Is AB de Villiers an ATG?

[stephen]

Hadlee averaged 27 with the bat vs Mcgrath's only 7.

Yet lot of people would go for Mcgrath due to his superior bowling (IMO anyways), while neglecting the substantial difference of 20 runs. At least I try to pick players who were best at their main discipline in my Xi.

Some people do include Hadlee over McGrath for team balance reasons.

Gilchrist was the best overall keeper/batsman in history. He changed the way the game is played. A keeper will almost always need to bat in a game.

When a team has 4 ATG bowlers, any part time bowler isn't going to get much of the ball. Hence all-rounders are not as useful in ATG teams. Which is why in such teams the batting of the top 6 is the most important factor in their inclusion.

I'd easily take Lara or Tendulkar in an ATXI over Kallis, simply because I rate them higher as batsmen.

 

[TestMatch]

nb off 136 km/h

Wow, nice vid. Never seen this before.

 

[RK_123]

ABD returned back to test cricket and had a successful series against India in tough bowling conditions.

What's the take now? All formats combined, is he the best batsmen of his generation?

 

[Spark]

It was a good series, not an incredible series. It doesn't make his rating any higher than it was previously.

 

[Zinzan]

ABD returned back to test cricket and had a successful series against India in tough bowling conditions.

What's the take now? All formats combined, is he the best batsmen of his generation?

AB was already one of the great bats of his generation, whether he made a Test comeback or not.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Amla>Clarke=AB>Cook for that generation imo.

 

[Burgey]

Not an atg Test player (though very good) but certainly an atg LO player.

 

[Zinzan]

Amla>Clarke=AB>Cook for that generation imo.

Nah, If you're talking all forms combined, Clarke was probably a marginally better Test bat than AB, but AB a zillion time better white ball bat. So even with a a strong weighting in favour of Test cricket, it's hard not to see AB> Clarke for me overall.

Same with Amla vs. AB, although in their case Amla is closer as a white-ball bat, but AB still ahead overall.

 

[Daemon]

It was a good series, not an incredible series. It doesn't make his rating any higher than it was previously.

Of course it does, he won them the series.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah, If you're talking all forms combined, Clarke was probably a marginally better Test bat than AB, but AB a zillion time better white ball bat. So even with a a strong weighting in favour of Test cricket, it's hard not to see AB> Clarke for me overall.

Same with Amla vs. AB, although in their case Amla is closer as a white-ball bat, but AB still ahead overall.

Was talking only tests

All formats, AB is an easy no.1

 

[Zinzan]

Roger that.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Greatest ODI ever.

In tests, a great among his peers. But not ATG

 

[smash84]

Some people do include Hadlee over McGrath for team balance reasons.

Gilchrist was the best overall keeper/batsman in history. He changed the way the game is played. A keeper will almost always need to bat in a game.

When a team has 4 ATG bowlers, any part time bowler isn't going to get much of the ball. Hence all-rounders are not as useful in ATG teams. Which is why in such teams the batting of the top 6 is the most important factor in their inclusion.

I'd easily take Lara or Tendulkar in an ATXI over Kallis, simply because I rate them higher as batsmen.

That's a good point but Hadlee is almost as good as McGrath as a bowler and a significantly better batsman. What you are missing is that batting and bowling all rounders are different. Everyone has to bat but not everyone has to bowl. Hadlee would just bring in more overall value to an ATG side than McGrath would.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

That's a good point but Hadlee is almost as good as McGrath as a bowler and a significantly better batsman. What you are missing is that batting and bowling all rounders are different. Everyone has to bat but not everyone has to bowl. Hadlee would just bring in more overall value to an ATG side than McGrath would.

It's an interesting point because McGrath (a cardboard cutout of a batsman) makes Hadlee look like Sobers with the bat.

But I wonder if (assuming McGrath just is that tiny bit better with the ball) this pushes him over the finishing line.

With a gun to my head, I'd probably just hedge to Hadlee in these circumstances. But in the right team his 15 or so extra runs an innings would mean much.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

* wouldn't mean much

 

[smash84]

It's an interesting point because McGrath (a cardboard cutout of a batsman) makes Hadlee look like Sobers with the bat.

But I wonder if (assuming McGrath just is that tiny bit better with the ball) this pushes him over the finishing line.

With a gun to my head, I'd probably just hedge to Hadlee in these circumstances. But in the right team his 15 or so extra runs an innings would mean much.

That's 40 runs a test match difference, which isn't insignificant. And given that hadlee will take wickets almost as cheaply as McGrath he is easily ahead as a player. McGrath takes wickets at 21.64 hadlee at 22.29. that is an insignificant difference.

 

[Flem274*]

if you have a pile of cricketers of very similar quality with bat and ball (and lets be honest we often exaggerate the differences between ATGs for the sake of penis waving), I'd take the one who has a significant bowling or fielding advantage every time.

I think McGrath is the best fast bowler to have ever played the game, but the difference between him and even tenth place is so marginal that he doesn't make my ATG side. Warne always makes my team over Murali for the same reason.

 

[stephen]

That's a good point but Hadlee is almost as good as McGrath as a bowler and a significantly better batsman. What you are missing is that batting and bowling all rounders are different. Everyone has to bat but not everyone has to bowl. Hadlee would just bring in more overall value to an ATG side than McGrath would.

That was a "shift the goal posts" moment. I was purely talking about the value of a batting all rounder vs a pure batsman. I was arguing that Hadlee's batting does get him selected over McGrath because his batting is more valuable than McGrath's marginally better bowling.

Hmm imagine an all time XI which took into account batting:

Gavaskar
Hobbs
Bradman
Tendulkar
Lara
Sobers
Gilchrist+
Miller
Imran
Hadlee
Warne

That team would rack up 700+ scores regularly. Change that tail to:

Marshall
Murali
Ambrose
McGrath

And the bowling is marginally better but the batting is targeting 500 rather than 700.

 

[Bolo]

The difference between McGrath and hadlee's batting average is the same as the difference between hadlee's and viv's. Given that they are so similar as bowlers it's hard not to bring batting into it.

My take is that against a non-atg lineup hadlee wins easily. Bowling is comparable, and the extra runs make the difference. Mcgrath outbowls hadlee vs atg lineup, but hadlee's workhorse abilities give him an edge on the flattest of tracks. Still, advantage Mcgrath in bowling, but only by a very small margin, and the extra 25ish runs hadlee will add per match are worth more- a match between 2 atg teams in a spicey deck is going to be low scoring.

 

[centurymaker]

That makes a lot of sense.

Its not just that the bowling allrounders can score 20-30 runs an innings, they can also get involved in lengthy partnerships amongst each other if not with a set batsman at the other end, allowing that batsman to play to his potential..

Add that up and rather than being bowled out for 450, you get 600 instead.