Steve Smith as Captain

[JackOutback]

Bad technique is becoming the most overused term on this board, generally made by people not in a position to judge, and used solely to make a case against someone they don't like.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Bad technique is becoming the most overused term on this board, generally made by people not in a position to judge, and used solely to make a case against someone they don't like.

Also used to describe any batsman who's not Kane Williamson

 

[PaddyO]

It wasn't it was spot on.

It is a situation that is made worse by having a batsman like Smith coming in at number 3. He shouldn't bat before 5, he has a horrible technique.

Haha. You do realise he's averaging over 70 in the #3 spot right?

 

[PaddyO]

And 60 plus at number 4!

 

[JackOutback]

Haha. You do realise he's averaging over 70 in the #3 spot right?

Only a matter of time until he's found out because of his terrible technique

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

He'd be averaging 170 if he had a proper technique

 

[peternorth]

warners value is in the height of his jump

 

[Mr Commissioner]

One thing that encourages me is that he seems to be unwilling to accept prolonged periods of poor bowling (Nor was Clarke). I like how he's insisted on Lyon changing his line at times. His method hasn't been good in that regard but that will change with "managerial" experience, the fact that he's willing to insist on a line is good. Lyon is often his own worst enemy with his predisposition to bowl around the wicket to righthanders, negating the lovely rough cut up by our lefthanded quicks.

Ponting used to really shit me in that regard. Over after over of wayward tripe from Johnson with Ponting doing a teapot imitation in slips, and on he bowled.

This is a sensational point. Lyon has been allowed to bowl too straight for years, Smith must have sat on this for a few years because he seems determined to have Lyon move his line to outside off and become a more attacking option.

Which, after 50 tests you'd hope was on Lyon's mind as well.

 

[bluespooner]

Only a matter of time until he's found out because of his terrible technique

Geez, do posters on this site watch cricket with their eyes. Or do you just love your stats book, funny group think emoticons and group love-ins of I'm just to cricket savvy for myself. The whole concept of typing a response to someone with an avatar of the biggest w***er in Australian sport says it all really.

On what level does Smith have a first grade batting technique, I mean it defies every rule on batting pretty much. Yes, I give you he does a good eye but nothing more than that. Look at Smith's dismissals in the last 3 Test matches of the Ashes or if you like his dismissals in the NZ series and tell me that is the way you want your number 3 batting.

As for averages, well you know I guess you be saying Smith is a better number 3 than what Ian Chappell was. World of difference between obtaining averages against pie chuckers as opposed to quality pace attacks of the West Indies in the 70s and 80s, or the South Africans in the 70s. I'm guessing without looking at the average book that Smith averages more than Ian Chappell, but then Chappell did not bat against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe; or for that matter a West Indies side pretty much on that same level these days.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Smith has certainly churned them out against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe

Rules of batting? There aren't any.

It's what works for you. The only rule is that the most runs wins. However which way you can get them.

Lara, Sehwag, Chanderpaul, Wessels, Ponting, Warner, G Smith, Jayasuriya... there are dozens of completely different non-textbook techniques that have been successful against the best bowlers.

 

[JackOutback]

Geez, do posters on this site watch cricket with their eyes. Or do you just love your stats book, funny group think emoticons and group love-ins of I'm just to cricket savvy for myself. The whole concept of typing a response to someone with an avatar of the biggest ****** in Australian sport says it all really.

On what level does Smith have a first grade batting technique, I mean it defies every rule on batting pretty much. Yes, I give you he does a good eye but nothing more than that. Look at Smith's dismissals in the last 3 Test matches of the Ashes or if you like his dismissals in the NZ series and tell me that is the way you want your number 3 batting.

As for averages, well you know I guess you be saying Smith is a better number 3 than what Ian Chappell was. World of difference between obtaining averages against pie chuckers as opposed to quality pace attacks of the West Indies in the 70s and 80s, or the South Africans in the 70s. I'm guessing without looking at the average book that Smith averages more than Ian Chappell, but then Chappell did not bat against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe; or for that matter a West Indies side pretty much on that same level these days.

As pointed out above, there aren't any rules when it comes to batting except whichever team makes the most runs win.

You can obsess about how players stand, or where they hang their bat etc, but when they are making runs, it means their 'technique' works.

And your opinions on Goodes says much more than my avatar does.

 

[Mr Commissioner]

It wasn't it was spot on.

It is a situation that is made worse by having a batsman like Smith coming in at number 3. He shouldn't bat before 5, he has a horrible technique.

Lol.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Geez, do posters on this site watch cricket with their eyes. Or do you just love your stats book, funny group think emoticons and group love-ins of I'm just to cricket savvy for myself. The whole concept of typing a response to someone with an avatar of the biggest ****** in Australian sport says it all really.

On what level does Smith have a first grade batting technique, I mean it defies every rule on batting pretty much. Yes, I give you he does a good eye but nothing more than that. Look at Smith's dismissals in the last 3 Test matches of the Ashes or if you like his dismissals in the NZ series and tell me that is the way you want your number 3 batting.

As for averages, well you know I guess you be saying Smith is a better number 3 than what Ian Chappell was. World of difference between obtaining averages against pie chuckers as opposed to quality pace attacks of the West Indies in the 70s and 80s, or the South Africans in the 70s. I'm guessing without looking at the average book that Smith averages more than Ian Chappell, but then Chappell did not bat against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe; or for that matter a West Indies side pretty much on that same level these days.

I don't particularly like his style either but if you want to get some credence for your points, have a think about some of the stuff you write. It's too easily debunked. Some excellent batsmen have had clunky techniques.

While I had admired Graeme Smith, the day he retired I was that pleased I'd never have to watch his shitty bottom- handed shovelling again.

And Shiv Chanderpaul was practically playing french cricket for last four years of his career.

 

[The_Reaper]

The most annoying thing about Chanderpaul towards the end was the red inking

 

[PaddyO]

On what level does Smith have a first grade batting technique,

You know, the level where he's making a shitload of test runs.

I mean it defies every rule on batting pretty much.

The "rules", like making runs?

As for averages, well you know I guess you be saying Smith is a better number 3 than what Ian Chappell was. World of difference between obtaining averages against pie chuckers as opposed to quality pace attacks of the West Indies in the 70s and 80s, or the South Africans in the 70s. I'm guessing without looking at the average book that Smith averages more than Ian Chappell, but then Chappell did not bat against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe; or for that matter a West Indies side pretty much on that same level these days.

Guess what? Smith has never played a test against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. And I'm guessing you'd agree that SA has the best modern pace attack in world cricket, unless you think Steyn, Philander and Morkel are "pie chuckers"? Have a guess what Smith averages against them?

 

[Chuckie357]

I'd give Nevill the job

The bloke who forgets the bat is there to hit the ball with and will no doubt have the record for most bowled dismissals via leaving the ball at the end of his careeer?

 

[Demosthenes]

I would rather a batsman who gets bowled occasionally by leaving a ball he shouldn't have, than a batsman who gets out edging stuff he should have left (i.e. most of our side). At least the first batsman is forcing the bowler to get him out.

Nevill's willingness to leave the ball shows good temperament for a Test batsman. Sure, he looked silly a couple of times in England, but as he gains experience he'll get better at judging the trajectory of the ball in those conditions.

 

[King Elvis]

I liked his declaration yesterday; all of the tools criticising him for not letting Voges potentially get a triple ton are clowns.

It's a team game, he did the right thing for the team, so everyone else can suck his balls.

 

[Blue1980]

I think he's been fine the test will come in overseas tests. Anyone on this forum could captain us against the Windies

 

[lewigie]

I liked his declaration yesterday; all of the tools criticising him for not letting Voges potentially get a triple ton are clowns.

It's a team game, he did the right thing for the team, so everyone else can suck his balls.

This is sarcasm yeah ?

 

[King Elvis]

No?

 

[foxtrot36]

I think he's been fine the test will come in overseas tests. Anyone on this forum could captain us against the Windies

not Clarke the clown

 

[Carbine Chaos]

not Clarke the clown

Worst post of the summer? Certainly a contender.

 

[Jimthegreat]

So we've reached the end of Smith's first series as captain, a 2-0 win over New Zealand, and the halfway point of his first summer. What are people's thoughts so far?

He's certainly a change from Clarke. Seems less pro-active, both in the field and in terms of declarations. He's still learning his way so that could change over time. And certainly not being aggressive isn't always terrible.

However the Adelaide Test was concerning in a couple of ways. Firstly when Starc couldn't field we had no actual substitute fielder available and were forced to send on the ******* masseuse. Whether that goes back to Smith or not, I dunno. But I can't recall anything like that happening in our recent history. I understand releasing the 12th Man to play Shield cricket, but that was an embarrassment.

Secondly, as was pointed out in the match thread, there was sending out Starc at #9. He's on crutches and in a moonboot for a reason. It was utter stupidity. Firstly it meant, for the most part, we could only win with a slog which increased the chances of another wicket and more pressure building. And secondly, it could massively increase the risk of Starc making the injury worse. Look at how he ran those two runs. He was hopping by the end. And why? We had two other guys in the sheds. Lyon's shown on countless occasions an ability to hang around. It was just utterly pointless and stupid. And this goes directly back to Smith. It would have been (one would assume) his call.

So that's my little rant over. What are other people's thoughts on Smith so far?

The masssuse wasn't his fault. You send out what you have. As for Starc, well the foot's already broken and he was going to be out anyway. As we saw in the first innings, didn't stop him scoring at a rapid rate. While the other two are tailenders, Starc, like Johnson, is only just short of being considered a bowling all-rounder.

We judge Smith as an on-field captain not so much whether the masseur fields or starc bats with a broken foot.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Australia will become known as the biggest bunch of flat track bullies while he is captain. He has no substance, and he has no business being Australian captain. Australian cricket is not in a good place if this is the best we have got.

Hence your name.