30th ODI ton for Virat Kohli - Equals Ricky Ponting

[Proactive_]

huh ? what do you mean "45 is alright" ? Shouldn't it be just 5 ODI's ? Or perhaps different yardsticks for different cricketers ?

And no ... nobody who knows his cricket will pick Bracken over Waqar. This is the point which you will never get. Same thing for Kohli over most modern day greats when it comes to chasing.



This is where having an opinion and backing it up with facts becomes hard. There is no way you can prove your theories about Tri-Series being soo competitive. Nobody really misses those meaningless trophies such as the great Khaleej Times trophy. Did you even know about that trophy and when was the last time it was played and who won it ? Nobody gives a rats behind. Same thing for bilaterals therefore they are all the same for most part.

The only tournaments that matter are the WC and ICC events because of the history and prestige. Even the CT was almost dead ... had India not won it in 2013 it would have certainly been discontinued.

45 is alright in the sense that it's a decent sample true, but as I said, it's not decent enough when you're comparing it with performers who have a sample size of 200+ and comparable records. It's not like Waqar has an average of 30 over 230 games, he has an average of 22, better than his career average. That's like saying a batsman with 3000 runs at 50 is better than someone with 9000 at 47.

People won't put Bracken over Waqar becuase Waqar is a very well accomplished test bowler as well which weighs heavily in the minds of the fans whereas Bracken couldn't make it in tests. Had Bracken had a respectable Test career his ODI stats would have been even a lot more acknowledged. Bracken was definitely one of the premiere ODI bowlers of the 2000s.

I've already presented my case about Tri Series multiple times, something which you haven't clearly replied to so I won't continue here. Also, you haven't quite explained how Waqar's averages falling from 23 to 27 at worst is similar to Kohli's averages falling from near 60 to the 30,20s and 10s on the same parameters, which is actually the crux of the argument, something which you've been ignoring for 2 pages now.

 

[Tusker]

45 is alright in the sense that it's a decent sample true, but as I said, it's not decent enough when you're comparing it with performers who have a sample size of 200+ and comparable records. It's not like Waqar has an average of 30 over 230 games, he has an average of 22, better than his career average. That's like saying a batsman with 3000 runs at 50 is better than someone with 9000 at 47.

You passed judgement on Kohli based on a sample size of 5 matches and you had earlier dismissed Brackens 45 match sample but I will ignore (more fun stuff down below)

People won't put Bracken over Waqar becuase Waqar is a very well accomplished test bowler as well which weighs heavily in the minds of the fans whereas Bracken couldn't make it in tests. Had Bracken had a respectable Test career his ODI stats would have been even a lot more acknowledged. Bracken was definitely one of the premiere ODI bowlers of the 2000s.

Waqar is much more accomplished in ODI's and it has nothing to do with what he did in Tri-Series Preliminary games. Instead it is for maintaining a stellar record over a long career for a express fast bowler.

I've already presented my case about Tri Series multiple times, something which you haven't clearly replied to so I won't continue here.

Yeah your case is : Preliminary Tr-Series matches > Bilaterals which I have debunked already. See if anyone agrees to your views. If so then you must consider that the recent NZ-BD-IRL Series to have had better competition than the recent concluded Indian bilateral ODI series vs SL,Eng and NZ.

Why don't you show me some of the improbable games like the 350 Chase vs Eng at Pune (After being 62/4) in any of the tri-series ?

Also, you haven't quite explained how Waqar's averages falling from 23 to 27 at worst is similar to Kohli's averages falling from near 60 to the 30,20s and 10s on the same parameters, which is actually the crux of the argument, something which you've been ignoring for 2 pages now.

you need to post links to your stats ... cant be bothered to go check.

But I checked this one stat that you claim Kohli avged 17.75 in Tri-Series Knock Outs ...

So here is the link for it : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...4;trophy=169;trophy=199;trophy=2;type=batting

Guess what you missed pointing out in your post earlier ? The no.of matches. A grand total of 5 matches all vs SL in long forgotten Tri-Series

Do you really think the non-knock out matches vs Pakistan in WC 2015 and CT 2017 were of lesser importance than the Knock outs in the "Compaq" Cup circa 2009 and some ** Tri-Series involving WI ?. This is your cricketing gyan that you want to dispense ?. Laughable.

 

[Arsalan Pro]

He will easily surpass Tendulkar, should end with 60+ Odi centuries.

 

[Proactive_]

You passed judgement on Kohli based on a sample size of 5 matches and you had earlier dismissed Brackens 45 match sample but I will ignore (more fun stuff down below)

Because you were comparing Bracken with someone who has more than 230 games in that scenario. Plus it isn't like Waqar was averaging 30+ in those stats, he averaged 22, better than his career average. Try context sometimes. Also, Kohli failing in 5 matches here or there isn't the issue. See all the tables, IN EVERY SCENARIO, KOHLI'S AVERAGE HAS FALLEN SUBSTANTIALLY, that's not the case with Waqar.


You passed judgement on Kohli based on a sample size of 5 matches and you had Waqar is much more accomplished in ODI's and it has nothing to do with what he did in Tri-Series Preliminary games. Instead it is for maintaining a stellar record over a long career for a express fast bowler. [/QUOTE]


Yeah your case is : Preliminary Tr-Series matches > Bilaterals which I have debunked already. See if anyone agrees to your views. If so then you must consider that the recent NZ-BD-IRL Series to have had better competition than the recent concluded Indian bilateral ODI series vs SL,Eng and NZ.

Why don't you show me some of the improbable games like the 350 Chase vs Eng at Pune (After being 62/4) in any of the tri-series ? [/QUOTE]

You haven't. You actually haven't even addressed my reply to the Ireland point which you keep bringing again and again. You are using a minnow in case of Tri Series but removing it in case of bilaterals, that just doens't make any sense. Better comparison would be to choose between two Bilateral series of India-SL and India-Aus or a Tri Series of India-Aus-SL.

you need to post links to your stats ... cant be bothered to go check.

But I checked this one stat that you claim Kohli avged 17.75 in Tri-Series Knock Outs ...

So here is the link for it : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...4;trophy=169;trophy=199;trophy=2;type=batting

Guess what you missed pointing out in your post earlier ? The no.of matches. A grand total of 5 matches all vs SL in long forgotten Tri-Series

Do you really think the non-knock out matches vs Pakistan in WC 2015 and CT 2017 were of lesser importance than the Knock outs in the "Compaq" Cup circa 2009 and some ** Tri-Series involving WI ?. This is your cricketing gyan that you want to dispense ?. Laughable.

I've posted all links in Post 246, where Kohli's averages unanimously FALL in every scenario without fail. There is not a single scenario where his averages are even comparable to his Bilateral exploits.

And no, I've already posted my hierarchy of importance as far as ODIs are concerned, hence why I've posted all different stats in Post 246, which you obviously haven't checked out even 80 posts later and have basically been trying to shoot off Waqar's back after failing to do that with Prasad's lol. Can you finally give me your reasons as to why Kohli's averages fall from almost 60 to the 40s, 30s, 20s and 10s in just about EVERY SCENARIO BARRING BILATERALS? I'm still waiting for the justification to this.

 

[Tusker]

Because you were comparing Bracken with someone who has more than 230 games in that scenario. Plus it isn't like Waqar was averaging 30+ in those stats, he averaged 22, better than his career average. Try context sometimes. Also, Kohli failing in 5 matches here or there isn't the issue. See all the tables, IN EVERY SCENARIO, KOHLI'S AVERAGE HAS FALLEN SUBSTANTIALLY, that's not the case with Waqar.


You passed judgement on Kohli based on a sample size of 5 matches and you had Waqar is much more accomplished in ODI's and it has nothing to do with what he did in Tri-Series Preliminary games. Instead it is for maintaining a stellar record over a long career for a express fast bowler.

Yeah your case is : Preliminary Tr-Series matches > Bilaterals which I have debunked already. See if anyone agrees to your views. If so then you must consider that the recent NZ-BD-IRL Series to have had better competition than the recent concluded Indian bilateral ODI series vs SL,Eng and NZ.

Why don't you show me some of the improbable games like the 350 Chase vs Eng at Pune (After being 62/4) in any of the tri-series ? [/QUOTE]

You haven't. You actually haven't even addressed my reply to the Ireland point which you keep bringing again and again. You are using a minnow in case of Tri Series but removing it in case of bilaterals, that just doens't make any sense. Better comparison would be to choose between two Bilateral series of India-SL and India-Aus or a Tri Series of
[/Quote]

You can pick the most intense games involving top teams and it would be hard to find a equal to the Pune match.

I've posted all links in Post 246, where Kohli's averages unanimously FALL in every scenario without fail. There is not a single scenario where his averages are even comparable to his Bilateral exploits.

And no, I've already posted my hierarchy of importance as far as ODIs are concerned, hence why I've posted all different stats in Post 246, which you obviously haven't checked out even 80 posts later and have basically been trying to shoot off Waqar's back after failing to do that with Prasad's lol. Can you finally give me your reasons as to why Kohli's averages fall from almost 60 to the 40s, 30s, 20s and 10s in just about EVERY SCENARIO BARRING BILATERALS? I'm still waiting for the justification to this.

I don't judge batsmen by stats filters that donto maka sense. Any one who understands cricket knows what Kohli is. I am just humoring you. Do you have a explanation for rating Kohli using those 5 KO matches Vs SL in long forgotten Tri Series matches instead of the WC 2015 vs Pak, CT 1st match Vs Pakistan and Asia cup vs Pakistan ? Your filter that has him Avg 17.75 suggests thsee matches are less important

 

[squarecut]

Why are some people in this forum missing Kohli in the Pakistan vs World XI matches when they know that Kohli is a mediocre batsman.

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION]

Still trying to find ways to explain how those 5 matches were more important than the Ind vs Pak matches ? or maybe still searching for an equivalent match in any of the tri-series played to the recent 350 Chased vs Eng after being 62/4 ?

When you are done ... I got more.

 

[Proactive_]

[MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION]

Still trying to find ways to explain how those 5 matches were more important than the Ind vs Pak matches ? or maybe still searching for an equivalent match in any of the tri-series played to the recent 350 Chased vs Eng after being 62/4 ?

When you are done ... I got more.

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

I don't judge batsmen by stats filters that donto maka sense.

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?

 

[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?

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_]

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.

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?

 

[Tusker]

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:

I am Talking about importance. I didn't say you didn't count. The hierarchy you posted in #328 and the way you keep talking about 17. 75 it appears that it is important to you. To me those 5 ODIs mean absolutely nothing. in fact in one of those matches he was 2* . So for you to be harping about those 4 matches is basically a exercise in selective stat cherry picking.

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?

Again see above is the 17.75 matches are more important or less important than India vs Pak matches in WC, Asia cup, CT? Simple yes or no will do.

 

[Proactive_]

I am Talking about importance. I didn't say you didn't count. The hierarchy you posted in #328 and the way you keep talking about 17. 75 it appears that it is important to you. To me those 5 ODIs mean absolutely nothing. in fact in one of those matches he was 2* . So for you to be harping about those 4 matches is basically a exercise in selective stat cherry picking.




Again see above is the 17.75 matches are more important or less important than India vs Pak matches in WC, Asia cup, CT? Simple yes or no will do.

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?

 

[Tusker]

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.

If it doesn't mean more to you the reason why you are so enamored by that stat is ....?

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?

You have also contradicted that hierarchy.

Need to understand your rationale in segregating those matches before I can answer. To me those 5 matches mean zilch. To you they mean quite a lot. So explain away with proper reasoning without dodging the question as to why you consider them so important and why they dictate how you rank Kohli.

 

[Proactive_]

If it doesn't mean more to you the reason why you are so enamored by that stat is ....?



You have also contradicted that hierarchy.

Need to understand your rationale in segregating those matches before I can answer. To me those 5 matches mean zilch. To you they mean quite a lot. So explain away with proper reasoning without dodging the question as to why you consider them so important and why they dictate how you rank Kohli.

I'm not enamoured by anything, I just wanted to show the complete picture, which includes stats in just about every possible permutation that you can divide multi team tournaments, WCs and CTs in (against the top teams). You can neglect the 17.75 if you wish, hell you can neglect every table if you wish, because that's what you've been doing in this discussion. And again, you are getting into the topic of Bilaterals Vs Tri Series which has already been discussed to death, I've made my views perfectly clear in that regard in multiple posts in this very thread.

 

[Tusker]

I'm not enamoured by anything, I just wanted to show the complete picture, which includes stats in just about every possible permutation that you can divide multi team tournaments, WCs and CTs in (against the top teams). You can neglect the 17.75 if you wish, hell you can neglect every table if you wish, because that's what you've been doing in this discussion. And again, you are getting into the topic of Bilaterals Vs Tri Series which has already been discussed to death, I've made my views perfectly clear in that regard in multiple posts in this very thread.

I will get to each stat one by one provided you explain what each stat is trying to imply. I take it that you have no other explanation other than that you found a filter where Kohli has done poorly. .. Right? If not then please tell me why Avging 17.75 against Lanka in 4 matches is such a disastrous thing and it tells you more about his batting than the Pune bilateral vs Eng?

 

[Proactive_]

I will get to each stat one by one provided you explain what each stat is trying to imply. I take it that you have no other explanation other than that you found a filter where Kohli has done poorly. .. Right? If not then please tell me why Avging 17.75 against Lanka in 4 matches is such a disastrous thing and it tells you more about his batting than the Pune bilateral vs Eng?

When have I doubted his bilateral exploits? I've admitted numerous times that he is the biggest bilateral ODI bully on the planet by far in all conditions. It's just strange that when the scenario changes to Multi Team tournaments and WCs/CTs, his stats take a nosedive. Sure, he might have all the shots in the book, the timing, the poise, the grace, everything. But that's not the only criteria for judging batsmanship, if it were so, AB De Villiers would by far be the greatest ODI batsman of all time, because the guy can play shots that no other human can. But that's the point of discussion and you know it, hence dodging these stats again and again.

 

[Tusker]

When have I doubted his bilateral exploits? I've admitted numerous times that he is the biggest bilateral ODI bully on the planet by far in all conditions. It's just strange that when the scenario changes to Multi Team tournaments and WCs/CTs, his stats take a nosedive. Sure, he might have all the shots in the book, the timing, the poise, the grace, everything. But that's not the only criteria for judging batsmanship, if it were so, AB De Villiers would by far be the greatest ODI batsman of all time, because the guy can play shots that no other human can. But that's the point of discussion and you know it, hence dodging these stats again and again.

So you are saying he flopped In those 4 matches because they were not Bilaterals but somehow that labeling didn't get in his way in the matches against Pak and the reason for that is there was more pressure in those 4 matches?

 

[CanadianG00se]

On topic no batsmen in current era will get anywhere closed to Kohli(not even king of soft runs Amla). Although he is far from GOAT but if he continues to improve and perform on world cup event, it will certainly guarantee him spot among legends of games like Ponting, Tendulkar, Viv etc.

As of now he is still far behind legends but its also rubbish to call him HTB or what not.

 

[Proactive_]

So you are saying he flopped In those 4 matches because they were not Bilaterals but somehow that labeling didn't get in his way in the matches against Pak and the reason for that is there was more pressure in those 4 matches?

No, these are just observations. The inference is to be debated. What do you think? Why hasn't Kohli repeated his bilateral heroics in multi team tournaments? Why do his near 60 average numbers fall down to the 30s and 20s in multi team tournaments? I don't put labels on innings separately, all I'm doing is presenting a holistic picture of Kohli's stats in bilaterals as compared to multi team series and how there is a pretty significant difference between the two.

 

[Tusker]

No, these are just observations. The inference is to be debated. What do you think?

Well you already made conclusions and declared him to be a bilateral bully and that he is overated etc.. and you thought you found stats to back that up .. lol

 

[Proactive_]

Well you already made conclusions and declared him to be a bilateral bully and that he is overated etc.. and you thought you found stats to back that up .. lol

That's my inference, you can differ, I'm open to arguments. That's what we are discussing for the past week, right?

 

[Tusker]

That's my inference, you can differ, I'm open to arguments. That's what we are discussing for the past week, right?

Me and others have already highlighted the flaws in your reasoning.

1. You cannot say that all Tri-Series better than bilaterals so that you can apply a nice filter on SG. LoL
2. You cannot exclude BD anymore.
3. You cannot conveniently declare that T20Is have no pressure and are useless.
4. You cannot decide a player's rating based on a small sample size that is in single digits.
5. Plenty of past players who are considered to be legends without winning anything noteworthy, eg. Waqar
6. Virat Kohli is widely acknowledged to be the best in this business even by his adversaries. Look at threads here before the CT began. Such admiration by opposition does not happen just like that.
7. Above all just watch him bat and enjoy. It is a joy to watch. Nobody plays shots like him with such little risk.

 

[Proactive_]

Me and others have already highlighted the flaws in your reasoning.

1. You cannot say that all Tri-Series better than bilaterals so that you can apply a nice filter on SG. LoL
2. You cannot exclude BD anymore.
3. You cannot conveniently declare that T20Is have no pressure and are useless.
4. You cannot decide a player's rating based on a small sample size that is in single digits.
5. Plenty of past players who are considered to be legends without winning anything noteworthy, eg. Waqar
6. Virat Kohli is widely acknowledged to be the best in this business even by his adversaries. Look at threads here before the CT began. Such admiration by opposition does not happen just like that.
7. Above all just watch him bat and enjoy. It is a joy to watch. Nobody plays shots like him with such little risk.

Again, for the millionth time, what's your defence for Kohli's averages falling from almost 60 to the 40s, 30s,20s in multi team tournaments? The matches I'm talking about are not 5-10 in numbers, they constitute a significant chunk of his ODI career. Nobody is talking about T20s, this is an ODI thread. Waqar never failed in any of these scenarios, his highest average in any case is 27 whereas Kohli's averages fall dramatically. This is just a never ending circle of same arguments which you can't answer. You have already said that you consider Bilaterals to be on par with multi team Non-ICC tournaments so there is nothing else to discuss (because I've given my reasons why I don't). The ICC ODI Tournament Stats are for all to see.

 

[Tusker]

Again, for the millionth time, what's your defence for Kohli's averages falling from almost 60 to the 40s, 30s,20s in multi team tournaments? The matches I'm talking about are not 5-10 in numbers, they constitute a significant chunk of his ODI career. Nobody is talking about T20s, this is an ODI thread.

I bought in T20Is because your whole premise is that higher the pressure worse is Kohli's avg. Why dont you tell us how that has worked out in T20Is ?

Even otherwise considering Multi-Nation tournaments : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...rnament_type=3;tournament_type=5;type=batting

thats an avg of 41.85 over 48 inngs with some stunning inngs ( 183, 133 ) included in them. Whats soo bad about it ?

And BTW you really can't ignore WI and BD (ask England fans but I will play along).

Waqar never failed in any of these scenarios, his highest average in any case is 27 whereas Kohli's averages fall dramatically.

Kohli also avges in the mid 40s in WC ,CT with good performances against Pak ( Avg = 60 vs Pak despite the failure in CT final) . Waqar never managed that. And the dramatic avg drop you keep talking about (17.75) has already been addressed. Those matches mean the world ONLY to you. Nobody gives a crap about those ODIs . And I will actually prove that some matches vs Eng, SAF and Aus are far more intense and competitive than those useless one off tri-series involving the lower ranked teams.

So at this point you need to realize that just because you found some cute filter on SG it doesn't imply that it is meaningful one (And BTW you have never explained why those 4 matches vs SL mean so much to you and you never will ). Your problem is called: "stats without context". Or maybe even too much expectations from the star batsman. (Just like what Tendulkar had to undergo ... Desi's can be unique in this regard ).

This is just a never ending circle of same arguments which you can't answer. You have already said that you consider Bilaterals to be on par with multi team Non-ICC tournaments so there is nothing else to discuss (because I've given my reasons why I don't). The ICC ODI Tournament Stats are for all to see.

You forgot to mention that I also provided logical reasoning from fans perspective. Both can be as forgettable or memorable as the other. Nobody certainly craves for these Tri-Series over bilateral's other than you. They are just as important as Bilaterals. I have mentioned this at the very beginning. Do you have a counter to this ? None so far.

I also asked you to find me a equal to Kohli chasing 350 after being 60/4. There is no way you can provide a proper cricketing explanation as to why this match did not have any pressure at all or that why Tri-Series dont have such a thrilling match where there is literally 1% chance of winning after the team is reduced to 62/4 chasing 350. These things rarely happen in cricket and you need to understand the finer aspects of cricket to realize these things.

 

[IndianWillow]

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?

Selective stats like this can be designed to make any cricketer better or worse than he really is. Easy to show with selective stats to prove that the great Viv Richards was a weak bowling basher in ODIs - just as a starter, the only two teams that had a truly formidable bowling lineup in the ODIs during Viv's ODI days were WI and Pakistan. Viv never faced WI and fared his worst against Pakistan. So we conclude that he was generally a weak bowling basher?

Kohli has one issue - he has not lived upto his big reputation in big matches as consistently as India expects from him. That much is true. He needs to work around this, as he is without doubt India's best ODI batsman (among the world best also) and India expects more from him when the stakes are high. Maybe Kohli gets worked up too much and fails to deliver what he is truly capable of. Rest of your argument is not wholesome, it is picky.

Sachin was an ODI opener, Kohli is not. So comparing them needs to be done carefully. Opener's job is a bit straightforward in ODIs, compared to those coming down the order who often have to switch back and forth between steadying the innings, brisk scoring etc. Kohli is among the finest pacer of an ODI innings I have ever seen. Seen very few batsmen who make a chase look so easy from start to finish. Even with the reliable Dhoni you were always tense in chases, as his way of pacing left too much to be done towards the end.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

The fact that Kohli's gem of an innings in the 2013 final is not being counted in this thread is laughable. Pathetic desperate attempts to discredit him by saying it was a 20 over game. That does not matter. It was an ODI and a big match in a pressure situation when India was in trouble and he scored invaluable runs.

You can have your numbers and stats which 'prove' he chokes. Fact is, he has already played a match winning innings in a tournament final. End of story.

 

[squarecut]

The fact that Kohli's gem of an innings in the 2013 final is not being counted in this thread is laughable. Pathetic desperate attempts to discredit him by saying it was a 20 over game. That does not matter. It was an ODI and a big match in a pressure situation when India was in trouble and he scored invaluable runs.

You can have your numbers and stats which 'prove' he chokes. Fact is, he has already played a match winning innings in a tournament final. End of story.

That too in England. Against English bowlers.

 

[Proactive_]

I bought in T20Is because your whole premise is that higher the pressure worse is Kohli's avg. Why dont you tell us how that has worked out in T20Is ?

Because then you should also admit that guys like Samuels and Brathwaite belong in the discussion for great pressure players? Would you?

Even otherwise considering Multi-Nation tournaments : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...rnament_type=3;tournament_type=5;type=batting

thats an avg of 41.85 over 48 inngs with some stunning inngs ( 183, 133 ) included in them. Whats soo bad about it ?

And BTW you really can't ignore WI and BD (ask England fans but I will play along).

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.

Kohli also avges in the mid 40s in WC ,CT with good performances against Pak ( Avg = 60 vs Pak despite the failure in CT final) . Waqar never managed that. And the dramatic avg drop you keep talking about (17.75) has already been addressed. Those matches mean the world ONLY to you. Nobody gives a crap about those ODIs . And I will actually prove that some matches vs Eng, SAF and Aus are far more intense and competitive than those useless one off tri-series involving the lower ranked teams.

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.

So at this point you need to realize that just because you found some cute filter on SG it doesn't imply that it is meaningful one (And BTW you have never explained why those 4 matches vs SL mean so much to you and you never will ). Your problem is called: "stats without context". Or maybe even too much expectations from the star batsman. (Just like what Tendulkar had to undergo ... Desi's can be unique in this regard ).

LOL I haven't even started on context, I can dig up much much more. For instance, Kohli averages 4 in ODIs when Starc and Hazlewood both are playing (admittedly a small sample size) and 40 when either of these are playing as opposed to averaging 65 when neither of them were playing. The discussion hasn't even started on the quality of bowling faced yet. The fact that teams tend to rest their premiere fast bowlers in many bilateral ODI series these days isn't even accounted for yet, but most of these play in the ICC Tournaments. Maybe it explains a bit as to why Kohli's averages fall down so drastically.

You forgot to mention that I also provided logical reasoning from fans perspective. Both can be as forgettable or memorable as the other. Nobody certainly craves for these Tri-Series over bilateral's other than you. They are just as important as Bilaterals. I have mentioned this at the very beginning. Do you have a counter to this ? None so far.

I also asked you to find me a equal to Kohli chasing 350 after being 60/4. There is no way you can provide a proper cricketing explanation as to why this match did not have any pressure at all or that why Tri-Series dont have such a thrilling match where there is literally 1% chance of winning after the team is reduced to 62/4 chasing 350. These things rarely happen in cricket and you need to understand the finer aspects of cricket to realize these things.

I've already given my fundamental reasoning as to why Tri Series hold more meaning than ODIs in the previous posts. It's the fans prerogative to consider one more important than others or not, it's their prerogative.

Virat Kohli chased 350 from 62/4, brilliant. We're talking about a match in which Kedar Jadhav also scored 120, so now Kedhar Jadhav must also be in the discussion for being a great pressure player, ain't it because in your view he played one of the greatest pressure knocks ever. We all know how much Jadhav is rated as an ODI batsman.

 

[Proactive_]

Selective stats like this can be designed to make any cricketer better or worse than he really is. Easy to show with selective stats to prove that the great Viv Richards was a weak bowling basher in ODIs - just as a starter, the only two teams that had a truly formidable bowling lineup in the ODIs during Viv's ODI days were WI and Pakistan. Viv never faced WI and fared his worst against Pakistan. So we conclude that he was generally a weak bowling basher?

Kohli has one issue - he has not lived upto his big reputation in big matches as consistently as India expects from him. That much is true. He needs to work around this, as he is without doubt India's best ODI batsman (among the world best also) and India expects more from him when the stakes are high. Maybe Kohli gets worked up too much and fails to deliver what he is truly capable of. Rest of your argument is not wholesome, it is picky.

Sachin was an ODI opener, Kohli is not. So comparing them needs to be done carefully. Opener's job is a bit straightforward in ODIs, compared to those coming down the order who often have to switch back and forth between steadying the innings, brisk scoring etc. Kohli is among the finest pacer of an ODI innings I have ever seen. Seen very few batsmen who make a chase look so easy from start to finish. Even with the reliable Dhoni you were always tense in chases, as his way of pacing left too much to be done towards the end.

Obviously. I agree, that's why I say that you need to bring some context into statistics like an average of 56 and 30 hundreds in ODI as well, that's what I'm trying to do.. and this is barely scratching the surface.

 

[Bilal7]

The fact that Kohli's gem of an innings in the 2013 final is not being counted in this thread is laughable. Pathetic desperate attempts to discredit him by saying it was a 20 over game. That does not matter. It was an ODI and a big match in a pressure situation when India was in trouble and he scored invaluable runs.

You can have your numbers and stats which 'prove' he chokes. Fact is, he has already played a match winning innings in a tournament final. End of story.

)

How can a game be both a T20 and an ODI? Kohli's fans are so desperate to defend the choker that they have stopped making any sense.

Please, let's all wait for India's tour of South Africa before analyzing this great one's batting again. As of now, he's no ATG.

 

[joly]

Kohli has to perform on finals to be compared to Ponting. Kohli will score 60+ Odi tons but then it is the Big hundreds in finals that we want

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

)

How can a game be both a T20 and an ODI?

Exactly. It was an ODI.

Your logic is like saying 2017 CT was not a proper ODI because India only batted 30 overs. Rubbish logic. It doesn't matter if it was truncated. 2013 final was an official ODI, Kohli played an excellent innings. Your trolling attempts are unbelievably lame and sad to watch.

 

[Bilal7]

Exactly. It was an ODI.

Your logic is like saying 2017 CT was not a proper ODI because India only batted 30 overs. Rubbish logic. It doesn't matter if it was truncated. 2013 final was an official ODI, Kohli played an excellent innings. Your trolling attempts are unbelievably lame and sad to watch.

)

It was a 20/20 game. As in each side could only have one innings of 20 overs each. That is what makes this a 20/20 game. The 2017 CT final was an ODI because India could have definitely played out the full 50 overs but they were utterly demolished and humiliated within the first 30.

 

[Tusker]

Because then you should also admit that guys like Samuels and Brathwaite belong in the discussion for great pressure players? Would you?

You tell me. .. you are the one comming to conclusions based on selective stats. Not me. I dont judge batsmen thru selective stats. Otherwise I will have to rate Bracken as a far better bowler using your own methods.

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.

Amla and ABD have 19 hundreds in chases? How do you account for Waqar's complete no show in WC and Champions Trophy? Let me guess Khaleej Times Trophy? lol

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.

Not one or two. Kohli has 19 hundreds in chases(nobody has more not even Tendulkar ) and most importantly the manner in which many of these chases have been done is why he is rated as the best chaser.

And if you think only non bilateral matches count then you are in a tiny minority.

LOL I haven't even started on context, I can dig up much much more. For instance, Kohli averages 4 in ODIs when Starc and Hazlewood both are playing (admittedly a small sample size) and 40 when either of these are playing as opposed to averaging 65 when neither of them were playing. The discussion hasn't even started on the quality of bowling faced yet. The fact that teams tend to rest their premiere fast bowlers in many bilateral ODI series these days isn't even accounted for yet, but most of these play in the ICC Tournaments. Maybe it explains a bit as to why Kohli's averages fall down so drastically.

And I can prove almost every great player bad one way or another. You want to try?

Part of the reason for Kohli's Poor WC Avg is that he was not in top form. Not an excuse but such is life.

Maybe you need to learn how to have reasonable expectations.

I've already given my fundamental reasoning as to why Tri Series hold more meaning than ODIs in the previous posts. It's the fans prerogative to consider one more important than others or not, it's their prerogative.

How about substantiating it? Do you see anyone here worry about these matches?

Your stat progression that has Kohli going from 60 to 17.75 clearly implies that you think those 4 matches where he avged 17.75 presented bigger pressure than WC matches. see if you will find anyone that will agree with you on that. And again you will never ever answer that question about 17.75 even though I have asked you that a million times.

Virat Kohli chased 350 from 62/4, brilliant. We're talking about a match in which Kedar Jadhav also scored 120, so now Kedhar Jadhav must also be in the discussion for being a great pressure player, ain't it because in your view he played one of the greatest pressure knocks ever. We all know how much Jadhav is rated as an ODI batsman.

Why don't you show me a Tri Series match if they produce such higher quality cricket as you claim?

No batsman has ever chased a total all on his own. That's how it works. And Kohli isn't rated as the best just because of that match. I used that match to prove how bilateral matches can be very competitive.

 

[Tusker]

I just realized that Kohli avgs 67 in chases with 5368 runs in 106 inngs at a SR of 93 and 19 hundreds. No one even comes close.

Only in India you will find someone still not convinced. LoL

 

[Proactive_]

You tell me. .. you are the one comming to conclusions based on selective stats. Not me. I dont judge batsmen thru selective stats. Otherwise I will have to rate Bracken as a far better bowler using your own methods.

Well by your reasoning they definitely do. Especially, Samuels who has been the MOTM in not one but two T20 WC Finals. Also, I've actually admitted that Bracken was a better performer than Waqar in WCs and CTs, the only thing going against Bracken is the large difference in sample sizes of his wickets as opposed to Waqar (70 odd vs 230 odd) in Multi Team Tournaments, which is significant, whereas their averages in that regard are pretty comparable (20 vs 22). Waqar's averages don't fall like Kohli's who goes down from almost 60 to the early 40s and 30s. This is the point you've been neglecting all along.

Amla and ABD have 19 hundreds in chases? How do you account for Waqar's complete no show in WC and Champions Trophy? Let me guess Khaleej Times Trophy? lol

Not one or two. Kohli has 19 hundreds in chases(nobody has more not even Tendulkar ) and most importantly the manner in which many of these chases have been done is why he is rated as the best chaser.

And if you think only non bilateral matches count then you are in a tiny minority.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ODI-series-become-so-rare-nowadays&highlight=

Go through this thread and see how many people find multi team series much more relevant and with a lot more context than bilaterals. Your statement isn't true sir.

And I can prove almost every great player bad one way or another. You want to try?

Part of the reason for Kohli's Poor WC Avg is that he was not in top form. Not an excuse but such is life.

Maybe you need to learn how to have reasonable expectations.

I will have reasonable expectations as long as he is reasonably rated as well. Rate him like the God of ODI cricket or something and I'll always be there to burst this hype bubble.

How about substantiating it? Do you see anyone here worry about these matches?

Your stat progression that has Kohli going from 60 to 17.75 clearly implies that you think those 4 matches where he avged 17.75 presented bigger pressure than WC matches. see if you will find anyone that will agree with you on that. And again you will never ever answer that question about 17.75 even though I have asked you that a million times.

One of these matches was when Dhoni won the game by getting 15+ in the last over with 1 wicket remaining. I'm pretty sure people care about that game which is counted as one of Dhoni's best Finals' performances ever. Also, I never said that they presented bigger pressure than WC matches, you're making stuff up here. I already said that you can neglect the 17 figure due to sample size if you want, but that doesn't mean that those games didn't happen and weren't finals of Tri Series.

Why don't you show me a Tri Series match if they produce such higher quality cricket as you claim?

No batsman has ever chased a total all on his own. That's how it works. And Kohli isn't rated as the best just because of that match. I used that match to prove how bilateral matches can be very competitive.

Actually Kedhar Jadhav's career substantiates this claim even further, because the guy averages almost 50 with a SR of 115+ in ODIs, by your reasoning he should be counted among one of the brightest ODI prospects in the world but we all know why he isn't, and that point is something which demolishes your argument.

Also, quality of games isn't a factor of what type of series it is. The argument is about the context of the matches taking place. It may well happen that the 4th ODI of a bilateral series in which one team is already 3-0 might play out to be the greatest ODI of all time but that doesn't mean that the ODI had more context than the 2nd Final of a Tri Series. You're confusing with what's being actually discussed here.

 

[Tusker]

Well by your reasoning they definitely do. Especially, Samuels who has been the MOTM in not one but two T20 WC Finals. Also, I've actually admitted that Bracken was a better performer than Waqar in WCs and CTs, the only thing going against Bracken is the large difference in sample sizes of his wickets as opposed to Waqar (70 odd vs 230 odd) in Multi Team Tournaments, which is significant, whereas their averages in that regard are pretty comparable (20 vs 22). Waqar's averages don't fall like Kohli's who goes down from almost 60 to the early 40s and 30s. This is the point you've been neglecting all along.

My Reasoning ? LoL have you seen me rate a batsman based on 4-5 match sample size? you may actually win a copyright on that formula. Don't associate me with it. Nobody rates Samuels as a great player because he does well in Finals. Similarly Nobody who knows his cricket well will say that Kohli isnt a great chaser even if he doesnt go on to replicate that in Tri-Series.

And no nobody rates Bracken over Waqar and it has nothing to do with how well Waqar did in Tri-Series (or not ). This is despite Bracken being in a completely different league alltogether in the matches that you keep harping about.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ODI-series-become-so-rare-nowadays&highlight=

Go through this thread and see how many people find multi team series much more relevant and with a lot more context than bilaterals. Your statement isn't true sir.

as I said it will be very easy to dismantle these posters claims once we speak realtime. Do you seriously think the Indo-Pak Bilaterals that were suddenly common in early 00s were less popular than the Khaleej Times trophy ? Laughable. Just wait and watch the Ind-vs-Aus ODI series starting Sunday and you will get your answers.

In any case Kohli or any modern player never gets to play 100s of matches in such series these days. So you are not going to rate any modern player at all then ? Talk about being selective.

I will have reasonable expectations as long as he is reasonably rated as well. Rate him like the God of ODI cricket or something and I'll always be there to burst this hype bubble.

How has this bursting business worked out for you so far ? Got stuck every where havent you ?

One of these matches was when Dhoni won the game by getting 15+ in the last over with 1 wicket remaining. I'm pretty sure people care about that game which is counted as one of Dhoni's best Finals' performances ever. Also, I never said that they presented bigger pressure than WC matches, you're making stuff up here. I already said that you can neglect the 17 figure due to sample size if you want, but that doesn't mean that those games didn't happen and weren't finals of Tri Series.

And people wont remember him failing to finish of the ODI we lost in WI last month ? Or the ODI he finished vs Pak in 2005/6 ? Or the 2nd ODI vs SL recently ? Is this your understanding ?

Never said that those matches didnt happen. All I said is that they don't deserve special categorization. If Cricinfo didnt offer a filter you wouldnt remember them. But now that you accept that those 4 matches cannot be used to derive any meaningful insightss about Kohli why did you list them despite him doing well in higher category matches ( vs Pak in WC, CT Asia Cup ) ? Agenda much ?

Actually Kedhar Jadhav's career substantiates this claim even further, because the guy averages almost 50 with a SR of 115+ in ODIs, by your reasoning he should be counted among one of the brightest ODI prospects in the world but we all know why he isn't, and that point is something which demolishes your argument.

Again don't dump your "reasoning" on me. I am merely using your bakwas filters on other players to prove to you the overall bakwasness of your "reasoning". It doesn't mean I subscribe to them. Absolutely not. Kedar has barely played one years worth of ODI's over a period of 2-3 years. Wont even qualify for consideration.

Also, quality of games isn't a factor of what type of series it is. The argument is about the context of the matches taking place. It may well happen that the 4th ODI of a bilateral series in which one team is already 3-0 might play out to be the greatest ODI of all time but that doesn't mean that the ODI had more context than the 2nd Final of a Tri Series. You're confusing with what's being actually discussed here.

Iam talking of pressure , intensity and such like (your main gripe about Kohli). If you think that ODI didnt have any pressure at all then you are dead wrong. Ditto with many other bilateral matches. This is why you cannot segregate bilaterals and Tr-series using a filter.

 

[Proactive_]

My Reasoning ? LoL have you seen me rate a batsman based on 4-5 match sample size? you may actually win a copyright on that formula. Don't associate me with it. Nobody rates Samuels as a great player because he does well in Finals. Similarly Nobody who knows his cricket well will say that Kohli isnt a great chaser even if he doesnt go on to replicate that in Tri-Series.

Eh, this point was concerning the ODI vs T20 argument, you want T20s to be seriously considered while rating players. So by YOUR reasoning, guys like Samuels, Brathwaite, Finch, Evin Lewis belong in the discussion for best batsmen. It's your proposition, not mine.

And no nobody rates Bracken over Waqar and it has nothing to do with how well Waqar did in Tri-Series (or not ). This is despite Bracken being in a completely different league alltogether in the matches that you keep harping about.

Nope. In the largest sample set, the wickets comparison is 230 something vs 70 something with the corresponding averages being 22 vs 20. That's not entirely "in a completely different league alltogether". Bracken has been a better performer in WCs which is pretty apparent.

as I said it will be very easy to dismantle these posters claims once we speak realtime. Do you seriously think the Indo-Pak Bilaterals that were suddenly common in early 00s were less popular than the Khaleej Times trophy ? Laughable. Just wait and watch the Ind-vs-Aus ODI series starting Sunday and you will get your answers.

Only in India would people care about the upcoming series. The Australian coach hasn't even come to India and most top quicks are rested. They know it's a pointless bilateral series before the Ashes and serves no purpose, so much for your "rating points" argument.

In any case Kohli or any modern player never gets to play 100s of matches in such series these days. So you are not going to rate any modern player at all then ? Talk about being selective.

No, I'll rate modern players like Smith who step up when an ODI Tournament arrives, even if their stats otherwise in ODIs may be mediocre. The likes of Kohli can keep piling up their centuries in bilateral while going two notches down in quality as soon as tournaments arrive.

How has this bursting business worked out for you so far ? Got stuck every where havent you ?

Well seeing the plethora of excuses you've had to use like trying to shoot off the backs of Prasad (whom you yourself abandoned mid argument lol) and Bracken, it's pretty safe to see it's working out pretty well thus far.

And people wont remember him failing to finish of the ODI we lost in WI last month ? Or the ODI he finished vs Pak in 2005/6 ? Or the 2nd ODI vs SL recently ? Is this your understanding ?

Never said that those matches didnt happen. All I said is that they don't deserve special categorization. If Cricinfo didnt offer a filter you wouldnt remember them. But now that you accept that those 4 matches cannot be used to derive any meaningful insightss about Kohli why did you list them despite him doing well in higher category matches ( vs Pak in WC, CT Asia Cup ) ? Agenda much ?

LOL if Kohli had averaged 50+ in ANY of these parameters, be rest assured that Kohli fans would be spamming these statistics to death, but since now they can't it obviously becomes nit picking, except it's not. Stats are stats, they are facts.. and they will be pointed out, whether you like it or not.

Again don't dump your "reasoning" on me. I am merely using your bakwas filters on other players to prove to you the overall bakwasness of your "reasoning". It doesn't mean I subscribe to them. Absolutely not. Kedar has barely played one years worth of ODI's over a period of 2-3 years. Wont even qualify for consideration.

As I said, they're only bakwaas because they show Kohli's averages dropping drastically from a godly figure like the 60s in bilateral to a very modest early 40s and 30s. Obviously Kedhar now doesn't matter because "less stats", but for Bracken vs Waqar that's a completely illegitimate argument for you. Because if bilaterals were oh so important in today's contemporary ODI scene, Kedhar Jadhav should have been rated as a better ODI batsman than Steve Smith, but he's not, not even close to it.. and you know why.

Iam talking of pressure , intensity and such like (your main gripe about Kohli). If you think that ODI didnt have any pressure at all then you are dead wrong. Ditto with many other bilateral matches. This is why you cannot segregate bilaterals and Tr-series using a filter.

Then where do his pressure absorbing instincts go on most instances during the major ICC tournaments and multi team tournaments? Why couldn't he even drag himself to a 20-30 score in the WC 15 SF and CT 17 Final if he's such a chaser par excellence that he chases 360s for fun from 62-4 in bilaterals? That just doesn't compute. Sure he has a couple of great innings in multi team tournament settings as well, I'm not denying that but he's definitely not worth the hype as some sort of a chasing God because he's far from it. That's my main gripe, I'm not saying that he's a bad or even an average ODI batsman. He's much closer to being just a very good/great ODI batsman than to being an All Time Great.

 

[Tusker]

No, I'll rate modern players like Smith who step up when an ODI Tournament arrives, even if their stats otherwise in ODIs may be mediocre. The likes of Kohli can keep piling up their centuries in bilateral while going two

As long as you agree that Bracken and a whole bunch of other bowlers are similarly better odi bowlers than Waqar based on your fixation for WC,CT Tri Series etc in that order.

But it will be hilarious to see how you will jump through the hoops to prove otherwise and still maintain that you are being consistent.

Then where do his pressure absorbing instincts go on most instances during the major ICC tournaments and multi team tournaments? Why couldn't he even drag himself to a 20-30 score in the WC 15 SF and CT 17 Final if he's such a chaser par excellence that he chases 360s for fun from 62-4 in bilaterals? That just doesn't compute. Sure he has a couple of great innings in multi team tournament settings as well, I'm not denying that but he's definitely not worth the hype as some sort of a chasing God because he's far from it. That's my main gripe, I'm not saying that he's a bad or even an average ODI batsman. He's much closer to being just a very good/great ODI batsman than to being an All Time Great.

Because it is a sport. Sh!t happens. Waqar did much horribly on the biggest stage. Or are you so naive that you now expect Kohli to succeed everytime he bats? Seriously?

Will respond to the rest of your post later.

 

[IndianWillow]

Obviously. I agree, that's why I say that you need to bring some context into statistics like an average of 56 and 30 hundreds in ODI as well, that's what I'm trying to do.. and this is barely scratching the surface.

Then use the context properly buddy.

The concept that bilateral is less important, significant or more easy compared to a triseries or multinational tournament is not correct. It could be true that neutral fans or even home fans may find bilaterals boring but boredom does not equate to statistical relevance.

In multinational tournaments, you almost always have one or more weak or out of form teams which makes league matches more or less formalities for a normally strong ODI outfit like India. For example, a bilateral home or away series with teams like SA or Oz is harder on India compared to a typical match in a multinational tournament including CT or WC.

Kohli has already shown that he is no bottler. His whole career is an example. He is a gutsy fierce competitor. One look at the Adelaide test where he bravely took up an impossible fifth day test chase against the Oz proves what the mental makeup of this man is. Several other instances in ODIs, T20s and tests prove he is not a bottler. It is true that he has not lived upto his reputation in some key big matches but the samples are still low size and he has age and skill on his side to prove otherwise.

A guy averaging 55 and having 30 centuries against his name in ODIs after 200 outings needs no scrutiny of stats to demonstrate his credentials as an ATG. He may not be at the level of Sachin, Ponting or Richards yet, as he has to prove that he can win those big moments consistently as well. If that is ur whole argument has some value. But if ur argument is abt proving that Kohli is a bottler or that he is no ATG material, I am afraid you need to take off that Pakistani tinted glasses from ur eyes and review his game as a true neutral fan. Were Kohli to be a Pakistani I am sure what you would be talking of him right now.

 

[Sadevdesai]

It will be a reeeeeal treat to watch Kohli against the Australians very soon ..... may be some of this arguments can be put to the rest !!!!!!

 

[Chrish]

What's the crux of the argument over here?

 

[Proactive_]

Then use the context properly buddy.

The concept that bilateral is less important, significant or more easy compared to a triseries or multinational tournament is not correct. It could be true that neutral fans or even home fans may find bilaterals boring but boredom does not equate to statistical relevance.

In multinational tournaments, you almost always have one or more weak or out of form teams which makes league matches more or less formalities for a normally strong ODI outfit like India. For example, a bilateral home or away series with teams like SA or Oz is harder on India compared to a typical match in a multinational tournament including CT or WC.

Kohli has already shown that he is no bottler. His whole career is an example. He is a gutsy fierce competitor. One look at the Adelaide test where he bravely took up an impossible fifth day test chase against the Oz proves what the mental makeup of this man is. Several other instances in ODIs, T20s and tests prove he is not a bottler. It is true that he has not lived upto his reputation in some key big matches but the samples are still low size and he has age and skill on his side to prove otherwise.

A guy averaging 55 and having 30 centuries against his name in ODIs after 200 outings needs no scrutiny of stats to demonstrate his credentials as an ATG. He may not be at the level of Sachin, Ponting or Richards yet, as he has to prove that he can win those big moments consistently as well. If that is ur whole argument has some value. But if ur argument is abt proving that Kohli is a bottler or that he is no ATG material, I am afraid you need to take off that Pakistani tinted glasses from ur eyes and review his game as a true neutral fan. Were Kohli to be a Pakistani I am sure what you would be talking of him right now.

The bolded part is all that needs to be said lol. I dunno why is it so ingrained in the minds and souls of quite a few Indians that if a fellow Indian criticises their heroes then they just cannot be an Indian. It's like some personalities are beyond questioning in this country.. but alas, I should have known better. I actually took your post half seriously until this point, but unfortunately you turn out to be just another mud slinger. I actually commend [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] at this point for being one of the few posters who actually bothered to have a proper debate rather than putting their insecurities on the table like most other Indians are doing here.

All the records are posted in this thread and have been thoroughly discussed. Maybe you need to go through the "context" before continuing with your diatribe.

 

[IndianWillow]

The bolded part is all that needs to be said lol. I dunno why is it so ingrained in the minds and souls of quite a few Indians that if a fellow Indian criticises their heroes then they just cannot be an Indian. It's like some personalities are beyond questioning in this country.. but alas, I should have known better. I actually took your post half seriously until this point, but unfortunately you turn out to be just another mud slinger. I actually commend [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] at this point for being one of the few posters who actually bothered to have a proper debate rather than putting their insecurities on the table like most other Indians are doing here.

All the records are posted in this thread and have been thoroughly discussed. Maybe you need to go through the "context" before continuing with your diatribe.

So you really think you were neutral in your assessment of Kohli? That was plainly there to see. Summarily you dismissed Kohli by saying that one or two good performances dont define a career. Not a neutral assessment of his overall career at all.

Would a typical Pakistani(or any other top tean) want to have a Kohli like batsman playing for Pakistan? I am pretty sure deep within the answer would be in the affirmative, regardless of their assessment here. You know very well he has had quite a few solid performances and easily one of the best ODI bat right now, just that he has fallen short of what Indians truly expect from a player of his stature and ability.

 

[Tusker]

The bolded part is all that needs to be said lol. I dunno why is it so ingrained in the minds and souls of quite a few Indians that if a fellow Indian criticises their heroes then they just cannot be an Indian. It's like some personalities are beyond questioning in this country.. but alas, I should have known better. I actually took your post half seriously until this point, but unfortunately you turn out to be just another mud slinger. I actually commend [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] at this point for being one of the few posters who actually bothered to have a proper debate rather than putting their insecurities on the table like most other Indians are doing here.

All the records are posted in this thread and have been thoroughly discussed. Maybe you need to go through the "context" before continuing with your diatribe.

Thanks for the good discussion but perhaps the way you Criticize has led to you being branded as a padosee

 

[sachin100]

Thanks for the good discussion but perhaps the way you Criticize has led to you being branded as a padosee

Haha. Neutral fan only against kohli but a Pakistani against waqar. So much for neutrality.

 

[Proactive_]

So you really think you were neutral in your assessment of Kohli? That was plainly there to see. Summarily you dismissed Kohli by saying that one or two good performances dont define a career. Not a neutral assessment of his overall career at all.

Would a typical Pakistani(or any other top tean) want to have a Kohli like batsman playing for Pakistan? I am pretty sure deep within the answer would be in the affirmative, regardless of their assessment here. You know very well he has had quite a few solid performances and easily one of the best ODI bat right now, just that he has fallen short of what Indians truly expect from a player of his stature and ability.

It's simple. You haven't followed the argument going on in this thread one bit except a couple of posts here and there and are blindly throwing accusations left, right and centre. Maybe go through the thread if you have time to arrive at a more educated opinion of the debate going on.

 

[IndianWillow]

Anybody who has been following ODI cricket for the past 10 years knows that the standard and relevance of ODI cricket has fallen sharply. In the 90s there used to be multi team tournaments and series like every six months in which the teams had to take stock of the situation after every game regarding the NRR as well and the tournament wasn't over right until the last final (In case of tournaments with Best of 3 finals like Aus Tri Series).

Compare that to today, there's hardly any ODI cricket of relevance barring the ICC Tournaments. Almost all the ODI cricket are now pointless ODIs played on phattas. The series is already over with many games remaining and there can be a team which wins 3 games by 1 run and lose 2 by 200 runs and yet win the series. That's just nonsensical and does ODI cricket no good, something which was taken care of in tournaments that actually had some meaning back in the day.

See Virat Kohli's performances in the recently concluded series. When the series was alive:

82*
3
4

Average: 44.5

When the series was already won:

131
110*

Average: 241

Overall average: 110

Anybody who knows how to put ODI cricket in context knows he failed miserably in 2 out of 3 games when the series was alive and filled his boots when the series was done and dusted. That's just not how you build your legacy in ODI cricket.

In comparison, see his performances in tournaments of 3 teams or more.. Average 42 (already down from his lofty mid fifty standards). The situation becomes even more dire when you consider ICC Tournament games against top opposition where his average falls into the 30s and finally into the 20s in Tournament finals. There is a proper direct correlation to the relevance of the ODI match in progress and the fall in the golden boy's performances.

He can make all these centuries batting on phattas against 120k bowling monsters when the series is sealed, but everybody knows what he truly is worth when they see him chasing 330 in a tournament finals against a good bowling attack and how spectacularly he rises up to the challenge of a pressure K.O game.

I'll say this again, Virat Kohli is a great bilateral bully, no questions about it. But a horrible pressure player, and by pressure I don't mean chasing 325 in the 3rd ODI of the XYZ bilateral cup, by pressure I mean the stage of a big tournament game with their oppositions having their tail up, a scenario where Kohli fails many more times than not. Simply not worth the hype, sorry.

@Proactive. This was where the debate started from, I believe? I hope I didn't go off the tangent. Which part or context we all missed? In your own words Kohli not worth the "hype" ?!! I dont have the time to go all thru again, but I guess this was a good summary of the context right?
----

1. Not too many multination tournaments these days compared to the past.

2. Most ODIs played today are bilaterals.

3. Most pitches are phattas

4. Kohli is the king of bilaterals and enjoys making mountains of runs in these bilateral phattas

5. In the very few trination, quadnation, CT, WC tournaments etc that are played these days, he is no where to be found when there is pressure. Smell the word pressure ( or a non phatta) then Kohli goes amiss, so to speak.

6. So Kohli the big bilateral bully is not worth the hype.

I mean this is the region centering your arguments. If u said something else, add it here. But my question is, which modern ODI player is worth the hype, based on your criteria? Without peer comparison u cant evaluate players. So...

Is it Amla? ABD? Root? Rohit? Dhawan? Faf? Morgan? Finch? De kock? Warner? Or Grant Elliot who made a match winning knock in WC SF knockout? Or some others?

So which modern ODI players you have in mind who are worth the hype? Your answer will probably put into right perspective how neutral/non-neutral you were for me (and others here who questioned ur neutrality).

 

[IndianWillow]

It was not all clear whether you wanted to argue that

1. Kohli not a great ODI player as other modern greats.
2. Not an ATG
3. He is an ATG but not comparable to the likes of Sachin, Jaya, Punter, Viv
4. No modern ODI great is an ATG.

Why is he not worth the hype? Is it 1,2,3 or 4? Or something else, in one phrase?

 

[Proactive_]

It was not all clear whether you wanted to argue that

1. Kohli not a great ODI player as other modern greats.
2. Not an ATG
3. He is an ATG but not comparable to the likes of Sachin, Jaya, Punter, Viv
4. No modern ODI great is an ATG.

Why is he not worth the hype? Is it 1,2,3 or 4? Or something else, in one phrase?

So you admit you didn't know what the discussion was about yet decided to make assumptions galore? Thanks for proving my point.

 

[sachin100]

@Proactive. This was where the debate started from, I believe? I hope I didn't go off the tangent. Which part or context we all missed? In your own words Kohli not worth the "hype" ?!! I dont have the time to go all thru again, but I guess this was a good summary of the context right?
----

1. Not too many multination tournaments these days compared to the past.

2. Most ODIs played today are bilaterals.

3. Most pitches are phattas

4. Kohli is the king of bilaterals and enjoys making mountains of runs in these bilateral phattas

5. In the very few trination, quadnation, CT, WC tournaments etc that are played these days, he is no where to be found when there is pressure. Smell the word pressure ( or a non phatta) then Kohli goes amiss, so to speak.

6. So Kohli the big bilateral bully is not worth the hype.

I mean this is the region centering your arguments. If u said something else, add it here. But my question is, which modern ODI player is worth the hype, based on your criteria? Without peer comparison u cant evaluate players. So...

Is it Amla? ABD? Root? Rohit? Dhawan? Faf? Morgan? Finch? De kock? Warner? Or Grant Elliot who made a match winning knock in WC SF knockout? Or some others?

So which modern ODI players you have in mind who are worth the hype? Your answer will probably put into right perspective how neutral/non-neutral you were for me (and others here who questioned ur neutrality).

He is neutral only against indian team and players and against others his neutrality goes for a toss

 

[IndianWillow]

So you admit you didn't know what the discussion was about yet decided to make assumptions galore? Thanks for proving my point.

You made some points about Kohli and concluded he is not worth the hype. I am asking you, what is that hype all about? If u did clarify this somewhere, I may have missed that post(s) as this thread is not a small one. Since you responded with a rhetoric I will let others who argued with you to explain what they understood by the phrase "Kohli is not worth the hype" based on your own arguments (relating to bilaterals, flat tracks etc).

 

[ToeCrusher2]

He is neutral only against indian team and players and against others his neutrality goes for a toss

This proactive kid is hilarious, the number of logical fallacies he makes and the number of times he changes his goal posts is amusing to see. He bashes kohli for failing in important ICC matches but when the same argument is brought up against waqar younis he changes his goal posts and says he rates waqar because of his performances in tri series and other multi team tournaments but this same logic goes out of the window when discussing tendulkar, if he values the tri series and multi team tournaments so highly then he should check sachin's average in in multi team tournaments, in multi team tournament knockouts and multi team tournament finals, but NO, he won't, he will change his goal posts again, now in sachin's case bilateral matches against away opposition becomes more important . I have never seen a positive post from this guy, he's not even an Indian, I am pretty sure he's a padosi or a self hating desi

 

[Proactive_]

You made some points about Kohli and concluded he is not worth the hype. I am asking you, what is that hype all about? If u did clarify this somewhere, I may have missed that post(s) as this thread is not a small one. Since you responded with a rhetoric I will let others who argued with you to explain what they understood by the phrase "Kohli is not worth the hype" based on your own arguments (relating to bilaterals, flat tracks etc).

That still doesn't explain these words:

I am afraid you need to take off that Pakistani tinted glasses from ur eyes and review his game as a true neutral fan. Were Kohli to be a Pakistani I am sure what you would be talking of him right now.

You have admitted that you know nothing about the argument, you're basically asking the people whom I argued with about what the argument even was. The quoted statement is a pretty sweeping statement as if you've read the entire argument and have full knowledge over what all was discussed, which you admit that you don't. You're doubting my ability to review the game but have next to no knowledge about 90% of what I even presented in this thread. Quite a classic case of putting the cart before the horse there..

 

[Proactive_]

Nice to see some people can't stop talking about me, yet they take a hike in every argument they have with me where I expose their favourites. How cute.

 

[IndianWillow]

That still doesn't explain these words:



You have admitted that you know nothing about the argument, you're basically asking the people whom I argued with about what the argument even was. The quoted statement is a pretty sweeping statement as if you've read the entire argument and have full knowledge over what all was discussed, which you admit that you don't. You're doubting my ability to review the game but have next to no knowledge about 90% of what I even presented in this thread. Quite a classic case of putting the cart before the horse there..

I clearly mentioned what I understood as the crux of your original argument that caused the debate and summarised it in six points above. I didn't see a reply from you instead u chose to nitpick or avoid. I can see that you got put off by the charges of neutrality, but this was not my observation alone, many others opined the same.

Anyway you were apparently shifting your goal post every now and then, so maybe nobody here or even you didnt really understand (or convey) what you were trying to prove. Since it is obvious you aren't going to reply straight I will quit this line of interaction that will simply go around in loops.

 

[sachin100]

Nice to see some people can't stop talking about me, yet they take a hike in every argument they have with me where I expose their favourites. How cute.

U r the one who is getting exposed by others of u r fallacious arguments and people r also exposing u r " neutral " stand and looking through u r padoseeness

 

[sachin100]

I clearly mentioned what I understood as the crux of your original argument that caused the debate and summarised it in six points above. I didn't see a reply from you instead u chose to nitpick or avoid. I can see that you got put off by the charges of neutrality, but this was not my observation alone, many others opined the same.

Anyway you were apparently shifting your goal post every now and then, so maybe nobody here or even you didnt really understand (or convey) what you were trying to prove. Since it is obvious you aren't going to reply straight I will quit this line of interaction that will simply go around in loops.

He will not explain who he thinks is the best current generation player or recent greats because his arguments r filled with so many loop holes which make him shift from icc tournaments to triseries to suit his biased arguments.

The irony is he thinks he is neutral and exposing other favorite players but in the process getting exposed badly

 

[Proactive_]

U r the one who is getting exposed by others of u r fallacious arguments and people r also exposing u r " neutral " stand and looking through u r padoseeness

Did you finally check the links that I posted? Because you pretty much abandoned the argument when I posted them.

Also, statistics are always neutral, and they don't reflect well on Kohli's ODI batsmanship. Obviously the main argument of the critics is that I'm nitpicking, which can't be farther away from the truth since in every permutation of ODI cricket Kohli has played barring Bilaterals, his averages have fallen, and on many occasions - drastically.

 

[sachin100]

Did you finally check the links that I posted? Because you pretty much abandoned the argument when I posted them.

Also, statistics are always neutral, and they don't reflect well on Kohli's ODI batsmanship. Obviously the main argument of the critics is that I'm nitpicking, which can't be farther away from the truth since in every permutation of ODI cricket Kohli has played barring Bilaterals, his averages have fallen, and on many occasions - drastically.

U should know about a saying on statistics
"there r lies, damn lies, then there r statistics"

Statistics r not the be and end of all.

 

[Proactive_]

U should know about a saying on statistics
"there r lies, damn lies, then there r statistics"

Statistics r not the be and end of all.

More like - "there r lies, damn lies, then there r statistics when they don't suit my point".

 

[sachin100]

More like - "there r lies, damn lies, then there r statistics when they don't suit my point".

Thanks for finally accepting what we r saying all along. When u statistic fallacies r countered u shifted from that metric to other metric which suits u r argument.

 

[Proactive_]

Thanks for finally accepting what we r saying all along. When u statistic fallacies r countered u shifted from that metric to other metric which suits u r argument.

Same can be said about your 56 average 30 hundreds, 1000 average while chasing etc etc statistics, right? Also, you haven't countered any of my arguments tbh, you abandoned the argument the moment I directed you the links to the stats.

 

[sachin100]

Same can be said about your 56 average 30 hundreds, 1000 average while chasing etc etc statistics, right? Also, you haven't countered any of my arguments tbh, you abandoned the argument the moment I directed you the links to the stats.

That links posted has no meaning because from icc u have shifted the goal post saying triseries are more important than bilaterals. U r argument is itself flawed. If u r argument is valid u won't change u r argument to something else

 

[Proactive_]

That links posted has no meaning because from icc u have shifted the goal post saying triseries are more important than bilaterals. U r argument is itself flawed. If u r argument is valid u won't change u r argument to something else

I've been talking about his Tri series records from much before this thread even got started lol. I've already made my points on how I consider multi team series to be more relevant than bilaterals, you can try to counter them if you wish.

 

[Tusker]

I've been talking about his Tri series records from much before this thread even got started lol. I've already made my points on how I consider multi team series to be more relevant than bilaterals, you can try to counter them if you wish.

And how or were have you actually proved that Any Tri-Series > ALL Bi-Laterals ?

 

[Tusker]

BUMP

Didnt know that you took my silence on some random points as running away from the debate but the same obviously never applies to you ... so here you go.

Eh, this point was concerning the ODI vs T20 argument, you want T20s to be seriously considered while rating players. So by YOUR reasoning, guys like Samuels, Brathwaite, Finch, Evin Lewis belong in the discussion for best batsmen. It's your proposition, not mine.

T20s was brought in because of your claim that higher the Pressure lower is Kohlis performance. Do you agree (or not) that T20s have pressure?. Simple yes or no will do. No round about Bullsh!t. I wont respond if you do not provide a VERY CLEAR answer.

Nope. In the largest sample set, the wickets comparison is 230 something vs 70 something with the corresponding averages being 22 vs 20. That's not entirely "in a completely different league alltogether". Bracken has been a better performer in WCs which is pretty apparent.

Your Entire argument on this thread is about the Higher Levels vs Lower Levels ... are you telling me that
Waqar has more than made up for his complete no show in WC and CT on volume of wkts basis in Tri-Series ? This is your "reason" for rating Waqar higher ?

Forget Bracken I wouldnt even rate MGrath as a better ODI bowler than Waqar or Wasim despite him having won numerous high profile matches. Whereas I will pay decent amount of money to even go watch either of the Ws play even if it is a exhibition match. There is no comparison whatsoever. Both were just a sight to watch. This is EXACTLY the same situation with Kohli vs Others.

Only in India would people care about the upcoming series. The Australian coach hasn't even come to India and most top quicks are rested. They know it's a pointless bilateral series before the Ashes and serves no purpose, so much for your "rating points" argument.

SL fans started pelting their own players after India owned them in their Backyard and the selection committee was fired. Smith is Whinging after losing series to Eng 3-ZIP ... just to name a few. And you can be rest assured that the Upcomming ODI Series vs SA will have plenty of needle.

No, I'll rate modern players like Smith who step up when an ODI Tournament arrives, even if their stats otherwise in ODIs may be mediocre. The likes of Kohli can keep piling up their centuries in bilateral while going two notches down in quality as soon as tournaments arrive.

Answered earlier.

Well seeing the plethora of excuses you've had to use like trying to shoot off the backs of Prasad (whom you yourself abandoned mid argument lol) and Bracken, it's pretty safe to see it's working out pretty well thus far.

Iam using your own bakwas filters against you and it is working very well also This has been answered numerous times before.

LOL if Kohli had averaged 50+ in ANY of these parameters, be rest assured that Kohli fans would be spamming these statistics to death, but since now they can't it obviously becomes nit picking, except it's not. Stats are stats, they are facts.. and they will be pointed out, whether you like it or not.

Kohli still avgs above 50 in MultiNation tournaments do you see anyone harping about it?

As I said, they're only bakwaas because they show Kohli's averages dropping drastically from a godly figure like the 60s in bilateral to a very modest early 40s and 30s. Obviously Kedhar now doesn't matter because "less stats", but for Bracken vs Waqar that's a completely illegitimate argument for you. Because if bilaterals were oh so important in today's contemporary ODI scene, Kedhar Jadhav should have been rated as a better ODI batsman than Steve Smith, but he's not, not even close to it.. and you know why.

Have you even come close to proving that your filters make sense ? Last I checked you admitted that there was problem with the 17.75 stat or have you changed your tune again ?

Bracken has played more than 100 ODIs and for context he did that when it was very difficult to get ahead of likes of McGrath, Gillespie, Fleming, Warne, BLee, Kasprowicz let alone beat them.

Then where do his pressure absorbing instincts go on most instances during the major ICC tournaments and multi team tournaments? Why couldn't he even drag himself to a 20-30 score in the WC 15 SF and CT 17 Final if he's such a chaser par excellence that he chases 360s for fun from 62-4 in bilaterals? That just doesn't compute. Sure he has a couple of great innings in multi team tournament settings as well, I'm not denying that but he's definitely not worth the hype as some sort of a chasing God because he's far from it. That's my main gripe, I'm not saying that he's a bad or even an average ODI batsman. He's much closer to being just a very good/great ODI batsman than to being an All Time Great.

Answered earlier but gotta laugh at the childish statement highlighted above. Looks like someone trolled you and bought into this idiotic thing that Kohli never fails. Thats more to do with your own naive , unnrealistic expectations than anything else.

----

So now go back into this thread and answer EVERY single question that I asked without exception. If you dont then I will take it that you conceed this debate going by your idiotic statements elsewhere.

 

[Tusker]

Another post on this same topic that was discussed elsewhere ....

Because you're somehow fixated on the issue of rain washing away matches in Tri Series, something which can happen in any bilateral as well with equal probability.

you are the one that is fixated with this notion that Only Multination tournaments produce high quality cricket and that everything else is rubbish.

Rain ruining Multi-Nation tournaments where in the undeserving teams get ahead of strong teams is a common occurrence. Very rare for a bilateral series to be similarly affected wherein the top team will be hard done by rain.

Also, as a I said, your argument basically is that since an Eng-Aus bilateral series is more interesting than a tri series between three minnows.. I have somehow "failed" in my argument that Tri series are superior.. which wasn't even my point in the first place. It's obviously that for three evenly matched teams , a tri series is much more compelling than watching three bilateral series between them.

It is your own argument that got shredded to pieces when I pointed out that one of these great Tri-Series that you are using to crucify Kohli featured the great WI team and the other team was the mighty SL. Another one was Tri-Nation in BD that featured the mighty Bangladesh and SL.you even nicely segregated the avgs (conveniently took out the matches played to hide the sample size). and claimed victory. You think people wouldnt notice that lol

 

[Proactive_]

BUMP

Didnt know that you took my silence on some random points as running away from the debate but the same obviously never applies to you ... so here you go.




T20s was brought in because of your claim that higher the Pressure lower is Kohlis performance. Do you agree (or not) that T20s have pressure?. Simple yes or no will do. No round about Bullsh!t. I wont respond if you do not provide a VERY CLEAR answer.



Your Entire argument on this thread is about the Higher Levels vs Lower Levels ... are you telling me that
Waqar has more than made up for his complete no show in WC and CT on volume of wkts basis in Tri-Series ? This is your "reason" for rating Waqar higher ?

Forget Bracken I wouldnt even rate MGrath as a better ODI bowler than Waqar or Wasim despite him having won numerous high profile matches. Whereas I will pay decent amount of money to even go watch either of the Ws play even if it is a exhibition match. There is no comparison whatsoever. Both were just a sight to watch. This is EXACTLY the same situation with Kohli vs Others.



SL fans started pelting their own players after India owned them in their Backyard and the selection committee was fired. Smith is Whinging after losing series to Eng 3-ZIP ... just to name a few. And you can be rest assured that the Upcomming ODI Series vs SA will have plenty of needle.



Answered earlier.




Iam using your own bakwas filters against you and it is working very well also This has been answered numerous times before.



Kohli still avgs above 50 in MultiNation tournaments do you see anyone harping about it?




Have you even come close to proving that your filters make sense ? Last I checked you admitted that there was problem with the 17.75 stat or have you changed your tune again ?

Bracken has played more than 100 ODIs and for context he did that when it was very difficult to get ahead of likes of McGrath, Gillespie, Fleming, Warne, BLee, Kasprowicz let alone beat them.



Answered earlier but gotta laugh at the childish statement highlighted above. Looks like someone trolled you and bought into this idiotic thing that Kohli never fails. Thats more to do with your own naive , unnrealistic expectations than anything else.

----

So now go back into this thread and answer EVERY single question that I asked without exception. If you dont then I will take it that you conceed this debate going by your idiotic statements elsewhere.

So by the same coin, I guess you concede the argument in the India the new Australia of 2000s thread then? Gosh. I didn't even accuse you first of running away lol. It was you who started and got pretty gotten to when you were shown the mirror ).

 

[Tusker]

So by the same coin, I guess you concede the argument in the India the new Australia of 2000s thread then? Gosh. I didn't even accuse you first of running away lol.

Thats not even a completed thread and going by your own rules it is your turn to answer my question about Home vs Away because I have asked that more than once. As soon as you answer that then i will answer your questions.

It was you who started and got pretty gotten to when you were shown the mirror ).

You got told that because of your penchant to troll everywhere ... it was a matter of time someone dished out your own meds.

here is one such episode where you got cocky ... naturally people will respond in kind. Gotta love the blowback in your face

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ailable-3-0-series-lead&p=9439988#post9439988

 

[Proactive_]

Thats not even a completed thread and going by your own rules it is your turn to answer my question about Home vs Away because I have asked that more than once. As soon as you answer that then i will answer your questions.

Obviously you had start bumping threads after 4 months because I invoked your guilty conscience lol. You know that YOUR accusation of me running away from threads blew up in your face when you yourself got served a thread when where you ran away from. I don't make these stupid accusations of people running away from discussions on an internet message board.

You got told that because of your penchant to troll everywhere ... it was a matter of time someone dished out your own meds.

here is one such episode where you got cocky ... naturally people will respond in kind. Gotta love the blowback in your face

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ailable-3-0-series-lead&p=9439988#post9439988

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ODI-series-become-so-rare-nowadays&highlight=

^

A thread which you neglected as being no proof of cricketing fans preferring Tri Series to bilaterals... and now you have the gall to point me a couple of people disagreeing with me . Another one of your pair pe kulhadhi

 

[Hasan123]

I think he will surpass Ponting as an ODI batsman.

 

[hk031992]

check saeed anwar's record in australia,south africa and New Zealand in odis. he was pathetic and a walking wicket.

kohli is ten times the batsman saeed anwar ever was

true. Kohli is a better batsmen in odis than Anwar was. However, Anwar was a better test batsmen than Kohli likely will ever be.

 

[Tusker]

Obviously you had start bumping threads after 4 months because I invoked your guilty conscience lol. You know that YOUR accusation of me running away from threads blew up in your face when you yourself got served a thread when where you ran away from. I don't make these stupid accusations of people running away from discussions on an internet message board.

So you are telling I ran away from this thread(because I didnt answer all points in a post) after you had run away because you did the same? Also Check who made the last post on this thread before todays BUMP. And when exactly did you BUMP this thread as you claimed earlier ? Guilty conscience lol ... I can actually predict when you will run away from threads. Its going to keep happening if you keep making these silly posts.

Here is one of your latest : http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ain-than-MS-Dhoni/page3&p=9573312#post9573312

No prices for guessing what happened after that.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ODI-series-become-so-rare-nowadays&highlight=

^

A thread which you neglected as being no proof of cricketing fans preferring Tri Series to bilaterals... and now you have the gall to point me a couple of people disagreeing with me . Another one of your pair pe kulhadhi

Look at 357 . I answered this and my point stands ... no matter how many people you produce you are in a tiny minority. Also why are people crying over the recent NZ whitewash in a bilateral and todays thrashing in a T20 ?

Did you respond to all my points in that post 357? absolutely not but you are now claiming I ran away? Mast logic hai ... kahan se seekha ye logic? LUMS ?

 

[Proactive_]

So you are telling I ran away from this thread(because I didnt answer all points in a post) after you had run away because you did the same? Also Check who made the last post on this thread before todays BUMP. And when exactly did you BUMP this thread as you claimed earlier ? Guilty conscience lol ... I can actually predict when you will run away from threads. Its going to keep happening if you keep making these silly posts.

Yeah, that's why you had to reply to the rest of a post which YOU said that you had already addressed the important points of, lol. You know that you had been exposed on your own accusation so had to save face by addressing the rest of the post.

Here is one of your latest : http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...ain-than-MS-Dhoni/page3&p=9573312#post9573312

That's not even an argument lol. India won the Dharamsala Test vs Aus without Kohli. India won at Lords with Kohli having 0 contribution. The point was that India can win Test matches with or without Kohli which is a fact and has happened multiple times. Your statement does nothing to disprove that.

Look at 357 .I answered this and my point stands ... no matter how many people you produce you are in a tiny minority.
Also why are people crying over the recent NZ whitewash in a bilateral and todays thrashing in a T20 ?

Says the guy who tried to manufacture a mass backlash against me based off of 2 posts. )

Did you respond to all my points in that post 357? absolutely not but you are now claiming I ran away? Mast logic hai ... kahan se seekha ye logic? LUMS ?

I'm only showing you the mirror. Something which seemingly is making you wake up in a cold sweat for some reason.

 

[Tusker]

Yeah, that's why you had to reply to the rest of a post which YOU said that you had already addressed the important points of, lol. You know that you had been exposed on your own accusation so had to save face by addressing the rest of the post.

Just to show you that I had nothing to hide by not replying to all points in that silly post that you dont care at all ... as you can see you have no answers. Nor will you respond to all the points that I raised despite repeated reminders. But you will still come here and try to gloat and then get shown the mirror and then you will whinge and eventually run away.

That's not even an argument lol. India won the Dharamsala Test vs Aus without Kohli. India won at Lords with Kohli having 0 contribution. The point was that India can win Test matches with or without Kohli which is a fact and has happened multiple times. Your statement does nothing to disprove that.

Well too late genius ... responding now a week later doesn't count and it actually proves my point of how you evade posts once you know you are on a slippery slope. Go ahead bump that thread and see for yourselves one more time... I will guarantee you will run away from there in no time or play dead beat.

Says the guy who tried to manufacture a mass backlash against me based off of 2 posts. )

Mass backlash ehhh ?

I'm only showing you the mirror. Something which seemingly is making you wake up in a cold sweat for some reason.

Given the silence on replying to my posts your silly attempt to prove that it was actually me who ran away is backfiring on you as always.

 

[Proactive_]

Just to show you that I had nothing to hide by not replying to all points in that silly post that you dont care at all ... as you can see you have no answers. Nor will you respond to all the points that I raised despite repeated reminders. But you will still come here and try to gloat and then get shown the mirror and then you will whinge and eventually run away.

So when you don't reply to my posts and be choosy with what to respond to they turn silly and when I don't then I'm running away? . Another pair pe kulhadi lol

Well too late genius ... responding now a week later doesn't count and it actually proves my point of how you evade posts once you know you are on a slippery slope. Go ahead bump that thread and see for yourselves one more time... I will guarantee you will run away from there in no time or play dead beat.

Says the guy who took 4 months to reply to a post only when being exposed of double standards. Yep.

Mass backlash ehhh ?


your posts have never been moderated ehh? I made the same points anyhow. And given the silence on replying to my posts your silly attempt to prove that it was actually me who ran away is backfiring on you as always.

Trust me man. Every one sees through your little game. You got utterly exposed in the Australia of 2000s thread especially when you started writing tripe like Australia of 2016 was almost as good as 2004 and that choosing whose better in Tests between Rohit Sharma and VVS Laxman is a "matter of opinion" (damn). Now you needed to evade that thread as well as divert attention from your embarrassing posts by bumping 4 month old threads and exposing yourself even further .

Carry on mate. Entertaining stuff.

 

[Tusker]

So when you don't reply to my posts and be choosy with what to respond to they turn silly and when I don't then I'm running away? . Another pair pe kulhadi lol

I did not accuse of being choosy as long as you responded to the main topic. That was your creation to save face without realizing that you had ignored quite a few yourself. Talk about epic own goal. )

And how are the responses coming ? Fat chance if going by your past track record. Time for you to run again ?

Says the guy who took 4 months to reply to a post only when being exposed of double standards. Yep.

As I said most of that post was already been answered and the fact that you are avoiding responding tells me that all this is is stalling to save face.

Trust me man. Every one sees through your little game. You got utterly exposed in the Australia of 2000s thread especially when you started writing tripe like Australia of 2016 was almost as good as 2004 and that choosing whose better in Tests between Rohit Sharma and VVS Laxman is a "matter of opinion" (damn). Now you needed to evade that thread as well as divert attention from your embarrassing posts by bumping 4 month old threads and exposing yourself even further .

Carry on mate. Entertaining stuff.

Is that why you are avoiding answering a simple question on home vs away on that thread ? LoL

 

[Proactive_]

I did not accuse of being choosy as long as you responded to the main topic. That was your creation to save face without realizing that you had ignored quite a few yourself. Talk about epic own goal. )

*main topic* i.e arguments that you actually have something to reply on. Everything else is silly as per your lofty standrads lol.

And how are the responses coming ? Fat chance if going by your past track record. Time for you to run again ?

Says the guy who ran away only to respond to a post 4 months later when being called out for hypocrisy lol. Remember I didn't start this game of accusing people of running away from arguments, you did.. and were thoroughly exposed.

As I said most of that post was already been answered and the fact that you are avoiding responding tells me that all this is is stalling to save face.

Nice try at "running away" from the Australia of 2000s thread.

Is that why you are avoiding answering a simple question on home vs away on that thread ? LoL

Already done.. 10s of times, it's only your stubborness that is preventing you from accepting your inability to comprehend them.

 

[Tusker]

*main topic* i.e arguments that you actually have something to reply on. Everything else is silly as per your lofty standrads lol.

So why were you commending me then and whinging Now? Face saving much ?

Unlike you I rarely avoid responding if you insist on a reply. You on the other hand a serial runner. Now since you got caught pants down see if you can wiggle out of this. I already responded to the remaining points out of turn that you were whinging about. Are you going to continue the discussion or going to keep crying?

Says the guy who ran away only to respond to a post 4 months later when being called out for hypocrisy lol. Remember I didn't start this game of accusing people of running away from arguments, you did.. and were thoroughly exposed.

Exposed as in you found out that you had run away by your hilarious definition of running away. And are still doing it. )

Nice try at "running away" from the Australia of 2000s thread.


Already done.. 10s of times, it's only your stubborness that is preventing you from accepting your inability to comprehend them.

You refused to answer a simple question because you know you will get nailed. That's not called a response. That's called evading.