In Test matches, we love to look for symmetry. For England’s loss and Australia’s win at Brisbane, look no further than the two captains.
First up, don’t be fooled by the scorecard. The eventual ten-wicket win didn’t actually reflect Australian dominance. This match could easily have gone England’s way but for a couple of key differences.
The first was a feat of sporting genius from Smith. We overuse that word, but it genuinely applies to Australia’s captain. For consistency and volume, his feats with the bat are like few that any player has ever managed.
The second was the line-ball stumping of Moeen Ali. England’s left-hand stylist was batting well on the fourth day with Jonny Bairstow, who only got himself out slogging for quick runs with the tail. Had they stayed together, they might have set Australia a competitive lead.
The decision was much debated, and was both wrong and right. Right in that Moeen probably was out. Australian keeper Tim Paine said he could see a sliver of paint behind the boot, his reaction backed that up, and on the live footage it just didn’t look like Moeen would have got back.
But it was wrong in that stumpings these days rely almost exclusively on replays, and the television was not entirely conclusive. If it had been, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
On the screen, it looked just possible there was a fraction of boot behind the line. Or impossible to swear there wasn’t. If technology is to be the avenue to deciding such dismissals, there was doubt to receive the benefit of.
But all of that would have been redundant if not for Smith. Without him, Australia could have been shot out for 150, and England would have banked a lead of similar margins.
Making 141 out of 328 was an absurd ratio, but the way he did it was even more so. Pure discipline, he put away every risky shot on a slow and stodgy deck that did not reward adventure.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
He waited England out, nine and a half hours of privation, a monk on a straw mattress seeing eventual nirvana through the wall of his cell.
After that effort, despite a bowling performance of tactical brilliance that had won England ten non-Smith wickets, scores were not far off level. England had the chance to pull ahead, batting third, and put the match beyond Australia.
If Smith had provided the archetypal captain’s knock, the response naturally fell to Joe Root. England’s leader had failed in the first innings, but had to succeed in the second.
As luck would have it, the cricket gods gave them an almost identical challenge. Both captains bat at No.4, and both were at the crease when the fourth wicket went down. Smith had to rebuild from 4 for 76, Root from 4 for 74.
Smith produced his epic, settling in over four and a half sessions. Root survived one and a bit.
England’s captain did well initially, battling through a hostile ten-over period late on Day 3 and putting aside a nasty hit on the helmet from Mitchell Starc. The next day he moved on to a fluent half-century.
But literally the ball after the milestone, and two overs short of the lunch break, Josh Hazlewood had a ball seam into the batsman and trapped him leg-before. He went that way twice in the match, and can rest assured of facing more such balls.
Root has started to have problems with his head falling over toward the off side. According to the stat freaks at CricViz, in the past two years he has averaged 15 against balls that would have hit his stumps. Previously, he averaged 102.
Root watchers have lamented a problem converting fifties into centuries. In the difficult world of batting, it’s a pretty good problem to have. But it does still make a difference when the team needs someone to go big. At Brisbane, England did.
A year or two ago, there was plenty of debate about whether Root or Smith was the better player. These days, the debate is over. Smith has opened up a massive wedge of daylight ahead of England’s captain.
Root, with four more Tests, has reached a half-century on 46 occasions. Smith has done so on 42. But Root has converted 13 of these into hundreds, where Smith has converted 21.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
When Smith reached his 21st century (no fox was involved), he became the fastest to that mark behind Donald Bradman and Sunil Gavaskar. No one else in the game’s history has matched him.
Brian Lara, Rahul Dravid, AB de Villiers, Jacques Kallis, Kumar Sangakkara – all are players who had less than half as many hundreds when they had played as many Tests as Smith.
All the more remarkable since his first 11 Tests involved an abortive start as a leg-spinner, then finding his feet as a batsman. His first ton didn’t come until his 12th match. Since then he’s made one just about every second game.
Over a career, very good players average four to five Test matches per century. Like every other category, the stat is blown away by Bradman, with one every 1.79 games.
George Headley is next with 2.2, then Smith with 2.71, and Clyde Walcott with 2.93. No one else comes under 3.
All this time, I’ve been waiting for Smith to drop off. Surely he can’t keep piling up such freakish numbers so consistently. As yet, it hasn’t happened.
And yes, it’s probably unreasonable to expect Root to match this absurd standard. But England need something special to pull off a series win in Australia, and Root had his opportunity to produce it.
If he wants to re-open the argument about which players are better, he has six more weeks to make his case.
Geoff Lemon
Expert
Superfans are generally annoying, but sometimes (as much by coincidence as anything else) they have a point. Kohli had a slow start in Tests but these days isn't far behind Smith in raw numbers, and has a better 50-100 conversion rate and more doubles. He also absolutely destroys the rest of the Fab Four when it comes to ODIs and T20s. Some day soon I'm hoping to do a full in-depth comparative analysis.
Geoff
Guest
hmmmmmm to be honest Id say the lack of consistent quality blowing is why smith is delivering. England have two options for the entire match of any worth, Australia have 4-5. It's a lot harder to deliver when you've got better bowlers coming at you all day. The rest of the aussie batting line up's issues in this test arent a demonstration of England's bowling quality (outside Anderson and Broad), it's a reflection of their relative mediocrity with the bat
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
You'd think it should have, but unfortunately, facts don't tend to have any bearing on the Kohli fan-boys. They are still as prevalent as ever. Just look as any comments section on ESPNCricinfo!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Freddie, I think the point on the English media isn't them being cheerleaders, but rather really quick to turn on England's team if anything goes wrong.
Bib
Guest
Also, Joe root is averaging 60 as a captain with a better win loss ratio. So again, Root and Williamson are pretty similar! There are plenty of people calling Root a potential all time great also, and I don't agree with that either. So instead of wishy washy statements of hyperbole, please show me some evidence which proves Williamson is infinitely better than Root.
Bib
Guest
Mark Nicholas? Really?
Fox
Roar Guru
Bib do yourself a favour and read this article on Williamson by Mark Nicholas http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/942051.html
Fox
Roar Guru
On the contrary I have plenty of knowledge and played the game for 30 years. We will have to agree to disagree. he has only played more innings than Smith because Smith originally came into the side a spinning all rounder but got dropped before he honed hos batting. Like I say plenty like Gavaskar disagree with you - or does he know noting about cricket as well? We will have to agree to disagree and we shall see won't we in a few years time. He is very easy to get out is one of your silliest comments. He average 59 with the bat since becoming captain. Every great batsmen has failures and lean patches including Smith so what.
BurgyGreen
Guest
Not sure how I feel about victory bonuses.
Freddie
Guest
The "vitriolic pommie media!" Hilarious! You may want to look at the convict equivalent - they're the best cheerleaders the Aussies have!
Bib
Guest
I like Pune (and the Indian series in general, despite the loss) more purely because it silenced all those Kohli fan bois once and for all. Smith is better than Kohler. Fact. This Indian team has a big * against their no. 1 status. They haven't played out side of India for 18months, and that was against the windies and before that it was Sri Lanka, then Australia where they lost despite assistance from CA road pitches. Anyway this is an argument for another day.
Bib
Guest
You keep saying his conversion rate is amazing, but dont acknowledge his failures. He's very easy to get out early and has not performed 'superbly' in all conditions. That's not an opinion, that's fact supported by his average. He's had as many innings as Root and more than Smith, so scheduling had nothing to do with it. He's talked up because NZ produces pretty average bats, in the grand scheme of things. He'd get a place in most test teams right now, which is very rare for a NZ bat. But to suggest he will be an all time test great like the Pontings, Lara's, Hobbs etc. is just insulting and shows your lack of knowledge.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Smith is dismissed by LBW 15.6% and bowled 21.1%, Root is LBW 17.8% and bowled 14.9% -- both figures from test matches.
Fox
Roar Guru
"Will he end his career as an all time great? probably not. " Well Sunil Gavastar disagrees with you as do others.Williamson's conversion rate is all over Roots. Give me break mate. Williamson has already been called one of the modern greats by 2 Australian commentators on channel 9 and 2 pommy commentators ( if you count Mark Nichlos as pommy these days) Williamson unfortunately doesn't get the chance to play as many tests - about 3 or 4 less a year on average and more in an Ashes year
Simoc
Guest
This is true. I expected Smith to start having a run of outs like every other batsmen but he is a bowlers nightmare. I think Root has more on his plate dealing with the Australian attack which is 4 strong (not 2) and the vitriolic Pommie media. But Smith seems to be the greatest batsman of the modern era along with Kohli. Kohli is classic but among the smart people India have produced and Smith is more effective in tests. And I rate Lara slightly ahead of Smith and Kohli by the end of his career with a weak team.
JohnB
Guest
Apologies on re-reading my previous comment - the word "no" should have appeared in "... there should be no room for manipulation ..." in the last sentence. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't a matter of slotting numbers into a formula.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I wouldn't expect so. It still comes down to the same calculations being applied. But weak opposition would mean less points and strong opposition more points back then as now.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
True, but if you have a situation where a player gets a hundred, but if the opposition had held their catches they'd have been out for a low score, it gives the feeling that it's partly down to luck, they actually made mistakes and should have been out. Some other batsmen would have been out the first mistake they made, in many cases probably to more difficult chances than some of the ones missed off Smith. I don't know how many times I've seen a player get out to a screamer for a low score, and in the same innings another batsman has a much more straightforward chance put down on a similar score and then they go on to score a hundred. We say the first batsman failed while the second played a great innings, yet the first batsman may well have piled on a hundred if they'd had the chance to be dropped, you just never know. I'm not saying his Pune innings wasn't a good one, but in order to get that he got some chances that other batsmen didn't get.
Worlds Biggest
Guest
Great to have you back on the Roar Geoff, look forward to reading more throughout the series. Smiths achievements thus far are extraordinary, however the team needs others to chip in when it really counts, Warner, Usie and Handscomb.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Hey Chris - does the fact that there were only 5 other Test playing nations in Bradman's day affect anything?