That's fair enough. At least you're being consistent both ways.
ICC World T20 2016
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
That's fair enough. At least you're being consistent both ways.
Watch his earlier career, has matured a lot.
Like Skills said, he was aggressive, not arrogant.
That was an absolute masterpiece from Virat Kohli, take a bow mate. Well done to India, Australia about 20 short when they batted.
Nah, now he is aggressive. Before that he was clearly arrogant, will find some quotes from him later. Am sure he admitted to calming down a bit.
Gem of an innings from Kohli there.
I think he was hyper and very aggressive earlier. Shouting at reporters, shouting "tu bahar nikal, dekhta hu tuje" at young fans, intolerant towards decisions. I think he has matured a lot in that sense. Yes, he still has some of the aggression but that is good. Don't want him to become too calm.
Ok Sharjah was great but that was only a triangular trophy - were there many more?
I know conditions, fielding restrictions and generally poor bowling quality favours batsmen today but the stats are overwhelmingly in Kohli's favour:
You've answered your own question the reasons why Sachin has lower averages, VP. Although I'm not taking anything away from Virat. He is a class act.Ok Sharjah was great but that was only a triangular trophy - were there many more?
I know conditions, fielding restrictions and generally poor bowling quality favours batsmen today but the stats are overwhelmingly in Kohli's favour:
Sachin played for 6 years(?) with Manjrekar. He deserves a Nobel Prize just for that.
Dhoni's been a damn good Limited over batsman too. Especially in Odi's.
Remember people arguing for him over Sachin while back. But what keeps Sachin on top for me is the longevity simply.
Everyone can have 2/3 or even 4 years purple patch but Sachin kept it going for 20 years.
In tests though none of the current lot are coming even close yet.
Remember people arguing for him over Sachin while back. But what keeps Sachin on top for me is the longevity simply.
Everyone can have 2/3 or even 4 years purple patch but Sachin kept it going for 20 years.
In tests though none of the current lot are coming even close yet.
It's not longevity per se. Sachin was the best batsman all those years. To draw a parallel, Giggsy is revered for his longevity and while a top player, he was never the best at the club, let alone a bigger field. Sachin is different. Longevity + being the best.
I love Kohli, his attitude, his performance last, the lot. But, he hasn't been up against the quality Sachin had. It isn't his fault either, you beat what's in front of you and there's no player better than him to bring a match home.
I love Kohli, his attitude, his performance last, the lot. But, he hasn't been up against the quality Sachin had. It isn't his fault either, you beat what's in front of you and there's no player better than him to bring a match home.
Just watch this.
The backstory about the hundred against Kenya. Jesus.
The backstory about the hundred against Kenya. Jesus.
Last edited:
And that is not to argue in his corner in this comparison, I'm just fortunate that I've witnessed two such giants of the game play for my country.
He's(Kohli) a better limited over player(than Tendulkar), and I suspect he'll become a better test player and all. He's unflappable.
Ok Sharjah was great but that was only a triangular trophy - were there many more?
I know conditions, fielding restrictions and generally poor bowling quality favours batsmen today but the stats are overwhelmingly in Kohli's favour:
So that would mean that he's alaso better than Sir Viv too then?
Technology, ground condition, the lack of quality bowlers, mostly favors batsmen in this era,Kohli is certainly best batsmen of this generation and can't be compared with the past especially with Viv of late 70's and 80's or Sachin/Bevan in 90's.
Batsmen's/Bowler of today's generation are gifted with technology assisted video review of any batsmen or the bowler and can spot the weakness,which is massive advantage,where as players of 80' or 90's,(at least until late 90's) didn't have these.
Batsmen's/Bowler of today's generation are gifted with technology assisted video review of any batsmen or the bowler and can spot the weakness,which is massive advantage,where as players of 80' or 90's,(at least until late 90's) didn't have these.
Not in my opinion. He would need to average close to 60 overall and 45+ in each country to even be in consideration. Pitches are generally flatter and bowlers are worse these days. A nothing player like Adam Voges with a first class average of below 50 is suddenly averaging 100 in tests, says it all.
Every team used to have a couple of bowlers with an X factor. How many bowlers are capable of doing stuff like this these days? Steyn? Starc? There aren't that many.
I think the next England tour will define Kohli as a test player. Last time he lacked technique, concentration and generally looked like a lamb to a slaughter. Another failure there and there is no chance of him being better than Sachin in tests.
From what I've seen Rahane seems more composed and at ease than Kohli.
India have changed their stance on that under his captaincy, if the South Africa series is anything to go by. He genuinely seems to care more about winning than personal records/milestones and if they continue playing home series on those tracks, I doubt any Indian batsman will be averaging above 50.
A couple of those pitches weren't suited for test cricket at all. It was turning square with uneven bounce from the first morning and got worse and worse by the day. I doubt India will be allowed to prepare pitches that bad again.
Technology goes both ways. While batsman can analyze bowlers more closely, you also have someone like Raina who's weakness has been ruthlessly exposed. In addition with the use of Hawkeye, DRS etc... umpires are far more willing to give close LBW's out than they were before even without the use of technology. If anything technology is slightly skewed towards the bowlers.
Pitches is a tougher one to quantify. Using India as an example, we've prepared far tougher pitches in the last 5 years than we did in the 10 before that with Dhoni/Kohli's insistence on preparing square turners from day 1 in almost every series. The last time we went to England we were greeted with a couple of pitches that swung all over the place.
What people don't want to admit though and something which is blatantly obvious is that batsman of today are on the whole a hell of a lot better at hitting the ball than in the 90's or early 2000's. It's not even particularly close. This is why even genuine world class bowlers like Steyn can often get hit all over the place. The days where you can jog up and bowl good length balls with the new ball are long gone.
Pitches is a tougher one to quantify. Using India as an example, we've prepared far tougher pitches in the last 5 years than we did in the 10 before that with Dhoni/Kohli's insistence on preparing square turners from day 1 in almost every series. The last time we went to England we were greeted with a couple of pitches that swung all over the place.
What people don't want to admit though and something which is blatantly obvious is that batsman of today are on the whole a hell of a lot better at hitting the ball than in the 90's or early 2000's. It's not even particularly close. This is why even genuine world class bowlers like Steyn can often get hit all over the place. The days where you can jog up and bowl good length balls with the new ball are long gone.
Maybe. I don't think so, though.
For me, Kohli failed a huge test when he came here (England) in 2014. Anderson completely and utterly bamboozled him over 5 test matches and that, for me, has left a huge question mark over his ability in test cricket. Whereas, Tendulkar showed his brilliance as a kid on tours to Australia and England back in the early nineties.
In limited overs, I think he's surpassed Tendulkar already. He became Mr Dependable as a 22/23 year old and has already played some incredible knocks - 183 against Pakistan, 100 off 50 against Aus and that 139 against SL.
I don't think so..greatness is a combination of technique, style and match-winning ability - and Sir Viv, like Kohli, had plenty of each.
I'm less sure about Sachin's match-winning ability. With him, I'd get more excited but I also felt he was more obsessed with individual records. With Kohli, I get the sense of Aussie-like ruthlessness and assurance of a victory - and that should matter more. Cricket is a team sport after all.
As good as Kohli is he has Dhoni like yesterday on the other end. You can't win a game from one end. Bah. It's silly anyway.
To be fair, most batsmen struggle against the moving ball thesedays due to ubiquitous flat pitches.
Agreed. In what was a poor series for us, I thought Kohli was outshone by Rahane who played a masterclass on a green pitch at Lords.
As of now, I'm a bit wary of Kohli in test matches. I think he's got a lot of work to do till he gets to the level of Root, AB, Williamson and Smith i.e. he must perform in England.
I thought even Smith got shown up here, yeah he scored runs, but he exclusively scored them on the two pitches in the series that were as flat as a pancake. The second the ball did anything either in the air or off the pitch he looked all at sea.
It helps though that the English bowlers, particularly Broad and Anderson, seem to have a really good knack of bowling exceptionally well to the oppositions best batsman.
It helps though that the English bowlers, particularly Broad and Anderson, seem to have a really good knack of bowling exceptionally well to the oppositions best batsman.
To be fair, everyone bar Kohli struggled on the turners. New Zealand played 3 of their 4 matches on difficult wickets and their bowlers allowed them to walk through the group stage.
Pakistan struggled the only time they played on a difficult wicket. Same goes for the WI's and SA. No one really stood out apart from Charles (against SA?) and Kohli.
Tests: Williamson > Root > Smith > Kohli
ODIs: Kohli > Root > Williamson > Smith
T20s: Kohli > Root > Williamson > Smith
IMO. Not a big fan of Smith. He scores runs for sure but he is so ugly to watch at the crease.
Williamson's 7 from 69 in the innings McCullum got his fastest century was pure brilliance. Beautiful man.
ODIs: Kohli > Root > Williamson > Smith
T20s: Kohli > Root > Williamson > Smith
IMO. Not a big fan of Smith. He scores runs for sure but he is so ugly to watch at the crease.
Williamson's 7 from 69 in the innings McCullum got his fastest century was pure brilliance. Beautiful man.
Why on earth would England be the yardstick for anything? It's not like he's failed everywhere else.
Because most of his other tours have been on flat tracks. He did well in Auckland (flat track), Jo'Burg (flat track) and in Australia (concrete pitches).
Because that's the one place your temperament is constantly tested? In SA and Aus I feel you can get away with it if you are a decent player of the short ball but mastering the swinging Dukes ball on an overcast English morning requires different skill sets.
It's why I was just blown away by Dravid on the 2011 tour. He was sensational in that series, held India together on his own.
None of those were flat tracks. New Zealand pitches almost always swing even if not as much as English ones. In Aus and SA we had Steyn, Philander and Johnson steaming in and bang in form. One of his hundreds was on a fifth day worn down pitch chasing 300+ to win (Which he might have managed if not for the morons in the middle/lower order). Not to mention a lovely 75 in Perth where not a single Indian batsman got past 40. Hooking and pulling someone like Johnson is not all that easy. Just ask Root and the English team?
Not remotely true. In fact, it's the other way around. Historically, Indian batsmen have done well in England but struggled in Aus and SA. Playing the short ball is a very small piece of it. The pitches are a lot quicker than India (or England), the bounce is steep even for length balls and of course the ball still swings.
You require different skill sets to play in every condition. There's no reason why doing well in England should be some kind of holy grail on which a batsman should be judged. That's a load of bollocks.
Well thats the key thing isn't it. Historically.
Pitches in NZ and Aus are absolutely nothing like how they were 5-10 years ago. More often than not test matches there are played on absolute roads. Sure, you might get more bounce than elsewhere in Australia, and that can unsettle batsmen, but theres a reason that Australia are absolutely obsessed with 150+kph bowlers these days, theres simply nothing in the pitches for anyone else.
In NZ, what happened to Kohli in the first innings of the first test on a fresh pitch?
In SA, Cape Town test, a bit of rain to liven up the pitch, he was done for.
Personally, he has to perform in England before I rate him above the rest. I'm betting if you ask him, he'll say that, too. He has a weakness against the swinging ball, the likes of Vijay, Pujara and Rahane faired decent in the same series so it's not impossible.
The point was that the idea that playing swing is tougher than pace is clearly not true. We've still yet to win a series in Australia or SA. I think we've about one test win in SA or something like that.
The pitches are still much quicker and bouncier than anything found in India or England. That's still fairly evident or at least was the last time we played Tests there.
Not sure what's your point? What happened to Joe Root when he toured Australia? What happened to Williamson when he toured SA? Kohli's not the player not to have scored runs everywhere you know?
Not sure what Pujara is doing on that list. Aside from one good innings in SA he's been appalling outside of the subcontinent to the extent he was actually dropped from the team at one point.
FYI I think Root is better in Tests but the idea that you must do well in England to be considered great is not a good argument.
Who said he couldn't be considered a great if he doesn't do well in England? Spoony said that Kohli will end up a better test player than Sachin, to which the response was that Kohli has to up his game significantly in England if he wants to be compared with Sachin. I see nothing wrong with that.
My argument isn't "to be a top player, you must do good in England". It's for "Kohli to be considered a top player, he needs to perform in England (the only place he's failed in his career)".
Even so, to be considered among the greats, he has to perform everywhere.