Could Steve Smith actually be the best after Bradman?

I think it is difficult to compare players across different era’s because the levels of fitness and professionalism were totally different, as well as The technology, the conditions they played under, and the opposition they played against. I suspect Bradman’s would not have been as dominant in the modern era. But what is remarkable about Bradman was that he was averaging double what any other batsman of the era was averaging. After Bradman just averaging 5-10 runs more than the second best batsman is an amazing achievement.

His average since 2014, when he stopped being a poor leg spinner, is about 75 or 76. Using the best 52 game streak seems a bit arbitrary, why not 50, 60 or 100. But it seems the fairest way to judge a batsman. Players picked early based on potential and those who played on too long (Ponting) don’t get penalized. And based on that there is a good case he is the second best batsman ever.

You make a fair point. Australian batsmen have always had the advantage of not having to play against Australia, who have always had one the strongest bowling attacks. It sounds silly when I say it like that, but it's a definite advantage if we're comparing stats.

No. You don't average 99 and 95 across all 650-odd innings you play by luck. No one in Bradman's era put up anywhere near his numbers - if the bwoling was so easy other would have averaged 70 plus and the didn't. I agree Chappell was probably better than Smith

At age 30 1/2 with 68 tests and an avg of 64.56 is absolutely excellent. Viv Richards was that age around 1982. At that point his average had just dropped from 62 to 58 on the back of a tough 1-1 series vs Australia here in the summer of '81/82. After the 3rd test Viv didn't play another test until the 82/83 tour of India. A combination of factors came into play for someone like Viv. After the '76 England tour he was going at 64 from 21 tests. Then a tough tour to Pakistan, 5 tests, avg 28.5, across 76/77. From that point on due to the WSC circus, in his peak years age 25-28 he played 2 tests in '78 and until the summer of 79/80 he returned from WSC and was a force - next 4 series for 16 tests with 1469 at over 77. His average back up to 62. What might have been...... And that was on somewhat less manicured pitches/grounds with no ropes etc. Viv even managed to somewhat master Pakistan. Smith however has an astonishing number of series with average over 100. He is astounding to watch - a somewhat unique style. An avg of 77 in Australia has benefited from conditions that had elevated the career stats of the likes of Uzzie and Voges - but - it's gotta be done. An avg of 60 'away' though validates his numbers. Sir Viv only had the one series with an avg over 100 ('76 v England). A guy like Dilip Vengsarkar had a magical phase from 85/86 (in Aust) to 87/88 where he averaged 97.27 over 19 tests in that time, 2 series with avg over 100. Batted 28 times but with 10 not outs, only 18 dismissals against his 1751 runs. Not outs certainly help. Sir Viv had only 12 across his 182 innings. Smith has 16 not outs from 124 innings. That helps. Even Vengsarkar had 22 no's from 185 hits but avg'd 42.13. So - twice as many series avg over 100 compared to Sir Viv doesn't mean so much. Steve Smith has 7!! Bradman only played 11 test series. He averaged over 100 in 4 of 11, another 3 series over 90 and the other 4 between 56 (bodyline series) and in the 70s. Smith - in 13/14 v RSA was his first series avg over 50 (67.25). Since then 2 series in the 20s, 4 in the 40s, a 56, a 71 and the 7 in the 100s. That's the astounding thing - in that time, 2013/14 to now and EVEN with the missed 12 months due to suspension - Smith has played 16 series, 51 tests, avg 75. At some point his 'eye' will desert him and his numbers will diminish. However - he's certainly more able to make hay while the sun shines than some others before him.

Nice article, but what you can't measure with statistics is the mental pressure that Smith is under with an unreliable supporting cast. His Ashes performance was Atlas-like.

Not having a go at you per se... But it's staggering how often people will rip apart an overseas player record using a particular method, and then deliberately NOT apply the same method to Australian players. It's xenophobic- admittedly low range. People can't accept overseas batsman might be better than Australian ones... So, using YOUR yardstick, players like Bradman and Waugh have decidedly lower averages. Take Haydens zimbabwe 380 out of his record, and his average sits below 50! But no one seems to want to do that... The passage of time has turned that innings from bullying a poor team to scoring a triple century on a raging turner- green seamer against an all star bowling line up. These are the same people who then seek to delegitimise Lara's 400. So what if Sanga averaged 96 against Bangladesh? The other batsman didn't. And are you prepared to accept Australian batsman should be measured the same unfair way you looked at Sanga?

That is really sad. Careful on your dismount Spruce.

I understand where Don is coming from. I have actually struggled with havinggeneralized batting averages with players from different eras. Bradman (and anyone from the pre and post war era) had smaller bats, lesser opposition, uncovered pitches, larger grounds, no helmets or modern protection, no modern technological advances in the game (including newer shots), with nothing but state and tour games which lasted 3/4 days, with no 60/55/50/t20 games to speed things up. Would a batsman then have a better average now if they played today? Would Sutcliffe remain at 60? Would Sobers just average 57? Does it even even out? Should we even compare Bradman to Smith? Or even either one to Chappell? Both Bradman and Smith fall roughly 30 years before and after Chappell's career. Neither Smith nor Chappell had to play with the equipment Bradman did on the surfaces he did, just as Bradman never had to face four Larwoods on a single team or play a full season of tests/odis/t20s to the point of exhaustion. To paraphrase John Goodman on Roseanne "The game's the same, but its not really the same". Technically any player who is great in an earlier era should be great in a future one, but does it work backwards? Would a great player from this era still be great in a previous one? That is my dilemma in generalized averages.

Interesting that the best three statistical openers are English when the modern consensus is that it’s a very tough place to be an opener. I am surprised Gavaskar does not feature.

And final comment. There are basically no opening batsmen in your lists, apart from Hobbs and Sutcliffe. This seems unfair considering they take on the toughest of conditions. Gavaskar has claims to be the BAB in my opinion. Hayden, Morris, Boycott, Gooch, Shewag all underrated in these discussions. Maybe there should be a separate BAH or BAS category.

Putting Don’s controversial views aside for a minute, it does lead to one interesting point. The Best Australian XI has been pretty well agreed upon for a while but now Smith will force harsh choices to be made. Mostly you saw a team something like: Hayden Morris Bradman Ponting G Chappell Border (or Miller if you wanted the all rounder) Gilchrist Warne Lillee Lindwall (or O’Reilly if you played Miller) McGrath Apart from maybe Steve Waugh or Clarrie Grimmet advocates it’s reasonably stable. So where does Smith fit in? Ponting, Chappell or AB? And if you pick Smith AND Miller, then two of those great three miss out. It’s got a lot tougher.

Nice article JGK, as always. Barrington was better than you give him credit for. He was the Steve Waugh of his generation. A very talented youngster, burned by some early setbacks, who determined to take all risk out of his game. Smith is the current BAB, but we will know more at the end. And there will always be another. For every Black Caviar, there is always a Winx in the wings waiting to be anointed as BSP. Best Since Phar Lap.

Lara's effort vs SL, was in SL. WI lost 3 nil by massive margins. Murali took a 10 and an 11. Vaas took a 14! That was one of the all time great series efforts. Whichever way you dissect it, Lara was a freak.