Kevin Pietersen Vs Abraham De Villiers - Who's better in tests?

[Shri]

Or we may have a brand new one, AB vs. Pietersen

Idea ripped from Jono.

De Villiers has had a test career that has been fairly successful and consistent in the recent times. Kevin Pietersen has averaged in the mid fifties in tests over the last couple of years. KP scored about 600 runs last year at an average of about 55.

De Villiers on the other hand has been improving his game from his previous cricketing years which is evident both visually in his game and statistically in his records. He averaged almost 60 last year and hit over a 1000 test runs. Both the players are almost the same age and the difference is just about 2 years.

Is De Villiers now a class above KP after performing consistently for one year? What do you reckon?

 

[Daryl Harper]

De Villiers, easly.

KP is massively overrated. Any boundary he hits is automatically "Genius" and gets Atherton creaming is pants.

 

[Jono]

I'm going to have a mob of people wanting to lynch me if this becomes the new Ponting/Sachin or Hayden/Sehwag.

Maybe I'll get lucky and it'll be AB/Clarke instead.

 

[HMas]

Kp

 

[King Pietersen]

KP. Easily. 1 good year doesn't make you a better player than a guy that's averaged 50 for almost his entire Test career. Pietersen's played a 5th of his Tests against the best side in the world, going up against Warne and McGrath and he averaged 50 against them in both series. AB's a very talented batsman, but better than Pietersen? Definitely not. AB De Villiers vs Michael Clarke would be a far better comparison.

 

[Shri]

KP. Easily. 1 good year doesn't make you a better player than a guy that's averaged 50 for almost his entire Test career. Pietersen's played a 5th of his Tests against the best side in the world, going up against Warne and McGrath and he averaged 50 against them in both series. AB's a very talented batsman, but better than Pietersen? Definitely not. AB De Villiers vs Michael Clarke would be a far better comparison.

Whole career? You make it sound like KP has been around for 15 years. He has been playing international cricket for 3-4 years at max. This comparison is reasonable enough imo.

 

[Uppercut]

KP. Easily. 1 good year doesn't make you a better player than a guy that's averaged 50 for almost his entire Test career. Pietersen's played a 5th of his Tests against the best side in the world, going up against Warne and McGrath and he averaged 50 against them in both series. AB's a very talented batsman, but better than Pietersen? Definitely not. AB De Villiers vs Michael Clarke would be a far better comparison.

KP in KP-love shocker.

I don't really think i can answer this one. KP is more proven, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's better. On the other hand, AB is one step beyond impossibly good in the field, and that's worth far more to a side than is often thought when comparing players. I think i'd probably prefer AB in my team for that reason, in fact. Less prone to brain-farts with the bat too.

There's a real degree of personal preference to this one i think. Either you believe AB's form over the past two years won't last, in which case you'd go for KP. Or you think he really is somewhere near as good as he's been playing, in which case his fielding gives him the edge. I believe the latter so i'm going AB.

 

[luckyeddie]

Whole career? You make it sound like KP has been around for 15 years. He has been playing international cricket for 3-4 years at max. This comparison is reasonable enough imo.

Yet you are comparing him to someone who, by your own admission, has had a good year. A couple of years ago, people on here were seriously putting Mike Hussey forward as the second-best batsman of all time, because they were suggesting that 20 tests at an average of around 85 was sufficient to draw that conclusion.

Incidentally, de Villiers' batting average in March 2005 was 43. In March 2006 it was, er, 43. A poor 2007 saw him slide down the ranking, but credit to the guy, in 2008 and 2009 he got his batting back on the rails to the extent that, by March 2009, he had got his average up to a staggering........

43.

 

[Evermind]

I like AB a lot more, but in terms of sheer proven effectiveness, have to go with Pietersen. You don't smack around the best bowlers in the world and fail to be one of the best in the world.

The future may be quite different - AB may end up with a 50+ average and beat out Pietersen. But so far, definitely the latter.

 

[King Pietersen]

He's played 50 Tests, and he's getting better and better. Pietersen's got the wool on De Villiers in almost every single way. Scored far more runs in slightly less games, has far more hundreds, has a far better fifty-hundred conversion rate, has a better record against Australia, has a better record in Australia. The only thing De Villiers has ahead of Pietersen in, is his record away from home. Pietersen's record away record will improve though, as his figures are fairly ruined by 2 poor series where he was dreadfully out of form. Pietersen will end his career as one of the great batsmen of his era, I can't see De Villiers being held in the same vein. Pietersen's not even had a series against a minnow yet, and he still averages 51 in Test cricket. Give it 2-3 years and Pietersen'll be averaging 55-56 in Test cricket, mark my words.

De Villiers vs Clarke should be the discussion here.

 

[Shri]

Yet you are comparing him to someone who, by your own admission, has had a good year. A couple of years ago, people on here were seriously putting Mike Hussey forward as the second-best batsman of all time, because they were suggesting that 20 tests at an average of around 85 was sufficient to draw that conclusion.

Incidentally, de Villiers' batting average in March 2005 was 43. In March 2006 it was, er, 43. A poor 2007 saw him slide down the ranking, but credit to the guy, in 2008 and 2009 he got his batting back on the rails to the extent that, by March 2009, he had got his average up to a staggering........

43.

Well, they have both played cricket for 4 years roughly. I did'nt think about good or bad years. Just their total international experience. I did'nt 'say' that AB is better, I only 'asked' if he is better.

 

[Uppercut]

Yet you are comparing him to someone who, by your own admission, has had a good year. A couple of years ago, people on here were seriously putting Mike Hussey forward as the second-best batsman of all time, because they were suggesting that 20 tests at an average of around 85 was sufficient to draw that conclusion.

Incidentally, de Villiers' batting average in March 2005 was 43. In March 2006 it was, er, 43. A poor 2007 saw him slide down the ranking, but credit to the guy, in 2008 and 2009 he got his batting back on the rails to the extent that, by March 2009, he had got his average up to a staggering........

43.

Find this analysis quite counter-intuitive, he's not the same player now that he was two years ago. If they both retired today then KP would obviously have had the better career, but i want to know how good they are currently. AB came to test cricket much sooner than KP did, remember, so his bedding-in time was a fair bit longer. He's 25 and he's had two years at the top, which is a lot longer than KP had been at the top when he was 25. In fact, he's been absolutely incredible for those two years, averaging 64 without Bangladesh.

His career average doesn't begin to tell the story of where he is now- his technique is completely different, he scores runs more often, he looks more composed at the crease and he appears more willing to bat long periods of time. Over careers as a whole there's no contest whatsoever- KP's the man- but as for where they are now i don't think it's clear-cut.

 

[King Pietersen]

Good or bad years? Pietersen's worst year in Test cricket was his first, where he averaged 44.93, in the years since then he's averaged 53, 50, 50 and 58. De Villiers' career is nowhere near as consistent, started with 36 but only played 2 games, then in the following years has had averages of 53, 27, 27, 58 and 70. So De Villiers has had 1 season higher than any of Pietersen's and that's this year where KP's played 5 Tests compared with De Villiers' 4, so it's abit early to judge this year.

Pietersen's better.

 

[Uppercut]

Good or bad years? Pietersen's worst year in Test cricket was his first, where he averaged 44.93, in the years since then he's averaged 53, 50, 50 and 58. De Villiers' career is nowhere near as consistent, started with 36 but only played 2 games, then in the following years has had averages of 53, 27, 27, 58 and 70. So De Villiers has had 1 season higher than any of Pietersen's and that's this year where KP's played 5 Tests compared with De Villiers' 4, so it's abit early to judge this year.

Pietersen's better.

Don't think i'll sell you on this one, but how relevant do you think AB's first three years of test cricket are to where he is now? For the past two years, he's been a different batsman in every sense imaginable- his technique and scoring areas, for a start, are nothing remotely like they were when he first came onto the scene. His mentality is different, in that he's willing to bat for long periods of time. He's not a wicket keeping all-rounder, which he was to some extent in the early days, and he scores far more runs. How is what he did three years ago (at an age when KP was merely a glint in the English selectors' eyes) relevant to how good a player he is currently?

 

[Daryl Harper]

Pietersen's better.

No he isn't.

 

[Evermind]

No he isn't.

Yes he is.

 

[G.I.Joe]

As an unabashed KP fan, KP. Didn't realise its already been 50 tests. Staggering how much cricket are these guys playing nowadays.

 

[Jono]

Would anyone take Clarke over either of the two?

I'm trying to think of other comparable players (i.e. youngish middle order batsmen who have been playing test cricket for 3-5 years and have a very good record) but struggling. Any ideas?

 

[Shri]

Would anyone take Clarke over either of the two?

I'm trying to think of other comparable players (i.e. youngish middle order batsmen who have been playing test cricket for 3-5 years and have a very good record) but struggling. Any ideas?

Ian Bell.

 

[luckyeddie]

Find this analysis quite counter-intuitive, he's not the same player now that he was two years ago. If they both retired today then KP would obviously have had the better career, but i want to know how good they are currently. AB came to test cricket much sooner than KP did, remember, so his bedding-in time was a fair bit longer. He's 25 and he's had two years at the top, which is a lot longer than KP had been at the top when he was 25. In fact, he's been absolutely incredible for those two years, averaging 64 without Bangladesh.

His career average doesn't begin to tell the story of where he is now- his technique is completely different, he scores runs more often, he looks more composed at the crease and he appears more willing to bat long periods of time. Over careers as a whole there's no contest whatsoever- KP's the man- but as for where they are now i don't think it's clear-cut.

It was neither intended to be intuitive nor counter-intuitive. It was just a bloody good spot on my behalf to identify the fact that AB's good year has precisely made up for his bad year.

The salient point was my previous one where, after 2 or 3 years in the international arena, people were writing Mike Hussey's name immediately behind Bradman's in the 'greatest players of all time' list.

Questions and debates of this nature are meaningless, because you cannot extrapolate current form into career ability. It's fun to play, though, but bear in mind that for every statistic anyone can come up with to establish a proposition, there is usually an equal and opposite one to say naa-na-na-naa-na to it.