2:21 pm

December 19th, 2017, 6:38 pm #7

"The scale of the damage done to England by Steve Smith's double century in the third Ashes Test is only matched by the sense of inevitability that the Australia skipper would get a monster score when he had only a few runs to his name." - BBC

BBC article

Quite simply having average over 30 runs better than anyone else who has played the game...a century once every three innings, it goes on..
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:51 am

December 19th, 2017, 9:27 pm #8

"The scale of the damage done to England by Steve Smith's double century in the third Ashes Test is only matched by the sense of inevitability that the Australia skipper would get a monster score when he had only a few runs to his name." - BBC

BBC article

"Quite simply having average over 30 runs better than anyone else who has played the game...a century once every three innings, it goes on.."

"...it goes on.."

You make my point very clearly. Before comparing Smith against all other batsmen with Bradman, it is necessary to establish the criterion upon which the judgement is to be made, otherwise the exercise is a recipe for disagreement.

The next highest average, would be one criteria. A century once every three innings, would be another. Performance over the whole of a career would be a third, and probably, essential criteria.

Unfortunately, "it goes on" is not a criteria, but it is an unresolved complication.

Establish the criteria first, make the comparison and come to a conclusion.
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: January 5th, 2014, 7:51 am

December 20th, 2017, 1:35 am #9

"The scale of the damage done to England by Steve Smith's double century in the third Ashes Test is only matched by the sense of inevitability that the Australia skipper would get a monster score when he had only a few runs to his name." - BBC

BBC article

I was very grateful that I saw the Bradman/Morris partnership @ Headingley 1948, it was a pleasure to see Don in full flight, however as far as technique goes I have no doubts in MY mind that the greatest technique I have ever seen was GREG CHAPPEL. It was like watching " POETRY IN MOTION" Even a bit better in technique than LEN HUTTON. Now,coming from a Yorkshire expat,that is really something
Reply
Like
Share

Joined: June 21st, 2017, 2:21 pm

December 20th, 2017, 12:24 pm #10

"The scale of the damage done to England by Steve Smith's double century in the third Ashes Test is only matched by the sense of inevitability that the Australia skipper would get a monster score when he had only a few runs to his name." - BBC

BBC article

Brickyard with due respect with regards to Bradman there is no need for further criteria if we are discussing the greatest/best batsman of all time; now if the question is who had the best technique or was the most destructive or gave most pleasure to watch then that is totally different than identifying the GOAT as in identifying greatest most would look at the performance at international level and DB is head and shoulders beyond anyone in those stats that count.
Reply
Like
Share