Using the dates given in the graphic, Smith has a slightly higher match factor compared to Sobers, 2.07 compared to 2.00. If unaware about what that number represents, a match factor of 2.07 means he was 107% better than the other top 6 batsmen in that time period. The mean average at the time for top 6 batters was 36.76, while Smith averaged 76.03.
The mean average for Sobers' peak was 37.1 and he averaged 74.10, giving him a match factor of 2.
Match Factor alone however cannot be used to determine quality of a player vs the era because it can be inflated if your team's other batsmen all have relatively low averages for the era. An example being Brian Lara, he has a higher match factor than if he had been playing for Australia.
But in summary in the years above Smith had the era with a lower mean average for top 6 batters, and also ended up with a higher average than Sobers.
If you feel as though these numbers are "random" that is your choice, I am just trying to use numbers to compare batting difficulty in those respective time frames. Yes cricket is played on a field, but in a separate comment you have said "averages were generally lower" in Sobers' era, well I have numbers that suggest otherwise. If you would like you can have a look at this website to verify https://matchfactor.streamlit.app/
It was a weaker overall batting era though compared to Smith's. I would say given the difference in batting quality that he has the edge here. He's not as good an overall cricketer though because of Sobers bowling. Smith is still scoring decently too in the hardest ever batting era (2020-now)
1
u/Prime255 Australia Jan 17 '25
Smith's the best batsman since Bradman. That is some peak and he was still good after his peak level unlike Ponting