AB de Villiers vs Denis Compton

[PlayerComparisons]

Two ATVGs

 

[howitzer]

Probably Compton, but i could have my mind changed on that with a good enough argument the other way.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

De Villiers

 

[capt_Luffy]

Probably Compton, but i could have my mind changed on that with a good enough argument the other way.

Abd averages 40+ in every country he played in (except BangZim); Compton averages 33 in Australia, and 36 in South Africa and New Zealand, despite playing in a weaker batting era.

 

[Bolo.]

Abd averages 40+ in every country he played in (except BangZim); Compton averages 33 in Australia, and 36 in South Africa and New Zealand, despite playing in a weaker batting era.

You can probably just simply things by saying AB averaged 55 away to Comptons 37. Massive difference.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You can probably just simply things by saying AB averaged 55 away to Comptons 37. Massive difference.

And that also doesn't truly shows his consistency in every country he played in.

 

[Coronis]

Based on everything you read about him it’d surely have to be Compton. But its actually AB.

Black and white can kiss my ass.

 

[Calm_profit]

Compton is a batting version of Lillee, Both rated by their peers but the records shows they underperformed.

 

[Aidan11]

I would say ABD. Compton was the better footballer.

 

[kyear2]

Underrated attacking batsman, decent wicketkeeper and brilliant slip fielder.

 

[shortpitched713]

Underrated aggressive batsman, decent wicketkeeper and brilliant slip fielder.

If we're mentioning AB de Villiers wicketkeeping, then we should mention he could open in Tests as well. He did it more often than he kept wickets in the format.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Abd averages 40+ in every country he played in (except BangZim); Compton averages 33 in Australia, and 36 in South Africa and New Zealand, despite playing in a weaker batting era.

de Villiers was just solid on most tours rather than being dominant anywhere tbh.

 

[ataraxia]

de Villiers was just solid on most tours rather than being dominant anywhere tbh.

Shockingly, this is why analysis by checklist sucks. Faux consistency is unduly rewarded.

 

[Line and Length]

Looking at players whose careers were interrupted or curtailed by WWII is difficult when comparing them to more recent players. Denis Compton, along with Keith Miller and others is a case of what might have been. Not only were their Test careers shortened but their war time experiences gave them a different outlook on life and cricket. Both Miller and Compton never took the game as seriously as many others. Despite all of this, Compton managed over 100 FC centuries and averaged over 50 in Tests. How many players could match that had they missed so much cricket while in their mid and late 20s?

 

[Bolo.]

Shockingly, this is why analysis by checklist sucks. Faux consistency is unduly rewarded.

What is faux consistency? Surely consistency is one of the easiest things to measure?

If a player has a great 'match winning' game, and a terrible 'match losing' game, your opinion of them will just depend on which one you choose to focus on. Consistently is just... Consistent.

 

[ataraxia]

What is faux consistency? Surely consistency is one of the easiest things to measure?

If a player has a great 'match winning' game, and a terrible 'match losing' game, your opinion of them will just depend on which one you choose to focus on. Consistently is just... Consistent.

I don't really think that averages can adequately measure consistency, to be honest. There's no substitute for watching a player's career and contextualising their performances. At the least, consistency is not "did they average the same in every country they played in?" – that really is #samplesizelol areas. Two good innings and four bad innings can give that magic number of 40, but it's hardly a measure of how well they played in novel conditions; how consistent they were in unfamiliar territory.

And even if it were, is consistency actually better, on the whole, than rocks and diamonds? The funny thing, I imagine, is that most cricket fans actually rate rocks and diamonds higher.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I actually think when we analyze a player's performance in countries, sample sizes get smaller so I'd value someone who has some big performances (preferably some match turning performances) over someone who merely is "consistent" and averages higher but has fewer genuinely great performances. When evaluating a full career with a much bigger sample, consistency is more important.

 

[Bolo.]

I don't really think that averages can adequately measure consistency, to be honest. There's no substitute for watching a player's career and contextualising their performances. At the least, consistency is not "did they average the same in every country they played in?" – that really is #samplesizelol areas. Two good innings and four bad innings can give that magic number of 40, but it's hardly a measure of how well they played in novel conditions; how consistent they were in unfamiliar territory.

And even if it were, is consistency actually better, on the whole, than rocks and diamonds? The funny thing, I imagine, is that most cricket fans actually rate rocks and diamonds higher.

Great comment.

I would rate someone who has some level of performance everywhere (like the arbitrary 40 average) very slightly above someone who doesn't though. Sample size LOL doesn't mean a player who fails in a place would continue to do so (it's often pretty random), but actually demonstrating some level of performance is better than not.

Ya, the vast majority of people value rocks and diamonds above consistency in terms of game performances (not countries). Doesn't mean we should- a match winning and match losing performance are just mirrors of each other. I don't think you can make a universal rule about whether consistency/inconsistency in games is better. You can generalize a bit, like saying rocks and diamonds will often be more useful in a weak team, But on the whole, it's too situational.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I actually think when we analyze a player's performance in countries, sample sizes get smaller so I'd value someone who has some big performances (preferably some match turning performances) over someone who merely is "consistent" and averages higher but has fewer genuinely great performances. When evaluating a full career with a much bigger sample, consistency is more important.

Fair enough. But I definitely think ABD deserves his due for just being solid everywhere he played in, aka away as a whole. He might not always been the best, but he hardly had been the worst as well. I think it comes down to what's better, a great tour followed by a bad one (like Kohli in England 2014 and 18) or two solid tours.

 

[Silver Silva]

I actually think when we analyze a player's performance in countries, sample sizes get smaller so I'd value someone who has some big performances (preferably some match turning performances) over someone who merely is "consistent" and averages higher but has fewer genuinely great performances. When evaluating a full career with a much bigger sample, consistency is more important.

AB has some great knocks brother ..

4th innings match winning 100 vs Australia at Perth in 2008

174 vs England at Headingley 08

100 vs Australia in 2017/2018 at home

169 off 184 vs Australia at WACA 2012

Fastest test hundred by an SA batter

Blockathon innings to save test matches