ICC World Test Championship.

[Pies4shaw]

It's funny how the batting conditions always seem to get suddenly easier when Smith comes to the crease, isn't it? In almost every single match. Sometimes, it's so unfair that it seems like the conditions favour him whenever he's facing at whatever end of the pitch he's at - even when the ball does diabolical things to other players immediately before and immediately after he faces. A person who wasn't watching closely might be inclined to say that it is because Bradsmith is the greatest batsmen we have seen since the Second World War. Happily, we have your keen observation to remind us that it is just dumb luck that Bradsmith makes more runs than everybody almost all the time, almost everywhere.

#TheUniverseIsAgainstWilliamson

[K]

Huh?? Easier? You must be deluded.

Easier than for Pant? The Pant who smoked all those runs to give India victory.

You gushed about Smith's 40 in the final Test (where he was given a life). Then the next day, Pujara (who you trashed) scored more!

Easier??? Ha ha ha ha ha!


And Smith was playing against literally India's 3rd XI bowling attack. I listed the 8 Indian bowlers who were injured. Pant and co were batting against Oz's 1st XI attach.

Delusional much?

..................................................

And I've said it before:

The closest we can get to players playing in the same batting and match conditions against the same bowlers is Marnus and Smith.

Marnus since November 2019 has averaged more than double Smith at a better strike rate, coming in at the more difficult position of 3. He has been more than twice as good as Smith.

Even if Marnus is a batting genius (he's not), that's damning evidence against flat-track bully Smith.

You have no answer to this damning evidence. So you just spout hot air.

[Pies4shaw]

Pant - the man with the Test average of 43? I accept that he's better than Williamson - but if that's the game you're playing, there is a very long list and Pant isn't near the top of it.

[K]

"Good average" batsman Marnus is more than twice as good as FTB Smith.

It must be hard for you to take. But that's the reality.


Your babble about Pant is just silly. Obviously, what I said has nothing to do with comparing Pant's batting to any other batsman's. It's comparing Pant on the flat pitches Smith bats on to the same Pant on pitches that are fairer to bowlers. Geddit???

[Pies4shaw]

Of course. Paul Sheahan had a better technique than Viv Richards, too.

[K]

No one claimed that about Sheahan.

And this is just a deflection... after your irrelevant talk about Pant's standing as a batsman.


If Sheahan and Viv batted in the same Test team at numbers 3 and 4 for two years, and Sheahan averaged more than double Viv, then we could start talking... 'Cos that's what Marnus has done compared with Smith.

[Pies4shaw]

You obviously didn't see Paul bat. He did have a better technique than Richards. What you don't seem to accept is that, in cricket (as in all sport), it's outcome not style, that matters. Treloar looks better running for the ball than Swan ever did. He's just not 10% of the player Swan was.

[K]

Folks said Sheahan's batting was "elegant".

He certainly did not average twice what Viv did for two years (and of course they did not play together in the same conditions).

You keep desperately clutching at the straw man about "style". This has nothing to do with style. It's technique. And outcome. The outcome is that Marnus is more than twice as good a batsman as Smith. And that is the best comparison we have, because they do play in as close to the same batting conditions against the same bowlers as possible.

[Pies4shaw]

I'm not going to engage with this any further. It's a waste of my time.

You claim repeatedly that Williamson is the "best batsman in the World". I pointed out that Williamson's Test average in England and his Test average against India are each about half of Smith's. You responded by referring to everything in the universe except their respective batting averages.

Anyway, let's run with your last absurd proposition for the sake of completeness. If Labuschagne is "more than twice as good" as Smith and Smith's average in relevant contests is twice as good as Williamson, does that make Williamson a quarter as good as Marnus?

It's a rhetorical question, of course.

[K]

Sheesh... It's simple. Is it really so hard to understand?

Marnus and Smith can be compared because they bat on the same team at almost the same time ('cos they're at #3 and #4) and therefore as close as possible to the same batting conditions and same match conditions against the same bowlers. How can I say this more clearly? I mean, sometimes they are out in the middle together! Of course, they can't face the same ball. This is about as close as you can get to a fair comparison. (Openers might be better still.)


You seem to think this is the same as comparing batsmen who play at different times in different countries in different batting conditions and different match conditions against different bowlers. How is it not obvious to you that you can't do that?
If you want a simple comparison between Marnus and Kane, you'll need to get Marnus to become a Kiwi and use some ICC loophole that allows him to play for NZ immediately.

And not just that. You go on and think you can also compare not just different times like a January tour in Oz versus a June tour in England, but totally different eras, like batting 30 years ago or 100 years ago. That's absurd. It should be obvious. I don't know how to make it any clearer. The problem is that you are so biased you don't want to know the obvious.

[Donny]

India 5/130. Leading by 98.

Pant 28*, Jadeja 12*, Southee and Jamieson have 2 wickets each.

Can Pant do it again ?

[Donny]

India leads by 124.

Pant 41*, Ashwin 7*.

[Donny]

Excellent running catch by Nicholls.

Pant out for 41.

Boult 2/37.

[Donny]

Ashwin follows. Boult 3/37.

8/156.

[Donny]

Southee takes the last 2. 4/48.

138 to win for the Black Caps.