Steve Smith said he was back, baby, a couple of weeks ago in the one-dayers and he wasn’t wrong.
He’s made a few technical tweaks to be more side-on with his batting stance at the crease and we saw it over an extended period on day two of the first Test against the West Indies in Perth as he cruised to 200 not out.
If the Aussies didn’t declare, he’d still be batting deep into day three the way he was peeling off the runs at will.
Everything he said a couple about having a greater ability to access more areas with more pace with his bat speed was spot on.
CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial to watch cricket on KAYO
Teams over the past few years have been peppering him with short balls and that tactic wasn’t necessarily getting him out but it was drying up his runs and it definitely had an effect on his form.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
He was just helping it on its way when the ball was pitched short at him and it was just getting deflected down to fine leg for the occasional single.
But now he’s thumping pulls and hook shots forward of square leg at a great rate of knots – I’m not sure where you’d want to bowl to him if you are at the top of your run-up trying to find a weakness.
I really hope he finishes averaging over 60 and if he does that he will go down as one of greatest of all time and arguably second greatest we’ve ever produced in Australia behind The Don.
He’s now got 8361 runs in 88 Tests at an average of 61.47.
There are only six batters in history who have averaged above 60 after playing at least 20 Tests but if we raise the benchmark up to 4000 runs, what you’d expect to get after 50 or so matches, there’s only two other players apart from Smitty who have done this.
Bradman, of course, with 6996 at the iconic average of 99.94 and old English opener Herb Sutcliffe from prior to World War II, who scored 4555 in 54 Tests at 60.73.
Steve’s still got that hunger to score big and wear the opposition down. If this newfound technique keeps revitalising his form like the early signs suggest, he could end up well clear of Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Greg Chappell or another other legendary Aussie batter you care to mention on numbers alone.
He and Marnus Labuschagne ruthlessly punished the Windies on day two – their running between the wickets was outstanding.
And when Marnus departed just before lunch after going on to make his double hundred, Travis Head continued the carnage.
Head’s innings was the icing on the cake, unfortunately he didn’t get that last run needed to notch a hundred.
He scores quickly and accelerates the innings like you want from a middle-order batter like Doug Walters and Andrew Symonds of yesteryear.
The green monster of a pitch certainly hasn’t turned out to be the case.
It hasn’t eroded much at all. With the pitches that have a bit of grass, the spike marks don’t get in as much and the ball doesn’t do much damage.
You cant judge the pitch until both teams have batted but the Windies bowlers were too short.
Realistically a very firm pitch like this one keeps the ball new and you can still get a bit of seam movement but you’ve got to bowl an ideal line and length to get results,
There’s no leeway if you get it wrong with line or length.
It’s too small a strip to be an avenue of apprehension or a corridor of uncertainty.
I need a new name for this razor-thin line. Drop your suggestions in the comments below and I’ll use the best one during commentary on Seven on day three.
At least the West Indies openers put up a fight to be 0-74 at stumps, which is what you need when Australia declared at 4-598.
Steve Smith of Australia celebrates reaching a century. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Tagenarine Chanderpaul and Kraigg Brathwaite looked comfortable with their check-driving straight down the ground.
We knew coming into this series opener that these two can bat time, they value their wicket and you have to bowl a good ball to get them out.
They’re both small in stature and go back in the crease. They don’t want to come forward to the ball so you can bowl a yard or two fuller.
Will Windies middle order be as disciplined? That’s the key to their chances.
Pat Cummins will need to rotate the quicks often and by the end of day three we will know if the Aussies can capitalise late in the Test to take the 20 wickets required.
It hasn’t been too hot over here in the West so the pitch won’t get baked – there’s plenty of hard work ahead for the bowling attack because there’s not going to be much spin.
Nathan Lyon can work his angles but he won’t get too much assistance off the wicket.
A green monster it is definitely not – sometimes looks can be deceiving.
Bowlologist
Expert
South Africa have a very decent Pace attack. Our bats will be getting plenty of balls in the Bouncer Boulevard . Will be intriguing viewing
Bowlologist
Expert
Gold :laughing:
Bowlologist
Expert
Awesome Colin T watch me mess up the "Procrastination parade." on air :laughing:
Bowlologist
Expert
Liking your suggestions Gus O :thumbup:
Gus O
Roar Rookie
Flem, you’re not really asking for a new name for a razor-thin line. You’re article says both line AND length are critical for your new expression. My suggestion for you is the “area of indecision”. Bowlers and coaches like to talk about bowling in “good areas”, so this already speaks to formulaic language already in common use. If “area” is too imprecise for your intent, you might try target of, centre of, heart of, focus of, point of… or bullseye!
ColinT
Roar Rookie
M. Hayden. J. Langer. R. Ponting. S. Smith. G. Chappell. A. Border. A. Gilchrist. S. Warne. D. Lillee. P. Cummins. G. McGrath. I put in Langer because he complemented Hayden very well, but I would be equally happy with Simpson or Warner. I didn’t include any of the players from the 1930’s because I happen to agree with the comments made by Don Freo about that era. Just my personal opinion, revile me if you must.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Now go back and read the whole thread. Follow that with a moment of thinking. You'll sort it out eventually. The argument is clear. Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial. You don't need me to agree with you. I don't.
LuckyPhil
Roar Rookie
Don, had a look through the war epitaphs. None of them say which ones were going to be international cricketers. I get that there were alot of deaths, but to suggest that the Don was the only player, across all countries, that would have been in the National team if there wasn't a war is silly. You can't prove this, in which case it is only your theory.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Watch the bowlers and fielders in Bradman footage. Google can help you there. So much evidence.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Read the war epitaphs. The names are there.
LuckyPhil
Roar Rookie
Don Freo, have finally read through all of your comments and understand where you are coming from. Bradman played 2/3 of his test from 1930-1939, with the rest after WW2. During the 30’s :cricket: Most of the best young cricketers from around the world had been killed in WW1, thereby making teams like England field very poor teams. In Englands case, you say it was what would have been their 17th best team. :cricket: The Don was the only player from all countries that would have made it into the national team if it not for the war killing all the up and coming players. :cricket: The Don didn’t have to worry about pesky things like working :cricket: Bizarely, the Don was the only player of his era to play on flat pitches and have statues for fielders. Then in the 40’s when cricket resumed: :cricket: All of the Dons competition was either killed or injured in WW2 :cricket: As a result, every game the Don played, was essentially a game against minnows (but only for him), hence his ridiculous average. Yep, you certainly have a very convincing argument there…I never knew just how lucky he was and how easy he had it. I assume there are other examples in other sports where this happened. No?
LuckyPhil
Roar Rookie
Don, you have absolutely no evidence to support your hypothesis. Greg Chappell wasn't the only batter to come up against the Windies attack or to play on poor wickets, and yet he did not stand hands and shoulders above his peers. LIkwise with Ponting, Smith, etc. Also turning it around the other way, the Don also worked and was not a full-time professinal cricketer. The truth is we have no idea how the Don would have handled today's conditions and bowler/fielding, but given he is the only batter of any era who did get results that were significantly higher than any of his peers, it is ridiculous to think he wouldn't have done just as well now as he did then.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
He actually only has 1 ton in 9 tests against the Saffies.
ColinT
Roar Rookie
The highway of horror. The highway to hell. Calamity close. Procrastination parade.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
It is evident you have read none of it.
Chum
Roar Rookie
I've read enough of your evasive blather to know it's not worth reading more.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
You are not reading. We all agree Bradman was better than his peers. He just played in a very poor era of cricket. Chum, you need to not just open your mind, you need to open your eyes and read words.
Chum
Roar Rookie
Another nonsense argument. Bradman faced the same bowlers as his teammates, it's not like McCabe, Woodful, Ponsford etc were being dismissed by the ghosts of blokes who died at Passchendaele and Cambrai. You cannot give an answer to the question why, if it was so easy going, every other batsman of Bradman's era wasn't averaging more than 40's and 50's - without resorting to this notion that the whole era was inferior, which relies on someone making the ludicrous oversight that Bradman batted in a vacuum, faced bowlers different to everyone else on his team and had the entire fielding team replaced with an XI from a polio hospital every time he came out to bat. It's a shabby, shallow argument that has no basis in logic whatsoever.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
These are the cricketers you know. Those who would have been stars, those 16 and 17 yo kids, never got to play first class cricket. They, were injured traumatised, killed... Two wars nobbled the auld enemy. You might not know that there were casualties in those wars.
Chum
Roar Rookie
You have got nothing! Love it.