30th ODI ton for Virat Kohli - Equals Ricky Ponting

[Proactive_]

That contradicts the very basis of your "Every Match is important in Tournaments" claim. Either they are important or they arent. There isnt a third option. If they are important then about time you deal with the reality. If not then well you still need to deal with reality ... question is which reality do you prefer ... tough choice )

And speaking of Tests ... dont you go around ridiculing performaces in Dead Rubber matches ? Cue - More digging incoming

"There isn't a third option" meaning you still can't understand the argument . Not surprised though. No wonder you keep coming back recycling the same points again and again after proven wrong every time.

 

[Tusker]

Kohli’s runs are useless unless he wins a series in SA/Aus.

Wins series in SA

Kohli’s runs are useless unless < insert new criteria >

Nah [MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION] has come up with a better criteria .... If Kohli does well then Match is deemed useless. its a watertight fool proof criteria. Cant go wrong with that

 

[BreadPakoda]

To prove he’s any good, Kohli has to score a triple century in a 16-team tournament final chasing 500+ on a rainy day in Antarctica with a penguin as his runner. The boundaries should be 100m+ and the his bat cannot be more than 2 cm thick.
By the way, in case DLS is implemented everything is null and void.

 

[Proactive_]

Same way as it is done in ODI Tounament matches requiring DLS intervention ... you tell me lol

DLS is concerned with rain, not the format lol. Rain can affect any cricket match, tournaments or not.

 

[Proactive_]

To prove he’s any good, Kohli has to score a triple century in a 16-team tournament final chasing 500+ on a rainy day in Antarctica with a penguin as his runner. The boundaries should be 100m+ and the his bat cannot be more than 2 cm thick.
By the way, in case DLS is implemented everything is null and void.

Or be better than having a 41 average in Tournaments against the Top 6 sides? Not that difficult, eh?

 

[BreadPakoda]

Or be better than having a 41 average in Tournaments against the Top 6 sides? Not that difficult, eh?

No. Has to fulfil the condition that I mentioned.

 

[Hitman]

Nah [MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION] has come up with a better criteria .... If Kohli does well then Match is deemed useless. its a watertight fool proof criteria. Cant go wrong with that

Why do you waste you time arguing with a complete and utter fool? Let let him live in his fairy land, he's a hopeless case. Regardless, do you think him babbling like a lunatic effects how the cricketing world perceives Kohli? How many current and former players have come out in the open acclaiming him to be the best batsman in the world? Whose opinion counts more, theirs or that of that lunatic? With no option left, he'll once again hide behind conspiracy theories. Just like he was babbling conspiracy theory how Kohli considers Sachin to be his hero to gain the approval of his fans

Choro yaar, always debate with a mentally and psychologically healthy person.

 

[Tusker]

DLS is concerned with rain, not the format lol. Rain can affect any cricket match, tournaments or not.

So then you dont consider DLS affected matches in Tournaments as a fair indicator of result ?

 

[Proactive_]

So then you dont consider DLS affected matches in Tournaments as a fair indicator of result ?

I just see the fact that rain can affect any match in any format. It's an unfortunate event which doesn't exclusively reflect on any format.

 

[Tusker]

I just see the fact that rain can affect any match in any format. It's an unfortunate event which doesn't exclusively reflect on any format.

IN CT. 2017 AND WC 1992, undeserving teams got ahead of other deserving teams because of washed out matches. Are you saying the same happened in the 2011 ind vs Eng bilateral series ? There was only one match completely washed out.

Something tells me that you will never give me a straight answer to that question.

 

[Tusker]

Those matches aren't struck from the records either like you're trying to do with Kohli's.

Huh ? Where did I filter out those matches ? I dare you to show me where I filtered out those matches.

You are the ONE AND ONLY undisputed filter king in this discussion. You are the ONLY person that I know who rates players based on StatsGuru filters that result in single digit sample sizes. Infact IIRC you once were ridiculing Kohli based on a 5-6 match sample set consisting of Matches in Eng and NZ ... how did that theory workout for SA recently?

So no non Ind-Pak player can ever be a top pressure player? Because this is what I'm getting from this embarrassing argument lol.

well you tell me if the Pressure in any other rivalry the same as in the Ind vs Pak matches ?

 

[Proactive_]

Huh ? Where did I filter out those matches ? I dare you to show me where I filtered out those matches.

You are the ONE AND ONLY undisputed filter king in this discussion. You are the ONLY person that I know who rates players based on StatsGuru filters that result in single digit sample sizes. Infact IIRC you once were ridiculing Kohli based on a 5-6 match sample set consisting of Matches in Eng and NZ ... how did that theory workout for SA recently?

You're obviously trying to filter out Kohli's records from the discussion based on your preferences, clear as day.

well you tell me if the Pressure in any other rivalry the same as in the Ind vs Pak matches ?

Alright then. Didn't know that Abhinav Bindra didn't face any pressure while winning the Gold medal for India since no one gives a crap about shooting in India lol. Gosh what a nonsensical argument to claim that a league match has more pressure than the SF and Finals of a WC.

 

[Tusker]

You're obviously trying to filter out Kohli's records from the discussion based on your preferences, clear as day.

Why dont you show me the Post where I posted stats that filtered out these matches (Where Kohli avg 17 vs SL ) that you consider as the Epitome of pressure ?

Let me say this upfront ... you will never ever do that ...

Alright then. Didn't know that Abhinav Bindra didn't face any pressure while winning the Gold medal for India since no one gives a crap about shooting in India lol. Gosh what a nonsensical argument to claim that a league match has more pressure than the SF and Finals of a WC.

So yeah this post here Sheds some light on why you are the way you are ... I realize it is very hard or you to accept this but the reality is such Ind vs Pak trumps everything else. It is the biggest event of a tournament. There is quite nothing like that in world sport. Deal with it.

 

[Proactive_]

Why dont you show me the Post where I posted stats that filtered out these matches (Where Kohli avg 17 vs SL ) that you consider as the Epitome of pressure ?

Let me say this upfront ... you will never ever do that ...

You're trying to discard those matches throughout this thread and beyond, genius. There are about 75 posts of you doing the same in this thread .

So yeah this post here Sheds some light on why you are the way you are ... I realize it is very hard or you to accept this but the reality is such Ind vs Pak trumps everything else. It is the biggest event of a tournament. There is quite nothing like that in world sport. Deal with it.

And can you shed some light on how Abhinav Bindra's Gold medal doesn't mean anything since according to your incredible logic he faced zero pressure to win that monumental Gold?

 

[Tusker]

You're trying to discard those matches throughout this thread and beyond, genius. There are about 75 posts of you doing the same in this thread .

Dude thats called showing you the stupidity of your meaningless number crunching exercise. You will have a case if I posted stats excluding those matches which I never did.

You started the filtering business. As I have said I dont go around rating players based on SG filters. You are the undisputed Fliter King )

But do not worry you have the right to be stupid ... afterall its a free world.

And can you shed some light on how Abhinav Bindra's Gold medal doesn't mean anything since according to your incredible logic he faced zero pressure to win that monumental Gold?

So the pressure is the same in these two comparisons you are making ? One a individual sport and the other a team sport involving the most bitter and intense rivalries in sport that causes people to end lives if the result doesnt work out as hoped ? Talk about delusions of epic proportions

 

[Proactive_]

Dude thats called showing you the stupidity of your meaningless number crunching exercise. You will have a case if I posted stats excluding those matches which I never did.

You started the filtering business. As I have said I dont go around rating players based on SG filters. You are the undisputed Fliter King )

But do not worry you have the right to be stupid ... afterall its a free world.

So you basically agree that you indeed are neglecting all filters that make Kohli look bad in this thread? Thanks for proving my point.

So the pressure is the same in these two comparisons you are making ? One a individual sport and the other a team sport involving the most bitter and intense rivalries in sport that causes people to end lives if the result doesnt work out as hoped ? Talk about delusions of epic proportions

So you don't rate Bindra's achievement since he hardly faced any pressure even though he competed at the highest possible level winning the Gold for his country? Is it what you're saying?

 

[Tusker]

So you basically agree that you indeed are neglecting all filters that make Kohli look bad in this thread? Thanks for proving my point.

Let me get this .... So if I post a filtered stat that makes any of the great players look bad you will just accept it without questioning no matter how idiotic it is and whether it makes sense or not ? )

Anyhow FWIW the few stats that I posted for Kohli included all those matches.

So you don't rate Bindra's achievement since he hardly faced any pressure even though he competed at the highest possible level winning the Gold for his country? Is it what you're saying?

On a pressure level there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever ... Even the warmup match in the 2009 T20 Worldcup between Ind and Pakistan had more pressure than anything Bindra has ever encountered. It is the reality of situation. Not fair but it is what it is. In India Nobody gives a flying ants behind about any sport other than Cricket.

Guess who is trying to change that situation ? Virat Kohli. Ohh the cruel Irony

 

[Proactive_]

Let me get this .... So if I post a filtered stat that makes any of the great players look bad you will just accept it without questioning no matter how idiotic it is and whether it makes sense or not ? )

Anyhow FWIW the few stats that I posted for Kohli included all those matches.

Yeah,right. I'll just ignore the 80 posts of you trying to ignore and neglect the stats posted in the thread to the best fo your ability.

On a pressure level there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever ... Even the warmup match in the 2009 T20 Worldcup between Ind and Pakistan had more pressure than anything Bindra has ever encountered. It is the reality of situation. Not fair but it is what it is. In India Nobody gives a flying ants behind about any sport other than Cricket.

Guess who is trying to change that situation ? Virat Kohli. Ohh the cruel Irony

Tell me how do you rate Bindra's achievement. Is it even on par with a random Indian ODI win against Zimbabwe or is it even beneath that in your eyes?

 

[Tusker]

Yeah,right. I'll just ignore the 80 posts of you trying to ignore and neglect the stats posted in the thread to the best fo your ability.

1. I did not make that initial filtered stat. You did. The stat in question is the one where Kohli avgs 17 against SL in some random long forgotten Tri-Series.
2. You claimed that it is proof that Virat Kohli fails under pressure. You also said that those were the matches that had the highest pressure lol.
3. I respond by saying that Kohli has done well in much much bigger matches and that nobody really cares about those ODIs (Other than you )

At this point either you refute my point with facts that make cricketing sense or concede. Just because you consider these 5 matches as of being utmost importance doesnt make it a fact. You need to substantiate that with proper cricketing reasons that make sense. Otherwise it is as idiotic as claiming Kambli > Tendulkar based on their Test Averages.

So go ahead tell us how these matches had unbearable pressure that caused Kohli to fail.

Very certain that you are never ever ever going to come even remotely close to answering that simple question.

Tell me how do you rate Bindra's achievement. Is it even on par with a random Indian ODI win against Zimbabwe or is it even beneath that in your eyes?

It doesnt matter where I rate that achievement ... the important point is it is absolutely nowhere close to an India Pakistan match. Not even on the same planet.

 

[Proactive_]

1. I did not make that initial filtered stat. You did. The stat in question is the one where Kohli avgs 17 against SL in some random long forgotten Tri-Series.
2. You claimed that it is proof that Virat Kohli fails under pressure. You also said that those were the matches that had the highest pressure lol.
3. I respond by saying that Kohli has done well in much much bigger matches and that nobody really cares about those ODIs (Other than you )

At this point either you refute my point with facts that make cricketing sense or concede. Just because you consider these 5 matches as of being utmost importance doesnt make it a fact. You need to substantiate that with proper cricketing reasons that make sense. Otherwise it is as idiotic as claiming Kambli > Tendulkar based on their Test Averages.

So go ahead tell us how these matches had unbearable pressure that caused Kohli to fail.

Very certain that you are never ever ever going to come even remotely close to answering that simple question.

There's nothing else to see here. You've come up with such an outrageous standard of judgement that no non Indian/Pakistani player can ever be considered a great pressure player lol. That's how absurd that is. No point in me presenting anything after your post stating that a group stage game holds more pressure than the Finals of the WC

It doesnt matter where I rate that achievement ... the important point is it is absolutely nowhere close to an India Pakistan match. Not even on the same planet.

The important point is you telling us just how much you rate India's only individual Olympic Gold medal victory. Because you know that based on your embarrassing metrics for pressure.. it means close to nothing.

 

[Tusker]

There's nothing else to see here. You've come up with such an outrageous standard of judgement that no non Indian/Pakistani player can ever be considered a great pressure player lol. That's how absurd that is. No point in me presenting anything after your post stating that a group stage game holds more pressure than the Finals of the WC


The important point is you telling us just how much you rate India's only individual Olympic Gold medal victory. Because you know that based on your embarrassing metrics for pressure.. it means close to nothing.

I see you are going to tell us how Bhindra's achievement came under much higher pressure ... so much so that a vast majority of ordinary Indians completely missed it .... go on you can spin a yarn around that ... you are capable.

Living in a Parallel world by any chance ?

And as accurately predicted you expertly dodged the simple question. Twist turn dig shift ... lol

 

[Abdullah719]

Any more personal comments and/or insults will lead to bans. Is that clear?

 

[Tusker]

BUMP ...

@Practive_ Here is that legendary post (see below) where you used 4-5 matches vs SL in a tri-series that nobody even remembers anymore to prove "something" ( I put that in quotes because you never ever explained why that cute filter makes any sense and what is the conclusion you draw from it )

Also keep in mind that you have previously declared 95% of ODI's played today to be meaningless because we dont play much tri-series tournaments.


And here are the posts from the other thread:

Remind me when was the last time I did things like use like sample size of 7-8 odi's to decide someone was crap

I haven't done that either. Show me one instance where I called a player "crap" (your word btw, don't run away from it now) based on 7-8 matches.

Let's see you trying to back up your words (and failing) again. Show me one instance where I called a player "crap" based on 7-8 matches.

You presented a ODI stat that hand sample sizes in single digits ( with many matches against SL nd WI ) where Kohli's avg was in the 20s if not teens. Now unless you want to tell me how you dont consider that batting avg as crap you have no case here.

No, show me where I called a player crap based on 7-8 matches, which is your insinuation:

So you don't consider avg in the 20s as being crap ?

Did I ever say that the "player" is "crap" based on that average? Tell me for instance when did I say that Kohli is a "crap" batsman. Again it's your call.. not mine. Let's see you trying to back it up.

You dont have to ... its common knowledge in cricket that such a low avg gets a player bracketed in the "Crap player" category. Its ok if you werent aware of this (Wont surprise me lol)

---------

Dude, you basically admitted that stats don't mean anything to you lol.



Then some sense:

59.15 (against Top 6 Bilaterals)
↓
47.60 (against Top 6 Multi Nation tournament Priliminary)
↓
43.30 (In WC and Champions Trophy against Top 6)
↓
42.32 (In tournaments of 3 teams or more, barring WC/Champions Trophy)
↓
39.14 ( In WC/Champions Trophy Knockouts)
↓
29.16 ( In WC/Champions Trophy Knockouts without Bangladesh)
↓
17.75 (Average in multi team tournament knockouts except WC/Champions Trophy)

That's not just 5 matches, that's a significant number of matches when you add up all the parameters. What's common in all of them? Kohli's average falls drastically in every scenario, something you still haven't been able to explain. Side stepping and shooting off Prasad and Bracken's backs is ok, but what about explaining these drastic drops?

So according to you non knockout India vs Pak matches in WC, Asia cup, CT are less important than Matches against SL in some Tri-Series that nobody remembers ?

Why don't you explain how that makes sense and I will respond.

 

[Proactive_]

BUMP ...

@Practive_ Here is that legendary post (see below) where you used 4-5 matches vs SL in a tri-series that nobody even remembers anymore to prove "something" ( I put that in quotes because you never ever explained why that cute filter makes any sense and what is the conclusion you draw from it )

Also keep in mind that you have previously declared 95% of ODI's played today to be meaningless because we dont play much tri-series tournaments.


And here are the posts from the other thread:























---------

Already explained in this very thread:

41.85 vs an average of almost 60 in bilaterals. I hope you see the discrepancy there. 42 is a good average, I'm not doubting that, it's the drastic fall which has to be accounted for. Same is the case with players like Amla and De Villers who are derided for their performances when the stakes are higher.

I've never said that Kohli hasn't had his good performances, the point is that one or two good performances don't define a career, if it were so, then Inzamam should be counted as one of the greatest WC performers because he possibly played the greatest WC innings ever in WC SF 92.

Now tell me where I've called Kohli a "crap" batsman like you claimed. Put up or shut up time pal.

 

[Tusker]

Dude, you basically admitted that stats don't mean anything to you lol.



Then some sense:

59.15 (against Top 6 Bilaterals)
↓
47.60 (against Top 6 Multi Nation tournament Priliminary)
↓
43.30 (In WC and Champions Trophy against Top 6)
↓
42.32 (In tournaments of 3 teams or more, barring WC/Champions Trophy)
↓
39.14 ( In WC/Champions Trophy Knockouts)
↓
29.16 ( In WC/Champions Trophy Knockouts without Bangladesh)
↓
17.75 (Average in multi team tournament knockouts except WC/Champions Trophy)

That's not just 5 matches, that's a significant number of matches when you add up all the parameters. What's common in all of them? Kohli's average falls drastically in every scenario, something you still haven't been able to explain. Side stepping and shooting off Prasad and Bracken's backs is ok, but what about explaining these drastic drops?

Already explained in this very thread:



Now tell me where I've called Kohli a "crap" batsman like you claimed. Put up or shut up time pal.

That post you quoted has got nothing to do with the 17.75 stat that I am referring to ... which you have listed as the most important in the various categories you came up with.


Here are your categories:

59.15 (against Top 6 Bilaterals)
↓
47.60 (against Top 6 Multi Nation tournament Priliminary)
↓
43.30 (In WC and Champions Trophy against Top 6)
↓
42.32 (In tournaments of 3 teams or more, barring WC/Champions Trophy)
↓
39.14 ( In WC/Champions Trophy Knockouts)
↓
29.16 ( In WC/Champions Trophy Knockouts without Bangladesh)
↓
17.75 (Average in multi team tournament knockouts except WC/Champions Trophy)

 

[Proactive_]

That post you quoted has got nothing to do with the 17.75 stat that I am referring to ... which you have listed as the most important in the various categories you came up with.


Here are your categories:

59.15 (against Top 6 Bilaterals)
↓
47.60 (against Top 6 Multi Nation tournament Priliminary)
↓
43.30 (In WC and Champions Trophy against Top 6)
↓
42.32 (In tournaments of 3 teams or more, barring WC/Champions Trophy)
↓
39.14 ( In WC/Champions Trophy Knockouts)
↓
29.16 ( In WC/Champions Trophy Knockouts without Bangladesh)
↓
17.75 (Average in multi team tournament knockouts except WC/Champions Trophy)

Prove it.

 

[Tusker]

Prove it.

Well thats your own ordering genius ... its no secret that you hate bilaterals and love tr-series ... therefore the bilaterals are at the top and the tri-series is at the bottom. You tell me why I should look at it differently.

 

[Proactive_]

Well thats your own ordering genius ... its no secret that you hate bilaterals and love tr-series ... therefore the bilaterals are at the top and the tri-series is at the bottom. You tell me why I should look at it differently.

That's arranged in descending order genius. Tell me where have I've called it the most important criteria. You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

 

[Tusker]

That's arranged in descending order genius. Tell me where have I've called it the most important criteria. You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

I know they are in descending order genius ... but your larger point was how Kohli's avg dropped as things got difficult and it is no secret that you dont think highly of bilaterals ( infact you consider 95% of ODIs today to be meaningless and doing well in those means nothing to you ... talk about selective stats lol )

So why dont you tell us how those matches vs SL were so goddamn relevant in judging Kohli as good-avg-bad-crap-supercrap-whatever ? I have asked this many times in this thread and you have ran away each time without giving a proper answer.

 

[Proactive_]

I know they are in descending order genius ... but your larger point was how Kohli's avg dropped as things got difficult and it is no secret that you dont think highly of bilaterals ( infact you consider 95% of ODIs today to be meaningless and doing well in those means nothing to you ... talk about selective stats lol )

So why dont you tell us how those matches vs SL were so goddamn relevant in judging Kohli as good-avg-bad-crap-supercrap-whatever ? I have asked this many times in this thread and you have ran away each time without giving a proper answer.

I've already done that multiple times in this very thread. It's a statistic that can't be swept under the carpet only because you deem it to be worthless. Now, would you like to substantiate on your two brilliant accusations of:

1) Me calling Kohli a crap player.
2) Me calling that 17.75 figure to be the "most important" criteria in judging Kohli.

 

[Canford Cliffs]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION] don't mind me asking but what is the reason that you hate Kohli so much? I am sure you are an Indian looking at the way you defending Kapil Dev in another thread but what so wrong did Kohli do? He is a decent batsman, no?

 

[Proactive_]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION] don't mind me asking but what is the reason that you hate Kohli so much? I am sure you are an Indian looking at the way you defending Kapil Dev in another thread but what so wrong did Kohli do? He is a decent batsman, no?

Who says I hate him mate? I just offer constructive criticism

 

[Tusker]

I've already done that multiple times in this very thread. It's a statistic that can't be swept under the carpet only because you deem it to be worthless. Now, would you like to substantiate on your two brilliant accusations of:

1) Me calling Kohli a crap player.
2) Me calling that 17.75 figure to be the "most important" criteria in judging Kohli.

It remains a meaningless stat unless you provide detailed explanation of how that sample size and criteria are meaningful, and logical. So explain away(unlikely).

As I have said before 17.75 belongs to crap players so whether you have said the word crap or not does not matter. it is implicit.

It is most important based on the order in which you have listed those stats as your intent was to prove how kohli's avg gets worse as the situation gets tough and pressure increases. Remember you consider 95% of ODIs played today as meaningless as there not many multinationals tournaments. So considering all that it is clear that you rate that criteria as most important.

But If you don't consider it to be most important then you have a different problem wherein you will have to explain how Kohli avgs higher in other categories right there in that list despite higher pressure which then makes that ordering meaningless lol

So about time you start providing some straight answers to explain 17.75.

 

[Proactive_]

It remains a meaningless stat unless you provide detailed explanation of how that sample size and criteria are meaningful, and logical. So explain away(unlikely).

What's there to explain? That's his Average in multi team tournament knockouts except WC/Champions Trophy. That's all there's to it.

As I have said before 17.75 belongs to crap players so whether you have said the word crap or not does not matter. it is implicit.

Well,indeed he has crap stats in the Knockouts of multi team tournaments. There's no two ways about it. I've given my view already on his overall performances, a post which you (obviously) ignored:

41.85 vs an average of almost 60 in bilaterals. I hope you see the discrepancy there. 42 is a good average, I'm not doubting that, it's the drastic fall which has to be accounted for. Same is the case with players like Amla and De Villers who are derided for their performances when the stakes are higher.

I've never said that Kohli hasn't had his good performances, the point is that one or two good performances don't define a career, if it were so, then Inzamam should be counted as one of the greatest WC performers because he possibly played the greatest WC innings ever in WC SF 92.

It is most important based on the order in which you have listed those stats as your intent was to prove how kohli's avg gets worse as the situation gets tough and pressure increases. Remember you consider 95% of ODIs played today as meaningless as there not many multinationals tournaments. So considering all that it is clear that you rate that criteria as most important.

Again, It's in DESCENDING ORDER genius. That's all there's to it. Tell me from where did you get that it's the most important criteria? Something which you proclaimed with all the confidence in the world..

But If you don't consider it to be most important then you have a different problem wherein you will have to explain how Kohli avgs higher in other categories right there in that list despite higher pressure which then makes that ordering meaningless lol

So about time you start providing some straight answers to explain 17.75.

The larger point was regarding his drastic fall in averages from bilateral to multi team tournaments including WC and CT.

 

[Tusker]

Well,indeed he has crap stats in the Knockouts of multi team tournaments. There's no two ways about it. I've given my view already on his overall performances, a post which you (obviously) ignored:

41.85 vs an average of almost 60 in bilaterals. I hope you see the discrepancy there. 42 is a good average, I'm not doubting that, it's the drastic fall which has to be accounted for. Same is the case with players like Amla and De Villers who are derided for their performances when the stakes are higher.

I've never said that Kohli hasn't had his good performances, the point is that one or two good performances don't define a career, if it were so, then Inzamam should be counted as one of the greatest WC performers because he possibly played the greatest WC innings ever in WC SF 92.

And how is that explanation related to the 17.75 stat in any way ? But good we atleast agree that he has crap stats and since you dont rate 95% of ODIs its safe to deduce that you consider him a crap batsman.

What's there to explain? That's his Average in multi team tournament knockouts except WC/Champions Trophy. That's all there's to it.

Again, It's in DESCENDING ORDER genius. That's all there's to it. Tell me from where did you get that it's the most important criteria? Something which you proclaimed with all the confidence in the world..

The larger point was regarding his drastic fall in averages from bilateral to multi team tournaments including WC and CT.

And it ( the 17.75 stat in the larger context of the point you are trying to make) makes sense how considering that Kohli has a good Avg of 50 at s/r of 88 in Multi-team tournament Matches ? Infact he is one of only few players to avg > 50 over the last 15 yrs.

Don't these matches where he avged 17.75 fall under this bucket ? So explain away the reasons why you decided to neatly segregate them into their own category. What is the reasoning , logic and rationale ? Do you think there was more/less/equal pressure in those matches as compared to the rest of the matches in that bucket ? And most importantly what has it got to do with judging Kohli as a ODI batsman ?

Link : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...rnament_type=3;tournament_type=5;type=batting

 

[Tusker]

And how is that explanation related to the 17.75 stat in any way ? But good we atleast agree that he has crap stats and since you dont rate 95% of ODIs its safe to deduce that you consider him a crap batsman.




And it ( the 17.75 stat in the larger context of the point you are trying to make) makes sense how considering that Kohli has a good Avg of 50 at s/r of 88 in Multi-team tournament Matches ? Infact he is one of only few players to avg > 50 over the last 15 yrs.

Don't these matches where he avged 17.75 fall under this bucket ? So explain away the reasons why you decided to neatly segregate them into their own category. What is the reasoning , logic and rationale ? Do you think there was more/less/equal pressure in those matches as compared to the rest of the matches in that bucket ? And most importantly what has it got to do with judging Kohli as a ODI batsman ?

Link : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...rnament_type=3;tournament_type=5;type=batting

Just to Add to that here is what you said in Post#246 where you claimed :

When did I discount Kohli's innings in those matches? I said that the higher the stakes, the more his average falls, which is true.

So why don't you explain how the stakes are the highest in those 5 matches involving SL ?

Here is your full post from last year which you have been dodging answering for more than a year.

When did I discount Kohli's innings in those matches? I said that the higher the stakes, the more his average falls, which is true.

Let's go through this again:

Virat Kohli :

In bilaterals (against Top 6 teams):

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...plate=results;tournament_type=2;type=allround

Average: 59.15

In tournaments of 3 teams or more barring WC and Champions Trophy:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...9;trophy=199;trophy=2;trophy=52;type=allround

Average: 42.32

In WC and Champions Trophy:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ment_type=5;trophy=12;trophy=44;type=allround

Average: 43.30

In WC and Champions Trophy Knockouts:

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

Average (against Top 6 Teams): 29.16
Including Bangladesh: 39.14

Average in multi team tournament Knockouts except WC and Champions Trophy:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...9;trophy=199;trophy=2;trophy=52;type=allround

Average: 17.75

The facts are here. An average of almost 60 falls down to the 40s, 30s and the 20s as soon as he encounters any ODI cricket except the bilaterals. The correlation is startling yet very evident and irrefutable any way yyou look at it. The bowlers you are trying to slander may have performed less than the others in one or two of the aforementioned circumstances but still on the whole their performances are on the level that justifies their status as greats. For Kohli, it doesn't. There are sharp drops in his performance in just about every permutation of the non bilateral scenarios.

 

[Proactive_]

And how is that explanation related to the 17.75 stat in any way ? But good we atleast agree that he has crap stats and since you dont rate 95% of ODIs its safe to deduce that you consider him a crap batsman.

Of course he has crap stats in that particular setting. I've already told my views regarding his stats in Tournaments in the above quoted post.

And it ( the 17.75 stat in the larger context of the point you are trying to make) makes sense how considering that Kohli has a good Avg of 50 at s/r of 88 in Multi-team tournament Matches ? Infact he is one of only few players to avg > 50 over the last 15 yrs.

Don't these matches where he avged 17.75 fall under this bucket ? So explain away the reasons why you decided to neatly segregate them into their own category. What is the reasoning , logic and rationale ? Do you think there was more/less/equal pressure in those matches as compared to the rest of the matches in that bucket ? And most importantly what has it got to do with judging Kohli as a ODI batsman ?

Link : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...rnament_type=3;tournament_type=5;type=batting

LOL why shouldn't I mention those stats. The fact is that Kohli has played matches under that setting and has the stats that he has, whether you rate them or not. Also, his average further falls substantially in ICC Tournaments as well when you take up the minnows/weaker teams, as I pointed out in the previous posts.

 

[Proactive_]

Just to Add to that here is what you said in Post#246 where you claimed :



So why don't you explain how the stakes are the highest in those 5 matches involving SL ?

Here is your full post from last year which you have been dodging answering for more than a year.

Of course his averages falls from Bilateral to Tournaments.. and further in Tournament knockouts.. hence the statement - "I said that the higher the stakes, the more his average falls". He averages 22 in ODI Tournament finals falling from the 40s in ODI Tournaments against Top teams and from the 60s in the Bilaterals..

 

[Tusker]

Of course his averages falls from Bilateral to Tournaments.. and further in Tournament knockouts.. hence the statement - "I said that the higher the stakes, the more his average falls". He averages 22 in ODI Tournament finals falling from the 40s in ODI Tournaments against Top teams and from the 60s in the Bilaterals..

Higher the stakes the more his avg falls is what you said ... so go ahead and explain how the stat with the lowest avg 17.75 has the highest stake.

 

[jagatk]

Higher the stakes the more his avg falls is what you said ... so go ahead and explain how the stat with the lowest avg 17.75 has the highest stake.

The lowest average is also for 5 matches, imagine judging a player who has played 216 games on basis of 5, Hate is strong with this one.

 

[Proactive_]

Higher the stakes the more his avg falls is what you said ... so go ahead and explain how the stat with the lowest avg 17.75 has the highest stake.

That point was concerning Kohli going from Bilaterals to Multi Team Tournaments to Tournament Knockouts.. which is true btw. So, when are you now proving that I called Kohli a "crap" player?

 

[Tusker]

That point was concerning Kohli going from Bilaterals to Multi Team Tournaments to Tournament Knockouts.. which is true btw. So, when are you now proving that I called Kohli a "crap" player?

I already did that many times ...here is one more attempt : according to you the matches with the highest stake ( therefore implies importance ) played by Kohli are the ones against the 5 matches against the mighty SL where he avged a pathetic(beyond crap) 17.75 therefore it goes without saying that you consider him Crap even if you dont explicitly use the word crap. Further confirmed by your statement that you just do not rate performances in 95% of ODI's today.

Now go ahead and tell us why those 5 matches where he avgd 17.75 had the highest stake.

 

[Proactive_]

I already did that many times ...here is one more attempt : according to you the matches with the highest stake ( therefore implies importance ) played by Kohli are the ones against the 5 matches against the mighty SL where he avged a pathetic(beyond crap) 17.75 therefore it goes without saying that you consider him Crap even if you dont explicitly use the word crap. Further confirmed by your statement that you just do not rate performances in 95% of ODI's today.

Now go ahead and tell us why those 5 matches where he avgd 17.75 had the highest stake.

It seems like either there's a huge disconnect here or you're simply acting way too naive today. I've already told this multiple times to you that the "higher stakes" was with regards to his fall in averages from Bilaterals to Tournaments to Tournament Knockouts, something which I've substantiated.

These other averages are just arranged in descending order for the sake of just being ordered. Only you can come up with this conspiracy that I would consider Tri Series knockouts to be above WC knockouts . But it's not surprising really, you made two claims and can't move an inch to substantiate either one of them so you need to to repeat the same thing ad nauseam to deflect.

 

[JattMaula]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION]

Keep the good fight going!!!

People are sheep and its job of the enlightened to shine the light on evils of this world.

 

[Tusker]

It seems like either there's a huge disconnect here or you're simply acting way too naive today. I've already told this multiple times to you that the "higher stakes" was with regards to his fall in averages from Bilaterals to Tournaments to Tournament Knockouts, something which I've substantiated..

Thats not how the rest of the world determines which matches have higher stake lol

.

These other averages are just arranged in descending order for the sake of just being ordered. Only you can come up with this conspiracy that I would consider Tri Series knockouts to be above WC knockouts . But it's not surprising really, you made two claims and can't move an inch to substantiate either one of them so you need to to repeat the same thing ad nauseam to deflect.

your statement "higher the stakes, the more his average falls, which is true." clearly implies that the matches with lowest avg in that list represent matches with highest stake. If you are now saying that the 17.75 is an exception to that then that was not clearly mentioned in that post hence why all the twisting and turning by you because you obviously aint going to admit that you made a mistake.

So you want to admit that you made a mistake and we can move on by ordering those stats by importance rather than avg or you still want to indulge in some more twist turn deflect troll etc ?... upto you because I dont mind either way. lol

 

[Proactive_]

Thats not how the rest of the world determines which matches have higher stake lol

.

your statement "higher the stakes, the more his average falls, which is true." clearly implies that the matches with lowest avg in that list represent matches with highest stake. If you are now saying that the 17.75 is an exception to that then that was not clearly mentioned in that post hence why all the twisting and turning by you because you obviously aint going to admit that you made a mistake.

So you want to admit that you made a mistake and we can move on by ordering those stats by importance rather than avg or you still want to indulge in some more twist turn deflect troll etc ?... upto you because I dont mind either way. lol

You don't represent the world lol. So, if you were thinking that I consider Tri Series knockouts to be more important than WC knockouts then it's a flaw in your judgment, not mine. It's not my problem that you can't (don't want to i.e) comprehend stuff like it's supposed to be.

 

[Tusker]

You don't represent the world lol.

Where did I claim that I represent the world ?

So, if you were thinking that I consider Tri Series knockouts to be more important than WC knockouts then it's a flaw in your judgment, not mine. It's not my problem that you can't (don't want to i.e) comprehend stuff like it's supposed to be.

dude thats because you make hilarious claims all the time on a regular basis therefore I have no choice but to take your words as-is and then undertake a painful exercise to knock sense in you and this is just one of the many such episodes. ( another great examplel of your hilarious claim: 95% of ODIs today are meaningless and even if Kohli avg 99 in those it means nothing according to you ) .

So you want to re-list those stats in the order of Importance or you want to indulge in some more drama and nautanki ?

 

[Proactive_]

Where did I claim that I represent the world ?



dude thats because you make hilarious claims all the time on a regular basis therefore I have no choice but to take your words as-is and then undertake a painful exercise to knock sense in you and this is just one of the many such episodes. ( another great examplel of your hilarious claim: 95% of ODIs today are meaningless and even if Kohli avg 99 in those it means nothing according to you ) .

So you want to re-list those stats in the order of Importance or you want to indulge in some more drama and nautanki ?

Why would I relist them? They are in DESCENDING order, the motive was never to imply some sort of relative importance lol, how else do I have to tell you this? The "stakes" point was regarding his fall from Bilterals to Tournaments to Tournament Knockouts (must be the 100th time I'm telling you this). You can keep exercising your right to stay clueless btw..

 

[Tusker]

Why would I relist them? They are in DESCENDING order, the motive was never to imply some sort of relative importance lol,

Importance is implied and set by your stmt you made right at the begining of that post where you said " higher the stake more the avg falls"

how else do I have to tell you this? The "stakes" point was regarding his fall from Bilterals to Tournaments to Tournament Knockouts (must be the 100th time I'm telling you this). You can keep exercising your right to stay clueless btw..

If they are not listed based on importance then thats a totally meaningless list given that your main point is Kohli avg falls as the stake increases. Tomorrow there is nothing stopping you from claiming that other stats in that list also are not listed in order of importance.

So either explicitly re-list in order of importance or continue the drama.

 

[Proactive_]

Importance is implied and set by your stmt you made right at the begining of that post where you said " higher the stake more the avg falls"

Dude this is unreal now

I've already EXPLAINED this to you multiple times what I meant by "stakes". I'd be mighty impressed if you know what I meant better than I do. .

Goddamnit.

If they are not listed based on importance then thats a totally meaningless list given that your main point is Kohli avg falls as the stake increases. Tomorrow there is nothing stopping you from claiming that other stats in that list also are not listed in order of importance.

So either explicitly re-list in order of importance or continue the drama.

That's not meaningless because that's supposed to be in descending order, that's all there's to it. Is it enough now, Mr. FBI?

 

[Tusker]

Dude this is unreal now

I've already EXPLAINED this to you multiple times what I meant by "stakes". I'd be mighty impressed if you know what I meant better than I do. .

Goddamnit.





That's not meaningless because that's supposed to be in descending order, that's all there's to it. Is it enough now, Mr. FBI?

And that descending order has got what to do with your main Point: "Kohli's avg falls as the stakes increase"

clearly that stmt ("Kohli's avg falls as the stakes increase") is not true always as he has much better avgs in higher stakes categories if you are admitting that the list is not ordered by importance. So either way you are stuck.

So if you dont want to relist then explain EXACTLY what inference you are drawing from that stat given that you are very particular about ordering it by Avgs ?

 

[Proactive_]

And that descending order has got what to do with your main Point: "Kohli's avg falls as the stakes increase"

clearly that stmt ("Kohli's avg falls as the stakes increase") is not true always as he has much better avgs in higher stakes categories if you are admitting that the list is not ordered by importance. So either way you are stuck.

So if you dont want to relist then explain EXACTLY what inference you are drawing from that stat given that you are very particular about ordering it by Avgs ?

Already cleared my stand in this very thread.

They are all counted in the stats that I have posted. Of course they matter, when have you seen me discarding them? I've also said that I rate ODI matches in the following hierarchy:

WCs > CTs > Multi Team ODI Tournaments > Bilaterals. This is some of the stuff that I've been posting for ages now. Now, care to finally explain the drastic drops in averages?

Checkmate. Thanks for coming pal.

 

[Tusker]

Already cleared my stand in this very thread.



Checkmate. Thanks for coming pal.

That tells us nothing about why you ordered the stat in descending order of avgs instead of stakes.


Also here are the 5 categories you listed in Post# 246. These are quite different from the hierarchy you quoted: "WCs > CTs > Multi Team ODI Tournaments > Bilaterals."

and there is this hiereachy:

Bilaterals (top 6 teams)
In tournaments of 3 teams or more barring WC and Champions Trophy:
In WC and Champions Trophy:
In WC and Champions Trophy Knockouts:
Average in multi team tournament Knockouts except WC and Champions Trophy:

So which of the two hierarchies is your final choice of hierarchy? (and dont forget to order it by importance )

 

[Tusker]

Already cleared my stand in this very thread.

Checkmate. Thanks for coming pal.

Not so fast .... see my response in Post# 331 to which you never provided a clear straightforward clarification. Checkmate back. lol

In any case ... that post tells us nothing about why you ordered the stat (in Post#246) in descending order of avgs instead of stakes when your criteria is to highlight performance under higher stakes.


Also here are the 5 categories you listed in Post# 246.

1. Bilaterals (top 6 teams)
2. In tournaments of 3 teams or more barring WC and Champions Trophy:
3. In WC and Champions Trophy:
4. In WC and Champions Trophy Knockouts:
5. Average in multi team tournament Knockouts except WC and Champions Trophy:

These are quite different from the hierarchy you quoted in Post#532 which has only 4 categories : "WCs > CTs > Multi Team ODI Tournaments > Bilaterals."


So which of the above two hierarchies is your final choice of hierarchy? (and don't forget to EXPLICITLY order it by importance and not by anything else )

 

[Tusker]

LOL why shouldn't I mention those stats. The fact is that Kohli has played matches under that setting and has the stats that he has, whether you rate them or not.

Because of these reasons:

1. Sample Size of 5 matches against SL out of which he was 2 Not out in one match lol
2. There are many many more matches that fall under a higher category ( WC + CT ) where he avgs 55 which is far more than 17.75 and over much larger sample size. Therefore it totally supersedes your 17.75 stat making it completely meaningless and blowing a big hole in your theory that as Pressure Increases Kohli's performance decreases.


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

This is like saying in Test cricket Kohli Avgs 58 in Aus but since he avgs only 14 in Bangladesh Iam going to call him crap/useless/whatever labeling you want to use.

 

[pratiktc]

This thread should die a shameful death. If anyone is arguing that a batsman with 38 ODI tons is not a certified great, then they should get their heads examined.

 

[Ab Fan]

These Kohli threads have become so boring, such pointless discussion which nobody really cares at all.

 

[Proactive_]

Because of these reasons:

1. Sample Size of 5 matches against SL out of which he was 2 Not out in one match lol
2. There are many many more matches that fall under a higher category ( WC + CT ) where he avgs 55 which is far more than 17.75 and over much larger sample size. Therefore it totally supersedes your 17.75 stat making it completely meaningless and blowing a big hole in your theory that as Pressure Increases Kohli's performance decreases.


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

This is like saying in Test cricket Kohli Avgs 58 in Aus but since he avgs only 14 in Bangladesh Iam going to call him crap/useless/whatever labeling you want to use.

Kohli's performances decreases as the "stakes" increased is evidenced by his drastic falls from the 60s in bilaterals to 40s against Top opposition in Tournaments to the 20s in Tournament Finals. If you STILL can't get this simple concept then I guess it's a pointless debate.

Also, you don't start removing matches based on your wishes lol. Kohli averages 38 in the 14 matches he has played in Bangladesh, SL and WI. These are cold, hard facts. Garry Sobers would average 62+ if you remove his record against NZ, do you see anyone doing that?

 

[Proactive_]

Not so fast .... see my response in Post# 331 to which you never provided a clear straightforward clarification. Checkmate back. lol

In any case ... that post tells us nothing about why you ordered the stat (in Post#246) in descending order of avgs instead of stakes when your criteria is to highlight performance under higher stakes.


Also here are the 5 categories you listed in Post# 246.

1. Bilaterals (top 6 teams)
2. In tournaments of 3 teams or more barring WC and Champions Trophy:
3. In WC and Champions Trophy:
4. In WC and Champions Trophy Knockouts:
5. Average in multi team tournament Knockouts except WC and Champions Trophy:

These are quite different from the hierarchy you quoted in Post#532 which has only 4 categories : "WCs > CTs > Multi Team ODI Tournaments > Bilaterals."


So which of the above two hierarchies is your final choice of hierarchy? (and don't forget to EXPLICITLY order it by importance and not by anything else )

Obviously then you didn't check out Post 332

I never said 17.75 figure meant more to me than other statistics. I just said that his averages fall from almost 60 in bilaterals to the 40s, 30s, 20s and even 10s while applying these parameters which is an undisputed fact. I've already mentioned the hierarchy so I don't need to address your second question. BTW, can you now please finally tell me what you think about Kohli's averages dropping so drastically in just about everything non bilateral. You've used practically every trick in the book up to this point to dodge this question. Can we finally move ahead in the discussion lol?

The funny thing is, it's the same story now.. all these months later. Why don't you just explain these drops in averages which are incredibly substantial for someone who is being hailed as the GOAT ODI player? Why do his averages fall from the 60s to 40s in ODI Tournaments against Top opposition to the 20s in Tournament Finals? It's alright.. you can say you have no explanation and we can move on with our lives, or you can stay stubborn and keep trying to deflect the issue to avoid answering that question

 

[Tusker]

Kohli's performances decreases as the "stakes" increased is evidenced by his drastic falls from the 60s in bilaterals to 40s against Top opposition in Tournaments to the 20s in Tournament Finals. If you STILL can't get this simple concept then I guess it's a pointless debate.

Also, you don't start removing matches based on your wishes lol. Kohli averages 38 in the 14 matches he has played in Bangladesh, SL and WI. These are cold, hard facts. Garry Sobers would average 62+ if you remove his record against NZ, do you see anyone doing that?

You want to show me where me or anyone removed stats?

And you are saying the WC+CT matches have lesser pressure than the 5 matches where he avgs 17.75 ?

 

[Proactive_]

You want to show me where me or anyone removed stats?

And you are saying the WC+CT matches have lesser pressure than the 5 matches where he avgs 17.75 ?

You're trying to remove the 17.75 figure for the past 50 posts, genius. I didn't even call it the most important stat or anything. If it were up to you, you'd remove every stat in which Kohli looks bad. Incredible tactics.. can't go wrong with that.

 

[Tusker]

Kohli's performances decreases as the "stakes" increased is evidenced by his drastic falls from the 60s in bilaterals to 40s against Top opposition in Tournaments to the 20s in Tournament Finals. If you STILL can't get this simple concept then I guess it's a pointless debate.

BTW anytime you want to tell us how those 5 matches had any more pressure compared to say the WC matches vs Pak in ASIA Cup, WC, CT, and WT20 ?

I will tell you right now you will never answer that question directly. Start twisting turning shifting goal post the same old nautanki.

So yeah to answer your question : That 17.75 stat is the most meaningless there ever was. Nobody even friggin remembers those matches. You dont too. Thats all there is to say about that stat.

Also, you don't start removing matches based on your wishes lol. Kohli averages 38 in the 14 matches he has played in Bangladesh, SL and WI. These are cold, hard facts. Garry Sobers would average 62+ if you remove his record against NZ, do you see anyone doing that?

Dude do you realize that you are the one that tries to remove a whoppng 95% of ODI's ? You should be the last person to lecture about removing stats. lol

And nobody thinks less about Sobers even if he sucked against NZ.

 

[ARK Rafay]

He's on verge of becoming the greatest ODI batsman ever!

 

[Tusker]

You're trying to remove the 17.75 figure for the past 50 posts, genius. I didn't even call it the most important stat or anything. If it were up to you, you'd remove every stat in which Kohli looks bad. Incredible tactics.. can't go wrong with that.

Genius I never removed those stats. Show me a post where I removed that stat. Any filtered stat that I have posted here are to humor your idiotic posts where your only agenda is to find stats where Kohli avgs less. My way of rating a player is very different from yours. So dont shove your filtering business on me because Iam humoring you.

 

[Tusker]

You're trying to remove the 17.75 figure for the past 50 posts, genius. I didn't even call it the most important stat or anything. If it were up to you, you'd remove every stat in which Kohli looks bad. Incredible tactics.. can't go wrong with that.

So are you going to provide a clear answer as to how you consider the WC+CT matches have lesser pressure than the 5 matches where he averages 17.75 ? I have been trying for months to get a straightforward answer to that simple question and then you have the cheek to accuse me that Iam evading your questions. lol

 

[Tusker]

I didn't even call it the most important stat or anything..

and BTW If it isnt the most important stat or anything then what is your point here and how does it relate to pressure/stake ? Arent you actually conceding that you dont have a case here ? Why ? because there are most certainly many other matches where Kohli has avged much more so you just cannot use that stat any which way to question Kohli's abilities under pressure situations ( Unless you want to explain how those 5 matches had more pressure than say WC, CT, ASIA Cup , WT20 etc ). There is no pattern here that you can use to conclude that Kohli's performance suffers in high pressure situations.

 

[Proactive_]

BTW anytime you want to tell us how those 5 matches had any more pressure compared to say the WC matches vs Pak in ASIA Cup, WC, CT, and WT20 ?

I will tell you right now you will never answer that question directly. Start twisting turning shifting goal post the same old nautanki.

So yeah to answer your question : That 17.75 stat is the most meaningless there ever was. Nobody even friggin remembers those matches. You dont too. Thats all there is to say about that stat.



Dude do you realize that you are the one that tries to remove a whoppng 95% of ODI's ? You should be the last person to lecture about removing stats. lol

And nobody thinks less about Sobers even if he sucked against NZ.

Tell me where I said that they have more pressure than Asia Cup games? I already explained the hierarchy to you and the Asia Cup matches come under the Multi Team Tournaments. There is no contradiction here, no matter how many times you try to paint it as such.

Also, nobody is disregarding Sobers' stats vs New Zealand either, like you're doing with Kohli's.

 

[Proactive_]

Genius I never removed those stats. Show me a post where I removed that stat. Any filtered stat that I have posted here are to humor your idiotic posts where your only agenda is to find stats where Kohli avgs less. My way of rating a player is very different from yours. So dont shove your filtering business on me because Iam humoring you.

So, Kohli's averages falling from 60s to 40 in Tournaments against top oppositions to the 20s (!) in Tournament Finals isn't substantial enough evidence for you?

STILL, you haven't explained those drops btw.

 

[Proactive_]

So are you going to provide a clear answer as to how you consider the WC+CT matches have lesser pressure than the 5 matches where he averages 17.75 ? I have been trying for months to get a straightforward answer to that simple question and then you have the cheek to accuse me that Iam evading your questions. lol

You obviously aren't reading things well these days, since I already explained the hierarchy multiple times to you in this very thread. Your stubbornness is either making you blind or ignorant. You can pick your poison here..

 

[Proactive_]

and BTW If it isnt the most important stat or anything then what is your point here and how does it relate to pressure/stake ? Arent you actually conceding that you dont have a case here ? Why ? because there are most certainly many other matches where Kohli has avged much more so you just cannot use that stat any which way to question Kohli's abilities under pressure situations ( Unless you want to explain how those 5 matches had more pressure than say WC, CT, ASIA Cup , WT20 etc ). There is no pattern here that you can use to conclude that Kohli's performance suffers in high pressure situations.

Again, I won't disregard that stat only because YOU deem it to be worthless. Kohli has played matches in that scenario and has the record which he does. That's all there's to it. I never asked you to rate it as the "most important" critieria anyway, so I don't know why you're going mad for the past 50 posts over it lol.

 

[Hasan2K8]

It would be nice to see by countries how many he scored against who..

 

[KP From India]

But what was the importance of those 5 matches in which VK averaged 17?

 

[Tusker]

Again, I won't disregard that stat only because YOU deem it to be worthless. Kohli has played matches in that scenario and has the record which he does. That's all there's to it. I never asked you to rate it as the "most important" critieria anyway, so I don't know why you're going mad for the past 50 posts over it lol.

Well if it isn't worthless then explain how it means anything in context of batting under pressure . Keep in mind that there are other matches where pressure is much higher and yet Kohli has a much better avg than 17.75. So for the millionth time what inference are you drawing from those 5 matches?

And btw you did say that higher the pressure more his avg falls and 17.75 is the lowest avg in that list therefore it implies that according to you these 5 matches had the highest pressure.

 

[Proactive_]

Well if it isn't worthless then explain how it means anything in context of batting under pressure . Keep in mind that there are other matches where pressure is much higher and yet Kohli has a much better avg than 17.75. So for the millionth time what inference are you drawing from those 5 matches?

And btw you did say that higher the pressure more his avg falls and 17.75 is the lowest avg in that list therefore it implies that according to you these 5 matches had the highest pressure.

The stakes point was first made in this post:

Want to know the reality of Virat Kohli the batsman? Let's go:

Virat Kohli's ODI record in series/tournaments featuring 3 teams or more (amongst Top 7 teams)

Average already down to 42.

Virat Kohli's ODI record in WC and CT QFs/ SFs and Finals: (Amongst the Top 7 teams ):

Average :29

Average against Australia in bilaterals: 80
Average against Australia in Tournaments: 17

Incredible, higher the stakes, harder the golden boy chokes.

Illustrating his fall in averages from bilaterals to Multi Team Tournaments to Knockouts. It's funny because you've STILL not explained Kohli's fall in averages. You obviously never will.

 

[Tusker]

Tell me where I said that they have more pressure than Asia Cup games? I already explained the hierarchy to you and the Asia Cup matches come under the Multi Team Tournaments. There is no contradiction here, no matter how many times you try to paint it as such.

Genius there is significantly more pressure( than the 17.75 )in matches vs Pak especially if it is a WC. Doesn't matter if it's a knockout or not. So if your point is about matches with pressure then those 17.75 matches dont belong in that discussion at all. Get it? ( and this doesn't mean Iam a king you to remove those matches lol )

Also, nobody is disregarding Sobers' stats vs New Zealand either, like you're doing with Kohli's.

So Have you seen anyone criticizing Sobers based on his NZ failure?

 

[Proactive_]

Genius there is significantly more pressure( than the 17.75 )in matches vs Pak especially if it is a WC. Doesn't matter if it's a knockout or not. So if your point is about matches with pressure then those 17.75 matches dont belong in that discussion at all. Get it? ( and this doesn't mean Iam a king you to remove those matches lol )

We've had this talk before and I already told you why it's a nonsensical proposition because according to that theory an Ind-Pak bilateral has more pressure than a WC Final. If these are the standards you want to set while judging players then we might just be rating India and Pak players in the GOAT lists

So Have you seen anyone criticizing Sobers based on his NZ failure?

And have you ever seen anyone mentioning Sobers' career average as 62? Of course not.

 

[Tusker]

The stakes point was first made in this post:



Illustrating his fall in averages from bilaterals to Multi Team Tournaments to Knockouts. It's funny because you've STILL not explained Kohli's fall in averages. You obviously never will.

Again cherry picking exercise because you cannot remove BD and WI. Heck we almost lost to Afg in Asia cup 3 months ago. Why dont you tell us why there was no pressure in that match? We have also similarly lost to BD in WC but that match according to your cute filter was not a high pressure match.

And this was explained to you before.

 

[Tusker]

We've had this talk before and I already told you why it's a nonsensical proposition because according to that theory an Ind-Pak bilateral has more pressure than a WC Final. If these are the standards you want to set while judging players then we might just be rating India and Pak players in the GOAT lists

Read my post closely I did not say bilaterals but certainly WC matches.

And have you ever seen anyone mentioning Sobers' career average as 62? Of course not.

And who has done such a thing in Kohli's case? Can you quote that post?

 

[Proactive_]

Again cherry picking exercise because you cannot remove BD and WI. Heck we almost lost to Afg in Asia cup 3 months ago. Why dont you tell us why there was no pressure in that match? We have also similarly lost to BD in WC but that match according to your cute filter was not a high pressure match.

And this was explained to you before.

It's because (and this might shock you), playing against teams having better cricket players is actually harder. Anomalies are there in everything in life, that's not the norm. You sound like that dude I encountered in the Kapil Dev thread lecturing me on how Afridi's bowling record against HK and PNG is as important as his record against other teams and hence he is a great all rounder .

 

[Proactive_]

Read my post closely I did not say bilaterals but certainly WC matches.

So where do Ind-Pak bilateral matches come in the ladder then as per your esteemed understanding? Suddenly an Ind-Afg WC game has more pressure than an Ind-Pak bilateral? You better pick a side and stick to it pal because you're dismantling your own argument here.

And who has done such a thing in Kohli's case? Can you quote that post?

You're doing it in this entire thread trying to discredit that 17.75 figure as if it means nothing