Is Hashim Amla be among strong contenders for a spot in the AT World XI?

[Jono]

No he won't.

Amla will end up as one of the best batsmen of his time, but not one good enough to be an ATG.Yes he's been top drawer in the last few years, but he's playing in a very batsman dominant era.That doesn't make his achievements less noteworthy, but it is a valid argument against his inclusion in any ATG team.

ATG team and ATG player is different though.

Kallis is undoubtedly an ATG cricketer but some don't have them in the best XI. Same with Border or Lara. There aren't just 11 ATG players in the history of cricket!

 

[watson]

Amla doesn't yet have the class for an ATG World XI, bit is definitely a show for any ATG South African XI. I don't think that he could challenge Kallis, Pollock, or Faulkner for their spots. However, Amla V Nourse is probably worth consideration.

 

[Riggins]

I know Faulkers has just had a good series in India but he's hardly a lock for a South African team.

 

[watson]

I know Faulkers has just had a good series in India but he's hardly a lock for a South African team.

OK. Then it's Amla V Nourse V Faulkner with the further issue of team make-up/balance.

 

[Riggins]

lol

 

[kyear2]

Watson totally missed that one.

LOL.

For me Amla is close to a lock at No. 3 for an ATG South African team. With the second best (batting) all rounder in history in the team in the person of Kallis there is no need to weaken the batting for another all rounder, So a middle order of Amla, Pollock, Kallis and Nourse is outstanding and Kallis adds value as the 4th seamer and 2nd slip. A bowling attack of Donald, Steyn, Procter, Tayfield and Kallis is equally superb.

 

[smash84]

Not a bad team at all

 

[Prince EWS]

No he won't.

Amla will end up as one of the best batsmen of his time, but not one good enough to be an ATG.Yes he's been top drawer in the last few years, but he's playing in a very batsman dominant era.That doesn't make his achievements less noteworthy, but it is a valid argument against his inclusion in any ATG team.

While I certainly don't consider Amla an all-time great (yet) and doubt I'll ever have him anywhere near my South African all-time Test XI, I'm not all that convinced he has played in a very batsman-friendly era. His career as we know it essentially started at the end of 2006 (ignoring the few games he played early on and was dropped after to sort out his technique) which means almost half of it has been this side of 2010. What we've seen so far this decade hasn't really been that batsman-friendly iMO.

 

[smash84]

While I certainly don't consider Amla an all-time great (yet) and doubt I'll ever have him anywhere near my South African all-time Test XI, I'm not all that convinced he has played in a very batsman-friendly era. His career as we know it essentially started at the end of 2006 (ignoring the few games he played early on and was dropped after to sort out his technique) which means almost half of it has been this side of 2010. What we've seen so far this decade hasn't really been that batsman-friendly iMO.

Why do you say this?

 

[Prince EWS]

Why do you say this?

Because I'll be surprised if he does enough to surpass the blokes I've already got in there...

Herbie Taylor is one of the most under-rated batsmen on this website, especially if you ignore all of Teja's posts.

 

[smash84]

okay, I'll have to look up herbie taylor. I honestly had barely ever heard of him before

 

[centurymaker]

Nah the general Test match batting standards have dropped due to several reasons, so thats why it seems like the era is not as batting-friendly as before.

 

[Mike5181]

Amla should definitely be considered for that number three spot.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[smash84]

yeah, if this list is anything to go by then Amla should be a lock in for the number 3 spot for SA ATXI

 

[Riggins]

man. amla's average is 5 points higher at number 3 despite only playing 5 matches not at 3. strange.

 

[smash84]

yeah, that is funny.....but even his career summary shows that

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

but the number of matches in the final group (given by batting positions) doesn't match up

 

[Riggins]

obviously there would be matches where he batted in different spots in each innings, due to a night watchmen or plans or something. But it's still a pretty big difference.

 

[Riggins]

Particularly when batting 4 behind a night watchman I would guess.

 

[smash84]

Still don't get how he can have more than 10 innings in positions other than 3 though? Which is what doesn't make sense

 

[Riggins]

Sure it does. The total innings still add up, just that some matches count as a match in which he batted at some number and also one that he batted in a different position.

Say he had a night watchman in all 71 matches he's played, when he was always meant to be at 3. So he would have 71 matches played at #3 and 71 matches when he's played at #4.