Convenient to ignore the links so I'l lspell it out for you. No one is dipusting present day world rankings. Having said that, no one should dispute that Boeta, McKenzie, Alviro and now young Quinton de Kock are comparable or superior to AB against the new ball.
PROTEAS TEST OPENERS SINCE 2005
Player Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0
GC Smith 85 147 9 6581 234 47.68 20 28 6
ND McKenzie 17 29 3 1225 226 47.11 3 3 3
AB de Villiers 19 33 0 1223 178 37.06 3 6 0
AN Petersen 33 59 3 1991 182 35.55 5 8 2
HH Gibbs 14 25 0 717 161 28.68 1 5 5
(minimum 15 innings)
PROTEAS ODI OPENERS SINCE 2005
Player Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
HM Amla 91 90 6 4596 150 54.71 15 25
HH Dippenaar 24 24 4 978 125* 48.9 3 6
Q de Kock 24 24 0 1106 135 46.08 5 3
GC Smith 140 138 8 4994 141 38.41 10 32
HH Gibbs 35 35 0 1285 119 36.71 5 5
AB de Villiers 33 32 3 934 146 32.2 1 6
(minimum 15 innings)
The question is, would AB have been as highly ranked or as good a batsman as he is regarded to be today had he continued opening? The answer is a resounding no! All the more reason why he refuses to even get anywhere near there and bat at 3! Get back to me once he mans up, and leave me to pay attention to the 50 odd averages at 5/6 from the greenhorns like Root, Smith and Mathews. Stating facts and trolling are two very different things.
Overstating AB's abilities is not enough to discount the fact that Amla is multiple times a better batsmen than AB is. At the end of the day that's what all this masking amounts to. Not being comfortable to give Amla his dues. I doubt very much that the Pakistanis would ever go to the point of comparing Younis Khan and Misbah. I, and inded many other people, could come up with countless theories as to why it's seen fit to raise AB to Amla's level.