PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
Williamson: 8490 runs @ 55.12 (while batting at 3)
De Villiers: 8765 runs @ 50.66 (while batting at 5)
De Villiers: 8765 runs @ 50.66 (while batting at 5)
Last edited:
For once, I couldn't agree more with you. ABD has a spotless away record, while Kane's record is of too big of a htb to place over him (love Kane btw).Williamson is simply too poor of an away player to rate better than ABD.
I'm offended bro. I think we've agreed more than once.For once, I couldn't agree more with you. ABD has a spotless away record, while Kane's record is of too big of a htb to place over him (love Kane btw).
Now that I think about it.... Yeah, we have agreed more times than not, probably. It's just the debates had been much more memorable.....I'm offended bro. I think we've agreed more than once.
Huge issue here and in general lol. Thats one of the reasons its harder to rate current cricketers, its extremely easy to get swept up in the moment.ABdV is one of the most talented players I have ever seen. Far better on the eye test than the Fab 4.
But.
22 tons in 100+ tests. Batted #5. A #5 should be the guy to claim all the glorious records.
KW bats #3 in one of the most challenging eras to bat in test history. That holds a lot of weight for me. I don't really like voting after one guy has had a golden game so I will hold off. Fingers crossed we see the Fab 4 for a while more yet.
Number 5 is the easiest. But he didn't bat there often enough to claim all the glorious records. It's a bit more than 1/3 of his innings. He has probably the best ever record at number 5, other than the fact that others batted there more often.ABdV is one of the most talented players I have ever seen. Far better on the eye test than the Fab 4.
But.
22 tons in 100+ tests. Batted #5. A #5 should be the guy to claim all the glorious records.
KW bats #3 in one of the most challenging eras to bat in test history. That holds a lot of weight for me. I don't really like voting after one guy has had a golden game so I will hold off. Fingers crossed we see the Fab 4 for a while more yet.
Given everything I’d probably say Waugh personally, but he’s definitely right up there.Number 5 is the easiest. But he didn't bat there often enough to claim all the glorious records. It's a bit more than 1/3 of his innings. He has probably the best ever record at number 5, other than the fact that others batted there more often.
Ya, fair play if you want to rate Waugh above AB. I do too, and it isn't a tough decision.Given everything I’d probably say Waugh personally, but he’s definitely right up there.
I mean I was talking specifically about 5 too, 104 matches at 56, 58 matches at 59 in the 90’s especially is ridiculously good.Ya, fair play if you want to rate Waugh above AB. I do too, and it isn't a tough decision.
But in the context of the post I was replying to, AB does have a notably better record at 5 than Waugh, whether or not he was better when he was batting 5 (which I'm not sure about).
You are arguing better, which is different to the record argument being put through in the OP. AB is well ahead on average and innings per 100, and very far ahead on RPI.I mean I was talking specifically about 5 too, 104 matches at 56, 58 matches at 59 in the 90’s especially is ridiculously good.