• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Rank Graeme Smith, Hashim Amla, Kevin Pietersen and Michael Clarke.

ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I'll go: Clarke > Smith > Pietersen > Amla

Seems I'm the only one to rank Clarke highest. I remeber when he was in God mode and played some highly impactful knocks much better than those of others. Almost an ATG is my impression of him.
 
Last edited:
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
iirc in the recent CW voting thread it was Smith 37, Clarke 50 and Amla and Jayawardene didn’t make the top 50
 
BazBall21

BazBall21

International Regular
I’ll go:
Amla
Smith
KP
Clarke

They’re all same tier though and evenly matched imo. Any order is probably reasonable. Clarke doesn’t deserve to be last but someone has to be.
 
Last edited:
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Amla finished significantly below 50 actually. Was just shy at 100b test mark (49.99) but finished with 46.64 after 124 tests which is quite a slump.
 
BazBall21

BazBall21

International Regular
Smith had the toughest job of the lot but excluding the three weakest attacks of his era (two complete minnows and the other very feeble) he averaged 42 overall and 34 at home. KP definitely had his flaws too and obvs didn’t have opener tax but I wouldn’t be too fussed with him being rated over Smith.
 
Last edited:
S

subshakerz

International Coach
Will ignore Smith. Instinctively feel Clarke is last and most overrated.

I put Amla slightly behind KP who was more of the alpha bat of his team while Amla had cushier middle order support.
 
BazBall21

BazBall21

International Regular
BazBall21 said:
I’ll go:
Amla
Smith
KP
Clarke

They’re all same tier though and evenly matched imo. Any order is probably reasonable. Clarke doesn’t deserve to be last but someone has to be.
Click to expand...
Putting Smith and KP level. Feels like English bias, but feel like Smith averaging 34 at home excluding two minnow attacks and one that was almost minnow level is an understated problem. In contrast to Hayden, who’s weaknesses are exceptionally well-documented.
 
Last edited:
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
So, for me there is an unfair aspect of this comparison, which is that 1 of the 4 is an opener. To me, facing the first new ball of the innings, is the most consistently repeated sort of challenge that batsmen have to face. For this reason I think it should add a certain amount of runs to their average. And as Graeme Smith already has a comparable / better production to the other 3, I'd place him comfortably 1st out of the 4.

Between the other 3, I'd go:

Clarke > Pietersen > Amla

All very gun, and all quite close. Amla suffering a bit from taking considerably longer than the others to hit his stride in Test cricket, although at his peak could be argued was better.

This grouping is very comparable to the Mahela, Inzy, Chanderpaul, MoYo group, although once again I'd put Smith a cut above the rest being an opener scoring at a very similar clip as the others. Combining my 2 lists from both threads below:

Smith > Clarke > Chanderpaul > Pietersen > Inzamam > Amla > Yousuf > Jayawardene
 
R

Raz0r6ack

U19 12th Man
The reason Pietersen is better then Smith is because Pietersen averaged over 50 vs Warne & McGrath. Whereas Smith was very dismissal.

Australia with McGrath and Warne were the benchmark team of their era. So performances against them should be heavily skewed in how a player is viewed.

Smith only had success against Australia after McGrath and Warne retired. He only averaged 22 vs Australia in South Africa.

Pietersen at certain times also dominated the likes of Muralitharan and Steyn. Can't recall any great bowler that Smith ever dominated.

Smith scoring runs against weak overseas attacks like England, New Zealand, etc isn't as impressive and is overblown.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
shortpitched713 said:
So, for me there is an unfair aspect of this comparison, which is that 1 of the 4 is an opener. To me, facing the first new ball of the innings, is the most consistently repeated sort of challenge that batsmen have to face. For this reason I think it should add a certain amount of runs to their average.
Click to expand...
I think most people are taking this into account and giving it a fair weighting

Also playing his home games in SA which has been typically worst for batting
 
Last edited:
S

subshakerz

International Coach
Raz0r6ack said:
The reason Pietersen is better then Smith is because Pietersen averaged over 50 vs Warne & McGrath. Whereas Smith was very dismissal.

Australia with McGrath and Warne were the benchmark team of their era. So performances against them should be heavily skewed in how a player is viewed.

Smith only had success against Australia after McGrath and Warne retired. He only averaged 22 vs Australia in South Africa.

Pietersen at certain times also dominated the likes of Muralitharan and Steyn. Can't recall any great bowler that Smith ever dominated.

Smith scoring runs against weak overseas attacks like England, New Zealand, etc isn't as impressive and is overblown.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is fair. And KP played 10 tests against McWarne, not a small sample.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top