CW's Ranking of Batsmen (Tests)

[Daemon]

Clarke

 

[CricAddict]

Although the overall order of this list is pointless and not really accurate, the list at least gives us an accurate order for the batsmen ranking for each nation.

Good take.

 

[Gob]

It's pretty weird when you look at their records country by country. AB didn't do significantly better atleast average wise anywhere except WI and UAE (in infamous 2010 road series). Definitely better than Clarke tho imo, was just more consistent overall.

I recall a time in CW when putting DeVilliers anywhere near Clarke was seen as a war crime. This was around 2012 obvs and neither achieved much after that

 

[The Sean]

Clarke

 

[Bolo.]

I recall a time in CW when putting DeVilliers anywhere near Clarke was seen as a war crime. This was around 2012 obvs and neither achieved much after that

Did CW have this opinion a year before when AB was averaging more than Clarke overall and 60ish away (70ish when not batting out of position as an opener) to Clarke's 40ish? Genuine question, curious to know whether CW was having a knee-jerk reaction to a Clarke having ridiculous year, or whether AB was seriously that unfancied then.

I dont find anything particularly wrong with rating Clarke ahead at the end of 2012, but they definitely should have been seen as very close at that stage in their careers, with good argument in favour of AB even if there is legitimate criticism as well.

I realise you must be trolling by suggesting neither of them achieved anything after 2012, but I am still curious.

Clarke had a much better start to his career, obviously, and a monster 2012, but AB was way better for most of their careers. 2012 aside, he averaged more than Clarke in every year from 2008 onwards, plus played longer against better bowlers.

 

[Gob]

Did CW have this opinion a year before when AB was averaging more than Clarke overall and 60ish away (70ish when not batting out of position as an opener) to Clarke's 40ish? Genuine question, curious to know whether CW was having a knee-jerk reaction to a Clarke having ridiculous year, or whether AB was seriously that unfancied then.

I dont find anything particularly wrong with rating Clarke ahead at the end of 2012, but they definitely should have been seen as very close at that stage in their careers, with good argument in favour of AB even if there is legitimate criticism as well.

I realise you must be trolling by suggesting neither of them achieved anything after 2012, but I am still curious.

Clarke had a much better start to his career, obviously, and a monster 2012, but AB was way better for most of their careers. 2012 aside, he averaged more than Clarke in every year from 2008 onwards, plus played longer against better bowlers.

General consensus was that Clarke was smashing double tons after walking to the crease regularly at 40 for 3 whereas DeVilliers was downhill skiing hard after all of Smith, Amla and Kallis had set up big scores. Not exactly my opinion certainly not to that extent

Disagree about facing the better bowlers part anyways check Clarke's record against SA

 

[Bolo.]

General consensus was that Clarke was smashing double tons after walking to the crease regularly at 40 for 3 whereas DeVilliers was downhill skiing hard after all of Smith, Amla and Kallis had set up big scores. Not exactly my opinion certainly not to that extent

Disagree about facing the better bowlers part anyways check Clarke's record against SA

You are raising some good points in this post.

I always feel like you are trolling though. And saying neither of them accomplished anything after 2012 when anyone who watched AB in 2013/2014 or 2018 would realise this was his peak does not help this view, both in terms of batting ability and actual impact.

Im in lockdown. happy to engage if you are doing it in good faith, and can respond to your good points as well as your weak ones.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Get this to 50, OP

 

[Gob]

You are raising some good points in this post.

I always feel like you are trolling though. And saying neither of them accomplished anything after 2012 when anyone who watched AB in 2013/2014 or 2018 would realise this was his peak does not help this view, both in terms of batting ability and actual impact.

Im in lockdown. happy to engage if you are doing it in good faith, and can respond to your good points as well as your weak ones.

Why? I generally make very good points

Anyway on the topic, yes I think it was unfair to say DeVilliers did not achieve much after 2012. Maybe my opinion was influenced by him missing a lot of games. Look I don't mind anyone preferring him over Clarke he certainly has the better record to show but I felt Clarke carried Australian batting and was the main man in a way DeVilliers rarely was. Of course it wasn't DeVilliers's fault that he had 3 top players batting above him

Also saw few people earlier claiming that that Clarke scored runs against weak bowlers. No idea where that comes from. Clarke has 5 tons against Steyn (2 away), 7 against Anderson I think and 3 away, 3 in India (I discounted home runs against India) and a ton in a fourth innings against Herath in Sri Lanka. He also scored a couple of hundreds against Murali at home I think though he never faced him in Sri Lanka. I Don think there is much between Clarke and DeVilliers and for that matter KP and Amla. DeVilliers seems like one of those players whose perception among fans went up in the years of post retirement

 

[mr_mister]

There's almost no reason Hill and Trumper should be anything but right next to each other in the list. Near identical records while having nearly their whole careers span the same length of time (so played on all those stickies together)

It'd be like if Headley and Pollock both played for the Windies in the 30s or SA in the 60s, or something

 

[Nikhil99.99]

There's almost no reason Hill and Trumper should be anything but right next to each other in the list. Near identical records while having nearly their whole careers span the same length of time (so played on all those stickies together)


It'd be like if Headley and Pollock both played for the Windies in the 30s or SA in the 60s, or something

Victor trumpers contemporary ratings trumps hill for me.

 

[kyear2]

FFS


Adam Gilchrist

Wait, he still hasn't been selected?

Gilly for me also

 

[Bolo.]

Why? I generally make very good points


Anyway on the topic, yes I think it was unfair to say DeVilliers did not achieve much after 2012. Maybe my opinion was influenced by him missing a lot of games. Look I don't mind anyone preferring him over Clarke he certainly has the better record to show but I felt Clarke carried Australian batting and was the main man in a way DeVilliers rarely was. j course it wasn't DeVilliers's fault that he had 3 top players batting above him


Also saw few people earlier claiming that that Clarke scored runs against weak bowlers. No idea where that comes from. Clarke has 5 tons against Steyn (2 away), 7 against Anderson I think and 3 away, 3 in India (I discounted home runs against India) and a ton in a fourth innings against Herath in Sri Lanka. He also scored a couple of hundreds against Murali at home I think though he never faced him in Sri Lanka. I Don think there is much between Clarke and DeVilliers and for that matter KP and Amla. DeVilliers seems like one of those players whose perception among fans went up in the years of post retirement

I dont think being the best bat in your team is important, only being good when other good bats are struggling. For what its worth though, I thought AB was RSAs best bat 2013-2018. 13 and 14 he was really close to Hash, but I remember thinking he was definitely the better bat at the time, depite Hash probably having been better over his career. 15-18 it was clear. Hussey and/or Ponting were ahead of Clarke till 2012 and Warner and Smith by 2014, so even on this, AB is ahead.


Both of them typically faced mediocre bowlers- weak era. AB faced them on home pitches that mediocre visitors were decent on. Mediocre visitors were poor on Clarke's home pitches. What I meant in the previous post was that AB played (an admittedly) smallish portion of of his career from 15-18 when bowling was getting good again, while Clarke retired in 2015.


Era weakness notwithstanding, both of them obviously faced some quality bowlers. AB just succeeded a lot more in conditions opposition attacks were capable in. Clarke was a quality bat and played a bunch of tests, so obviously had some good series against bowlers equiped to deal with the conditions, but there really isnt much of a comparison in this regard.

 

[Bolo.]

Why? I generally make very good points


Anyway on the topic, yes I think it was unfair to say DeVilliers did not achieve much after 2012. Maybe my opinion was influenced by him missing a lot of games. Look I don't mind anyone preferring him over Clarke he certainly has the better record to show but I felt Clarke carried Australian batting and was the main man in a way DeVilliers rarely was. j course it wasn't DeVilliers's fault that he had 3 top players batting above him


Also saw few people earlier claiming that that Clarke scored runs against weak bowlers. No idea where that comes from. Clarke has 5 tons against Steyn (2 away), 7 against Anderson I think and 3 away, 3 in India (I discounted home runs against India) and a ton in a fourth innings against Herath in Sri Lanka. He also scored a couple of hundreds against Murali at home I think though he never faced him in Sri Lanka. I Don think there is much between Clarke and DeVilliers and for that matter KP and Amla. DeVilliers seems like one of those players whose perception among fans went up in the years of post retirement

The perception of AB got better as he got better through his career. His last year was his best. His stocks were at his best when he had played his last series and fell when he announced his retirement and people realised he should be assessed on his career, not the player he was at that time. A bunch of us were hoping he would play a couple years more, which in the form he was in might have given him a career good enough career to arguably rival some of the good ATGs.

 

[trundler]

The perception of AB got better as he got better through his career. His last year was his best. His stocks were at his best when he had played his last series and fell when he announced his retirement and people realised he should be assessed on his career, not the player he was at that time. A bunch of us were hoping he would play a couple years more, which in the form he was in might have given him a career good enough career to arguably rival some of the good ATGs.

When he retired Nicholas wrote a piece on Cricinfo putting him next to Sachin and Lara which I thought was very over the top. That's obviously no slight on him. It's weird to say a guy with 8000 runs and a test average over 50 underachieved but he really should've gotten more tons for starters. De Villiers did a bit of everything all great batsmen do; just not enough of it imo. One also wonders what his average would look like if he hadn't made himself unavailable.

 

[Bolo.]

When he retired Nicholas wrote a piece on Cricinfo putting him next to Sachin and Lara which I thought was very over the top. That's obviously no slight on him. It's weird to say a guy with 8000 runs and a test average over 50 underachieved but he really should've gotten more tons for starters. De Villiers did a bit of everything all great batsmen do; just not enough of it imo. One also wonders what his average would look like if he hadn't made himself unavailable.

IDK the article. Those were the clearly the 3 most talented bats in the last 30 years though, so I can see the point of comparison.

Talent shouldnt count for anything in this kind of assessment though. Its about what you actually achieved. Its not like he was Basil or Barry who were denied opportunities through no fault of their own, and he is not in the same stratophere in terms of achievements as someone like Sachin. As you said, didnt do enough.

 

[trundler]

IDK the article. Those were the clearly the 3 most talented bats in the last 30 years though, so I can see the point of comparison.

Talent shouldnt count for anything in this kind of assessment though. Its about what you actually achieved. Its not like he was Basil or Barry who were denied opportunities through no fault of their own, and he is not in the same stratophere in terms of achievements as someone like Sachin. As you said, didnt do enough.

You look at De Villiers and he looks much closer to Tendulkar than Clarke but on this list he should definitely be in Clarkeosphere imo.

 

[Nikhil99.99]

@gftw can you please complete the 50.I think we can still go on.Still some great players haven’t made the list.

 

[Bolo.]

You look at De Villiers and he looks much closer to Tendulkar than Clarke but on this list he should definitely be in Clarkeosphere imo.

Fair call. I regard Sachin extremely highly, and would put better bats than AB a decent way below Sachin. To me AB sits closer to Sachin than Clarke, but people always overrate the players they have seen a lot of.

I dont think anyone who has watched AB could possibly think he shouldnt have been at least in the same quality class in as just about anyone else, but results are what counts.

 

[Gob]

Fair call. I regard Sachin extremely highly, and would put better bats than AB a decent way below Sachin. To me AB sits closer to Sachin than Clarke, but people always overrate the players they have seen a lot of.

I dont think anyone who has watched AB could possibly think he shouldnt have been at least in the same quality class in as just about anyone else, but results are what counts.

This part is true. Ftr I think peak Clarke was closer to Lara than DeVilliers if we strictly keep this for tests. Not many can slap Steyn, Phillander and Morkel the way he did on a Cape Town pitch which yielded two double figure team scores for the next two innings.

Timely reminder of how good he was. If not for the bad back, Clarke was on course for a dead set ATG