Sir Donald Bradman will forever stand like a colossus over the game of cricket. His achievements were unparalleled during his career and no player has since come close to Bradman’s singular dominance as a batsman.
Since the Don’s retirement in 1948, Australia have been fortunate enough to have a consistent run of batsmen who could be considered amongst the best at their craft. Names like Morris, Harvey, Lawry, Chappell, Border, Waugh and Ponting have each in their own way lit up the game of cricket with the quality of their batsmanship.
As great as each of the those batsmen were, Steve Smith has established himself as the best batsman since Bradman.
The most commonly cited method of showing Smith’s excellence is to look at his career average. Of all the batsmen who have played at least 25 Test matches, Smith is one of only three to have a career batting average of greater than 60. The next best Australian is Greg Chappell with an average of 53.86.
Batting average on its own is a simple crystallisation of a batsman at a point in time. To truly demonstrate Smith’s dominance is to see how long he has managed to maintain such an elevated batting average.
Smith has completed 16 of his 65 Tests with a career average of greater than 60. Steve Waugh, Greg Chappell and Matthew Hayden were just some of the batsman who never finished a Test with a career average of greater than 60.
This average is especially impressive considering Smith’s slow start to his career. At the point of Smith’s 20th Test, he only averaged 40.02.
If we look at Australian batsman who have played more than 20 Tests, Smith has completed the most with a with a career average of greater than 60. The next best is Michael Hussey on 13, then only Neil Harvey, Doug Walters and Arthur Morris have finished more than two Tests with such a high career average.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Smith has been fortunate enough to play in an era where scoring is relatively easy compared to earlier times. However, we can control for this by comparing a batsman’s average against other players from the era.
Since Smith’s debut in 2010, the average score by all batsmen in all conditions has been 31.01 runs. When compared against Smith’s average of 62.96, this suggests that Smith is 203 per cent better than the average batsman during his career.
Smith is by some margin the best performed Australian batsman by this measure. The next biggest improvement over the average score during their career is Greg Chappell who is scored 177 per cent better than the average. Players like Ricky Ponting, Allan Border and Harvey all scored around 165 per cent better than the average player.
Just for fun, I measured Don Bradman’s performance using this statistic. The average batter in all conditions during Don’s career scored 31.85 runs. When you compare Don’s mighty career average of 99.94, this suggests Bradman was better than the average batter by 313 per cent. Bradman is so far out in front that he may as well have been from another dimension.
I’m aware that I am judging Smith’s career against cricketers who have long since given up the game and there is the potential that his eventual career figures will not look as impressive as they do now.
However, the strength of Smith’s career to date means that it is unlikely that Smith will fall too far down the batting tree.
As a random example, let’s say that Smith finishes his career on 168 Tests, which is the same number as Ponting and Steve Waugh. If Smith plays that many Tests and only averages 47.8 for the rest of his career, then he will still have a career batting average of 53.87, which would be better than any Australian since Bradman who has played more than 25 Tests.
Even if Smith’s theoretical average dropped to 41.4 over the rest of this hypothetical career, it would still be enough to maintain a career average of 50. All of this is to say that even if Smith declines, he is still going to have completed an amazing career.
Right now, that decline does not feel likely. He is in true command. He has the ability to score all around the park in a manner that is reminiscent of the best to play the game.
In my lifetime, Border, Waugh and Ponting were the only Australian batsmen to consistently provide a feeling of assurance. Regardless of the situation, when you saw them stride to the crease it felt as if runs were coming.
Smith has ascended beyond even this level. He batted in this Test with a sense of inevitability. That sense of inevitability is ultimately why Smith has raised his game to become Australia’s best batsman since Bradman.
David
Guest
True, Steve Smith never had to face a sustained bowling attack like that of the West Indies in the 1970's and 1980's. But then Greg Chappell only played four tests on the subcontinent (3 against Pakistan and one against Sri Lanka). He never toured India. I would rate scoring runs on the subcontinent as difficult as that as against the great West Indies attack. Smith of course has had to play a lot more matches in the Asian region where he has scored 1200 runs at an average of 48. An excellent record but well below his overall average. I would suspect there would be very few foreign batsmen that would have a better average on the subcontinent than there overall record. For whatever reason, Chappell basically did not play in this region. If he had, I'd suggest his average would have suffered to some degree.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
True Viv was best in that era, even though he finished with a lower career average than Chappell and others thanks to tailing off in his last few years. Hard to say about Barry Richards. Could have been among the best ever but only played four Tests. One suspects Graeme Pollock would have too. But that doesn’t change comparisons with Smith in my view.
matth
Roar Guru
He’s right up there, no doubt. He has the same mental toughness as Waugh and Border. I think Ponting right at his peak was more dominating (that pull shot!), but Smith can score nearly as quickly. Greg Chappell was the prettiest (his on drive could have been bottled, aged and served to the Queen). But Smith is their equal and maybe, just maybe, first among equals. Ironic that Bradman, Chappell and Smith all missed a chunk of their prime as well, to War, WSC and suspension respectively. All three may have had even higher averages. Let’s just appreciate the show while we can.
matth
Roar Guru
Charles Davis, the excellent statistician did a brief study of Bradman for a book he wrote – Best of the Best. The two things that stood out were: 1. Compared to the players of his day, his scoring speed was just relentless and consistent, the opposition could just feel the game being taken away every single over. 2. Statistically, Bradman was as likely to get out in his first 20 balls or so as any other player. But once he got going his concentration and appetite for runs means his likelihood of getting out plummeted to virtually nil. Smith feels a bit like that. Once he’s in the zone you need a crowbar to pry him out.
matth
Roar Guru
The other I would add would be peak Mike Hussey. He just felt as solid as a rock for a while there. Off topic but Michael Bevan have that feeling in ODI’s more than anyone I remenber.
Varnendra Maruthalingam
Guest
But Greg Chappel was like third best those days after Viv Richards and Barry Richards during that time. Surely international bowling is not great now but Smith looks the best by far.
Varnendra Maruthalingam
Guest
Bradman, Smith, Steve Waugh, Greg Chappel and Border. Ponting should not be in the list.
Bobbo7
Guest
Totally agree with U. Smith is an excellent player and his recent knocks were superb. But is he really better than Ponting, Hussey or Greg Chappell? I’m not so sure. Ponting and Hussey both averaged 60 plus for a while. Chappell also averaged 53 against some super bowling attacks. Smith also plays a lot of his cricket on the flattest wickets in Australian history. That is not his fault and he has made hard runs too, but he is playing on flat wickets behind a very good player in Warner who often sets a platform. Kane Williamson averages 54 - but he bats three and often effectively opens behind far shakier openers. When Smith’s owl-like eye goes I think he will come back a bit - but for now he is a super player and mentally very tough. There are no comparisons with Bradman because he operated on another stratosphere. There are solid arguments for a few players to be the next best. Smith is in the mix but I think you have to wait until the end of his career. What Smith’s recent form really outlines is how good Bradman was – to be another 40% better over several decades than Smith at his peak is just mind boggling.
bobbo7
Guest
Bradman was just super human. I cannot fathom how anyone can be that good for so long - honestly, it is astounding. Saw interviews with guys who played with him and they said he was just playing a different game and reckon he would have averaged far more with modern bats.
Peter Warrington
Guest
yes he is my #1
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
It’s hard to argue with Smith’s numbers, but having seen most of Greg Chappell’s career I’d suggest that he was just as good, if not better. We need to take into account that he missed a few series of Tests when he was at his prime, thanks to World Series Cricket. When they had a WSC Australian tour to the Windies in 1979, Chappell amassed 620 runs at an average of 69 across 5 Supertests against possibly the greatest or second greatest pace attack of all time - Holding, Roberts, Garner and Croft (the other greatest being the Windies of 4-5 years later, with Marshall and Walsh in for Roberts and Croft). He had a few ups and downs in later years that didn’t help the overall career average. But he was facing attacks that were mostly better than their counterparts of the last decade, with the exception of South Africa and arguably India. Pakistan, New Zealand (with Richard Hadlee) and England all had better attacks than today (Willis and Botham have better averages than Broad and Anderson) and there were fewer restrictions on bouncers. I don’t feel confident that Smith would have done as well against a West Indian pace barrage of that era. And Chappell was twice as good to watch. But I’m probably guilty of a bit of nostalgia.
Peter Warrington
Guest
I am not there yet. But I don't have a strong argument. Just reluctance. Maybe I want him to work even harder?
Cameron Boyle
Roar Guru
Agree, I definitely don't think Smith can be compared with Bradman but I do think that he sits nicely in second place. Like all batsmen, Smith will decline at some point in his career, however I personally don't believe he will decline as fast as others may have. Players like Hayden and Ponting were aggressive in the way they sought to step forward to the ball which means they had less time to react and were more susceptible to a degradation in reflexes. Smith plays the ball relatively late which may mean he is impacted slightly less by a slowing of reflexes.
Cameron Boyle
Roar Guru
Thanks for the comments James. The analysis of Bradman was a fun one. As much as I love using statistics to illustrates a point, statistics can be a cold, impersonal way of presenting an argument. Sometimes, though, numbers can be so impressive that it tells a story. Bradman's figures tell such a story, he was something special. I don't like to say 'never', but I can't imagine we'll ever see dominance of his scale again.
Cameron Boyle
Roar Guru
It’s interesting you mention the linkage between Bradman and Smith. In researching this article, I read a quote from a Bradman researcher, Tony Shillingshaw that compared their techniques. He said “He (Smith) does it differently, but the principles are the same. In other words, his body is completely free to react to the ball. He can score through 360 degrees where orthodox techniques don’t allow you to do that from the first place” The takeaway of the comment was that Smith was the closest successor to Bradman in moving to a technique beyond orthodoxy and freeing up where a batsman could hit the ball. I think AB de Villiers had a similar ability but has not been quite as consistent in test cricket as Smith.
Cameron Boyle
Roar Guru
That's a great comment Paul. For me, the sensation I get when I watched those great batsmen play went beyond technique. It was a reflection of all they had achieved in the game and the comfort that they gave that they could do it again. Steve Waugh also could look distinctly uncomfortable against short-pitched bowling and never played the hook or pull shots. Border had a slightly unusual backlift and approach to the ball. Despite those quirks in their techniques, each of these great batsman thrived. It would be interesting to explore what it is about their makeups that helps them succeed, but that is a subject for another day.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Smith is quite phenomenal. There are things he hasn't been subject to like uncovered and under prepared wickets and 4 fast West Indians bowling 79 overs a day of short stuff. Though you get the impression he'd adapt. All things being equal, currently he is indeed the best since Bradman. As soon as someone writes these things the subject usually has a slump. By coincidence, in the six lost tests by Australia in Ashes Test series 2013 and 2015, Smith tallied the identical figures of 92 @15.33 in each series. Although that was before he was proper good. I'm intrigued how England will bowl to him from now on. Everyone is vulnerable early so the bowlers will back themselves early.. However his ability to take stuff from outside off to the onside is insane. The fast blokes could try hammering away wide of off and boundary riders but it's doubtful they would be able to frustrate him for long. Leach for Ali for starters.
Ben
Guest
Certainly a possibility, however Smith is extremely astute when it comes to figuring bowlers out, and making small changes in his technique. He's still got a good 3 years I reckon before his reflexes wane. I think he'll recognize when his powers start failing and adapt accordingly. Maybe just lower the percentage of attacking shots.
bell31
Guest
Great article and especially like the comparison of Bradman's average to the general batting average at the time (especially as it is very similar to current batting averages, which is another sign of just how good Bradman was) --- also, all of the comments are also 'on point' --- I agree though with the comment made by U that in terms of his overall career standing relative to other batsmen, we really need to wait until the latter stages of his career, to fully understand where he sits in the pantheon of Aussie (and global) batsmen - it's pretty clear he'll be top 5 Australian, but it will be interesting whether he can maintain his outstanding stats
Simon
Guest
Disagree with this, for me has the opposite. Ponting was always a worry of pushing at the ball and getting knicked outside off stump, Smith plays it so late it feels like he's not taking a risk. Just a different perception