Is AB de Villiers an ATG?

[Furball]

Waite is the obvious choice, QDK is the only one who has the potential to take his place in a SA XI but needs his career to go another 10 years .....

Amla gets into a SA XI, before ABdV for me.... but then I`m pretty biased.

AWTA.

Amla scores tougher runs IMO.

 

[Moonsorrow999]

Depends really what format we talk about, he's definitely an S.A great and a great of the modern ODI era, but he is not in the Steyn bracket of all time world class as well as Kallis in my opinion, he's done some freakish things though. If he carries on for another 2-3 years and can average 55+ in test match cricket (in that 2-3 years) and score match winning centuries for his team then that will definitely improve his chances of being an ATG. That, and helping S.A win the world cup would also do it.

 

[Tom Flint]

ATG is term many of the youngsters love using, I believe it stands for all time great. In my opinion, the true great cricketers number some 20, maybe 30. In my life time, I have only 10 at most:

Imran Khan
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Ricky Ponting
Sachin Tendulkar
Adam Gilchrist
Muttiah Muralitharan
Brian Lara
Ian Botham

Actually that is nine. I do not think I can be convinced that AB should be included among those names, or even surpass them. Remember, these are the names that would be ranked alongside those that came before me, Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs and so on.

Such a strange list that. They are all atgs but a bit baffling how some are there and others arent.
Where's viv?
And no kallis or steyn?! Must be a wind up surely

 

[Starfighter]

Or McGrath? And Botham but not Hadlee?

Interesting...

 

[Gob]

Smith
Richards
Amla
Kallis
Pollock
DeVilliers +
Procter
Pollock
Tayfield
Donald
Steyn

Mine will totally out class Redhill's

 

[jimmy101]

Smith
Richards
Amla
Kallis
Pollock
DeVilliers +
Procter
Pollock
Tayfield
Donald
Steyn

Mine will totally out class Redhill's

Is that Shaun or Peter Pollock batting @ 8?

 

[Agar]

I think he's a South African ATG. Perhaps not so internationally.

 

[Red]

Smith
Richards
Amla
Kallis
Pollock
DeVilliers +
Procter
Pollock
Tayfield
Donald
Steyn

Mine will totally out class Redhill's

I dont mind your side at all, but leaving Aubrey Faulkner out of any SA ATG XI is a big mistake.

 

[oblongballs]

Do you rate Ian Botham ahead of Jacques Kallis? And Akram ahead of Hadlee and McGrath?

Yes I do, as I think most would.

The Sky panel last year unanimously voted Akram as the greatest fast bowler of them all, above McGrath. If you listen to the likes of Lara, ABD and many others talk, they all say the same about him.

Personally, having seen Akram live in four tests and McGrath in six, Akram was easily, and I do mean eaisly, the superior bowler. His swing, late and early, bouncer, speed, new and old ball ability etc were all better. Akram and Marshall are the Ali and Robinson of fast bowling. The others merely enjoy the shade in their shadows.

 

[oblongballs]

But would he definitely make a South Africa all-time XI? I already posted it earlier in the thread, but for reference here is what Cricinfo came up with as their all-time XI:

Barry Richards
Graeme Smith
Jacques Kallis
Graeme Pollock
Dudley Nourse
Aubrey Faulkner
Mike Procter
Shaun Pollock
Johnny Waite
Hugh Tayfield
Allan Donald

This was back in 2009, and to be fair at that time it wasn't unreasonable for De Villiers not to feature, but would he be included now? He's obviously a strong candidate but I wouldn't say that he's an automatic pick the way that others like Jacques Kallis and Graeme Pollock are.

I think we both agree ABD would make a SA all time XI or be close to it.

Such a strange list that. They are all atgs but a bit baffling how some are there and others arent.
Where's viv?
And no kallis or steyn?! Must be a wind up surely

Ah, another mind block. The issue with typing quickly, I left out Marshall and Viv.

And no, I do not think Kallis, Steyn and many other names are all time greats. As I said, I personally reserve that term to the truly upper tier and as great as they were, I would not pick them in an all time eleven or squad.

Just depends on your definition of ATG I guess.

For me, any cricketer who would probably make an Aust, Eng, SA, WI, Pakistan or India* ATG team is an ATG.

* Except for pace bowlers in India. I mean, sure, Angus Fraser was a good bowler, but he wasn't an ATG. Would probably make India's all time XI as a quick though.

I can see it your way but I just have a stricter set of requirements.

 

[Red]

Yes I do, as I think most would.

The Sky panel last year unanimously voted Akram as the greatest fast bowler of them all, above McGrath. If you listen to the likes of Lara, ABD and many others talk, they all say the same about him.

Personally, having seen Akram live in four tests and McGrath in six, Akram was easily, and I do mean eaisly, the superior bowler. His swing, late and early, bouncer, speed, new and old ball ability etc were all better. Akram and Marshall are the Ali and Robinson of fast bowling. The others merely enjoy the shade in their shadows.

I dont think Akram was "easily" the superior bowler at all. McGrath did it all, everywhere, just not as flamboyantly as Akram.

 

[Starfighter]

It's the old argument of impressions vs results. Akram is the more obviously skilled but McGrath's record is better.

 

[Chrish]

Kallis would be ATG based on batting alone; even if he hadn’t taken a single wicket.

You have to care solely about aesthetics before making such statement.

 

[Red]

It's the old argument of impressions vs results. Akram is the more obviously skilled but McGrath's record is better.

So actually McGrath was more skilled at what mattered? Taking wickets for less runs in less balls?

 

[Starfighter]

So actually McGrath was more skilled at what mattered? Taking wickets for less runs in less balls?

Yeah, you could put it that way. By 'skills' I mean what most people think of, doing lots of things, especially with flamboyance. Like how batsmen who play their shots in a pretty, flourishing manner are always considered more talented than less attractive, more 'grafty' looking types, even though the latter might be far more skilled in defence and shot selection and score more runs.

If I was picking a going-by-numbers team I'd take McGrath over Wasim any day. Accuracy and consistency is a much more important skill than reverse swing or whatever, but people don't tend to think of it as such because there's no flamboyance in being accurate.

 

[Top_Cat]

McG wasn't just accurate. It's a myth. Plenty of footage around of him moving the ball big. Not as big as Akram in the air but then their roles were different and it reflects the different environments they learned their cricket in. But McG could break the ball plenty, it was a bit of a joke how many times he would beat the bat on any deck offering some early morning green and I'm sure some people remember when he'd run up with a split-finger slower ball grip and rip it down at the last second or vice versa. McG had skills, he was just judicious with using them.

 

[Gob]

Is that Shaun or Peter Pollock batting @ 8?

Shaun obviously

 

[jimmy101]

McG wasn't just accurate. It's a myth. Plenty of footage around of him moving the ball big. Not as big as Akram in the air but then their roles were different and it reflects the different environments they learned their cricket in. But McG could break the ball plenty, it was a bit of a joke how many times he would beat the bat on any deck offering some early morning green and I'm sure some people remember when he'd run up with a split-finger slower ball grip and rip it down at the last second or vice versa. McG had skills, he was just judicious with using them.

Yes that's right. McGrath was the king of breaks. One of the most intelligent bowlers ever to grace the cricket field, he was a bowler who bowled within himself and made the most of anything that was available to him, just like a proper fast bowler should. Whether that be a weakness in the batsman's defence, a blemish/crack in the pitch, cloud cover... you name it. Pidge was the master of precision. Since he had the ability to land the ball on a 20c piece, a mere off cutter was sometimes all it took. Some of GMcG's spells are a thing of hypnotic beauty. However, I'd prefer to watch Wasim tear through a lineup than McGrath based on aesthetic reasons and agree that Wasim had more natural "skill", even though his Test record in inferior.

 

[jimmy101]

Shaun obviously

FTR: "Pollock" = Shaun Pollock.

Got it.

 

[akilana]

So actually McGrath was more skilled at what mattered? Taking wickets for less runs in less balls?

Wasim would’ve taken more wickets than he did with a better fielding side, easily.