The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Gob]

Surprised how good Hussey's stats in Asia are, for some reason I always thought that was a weakness of his.

Was amazing in SL in 11 and held his own in India

Talking about that series in SL, I'd never forget Clarke marking the leg guard at the middle of the pitch and decided to pad anything pitched out side of that. It was the last innings of a turning pitch and fat Rangana was dropping them in to the rough from around and this tactic confused him a great deal and made him come over. Clarke took him down town a few times and made a hundred to save the test in the fifth day and secured a series win. One of the most underrated knocks against spin I've seen

 

[Bolo.]

Yet you used his average against SL as a point when he was only really good against them when playing in SA, where they were generally terrible. That one supports my view.

Some of the weakest tourists, but best at home. Fair to go either way on them I guess. Anyway, pick an argument. Best bowlers in their own conditions or best in general. You are playing both sides as it suits.

If best in their home conditions (who would include India, but not Pak), he went 50+ against everyone except SL. Edit: only 45 in India actually. And averaging 42 playing only half against peak murali and half peak herath in SL is closer to praise than criticism.

Likewise, if you go the other route (which would exclude SL and India) he is 50+ against Aus, 60+ against Pak and 42 against England which in England plus SA is still good.

There will be very few bats (if any) in modern cricket that can match a low of 42 against the best both home and away... despite the fact that a disproportionate amount of his best stuff was really low scoring stuff.

No, NZ are not in contention as one of the best attacks. Mediocre would be a stretch in the era he played them.

 

[Gob]

As for AB, think his away record is amazing but I always felt that he had it little easier compared go Clarke since he was coming after Smith, Amla and Kallis and for most part of his career, those guys were in top form

Anyway I've seen much more of Clarke that I've seen of AB so that will definitely affect my opinion but as test bats, I'd put Clarke slightly over AB

That being said, I've never seen a more talented individual than AB

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

(Typed this up earlier without posting and see Bolo had made some of these points already. Ah well, not gonna waste the effort I'll post anyway.)

Getting a bit ridiculous now. Unless you're Tendulkar no one is playing enough games against each team home and away to be able to conclude a significant analysis in this manner. However he consistently averaged significantly more against the weaker teams, which is a stat that does hold statistical significance.

You touch on the point that he had the ability to do anything though. He could be as good as anyone against the highest quality bowling which on the surface I understand might seem to contradict my point but it's a sign of his relative inconsistency. He had the ability to be great against the best bowling attacks but over the course of his career under-performed (relatively speaking) against them as a whole.

I agree with a lot of your second paragraph here - he had the talent to be an absolute top tier great but his output didn't quite match it. Partly that's due to him being picked for Tests very young and not getting great until later, and partly because of his own decision to opt out of Tests when he was in his prime and at his most consistently brilliant.

But still you're reaching to knock him for scoring more against weaker teams. Firstly, to repeat myself, that's what you'd expect. Most players will score above their career average vs weaker teams and below vs stronger teams. That's a given. You'd need to show that it was disproportionately true of de Villiers for it to be a criticism.

Secondly, you say his biggest challenges were Aus, England and India. As a SENA batsman I think playing away in Asia was one of his biggest challenges (you made the point to Bolo above that his home stats vs Sri Lanka are not as meaningful as his away stats against them. I agree and it goes for India in that period too).

De Villiers vs Aus - great average, slightly above his career average.
De Villiers away in Asia (with or without Bangladesh included) - incredible average, above his career average.
De Villiers vs England - averages low 40s. Below career average (but not terrible).

Doesn't seem like someone who struggles disproportionately with the tougher challenges, and especially so when you add back in the evidence of all those amazing innings we know he played against quality bowling.

 

[sunilz]

Some of the weakest tourists, but best at home. Fair to go either way on them I guess. Anyway, pick an argument. Best bowlers in their own conditions or best in general. You are playing both sides as it suits.

If best in their home conditions (who would include India, but not Pak), he went 50+ against everyone except SL. And averaging 42 playing only half against peak murali and half peak herath in SL is closer to praise than criticism.

Likewise, if you go the other route (which would exclude SL and India) he is 50+ against Aus, 60+ against Pak and 42 against England which in England plus SA is still good.

There will be very few bats (if any) in modern cricket that can match a low of 42 against the best both home and away... despite the fact that a disproportionate amount of his best stuff was really low scoring stuff.

No, NZ are not in contention as one of the best attacks. Mediocre would be a stretch in the era he played them.

Lol what, here is the W/L ratio of teams during Devilliers career overseas . It is funny you exclude India despite them having 3rd best W/L ratio and bowling average overseas ( Excluding Pak because for them neutral is Home ) .

Devilliers was below average against India most of his career . There is no getting away from that . Don't include random meaningless filter of your own.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Some of the weakest tourists, but best at home. Fair to go either way on them I guess.

Well, no, because AB was great against them in SA and below average against them in SL so not fair to go either way lol

But still you're reaching to knock him for scoring more against weaker teams. Firstly, to repeat myself, that's what you'd expect. Most players will score above their career average vs weaker teams and below vs stronger teams. That's a given. You'd need to show that it was disproportionately true of de Villiers for it to be a criticism.

This is a good point, and I have been thinking this. Cbf looking up all these other players and looking at their stats v the stronger and weaker sides respectively. It's easier to do with AB because of the teams he played a lot against (Ind, Eng, Aus, WI) his stats against the weaker side (WI) are so much better than the stronger ones, like literally twice as good.

 

[stephen]

De Villiers was a gun bat and it always surprised me that he didn't accomplish more than he did in tests. But having said that, his greatest accomplishment and the one thing he wanted to do in his career was to beat Australia at home, which he did in his last test series.

I always felt that I feared de Villiers more than any other South African batsman in tests. More than Smith and more than Kallis. His ridiculous innings against us to draw that test was one of the most insanely brilliant knocks I've ever witnessed. He was the only batsman who looked like playing peak Johnson with any comfort at all. And even though they were different formats, he was the batsman I truly feared more than any other in ODIs.

I think he was better than Clarke or Hussey tbh (and I think Hussey was fractionally better than Clarke, though Clarke had by far the better peak). Amla though was South Africa's best batsman in the era specified initially. He was an absolute monster during his peak.

 

[Starfighter]

You are misunderstanding. WI were dire, and I was in no way claiming otherwise, just listing the countries he notably overperfomed and underperformed against for the point of comparison.

India and SL belong in a similar category for most of his career. Poor away and great at home. By the end of ABs career India had managed to turn into simply great, but as AB was great against them at the time, it certainly doesnt help TJBs point, which is what I am responding to.

Pak were not particularly special, but most teams werent. Better touring bowlers than India and SL (in particular) but weaker at home.

The two groups are comparable in the context of the conversation, even if you disagree with which goes where. As the vast majority of players overperform heavily against the weak teams and vice versa, he still comes out looking really good in this regard.

No, what you're saying really doesn't prove your conclusions.

 

[Flem274*]

a month or so ago i looked up abdv's record to see how close the fab 4 were to his tons and was surprised to see all bar root have cruised past him in like 30 less tests (bar root).

the guy was an insane talent and imo is an atg but we remember him delivering more than he actually did, even allowing for obvious context like the glorious meme blockathons.

 

[Bolo.]

Well, no, because AB was great against them in SA and below average against them in SL so not fair to go either way lol

Drop the bad vs India in RSA and therefore good in India doesnt count/ bad in SL and therefore good in RSA vs SL doesnt count spiel. Both or neither.

This is a good point, and I have been thinking this. Cbf looking up all these other players and looking at their stats v the stronger and weaker sides respectively. It's easier to do with AB because of the teams he played a lot against (Ind, Eng, Aus, WI) his stats against the weaker side (WI) are so much better than the stronger ones, like literally twice as good.

Against the two weakest sides he played, Bradmans stats were literally twice as good. I also refuse to consider that he wasn't half bad against the best teams from his era and consider this an indictment rather than the gravy it should be.

 

[Bolo.]

a month or so ago i looked up abdv's record to see how close the fab 4 were to his tons and was surprised to see all bar root have cruised past him in like 30 less tests (bar root).

the guy was an insane talent and imo is an atg but we remember him delivering more than he actually did, even allowing for obvious context like the glorious meme blockathons.

The fact that so many of his best and most valuable innings (and not just the blockathons) were not hundreds serves to show hundreds are pretty damn abitary.

Anyway, he did get out a lot in circumstances he really should have been able to push on from. Its why he averages 51 instead of mid to late 50s, which is a fairer critique than x 3 digit scores.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Played more important innings under pressure, in more difficult situations, batting with the tail a lot etc. Compare his test 100s to Clarke's and you'll find more of Hussey's were at times when the side was in serious trouble, and more of Clarke's were feasting when the getting was good.

TIL Pant is the greatest batsman in test history
With Washington Sundar a close second.

 

[sunilz]

So, Risabh Pant has achieved his career best ICC Test rankings of 7.

How many wicketkeepers other than Gilchrist, De kock and Andy Flower have attained higher ratings?

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

So, Risabh Pant has achieved his career best ICC Test rankings of 7.

How many wicketkeepers other than Gilchrist, De kock and Andy Flower have attained higher ratings?

To follow on from the discussion above: AB de Villiers.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Well he's in a 3-way tie for 7th on 747 points (equal with Rohit and Nicholls).

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Les Ames?

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Les Ames?

Ames it seems peaked at 7, so he matches Pant. Jeff Dujon peaked at 8 so Pant has him (just barely) covered.

Hard to believe on recent form, but Jonny Bairstow reached a high of #6 in the rankings (while keeping), during that one year where he was amazing in Tests for some reason.

Sanga cracked the top 7 in late 2006 but that might have come just after he stopped keeping.

 

[sunilz]

Ames it seems peaked at 7, so he matches Pant. Jeff Dujon peaked at 8 so Pant has him (just barely) covered.

Hard to believe on recent form, but Jonny Bairstow reached a high of #6 in the rankings (while keeping), during that one year where he was amazing in Tests for some reason.

Sanga cracked the top 7 in late 2006 but that might have come just after he stopped keeping.

Nice work.

 

[weeman27bob]

Alec Stewart looks like he hit number 2 in the rankings in 1997 while keeping?

 

[Gob]

Tim Paine