Much has been said in the mainstream sports media about Steve Smith’s transformation from a leg-spinner to one of the greatest Test batsmen ever.
Even on specialist cricket news site ESPNCricinfo, Steve Smith’s bio states that “Steven Smith started out as a leg-spinner and [sic] become Australia’s best batter since Sir Donald Bradman“.
Many would come to assume that earlier in his career Smith’s primary skill was his bowling rather than his batting. This was not necessarily the case.
Smith had always been a better batter than a bowler in the longest format. He was a batting prodigy that got shoehorned in at number 8 as a leg-spinning all-rounder by the Australian selectors due to the extremely shallow depth in the spin department.
In reality, Steve Smith at the time of his debut was already showing signs of having a promising career with the bat in his very short time playing First-Class cricket.
In the Sheffield Shield season before Smith’s Test debut, the summer of 2009/10, the then 20-year-old Smith scored 772 runs at a batting average of 77.20 across eight First-Class games.
In his 13 innings, he posted four centuries and one 50 that included a high score of 177. On the other hand, he had taken 21 wickets at a bowling average of 44.38 and an economy of 4.25.
The only format that he was better at as a bowler was in T20s where he took 20 wickets at 13.50 in 19 matches by the end of the 2009 T20 Champions League.
Smith was also the equal second-highest wicket-taker in the 2010 Twenty20 World Cup where he took 11 wickets at an average of 14.81 and an economy rate of 7.08.
Steve Smith (Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
Australia at the time of his Test debut had a well-settled top and middle-order of Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke, Michael Hussey, and Marcus North.
The first three are legends of the game and a part of Australian cricketing royalty while North was averaging 42.95 after 15 Tests.
Meanwhile, Australia was still on the hunt for the next long-term spinner after Shane Warne and Stuart MacGill’s retirements in 2007 and 2008. The answer looked to be Nathan Hauritz. However, Hauritz had suffered a heel injury prior to the neutral Test Series against Pakistan in England.
Australia was going through a dearth of spin-bowling options with the only spinner to have taken more wickets than Smith in the 2009/10 domestic season being Bryce McGain who in his only Test bowling innings the year prior had gone for 0/149 at an economy rate of 8.27.
With McGain blacklisted after his to put it kindly unideal sole outing, Smith somehow found himself as Australia’s spinner despite in his two Sheffield Shield seasons possessing a batting average of 54.62 and a bowling average of 47.21 in 11 First-Class matches.
Unsurprisingly, in his brief stint as a leg-spinner, Smith had a bowling average of 73.33 after five Tests before getting axed in 2011. He fared better as a batsman averaging 28.77 with two half-centuries, particularly against England where he got to bat at number six while being the only spinner in two of the three Tests and averaged 31.80.
In the fifth Ashes Test of the 2010/11 series, Smith posted Australia’s highest score of the game, an unbeaten 54 when he wasn’t Australia’s main spinner. While still far from world-beating, it wasn’t untoward for a 21-year-old batter making his start in Test cricket.
In the 2011/12 and 2012/23 Shield seasons that occurred after Smith was dropped from the Test team in 2011 and before his re-selection in 2013, Smith averaged 39.40 with the bat and 97.00 with the ball having only taken five wickets in 109.5 overs bowled.
Smith had given up bowling in the 2012/13 season, having only sent down 15 overs in 4 innings bowled after his displays with ball in hand where he took 4 wickets in 2011/12 from 94.5 overs at a bowling average of 103.50. Whereas he had a batting average of 41 in the same season.
Giving up bowling was a natural progression for a player aspiring to make a name for himself in Test cricket rather than in T20s. He had always been a batsman first and quitting his unproductive secondary skill allowed him to hone what he excelled at in the professional ranks of the red-ball format.
Steve Smith. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
He would go on to make his return in the Baggy Green in 2013 in the third Test of the Border-Gavaskar series in India as a result of the ‘homework-gate’ controversy where Shane Watson and Usman Khawaja were suspended for not submitting their three-point reflections on how to improve.
This would mark an 18-month exodus from the Test side for Smith. This time, however, he would be playing in the role he was actually suited to as a specialist batsman rather than having to also carry the team’s spin-bowling load.
He would be Australia’s highest run-scorer for the last two Tests of the four-match series accumulating 161 runs in 4 innings. He would be Australia’s highest run-scorer for the last two Tests of the four-match series accumulating 161 runs in four innings.
His performance in India and a century for Australia A vs Ireland would be enough to secure him a spot in the playing XI of the 2013 Ashes Tour of England. Smith would be solid as a middle-order option averaging 38.33 and constructing a century and two half-centuries.
From there, Smith would never look back. In the 2013/14 Sheffield Shield, he averaged 79.00, racking up two centuries and four half-centuries from nine innings. Smith would score 327 runs at 40.87 as part of Australia’s 5-0 whitewash of England in the 2013/14 Ashes.
The third Test at Perth would be Smith’s first Test match century in Australia and where he first adopted his trigger movement where he shuffle back and across his stump which would become a signature of his technique in years to come.
Following the Ashes, Australia toured South Africa and the UAE where he averaged 67.25 with one century at a high score of 100 and 43.50 with a high score of 97 in the two series respectively.
Australia would then host India which is where Smith would begin to start posting the gargantuan numbers that the cricketing world was accustomed to seeing from him. In the four Tests, he scored 769 runs at an average of 128.16. This included four centuries with a top score of 192 at the MCG and a 162 not out in Adelaide.
The rest of Smith’s Test career is history and well-documented. He piled up runs anywhere and everywhere in his own quirky way to currently boast an extraordinary average of 59.80.
In the longest format, bowling never really was Smith’s primary proficiency. After curiously being picked as a bowling all-rounder due to a lack of spin options in the country where he rather predictably did not do well.
When finally being roped into the Australian team as a batter after being one of the more promising batsmen statistically in the domestic scene, he would go on to become one of the best to have ever done it.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I agree that Nevill was a little hard done by in a sense; he seemed to be the best gloveman available, certainly better than Wade. It's also so tempting to look at his FC batting average and feel that given time he'd have averaged ten runs more than he really did. But let's be honest, 17 tests straight is a good run, over an eighteen month period, to establish yourself. In that time he scored only three fifties and averaged 22, you can't blame the selectors for wanting to try something else (though Wade wasn't the answer, obviously). The irony is that he was dropped for his batting and replaced by Wade who then went on score only 4 in the last RSA test, averaged 15 against Pakistan in Australia and then 23.6 across six tests in India/Bangladesh (he 'averaged' 32 against India, but this was due to two not outs and included only a single 50 in the series). In other words, Neville was replaced for only averaging 22, by a worse keeper who went on to average even less over the next ten tests. When you then factor in how poor Haddin's batting was from 2014 onwards (he averaged 6.5, 11.25, 25.8 and 15 against RSA, Pakistan, India and the West Indies respectively) before a final failure in England in 2015 saw him dumped. This meant that from February 2014 until December 2017 (when Paine averaged 48 against England), we essentially got nothing out of our keep with the bat; three and a half years of almost nothing. It actually highlights how ridiculous the complaint's about Paine's batting really were. Paine was certainly no Bradman, but he averaged 38 and above in five out of nine series from his Ashes recall, a really good output. In fact, when you look at it, four of those five good series took place either side of the 'ban', meaning he was particularly useful when we had some batting up top. Hard to blame the guy for struggling in between when we had a weak top order and he was captain.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Didn't Gary Sobers debut at No.8 or 9? A better bowler than Smithy but what a batsman he turned out to be.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
And nice Ed Cowan and George Bailey.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Poor old Brycy. He was crook and injured. Still he got a couple of test runs more than most people.
Nick
Roar Rookie
The Australian selectors often swing between the extremities. Players were constantly being chopped and changed 10 years ago, and now players seem to have life tenure in the team...
Mike
Roar Rookie
Clyde Walcott was a quality test standard keeper and a not too shabby bat! I think he gave the keeping away because of a back problem but was definitely originally selected as a keeper/batsman. He was a fine keeper. A test average of 56.7 from 44 tests also suggests a batsman of the absolute highest order. Indeed, he was noted as a batsman of devastating effect. A crunching hitter. The most attacking of the famous three Ws. He was a Gilchristesque player before Gilchrist. He did, admittedly, give away the keeping - something Gilchrist never did. My point is that the notion of having a keeper that was also one of the team's premier batsmen didn't originate with Gilchrist. It had been seen before but not for the same length of time that Gillie sustained. Sometimes our assessment of cricket can be influenced by a prejudiced belief that nobody could have been as good or influential as those who have excelled during the last 20-30 years. Statements such as "Three players have had more of a devastating impact on Australian test selection than anyone else in the game’s history" should be made carefully. Flintoff had an effect on Australian selection greater than anyone else in the game's history? What an extraordinary claim! I think that claim needs some justification following an examination back to Botham, Lillee, Thommo, Tyson, Laker, Miller, Bradman, Larwood, and beyond. Many players have had a far bigger Ashes effect than 2005 Flintoff and selections/tactics in the following series. Cricket didn't start with Warnie's Test debut in 1992. "In the game's history". Wow! I suggest a bit of cricket history reading. The Gideon Haigh bibliograghy is excellent. His "Story of Jack Iverson" tells how there was spin bowling before Jack and after Jack - they weren't the same. He changed how people saw spin bowling and what was possible. Australia has been searching for an allrounder since Miller and Davidson hence our dabbling with all sorts of substandard bowl-a-bit, bat-a-bit types through the 70s (Gary Cosier - perhaps the worst to keep being given a crack) and then the 80s after Botham's 1981 Ashes efforts. Peter Sleep, Trevor Laughlin, Tony Dodemaide, Greg Matthews, Tony Mann, Ian Callen, Phil Carlson, Simon O'Donnell, Shaun Young, Trevor Hohns. To name a few. The obsession didn't start following 2005 Flintoff. It just gained a respite due to our team being so strong in the traditional 1-6, 7, 8-11 set up for ten years.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Still thought Nevill was harshly done by. Was essentially blamed for the top order failing in Sri Lanka. :thumbdown:
Nick
Roar Rookie
Jeff, your recollection is wrong. Yes, Smith did end up average 50+ in FC cricket after 13 or so innings, but his debut was BEFORE he had that good season. He debuted in 2009. He had played 3 shield matches and averaged 17. He was viewed initially as a bowler. It is a fact. His good shield season came after his debut. But hey, why listen to me and my alternative facts. Just check the quotes below... In his first incarnation as a Test cricketer, against Pakistan in England in 2010, Smith was chosen as the frontline spinner in Australia's side. Against England he was a floating batting allrounder, but he did not have the technique for Test cricket. Brydon Coverdale. He knows a bit more about cricket than you or I. The first two Tests I played, I played as a bowler. Steven Smith. He probably knows a little more about Steve Smith than you or I. A career that has seen him transform from full-time leg-spinner to one of the best batters in modern-day cricket, Steve Smith's story is one for the ages. After making his first-class debut in 2008, Smith was given his Baggy Green two years later in a Test match against Pakistan at Lord's, where he batted at No.8 and took three wickets as the front-line spinner in Australia's win. Cricket Australia's profile of Steve Smith. Again, a group that knows a bit more about him than you or I. He was a bowler. He then had his breakout shield season in 2009/10 and the situation changed. NSW saw his potential, not CA.
Nick
Roar Rookie
There is a difference between being viewed as a long term batting prospect and then coming in at 8 or (in the Sydney Ashes test) at 7. Do you reckon Ricky Ponting was ever viewed as a number 7? Considering the annoying reverence Australia has for the Ashes, not selecting a front line spinner and selecting only Smith is pretty clear he was at very best viewed as an all rounder and not a top order bat. Like I said, I'm happy to engage, but leave the insults at the door and engage respectfully yeah?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Smith was identified as a long-term batting prospect from early on. It was discussed ad-nauseum at the time in domestic circles. The guy was averaging 50+ in Shield ffs. He was ALWAYS considered as being a future top 6 prospect. His bowling ability allowed the selectors at the time to select him and find him a spot when there was no opening in the top 6. – 50+ in FC. Consider that. — That’s just the way it was. It’s not a debatable opinion. It is a fact, only obscured by reflection on looking at historical team sheets and then coming up with “alternate facts”. — Marcus North was never in the team as an allrounder. Never. No more than Travis Head’s spinners see him in the current team as an allrounder.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Adam Gilchrist debuted for Australia as a top order batsman and slips fielder in ODIs. But everyone at the time knew he was being brought in to the side with an eye to being the future keeper. Just because a player debuts in a particular role, is not "evidence" that that is why they were brought in to the side to fulfill that role and only that role, for the future.
Nick
Roar Rookie
Nah, I disagree. Respectfully, I think your recollection is wrong. You simply wouldn't pick someone as the frontline spinner in 4 tests, and 2 of them LIVE Ashes tests if you were just wanting to give them exposure. Your recollection also doesn't explain why Mitchell Johnson was promoted up the order ahead of him. Marcus North was a textbook candidate to drop against Pakistan and they didn't. I think they saw Smith has a handy bat but never a star bat. They saw him as someone they could mould into a Ravi Jadeja style player: a good spinner who could wield the bat. Thank heavens they were wrong.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
No, I disagree the evidence negates that. I say that based on recollection at the time. They wanted Smith exposed to the Test side and his leg spin provided the opportunity to get him in, when space wasn't available in the top order. Obviously, being brought in as a spinning option, meant they used him as such. But, do not think that his selection in the team was based on him being the next permanent spin option. It's a bit like Cam Green - who was an exceptional grade #3 batsmen who was also a great bowler - being brought into the WA Shield side as a #8 as an 18yo where his bowling ability was exploited, but also where everyone on the scene knew, he would eventually become a top order batsman once spots became available.
ols
Roar Pro
I thought he was picked as true all rounder. A batsman who bowled leg spin and was a gun fielder. Initially the fielding side of things lived up to it but he seemed to have a too loose batting technique and struggled early in tests. The leg spin was a bit loose as well, too many rocks, not enough diamonds. We all know what happened to the leg spin. Pretty much let it go which is a real shame as I have seen him bowl some great deliveries. I hope he gets and keeps his batting average above 60 then no argument of the best since Bradman.
The Bush
Roar Guru
The 2010-11 Ashes debacle was the end result of some bizarre selections from 2008 onwards. At the top of the order Jacques got injured, so was discarded. But instead of backing Rogers, who got a single test in 2008, we went through an array of inferior openers. Rogers should have been backed from that time onwards. In the middle order we gave opportunities to a string of middling all rounders (McDonald, White etc), as well as North and a few others. All the while Brad Hodge and David Hussey were averaging 50+ in FC cricket and being ignored. I know others have pointed out that David Hussey had bad timing when it came to being in form and there being an opening, but ultimately these are just excuses. But the biggest frustration out of that Ashes is that instead of turning around and backing the best young batsmen in (Hughes, Warner, Khawaja and Smith), we started chopping and changing endlessly, mainly to try and find openings for Marsh, Watson and some even worse batsmen like Doolan and Quiney. For me, the great "what if" of Australian cricket in the last fifteen years is how dominant would our top order have been if we'd gone with Hughes, Warner, Khawaja and Smith as a top four from 2011 onwards, with Clarke and Hussey supporting them in the lower order? These four were clearly the standout batsmen of their generation.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I don't think de Villiers had an impact on the Australian selectors though. He played more than 75% of his career as a batsman, we didn't tour South Africa and think "gee, we need a de Villiers" because well... we kinda had one (Gilchrist). I'm actually not convinced that Gilchrist created selection problems for us. His replacement was Haddin, who we stuck with for four years, before giving Wade a shot and then going back to Haddin. And to be fair to the selectors, Haddin had a shocker in 2011 and deserved to be dropped. The stranger thing about Haddin is that although he was great on his recall in 2013, after the 2013-14 Ashes, his batting dropped off of a cliff and it's amazing he made it all the way through to the 2015 Ashes. Basically, what I'm saying is that we didn't chop and change 'keepers in a mad dash to find another Gilchrist. Everyone who got the gloves was given a decent chance to try and find their feet. In contrast, the merry-go-round of spinners and and all-rounders was lunacy.
Nick
Roar Rookie
Jeff, Not sure – at the time – anybody, including selectors, saw Smith as the next permanent spin option. But they wanted him in a side which was tough to break in to a specialist batsmen, so the allrounder excuse suited the times re getting him in. The evidence completely negates that comment. Steve Smith debuted at 8 on the batting order. The designated all rounder was opening, and the secondary all rounder, Marcus North, came in at 6. Steve Smith came in after Tim Paine. In the second innings, because Mitchell Johnson was promoted up the order, Steve Smith came in at 9. Consider that once more. A bowler was promoted up the order before the so called "specialist batsman" who was allegedly "the all rounder excuse" in a team with 2 functioning all-rounders, (fulfilling both slow and pace options). He bowled 21 overs in the second innings, more than anyone else. Shane Watson - the designated all rounder - was playing that game. Marcus North - used often as an part time spinning option - was also playing that game. Steve Smith was not playing as an all rounder. Steve Smith was not playing as a specialist batsman. He was playing as the frontline spin bowler. The selectors only saw him as a spinner right in the beginning, and then as a spinning all rounder for his next 3 tests in the Ashes. He came in at 7th in the Sydney test in 2011.
Shire
Roar Rookie
Averaged 40 as keeper. Definitely not in the same league as the other three, in terms of impacting decision-making and selection policy. Gilchrist was probably the most "damaging", not just for Australia, but cricket as a whole. Expecting your keeper to bat at #7 and average 45+ with an S/R of 70+ is just too much.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Both Geminis
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I had never thought it was misunderstood. At the time, I'm pretty sure most cricket followers knew Smith was an emerging batting talent, with the added ability to bowl leg spin. His leg spin provided the opportunity for the Aus selectors to get him in the side in order to have a look, using his "all round" abilities to justify a place in the XI. Not sure - at the time - anybody, including selectors, saw Smith as the next permanent spin option. But they wanted him in a side which was tough to break in to a specialist batsmen, so the allrounder excuse suited the times re getting him in.