Is AB de Villiers The Best Ever?

[grkrama]

lol MSD has similar average SR of even more matches and more notouts, He is the best batsman ever

 

[blockerdave]

Is there another batsman who can do what he does? Given modern technology, training methods etc, is he the best ever?




Is AB The Best Who Ever Breathed?

the statistics thing you mentioned in relation to sprinting is fine, but if you go by statistics there is no arguing 99.94

 

[themusketeer]

If he scores in matches that matters. While chasing (Under pressure) offcourse. In the World cups .

 

[Markkkkk]

lol MSD has similar average SR of even more matches and more notouts, He is the best batsman ever

Get out.

 

[Aalay]

AB is an absolute freak and very entertaining but not the best ever. I still don't think he is good under pressure. Just recently in India game, he was batting well with Faf and suddenly after few dot balls, decided to take a double when it was not possible to do so. He crumbles under pressure which is not good to see with such a good batsman.

Get out.

I don't know why you are saying that? MSD has a pretty similar stats to AB and he has played more matches than AB. Of course he hasn't been in the best of form for last 6 months or so but It was still a pretty reasonable argument.

 

[Biggs]

And the odi stats would like to hear from you as his odi stats (average and strikerate is better then all of them)...

Strikerate, a judge of someone's quality batsmanship? I laugh, heartily. HEARTILY, sir. Modern players get so much more benefit sthan past players, you can't compare and say one is better than the others. If we're talking CURRENTLY, he's up there for sure. But best of all time, objectively? Absolutely no way.

 

[War]

[WARNING THIS POST IS OFF TOPIC] I have often wondered why it is that through all the modern science and technology bowlers have not been able to increase their speed, If you look at the fast bowlers of the '70s they were considerable faster than the bowlers of the last fifteen years (with the exception of Lee and Akhtar). If you look at the speeds of: Lillee, Thomson, Hadlee, Marshall, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Croft, Imran, Snow and even going back to Tyson they were a lot faster than: Lee, Akhtar, Steyn, Morkel, Johnson, Mcgrath, Malinga, Flintoff, Bond, Philander, Gough ect. So why are bowling speeds not only failing to increase but actually decreasing?

If you try to argue that the 1970's bowlers weren't fast I will verbally assault you.

Thought provoking point this. You can add Tait to the modern fast bowling list,lets not forget he touched 160 ks in England 2010.

 

[ethybubs]

Thought provoking point this. You can add Tait to the modern fast bowling list,lets not forget he touched 160 ks in England 2010.

I knew there would be one I missed.

 

[stefan]

Strikerate, a judge of someone's quality batsmanship? I laugh, heartily. HEARTILY, sir. Modern players get so much more benefit sthan past players, you can't compare and say one is better than the others. If we're talking CURRENTLY, he's up there for sure. But best of all time, objectively? Absolutely no way.

When we judge limited overs batsman strikerate matters. High strike rate is the difference between just 300 or 330+...

Viv managed a strikerate of 90 so it was definitely possible in the previous era's to get a high strike rate...

Please tell me what measures you are using to base this objectivity on. What stats are you using or is it just opinion based??

lol MSD has similar average SR of even more matches and more notouts, He is the best batsman ever

He only has 9 100's compared to ab's 20....

 

[Satan666]

[WARNING THIS POST IS OFF TOPIC] I have often wondered why it is that through all the modern science and technology bowlers have not been able to increase their speed, If you look at the fast bowlers of the '70s they were considerable faster than the bowlers of the last fifteen years (with the exception of Lee and Akhtar). If you look at the speeds of: Lillee, Thomson, Hadlee, Marshall, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Croft, Imran, Snow and even going back to Tyson they were a lot faster than: Lee, Akhtar, Steyn, Morkel, Johnson, Mcgrath, Malinga, Flintoff, Bond, Philander, Gough ect. So why are bowling speeds not only failing to increase but actually decreasing?

If you try to argue that the 1970's bowlers weren't fast I will verbally assault you.

Been asking a while now also. Apparently the amount of cricket being played has alot to do with fastbowlers not bowling fast in order to be less susceptible to injuries, also most of the grounds have slowed down and the laws of the game are stacked against the bowler.

One name you didnt mentioned was Wes Hall, possibly the fastest of the 60's to 70's.

Regarding the thread, AB is excellent in all 3 forms of the game but to mention him even in the same sentence with the illustrious names like Viv, Hammond....is ludicrous at the very least. He has a long career ahead of him and its quite possible he may surpass some of the greats but he has many more hurdles to cross before!

 

[Samuels]

[WARNING THIS POST IS OFF TOPIC] I have often wondered why it is that through all the modern science and technology bowlers have not been able to increase their speed, If you look at the fast bowlers of the '70s they were considerable faster than the bowlers of the last fifteen years (with the exception of Lee and Akhtar). If you look at the speeds of: Lillee, Thomson, Hadlee, Marshall, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Croft, Imran, Snow and even going back to Tyson they were a lot faster than: Lee, Akhtar, Steyn, Morkel, Johnson, Mcgrath, Malinga, Flintoff, Bond, Philander, Gough etc. So why are bowling speeds not only failing to increase but actually decreasing?

If you try to argue that the 1970's bowlers weren't fast I will verbally assault you.

Garner was not express, I can tell you that but that does not take away your point. Holding, Roberts, Thomson were of special breed but Imran, Snow, Croft etc were fast too, much like Steyn early in his career and the likes of Milne, Johnson etc. currently.

I believe it is because of too much cricket. The fast bowlers in 70s and 80s played comparatively very less amount of cricket. So, most of the bowlers had time to work on their bowling and speed between tours which is not the case anymore. The amount of cricket in current age is so much that you cannot expect a fast bowler to bowl express day in day out. If he does, he is bound to get a niggle because he is not getting enough rest. Even domestically, they play too much cricket now that cricket has 3 formats. Furthermore, there is this new trend of bowling slower balls, thanks to big bats and batsmen friendly conditions that you hardly see someone bowl express for a long periods. With due respect to Maco and co. I have never seen a seamer bowl threatening fast for long hours except for Holding, Walsh and Imran.

As far as the solution is concerned, I think teams need to groom the fast bowlers for either one, at the most two formats or play select tournaments. That will allow them to have rest and work on their bowling. I am of the opinion that express bowlers strike fear in bowlers even with all the protection their wear and there is a good chance for such bowlers to bowl aggressively, without fear of being carted away and one format that allows you to do so and help you learn temperament and skill is test cricket. so if you ask me express bowlers can be groomed and made to play test cricket before getting being given the nod for select series in other formats.

 

[ethybubs]

Viv managed a strikerate of 90 so it was definitely possible in the previous era's to get a high strike rate...

Surely you can't use Viv a a benchmark, what he did was beyond reason and the fact that he did it is no sign of evidence that it was possible for others.

 

[blockerdave]

on the fast bowling debate:
did they really play less cricket in yesteryear? english (or foreigners in the english county game) played a ridiculous amount of cricket, with a real county treadmill of game after game - often a three day game might be interrupted by a one-day game on the other side of the country. in season they might get a day off a week.

what they played was less "high intensity" international cricket, particularly limited overs. they might have bowled more overs, but Holding for example was not necessarily bowling as fast for Lanacashire in 1981 as he was bowling this over to Geoff Boycott in a test match

what the bowlers did was actually more match bowling, with less training and gym sessions etc. i'm no sports scientist and this may be utter bullshit but my hunch is bowling is a very unnatural movement, and no other training prepares you to bowl as well as bowling itself does. by doing more match bowling the bowlers were able to retain rhythm and bowl faster when they needed to.

regarding ABdeV:
it's ludicrous to compare across eras for the "best ever" for a few reasons:
1) the laws of the game (whether LBW, amateur players, uncovered pictures, fielders on the leg side, number of bouncers per over, number of balls per over, existence of limited overs cricket, field restrictions in limited overs, power plays in limited overs) have changed so much throughout time as to make any comparison of players - even statistics based ones like strike rates - meaningless.
2) who and where people play and the comparative strength of the side they're in and their opponents vary
3) conditions: pitches, bat size and technology etc. have changed massively and things are more in favour of the batsman now in limited overs than they have ever been. it's no surprise that even a few years ago scores of plus 300 and individuals plus 100 were seen as very good performances - now the measure is more 350 for the team and 150 for the individual - nobody had ever scored a double hundred in ODI's 4 years ago now 5 people have
4) the Bradman problem - even though i think statistics shouldn't really be compared across generations even if you do this cricket has an outlier in Bradman further ahead of everyone else than anyone is or has ever been in any other sport. you simply cannot look past him for best ever

also, notwithstanding the caveats i've said about comparing across generations and comparing stats across generations in particular, i'd say ABdeV isn't even the best batsman South Africa have ever produced... Not that he actually got to play for South Africa but that distinction belongs to Basil D'Oliveira: look at what he did in the "coloured" leagues; look what he did when he played in the few first class games he got a chance to play before coming to England; look at what he did coming to England at an age most people retire nowadays... he was an unbelievable player.

ABdeV is one of the best players around at the moment (i think there are several players at the absolute top with precious little if anything to separate them)... i think that's compliment enough because there are plenty of great players around

 

[Aalay]

He only has 9 100's compared to ab's 20....

You also have to look at their batting order. AB has mostly batted in the top 4. From last couple of years, he has been batting at number 4, which gives him more overs to face. Dhoni since he became a captain which was a long time ago, bats at number 6 and he rarely comes up the order. So most likely he has 10 or 15 overs to bat and you can't expect him to score a century during that time interval. Most of those century has came when Dhoni was not a captain and was given a chance at the top of the order or when our top order collapsed.

 

[Markkkkk]

Are we seriously doing this?

Ab Test average: 52.09
Ms: 38.09

Ab hundreds: 21
MS: 8

Ab runs: 7606
MS: 4876

Ms has played 18 less knocks so unless he scores 18 hundreds and without loosing a single wicket AB is better.
[/Discussion]