Ab de Villiers vs Hashim Amla vs Graeme Smith

[PlayerComparisons]

Three best SA bats after Kallis. How would you rank them?

 

[ataraxia]

Three best SA bats after Kallis.

No what?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

No what?

Forgot about pollock

 

[trundler]

Nourse and Mitchell > Smith.

 

[ataraxia]

Forgot about pollock

And Barry and Nourse.

 

[trundler]

And Barry and Nourse.

Ew.

 

[ataraxia]

Ew.

Well he's clearly better than Amla at the least. As to AB, Smith, and Mitchell, it's more a matter of personal preference but I think given a full test career he'd probably prove superior (which is the metric).

 

[PlayerComparisons]

barry is probably better than kallis

 

[trundler]

Well he's clearly better than Amla at the least. As to AB, Smith, and Mitchell, it's more a matter of personal preference but I think given a full test career he'd probably prove superior (which is the metric).

Amla was the best batsman in the world for a while. Amla over De Villiers isn't really that clear cut tbh. Amla never deserted his team in his lean patch and was the MVB in several big wins. More so than De Villiers when SA were on top. I don't think Richards exceeding that is a guarantee.

 

[BazBall21]

Smith is third. It's close between the other two.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Smith is third. It's close between the other two.

Smith v Amla would be a good poll. Think smith would win that tho

 

[BazBall21]

Smith v Amla would be a good poll. Think smith would win that tho

He probably would, but I think Amla is better.

 

[Majestic]

Purely as batsman, ABDV> Amla> Smith

But Smith was a great leader which the other two weren't.

Amla is a gentleman of the game and a great personality on field.

ABD added more value and variety with his excellent fielding and keeping. He was also a great role model for most part of his career except that whole retirement saga.

 

[shortpitched713]

How is Smith 3rd from this group? Openers get absolutely no love on this forum. **** Hayden even, the modern opener hate is one of the most myopic blind spots of "CW consensus", that's seemed to ignored the evidence of the past decade+ of cricket which obviously indicates that yeah, this opening lark is rather tough. But whatever, consensus got to consensus.

 

[BazBall21]

How is Smith 3rd from this group? Openers get absolutely no love on this forum. **** Hayden even, the modern opener hate is one of the most myopic blind spots of "CW consensus", that's seemed to ignored the evidence of the past decade+ of cricket which obviously indicates that yeah, this opening lark is rather tough. But whatever, consensus got to consensus.

I just don't think he's as good as the other two tbh

 

[trundler]

How is Smith 3rd from this group? Openers get absolutely no love on this forum. **** Hayden even, the modern opener hate is one of the most myopic blind spots of "CW consensus", that's seemed to ignored the evidence of the past decade+ of cricket which obviously indicates that yeah, this opening lark is rather tough. But whatever, consensus got to consensus.

SA haven't had any good #6s in the last 30 odd years. Going by your logic of rewarding rarity in absolute terms, that's got to be a tougher job than opening since they've at least had Smith, Kirsten and Elgar (at home) in that period.

 

[BazBall21]

SA haven't had any good #6s in the last 30 odd years. Going by your logic of rewarding rarity in absolute terms, that's got to be a tougher job than opening since they've at least had Smith, Kirsten and Elgar (at home) in that period.

Ironic that Elgar has done considerably better than Smith at home when some give Smith a total free pass for his home record.

 

[Prince EWS]

SA haven't had any good #6s in the last 30 odd years. Going by your logic of rewarding rarity in absolute terms, that's got to be a tougher job than opening since they've at least had Smith, Kirsten and Elgar (at home) in that period.

Yeah opening is harder, but it's dumb to think that the best opener should automatically be given some kind of special status. It's because opening is harder that teams tend to not waste their best or most talented batsmen there these days.

We should definitely give extra credit for batsmen making runs as opener - particularly in certain countries - but SP takes it to a ridiculous level that almost assumes batting 1 is as different from batting 3 as fast bowling is from wicket keeping. They aren't totally different and incomparable things.

 

[shortpitched713]

SA haven't had any good #6s in the last 30 odd years. Going by your logic of rewarding rarity in absolute terms, that's got to be a tougher job than opening since they've at least had Smith, Kirsten and Elgar (at home) in that period.

#6 isn't really a specialized position in my eyes, but okay.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah opening is harder, but it's dumb to think that the best opener should automatically be given some kind of special status. It's because opening is harder that teams tend to not waste their best or most talented batsmen there these days.

We should definitely give extra credit for batsmen making runs as opener - particularly in certain countries - but SP takes it to a ridiculous level that almost assumes batting 1 is as different from batting 3 as fast bowling is from wicket keeping. They aren't totally different and incomparable things.

I get this take. It's the overall predominant take. But given that 1) Batsmen get better in many cases during their career, and 2) It's rather rare for a batsman to "graduate" from opening to the middle order.

Wouldn't we then have to conclude that "Yes, there is a specialized skillset involved in opening, which should be rewarded in excess for doing better compared to the relatively easier middle order batting." ?

Otherwise shouldn't our "best modern XIs" or whatnot simply open with say Viv Richards and Tendulkar, or whomever we think is the most expendable of our specialist bats, and not bother with the whole specialist openers at all?