PBN Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Why is ABD better than Amla? Statistically, Amla has better stats in both ODIs and Test matches
fineleg Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Why is ABD better than Amla? Statistically' date=' Amla has better stats in both ODIs and Test matches[/quote'] Coz stats is not EVERYTHING.
PBN Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Coz stats is not EVERYTHING. I know, that's why I'm asking why ABD is better than Amla? explain Both even play for the same team so opposition and conditions are also the same. Not that I'm disagreeing with the statement but I just want to hear people's opinion why they rate ABD better than Amla.
goose Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 there is a thing called confirmation bias. some sane people did the same with Tendulkar. others go by cricinfo and reckon he was a great one-day bat but tests not so much.
Old guy Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 there is a thing called confirmation bias. some sane people did the same with Tendulkar. others go by cricinfo and reckon he was a great one-day bat but tests not so much. really ? i do not really see much difference in opinion of cricketing world .. i am not even sure how this inning will effect how people rate him in tests anyway and everyone knew he can hit big even before .. its good record to have but do not think it will make big difference with people who follow cricket closely and to be bigger inning than this was what he did against johnson in form on uneven pitch where amla and faf looked clueless ..
HippoSucks Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 i do not even consider innings like this to judge players.. we all knew he can hit big so its nothing new and no one is overrating him he is best in world and has been since that england tour imo I think that's arguable. Many people rank him as the undisputed best Test batsman. My point is that he is a great player, but there are a handful of other great players as well. And which one is the best out of that is based on one's opinion. On a side note, I believe de Villiers' average in Tests in 2014 was just around 48 and he got only 2 centuries (only because you would expect more from supposedly the world's best Test batsman). I think he got some 600 odd runs from 7-8 matches. Those are amazing statistics, but are they the best? For 2014, definitely not. Of course, statistics aren't the only measure of a players' skill. But those subjective measures are opinionated and therefore we can't call someone the greatest batsman in Tests (unless he is much above the other world class batsman, which clearly de Villiers is not).
Old guy Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I know, that's why I'm asking why ABD is better than Amla? explain Both even play for the same team so opposition and conditions are also the same. Not that I'm disagreeing with the statement but I just want to hear people's opinion why they rate ABD better than Amla. i wont talk about special instance where amla failed and he delivered but way he bats is big factor . and amla of late has not really done well whenever bowling is good while abdv has stood up and fought ..
Old guy Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I think that's arguable. Many people rank him as the undisputed best Test batsman. My point is that he is a great player, but there are a handful of other great players as well. And which one is the best out of that is based on one's opinion. On a side note, I believe de Villiers' average in Tests in 2014 was just around 48 and he got only 2 centuries (only because you would expect more from supposedly the world's best Test batsman). I think he got some 600 odd runs from 7-8 matches. Those are amazing statistics, but are they the best? For 2014, definitely not. Of course, statistics aren't the only measure of a players' skill. But those subjective measures are opinionated and therefore we can't call someone the greatest batsman in Tests (unless he is much above the other world class batsman, which clearly de Villiers is not). how can you ignore 91 he scored vs australia ? thats why i hate stats .. or 40 odd he got in second inning or match winning knock in next game and one match against sri lanka runs did not even matter and they all were batting for draw and i am not even gonna count west indies 100's how is that bad out put ? he scored 2 100's in one series ut you wont count it because its in 2015? :cantstop: that changes his average completely and how can we ignore what he did vs india that inning where they almost chased that huge total ..
Old guy Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 also the inning you ignored 91 ..tell me who many 100's were scored this year which came against more difficult conditions where guys like amla and faf were not even able to score run comfortably ..those are his competition no ? obviously there are batsman close to him like sanga and clarke but its to really far fetched to call this guy best in world ..
Austin 3:!6 Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Maxwell is better...and I am dead serious.
Old guy Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Maxwell is better...and I am dead serious. take it back or you get banned :mad:
HippoSucks Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 how can you ignore 91 he scored vs australia ? thats why i hate stats .. or 40 odd he got in second inning or match winning knock in next game and one match against sri lanka runs did not even matter and they all were batting for draw and i am not even gonna count west indies 100's how is that bad out put ? he scored 2 100's in one series ut you wont count it because its in 2015? :cantstop: that changes his average completely and how can we ignore what he did vs india that inning where they almost chased that huge total .. I'm talking about Tests, not ODIs. I would remove his West Indies performance because it doesn't count. Smith in this form would have scored (and will score in the upcoming series) consecutive double centuries against that rubbish bowling attack. I'm not saying he did bad at all. But are these the statistics of someone whom we can call the undisputed best Test batsman in the world? Definitely not.
Austin 3:!6 Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 take it back or you get banned :mad: :hehe:
Old guy Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I'm talking about Tests, not ODIs. I would remove his West Indies performance because it doesn't count. Smith in this form would have scored (and will score in the upcoming series) consecutive double centuries against that rubbish bowling attack. I'm not saying he did bad at all. But are these the statistics of someone whom we can call the undisputed best Test batsman in the world? Definitely not. then do ignore those tests too while talking about stats also inning i said did to include odi it IMO was best inning played in tests this year and no other batsman in world would have scored that many runs in way he did vs johnson in that 91 same in 2nd inning . how can you ignore that and count 100 ? IMO that inning was better than most 100's scored this year .. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/648673.html this was the match and way johnson was bowling he was unplayable on that track ..
Marut Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Nope not just the WC , its not all about the WC imo . AB dosent do much when chasing totals , all his best knocks are batting first when there is no pressure even yesterdays . And Kohli does not do much while setting targets! That is also important for an ODI great.
Zero_Unit Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 He's a once-in-a-generation player' date=' but there are others on whom the international teams depends equally as much. Sanga in SL is an example.[/quote'] Every team has their one man Get Out of JAIL card but this man, that last 100 just showed it all. This is the same man who played 200+ balls for 30 odd runs. Goes to show you the talent this man possesses. :giggle:
The Outsider Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Who is better in Tests is arguable' date=' but Steyn will never even come close to McGrath in ODIs.[/quote'] McGrath is the greatest fast bowler I've seen alongside with Marshall. Steyn is an all time great bowler as well, but McGrath had that ruthless instinct that Steyn doesn't. He would soften up targets as well as attack like Steyn. What I haven't seen Steyn do on a regular basis is set up targets for lesser bowlers if he couldn't get them - McGrath is the Tendulkar of bowling, supported by an accessory named Warne or Dravid.
Texan Posted January 21, 2015 Author Posted January 21, 2015 I know, that's why I'm asking why ABD is better than Amla? explain Both even play for the same team so opposition and conditions are also the same. Not that I'm disagreeing with the statement but I just want to hear people's opinion why they rate ABD better than Amla. ABdV just seems to bat so effortlessly that it appears that he is toying with the bowling. Amla is a great player too, no doubt about it. Remember ABdV also keeps wickets. His range of shot making also appears to be superior to any other player in World cricket right now. It almost appears like he is capable of playing 4 or 5 different run making shots to any ball bowled to him.
HippoSucks Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 then do ignore those tests too while talking about stats also inning i said did to include odi it IMO was best inning played in tests this year and no other batsman in world would have scored that many runs in way he did vs johnson in that 91 same in 2nd inning . how can you ignore that and count 100 ? IMO that inning was better than most 100's scored this year .. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/648673.html this was the match and way johnson was bowling he was unplayable on that track .. also the inning you ignored 91 ..tell me who many 100's were scored this year which came against more difficult conditions where guys like amla and faf were not even able to score run comfortably ..those are his competition no ? obviously there are batsman close to him like sanga and clarke but its to really far fetched to call this guy best in world .. In the first innings of the same Centurion match, Shaun Marsh played a wonderful knock of 148 against Steyn who was bowling very good as well (also Clarke and Warner failed to play, similar to Amla and du Plessis). but its to really far fetched to call this guy best in world .. So you agree with me?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now