I really don't think there's as big a gulf between Clarke and Amla and the rest as most of you do; I think it just seems a bit that way because they're playing the big ticket series we're all more interested in. I've got them clearly, but only marginally, ahead of Chanderpaul as the unholy combination of the latter's technique and temperament makes it difficult to find an ideal role for him, but I don't have them clearly ahead of Sangakkara. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to not vote for Sanga ahead of them if he was actually part of the poll.
The issue with Sanga is that Sri Lanka have played such little Test cricket of late - only two Tests in 2013 and they were both against Bangladesh - but I find it pretty unfair to really hold that against him, especially when he's done so well in all the cricket he's played whenever he has played anyway. Three tons and a fifty in those two Tests they did play this year, a big 2012, good ODI and domestic performances this year etc definitely don't suggest a decline, and I held him in higher regard when Sri Lanka were actually playing Tests than I do Clarke and Amla now. I think I tend to hold a more longer-term view with these things than most, but while I think it'd be fair to say that Clarke and Amla are comfortably the form batsmen in world cricket, I wouldn't have them down as comfortably the best. They've certainly both got big claims to it - I've got no issue with someone saying either of them is the best around - but I think the main difference between how we perceive them and Sangakarra/Chanderpaul is that they're playing more matches that we're really interested in.
