Steve Smith only has Ricky Ponting ahead of him on the list of Australian Test centurions but whether he’s overtaken his former captain as the Best Since Bradman is not as clear cut.
The unofficial title of being Australia’s greatest batter since The Don has been debated through the decades since he signed off 75 years ago with 6996 runs at his iconic 99.94.
Neil Harvey, Bob Simpson, Greg Chappell, Allan Border and Steve Waugh stood out from the pack until Ponting started dominating bowlers worldwide at the turn of the century.
Smith is easily the most unorthodox of the BSB challengers and probably the most unexpected given his path from leg-spinner who could bat into world-class run-getter.
Has he overtaken Ponting? Not yet.
But he could.
Will he stick around long enough to do so? Doubtful.
Even though Smith became the first batter to reach 9000 runs in fewer than 100 Tests in his 99th match, he is still a long way from surpassing Ponting’s Australian record of 13,378 from 168 matches.
Ponting finished with 41 tons, Smith is nine shy of that mark after his superb knock to kick off the second Ashes Test at Lord’s.
Smith has an average which has long teetered either side of 60 so he will likely finish his career well ahead of Ponting’s 51.85 on that front.
His defiant 110 in the second Ashes Test at Lord’s has brought his average back up to 59.73 but more importantly it was the foundation of Australia getting to 416 to set themselves up for victory in this match which would establish a 2-0 series lead.
Steve Smith celebrates reaching his century. (Photo by Mike Egerton/PA Images via Getty Images)
If the Aussies win this Test they’ll only need a draw in one of the three remaining fixtures to regain the urn.
When comparing each batting master at their peak, you can make an argument either way and not be wrong but Ponting probably edges out Smith by a whisker.
Ponting at his best would bully bowlers into submission. The meanest, fastest quicks on the planet would dig the ball in short to unsettle him and he’d rock back, roll the wrists and pull the ball to the boundary.
It was a reverse case of the natural order with a batter putting the bowler on the back foot.
Smith’s signature shot is his clip off the pads through the same section of the ground.
Power was never his strength, his mastery comes from precision. The sum of his many moving parts at the crease adds up to exquisite timing which frustrates the opposition into the abyss.
In the 2003 calendar year, Ponting’s finest and one of the greatest in cricket history, he averaged 100.2 in hitting six centuries among his 1503 runs.
Smith hasn’t had a single year in that ballpark but had four in a row from 2014-17 when he surpassed the 1000-run milestone while never averaging lower than 71.
We will never know how much of a difference it made to his career but even though the year he had out of the game due to the ball-tampering scandal of 2018 was a mid-career freshen-up mentally and physically, it also denied him 12 months of performances in his prime.
“It’s a technique all of his own and it’s certainly kept the bowlers from all countries guessing,” Ponting said on commentary as Smith etched his name onto the Lord’s honour board for the second time with another triple-figure tally. Mercifully for England he didn’t match his 2015 effort at the ground of 215.
“The greatness of Steve Smith is not that he’s dominated one team or one country. He’s been able to do it all over the world.”
Smith has been coy in recent times when asked whether he has been considering retirement and the lucrative lure of the T20 global circuit, particularly the Major League Cricket start-up in the United States, seems to be tempting the 34-year-old to cash in on the remaining years of his career.
Ponting clearly thinks Smith has plenty more runs up his sleeve if he continues into his late 30s.
The Tasmanian legend retired when he was 37 but conceded he played on too long as his reflexes started to fade.
In his last 29 matches, he scored just three centuries at an average of just 37.19.
rick
Ricky Ponting. (James Knowler/Getty Images)
“I’ve not quite understood why he hasn’t sort of talked about it,” Ponting said of Smith’s reticence to discuss his potential retirement. “He just doesn’t want to put any finish date on it. I don’t think he looks too far ahead, to be honest.
“He’s so involved in the moment, I think that’s what’s made him one of the all-time greats. He’s all about the next ball first and then the next day and then the next game. He doesn’t get too far ahead of himself.”
Smith’s century means he now has the second-most tons in Ashes Tests, by anyone against England and by foreigners in the UK.
No prizes for guessing who holds each of those three records.
We may never be sure of who’s the Best Since Bradman but we can be certain that no one will ever be better.
Sparhawk
Roar Rookie
I think you are forgetting how good Greg Chappell was and the pace attacks he had to face in the 70's and early 80's. He's by far the best Australian batsman I've seen in my lifetime. During World Series Cricket, which is regarded by the players who competed in it as the hardest and toughest cricket they played, only Greg Chappell, Viv Richards and Barry Richards averaged over 50, with Chappell scoring the most runs. It always amazes me how soon people forget the players of yesteryear.
Lukas
Roar Pro
I agree with the sentiment of most comments on here. They are tough to compare. Certainly we're just saying tests here.... Ricky played in an era of Australian dominance basically everywhere, except for India in India. The most natural and classical stroke playing Australian batsman certainly in my living memory. He was definitely one of those guys in his prime where if he got to 20 the opposition had to be very worried. But how to get him out early was a formula. Push it up early and get the nick. Smith on the other hand....sheer doggedness and weight of runs in the most trying of circumstances. The kind of player that teams would spend hours thinking about how to get him out and a lot of the time still failing. Then there's the come back... All things considered I'm on Smith.
Tony Hodges
Roar Rookie
Maybe - Ponting looked much better at 34 than 37, too
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Another instance of the struggles that cricket commentators seem to have with statistics?. More runs and more centuries= better, regardless of the number of opportunities? By this logic Alistair Cook or Tendulkar are nearly twice as good a player as Bradman. It’s not a reward for longevity as Bradman played 20 years, Cook only 12. And Cook was 4 times better than Trumper, despite have a career one year shorter, on much easier pitches? Perhaps something else happened. It couldn’t be that he played more Tests per year? But this is the logic you are using if you assume that Ponting had a better record than Greg Chappell, who had a significantly better average, or Waugh or Border. It’s ridiculous to even suggest that Ponting had a better record than Smith has. One way where he might come closer is if you looked at his peak of – say – ten years, as he was weaker at the beginning and end. But you also need to adjust to give greater weight to away performance; to remove performances against real minnows; and take account of run rates of the era that might reflect pitch conditions/big bats/smaller/boundaries or the quality of the bowling (eg in the 80s). And how they went against the best teams and in all conditions. Smith still has a significant edge.
The Late News
Roar Rookie
Thanks Paul. One thing we can agree on is Australia has continued to find fabulous bats, and bowlers too! Long may it continue!
Northandsouth
Roar Rookie
Agreed. The article seems premised on the notion he needs more runs and centuries despite having a much better average and strike rate. Based on that thinking: Ponting was better than Bradman, which is obviously nonsense. Let's watch a modern great and appreciate him in real time in his prime.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
Smith is comfortably ahead of Ponting. Ponting was a great batsman but played in an era of flat pitches and weaker bowling attacks. You were seeing plenty of batsmen with 50+ averages and even some 55+ averages. Ric Finlay has done some analysis of this, calculating an era index for various test batsmen, which compares their batting average to other players involved in the same test matches they played in. Last September he calculated Smith's era index as 2.017 (i.e., he averaged twice as much as the average batter in tests he has played in). This was second to Bradman (3.396) amongst Australians, Ponting's was 1.646 (admittedly dragged down a little due to his late career form slump). The fact that Smith has done so well across all conditions, including the two toughest away tours of India and England, whilst Ponting had a modest record in England and a bad one in India, tips Smith over the line for me, as brilliant a player as Ponting was - especially at his peak.
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
Smith gets Ricky in my view. The key difference for me is that Smithy has dominated on hard home wickets, raging turners in India and on seaming English wickets. That all equates to 60 an innings, clearly superior.
Omnitrader
Roar Rookie
Ponting has 1 ton every 7 innings, Smith is one every 5.5. If Smith plays till 37, then he should surpass Pontings record.
ColinT
Roar Rookie
As much as journalists like to do it, it is impossible to make valid comparisons across different eras. So much is different; pitches, boundaries, sight screens, outfields, helmets, bat technology, bowling skill etc etc. Is facing the mighty West Indies bowlers of the 1980’s on a variable bouncing MCG pitch, tiny sight screen without a helmet, without boundary ropes the same as facing the current West Indies team on a benign MCG wicket? How do you compare Bradman’s era when cricket talent had been devastatingly depleted by world war and depression with today’s era?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Need time to reflect where that sits amongst Smith's very best innings. But it's easily somewhere in his top 10.
Redcap
Roar Guru
So, it's an inappropriate and premature comparison which feeds into another inappropriate and (partly) premature comparison. Smith's a great, and unusual and entertaining and not really comparable to anybody. Let's just enjoy him while he's around.
Simon
Roar Rookie
Smith is better. Ponting was a once in a generation talent, a phenomenal attacking batsmen who could take the game away from any team. But if you're walking out at Trent Bridge with the ball hooping around or you're playing on a Bunsen Burner in the subcontinent and had to choose one batsmen to bat for your life, it's Smith every time for me