Poll: Better batsmen-Alastair Cook vs AB de Villiers in tests?

[Bahseph]

I really rate Cook, and I think every Test Team would love to have him. Maybe this is national bias, but AB has always suffered from being so good at ODIs. We tend to expect the same in Tests.

Cook has dominated more series individually but AB has had a fantastic Test career. He has won series everywhere except India if I'm correct. Even a series in Pakistan. Along the way he has played some brilliant knocks and been the best batsman in the world for a long stretch of time in terms of his run output. AB the Test player is not as good as AB the Odi player, but that says more about how good his LO game is than how unfulfilled his Test career is.

 

[Burner]

There's quite some under-rating of Cook going on here, or over-rating of AB. Cook has scored 3K runs more than AB and is younger. That might be saying more about how much cricket England plays but they've both have the same inns per tons as well. I've always been awkward of extrapolating how someone would have done if they played more cricket than they did because you don't know when their game falls of a cliff. Already you have AB picking and choosing over which series' he want to play.

This is coming from someone who rates AB higher but pretending that there is a vast difference in quality between them is silly.

 

[RK_123]

Let's make a country-by- country comparison between the two :

Australia:-

Cook dominated the 2010 Ashes tour like very few does and smashed three big tons and won them the series, albeit vs a weaker Aus attack.In the next tour to Aus, he struggled poorly and avgd 23 vs a red hot Johnson.

AB, on other hand, was consistent in both series, winning them the Perth test in 2008 chasing down 408. In his next tour, he played a match saving knock at Adelaide followed by a counter attacking knock at Perth as a support role to Amla.Now AB was very consistent but couldn't dominate a series like Cook did. However, Cook went missing vs a better attack in his next tour.Overall, it close.So, 1-1 to both.

India:-

In India again, Cook dominated the series in 2012 by hitting back to back hundreds and being the player of series.However, he again underperformed in his 2nd tour to India on some really flat pitches.

AB won them a match at Ahmedabad in 2008 by hitting a double hundred and was also their best batsmen in the 2015 tour where the pitches were really hard to score at.Statistically, both avgd 35-36 in their recent tours to India but given how the pitches were, AB gets an edge. Overall, its close as Cook won his team a series there in 2012.But I think Cook wins by a whisker.

England/ South Africa

Think this is closer than stats would say. AB has a 174 at Headingley but nothing else. He didn't do anything in 2012 tour while Cook also has a hundred in SA but averaged 35 only. AB was also a leading run scorer in 2008 series although Smith was MOS deservingly.AB wins this but not by much.

UAE

Cook has a 290 on a ridiculously flat pitch vs a mediocre Pak attack with no Yasir in recent series while AB's 278 also came on same pitch vs a mediocre Pak attack.However, AB has a 163 in the 2014 decider vs Ajmal and co and managed to drew the series with that.So, AB wins here.

SL: Not much to choose but Cook has a hundred here and avgs 48.So, Cook wins.

NZ: AB had a vital 83 after the top order failed and has a 97 odd too. Avgs 39 compared to Cook's 34. So, AB wins.

So, I feel its 3-2 to AB over Cook.Windies and others nobody cares.But its still close given Cook has longevity with him.

 

[RK_123]

Correction: AB was second leading run scorer in 2008 tour to England. He scored 174 at Headingley and 97 in 2nd inning of last test. Although, results wont change anyways.

 

[S.Kennedy]

They are two completely different sort of batsmen really. Cook is a stodgy accumulator. AB is an innovative dasher.

 

[marc71178]

They are two completely different sort of batsmen really. Cook is a stodgy accumulator. AB is an innovative dasher.

And yet the differences in strike rates make your comments stink of hyperbole. Funny that...

 

[Black_Warrior]

No he didn't. If it was so he would have just retired. The timing of next year this time is "convenient" to say the least when it comes to quotas and RSA possibly bidding for the T20 WC for 2018.

No he wants to play the WC why would he retire now..and he also said how much he enjoys playing the IPL. People seem to have forgotten the chain of events. First AB opted out of the Sri Lanka series, then he opted out of the NZ series. The board allowed him all of that. You think a player who gets away with saying "sorry I won't show up for work today" would not be picked because of quota?
He was going to walk in to the Test side if he wanted to. He has lost the appetite for test cricket and right now appears to be focused on the World Cup and his focus has shifted to LO cricket.
This is difficult for most test aficionados on CW to understand so they think there's some politics at play here.

 

[morgieb]

No he wants to play the WC why would he retire now..and he also said how much he enjoys playing the IPL. People seem to have forgotten the chain of events. First AB opted out of the Sri Lanka series, then he opted out of the NZ series. The board allowed him all of that. You think a player who gets away with saying "sorry I won't show up for work today" would not be picked because of quota?
He was going to walk in to the Test side if he wanted to. He has lost the appetite for test cricket and right now appears to be focused on the World Cup and his focus has shifted to LO cricket.
This is difficult for most test aficionados on CW to understand so they think there's some politics at play here.

Then why doesn't he just retire from Test cricket rather than delay it? Something has to be fishy IMO.

 

[S.Kennedy]

And yet the differences in strike rates make your comments stink of hyperbole. Funny that...

The difference in their s/r would support what I said.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Then why doesn't he just retire from Test cricket rather than delay it? Something has to be fishy IMO.

There might be some business/sponsorship clauses at play here which require him to play all 3 formats

 

[honestbharani]

No he wants to play the WC why would he retire now..and he also said how much he enjoys playing the IPL. People seem to have forgotten the chain of events. First AB opted out of the Sri Lanka series, then he opted out of the NZ series. The board allowed him all of that. You think a player who gets away with saying "sorry I won't show up for work today" would not be picked because of quota?
He was going to walk in to the Test side if he wanted to. He has lost the appetite for test cricket and right now appears to be focused on the World Cup and his focus has shifted to LO cricket.
This is difficult for most test aficionados on CW to understand so they think there's some politics at play here.

Lol, BW, I always thought you were better than "you are all wrong coz I know better" style posting. Anyways, he has said his aim is to play in the home season later this year which is well before the WC. So, again, your theory does not hold any water at all. Now, chew on this. RSA Government will not let them bid for any world tourney unless they hit their quota targets. Right now, getting AB in is only gonna destabilize the team and put enormous pressure on Faf or Cook or Amla. They want a settled side going into the England tour and I assume they worked out this deal with AB so that everyone knows where they stand.

 

[Black_Warrior]

HB, everytime you make a post disagreeing with someone, it's because you think you know better. That's the bedrock on which CW stands. Everyone who registered on this forum did so to tell the rest that they know better. Let's get the moral posturing out of the way. We are all ****s who think they know the best. About everything.

I followed the AB case closely and found no reason to believe that there was any external pressure of any kind on him due to the quota or any other political matter. CSA has been far far more accomodating than any other employer that I know. No other cricketer gets to pick and choose series when they see fit the way AB has. He still has not officially committed to the home tests later in the year.

"My dream plan is to come back for those eight Test matches and that's all I can say for now. My focus is on the 2019 World Cup but if I feel physically incapable of making it after those two Test series, I will call it a day then. I'll make that call once we get there. I can't decide now how I am going to feel in 12 months.

"I'm just not ready, that's the best way I can put it. Priorities have changed over the years, family has changed, my roles in the team have changed over the years," he said. "Playing three different formats, with the schedule the way it is, all of a sudden felt like the world is on top of my shoulders, and that's when I felt like I need to start prioritising what I want to achieve in my career, where I want to go and what I feel motivated about. There are a lot of things that have played a role in this decision but I wouldn't like to think it's the end.

If these words sound like someone who loves Test cricket but is being deprived from playing it because of politics, then we just have diametrically opposite ways of interpreting.

AB de Villiers is likely to make his Test comeback against India and his bat sponsor, the Indian company MRF, initially wanted him to play all three formats. That contract, reportedly close to US\$ 2 million, is now being negotiated. "Obviously they would like me to play as much cricket as possible, around the world in all the formats but I still have to negotiate with them and see how we do with that."

Ultimately neither of us know AB personally, so we go by what is reported. I read the reporting carefully as he is one of my favourite players, and that's the conclusion I have reached.

You are free to disagree and say I am wrong and you are right. But just know that's a two way street



Source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/southafrica/content/story/1078267.html

 

[honestbharani]

HB, everytime you make a post disagreeing with someone, it's because you think you know better. That's the bedrock on which CW stands. Everyone who registered on this forum did so to tell the rest that they know better. Let's get the moral posturing out of the way. We are all ****s who think they know the best. About everything.

I followed the AB case closely and found no reason to believe that there was any external pressure of any kind on him due to the quota or any other political matter. CSA has been far far more accomodating than any other employer that I know. No other cricketer gets to pick and choose series when they see fit the way AB has. He still has not officially committed to the home tests later in the year.

"My dream plan is to come back for those eight Test matches and that's all I can say for now. My focus is on the 2019 World Cup but if I feel physically incapable of making it after those two Test series, I will call it a day then. I'll make that call once we get there. I can't decide now how I am going to feel in 12 months.

"I'm just not ready, that's the best way I can put it. Priorities have changed over the years, family has changed, my roles in the team have changed over the years," he said. "Playing three different formats, with the schedule the way it is, all of a sudden felt like the world is on top of my shoulders, and that's when I felt like I need to start prioritising what I want to achieve in my career, where I want to go and what I feel motivated about. There are a lot of things that have played a role in this decision but I wouldn't like to think it's the end.

If these words sound like someone who loves Test cricket but is being deprived from playing it because of politics, then we just have diametrically opposite ways of interpreting.

AB de Villiers is likely to make his Test comeback against India and his bat sponsor, the Indian company MRF, initially wanted him to play all three formats. That contract, reportedly close to US\$ 2 million, is now being negotiated. "Obviously they would like me to play as much cricket as possible, around the world in all the formats but I still have to negotiate with them and see how we do with that."

Ultimately neither of us know AB personally, so we go by what is reported. I read the reporting carefully as he is one of my favourite players, and that's the conclusion I have reached.

You are free to disagree and say I am wrong and you are right. But just know that's a two way street



Source: De Villiers unavailable for Tests for most of 2017 | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

Lol.. Its not about the "I know better" part. Its the fact that I would expect a poster of your class to kinda post some of these reasons why you think what you think. That was what was missing in your earlier post. See, in mine, I did point out why I think what I think, like you have done in this post. Fair enough if you think he is not keen on test cricket. I still do not see anything in what you quoted that would make me change my opinion on this issue.

 

[StephenZA]

I don`t think that DeVillers has stopped because of quotas, but they did have an impact. The WC loss hurt him hard and we all know the debacle around that. The series in India also caused stress, he kept playing during England series after having been made captain. Then he played some T20 stuff and was injured (or rather he further aggravated an injury). And most importantly during this time he had his son. I think during his injury rehabilitation he found staying home with his family a very good thing and helped him mentally recover from all the above. Having physically recovered the one thing he still wants to do is win the WC for SA (and himself) but did not want to go back to full time cricket. Thus he made the decision to not play Test cricket for the year and see how he feels next year again. Maybe he will feel more positive or maybe he will retire from Tests. So that's what I think happened.

 

[RK_123]

Let's make a country-by- country comparison between the two :

Australia:-

Cook dominated the 2010 Ashes tour like very few does and smashed three big tons and won them the series, albeit vs a weaker Aus attack.In the next tour to Aus, he struggled poorly and avgd 23 vs a red hot Johnson.

AB, on other hand, was consistent in both series, winning them the Perth test in 2008 chasing down 408. In his next tour, he played a match saving knock at Adelaide followed by a counter attacking knock at Perth as a support role to Amla.Now AB was very consistent but couldn't dominate a series like Cook did. However, Cook went missing vs a better attack in his next tour.Overall, it close.So, 1-1 to both.

India:-

In India again, Cook dominated the series in 2012 by hitting back to back hundreds and being the player of series.However, he again underperformed in his 2nd tour to India on some really flat pitches.

AB won them a match at Ahmedabad in 2008 by hitting a double hundred and was also their best batsmen in the 2015 tour where the pitches were really hard to score at.Statistically, both avgd 35-36 in their recent tours to India but given how the pitches were, AB gets an edge. Overall, its close as Cook won his team a series there in 2012.But I think Cook wins by a whisker.

England/ South Africa

Think this is closer than stats would say. AB has a 174 at Headingley but nothing else. He didn't do anything in 2012 tour while Cook also has a hundred in SA but averaged 35 only. AB was also a leading run scorer in 2008 series although Smith was MOS deservingly.AB wins this but not by much.

UAE

Cook has a 290 on a ridiculously flat pitch vs a mediocre Pak attack with no Yasir in recent series while AB's 278 also came on same pitch vs a mediocre Pak attack.However, AB has a 163 in the 2014 decider vs Ajmal and co and managed to drew the series with that.So, AB wins here.

SL: Not much to choose but Cook has a hundred here and avgs 48.So, Cook wins.

NZ: AB had a vital 83 after the top order failed and has a 97 odd too. Avgs 39 compared to Cook's 34. So, AB wins.

So, I feel its 3-2 to AB over Cook.Windies and others nobody cares.But its still close given Cook has longevity with him.

What do you all think guys?

 

[marc71178]

The difference in their s/r would support what I said.

No, your comments in both directions show hyperbole that is typical of your agenda.

A "stodgy accumumlator" suggests 40 or so and an "innovative dasher" suggests 60...

 

[srivastava21]

I have a lot of respect for Cook and he is probably one of England's best openers in Tests. But de Villiers is from a different planet man. He can score runs wherever and whenever he wants to. So deVilliers>Cook

 

[theegyptian]

They aren't really comparable. Playing in different team conditions and different positions. I'd go De Villiers but it's closer than some are making out imo.

I would say batting 5 and 6 is kinda cushy spot. Perfectly warranted when De Villiers was keeping, and he has had guys like Kallis and Amla ahead of him rightly at other points who were better suited. He hasn't really done much when he has batted higher though.

I would say there is an interesting comparison to be made between a De Villiers and Bell. They have similar career records (albeit De Villiers better). Dominant at 5 and 6 but haven't been able to hack it higher up. Bell (4084 runs@ 52.35), AB(6141@ 57.39) at 5 and 6; Bell (3332 runs@ 35.07), AB (1781@37.1) at 1-4.

Would Bell still be playing for England if they hadn't promoted him higher up the order? Would he have an average of 50? Team problems/selection dictated he got promoted higher and failed. Maybe SA have been wise to avoid a similar fate, maybe it was fortune that Kallis, Amla were ahead of him.

Should England bring Bell back at 6 this summer? Well he'd certainly be a better bet than Buttler as a specialist batsman.

 

[S.Kennedy]

No, your comments in both directions show hyperbole that is typical of your agenda.

A "stodgy accumumlator" suggests 40 or so and an "innovative dasher" suggests 60...

But Cook is in the 40s. Watching a Cook innings is like watching paint dry.

 

[Red]

They aren't really comparable. Playing in different team conditions and different positions. I'd go De Villiers but it's closer than some are making out imo.

I would say batting 5 and 6 is kinda cushy spot. Perfectly warranted when De Villiers was keeping, and he has had guys like Kallis and Amla ahead of him rightly at other points who were better suited. He hasn't really done much when he has batted higher though.

I would say there is an interesting comparison to be made between a De Villiers and Bell. They have similar career records (albeit De Villiers better). Dominant at 5 and 6 but haven't been able to hack it higher up. Bell (4084 runs@ 52.35), AB(6141@ 57.39) at 5 and 6; Bell (3332 runs@ 35.07), AB (1781@37.1) at 1-4.

Would Bell still be playing for England if they hadn't promoted him higher up the order? Would he have an average of 50? Team problems/selection dictated he got promoted higher and failed. Maybe SA have been wise to avoid a similar fate, maybe it was fortune that Kallis, Amla were ahead of him.

Should England bring Bell back at 6 this summer? Well he'd certainly be a better bet than Buttler as a specialist batsman.

I don't rank guys who bat in the top 3 or 4 more than guys who bat 5 or 6, necessarily. It's a different skill set. Michael Clarke struggled batting above five, but his footwork to spinners was sublime and he was better suited at 5 or 6 anyhow. Steve Waugh was similar.

Early in DeVilliers career they tried to make him an opener and he was ok, but not a huge success. And then he was always going to come in down the order after Amla and Kallis anyway.