Why doesn't Hashim Amla have peer reputation on a similar level to Virat Kohli and AB de Villiers?

[AMSS]

Yes, back to the topic. I see Amla polarizes posters on this forum for obvious reasons but his class speaks for itself. The reason a lot of you guys cannot hear the respect he commands from his peers because of the excess noise generated with squillion filters to prop up or malign players you like and hate. Personally speaking, I am a big fan of the calm authority with which Amla plays.

 

[OoparCut]

Maybe because Amla's test avg is 39 in the last 2 years while Kohli's is 71? And because Kohli keeps playing match turning knocks? Even in the latest SA series, Kohli was by yards the best batsman on show, and AB single-handedly saved SA's skins in the 1st 2 tests. Take away AB's knock in the 1st innings of the 1st test, and India may even sweep the test series.

Amla gets a lot of soft runs against soft opposition. And is well past his prime.

His beard, his religion, his "charisma" - none of this can change simple facts.

Nice guy, easy to root for, and a wonderful batsman when in flow. But simply nowhere near that "great" bracket.

 

[Hitman]

Nice guy, will admit that. Really, really nice guy. Massive respect for him as a person. Brilliant batsman as well. But some Pak fans go overboard in his praise for obvious reasons. The rest of the fans can see the reason and apparent bias, and that annoys them.

 

[Savage]

He definitely is in contention and arguably is the best at this point.

He has been a beast in Tests and there is no comparison to him. He has dominated Kohli both at home and in India in terms of performances in that format.

In ODIs he has delivered where it matters.

For me tests come first, then ODI WCs and then rest of ODIs and T20s.

Majority of people rate Tests performance > ODIs and T20s.

Kohli has been extremely good in Test also.Smith is ranked no 1 with 947 points and Kohli is ranked
no 2 with 912 points.Kohli has also scored 1898 @48.66 in countries Aus,ENG,NZ and SA with 8 centuries.This is a brilliant stats for any SC batsmen.Kumar Sangakaka(another SC batsmen) scored 8 centuries outside SC while Kohli already has 9 centuries outside SC.This is only to show that Kohli is one of best test batsmen of this era.Currently,there is a notable difference between kohli and Smith in Test format.But They are still in the early part of their career and Kohli can easily reduce the gap between them.The difference between Kohli(112 innings) and Smith(111) is 500 runs.

ATM Kohli and AB devilliers are miles ahead of Smith in Limited overs cricket.2 or 3 good performance
in WC Knockout at home doesn't make much difference.I don't think Australian fans who would call Smith a brilliant Odi batsmen.

In last 4 years,Kohli and Smith have been been top two batsmen in the World.But Since we are talking about best batsmen of this generation,then it should be noted that Before 2014,Smith was a complete nobody while Kohli was already one of the best batsmen across formats.(AB devilliers was best at that time).

Kohli has scored over 17000 runs across formats,Ab has scored closed to 20000 and Amla over 17000 runs.Smith hasn't even scored 10,000 runs across format.

Smith is still in the early part of his career and is most likely going to achieve a lot more.

Kohli and Ab devilliers are top two batsmen of this generation and ATM smith is not in top 3 batsmen of this generation.

 

[Savage]

Amla is a fantastic player and for several years,he has been one of the best batsmen across formats.

He was outstanding in Tests and very good in ODIs/T20s.His T20 stats is surprisingly better than AB devilliers.

After Kohli and AB devilliers,Amla is arguably best batsmen of this generation(only considered batsmen who are playing currently).

 

[Ab Fan]

Because he doesn't have the X-factor and charisma which those two possess.

<B>However, I am sure he will be getting his due when he will be closing on retirement. He will get the peer- reputation when he will be calling off from international cricket.</B>

However, some posters really hype the guy to a different level. Someone like sosokiller was like praising that 60 by Amla on a dead rubber as if it is a legendary inning although it wasn't even among the top 3-4 knocks of the series.

Kohli, Smith and AB will definitely end up higher to Amla among active players.

 

[big_gamer007]

Amla has so less charisma that even his thread turned into Smith vs kohli.

HAhaha so true..

 

[The_Odd_One]

The same reason none outside Asia rates Dhoni

 

[The_Odd_One]

Kohli vs Smith comparison is not valid in ODIs because Australians do not take bilateral ODIs seriously.

If Smith has a better World Cup next year then he will be ahead. Otherwise Kohli is better as of now.

 

[Chrish]

It's cause people over here put lot more emphasis on shorter formats when rating the player. People are aware of Amla's class who take Test Cricket more seriously.

 

[Ted123]

It's cause people over here put lot more emphasis on shorter formats when rating the player. People are aware of Amla's class who take Test Cricket more seriously.

Peer reputation means reputation over the peers not over fans or people.

His peers might be aware of his class but I dont recall any of them specifically highlighting the genius of Amla as they do to Kohli and de Villiers.

Kallis , Dravid and even Laxman have got more peer reputation than Amla and these are test geniuses not shorter formats one.

 

[Itachi]

It's cause people over here put lot more emphasis on shorter formats when rating the player. People are aware of Amla's class who take Test Cricket more seriously.

OP is talking about peers, not about fans. As a fan, Who rates whom on what rating is irrelevant in the discussion. What relevant is, what's his peer thinks about him.

 

[IndianMafia]

Smith vs Kohli debate = Lara vs Sachin debate of 90s. We all know where it ended finally.

 

[sam_ahm]

Just giving an example of Amla haters:

Amla scores a century in Champions Trophy game against Sri Lanka guides RSA to a win - "One of the softest centuries ever, small target, no pressure so Amla came good"

Virat Kohli scores a century in the 6th ODI against RSA chasing a similar target - "One of the best chasers in history, another match winning century"

Anyways, when Hash was ranked #1 in both Tests and ODIs, he was asked "how does it feel to be the No.1 batsman in both the formats?" and he laughed it off saying "I'm not even the best batsman in my team"

For Hash, all that matters is that he contributes in whatever way to help RSA win, and with 54 international centuries, he surely has done that often.

What his peers think, what his fans think, what his haters think, well... it hardly matters. People will even find fault with Sachin and Bardman, opinions hardly matter.

 

[sam_ahm]

I can say Virat and AB are also overrated, both of them combined could never win RCB and IPL title, Virat has failed in crunch games like 2011 WC Final, 2015 WC Semi Final, 2017 Champions Trophy Final. AB has never come good for RSA in crunch games and has never won a world event.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

Just giving an example of Amla haters:

Amla scores a century in Champions Trophy game against Sri Lanka guides RSA to a win - "One of the softest centuries ever, small target, no pressure so Amla came good"

Virat Kohli scores a century in the 6th ODI against RSA chasing a similar target - "One of the best chasers in history, another match winning century"

Anyways, when Hash was ranked #1 in both Tests and ODIs, he was asked "how does it feel to be the No.1 batsman in both the formats?" and he laughed it off saying "I'm not even the best batsman in my team"

For Hash, all that matters is that he contributes in whatever way to help RSA win, and with 54 international centuries, he surely has done that often.

What his peers think, what his fans think, what his haters think, well... it hardly matters. People will even find fault with Sachin and Bardman, opinions hardly matter.

Good post. He is a true gentleman of the game.

 

[Dead Ball]

Just giving an example of Amla haters:

Amla scores a century in Champions Trophy game against Sri Lanka guides RSA to a win - "One of the softest centuries ever, small target, no pressure so Amla came good"

Virat Kohli scores a century in the 6th ODI against RSA chasing a similar target - "One of the best chasers in history, another match winning century"

Anyways, when Hash was ranked #1 in both Tests and ODIs, he was asked "how does it feel to be the No.1 batsman in both the formats?" and he laughed it off saying "I'm not even the best batsman in my team"

For Hash, all that matters is that he contributes in whatever way to help RSA win, and with 54 international centuries, he surely has done that often.

What his peers think, what his fans think, what his haters think, well... it hardly matters. People will even find fault with Sachin and Bardman, opinions hardly matter.

Its baffling you compare Kohli's and Amla's ton. Amla's ton came when he was batting first at an SR of 90, against the sixth or seventh ranked ranked ODI team of 2017? Kohli came in to bat under pressure at 19/1, absolutely dominated the no 2 ODI side at an SR of 135 and FINISHED the game. The only thing that goes against Kohli's innings is that it was a dead rubber, but he had been batting like a beast all through the series!

As an ODI batsman, Amla has been averaging below 35 since 2013, against the top 5 ODI sides of his era. I am sure if you take ABDV's or Kohli's stats during this time against similar opponents, it would be close to double of that or at least 50+.

I respect Amla a LOT as a test batsman, he has played some vital match winning knocks for SA. But his form has dropped badly since 2015 (especially away) and his average has dropped below 50 even after thrashing Bangladesh.

Kohli on the other hand, is at his absolute peak and so its understandable why he has kind of surpassed him in the eyes of his peers.

Amla is going through a similar phase that Sachin was going through between 2003-2006. What remains to be seen is whether Amla can comeback like SRT did between 2007-2011. He certainly has the technique to do it. The upcoming series against Australia will be very important for him.

 

[Haripotter]

The answer lies in the recently concluded ODI series taking as a reference

 

[Itachi]

Just giving an example of Amla haters:

Amla scores a century in Champions Trophy game against Sri Lanka guides RSA to a win - "One of the softest centuries ever, small target, no pressure so Amla came good"

Virat Kohli scores a century in the 6th ODI against RSA chasing a similar target - "One of the best chasers in history, another match winning century"

Anyways, when Hash was ranked #1 in both Tests and ODIs, he was asked "how does it feel to be the No.1 batsman in both the formats?" and he laughed it off saying "I'm not even the best batsman in my team"

For Hash, all that matters is that he contributes in whatever way to help RSA win, and with 54 international centuries, he surely has done that often.

What his peers think, what his fans think, what his haters think, well... it hardly matters. People will even find fault with Sachin and Bardman, opinions hardly matter.

Looks like, after seeing even the peers have nothing to say about amla (forget the fans), the amla supporters are starting to disregard the whole system of recognition.

That's one of the starting phase of delusion where you disconnect yourself from the outside world and live in a virtual one where none of the criticisms reach.

 

[Hasan123]

Lacks personality and charisma. Also choked many times in pressure situations. A very good test batsmen and good ODI player. Don't understand why his fans are so desperate to put him in a teir he doesn't belong. Being a SA great is still a good and respectable career. Not every player can be am ATG.

 

[Tusker]

Just giving an example of Amla haters:

Amla scores a century in Champions Trophy game against Sri Lanka guides RSA to a win - "One of the softest centuries ever, small target, no pressure so Amla came good"

Virat Kohli scores a century in the 6th ODI against RSA chasing a similar target - "One of the best chasers in history, another match winning century"

Its not JUST because of that one or two inngs.

Its because he has this record batting 2nd : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1=runs;size=100;template=results;type=batting

You can spot Kohli easily. He is next only to Tendulkar at the top. Whereas Amla you have to search and he is towards the bottom. And the reason is because of the massive gap. Thats 3100 runs more than Amla at an avg thats 25 points higher and at a far superior strike rate.

At this rate he may score more 2nd inngs hundreds than Amla's entire tally of hundreds in the nextyear or two.

This is why people take notice of every inngs that Kohli plays

Anyways, when Hash was ranked #1 in both Tests and ODIs, he was asked "how does it feel to be the No.1 batsman in both the formats?" and he laughed it off saying "I'm not even the best batsman in my team"

For Hash, all that matters is that he contributes in whatever way to help RSA win, and with 54 international centuries, he surely has done that often.

What his peers think, what his fans think, what his haters think, well... it hardly matters. People will even find fault with Sachin and Bardman, opinions hardly matter.

Players are not ranked for their modesty. Its for their Cricketing skills.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Once a feared test cricketer, now fading away with time. Harmless ODI accumulator.
Sums up Amla for me.

 

[Chrish]

Peer reputation means reputation over the peers not over fans or people.

His peers might be aware of his class but I dont recall any of them specifically highlighting the genius of Amla as they do to Kohli and de Villiers.

Kallis , Dravid and even Laxman have got more peer reputation than Amla and these are test geniuses not shorter formats one.

OP is talking about peers, not about fans. As a fan, Who rates whom on what rating is irrelevant in the discussion. What relevant is, what's his peer thinks about him.

Well Amla hasn't retired yet so all this peer rep thing can change very quickly.

And lot of Cricketers for example question Kohli's ability as a test batsman. I remember Botham taking objection toward Shastri's comment (when he was a commentator) that Kohli is the best batsman in the world. Hussain and Athers have also expressed doubt over his ability to play moving ball. So, it's not like Cricketers/ commentators outside of Asia are all impressed as a whole.

 

[Bhaijaan]

It is controversial but Islamophobia can’t be ruled out among the few reasons contributing to Hashim Amla not enjoying the same popularity as some of the names you mentioned and even many lesser ones. I remember Mohammad Yousuf also being given the cold shoulder by world cricket when he had the most remarkable calendar year in tests for a batsman. It seemed like the world simply didn’t care or value the achievement. If it was some of the other batsmen we would never probably have heated the end of it but maybe because it came from a bearded devout Muslim of dark complexision that the world choose to not celebrate nearly as much as it would for many other lesser feats.

It pains me to say this being a liberal bearded spiritual man and I am sure there will be many apologists who would brush under the carpet such tendencies of people but everybody on this forum i speak my heart out on all matters and I am proud of that genuineness of my soul.

PS, Steve Smith is far more ugly and boring as a batsman yet see the difference in stature. Now picture him as an unattractive subcontinental muslim and you will know what’s wrong with the world.

 

[TeamPak95]

Lack of performances that have impact. Not to say that the runs he scores most of the time have been meaningless but, aside from his triple vs England, how many innings of note has he displayed? I don't follow him much so I could be wrong about this but aside from the triple, I can't really think of any.

 

[big_gamer007]

I can say Virat and AB are also overrated, both of them combined could never win RCB and IPL title, Virat has failed in crunch games like 2011 WC Final, 2015 WC Semi Final, 2017 Champions Trophy Final. AB has never come good for RSA in crunch games and has never won a world event.

Virat failed in 2011 WC final? Watch the final again understand the context and maybe you can realise how crucial kohli’s Innings was.. Not to mention in 2011 he was a crap player compared to what he is now..

Amla is a good test player no doubt but you can’t put him on same level as kohli or ABD.. Amla is Jayawardene of his generation albeit better than jaya..

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Smith vs Kohli debate = Lara vs Sachin debate of 90s. We all know where it ended finally.

Lara was actually comparable to Tendulkar in the 90s though. Smith is only good in tests, his ODI stats are below average considering he's somebody who debuted after 2010 in an era of inflated averages.

Smith would be a 4th tier batsman in ODIs, below the likes of Finch and Faf. Heck One can find at least 2 batsmen in every top team who're better than Smith

Aus - Warner, Finch
Eng - Root
Ind - Kohli, Rohit, Dhawan
NZ - Guptill, Taylor, Williamson
SAF - ABD, Amla, QD Kock, Faf
Pak - Babar

Apart from 2-3 players above, every single one of them is much better ODI batsman than Smith. Lara never had so many above him during 90s in either format. One could argur for Smith's WC stats, but then again Mahmudullah has better stats than 90% lol

 

[Ab Fan]

Lara was actually comparable to Tendulkar in the 90s though. Smith is only good in tests, his ODI stats are below average considering he's somebody who debuted after 2010 in an era of inflated averages.

Smith would be a 4th tier batsman in ODIs, below the likes of Finch and Faf. Heck One can find at least 2 batsmen in every top team who're better than Smith

Aus - Warner, Finch
Eng - Root
Ind - Kohli, Rohit, Dhawan
NZ - Guptill, Taylor, Williamson
SAF - ABD, Amla, QD Kock, Faf
Pak - Babar

Apart from 2-3 players above, every single one of them is much better ODI batsman than Smith. Lara never had so many above him during 90s in either format. One could argur for Smith's WC stats, but then again Mahmudullah has better stats than 90% lol

Finch and Williamson are definitely not better. Babar too early to say.

Smith still has many years left and he already has WC performances to his names. I am sure he will definitely catch the likes of Faf and Taylor which will easily make him a very good odi player.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Finch and Williamson are definitely not better. Babar too early to say.

Smith still has many years left and he already has WC performances to his names. I am sure he will definitely catch the likes of Faf and Taylor which will easily make him a very good odi player.

Well I did mention 2-3 players in the list who might not be better than Smith. The rest are better though. As fot Taylor, Smith would really have to step up his game to match Taylor. Taylor's been averaging 60 for the last 70 matches with 10 tons (that's including 2016 when he lost form due to eye issues).

Taylor has basically been the 4th best batsman in ODIs in the last 4 years, even with his eye operation. Link: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...4;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

[Princejain191]

Finch and Williamson are definitely not better. Babar too early to say.

Smith still has many years left and he already has WC performances to his names. I am sure he will definitely catch the likes of Faf and Taylor which will easily make him a very good odi player.

He missed Butler too. And Finch and Williamson have been either more impactful or more consistent than Smith. Smith was average against us here in India and then again against England at home. He goes through these patches all the time.

 

[Ab Fan]

He missed Butler too. And Finch and Williamson have been either more impactful or more consistent than Smith. Smith was average against us here in India and then again against England at home. He goes through these patches all the time.

But Smith has performances in WC quarter final, Semi final and Final against Pak, Ind and NZ respectively. That more thanmakes up for the bilateral impact of those two IMO because it is again not huge either for them.

Finch is doing well these days mostly. He still averages 38 only over the entire career.

 

[Sidilicious]

Just giving an example of Amla haters:

Amla scores a century in Champions Trophy game against Sri Lanka guides RSA to a win - "One of the softest centuries ever, small target, no pressure so Amla came good"

Virat Kohli scores a century in the 6th ODI against RSA chasing a similar target - "One of the best chasers in history, another match winning century"

Anyways, when Hash was ranked #1 in both Tests and ODIs, he was asked "how does it feel to be the No.1 batsman in both the formats?" and he laughed it off saying "I'm not even the best batsman in my team"

For Hash, all that matters is that he contributes in whatever way to help RSA win, and with 54 international centuries, he surely has done that often.

What his peers think, what his fans think, what his haters think, well... it hardly matters. People will even find fault with Sachin and Bardman, opinions hardly matter.

Hash is a test great no doubt, and some might even consider him a Test ATG. But, he is not in the same league of batsmanship of Virat and AB, and there is no shame in that. Not everyone can be in that league and only a handful of batsman have been in that league ever. So, a tier or two below those two is no mean feat.

But like Sachinistas and Imranistas, Hashistas need to understand that pointing out Hash's fallacies does not mean he is a poor player.

 

[Princejain191]

But Smith has performances in WC quarter final, Semi final and Final against Pak, Ind and NZ respectively. That more thanmakes up for the bilateral impact of those two IMO because it is again not huge either for them.

Finch is doing well these days mostly. He still averages 38 only over the entire career.

Not sure how high I would want to rate 50s and 60s chasing 180 and 200 odd on the flat decks - good but not great. Played well against our horrible bowling, but so did Finch. Those innings definitely don't cover for 3 years of relative ODI mediocrity.

 

[Ab Fan]

Not sure how high I would want to rate 50s and 60s chasing 180 and 200 odd on the flat decks - good but not great. Played well against our horrible bowling, but so did Finch. Those innings definitely don't cover for 3 years of relative ODI mediocrity.

You are missing the part that those were World Cup games- the biggest matches of a player's odi career. Smith absolutely nailed it in a high pressure chase against Wahab in that quarter final, then again played a huge role in setting a 300+ total in the WC semi final against India and seized the small target in WC final.

His match winning 100 against India in a WC semis was not some usual 50s and 60s lol(calling it a usual 50 is absurd), but it is something which impacts the legacy of the player.

SL ATG, Aravinda de Silva doesnt have stats but his innings in semis and finals are what have created a huge legacy to SL cricket and hence is regarded as an ATG and not just a very good batsmen from Sri Lanka.

Ofcourse it is unfair to compare Smith to de Silva( de Silva's performance was extraordinary), but I guess you understood the point. Some random bilaterals dont create your legacy but it is the big tournaments and big matches like World Cup that does.

Henceforth, Smith even with his below par bilateral performance should still be considered as a very good odi batsmen because of his match winning efforts in 2015 WC Knockouts( each of them). That is where the difference lies. He is no Kohli or AB in odis but not far off from some other odi batters in the world.

 

[Itachi]

Seriously guys, give atleast some respect to amla and don't turn it into Smith vs kohli.....

 

[ads101]

Cos he's not as good as the other two in LOI. In the age of LOI, I'd argue the best LOI batsmen seem to get more hype around them than the best tests. Smith's averaging near 65 in tests which is crazy and yet I still think Kohli and AB will be talked about more.

He's not as good a bat/player as Kallis who is arguably the best allrounder ever, and one of the best bats of his era.

He's slightly worse in tests than Kohli and AB probably too.

I don't think there's any bias, or it's about his "charisma" or anything. He's rated about fine.

 

[sam_ahm]

That's exactly what I meant. Virat's 40 odd will look crucial in the context but I'm pretty sure Hashim's 40 odd in a match to set the platform where AB would have scored a century will be looked upon as 'soft runs'/'meaningless runs'.

 

[Tusker]

That's exactly what I meant. Virat's 40 odd will look crucial in the context but I'm pretty sure Hashim's 40 odd in a match to set the platform where AB would have scored a century will be looked upon as 'soft runs'/'meaningless runs'.

Did you even read my post ?

 

[sam_ahm]

Virat failed in 2011 WC final? Watch the final again understand the context and maybe you can realise how crucial kohli’s Innings was.. Not to mention in 2011 he was a crap player compared to what he is now..

Amla is a good test player no doubt but you can’t put him on same level as kohli or ABD.. Amla is Jayawardene of his generation albeit better than jaya..

My above post was in reply to this one.

Hash is a test great no doubt, and some might even consider him a Test ATG. But, he is not in the same league of batsmanship of Virat and AB, and there is no shame in that. Not everyone can be in that league and only a handful of batsman have been in that league ever. So, a tier or two below those two is no mean feat.

But like Sachinistas and Imranistas, Hashistas need to understand that pointing out Hash's fallacies does not mean he is a poor player.

Yes, I'm not at all arguing that Hash is the best player in the world because he isn't. That's quite obvious but to discard his contribution in ODIs is not correct. Many a times he has set the platform for the likes of AB and others to do the damage later and has contributes significantly in RSA winning games which is what matters.

Even an out of form Hash has scored 4 half centuries in the India series including back to back half centuries on a difficult Joburg track and a crucial 81 in the 2nd second test that contributed significantly in RSA winning the test.

 

[sam_ahm]

BTW I genuinely feel Virat and AB are overrated slightly. Amazing players no doubt but they are not big match players, neither is Hashim of course.

I'd rate someone like Ricky Ponting as one of the best players of all time because he always rised to the occasion. What a player Ricky Ponting was! Someone like Inzamam ans Steve Waugh were also amazing under pressure.

I repeat, AB and Virat combined could never win a single IPL for RCB.They are brilliant players but somehow they bottle up in big match situations. We gave seen that often.

 

[Tusker]

BTW I genuinely feel Virat and AB are overrated slightly. Amazing players no doubt but they are not big match players, neither is Hashim of course.

I'd rate someone like Ricky Ponting as one of the best players of all time because he always rised to the occasion. What a player Ricky Ponting was! Someone like Inzamam ans Steve Waugh were also amazing under pressure.

I repeat, AB and Virat combined could never win a single IPL for RCB.They are brilliant players but somehow they bottle up in big match situations. We gave seen that often.

Virat Kohli has played in 6 Matches against Pakistan in WC and CT ... can you name some more high pressure matches than these ?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...late=results;trophy=12;trophy=44;type=batting


He also made the highest score in the 2013 CT final ... without his contribution we would have lost that final.

 

[Sidilicious]

BTW I genuinely feel Virat and AB are overrated slightly. Amazing players no doubt but they are not big match players, neither is Hashim of course.

I'd rate someone like Ricky Ponting as one of the best players of all time because he always rised to the occasion. What a player Ricky Ponting was! Someone like Inzamam ans Steve Waugh were also amazing under pressure.

I repeat, AB and Virat combined could never win a single IPL for RCB.They are brilliant players but somehow they bottle up in big match situations. We gave seen that often.

So you are taking the example of IPL to say that Kohli has not performed in big match situations, but ignoring Kohli’s performances in T20 2014 and 2016, scoring in all big matches.

 

[TM Riddle]

Amla is like Hawkeye in Avengers. He has been a valuable addition to the group but no one would bat an eye if they drop him from the next movie.

 

[big_gamer007]

That's exactly what I meant. Virat's 40 odd will look crucial in the context but I'm pretty sure Hashim's 40 odd in a match to set the platform where AB would have scored a century will be looked upon as 'soft runs'/'meaningless runs'.

Virat was 21/22 at that time, if he scores such an innings in final of 2019 WC and India loses the final he would be blasted.. If a 21 year old amla played such an innings which helped his team win WC then his innings would be praised as well(certainly by me atleast)..

Now meaningless or soft runs I don’t believe in maybe other posters believe in that.. but imo all runs are runs someone has to score runs and if a player score runs he should be credited.. I am not demeaning amla in anyway he’s a good player but he ranks a tier below ABD and kohli that is the truth.. It’s nothing against Amla, Apart from 5 batsmen everyone else to have played the game ranks below ABd and kohli.. (in LOI’s atleast)..

 

[Sin Nombre]

So you are taking the example of IPL to say that Kohli has not performed in big match situations, but ignoring Kohli’s performances in T20 2014 and 2016, scoring in all big matches.

Any match where Kohli didn't score is a big match.

Any where he did is a meaningless one.

Get with the program.

 

[ads101]

My above post was in reply to this one.



Yes, I'm not at all arguing that Hash is the best player in the world because he isn't. That's quite obvious but to discard his contribution in ODIs is not correct. Many a times he has set the platform for the likes of AB and others to do the damage later and has contributes significantly in RSA winning games which is what matters.

Even an out of form Hash has scored 4 half centuries in the India series including back to back half centuries on a difficult Joburg track and a crucial 81 in the 2nd second test that contributed significantly in RSA winning the test.

This is right to an extent, Amla's numbers opening are phenomenal and putting up the numbers front up is really good. Was the best opener out of his peers for a good while in ODIs. I think it's his record in tournaments which people put him down for a bit though, especially his record against the top 8.

 

[Tusker]

You are missing the part that those were World Cup games- the biggest matches of a player's odi career. Smith absolutely nailed it in a high pressure chase against Wahab in that quarter final, then again played a huge role in setting a 300+ total in the WC semi final against India and seized the small target in WC final.

His match winning 100 against India in a WC semis was not some usual 50s and 60s lol(calling it a usual 50 is absurd), but it is something which impacts the legacy of the player.

SL ATG, Aravinda de Silva doesnt have stats but his innings in semis and finals are what have created a huge legacy to SL cricket and hence is regarded as an ATG and not just a very good batsmen from Sri Lanka.

Ofcourse it is unfair to compare Smith to de Silva( de Silva's performance was extraordinary), but I guess you understood the point. Some random bilaterals dont create your legacy but it is the big tournaments and big matches like World Cup that does.

Henceforth, Smith even with his below par bilateral performance should still be considered as a very good odi batsmen because of his match winning efforts in 2015 WC Knockouts( each of them). That is where the difference lies. He is no Kohli or AB in odis but not far off from some other odi batters in the world.

using this same logic you must not rate Waqar Younis very highly in ODIs then ?

 

[Princejain191]

You are missing the part that those were World Cup games- the biggest matches of a player's odi career. Smith absolutely nailed it in a high pressure chase against Wahab in that quarter final, then again played a huge role in setting a 300+ total in the WC semi final against India and seized the small target in WC final.

His match winning 100 against India in a WC semis was not some usual 50s and 60s lol(calling it a usual 50 is absurd), but it is something which impacts the legacy of the player.

SL ATG, Aravinda de Silva doesnt have stats but his innings in semis and finals are what have created a huge legacy to SL cricket and hence is regarded as an ATG and not just a very good batsmen from Sri Lanka.

Ofcourse it is unfair to compare Smith to de Silva( de Silva's performance was extraordinary), but I guess you understood the point. Some random bilaterals dont create your legacy but it is the big tournaments and big matches like World Cup that does.

Henceforth, Smith even with his below par bilateral performance should still be considered as a very good odi batsmen because of his match winning efforts in 2015 WC Knockouts( each of them). That is where the difference lies. He is no Kohli or AB in odis but not far off from some other odi batters in the world.

I consider consistency to be the single biggest factor in making of a very good player. WC/CT performances can elevate their level. And winning a world cup is always a team effort. Only considering the knockouts is short-sightedness. Yuvi won us the world cup, not MS Dhoni.

Unless you are consistent outside WCs too, just 3-4 matches in WCs don't alleviate someone to 'very good' category. Smith clearly isn't, when over 10 players in the same era are more consistent than him. Otherwise, many players would come under the category.

 

[Ab Fan]

using this same logic you must not rate Waqar Younis very highly in ODIs then ?

You didnt used same logic though and neither did you understood the post.

 

[Ab Fan]

I consider consistency to be the single biggest factor in making of a very good player. WC/CT performances can elevate their level. And winning a world cup is always a team effort. Only considering the knockouts is short-sightedness. Yuvi won us the world cup, not MS Dhoni.

Unless you are consistent outside WCs too, just 3-4 matches in WCs don't alleviate someone to 'very good' category. Smith clearly isn't, when over 10 players in the same era are more consistent than him. Otherwise, many players would come under the category.

I appreciate and accept your opinion.

 

[Tusker]

You didnt used same logic though and neither did you understood the post.

You said clearly in your post that legacy is created by performing in WC which Waqar did not. Hence my question.

 

[Pete Rose]

The numbers speak for themselves. DeVilliers average 30 points higher than career average when chasing for a win. Vs Amal who maintains his nice average whether in wins or losses. He is better than a lot of batsmen but in his peer group he is waaaaaay behind devilliers and Amla

 

[Ab Fan]

You said clearly in your post that legacy is created by performing in WC which Waqar did not. Hence my question.

I also said some random bilaterals dont create legacy. Waqar had a huge peak and was highly known for invention of his toe-crushing Yorkers. He has a legacy due to being impactful for that long. <B>But why is he not rated as highly as Wasim?</B>

Why Donald and Pollock aren't rated as highly as McGrath ?

Why Amla isn't considered as second best odi opener or ODI ATG although he averages 50+?

 

[Buffet]

BTW I genuinely feel Virat and AB are overrated slightly. Amazing players no doubt but they are not big match players, neither is Hashim of course.

I'd rate someone like Ricky Ponting as one of the best players of all time because he always rised to the occasion. What a player Ricky Ponting was! Someone like Inzamam ans Steve Waugh were also amazing under pressure.



I repeat, AB and Virat combined could never win a single IPL for RCB.They are brilliant players but somehow they bottle up in big match situations. We gave seen that often.

Inzy and amazing player under pressure? You got to be kidding here.

• 35 WC games - avg 23
• 35 finals - avg 29

These are huge sample sizes and truly reflect his ability to perform under pressure.

 

[CanadianG00se]

using this same logic you must not rate Waqar Younis very highly in ODIs then ?

You're wasting your time trying to make them prove your point. For them WC record holds important only for Kohli, but when argued for players like Waqar then its shouldnt matter. We all know Waqar is certified choker in Worldcups but he is ATG and never needed to prove his calibre in WC.

Some fans are hypocrites.

 

[CanadianG00se]

Inzy and amazing player under pressure? You got to be kidding here.

• 35 WC games - avg 23
• 35 finals - avg 29

These are huge sample sizes and truly reflect his ability to perform under pressure.

Ouch!

You just OWNED him there.

 

[Tusker]

I also said some random bilaterals dont create legacy. Waqar had a huge peak and was highly known for invention of his toe-crushing Yorkers. He has a legacy due to being impactful for that long. <B>But why is he not rated as highly as Wasim?</B>

Toe crushing yorkers existed before Waqar and anyway thats a cricketing skill and nothing to do with WC or Bilateral. Therefore it is not necessity to have a WC medal to be recognized as a great. A great example is look at Brett Lee and Brackens records they have better WC stats than Waqar and also have great Bilateral stats. But nobody rates them anywhere close to Waqar.

Why Donald and Pollock aren't rated as highly as McGrath ?

Why Amla isn't considered as second best odi opener or ODI ATG although he averages 50+?

McGrath was the better bowler and again has nothing to do with his WC stats. In any case Donald and Pollock are still considered great players. Amla has a poor record chasing (especially when compared to Kohli) and also has not played enough ODI's (just 164). So Amla hasnt achieved anything extraordinary to be considered a Great. Whereas Kohli while still having not played a whole lot of ODIs has achieved something extraordinary - Avg of 67 batting 2nd and 5K+ runs at 90+ SR and 21 hundreds - Thats an extraordinary achievement hence the difference in rating.

Batting Second:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;qualval2=runs;template=results;type=batting

 

[Tusker]

You're wasting your time trying to make them prove your point. For them WC record holds important only for Kohli, but when argued for players like Waqar then its shouldnt matter. We all know Waqar is certified choker in Worldcups but he is ATG and never needed to prove his calibre in WC.

Some fans are hypocrites.

And also WC becomes irrelevant when talking about Ind vs Pak

 

[Ab Fan]

Toe crushing yorkers existed before Waqar and anyway thats a cricketing skill and nothing to do with WC or Bilateral. Therefore it is not necessity to have a WC medal to be recognized as a great. A great example is look at Brett Lee and Brackens records they have better WC stats than Waqar and also have great Bilateral stats. But nobody rates them anywhere close to Waqar.



McGrath was the better bowler and again has nothing to do with his WC stats. In any case Donald and Pollock are still considered great players. Amla has a poor record chasing (especially when compared to Kohli) and also has not played enough ODI's (just 164). So Amla hasnt achieved anything extraordinary to be considered a Great. Whereas Kohli while still having not played a whole lot of ODIs has achieved something extraordinary - Avg of 67 batting 2nd and 5K+ runs at 90+ SR and 21 hundreds - Thats an extraordinary achievement hence the difference in rating.

Batting Second:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;qualval2=runs;template=results;type=batting

Lee isnt rated as highly as Waqar because of test format where Lee was just an above average bowler while Waqar is an ATG. In odis, Lee is as good as Waqar or even better.

Toe-crushing Yorkers were there before Waqar but Waqar was the one who was the most famous for his skills. It is similar to de Villiers who is famous for his 360° modern day batting.

Both those things are a skill of genius and anyone able to implement that on a consistent basis and gets recognition firstly would be regarded highly in terms of peer reputation and can be considered as a genius. This is why Waqar is rated as ATG in odis but compared to Wasim he fall short because of WC performances.

How can you say that McGrath was a better odi bowler than Donald or Pollock ? Look at their stats. Donald had pace too unlike McGee and was a terrifying bowler. It is the WC performance that made the difference between them.

Again, you didnt answered- Why de Silva is rated as an ATG? And again why ABDV even though has GOAT stats in bilaterals isnt rated as highly and people pick Ponting or heck even Gilchrist and Jayasuriya over him?

WC performances do make the most of difference. You can be a legend without that but not the greatest.

Now coming back to Steven Smith, you cant be a below average odi player if you have performed in WC quarter final, semi final and finals of same WC. Even the best players dont do that. He is definitely a very good player at least in odis. And he still averages 43 with peak days still to come ahead.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Always dominating batsmen will be treated on a different level. Run accumulators a level below.

 

[Tusker]

Lee isnt rated as highly as Waqar because of test format where Lee was just an above average bowler while Waqar is an ATG. In odis, Lee is as good as Waqar or even better.

Toe-crushing Yorkers were there before Waqar but Waqar was the one who was the most famous for his skills. It is similar to de Villiers who is famous for his 360° modern day batting.

Both those things are a skill of genius and anyone able to implement that on a consistent basis and gets recognition firstly would be regarded highly in terms of peer reputation and can be considered as a genius. This is why Waqar is rated as ATG in odis but compared to Wasim he fall short because of WC performances.

How can you say that McGrath was a better odi bowler than Donald or Pollock ? Look at their stats. Donald had pace too unlike McGee and was a terrifying bowler. It is the WC performance that made the difference between them.

Again, you didnt answered- Why de Silva is rated as an ATG? And again why ABDV even though has GOAT stats in bilaterals isnt rated as highly and people pick Ponting or heck even Gilchrist and Jayasuriya over him?

WC performances do make the most of difference. You can be a legend without that but not the greatest.

Now coming back to Steven Smith, you cant be a below average odi player if you have performed in WC quarter final, semi final and finals of same WC. Even the best players dont do that. He is definitely a very good player at least in odis. And he still averages 43 with peak days still to come ahead.

Nobody considers Aravinda, Brett, Bracken as ODI ATGs even though they have great WC KO Stats. There are plenty of players like that. Anyone who knows odi cricket will pick Kohli, ABD, Waqar over these players.

 

[Rightarmfast]

I also said some random bilaterals dont create legacy. Waqar had a huge peak and was highly known for invention of his toe-crushing Yorkers. He has a legacy due to being impactful for that long. <B>But why is he not rated as highly as Wasim?</B>

Why Donald and Pollock aren't rated as highly as McGrath ?

Why Amla isn't considered as second best odi opener or ODI ATG although he averages 50+?

Err... Because of longevity? How many test matches did Alan and Shaun play? Just as simple as that! People saw these two bowlers, especially Alan for a shorter period of time than Mcgrath. While post 96, Mcgrath was a champion bowler till the day he retired!

To think that Mcgrath is considered greater because he performed in world cups is not laughable, its outright stupid! Who remembers all those world cup matches?
In which case, Wasim akram lost more wc matches than he won. He must be a choker and a pretty mediocre bowler then!

Also, Waqar is not rated highly for the same reason. His peak was very short. For the first 4-5 yrs of his career. He lost his pace pretty early too. All the great performances happened for no more than 4-5 yrs. He was lucky to have all those wickets in that period, otherwise waqar was no more than slightly above average bowler post 95-96!

 

[Bilal7]

It's very simple: He's not a celebrity like Kohli and to a lesser extent, AB de Villiers. There is a lot of money in overhyping Kohli, the same cannot be said of players like Amla.

Amla is a humble, quite, calm and obviously religious man. Not the sort of guy the average spectator will be geared towards. This is especially true of teenagers and adolescents who want to see aggression and bullish behavior from their athletes.

That however, has no bearing on one's ability and Amla's ability is right up there with the best of them. While ABD and Kohli are better ODI players, Amla is no slouch in this format either and is one of the greatest openers of all time. Averaging 50+ with a SR of 90 after 160-odd games is no joke. People can say what they want about his alleged "lack of impact" but these same people need to first define it and then explain how Amla fails to meet this criteria for their arguments to have any wait.

For me, impact is about how much you contribute to your team's wins and Amla has 24 match-winning ODI tons and a ridiculous average of around 70 with a SR of over 90 when he bats first and his team wins.

In test matches, he has obviously been a tremendous player. Runs all over the world, in all conditions along with some truly superb match-winning and series -winning contributions makes him one of the all-time greats. Even at the age of 35, he was the best player on show on a treacherous Jo'Burg track a few months after playing a few similarly skilled knocks in England, on pitches that Cook called the toughest he's batted on.

He has also been rated as the best batsman that James Anderson has ever played against, along with Sachin Tendulker, by the skilled seamer himself. And a bunch of current players like Jason Roy, Jonny Bairstow and former greats like Pietersen, Mushtaq and Holding have picked Amla in their all-time test XIs and/or placed him in the tier of greats.

 

[Ab Fan]

Nobody considers Aravinda, Brett, Bracken as ODI ATGs even though they have great WC KO Stats. There are plenty of players like that. Anyone who knows odi cricket will pick Kohli, ABD, Waqar over these players.

Go ahead and make a thread on it.

Lee, Jayasuriya and de Silva are ODI ATGs and are acknowledged by fans. Bracken isn't though. Many would pick Jayasuriya and de Silva over AB too in PP. Even you can check the thread on Sanath vs AB in odis and you will get the answer there itself.

 

[CanadianG00se]

Go ahead and make a thread on it.

Lee, Jayasuriya and de Silva are ODI ATGs and are acknowledged by fans. Bracken isn't though. Many would pick Jayasuriya and de Silva over AB too in PP. Even you can check the thread on Sanath vs AB in odis and you will get the answer there itself.

So you would pick Munaf Patel over Waqar Younis? Former played important role in WC while latter is certified choker in WC

 

[Ab Fan]

Err... Because of longevity? <B>How many test matches did Alan and Shaun play?</B> Just as simple as that! <B>People saw these two bowlers, especially Alan for a shorter period of time than Mcgrath. While post 96, Mcgrath was a champion bowler till the day he retired!</B>

To think that Mcgrath is considered greater because he performed in world cups is not laughable, its outright stupid!<B> Who remembers all those world cup matches?</B>In which case, Wasim akram lost more wc matches than he won. He must be a choker and a pretty mediocre bowler then!

<B>Also, Waqar is not rated highly for the same reason.</B> His peak was very short. For the first 4-5 yrs of his career. He lost his pace pretty early too. All the great performances happened for no more than 4-5 yrs. He was lucky to have all those wickets in that period, otherwise waqar was no more than slightly above average bowler post 95-96!

Most part of your post is pretty lame tbh.Let us come on it one-by-one.

Firstly, this is an odi thread. As for longevity:

Donald -1991-2003
McGrath- 1993-2007

There is not a massive difference between them more so considering that one was an out-and out fast bowler whose careers are generally short-lived to someone like McGrath.

There is absolutely no doubt that the difference between the legacy of McGrath and Donald was the fact that McGrath turned out to be the greatest WC player while Donald proved out to be a choker. There is no other reason at all absolutely. Can you state any other reason?

You are saying who remember WC matches. LOL! World Cup matches is what people remember the most then comes other matches.

Waqar is universally rated as an ATG no doubt there but his performance in WCs is what differentiates him from a Wasim or McGrath.

Wasim is a choker lol..What are you saying? He was the MOM in the WC final 1992 vs England. He also has got 5-fers against Australia ,South Africa, West Indies and New Zealand. Go ahead and make a thread- Akram was a choker lol...

Now you can say whatever you want but Akram and McGrath are regarded as goat's while Donald, Waqar and Pollock just as ATGs and one major reason behind it is their WC performances.

Thank you!

 

[Ab Fan]

So you would pick Munaf Patel over Waqar Younis? Former played important role in WC while latter is certified choker in WC

So, you will pick Amla over Dhoni?

Dhoni batting down the order with so many not outs has same average as Amla who opens the inning and dont have many not outs.

You might also rate Moyo as an ATG? He averaged 44 in previous era?

And how come 50% people pick Sanath over AB? Can you explain me this answer in particular?

On your question, the answer is yes if I ever say that I am picking Grant Elliot over AB de Villiers.

 

[Ted123]

Kohli fans are so insecure against Smith lol

 

[CanadianG00se]

So, you will pick Amla over Dhoni?

Dhoni batting down the order with so many not outs has same average as Amla who opens the inning and dont have many not outs.

You might also rate Moyo as an ATG? He averaged 44 in previous era?

And how come 50% people pick Sanath over AB? Can you explain me this answer in particular?

On your question, the answer is yes if I ever say that I am picking Grant Elliot over AB de Villiers.

You're comparing an opener with finisher.

If Amla had big shots like Dhoni and could finish the games like Dhoni did then sure Id swap them. Amla is good in PowrPlays when he could find gaps and score briskly without taking much risk. He is class player, but he lacks the power game which is why once field restrictions are done, he mostly nudges the ball around and let other batsmen score bulk of the run. On the other hand, Peak Dhoni could do everything Amla could and much more. Dhoni could also destroy bowling attack whenever he gets going or should i say he used to in his peak.
So, who would i pick? it depends the role. But normally Id have Dhoni.
Lot of fans here disregard average because of batsmen have lot of notouts. Instead of disregarding, player should be applauded for finishing the game and remained notout. If batsman have lot of notouts then it means he valued his wicket and finish the game for his team. So, how is that a bad thing? or should he just throw his wicket away like Tailunt Chota Akmal?

Some fans are really something.

I myself would Pick Sanath over AB why? Its simple he brings alot to team as a player. His bowling is very handy which makes his very valueable pick. But if you compared him purely as a batsman then Id pick AB without doubt.

I rate players based on consistency and performance everywhere not just Worldcups alone. Sure worldcup performance is important but not only criteria for greatness.

Kohli still have two worldcups left in him and he may very well unleash his beast in one or both worldcups and goes on to become GOAT. But he is well on his way to be ATG regardless how he performs in WC.

Now, coming to your cherry picking greatness where you discredit Kohli on other hand calls Waqar ATG.

In my view both are ATG. I only brought up Munaf Patel because of hypocrisy of some fans

 

[CanadianG00se]

Kohli fans are so insecure against Smith lol

Not insecure just calling out hypocrisy.

If Smith is bettter than Kohli in Odis based on WC alone then

Munaf Patel was better than Waqar.

 

[Abdullah719]

Not insecure just calling out hypocrisy.

If Smith is bettter than Kohli in Odis based on WC alone then

Munaf Patel was better than Waqar.

But I don't think anyone said that.

Henceforth, Smith even with his below par bilateral performance should still be considered as a very good odi batsmen because of his match winning efforts in 2015 WC Knockouts( each of them). That is where the difference lies. He is no Kohli or AB in odis but not far off from some other odi batters in the world.

 

[Ab Fan]

Not insecure just calling out hypocrisy.

If Smith is bettter than Kohli in Odis based on WC alone then

Munaf Patel was better than Waqar.

Congratulations.. Insecurity is there to be seen.

 

[CanadianG00se]

But I don't think anyone said that.

There are some wont name them think Smith is either on par or better than Kohli.

Tbh, Smith is like 3 levels below Kohli in Odis. Smith is not even top 3 batsmen of his team let alone in World.

 

[CanadianG00se]

Congratulations.. Insecurity is there to be seen.

Says the guy who compares Amla with Dhoni.


Lmao

 

[Ab Fan]

If you say,

"Smith is no Kohli or ABD in ODIs but not too far behind some other batters in the world".

It means, "Smith is better than Kohli in odis'.

No wonder I see most fans out there try to troll Kohli fans with some illogical logic just for fun purpose.

 

[Ab Fan]

Says the guy who compares Amla with Dhoni.


Lmao

Because you compared Munaf to Waqar- a much much bigger lmao..

 

[CanadianG00se]

Because you compared Munaf to Waqar- a much much bigger lmao..

In that case you completely missed out the purpose. My comparison was obvious to point of hypocrisy of people like you. But then to expect common sense from some fans is bit too much.

 

[Ab Fan]

In that case you completely missed out the purpose. My comparison was obvious to point of hypocrisy of people like you. But then to expect common sense from some fans is bit too much.

What hypocrisy? In what world and where did you see the hypocrisy? Did I ever said Smith is better than Kohli in odis lol?

Its your insecurity and not my hypocrisy.

I do value World Cup and hence it is a major factor which comes into place when comparing players of similar stature- McGrath and Akram to Donald/ Waqar not when we compare Munaf to Waqar.

And I never ever compared Smith to Kohli in odis lol. Its clearly mentioned in my post,

"Smith is no kohli or AB but not far behind <B>other odi batters</B> in the world."

Please enlighten the hypocrisy. I am eager to know my which sentence was hypocritic?

 

[Ab Fan]

You're comparing an opener with finisher.

If Amla had big shots like Dhoni and could finish the games like Dhoni did then sure Id swap them. Amla is good in PowrPlays when he could find gaps and score briskly without taking much risk. He is class player, but he lacks the power game which is why once field restrictions are done, he mostly nudges the ball around and let other batsmen score bulk of the run. On the other hand, Peak Dhoni could do everything Amla could and much more. Dhoni could also destroy bowling attack whenever he gets going or should i say he used to in his peak.
So, who would i pick? it depends the role. But normally Id have Dhoni.
Lot of fans here disregard average because of batsmen have lot of notouts. Instead of disregarding, player should be applauded for finishing the game and remained notout. If batsman have lot of notouts then it means he valued his wicket and finish the game for his team. So, how is that a bad thing? or should he just throw his wicket away like Tailunt Chota Akmal?

Some fans are really something.

I myself would Pick Sanath over AB why? Its simple he brings alot to team as a player. His bowling is very handy which makes his very valueable pick. But if you compared him purely as a batsman then Id pick AB without doubt.

I rate players based on consistency and performance everywhere not just Worldcups alone. Sure worldcup performance is important but not only criteria for greatness.

Kohli still have two worldcups left in him and he may very well unleash his beast in one or both worldcups and goes on to become GOAT. But he is well on his way to be ATG regardless how he performs in WC.

<B>Now, coming to your cherry picking greatness where you discredit Kohli on other hand calls Waqar ATG.</B>

In my view both are ATG. I only brought up Munaf Patel because of hypocrisy of some fans

Insecurity is when people dont see when you say 100 times, that Kohli is an ODI GOAT.

But they can see it and point out something that was never said. LMAO!

 

[CanadianG00se]

What hypocrisy? In what world and where did you see the hypocrisy? Did I ever said Smith is better than Kohli in odis lol?

Its your insecurity and not my hypocrisy.

I do value World Cup and hence it is a major factor which comes into place when comparing players of similar stature- McGrath and Akram to Donald/ Waqar not when we compare Munaf to Waqar.

And I never ever compared Smith to Kohli in odis lol. Its clearly mentioned in my post,

"Smith is no kohli or AB but not far behind <B>other odi batters</B> in the world."

Please enlighten the hypocrisy. I am eager to know my which sentence was hypocritic?

Smith is too far behind other top batsmen in World. Cant recall when was last time he won game for Aussies on his own. He is probably 4th best batsman in his team after Warner, Finch, and Stoinis( heck Id even place Maxi ahead of him)
So, how is this sentence ‘not behind’ worlds top batsmen makes any sense?

He is legit 3 levels behind AB, Warner, Kohli. He is in same league as Rahane the Odis batsman, which doesnt say much. His WC performance was great but it was overall team performance and also in Semis against India, it was Maxi show that gave them huge total. His WC performance is quite overrated. He didnt won any games on his own nor does he has potential too.

Ofc in no world does Munaf is even closed to Waqar let alone better.