Is AB de Villiers an ATG?

[Dendarii]

Meh. We went from Balwinder Sandhu to Salil Ankola to Debashish Mohanty to Ishant Sharma. Beat that.

We had Nicky Boje and Pat Symcox as our spinners...

 

[Fuller Pilch]

And of course Kallis is an ATG. He's the 2nd best player of the 21st century behind Murali imo

 

[stephen]

Kallis resides in this strange place for me. He would make any side that ever played in history (which makes him an ATG) and as a complete package he was the real deal. Yet I can't place him over half a dozen others with the bat and he wouldn't have made the side as a bowler alone.

So where does that leave him? A fantastic cricketer who was overshadowed by others in his era.

 

[stephen]

And of course Kallis is an ATG. He's the 2nd best player of the 21st century behind Murali imo

But Murali want the best player of this century so that doesn't really make sense. Gilchrist was the best player this century. He totally changed how we think about wicket keepers in the modern game.

 

[StephenZA]

When by majority opinion the only person considered a greater allrounder than Kallis is Sir Garfield Sobers, you pretty much make any side with Sir Garfield Sobers in it anyway. While I accept there maybe 10 batsmen in history better than Kallis I don't think they are better enough than him to keep him out of many ATG team picks. Kallis's biggest detriment was he was considered a stodgy player, but what is always ignored was that he played most of his career with a brittle SA batting lineup, so long live stodginess.

Only player with a higher average than him with over a hundred tests is Sangakkara. And Kallis played half his innings in SA where it is considered one of the most difficult places to bat, particularly when he started his career.

(End biased rant!!!)

 

[CapeTown Guy]

Preferring the likes of Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar as a batsman is as much personal choice as it is based on fact for me. By pure weight of runs he is at least the match of any of his peers, and the fact he was a reliable third or fourth fast bowler (depending on the make-up of the XI) means his overall contribution to the team is almost unmatched. Handy slipper too if you needed one

 

[OverratedSanity]

When by majority opinion the only person considered a greater allrounder than Kallis is Sir Garfield Sobers, you pretty much make any side with Sir Garfield Sobers in it anyway. While I accept there maybe 10 batsmen in history better than Kallis I don't think they are better enough than him to keep him out of many ATG team picks. Kallis's biggest detriment was he was considered a stodgy player, but what is always ignored was that he played most of his career with a brittle SA batting lineup, so long live stodginess.

Only player with a higher average than him with over a hundred tests is Sangakkara. And Kallis played half his innings in SA where it is considered one of the most difficult places to bat, particularly when he started his career.

(End biased rant!!!)

I agree with everything except the bolded.

 

[StephenZA]

I agree with everything except the bolded.

You disagree that it is ignored or that he played most of his career with a brittle line-up? (serious question)

The SA team did not have a great number of great batsmen until about 2007/2008. Kallis career was from 1995-2013 first ten years he was the only rock, and maybe Kirsten. SA had long batting line-ups because of the number of allrounders, but not solid. 2010 was peak when we had Smith, Amla, Kallis, DeVillers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You disagree that it is ignored or that he played most of his career with a brittle line-up? (serious question)

The SA team did not have a great number of great batsmen until about 2007/2008. Kallis career was from 1995-2013 first ten years he was the only rock, and maybe Kirsten. SA had long batting line-ups because of the number of allrounders, but not solid. 2010 was peak when we had Smith, Amla, Kallis, DeVillers.

Disagree that it was brittle. I've heard that opinion among many SA fans and I've never properly understood it tbh. Cullinan and Kirsten were really good and the depth was insane.

 

[jimmy101]

Also disagree that RSA had brittle batting Pre 2007. They probably had the 3rd best batting lineup in the world after Australia & India. Along with Cullinan, Kallis, Smith & Gary Kirsten there was Gibbs, Wessels, Peter Kirsten, Hudson, McKenzie, Cronje, Rhodes, Klusener & McMillan. Bit harsh to call that brittle.

 

[StephenZA]

Disagree that it was brittle. I've heard that opinion among many SA fans and I've never properly understood it tbh. Cullinan and Kirsten were really good and the depth was insane.

I just have many (fond!) memories of the SA team being 100/4 120/5 getting to 350 or 400 because Kirsten/Kallis scored 100 and the lower order scored 100+. Which is great but winning totals tend to be 450+. Of course our lower average scores was compensated by our pretty decent bowling attack . SA have always been competitive but not always great in the batting. Since about 2005 until recently well we had some great batting lineups.

 

[Dendarii]

Preferring the likes of Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar as a batsman is as much personal choice as it is based on fact for me. By pure weight of runs he is at least the match of any of his peers, and the fact he was a reliable third or fourth fast bowler (depending on the make-up of the XI) means his overall contribution to the team is almost unmatched. Handy slipper too if you needed one

I could be wrong about this, but I think there was a test match he played against Pakistan who were lacking any big guns for that match, and he had scored more runs, taken more wickets and held more catches than the entire Pakistan side combined.

 

[StephenZA]

This for me is a classic SA scorecard....
1st Test, Pakistan tour of South Africa at Durban, Dec 26-29 2002 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

My memory is probably filled with much nostalgia but thats how I remember SA cricket back in the 'day'...

 

[Dendarii]

Also disagree that RSA had brittle batting Pre 2007. They probably had the 3rd best batting lineup in the world after Australia & India. Along with Cullinan, Kallis, Smith & Gary Kirsten there was Gibbs, Wessels, Peter Kirsten, Hudson, McKenzie, Cronje, Rhodes, Klusener & McMillan. Bit harsh to call that brittle.

I do think Cullinan can get a bit of a raw deal from South African fans as his legacy gets tarnished because of his struggles against Warne, but the middle order was the weak link in the South African batting line up for a long time, with most of the guys you've mentioned averaging under 40, and it often felt like it was up to the lower order to save the day.

 

[jimmy101]

In relation to some of the other teams of the time RSA had some serous batting strength with Kallis, Smith, Kirsten, Gibbs, Cullinan & Prince all averaging over 40.

Plus you lot had Cronje's captaincy skills, Rhodes' fielding prowess (which could potentially save somewhere between 10 - 100 runs per innings) & great supporting players like McMillan, Pollock, Klusener, Symcox & Boucher.

But I understand, you South Africans are arguably the most competitive cricketing nation in the world!

 

[StephenZA]

In relation to some of the other teams of the time RSA had some serous batting strength with Kallis, Smith, Kirsten, Gibbs, Cullinan & Prince all averaging over 40.

Plus you lot had Cronje's captaincy skills, Rhodes' fielding prowess (which could potentially save somewhere between 10 - 100 runs per innings) & great supporting players like McMillan, Pollock, Klusener, Symcox & Boucher.

But I understand, you South Africans are arguably the most competitive cricketing nation in the world!

Love the hyperbole...

 

[jimmy101]

Love the hyperbole...

Ya never know... what if Rhodes took an absolute blinder of a catch to dismiss Tendulkar, then followed that up with a run out of Dravid, whilst turning 4's into 2's in the outfield all day & stopping the batsmen from running quick singles with his speed in the infield.

That'd obviously be a best case scenario.

 

[SeamUp]

In relation to some of the other teams of the time RSA had some serous batting strength with Kallis, Smith, Kirsten, Gibbs, Cullinan & Prince all averaging over 40.

Plus you lot had Cronje's captaincy skills, Rhodes' fielding prowess (which could potentially save somewhere between 10 - 100 runs per innings) & great supporting players like McMillan, Pollock, Klusener, Symcox & Boucher.

But I understand, you South Africans are arguably the most competitive cricketing nation in the world!

The great thing about Cronje & Rhodes was the clutch runs they scored.

In an era of such unbelievable bowling strength averaging 36 & 35 isn't anything to be sneezed at considering they had unbelievable secondary (captaincy / fielding) and even 3rd (bowling & ultimate team man ) skill sets. They both averaged 40+ in strong FC system too boot. Those averages weren't inflated by anything.

When it comes to SA batsman I do feel Gibbs, Cullinan & Prince get raw deals that is for sure. You could probably class Gibbs & Cullinan like a M.Waugh type ito could have achieved more.

 

[Dendarii]

In relation to some of the other teams of the time RSA had some serous batting strength with Kallis, Smith, Kirsten, Gibbs, Cullinan & Prince all averaging over 40.

Although Cullinan and Prince never played together, which perhaps suggests why there are differing perspectives between South Africans and non-South Africans. It's very possible to point to the players that South Africa has had available in the past, and there are certainly some good batsmen amongst them, but dig a bit deeper into teams that actually took the field and there will be names like Rudolph, Dippenaar, and Van Jaarsveld. It was only really once Amla and De Villiers had established themselves that we now had a batting line-up that could be relied on consistently all the way down the specialist batsmen.

Although I will acknowledge that South Africans can seem quicker to criticise and don't hype their players quite so much. Which could account for Kallis being overlooked a little as he's not always top of mind due to him not being given the prominence by his fans that other players are given by theirs.

 

[SeamUp]

Hudders was a funny one.

Could score runs against the very best and did often and it was lovely to watch but also failed a lot hence the average.