Hashim Amla | The Mega Discussion Thread

[SandyB]

I honestly think it's open at this stage. Call me a fool, but I rate Pujara higher than Kohli in tests. In fact, I remember calling for him to be captain. Regardless, his peak years are +- now. Let's judge after that.

Pujara has the best temperament in the Indian line up . So if he can sort out his issue playing pace, he has potential to be a Dravid like player for modern Team Indian. Kohli's problem is that he plays a "high intensity" form of cricket, that takes far more out of him compared to other Indian players. While it brings stunning results while he's in the zone (this whole home season) , i feel it tires him out faster than the other batsmen, which was evident in the last series.

I'd prefer Kohli to be the "Clarke" like batsman, who will play important valuable knocks against the toughest opponents/conditions. Pujara can be the rock of the lineup.

 

[Lefthanded]

Beautiful to watch when in form, few as unearthly as Amla.

Near his career's end, particularly if ABD wants to return. Don't see that happening but it would be criminal if they kept Bavuma over him.

Don't remember seeing an innings as effortless as His 300+ vs England. Didn't even need a change of gloves. His cover drive is as gorgeous as any. His innings in India was as good as any visiting batsman.

50+ average or not, he has shown class almost everywhere.

 

[Bilal7]

Oh dear. ) Another gem Bilal, but this one has to take the cake.

Tendulkar in his 20's averaged almost 60 in the 90's with 20+ tons in 60 odd Tests. On the other hand, Younis could not get established in Test cricket till 2005 where he was almost 30, because he repeatedly got found out by the likes of Pollock, Donald, Ambrose, Walsh etc. Looked like fish out of water against McGrath and Warne in the 2002 series in SL/UAE.

Amla is a level above Younis, and Tendulkar is about two/three levels above him. And no, not all ATG players are at the same level. Some are top-tier ATGs; some are lower-tier ATGs.

Younis Khan scored a double in England and almost another in Australia at the age of 40. Sachin was a liability to his team at that age. Age doesn't matter in international cricket, some players peak at a young age while others peak when they are older. Both are equally impressive.

You may worship Tendulker like some of the other Indians out there but don't expect me to do the same. Tendulker is an ATG and on the same level as any other ATG out there. He may be better than Kallis, Dravid or Younis but a team would be no worse off if they had one of those guys playing as their #4 instead of Sachin. Same goes for Wasim, McGrath, Waqar, Donald, etc being on the same level.

 

[Mamoon]

Younis Khan scored a double in England and almost another in Australia at the age of 40. Sachin was a liability to his team at that age. Age doesn't matter in international cricket, some players peak at a young age while others peak when they are older. Both are equally impressive.

You may worship Tendulker like some of the other Indians out there but don't expect me to do the same. Tendulker is an ATG and on the same level as any other ATG out there. He may be better than Kallis, Dravid or Younis but a team would be no worse off if they had one of those guys playing as their #4 instead of Sachin. Same goes for Wasim, McGrath, Waqar, Donald, etc being on the same level.

Tendulkar is not even in my top 10 favourite batsmen, but that won't prevent me from acknowledging his greatness, which towers over every batsman in 150 years of Test cricket barring 4-5. Yes age doesn't matter, which is why players are judged by their respective peaks. Younis is not even half the batsman Tendulkar was at his pomp. It is a crime to put the two in the same sentence, and so is comparing Kallis and Dravid with Younis.

 

[Rayyman]

I heard Amla was going off in IPL.

 

[TahirFan]

I heard Amla was going off in IPL.

He really surprised me with that monster six

 

[Ph_11]

He really surprised me with that monster six

Happy to Amla play in IPL. I hope he a very successful season.

 

[Bilal7]

Ironically, T20 is the format where Amla has improved on from his near-invincible 2010-2014 peak. Averages 40+ at a SR of 130+ with 10 50+ scores in 28 games in the last two years.

Tendulkar is not even in my top 10 favourite batsmen, but that won't prevent me from acknowledging his greatness, which towers over every batsman in 150 years of Test cricket barring 4-5. Yes age doesn't matter, which is why players are judged by their respective peaks. Younis is not even half the batsman Tendulkar was at his pomp. It is a crime to put the two in the same sentence, and so is comparing Kallis and Dravid with Younis.

Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Sanga and now Younis are all ATG test batsmen and Tendulker does not "tower over them" no matter what you may say. Yes, he was scoring centuries when he was a teenager and played the game longer than anyone else but these guys were ahead in other aspects of batting, whether it's peak performance (Ponting), consistency (Kallis), fourth innings record (Younis), etc. I'm not even mentioning the batsmen who preceded Tendulker.

 

[Mamoon]

Ironically, T20 is the format where Amla has improved on from his near-invincible 2010-2014 peak. Averages 40+ at a SR of 130+ with 10 50+ scores in 28 games in the last two years.



Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Sanga and now Younis are all ATG test batsmen and Tendulker does not "tower over them" no matter what you may say. Yes, he was scoring centuries when he was a teenager and played the game longer than anyone else but these guys were ahead in other aspects of batting, whether it's peak performance (Ponting), consistency (Kallis), fourth innings record (Younis), etc. I'm not even mentioning the batsmen who preceded Tendulker.

Tendulkar and Lara are in a league of their own, followed by Ponting and Kallis, followed by Sangakkara and Dravid. Younis doesn't belong here. Nonetheless, please carry on. I have already added Younis = Tendulkar to the list of gems you have produced over the years.

 

[Rayyman]

Tendulkar and Lara are in a league of their own, followed by Ponting and Kallis, followed by Sangakkara and Dravid. Younis doesn't belong here. Nonetheless, please carry on. I have already added Younis = Tendulkar to the list of gems you have produced over the years.

I think going by your tier philosophy, it would be:
Tier 1: Tendulkar, Lara
Tier 2: Ponting, Kallis
Tier 3: Sangakkara, Dravid
Tier 4: (not ATGs) Younus, Amla, Jayawardene, Inzamam, Laxman, Clarke, Miandad, De Villiers

 

[Ab Fan]

I think going by your tier philosophy, it would be:
Tier 1: Tendulkar, Lara
Tier 2: Ponting, Kallis
Tier 3: Sangakkara, Dravid
Tier 4: (not ATGs) Younus, Amla, Jayawardene, Inzamam, Laxman, Clarke, Miandad, De Villiers

Miandad surely in tier 3 and an ATG..

 

[Mamoon]

I think going by your tier philosophy, it would be:
Tier 1: Tendulkar, Lara
Tier 2: Ponting, Kallis
Tier 3: Sangakkara, Dravid
Tier 4: (not ATGs) Younus, Amla, Jayawardene, Inzamam, Laxman, Clarke, Miandad, De Villiers

Sounds reasonable, but Miandad needs to be Tier 3.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Sounds reasonable, but Miandad needs to be Tier 3.

Younis is Tier 4 ???

Are you kidding me ??????????

 

[Mamoon]

Younis is Tier 4 ???

Are you kidding me ??????????

I don't consider him an ATG, so he is Tier 4 for me which is where I place greats of the country, not ATGs.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Likeable personality (I don't care about his religious views).
A role model on and off the field.
Not a talented hitter but he overcomes it with other qualities.
The best player of swing bowling after Dravid.

Wish him all the best!

 

[Chrish]

I think going by your tier philosophy, it would be:
Tier 1: Tendulkar, Lara
Tier 2: Ponting, Kallis
Tier 3: Sangakkara, Dravid
Tier 4: (not ATGs) Younus, Amla, Jayawardene, Inzamam, Laxman, Clarke, Miandad, De Villiers

Sanga, Kallis and Dravid should be linked together

 

[Bilal7]

7000+ ODI runs in only 150 innings. What a player! No longer the invulnerable run-machine that he was during his peak but the class is still there and it shows every time he smokes a boundary through the off-side or gracefully escorts it to the leg-side boundary.

ATG.

 

[EliteCynical]

Congrats to Hashim Amla on becoming the fastest to reach 2k,3k,4k,5k,6k and finally 7k today. Had he been an Indian, Aussie or English, this record would have been blown OTT. Quietly does the job and is too humble to be bragging about it. Happy for him.

 

[Speedster777]

Congrats! Great player and human being.

 

[Bilal7]

Congrats to Hashim Amla on becoming the fastest to reach 2k,3k,4k,5k,6k and finally 7k today. Had he been an Indian, Aussie or English, this record would have been blown OTT. Quietly does the job and is too humble to be bragging about it. Happy for him.

I remember the hype that was around Virat Kohli breaking Viv's record for the fastest to 5000 runs. Or the frenzy that Pakpassion found itself in when Babar Azam was about to be the fastest man to 1000 ODI runs. South Africa, in general, have never overhyped their players and outside of South Africa, their players have been underrated.

 

[Mobashir]

What a classy player this guy is.

 

[Bilal7]

25 ODI hundreds now. Came on a tricky surface, probably the toughest of the CT thus far, and Amla's hundred was the difference between the sides. Most tons for any South African batsman now, 23 of them resulting in wins and he was yet again, the fastest to the milestone. Whattay player.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

25 odi hundreds now. Came on a tricky surface, probably the toughest of the ct thus far, and amla's hundred was the difference between the sides. Most tons for any south african batsman now, 23 of them resulting in wins and he was yet again, the fastest to the milestone. Whattay player.

potw

 

[TahirFan]

25 ODI hundreds now. Came on a tricky surface, probably the toughest of the CT thus far, and Amla's hundred was the difference between the sides. Most tons for any South African batsman now, 23 of them resulting in wins and he was yet again, the fastest to the milestone. Whattay player.

Nah.. Munaf Patel is greater than Amla. Munaf Patel was in the squad that won the World Cup

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]


The flick of Lakmal through midwicket was " artistic wrists in action "


Seriously when Amla has a long poor run I thought his time is over and its time to retire. Majority Ppers thought so except for blind lovers of Amla but Boy, has he bounced back ? Just Wow

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]


The flick of Lakmal through midwicket was " artistic wrists in action "


Seriously when Amla has a long poor run I thought his time is over and its time to retire. Majority Ppers thought so except for blind lovers of Amla but Boy, has he bounced back ? Just Wow

Amla's stance is ugly but he plays some beautiful shots, great wrist work and outstanding timing. However, he is not the same player he was 3-4 years back, he goes missing against good bowling units far too often these days.

Will probably retire after the World Cup. A good start to the tournament but he was in his comfort-zone today. He was batting first and the pitch wasn't a 320+ one. His shortcomings will come to the fore when SA are chasing a massive total on a belter, and we saw that in the England ODI series a week ago.

SA's only hope of chasing big in this tournament is de Kock and to an extent, du Plessis. Amla's accumulation takes the team nowhere and de Villiers doesn't have the nerve. Only de Kock and du Plessis can play high-impact knocks at the top of the order.

 

[TahirFan]

The flick of Lakmal through midwicket was " artistic wrists in action "

Seriously when Amla has a long poor run I thought his time is over and its time to retire. Majority Ppers thought so except for blind lovers of Amla but Boy, has he bounced back ? Just Wow

Form is temporary... class is permanent

 

[Bilal7]

Amla's stance is ugly but he plays some beautiful shots, great wrist work and outstanding timing. However, he is not the same player he was 3-4 years back, he goes missing against good bowling units far too often these days.

Will probably retire after the World Cup. A good start to the tournament but he was in his comfort-zone today. He was batting first and the pitch wasn't a 320+ one. His shortcomings will come to the fore when SA are chasing a massive total on a belter, and we saw that in the England ODI series a week ago.

SA's only hope of chasing big in this tournament is de Kock and to an extent, du Plessis. Amla's accumulation takes the team nowhere and de Villiers doesn't have the nerve. Only de Kock and du Plessis can play high-impact knocks at the top of the order.

Of course he's not the same, invincible player he was in his prime. He's 34 years old. Amla has chased 300 against the same opposition a year ago, in an ODI where him and de Kock both hit centuries. He's also been hitting 90s and centuries for fun in T20 matches so its clear that your theory of Amla not possessing that fourth gear is false.

 

[LegendAli]

Of course he's not the same, invincible player he was in his prime. He's 34 years old. Amla has chased 300 against the same opposition a year ago, in an ODI where him and de Kock both hit centuries. He's also been hitting 90s and centuries for fun in T20 matches so its clear that your theory of Amla not possessing that fourth gear is false.

At 34, no one is expecting him to be the same as he was in his prime but he could at least be half as good.

The guy has been flopping more times than not, If memory serves me right there was a massive margin not too long ago where he couldn't get past the 50 mark.

 

[Smbhayi]

So Amla, after claiming another soft hundred find some places in record book.

• 
  
  [*]Fastest to reach 25th century in ODI (going past Kohli)
  [*]First South African to score 25 century in ODI
  [*]Only South African to score 25 century in both Test & ODI and 4th in overall (Others are: Sachin, Ponting & Sangakkara)

 

[Zak_Fan]

Lol, so that 350+ batta was a tough pitch just because Sri Lankans failed as usual.

 

[dauntless]

Once again he proved that why he is the best opener in the world.Legend hash! Haters gonna hate.Take a bow two more hundreds to come one against India and one against pak.We are going to lift the trophy this time.No one is stopping.

 

[SL_Fan]

Scoring runs against our lot doesn't mean much. A minnowesque attack no doubt that too with only 3 front-liners in there. Can't remember the last time we won a game against a top side since the last WC.

Malinga struggling with injuries and fitness (one and a half years since he last played an ODI fyi)
Lakmal has been fairly decent in recent times
Pradeep 20 wkts @ 41 eco 6+
Prasanna 31 wkts @ 52 eco 5.5
Asela 10 wkts @ 36 eco 5

Let's see how he fares against proper teams/attacks.

 

[Bilal7]

Lol, so that 350+ batta was a tough pitch just because Sri Lankans failed as usual.

And de Kock and ABD. Had you watched the match or bothered to even read about it, you would have known that 350+ was next to impossible on that pitch. As usual though, you did neither but continue to run your mouth.

 

[Abdullah719]

Not too bad a Test match for Amla. Still has something left in the tank?

Former South Africa captain Graeme Smith, commentating for the BBC’s Test Match Special, said of his old teammate: "Well played Hashim Amla. That was an outstanding knock. He showed skill and patience and worked hard on this surface. He is a classy man and a classy cricketer."

http://www.cricket.com.au/news/hash...roger-federer-wimbledon-root-smith/2017-07-17

 

[James]

A quality player but not an ATG batter. He does not comfortably fit alongside the likes of Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara, Ponting, Border and Gavaskar. Amla is one or two rungs below this group.

 

[czar]

He is as good as Dravid IMO, especially if we consider his performances in both forms of the game.

The debacles within the SA Team have messed up with his current form, maybe if he can have one last upsurge in his career he might go down as an outright ATG.

 

[mak36]

He's a quality player, and wonderful to watch. In full flow, he reminds me of Yousuf (and no, not because of the beard! )

 

[Protea Fan]

 

[Leo23]

the best batsman of the last 10 years after kohli.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Needs to make the most of his form and get that average to 52-53.

 

[hk031992]

A quality player but not an ATG batter. He does not comfortably fit alongside the likes of Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara, Ponting, Border and Gavaskar. Amla is one or two rungs below this group.

He is behind the batsmen you mentioned but clearly ahead of Dravid. Dravid is comically overrated on here.

 

[Adil_94]

hope Amla can get to 10k with an avg over 50. He is definitely worthy of a 50 test match avg.

 

[Smbhayi]

What a player he is.he should be proud of how his career pan out. first they say he isn't cut out for intl cricket but he's prove'em wrong in all format.

yeah he may be have shortcomings in icc tournies (to me it's good, not extraordinary nor below average) but if only icc turnie matters then the likes Chamara Silva or or Kevin O'Brien or even Afridi will be greater than the likes ABD, Kohli etc.

 

[Smbhayi]

BTW would like to see he scores a t20i century too.

 

[jonny darko]

kyun bhai, do ipl century se pet nahi bhara?

It's juvenile to compare who's better than who. It ain't tennis.

 

[Bilal7]

Hashim Amla is a legend. His record in test cricket is outstanding when one looks at his figures against the best teams away. 70-odd average in England, 70-odd in the UAE, 60-odd in India and 45 in Australia.

The teams he hasn't done well against are the weaker ones like Sri Lanka, West Indies and Bangladesh. Also, his home tests take place in South Africa, easily the toughest place to bat.

 

[Ted123]

One of the all-time greats of the game.

 

[Bilal7]

Great to see him get a century, albeit on a flat track against a demoralized attack. He got close three times in England but kept getting himself out but he finally has number 27 in test cricket.

 

[Bilal7]

Another easy hundred. Number 28. Minnow-bashing for the first time in his illustrious career. Now the second highest century maker for South Africa in tests and highest in ODIs.

 

[shaz619]

Great to see him get a century, albeit on a flat track against a demoralized attack. He got close three times in England but kept getting himself out but he finally has number 27 in test cricket.

Was a very tough series for him in England, he's no spring chicken at this stage of his career and the openers did not give him as much support as the likes of Smith have in the past in addition to a fragile SA batting line up compared to sides he has batted in the past but despite that he came out of England with a respectable performance. An average of 40+ is the least you expect from a senior batsman who is a leader of the pack, he finished in the top 3 leading run scorers for the series to which was a great effort.

 

[another drop catch]

Thankyou bangla boyz hash is back in form

 

[Bilal7]

Was a very tough series for him in England, he's no spring chicken at this stage of his career and the openers did not give him as much support as the likes of Smith have in the past in addition to a fragile SA batting line up compared to sides he has batted in the past but despite that he came out of England with a respectable performance. An average of 40+ is the least you expect from a senior batsman who is a leader of the pack, he finished in the top 3 leading run scorers for the series to which was a great effort.

Yeah, especially because that was a very tough series for batsmen in general, toughest that Cook has ever batted in according to himself. Only Root, who is a wonderful batsman, bats at #4 and is in the prime of his career really flourished. Amla's twin fifties helped South Africa win a test match but Moeen Ali's all-round performances won England the series.

 

[Bilal7]

The legend brings up his 26th ODI hundred. Classy innings as always and way too good for Bangladesh. Should get to 35 before he hangs up his ATG boots.

 

[Sherlock]

Vastly overrated...

White text ; )

 

[Suleiman]

Vastly overrated...

White text ; )

Are you ok?

The greatest human being in cricket.

 

[Sherlock]

Vastly overrated...

White text ; )

Are you ok?

The greatest human being in cricket.

Shame the white text doesn't work on this site

 

[Mamoon]

Yet another world class innings under pressure when the stakes were high.

 

[Suleiman]

Shame the white text doesn't work on this site

Ah.. Tbf hard to catch on the phone.

 

[Bilal7]

Amla features six times in the top seven highest ODI partnerships for South Africa. Double-century partnerships with de Kock (2), Roussow (2), Faf and ABD.

 

[Mamoon]

He really has no rival when it comes to performing under pressure. His phenomenal record in ICC tournaments is all the proof you need.

 

[Ab Fan]

Total 54 hundreds in international cricket.

How many players have higher than this?

 

[Bilal7]

He really has no rival when it comes to performing under pressure. His phenomenal record in ICC tournaments is all the proof you need.

Now you're just overrating him. Virat Kohli is his equal, if not better, at handling the pressure of ICC tournaments, especially the ODI variants.

Who can forget Kohli's outstanding 170* in the semi-finals of the 2015 WC, his hook shot for six off Johnson was especially exquisite.

Not only that, but he further humbled his detractors with a mind-blowing century against Pakistan in the finals of the 2017 CT, smashing 120 off just 70 balls, before he unfortunately succumbed to an annoying chant of "Kohli nahi hota tujsey chase".

Kohli is definitely better than Amla at big moments as illustrated above. However, I think it's time for you to go to sleep again.

 

[Bilal7]

Total 54 hundreds in international cricket.

How many players have higher than this?

Sachin, Ponting, Kallis and Sanga for now. He should overtake Sanga and Kallis by the time he retires. Maybe even Ponting if he goes through a same rich vein of form that Younis and Sanga went through after they hit 35. He's not as fit as those two, however.

 

[Mamoon]

Now you're just overrating him. Virat Kohli is his equal, if not better, at handling the pressure of ICC tournaments, especially the ODI variants.

Who can forget Kohli's outstanding 170* in the semi-finals of the 2015 WC, his hook shot for six off Johnson was especially exquisite.

Not only that, but he further humbled his detractors with a mind-blowing century against Pakistan in the finals of the 2017 CT, smashing 120 off just 70 balls, before he unfortunately succumbed to an annoying chant of "Kohli nahi hota tujsey chase".

Kohli is definitely better than Amla at big moments as illustrated above. However, I think it's time for you to go to sleep again.

I agree. Amla's measured 76* to dump India out of the CT - while Kohli got out for a labored 35 at a SR of 64 - is further proof of how dominant Amla is over Kohli when it comes to performing under pressure.

We can also roll back a few years and look at Amla's 76* in WT20 2014 against India to help his team chase down 176, after Kohli once again failed under pressure and got castled for 22.

Amla's dominance over Kohli when it comes to big matches between SA and India says everything that needs to be said about the difference between the two batsmen.

The icing on the cake is of course the fact that Kohli does not have a single hundred against a Test playing nation in World Cups, while Amla has a match-winning hundred against Pakistan in the 2015 World Cup, in what was the most anticipated group game of the tournament.

 

[Mobashir]

Amazing batsman. So cool and class at the crease.

 

[Bilal7]

I agree. Amla's measured 76* to dump India out of the CT - while Kohli got out for a labored 35 at a SR of 64 - is further proof of how dominant Amla is over Kohli when it comes to performing under pressure.

We can also roll back a few years and look at Amla's 76* in WT20 2014 against India to help his team chase down 176, after Kohli once again failed under pressure and got castled for 22.

Amla's dominance over Kohli when it comes to big matches between SA and India says everything that needs to be said about the difference between the two batsmen.

The icing on the cake is of course the fact that Kohli does not have a single hundred against a Test playing nation in World Cups, while Amla has a match-winning hundred against Pakistan in the 2015 World Cup, in what was the most anticipated group game of the tournament.

I'm afraid you are mixing up formats here. Let's leave T20s out of this, unless you want me to bring up Kohli's impeccable performances under pressure in test cricket?

Hold the icing for now, since both Amla and Kohli have a century each against test playing nations in ICC tournaments. I'm afraid you missed out on Kohli's century in the most recent CT. You have also conveniently forgotten that cricket was played before 2014 as well, since Kohli's brilliant half-century to beat eventual WC winners, South Africa, does not get a mention in your biased version of history.

I must also say that Amla was very lucky to have the likes of Sachin, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Raina, etc all around him to cover for his chokes. Had this not been the case, Amla would have completed the unholy trinity of failures in the finals of big tournaments since his pitiful contribution to the team's cause in the finals of the 2011 WC, played in his own backyard, would have resulted in yet another defeat for India.

Regardless, you really must go back into hibernation now. Pakistan is winning again and Kohli is back to breaking records.

 

[Mamoon]

I'm afraid you are mixing up formats here. Let's leave T20s out of this, unless you want me to bring up Kohli's impeccable performances under pressure in test cricket?

Hold the icing for now, since both Amla and Kohli have a century each against test playing nations in ICC tournaments. I'm afraid you missed out on Kohli's century in the most recent CT. You have also conveniently forgotten that cricket was played before 2014 as well, since Kohli's brilliant half-century to beat eventual WC winners, South Africa, does not get a mention in your biased version of history.

I must also say that Amla was very lucky to have the likes of Sachin, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Raina, etc all around him to cover for his chokes. Had this not been the case, Amla would have completed the unholy trinity of failures in the finals of big tournaments since his pitiful contribution to the team's cause in the finals of the 2011 WC, played in his own backyard, would have resulted in yet another defeat for India.

Regardless, you really must go back into hibernation now. Pakistan is winning again and Kohli is back to breaking records.

I'm afraid in your haste to reply, your comprehension skills have failed you. Kohli has two World Cup hundreds against Test nations (Bangladesh and Pakistan) while Amla has none. His sole ICC tournament hundred came against SL in a CT.

Secondly, we are talking tournament pressure and not format pressure. All tournaments have their own pressure, be it the World Cup, the WT20 or the CT. Kohli is the best batsman in WT20 history and he was much better than Amla in the CT as well. Yes he failed in the final but Amla has failed more often, including the semifinal in 2013.

Kohli hasn't been at his best in World Cups so far, but he has still been better than Amla.

As far as Tests are concerned, Amla has certainly proved his mettle. He has played series-defining knocks in England and Australia and has scored runs everywhere under pressure. There is no doubt that as of now, he has had a superior Test career. If he had would have had a longer peak, he would have been an ATG.

Overall, Kohli is a better batsman. He is LOI legend in the making and Amla is not close to that level. He is a legend of scoring soft runs though.

Kohli wasn't lucky to have the likes of Sachin, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Raina etc. Sachin retired before his peak and Yuvraj's peak ended with cancer in 2011 and Kohli was a rookie at that time. He has carried the Indian batting in ODIs for a while now.

Speaking of luck, Amla certainly had the good fortune of playing for a team that had the best Test bowling attack during his peak and also boasted batsmen like Smith, Kallis and de Villiers. Still though, he has been a phenomenal Test batsman. Just not an ATG because of his short-lived peak.

 

[The_Odd_One]

One of the top 3 batsmen in the last decade. His consistency in all formats is remarkable.

 

[Bilal7]

I'm afraid in your haste to reply, your comprehension skills have failed you. Kohli has two World Cup hundreds against Test nations (Bangladesh and Pakistan) while Amla has none. His sole ICC tournament hundred came against SL in a CT.

Secondly, we are talking tournament pressure and not format pressure. All tournaments have their own pressure, be it the World Cup, the WT20 or the CT. Kohli is the best batsman in WT20 history and he was much better than Amla in the CT as well. Yes he failed in the final but Amla has failed more often, including the semifinal in 2013.

Kohli hasn't been at his best in World Cups so far, but he has still been better than Amla.

As far as Tests are concerned, Amla has certainly proved his mettle. He has played series-defining knocks in England and Australia and has scored runs everywhere under pressure. There is no doubt that as of now, he has had a superior Test career. If he had would have had a longer peak, he would have been an ATG.

Overall, Kohli is a better batsman. He is LOI legend in the making and Amla is not close to that level. He is a legend of scoring soft runs though.

Kohli wasn't lucky to have the likes of Sachin, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Raina etc. Sachin retired before his peak and Yuvraj's peak ended with cancer in 2011 and Kohli was a rookie at that time. He has carried the Indian batting in ODIs for a while now.

Speaking of luck, Amla certainly had the good fortune of playing for a team that had the best Test bowling attack during his peak and also boasted batsmen like Smith, Kallis and de Villiers. Still though, he has been a phenomenal Test batsman. Just not an ATG because of his short-lived peak.

It did get confusing but I was pointing out that both Amla and Kohli have one century each against top teams, in ICC ODI tournaments. Bangladesh, with all due respect, does not count.

Kohli has done better in T20 tournaments because he is a better T20 player than Amla. Similarly, if a test tournament was held, Amla would have outperformed Kohli because he is a vastly superior test player. Not because either of them handled the pressure better than the other. The best example of this is a comparison between the finals of the 2013 CT and the 2017 CT. Kohli did well in the former and failed in the latter because he was playing a T20 match in 2013 and a 50 over game in 2017.

Overall, Amla is quite clearly the better batsman. T20s do not count for much, in my opinion and test cricket is the ultimate format of the game. Hashim Amla is an all-time great in the longest format since he has performed brilliantly all over the world for over a decade, scored several match-winning hundreds, bossed some of South Africa's most important series and did all of this while batting at #3. You mention Kallis and de Villiers, when it was Amla making things easier for them at #3 and not the other way around.

A long peak is a desperate requirement. How long were the peaks of Ponting and Waqar? Did Sachin and Wasim even have a peak? Laughable that you rate Alistair Cook an ATG but not Amla, who is miles ahead as a batsman. Quite a pickle that you have gotten yourself into with that one because your primary reason for not rating Younis Khan an ATG is that he wasn't a good enough LOs player. I'll leave it to you to untangle yourself from this mess. No rush.

That part about luck was only applicable to the 2011 WC. Kohli's failures were masked by some very good/great batsmen and the fact that it was taking place mostly in India. Amla and his compatriots haven't been lucky enough to play a home World Cup.

As for ODIs, I've said it before and I will say it again. ABD, Amla and Kohli are the three best ODI batsmen of this generation. ABD is already an ATG in this format and the other two can join him if they do well in the next World Cup. Both Kohli and Amla have been underwhelming in World Cup matches, it is the height of hypocrisy to criticize one and not the other concerning this. They have their strengths as well, obviously.

 

[Mamoon]

It did get confusing but I was pointing out that both Amla and Kohli have one century each against top teams, in ICC ODI tournaments. Bangladesh, with all due respect, does not count.

Kohli has done better in T20 tournaments because he is a better T20 player than Amla. Similarly, if a test tournament was held, Amla would have outperformed Kohli because he is a vastly superior test player. Not because either of them handled the pressure better than the other. The best example of this is a comparison between the finals of the 2013 CT and the 2017 CT. Kohli did well in the former and failed in the latter because he was playing a T20 match in 2013 and a 50 over game in 2017.

Overall, Amla is quite clearly the better batsman. T20s do not count for much, in my opinion and test cricket is the ultimate format of the game. Hashim Amla is an all-time great in the longest format since he has performed brilliantly all over the world for over a decade, scored several match-winning hundreds, bossed some of South Africa's most important series and did all of this while batting at #3. You mention Kallis and de Villiers, when it was Amla making things easier for them at #3 and not the other way around.

A long peak is a desperate requirement. How long were the peaks of Ponting and Waqar? Did Sachin and Wasim even have a peak? Laughable that you rate Alistair Cook an ATG but not Amla, who is miles ahead as a batsman. Quite a pickle that you have gotten yourself into with that one because your primary reason for not rating Younis Khan an ATG is that he wasn't a good enough LOs player. I'll leave it to you to untangle yourself from this mess. No rush.

That part about luck was only applicable to the 2011 WC. Kohli's failures were masked by some very good/great batsmen and the fact that it was taking place mostly in India. Amla and his compatriots haven't been lucky enough to play a home World Cup.

As for ODIs, I've said it before and I will say it again. ABD, Amla and Kohli are the three best ODI batsmen of this generation. ABD is already an ATG in this format and the other two can join him if they do well in the next World Cup. Both Kohli and Amla have been underwhelming in World Cup matches, it is the height of hypocrisy to criticize one and not the other concerning this. They have their strengths as well, obviously.

It is not about what counts and what doesn't, the fact is that Kohli is better than Amla in 2 out of 3 formats and that makes him a superior all-round batsman. Amla is a good T20 batsman and he has improved a lot in the last couple of years, but he is not at Kohli's level because he is not as good as him; it's not as if he is deliberately not doing well because T20s don't matter.

To summarize: Amla is better in Tests and Kohli is better in ODIs and T20s. Now of course you will claim that he is better in ODIs as well, but I'm afraid you are alone in that claim, and we both know why you adore Amla so much. It has to do with non-cricketing reasons.

A long is not a desperate requirement. It seems like a Pakistani thing to dismiss longevity, since most of our players have failed that test. There is a good reason why both Ponting and Waqar are not rated as highly as Tendulkar or McGrath or Wasim (respectively).

It is one thing to be world class for a 5-6 years, but to be world class for 15 years is something that very few players are capable of, and they deserve to be rated higher. Ponting was good from 1996 to 2000 and from 2009 to 2012. In between, he was incredible. However, Tendulkar was incredible for about 20 years and not just 5-6 years.

Waqar was amazing in his 3-4 year peak but because of injuries, he was not able to sustain that performance and was reduced to a very good bowler. Wasim on the other hand was phenomenal throughout his career barring the last 2-3 years. So no, longevity is not overrated. A player who has done it for longer will always be rated higher. Of course, a short but world class career is better than a long but a mediocre one, but when you are comparing comparable careers, the longer career will always win.

Secondly, longevity is not just in terms of number of years but number of matches matter too. Cook has been a top opener for 150 Tests and he will probably end up playing 30-40 more. To maintain your performance over so many matches and performing arguably the toughest job in the game (opening in England) is outstanding. He has won his team Test series in Australia and India and won MoS both times, scoring mountains of runs. For an Englishman it doesn't get better than that.

I don't consider Younis an ATG because he has not won his team any major series overseas. Whenever we had the opportunity he has botched it. Last year was Pakistan's best chance in years to win a series in either England or Australia, but he ensured that it won't happen by failing in 90% of the innings. Yes he played a huge role in the Oval win but his failures in the first 3 Tests was a major reason why Pakistan went into the Oval Test 2-1 down and not 2-1 up or 1-1.

In Australia, he again failed to play a big innings in the first 2 Tests. Had he produced the hundred when it mattered and not in a dead rubber, we could have been 1-0 up or 1-1 before the 3rd Test.

Younis blew his chance of becoming an ATG, but I won't object too much against Amla's status as an ATG in Tests, although personally, as I stated earlier, I don't consider him one because of his short-lived peak. However, if he goes through another purple patch he will get there.

 

[Mobashir]

It is not about what counts and what doesn't, the fact is that Kohli is better than Amla in 2 out of 3 formats and that makes him a superior all-round batsman.

I didn't read the rest but that solely is so wrong. Counting the number of format on is better batsman and judge them.
Ijaz Ahmed and Rahul David are equal batsmen because Dravid is better in test and Ijaz Ahmed is better in ODI's?
Superior Test batsmen are about always considered the superior batsmen.

Graeme Smith is way superior than Chris Gayle even tough Gayle is better in ODI's and T20's.

I am quite sure you don't think so and you post all this just to make some pakistanis angry on this forum lol.

 

[Ab Fan]

If there isn't any gulf of difference in their test batsmenship, then you gotta look at ODIs and to an extent t20s maybe.

 

[Mamoon]

I didn't read the rest but that solely is so wrong. Counting the number of format on is better batsman and judge them.
Ijaz Ahmed and Rahul David are equal batsmen because Dravid is better in test and Ijaz Ahmed is better in ODI's?
Superior Test batsmen are about always considered the superior batsmen.

Graeme Smith is way superior than Chris Gayle even tough Gayle is better in ODI's and T20's.

I am quite sure you don't think so and you post all this just to make some pakistanis angry on this forum lol.

Dravid is underrated in ODIs and Ijaz quite overrated. Dravid has played many clutch knocks and was the top scorer of the 1999 World Cup. Ijaz was okay in 1996 and poor in 1999.

Ijaz was inconsistent which made him quite a liability for the 90's team at number 3. A quality number 3 could have changed the fortunes of that underperforming team. Ijaz was a better hitter than Dravid, but in every other facet of batting Dravid was better.

Smith is a much better Test batsman than Gayle but Gayle is much better LOI players. People underrate Gayle a lot because he has become a T20 mercenary in the last few years, but he was a quality Test batsman in his prime as well, and also scored a triple hundred against SA.

As an overall cricketer, Smith is much better because he is an ATG Test captain, but purely on batting merit, calling him way superior is a bit of an overstatement considering he played for a much stronger team and bowling lineup. Gayle would have done better had he played for SA and Smith would have done worse had he played for the WI.

This a modern phenomena and doesn't apply to previous generation players. Otherwise Gavaskar would not be considered a legend because he was a poor ODI player.

In today's cricket, considering the amount of matches that is played across formats and the significance of each format, you cannot be considered a top player unless you can deliver in all formats. There is a reason why the big four is rated so highly, and that is because they are really good in all formats.

For example, Cook is an outstanding Test player but he is a poor LOI player, which is why he is not among the very best batsmen today when you consider all formats. Amla has the stats in all formats but he is the biggest LOI choker of this era.

If Smith would have been better in LOIs, his stock as a batsman would have been higher. As a Test opener only, he is one of the best in modern times.

 

[Ab Fan]

^ Again "outstanding" is an overstatement when talking about Cook as a test opener.He is a very good test opener but outstanding is just overhyping.Maybe because of your bias towards England players but then it's hard to understand that.

Cook won't even come in the top 15 openers of all time.

 

[Mobashir]

Dravid is underrated in ODIs and Ijaz quite overrated. Dravid has played many clutch knocks and was the top scorer of the 1999 World Cup. Ijaz was okay in 1996 and poor in 1999.

Ijaz was inconsistent which made him quite a liability for the 90's team at number 3. A quality number 3 could have changed the fortunes of that underperforming team. Ijaz was a better hitter than Dravid, but in every other facet of batting Dravid was better.

Smith is a much better Test batsman than Gayle but Gayle is much better LOI players. People underrate Gayle a lot because he has become a T20 mercenary in the last few years, but he was a quality Test batsman in his prime as well, and also scored a triple hundred against SA.

As an overall cricketer, Smith is much better because he is an ATG Test captain, but purely on batting merit, calling him way superior is a bit of an overstatement considering he played for a much stronger team and bowling lineup. Gayle would have done better had he played for SA and Smith would have done worse had he played for the WI.

This a modern phenomena and doesn't apply to previous generation players. Otherwise Gavaskar would not be considered a legend because he was a poor ODI player.

In today's cricket, considering the amount of matches that is played across formats and the significance of each format, you cannot be considered a top player unless you can deliver in all formats. There is a reason why the big four is rated so highly, and that is because they are really good in all formats.

For example, Cook is an outstanding Test player but he is a poor LOI player, which is why he is not among the very best batsmen today when you consider all formats. Amla has the stats in all formats but he is the biggest LOI choker of this era.

If Smith would have been better in LOIs, his stock as a batsman would have been higher. As a Test opener only, he is one of the best in modern times.

That doesn't make it 1-1. Your way of counting it makes it 2-1 for Gayle. So Gayle is the superior batsman compared to Graeme Smith overall?

Jason Roy and Alex Hales are superior batsman to Alaistair Cook because they are better in 2 formats, ODI's and T20's?
Let's apply it to current cricketers only.
Alex Hales is a better batsman than Rahane because he is superior in ODI's and T20's where as Rahane is superior in Tests?

 

[Bilal7]

It is not about what counts and what doesn't, the fact is that Kohli is better than Amla in 2 out of 3 formats and that makes him a superior all-round batsman. Amla is a good T20 batsman and he has improved a lot in the last couple of years, but he is not at Kohli's level because he is not as good as him; it's not as if he is deliberately not doing well because T20s don't matter.

To summarize: Amla is better in Tests and Kohli is better in ODIs and T20s. Now of course you will claim that he is better in ODIs as well, but I'm afraid you are alone in that claim, and we both know why you adore Amla so much. It has to do with non-cricketing reasons.

A long is not a desperate requirement. It seems like a Pakistani thing to dismiss longevity, since most of our players have failed that test. There is a good reason why both Ponting and Waqar are not rated as highly as Tendulkar or McGrath or Wasim (respectively).

It is one thing to be world class for a 5-6 years, but to be world class for 15 years is something that very few players are capable of, and they deserve to be rated higher. Ponting was good from 1996 to 2000 and from 2009 to 2012. In between, he was incredible. However, Tendulkar was incredible for about 20 years and not just 5-6 years.

Waqar was amazing in his 3-4 year peak but because of injuries, he was not able to sustain that performance and was reduced to a very good bowler. Wasim on the other hand was phenomenal throughout his career barring the last 2-3 years. So no, longevity is not overrated. A player who has done it for longer will always be rated higher. Of course, a short but world class career is better than a long but a mediocre one, but when you are comparing comparable careers, the longer career will always win.

Secondly, longevity is not just in terms of number of years but number of matches matter too. Cook has been a top opener for 150 Tests and he will probably end up playing 30-40 more. To maintain your performance over so many matches and performing arguably the toughest job in the game (opening in England) is outstanding. He has won his team Test series in Australia and India and won MoS both times, scoring mountains of runs. For an Englishman it doesn't get better than that.

I don't consider Younis an ATG because he has not won his team any major series overseas. Whenever we had the opportunity he has botched it. Last year was Pakistan's best chance in years to win a series in either England or Australia, but he ensured that it won't happen by failing in 90% of the innings. Yes he played a huge role in the Oval win but his failures in the first 3 Tests was a major reason why Pakistan went into the Oval Test 2-1 down and not 2-1 up or 1-1.

In Australia, he again failed to play a big innings in the first 2 Tests. Had he produced the hundred when it mattered and not in a dead rubber, we could have been 1-0 up or 1-1 before the 3rd Test.

Younis blew his chance of becoming an ATG, but I won't object too much against Amla's status as an ATG in Tests, although personally, as I stated earlier, I don't consider him one because of his short-lived peak. However, if he goes through another purple patch he will get there.

[MENTION=43051]Mobashir[/MENTION] is already taking you to task for that silly point you made. T20s are not and will never be considered as illustrious as tests. Pollard and Cook are not equally good batsmen because they are equals in ODIs and better than each other in T20s and tests, respectively. Same goes for Afridi the batsman and Chanderpaul or Jason Roy and Younis Khan. You can't have different criteria for different players either, which is why true greatness is made in the test format, not the LOI formats which keep changing every few years. Even in I was to agree that Kohli is the better ODI player, Amla is still the superior batsman.

True peaks are never wrong, especially ones that are as legendary as Amla's. He was the best batsman in the world in both tests and ODIs and was pretty much invincible during this period. Outside of the 2010-2014 period, Amla has still averaged around 50, in both formats and as far as T20s are concerned, he's been averaging close to 70 with a SR of 145 over the last two years. He's an ATG in tests and will eventually get there in ODIs as well, InshAllah.

Sachin never won his team a single series in Australia and South Africa, heck neither did Imran, Wasim or Waqar. One player can never win you a test series. Yet another fallacious argument to try and downplay the achievements of a true ATG batsman like Younis Khan.

Both Amla and Younis are ATG test batsmen. Cook, although a great opener, is not there yet but he can certainly prove me wrong like Younis proved you wrong.

 

[Mamoon]

That doesn't make it 1-1. Your way of counting it makes it 2-1 for Gayle. So Gayle is the superior batsman compared to Graeme Smith overall?

Jason Roy and Alex Hales are superior batsman to Alaistair Cook because they are better in 2 formats, ODI's and T20's?
Let's apply it to current cricketers only.
Alex Hales is a better batsman than Rahane because he is superior in ODI's and T20's where as Rahane is superior in Tests?

[MENTION=43051]Mobashir[/MENTION] is already taking you to task for that silly point you made. T20s are not and will never be considered as illustrious as tests. Pollard and Cook are not equally good batsmen because they are equals in ODIs and better than each other in T20s and tests, respectively. Same goes for Afridi the batsman and Chanderpaul or Jason Roy and Younis Khan. You can't have different criteria for different players either, which is why true greatness is made in the test format, not the LOI formats which keep changing every few years. Even in I was to agree that Kohli is the better ODI player, Amla is still the superior batsman.

True peaks are never wrong, especially ones that are as legendary as Amla's. He was the best batsman in the world in both tests and ODIs and was pretty much invincible during this period. Outside of the 2010-2014 period, Amla has still averaged around 50, in both formats and as far as T20s are concerned, he's been averaging close to 70 with a SR of 145 over the last two years. He's an ATG in tests and will eventually get there in ODIs as well, InshAllah.

Sachin never won his team a single series in Australia and South Africa, heck neither did Imran, Wasim or Waqar. One player can never win you a test series. Yet another fallacious argument to try and downplay the achievements of a true ATG batsman like Younis Khan.

Both Amla and Younis are ATG test batsmen. Cook, although a great opener, is not there yet but he can certainly prove me wrong like Younis proved you wrong.

Again, it is not about which format is important and which isn't. Obviously, Test cricket is more important than T20 cricket and I am not questioning that. My point is that a player who is excellent in all formats will always be rated higher than a player who is excellent in Tests only.

If a player is rubbish in Tests but very good in LOIs will obviously rank below a player who is very good in Tests and rubbish in LOIs, but a player who is very good in all formats will rank above a Test specialist only even if that Test specialist is a relatively better Test cricketer.

For e.g., Guptill is a terrific LOI player but he is awful in Tests. Hence, he is not as good a batsman as Younis. On the other hand, Warner is a better all-round opener than Cook even though Cook is a better Test opener.

Roy, Hales etc. are extreme examples because they are poor Test cricketers. However, if they were good in Tests then they would obviously rank higher than someone like Rahane, since they are very good LOI cricketers as well which Rahane is not.

de Villiers made a comment recently that in today's cricket, you can only be considered a top class player if you excel in all formats and I completely agree with him. Being world class in all three formats is the biggest challenge for a batsman in today's cricket and not many have excelled at it.

Strokeless wonders like Younis, Cook and Azhar can hide in Test cricket and hacks can hide in LOI cricket, but the complete batsmen do well in all formats.

Hypothetically speaking, a batsmen who averages 50 in Tests but 30 in ODIs and 20 in T20s is not better than a batsman who averages 45 in Tests, 45 in ODIs and 30 in T20s. The former is a better batsman in Test cricket, but the latter is a more complete batsman because he is doing well in both red ball and white ball cricket.

Whilst Test cricket holds more prestige, performing in multiple formats shows your versatility as a batsman. If you are only good in red ball or white ball cricket, then it shows that you clearly have major deficiencies in your batting.

Younis did not prove anyone wrong - he failed in 14 of the 17 innings he played in England, New Zealand and Australia last year, and one of those innings (Sydney Test) was a useless dead rubber effort when the series was already lost. He had a chance of finishing as an ATG but he blew it.

To come back to Amla vs Kohli, if Kohli would have been a poor Test batsman, then Amla would have been the better batsman because he is a top class Test batsman. However, even though Kohli is not as good as Amla in Tests yet, he is still world class. In addition, he is better than Amla in ODIs and T20Is which makes him a better batsman overall.

I would quantify them like this:

Tests: Amla 9.5, Kohli 8.5

ODIs: Amla 8, Kohli 9.5

T20Is: Amla 7, Kohli 9.5

 

[Mobashir]

Again, it is not about which format is important and which isn't. Obviously, Test cricket is more important than T20 cricket and I am not questioning that. My point is that a player who is excellent in all formats will always be rated higher than a player who is excellent in Tests only.

If a player is rubbish in Tests but very good in LOIs will obviously rank below a player who is very good in Tests and rubbish in LOIs, but a player who is very good in all formats will rank above a Test specialist only even if that Test specialist is a relatively better Test cricketer.

For e.g., Guptill is a terrific LOI player but he is awful in Tests. Hence, he is not as good a batsman as Younis. On the other hand, Warner is a better all-round opener than Cook even though Cook is a better Test opener.

Roy, Hales etc. are extreme examples because they are poor Test cricketers. However, if they were good in Tests then they would obviously rank higher than someone like Rahane, since they are very good LOI cricketers as well which Rahane is not.

de Villiers made a comment recently that in today's cricket, you can only be considered a top class player if you excel in all formats and I completely agree with him. Being world class in all three formats is the biggest challenge for a batsman in today's cricket and not many have excelled at it.

Strokeless wonders like Younis, Cook and Azhar can hide in Test cricket and hacks can hide in LOI cricket, but the complete batsmen do well in all formats.

Hypothetically speaking, a batsmen who averages 50 in Tests but 30 in ODIs and 20 in T20s is not better than a batsman who averages 45 in Tests, 45 in ODIs and 30 in T20s. The former is a better batsman in Test cricket, but the latter is a more complete batsman because he is doing well in both red ball and white ball cricket.

Whilst Test cricket holds more prestige, performing in multiple formats shows your versatility as a batsman. If you are only good in red ball or white ball cricket, then it shows that you clearly have major deficiencies in your batting.

Younis did not prove anyone wrong - he failed in 14 of the 17 innings he played in England, New Zealand and Australia last year, and one of those innings (Sydney Test) was a useless dead rubber effort when the series was already lost. He had a chance of finishing as an ATG but he blew it.

To come back to Amla vs Kohli, if Kohli would have been a poor Test batsman, then Amla would have been the better batsman because he is a top class Test batsman. However, even though Kohli is not as good as Amla in Tests yet, he is still world class. In addition, he is better than Amla in ODIs and T20Is which makes him a better batsman overall.

I would quantify them like this:

Tests: Amla 9.5, Kohli 8.5

ODIs: Amla 8, Kohli 9.5

T20Is: Amla 7, Kohli 9.5

I agree with about everything said here but not the Amla vs Kohli one.

Amla and Kohli both passes the test of at least being good In every format.
So if Amla was just better than Kohli In tests and Kohli was way way better in ODI's I would say ok. But that's not the case. It is even debatable who is the better ODI batsman.
So Test weight lot more than ODI's and there Amla wins.

For me, when you compare two batsman you just look if they are at least good in ODI's, if they are you compare them in test cricket.
It's why I rate Younis, Laxman, Azhar Ali and others test specialist not as good as let's say Yousuf.

 

[Mamoon]

I agree with about everything said here but not the Amla vs Kohli one.

Amla and Kohli both passes the test of at least being good In every format.
So if Amla was just better than Kohli In tests and Kohli was way way better in ODI's I would say ok. But that's not the case. It is even debatable who is the better ODI batsman.
So Test weight lot more than ODI's and there Amla wins.

For me, when you compare two batsman you just look if they are at least good in ODI's, if they are you compare them in test cricket.
It's why I rate Younis, Laxman, Azhar Ali and others test specialist not as good as let's say Yousuf.

I don't agree with you on rating Amla higher than Kohli overall, but that's your opinion. Kohli is an ODI ATG for me already but Amla is not close to that level and is unlikely to get there.

Totally agree with regards to Yousuf. He is comfortably a superior batsman to Younis, Laxman, Azhar etc.