Is KP an ATG Test Batsman?

[KungFu_Kallis]

With all the KP soap dramas, and now that there's no guarantee he will play another Test. Purely in terms of his batting career, would Pietersen go down as an ATG Test batsman? I am sitting on the fence on this one. As an entertainer, definitely. As a run scorer, possibly.

FTR this is what Statsguru has his stats at, excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe:

M I No Runs HS Ave SR 100 50
84 144 6 6734 227 48.79 62.78 21 24

Let war declared be...

 

[Red]

With all the KP soap dramas, and now that there's no guarantee he will play another Test. Purely in terms of his batting career, would Pietersen go down as an ATG Test batsman? I am sitting on the fence on this one. As an entertainer, definitely. As a run scorer, possibly.

FTR this is what Statsguru has his stats at, excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe:

M I No Runs HS Ave SR 100 50
84 144 6 6734 227 48.79 62.78 21 24

Let war declared be...

If the definition of ATG is near automatic selection in your nation's all time best XI, he's kind of almost an ATG.

 

[SteveNZ]

Surely off-field goings-on affect whether you are an all-time great, as well.

 

[kyear2]

For me he is, the skill the swagger and yes the arrogance. He made Cricinfo's England's AT XI a couple years ago and he has only got better. Definate yes for me.

 

[benjy]

KP is a talented cricketer, who can score runs for fun, and at the rate of knots, but his temperament at the crease and attitude off the field makes me question whether he is an ATG.

 

[Xuhaib]

No.

He would struggle to make the current World XI

Kallis, Sanga, Clarke surely ahead of him might squeeze in at the 6th spot.

 

[CWB304]

No. Has played some great innings, but I'd pick David Gower, for instance, ahead of him. And I'm pretty sure DG isn't considered ATG.

 

[NasserFan207]

Clearly one of Englands best bats in the modern era.

 

[uvelocity]

ATG pom yeah I guess

ATG world no

 

[Jager]

For me he is, the skill the swagger and yes the arrogance. He made Cricinfo's England's AT XI a couple years ago and he has only got better. Definate yes for me.

Agreed. He ranked highly here too: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2878726-post1761.html

 

[blahblahblah]

nope, no

most of the cases he has come to rescue of England and has been shown to be so good only because rest batted like ****s most of the time

So, no.

 

[Prince EWS]

Probably would go close if he had a "full" career but if it actually does end now then no, IMO.

 

[watson]

Probably would go close if he had a "full" career but if it actually does end now then no, IMO.

What do you mean by "full"?

Isn't 88 Test matches a pretty "full" career and numerous enough to make a proper judgement on his cricketing ability and impact on Test match cricket?

 

[deathmonger]

No. 50+ avg is required.

 

[Spark]

What do you mean by "full"?

Isn't 88 Test matches a pretty "full" career and numerous enough to make a proper judgement on his cricketing ability and impact on Test match cricket?

Not really, no, especially when he's in the sort of form he's in now. Raw test numbers can be misleading.

 

[uvelocity]

in before longevity gets mentioned

 

[Prince EWS]

What do you mean by "full"?

Isn't 88 Test matches a pretty "full" career and numerous enough to make a proper judgement on his cricketing ability and impact on Test match cricket?

I'm definitely in danger of having the same conversation I've had 1,000 times on here now and I don't want to Richard the forum so I won't go into beyond this post, but for me there's a difference between inadequate sample size and comparatively weak longevity.

He's definitely played long enough for us to form an opinion on his ability as such, but I don't judge greatness based purely on ability. If he played longer his career would've had more value and he would've been a greater player in my eyes as a result. A batsman who plays for 12 years averaging 46 is worth more to a side than one who plays for 7 years averaging 50, all other things equal.

 

[uvelocity]

just

 

[GIMH]

I agree with uvelocity, he's an ATG for us but probably not on a grander scale.

But for all the bull**** of the last three years I reckon he could have done a lot more, alas he brought the bulk of it on himself.

 

[watson]

I'm definitely in danger of having the same conversation I've had 1,000 times on here now and I don't want to Richard the forum so I won't go into beyond this post, but for me there's a difference between inadequate sample size and comparatively weak longevity.

He's definitely played long enough for us to form an opinion on his ability as such, but I don't judge greatness based purely on ability. If he played longer his career would've had more value and he would've been a greater player in my eyes as a result. A batsman who plays for 12 years averaging 46 is worth more to a side than one who plays for 7 years averaging 50, all other things equal.

OK fair enough. It does make intuitive sense that it is easier to call someone an ATG if they have played for a decade or more.

'Greater than 10 years playing time' is not a definition that we can rely on, but it sure helps make a determination in the affirmative.