30th ODI ton for Virat Kohli - Equals Ricky Ponting

[Proactive_]

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?

I commended your appetite for a discussion. Something not many others in the thread had who were more interested in mud slinging. It had nothing to do with your argument per se which I destroyed in a few posts anyway.

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

Not my definition. It's something which YOU started and were thoroughly exposed when you had to reply to a 4 month old thread on a post which you deemed as "silly" lol. Nothing more to say there.

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

Because you keep asking the same questions even after they have been addressed. Obviously when you don't get something you want to listen you go on a hissy fit tour throughout the forum as evidenced by this thread .

 

[Tusker]

I commended your appetite for a discussion. Something not many others in the thread had who were more interested in mud slinging. It had nothing to do with your argument per se which I destroyed in a few posts anyway.

Now you know why they were hurling mud. You troll you will get dealt. And you didn't destroy anything . Post 386 which was the last post stands as evidence which was further confirmed after your exit from the other thread that you bumped and predictably ran away once you got exposed.

Anyhow you Will unlikely respond to my post 387 which will reconfirm what we know.

Not my definition. It's something which YOU started and were thoroughly exposed when you had to reply to a 4 month old thread on a post which you deemed as "silly" lol. Nothing more to say there.

So you answered all points in all my posts then before 358 ?

Because you keep asking the same questions even after they have been addressed. Obviously when you don't get something you want to listen you go on a hissy fit tour throughout the forum as evidenced by this thread .

There is nothing to evade that simple question unless you have something to hide. So this is other problem debating you. Don't have the guts to debate or man enough to admit you made a mistake but instead hide like a teenager and you want to be taken seriously? LoL

 

[R3verse Swing]

Entertaining and educational thread.

From my perspective, it's not the number of runs one has scored, it's when one has scored them that matters.

 

[Proactive_]

Now you know why they were hurling mud. You troll you will get dealt. And you didn't destroy anything . Post 386 which was the last post stands as evidence which was further confirmed after your exit from the other thread that you bumped and predictably ran away once you got exposed.

What? The post which you started as this:

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.

"Silence" ). Right. That silence was to remain forever if I hadn't called you out on your hypocrisy.

Anyhow you Will unlikely respond to my post 387 which will reconfirm what we know.

How about you respond in the Australia of 2000s thread, a thread in which you thoroughly embarrassed yourself.

So you answered all points in all my posts then before 358 ?

Yes.

There is nothing to evade that simple question unless you have something to hide. So this is other problem debating you. Don't have the guts to debate or man enough to admit you made a mistake but instead hide like a teenager and you want to be taken seriously? LoL

"Evade". Says the guy who initially evaded 90% of the post #387.

Once again, it's YOUR accusation that I run away from threads. I, have never in my life accusing anyone of "running away" on a message board lol, hell just how juvenile it sounds saying that? And then when your own parameters were levied on you, you were left thoroughly exposed.

Get over it.

 

[Tusker]

What? The post which you started as this:

"Silence" ). Right. That silence was to remain forever if I hadn't called you out on your hypocrisy.

If you were so seriously looking for an answer (as you are now pretending) to that post where is the BUMP to remind me ... remember that you claimed you BUMP this thread and no such thing has happened. Infact the last Post before yesterday is mine.

So here is the bottomline ... even if I were to pretend that none of this nonsense happened you will still runaway from this debate or just play your deadbeat tune because you cant bring yourself to accept that you were wrong. Let me know if you dont agree and I will ask the mods to hide all our posts after 386 and we continue as though nothing happened and let the debate answer for itself. You up for it ?

How about you respond in the Australia of 2000s thread, a thread in which you thoroughly embarrassed yourself.

I stand by my posts and will continue only if you promise to answer all questions asked . Iam not going to start answering your posts when you dont have the courtesy to answer my questions despite asking many times. Thats not how a debate works. As it stands right now I asked you a simple question on Home and Away and you are dodging that. Reasons are pretty obvious.

Now if you so insist I will one more time still go ahead and answer your question about Aussie 2004 test team vs 2017 test team but you have to promise that you will not evade that Home vs Away question in your response and provide a clear answer. And the answer should be one of the 4 possibilities. 1. Home. 2 Away. 3 Both Equally imp 4. Neither . Don't even try to pretend that it is irrelevant. You will soon see how it is relevant the moment you answer. You know that very well.

So you answered all points in all my posts then before 358 ?

Yes.

So where is the answer to these questions:

Teams involved in Khaleej Times Tournament and the Winners (Post 153)?
"If Cricinfo didnt offer a filter you wouldnt remember them" (Post 357)
"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 ?" (Post 357)

There is more un-answered questions but this should suffice. So I guess you exited before me in 358 lol

"Evade". Says the guy who initially evaded 90% of the post #387.

Once again, it's YOUR accusation that I run away from threads. I, have never in my life accusing anyone of "running away" on a message board lol, hell just how juvenile it sounds saying that? And then when your own parameters were levied on you, you were left thoroughly exposed.

Get over it.

How have I run from the thread when the last post that stands is mine? At that point in time it was your turn to respond and if you thought 358 was a clincher you should have showed up and remind me of that. Thats my point ... do you get it ? If you are going by the unanswered posts nonsense looks like you ran away in 357 before me(see above for evidence). But don't let it stop you go ahead keep digging.

 

[big_gamer007]

What exactly are people debating here?

Kohli is not GOAT?

Kohli is a crap ofi batsmen?

Kohli is an average Odi batsmen?

Seems like people arguing themselves don’t know what they are arguing about..

 

[Tusker]

What exactly are people debating here?

Kohli is not GOAT?

Kohli is a crap ofi batsmen?

Kohli is an average Odi batsmen?

Seems like people arguing themselves don’t know what they are arguing about..

Believe it or not the argument is that Kohli is a crap batsmen who fails when the going gets tough and to prove that one of the stats that was used was his avg of 17.75 (in 5 matches ) vs SL in a tri-series ...

Question to you ... do you remember these matches and what tournament it was and who won without looking at Statsguru ?

 

[big_gamer007]

Believe it or not the argument is that Kohli is a crap batsmen who fails when the going gets tough and to prove that one of the stats that was used was his avg of 17.75 (in 5 matches ) vs SL in a tri-series ...

Question to you ... do you remember these matches and what tournament it was and who won without looking at Statsguru ?

Then you are falling for his trolling mate.. If anyone is trying to argue kohli is a crap batsmen in LOI’s and whatever stat they present is just trolling..

Its human tendency that people only remember great games in which their team wins or important matches like WC/CT.. I don’t remember the tri series you are talking about but I remember tri series where kohli destroyed a peak Malinga and chased 300+ in less than 40 overs for India to have a chance to go in finals against Australia.. Or I will remember kohli’s 183 or his chases in Asia cup against pak or CT final against England or his innings against SL in WC 2011 final which was not as good as Gambo or Dhoni’s but was really needed..

In terms of his failures I will remember him failing in CT final or WC 2015 SF failure.. Because they are the tournaments that actually matter and will be remembered forever.. No one will remember anyone’s failure in bilaterals or trilaterals.. But people will remember iconic knocks in bilateral or trilaterals..

To give you an example:

Bilaterals/trilaterals are like Himesh Reshammiya songs they are remembered while they are going on and then forgotten about after a few months.
Epic innings in bilaterals/trilaterals are like iconic Himesh Reshammiya songs like Namastey London songs which will still be remembered for a while by people who grew up that time.
World cups are like Kishore Kumar songs which will always be remembered.

Anyways point is selecting such specific stats to say a batsman is crap is height of trolling.. You can say the same for anyone really.. Kohli is a great odi player he is still in his prime and maybe he becomes the best or maybe he ranks below SRT and Viv by the end of his career only time will tell.. But to say he is crap is just stupidity.

 

[Proactive_]

Then you are falling for his trolling mate.. If anyone is trying to argue kohli is a crap batsmen in LOI’s and whatever stat they present is just trolling..

Seems like you've fallen for [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]'s trolling as well. Ask him to quote one post where I've called Kohli a "crap batsman". There are various aspects to cricketing records which need to be put on the table for a proper comprehensive discussion which I did. It's another issue that Tusker didn't have any return for them and hence the filters became redundant for him, leading him to accuse me of making statements that I've never made, but that's expected of him.. I'm seeing the guy do it for months now.

 

[big_gamer007]

Seems like you've fallen for [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]'s trolling as well. Ask him to quote one post where I've called Kohli a "crap batsman". There are various aspects to cricketing records which need to be put on the table for a proper comprehensive discussion which I did. It's another issue that Tusker didn't have any return for them and hence the filters became redundant for him, leading him to accuse me of making statements that I've never made, but that's expected of him.. I'm seeing the guy do it for months now.

Ok so what exactly are you arguing for?

Kohli is not the GOAT? - agree with that
Kohli is a mediocre batsmen? - disagree with that
Kohli has flaws like every other batsmen? - Agree sure he does.

What is the end point which you guys are trying to prove? That’s my simple question.

For LOI’s.

 

[Proactive_]

Ok so what exactly are you arguing for?

Kohli is not the GOAT? - agree with that
Kohli is a mediocre batsmen? - disagree with that
Kohli has flaws like every other batsmen? - Agree sure he does.

What is the end point which you guys are trying to prove? That’s my simple question.

For LOI’s.

I'm arguing that he is overrated and doesn't deserve to be put in the upper echelons of Top ODI batsmen in history, a pedestal some overzealous fans have started putting him on for some reason. Never have I called him a "crap batsman" as one troll would make you believe.

 

[big_gamer007]

I'm arguing that he is overrated and doesn't deserve to be put in the upper echelons of Top ODI batsmen in history, a pedestal some overzealous fans have started putting him on for some reason. Never have I called him a "crap batsman" as one troll would make you believe.

Ofcourse he is still behind SRT and VIV.. No one would deny that.. Slightly behind ponting as well but you need to understand he has just entered his prime.. Next 3-4 years will define where he ends up.. The amount of hard work he puts in is unheard of in Indian cricket so there is a good chance that by the time he retires he retires as the GOAT.. Whether it happens or not time will tell..

I don’t think [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] will deny Kohli is behind SRT and VIV in LOI’s as of now as well.. But he has potential and work ethic we will see how he ends up doing.

 

[Tusker]

Ok so what exactly are you arguing for?

Kohli is not the GOAT? - agree with that
Kohli is a mediocre batsmen? - disagree with that
Kohli has flaws like every other batsmen? - Agree sure he does.

What is the end point which you guys are trying to prove? That’s my simple question.

For LOI’s.

Go thru these Gems and you can connect the dots and decide for yourselves ... (there is more but cant be bothered to waste time going thru a Trolls Trolling ) . Some of the stats have sample sizes of 4-5 inngs. that is obviously hidden. Enjoy !!


--------

Dhawan atleast didn't get blown away twice in two balls like a tailender and hung on there for a bit, same during the WC 2015 Semi, both instances where King Kohli gave us an exhibition on proper masterful chasing:

1(13)
5 (9)

Averages 23 in 8 ODI Tournament Finals and 31 in Eliminators with no hundreds. He can keep all the T20 records though where he can compete with the likes of Samuels and Brathwaite for the top spot. I'll take even Dhawan over him as an ODI batsman anyday Kohli's record is the epitomy of soft runs and going AWOL when the stakes are high. .

Useless record. Got owned in the ODIs that mattered most - The 2015 WC Semi and the CT Final.. batted like a tailender in both. Proper bilateral bully lol.

He has been a colossal failure in tournaments. You really think these hundreds when the series is 3-0 and 4-0 really count for anything when you average barely 23 in 8 ODI Tournament Finals and 31 in all ODI Eliminators? That's a dreadful record. Not worth the hype, sorry.

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

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

Average already down to 42.

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


Average :29

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

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

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.

I've already said that Kohli is an awesome bilateral bully, no questions asked. I agree 100%, though I found this recently concluded series' scores amusing hence I posted. In tournaments and multi team series his record is pretty apparent, and it's nowhere near his bilateral heroics for some reason. He can score all the 10/10s in the monthly tests, but as long as he keeps getting those 20/50s in the final exams that actually matter, he can't be rated on par with the greats of the past, sorry.

And you have clubbed Worldcup matches amongst Tri-Series tournaments such as Khaleej Times , Cola-Hajmola and Kitply cups ? Well Done

Still much more relevant than 95% of the ODI cricket today. The hierarchy is clear:

World Cups > CTs > Multi team tournaments > Meaningless bilaterals.

 

[Proactive_]

Go thru these Gems and you can connect the dots and decide for yourselves ... (there is more but cant be bothered to waste time going thru a Trolls Trolling ) . Some of the stats have sample sizes of 4-5 inngs. that is obviously hidden. Enjoy !!


--------

And in none of them I called Kohli a "crap batsman". When he bats like a "tailender" on a certain instance, he'll be called so.

Next.

 

[Tusker]

And in none of them I called Kohli a "crap batsman". When he bats like a "tailender" on a certain instance, he'll be called so.

Next.

You missed the next part of that sentence in my post.

If set aside the rage and you read your own crap it clearly tells you how you rate Kohli as a "Horrible Pressure Player" (same as Crap if not worse) and this is based on matches with selective stats and that you don't consider 95% of Bilaterals into consideration while arriving at your mahan conclusion. And ofcourse T20s cant possibly have any pressure in them at all.

 

[Proactive_]

You missed the next part of that sentence in my post.

If set aside the rage and you read your own crap it clearly tells you how you rate Kohli as a "Horrible Pressure Player" (same as Crap if not worse) and this is based on matches with selective stats and that you don't consider 95% of Bilaterals into consideration while arriving at your mahan conclusion. And ofcourse T20s cant possibly have any pressure in them at all.

Tell me when I have called Kohli as a "crap batsman", don't beat around the bush . You made the accusation (again), back it up (which you won't, again).

 

[Tusker]

Tell me when I have called Kohli as a "crap batsman", don't beat around the bush . You made the accusation (again), back it up (which you won't, again).

I didn't say crap batsman overall. That is your spin.. i said Crap under pressure which is pretty much what you said in different words. Unless you have come to your senses now but don't want to admit

 

[Proactive_]

I didn't say crap batsman overall. That is your spin.. i said Crap under pressure which is pretty much what you said in different words. Unless you have come to your senses now but don't want to admit

Believe it or not the argument is that Kohli is a crap batsmen who fails when the going gets tough and to prove that one of the stats that was used was his avg of 17.75 (in 5 matches ) vs SL in a tri-series ...
Read more at http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...quals-Ricky-Ponting/page6#pja7sYGQCcEPQHgI.99

You totally pull it out of your backside that I would consider batsmen who don't do well in pressure conditions as "crap batsmen". Pair pe kulhadi #368 by the Tuskman.

 

[Tusker]

You totally pull it out of your backside that I would consider batsmen who don't do well in pressure conditions as "crap batsmen". Pair pe kulhadi #368 by the Tuskman.

I pulled it straight out of your ** posts spewed all over this thread ... see if anyone thinks otherwise reading those posts and then you wonder why people doubt your nationality )

And then there is that epic post on a different thread where you say India can win Test matches with or without Kohli using 2 Test matches as example )

 

[Proactive_]

I pulled it straight out of your ** posts spewed all over this thread ... see if anyone thinks otherwise reading those posts and then you wonder why people doubt your nationality )

And then there is that epic post on a different thread where you say India can win Test matches with or without Kohli using 2 Test matches as example )

At least I backed it up. India have indeed won Test matches without Kohli home and away. Where's your exact quote of me calling Kohli a "crap batsman"? Yeah, right. Back up SOMETHING you accuse me of for once.

 

[Tusker]

At least I backed it up. India have indeed won Test matches without Kohli home and away. Where's your exact quote of me calling Kohli a "crap batsman"? Yeah, right. Back up SOMETHING you accuse me of for once.

So let's get this straight ... You are now saying Kohli is not a crap batsman under pressure and that I misunderstand you ? If so then please enlighten us one more time what exactly is your opinion on this matter clearly?

 

[Ab Fan]

Kohli is hitting the ATG status in tests with this performance.

Plenty of hundreds already outside Asia and this is the series where batting waa much tougher and still he will be leading run scorer with match winning knocks in this test.

His failures and all in England over one series means nothing.

 

[Tusker]

BUMP

In light of these posts by [MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION] on the other thread ...

I never said I don't rate Kohli, I just don't rate him as highly as many others and I've backed up my claims on multiple occasions including in the 30th century thread.

If getting royally pwned means being told by a salty clueless poster again and again that he won't consider any of my stat filters for some odd reason then indeed I'll admit I got pwned.

which earth shattering stat made you to not rate kohli that makes cricketing sense to anyone ? I suppose its the one where you had a sample size in single digits during a Tri-Series which according to you is the best stat that highlights how kohli is overated ?

Or the one you were using here in this thread: http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?262716-Virat-Kohli-s-ODI-average-by-country/page3

hint: you ran from all these threads despite multiple reminders (there are other threads but thats entertainment for somether slow day )

 

[Spectrum]

Some silly people will not rate Kohli's ODI achievements. But the same people will praise showers on FTBs,minnow bashers because hitting 3 consecutive hundreds is bigger thing for them than making 35 ODI hundreds.

 

[Proactive_]

BUMP

In light of these posts by [MENTION=145164]Proactive_[/MENTION] on the other thread ...







which earth shattering stat made you to not rate kohli that makes cricketing sense to anyone ? I suppose its the one where you had a sample size in single digits during a Tri-Series which according to you is the best stat that highlights how kohli is overated ?

Or the one you were using here in this thread: http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?262716-Virat-Kohli-s-ODI-average-by-country/page3

hint: you ran from all these threads despite multiple reminders (there are other threads but thats entertainment for somether slow day )

Well since you bothered to bump this thread, you obviously know pretty well what I was talking about. Pretty sure I'll still not get a clear answer as to why ONLY the stats that you consider worth mattering matter and not any others. Nah. I see another 50 posts of you dodging the actual points at hand to push in some other nonsensical agenda like only you can do.

 

[Tusker]

Well since you bothered to bump this thread, you obviously know pretty well what I was talking about. Pretty sure I'll still not get a clear answer as to why ONLY the stats that you consider worth mattering matter and not any others. Nah. I see another 50 posts of you dodging the actual points at hand to push in some other nonsensical agenda like only you can do.

None of your silly stats have been ignored in any of the threads. If anything you ran away the moment your own stats and criteria where used against you.

Besides these 2 threads there is the TriSeries thread you had created. After getting pummeled there you have abandoned your own thread.

 

[Tusker]

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

Let's go through this again:

Virat Kohli :

In bilaterals (against Top 6 teams):

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

Average: 59.15

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

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

Average: 42.32

In WC and Champions Trophy:

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

Average: 43.30

In WC and Champions Trophy Knockouts:

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

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

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

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

Average: 17.75

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

Going by the stats posted in this Epic Post and the highlighted conclusion that you draw from them ... it appears that you rate the 5 matches that he played against ONE opposition - SL - in some long forgotten Tri-Series way back in 2009/10 as the toughest matches played by Kohli as the stakes were the highest in those 5 matches. Obviously the difficulty level in these series does not even come anywhere close to for example facing SA bowlers in a bilateral

If that wasnt enough you then keep reminding me how I ignore these stats ( which I havent ) thereby further confirming how your cricketing Gyan is all Gobar grade ... but please dont stop lets do this one more time. Please tell poor me how I missed that epic Tri-Series vs SL that India is still crying for having lost those Tri-Series which to you are soo important )

 

[Proactive_]

Going by the stats posted in this Epic Post and the highlighted conclusion that you draw from them ... it appears that you rate the 5 matches that he played against ONE opposition - SL - in some long forgotten Tri-Series way back in 2009/10 as the toughest matches played by Kohli as the stakes were the highest in those 5 matches. Obviously the difficulty level in these series does not even come anywhere close to for example facing SA bowlers in a bilateral

If that wasnt enough you then keep reminding me how I ignore these stats ( which I havent ) thereby further confirming how your cricketing Gyan is all Gobar grade ... but please dont stop lets do this one more time. Please tell poor me how I missed that epic Tri-Series vs SL that India is still crying for having lost those Tri-Series which to you are soo important )

Well first of all, someone who recently said that the Australian team of 2017 was almost as good as the Australian team of 2004 shouldn't EVER be lecturing anybody on cricketing gyan . That's quite frankly the most embarrassing statement I've ever read on any cricket forum.

Secondly, only because you supposedly don't rate SL and/or Kohli of 2009 doesn't mean that these stats become invalidated. It's a FACT that Kohli averages 17 in a certain scenario. Get over it. If he averaged 65 in the same scenario, you'd be shoving the same filter down our throats.

 

[Rahul1]

Well first of all, someone who recently said that the Australian team of 2017 was almost as good as the Australian team of 2004 shouldn't EVER be lecturing anybody on cricketing gyan . That's quite frankly the most embarrassing statement I've ever read on any cricket forum.

Secondly, only because you supposedly don't rate SL and/or Kohli of 2009 doesn't mean that these stats become invalidated. It's a FACT that Kohli averages 17 in a certain scenario. Get over it. If he averaged 65 in the same scenario, you'd be shoving the same filter down our throats.

What exactly is your problem with Kohli?

 

[Proactive_]

What exactly is your problem with Kohli?

Nothing.

 

[Tusker]

Well first of all, someone who recently said that the Australian team of 2017 was almost as good as the Australian team of 2004 shouldn't EVER be lecturing anybody on cricketing gyan . That's quite frankly the most embarrassing statement I've ever read on any cricket forum.

You mean another thread form which you bolted as soon as you got caught peddling bakwas and refused to answer simple questions ?

Secondly, only because you supposedly don't rate SL and/or Kohli of 2009 doesn't mean that these stats become invalidated. It's a FACT that Kohli averages 17 in a certain scenario. Get over it. If he averaged 65 in the same scenario, you'd be shoving the same filter down our throats.

[/QUOTE]

OMG! You really rate these 5 ODIs from yrs ago as higher than WC and CT and ofcourse even the recent Bilateral series in SA ... You really are a piece of artwork

BTW kohli avgs above 50 in your favourite formats: 3+ and 5+ teams ... I found that stat while arguing with you and then guess what - you bolted - talk about Irony and epic pwnage.

But please dont stop .. please continue ... this is way too funny.

 

[IndianFan2018]

What exactly is your problem with Kohli?

King kohli 2 is Indian and arguably best player in the world ..that is the biggest problem for few bro ) )

 

[Tusker]

What exactly is your problem with Kohli?

Kohli avgd 17 in some Tri-Series vs SL a longtime ago ... he is still bitter about that ... Maybe you will get an explanation for the rationale )

 

[Proactive_]

You mean another thread form which you bolted as soon as you got caught peddling bakwas and refused to answer simple questions ?

Your memory is failing you (AGAIN). That's the thread in which you ran away from after I asked you to compare Rahane and Rohit as Test batsmen after you had already thoroughly embarrassed yourself with one hilarious statement after other

OMG! You really rate these 5 ODIs from yrs ago as higher than WC and CT and ofcourse even the recent Bilateral series in SA ... You really are a piece of artwork

BTW kohli avgs above 50 in your favourite formats: 3+ and 5+ teams ... I found that stat while arguing with you and then guess what - you bolted - talk about Irony and epic pwnage.

But please dont stop .. please continue ... this is way too funny.

Remove minnows and his average nose dives. The stats are LITERALLY what you just quoted a few posts up .

 

[Tusker]

Your memory is failing you (AGAIN). That's the thread in which you ran away from after I asked you to compare Rahane and Rohit as Test batsmen after you had already thoroughly embarrassed yourself with one hilarious statement after other

And my response to that earth shattering post that you made was whether you consider Home or away as more imp ... do let us know what happened to that

Remove minnows and his average nose dives. The stats are LITERALLY what you just quoted a few posts up .

hang on genius do you know who said this ( let me make it easy for you by highlighting the important part ) ?

In an era of tons of pointless bilateral ODIs, what really sets batsmen apart are their performances in multi team tournaments where every match right until the final has much more meaning than the bilaterals with the NRR in the equation as well

 

[Tusker]

Another Gem from the other thread

Sure. But make sure to address my stats that you've been dodging for months

Go thru my posts on this thread in pages 3,4,5 - there is literally dozens of posts that address practically every single stat you posted Especially the now legendary stat where you claimed Kohli avg 17 due to it having the highest stake .... if I missed anything it would be because of sheer boredom. But go ahead lets see what was this earth shattering stat that we are dodging. )

 

[Tusker]

BUMP ...

and after being owned and on the run from this thread Mr Proactive continues his bakwas elsewhere

Smith is better than Kohli at Tests and ODI Tournaments - the two highest forms of the game. Kohli being better at ODI bilaterals and T20s nowhere near supersedes that. Smith is the undisputed #1 batsman of this generation and has been the No.1 ranked Test batsmen for almost 3 years straight now. That's insane.

Here is he stat for ODI tournaments:

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

Smith does not even have enough sample size comparable to Kohli to rate him in tournaments. )

 

[IndianFan2018]

Bradman missing 1 year Cricket wil be big blow for this rivalry..

2 vs

King Kohli will create bigger gap in next one year

 

[Adijazz1706]

BUMP ...

and after being owned and on the run from this thread Mr Proactive continues his bakwas elsewhere



Here is he stat for ODI tournaments:

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

Smith does not even have enough sample size comparable to Kohli to rate him in tournaments. )

I think proactive is talking about ICC tourneys which is CT + WC. Smith was very good last WC with 2 50s and a 100 in the knockouts vs Kohli getting a duck against Bangladesh and 1 against Aussies. Dunno about CT though, Kohli did have a big score against Bangladesh last year

 

[Ab Fan]

Top 4:-

Viv
Tendulkar
Ponting
Kohli

 

[Proactive_]

I think proactive is talking about ICC tourneys which is CT + WC. Smith was very good last WC with 2 50s and a 100 in the knockouts vs Kohli getting a duck against Bangladesh and 1 against Aussies. Dunno about CT though, Kohli did have a big score against Bangladesh last year

This. Sadly, [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] has scored another own goal .

 

[Tusker]

This. Sadly, [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] has scored another own goal .

So the ODI Tournaments in your Post refers to ICC Events ? If so werent you singing a different tune in this thread and a few others where you were telling us the virtues of how these are sooo dramatically more important than Bilaterals and how Kohli invaraibly fails in them because of supposedly high pressure ?

Any chance you going to respond to my posts earlier in this thread ( atleast Post#435 ) or you going to continue your hand in sand routine ?

 

[Proactive_]

So the ODI Tournaments in your Post refers to ICC Events ? If so werent you singing a different tune in this thread and a few others where you were telling us the virtues of how these are sooo dramatically more important than Bilaterals and how Kohli invaraibly fails in them because of supposedly high pressure ?

Any chance you going to respond to my posts earlier in this thread ( atleast Post#435 ) or you going to continue your hand in sand routine ?

I didn't even post that in this thread lol, that too the reply was to someone who was calling Smith a dud in ODIs, hilarious right? Also, you're so desperate to make something out of nothing, AGAIN (unsurprisingly).

Smith has indeed performed better than Kohli in both ICC ODI tournaments and 3-4 team Tournaments. Funnily, you had to keep the runs filter based on your wish to make Kohli look good. As for this thread.. everything has already been discussed.. you can keep beating the dead horse if you wish. Your points still won't make a lick of sense after I demolished your bilateral argument with the India-Eng 2011 series.

 

[Tusker]

I think proactive is talking about ICC tourneys which is CT + WC. Smith was very good last WC with 2 50s and a 100 in the knockouts vs Kohli getting a duck against Bangladesh and 1 against Aussies. Dunno about CT though, Kohli did have a big score against Bangladesh last year

those are called ICC Events not ODI Tournaments. If you have the time scroll up above and you can see @Proactive using the same tournaments that I used in my stat .... But regardless lets move on ...

so then you must rate Bracken as a better bowler than Waqar Younis based on this criteria then ? Because Waqar was a big failure when it comes to WC and CT whereas Bracken has absolute Godlike stats in WC and CT.

BTW here is Kohlis record in WC + CT :
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ament_type=5;trophy=12;trophy=44;type=batting

Avg of 55 at 86 S/R

 

[Proactive_]

those are called ICC Events not ODI Tournaments. If you have the time scroll up above and you can see @Proactive using the same tournaments that I used in my stat .... But regardless lets move on ...

so then you must rate Bracken as a better bowler than Waqar Younis based on this criteria then ? Because Waqar was a big failure when it comes to WC and CT whereas Bracken has absolute Godlike stats in WC and CT.

BTW here is Kohlis record in WC + CT :
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ament_type=5;trophy=12;trophy=44;type=batting

Avg of 55 at 86 S/R

Against Top 6 opponent teams:

Smith Average - 56.57
Kohli Average - 41.06



http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...plate=results;tournament_type=5;type=allround

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...plate=results;tournament_type=5;type=allround

 

[Tusker]

I didn't even post that in this thread lol, that too the reply was to someone who was calling Smith a dud in ODIs, hilarious right? Also, you're so desperate to make something out of nothing, AGAIN (unsurprisingly).

Iam aware you are on the run from this thread ... but this thread has all the past bakwas related to that topic. No wonder why you keep running from it instead of accepting mistake and moving on .

Smith has indeed performed better than Kohli in both ICC ODI tournaments and 3-4 team Tournaments. Funnily, you had to keep the runs filter based on your wish to make Kohli look good.

If you ignore the run difference and no.of inngs and more importantly the context then thats what the bakwas outcome you will get going by stats. Reality is that in terms of high pressure matches ... there is not a single match that Smith has played that comes remotely close to the 5-6 WC +CT + Asia Cup matches that Kohli played vs Pakistan.

Regarding the run filter - Do you remember the Bracken vs Waqar discussion earlier in this thread ? where you were using the same logic to run down Bracken ? Dont like it when it works against you ehh ? )

As I have said before ... you have been thoroughly schooled here that too by your own stats and bakwas logic and are a butt of jokes on the forum.. but dont stop keep digging

As for this thread.. everything has already been discussed.. you can keep beating the dead horse if you wish. Your points still won't make a lick of sense after I demolished your bilateral argument with the India-Eng 2011 series.

demolished ? ) Is that why you are perpetually running from these threads ... have some shame. You got owned by your own bakwas and are now howling and desperately trying to save face by being a dead beat.

You got your backside handed back to you in that bilaterals thread when you tried to argue that the 2011 Ind vs End ODI series was ruined by rain like how the 1992 World cup where Pakistan was lucky to get a Point out of a rain affected match. Laughable.

 

[Tusker]

Against Top 6 opponent teams:

Smith Average - 56.57
Kohli Average - 41.06



http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...plate=results;tournament_type=5;type=allround

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...plate=results;tournament_type=5;type=allround

Again from your own comment

In an era of tons of pointless bilateral ODIs, what really sets batsmen apart are their performances in multi team tournaments where every match right until the final has much more meaning than the bilaterals with the NRR in the equation as well

)

 

[dravidthewall]

Can kohli breaks pointing"s test centuries also?

 

[dravidthewall]

Ponting test centuaries is 41 .

 

[Proactive_]

Iam aware you are on the run from this thread ... but this thread has all the past bakwas related to that topic. No wonder why you keep running from it instead of accepting mistake and moving on .

LOL mistake as in what? It's my mistake that there are certain statistics that make Kohli look much worse than what his stats suggest at the outset.. which you try to ignore and discard? Yeah, right..

If you ignore the run difference and no.of inngs and more importantly the context then thats what the bakwas outcome you will get going by stats. Reality is that in terms of high pressure matches ... there is not a single match that Smith has played that comes remotely close to the 5-6 WC +CT + Asia Cup matches that Kohli played vs Pakistan.

Steve Smith had a 50+ score in the QF, SF and Finals of the Last World Cup. Those are not pressure matches? Hilarious.

Regarding the run filter - Do you remember the Bracken vs Waqar discussion earlier in this thread ? where you were using the same logic to run down Bracken ? Dont like it when it works against you ehh ? )

As I have said before ... you have been thoroughly schooled here that too by your own stats and bakwas logic and are a butt of jokes on the forum.. but dont stop keep digging

Funnily, I already accepted that Bracken was a better bowler than Waqar in WCs, but obviously you'll try to twist it to suit your narrative. My grievance was when you tried to claim that Bracken's 70 odd wickets at 20 are much much better than Waqar's 250 odd wickets at 22 . That's nowhere near the difference like Smith vs Kohli (especially vs Top 6 teams - 56 vs 41).

demolished ? ) Is that why you are perpetually running from these threads ... have some shame. You got owned by your own bakwas and are now howling and desperately trying to save face by being a dead beat.

You got your backside handed back to you in that bilaterals thread when you tried to argue that the 2011 Ind vs End ODI series was ruined by rain like how the 1992 World cup where Pakistan was lucky to get a Point out of a rain affected match. Laughable.

This is your direct quote.

Not in bilaterals because common sense suggests that in a 5 match ODI series its pretty hard for rain to affect multiple matches in different cities so as to influence the outcome of the series in a -ve way for the deserving team ?
Read more at http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...s-become-so-rare-nowadays#UET0QiiZv9jmp240.99

You asked for a series where multiple matches were affected in a Bilateral series. I gave you one where ALL matches of the series were affected and pummeled your argument once and for all. No point hiding behind the deserving/non deserving nonsense since a grand total of ZERO matches saw a full ODI match being played.

 

[Proactive_]

Again from your own comment




)

So you have never narrowed down statistics to Top teams in comparisons of Test records of players? Does that mean that Test matches played against weaker teams don't matter? Amusing if that's your thinking.

 

[Tusker]

So you have never narrowed down statistics to Top teams in comparisons of Test records of players? Does that mean that Test matches played against weaker teams don't matter? Amusing if that's your thinking.

don't worry about how I rate players thats beyond your understanding ... concentrate on your contradictory posts ...

you have got properly stuck here havent you ? on one hand you have the lofty claim that Multi Team tournaments are vastly superior to bilaterals because of the supposedly great importance of each match in these tournaments but now you have this other itch where you need to run down Kohli and you cannot do that by compromising and back tracking on that lofty claim about Multi Team tournaments

So which one of the two are you going to back track from ? Multi-Teams vs Bilaterals OR Kohlis record in Muti-Teams ... Major dharm sankat ehh ?

 

[Proactive_]

don't worry about how I rate players thats beyond your understanding ... concentrate on your contradictory posts ...

you have got properly stuck here havent you ? on one hand you have the lofty claim that Multi Team tournaments are vastly superior to bilaterals because of the supposedly great importance of each match in these tournaments but now you have this other itch where you need to run down Kohli and you cannot do that by compromising and back tracking on that lofty claim about Multi Team tournaments

So which one of the two are you going to back track from ? Multi-Teams vs Bilaterals OR Kohlis record in Muti-Teams ... Major dharm sankat ehh ?

There's nothing contradictory. It's not my fault that you can't understand that the post about every match mattering was about the format. In that sense, every Test match matters as well, but people do check the performances against the Top teams to separate the wheat from the chaff and that's what I did with Kohli and Smith, something which irked you quite a bit I see .

 

[Tusker]

There's nothing contradictory. It's not my fault that you can't understand that the post about every match mattering was about the format. In that sense, every Test match matters as well, but people do check the performances against the Top teams to separate the wheat from the chaff and that's what I did with Kohli and Smith, something which irked you quite a bit I see .

translated: not every match in this Format is truly important right and you quite often get undeserving teams in knockouts and nor does NRR come into play every time. Is that what you are trying to say .. Right ?

 

[Proactive_]

translated: not every match in this Format is truly important right and you quite often get undeserving teams in knockouts and nor does NRR come into play every time. Is that what you are trying to say .. Right ?

No, it only means that you can't comprehend what I wrote.

 

[Tusker]

No, it only means that you can't comprehend what I wrote.

so EVERY SINGLE match is important in these Multi-Nation tournaments then ... like you claimed initially and you are sticking by that ?

something tells me you wont agree to that and that this would be an appropriate time to quietly slip out of this thread for you

 

[Tusker]

You asked for a series where multiple matches were affected in a Bilateral series. I gave you one where ALL matches of the series were affected and pummeled your argument once and for all. No point hiding behind the deserving/non deserving nonsense since a grand total of ZERO matches saw a full ODI match being played.

Genius ... read my post again it clearly says "matches -vely influenced by rain". If you want to argue that DLS is not a fair method to determine outcome of matches then in the best interest of time I suggest you think twice because it is the same friggin rule that is used in the Multi Team tournaments that you keep harping about as being next to sliced bread ... but dont let me stop you please keep digging

Also keep in mind the comparison is with 1992 WC were Pakistan scraped through because of a completely washed out match after they were bundled out very cheaply and it was a matter of time before England chased down the total. There is no comparison whatsoever with that situation to 2011.

but please keep digging keep twisting keep shifting ... its gotta work ... like how the broken clock can be right once in a day.

 

[IndianFan2018]

Genius ... read my post again it clearly says "matches -vely influenced by rain". If you want to argue that DLS is not a fair method to determine outcome of matches then in the best interest of time I suggest you think twice because it is the same friggin rule that is used in the Multi Team tournaments that you keep harping about as being next to sliced bread ... but dont let me stop you please keep digging

Also keep in mind the comparison is with 1992 WC were Pakistan scraped through because of a completely washed out match after they were bundled out very cheaply and it was a matter of time before England chased down the total. There is no comparison whatsoever with that situation to 2011.

but please keep digging keep twisting keep shifting ... its gotta work ... like how the broken clock can be right once in a day.

Lol, you owned him bro....

On topic ... will surpass and test tons for sure

 

[Tusker]

LOL mistake as in what? It's my mistake that there are certain statistics that make Kohli look much worse than what his stats suggest at the outset.. which you try to ignore and discard? Yeah, right..
.

The mistake is in claiming some random Tri-Series vs SL + WI ( that even I dont remember what the outcome was ) being claimed as a barometer of pressure and ranked higher than WCs in that legendary post where you had it at the bottom most in a list that you claimed was sorted by pressure.

Surely you are not that Dense are you?

Steve Smith had a 50+ score in the QF, SF and Finals of the Last World Cup. Those are not pressure matches? Hilarious.
.

Nothing compares to the pressure situation in a India vs Pak WC matches ... absolutely nothing.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Off topic but still Kohli related: If Kohli can conquer his English gremlins, he wouldve sealed the greatest batsmen of the modern era as Steve Smith will be out for god knows how long..

 

[Proactive_]

Genius ... read my post again it clearly says "matches -vely influenced by rain". If you want to argue that DLS is not a fair method to determine outcome of matches then in the best interest of time I suggest you think twice because it is the same friggin rule that is used in the Multi Team tournaments that you keep harping about as being next to sliced bread ... but dont let me stop you please keep digging

Also keep in mind the comparison is with 1992 WC were Pakistan scraped through because of a completely washed out match after they were bundled out very cheaply and it was a matter of time before England chased down the total. There is no comparison whatsoever with that situation to 2011.

but please keep digging keep twisting keep shifting ... its gotta work ... like how the broken clock can be right once in a day.

Negatively influenced by rain? Kindly elaborate which match is positively influenced by rain. More nonsense. If a Bilateral which had 5 out of 5 matches affected by rain isn't affected by rain enough then what is lol? Try harder mate.

 

[Proactive_]

The mistake is in claiming some random Tri-Series vs SL + WI ( that even I dont remember what the outcome was ) being claimed as a barometer of pressure and ranked higher than WCs in that legendary post where you had it at the bottom most in a list that you claimed was sorted by pressure.

Surely you are not that Dense are you?

That's your (non) understanding of the subject. I just presented facts as they are. You don't discard facts only because they don't suit your narrative.

Nothing compares to the pressure situation in a India vs Pak WC matches ... absolutely nothing.

Yeah, by this stupendously hilarious logic no player barring Indian and Pakistan players can ever be classified as good pressure players since no match can match the pressure of an Ind-Pak game (something which you can't prove as well btw). Joke of an argument lol to claim that a league match had more pressure than the QF, SF and Finals of a WC.

 

[Tusker]

Negatively influenced by rain? Kindly elaborate which match is positively influenced by rain. More nonsense. If a Bilateral which had 5 out of 5 matches affected by rain isn't affected by rain enough then what is lol? Try harder mate.

as in an un deserving team benefiting from the situation (Like Pakistan in 1992) ... read that post and the context.

 

[Proactive_]

as in an un deserving team benefiting from the situation (Like Pakistan in 1992) ... read that post and the context.

Tell me how were England more deserving in that bilateral series when a grand total of ZERO matches were unaffected by rain?

 

[Tusker]

That's your (non) understanding of the subject. I just presented facts as they are. You don't discard facts only because they don't suit your narrative.

Why dont you tell us what facts these are that will make me understand how I missed an earthshattering cricket series involving the might SL and WI ?

Yeah, by this stupendously hilarious logic no player barring Indian and Pakistan players can ever be classified as good pressure players since no match can match the pressure of an Ind-Pak game (something which you can't prove as well btw). Joke of an argument lol to claim that a league match had more pressure than the QF, SF and Finals of a WC.

No other countries have the political and religious background to their intence rivalries (More like enemity) ... you can try as hard as you want but there aint a comparison. Deal with it. There is a reason why people commit suicides , Armies start firing across the borders after India Pakistan matches.

 

[Tusker]

Tell me how were England more deserving in that bilateral series when a grand total of ZERO matches were unaffected by rain?

Its called Duckworth Lewis which is based on the cricket played. So again before you reach out in rage to denounce DLS as bakwas I suggest you read Post#458.

 

[Proactive_]

Why dont you tell us what facts these are that will make me understand how I missed an earthshattering cricket series involving the might SL and WI ?

Garry Sobers averages 23 against NZ in 12 Tests. So you mean that those 12 Tests don't matter since NZ was a weak team during Sobers' time?

No other countries have the political and religious background to their intence rivalries (More like enemity) ... you can try as hard as you want but there aint a comparison. Deal with it. There is a reason why people commit suicides , Armies start firing across the borders after India Pakistan matches.

That is no basis for an objective assessment. So what does Smith have to do other than scoring heavily than the QF, SF and Finals of the WC to prove that he is a great pressure player? Play for India? Play for Pakistan? See how stupid your argument sounds?

 

[Tusker]

so EVERY SINGLE match is important in these Multi-Nation tournaments then ... like you claimed initially and you are sticking by that ?

something tells me you wont agree to that and that this would be an appropriate time to quietly slip out of this thread for you

No Response to this ?

at this rate pretty soon you might as well claim that all matches involving Kohli where he did well do not matter for consideration

 

[Proactive_]

Its called Duckworth Lewis which is based on the cricket played. So again before you reach out in rage to denounce DLS as bakwas I suggest you read Post#458.

And you don't understand the simple point that in a 50over ODI series, when a grand total of ZERO matches out of the five are unaffected by rain - the entire basis of a 50 over match series becomes redundant. That's what you were so vehemently arguing with the Tournaments and were slapped back with this series .

 

[Proactive_]

No Response to this ?

at this rate pretty soon you might as well claim that all matches involving Kohli where he did well do not matter for consideration

That point was on the format rather than the opposition. Your stubbornness is preventing you from acknowledging this for months now .

Just like every Test match matters but performances against the Top teams matters more. Similarly Smith demolishes Kohli in matches against the Top 6 teams in Tournaments which makes him a better player in Tournaments. Simple as that.

 

[Tusker]

Garry Sobers averages 23 against NZ in 12 Tests. So you mean that those 12 Tests don't matter since NZ was a weak team during Sobers' time?

They absolutely don't matter... unless I missed the news where the Cricket World downgraded Sobers down from his high pedestal because of those matches. NZ are merely the ones that got away. Similar thing happened when Tendulkar missed out on scoring a hundred at Lords ... only a fool would construe that as some sort of failures for Tendulkar and Sobers.

That is no basis for an objective assessment. So what does Smith have to do other than scoring heavily than the QF, SF and Finals of the WC to prove that he is a great pressure player? Play for India? Play for Pakistan? See how stupid your argument sounds?

ohh yeah let me pretend that Indo-Pak is just like any other cricket match because that would be unfair on poor old Smith ... while we are at it let me also convince the players and the cricket mad nations of the same... yeah sure anything else ? )

 

[Tusker]

That point was on the format rather than the opposition. Your stubbornness is preventing you from acknowledging this for months now .

Just like every Test match matters but performances against the Top teams matters more. Similarly Smith demolishes Kohli in matches against the Top 6 teams in Tournaments which makes him a better player in Tournaments. Simple as that.

dude your entire argument was that the nature of the format meant all matches were important. But now you are discarding matches from these tournaments to suit your agenda. Either all matches are important in these tournaments or they are not. Which is it ?

 

[Tusker]

And you don't understand the simple point that in a 50over ODI series, when a grand total of ZERO matches out of the five are unaffected by rain - the entire basis of a 50 over match series becomes redundant. That's what you were so vehemently arguing with the Tournaments and were slapped back with this series .

Again its just not that match got reduced that Iam looking for. That series was decided purely on merit based on the cricket played (Unless you want to argue against DLS lol ). Pakistan on the other hand got out of jail in broad daylight in 1992 WC. You can try as hard as you like but there isnt a comparison between the 1992 WC and 2011 Ind Series in Eng.

And ohh its the same DLS system thats used to determine winners in your beloved Multi-Team tournaments. So wither ways you lose ...

 

[Proactive_]

They absolutely don't matter... unless I missed the news where the Cricket World downgraded Sobers down from his high pedestal because of those matches. NZ are merely the ones that got away. Similar thing happened when Tendulkar missed out on scoring a hundred at Lords ... only a fool would construe that as some sort of failures for Tendulkar and Sobers.

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

ohh yeah let me pretend that Indo-Pak is just like any other cricket match because that would be unfair on poor old Smith ... while we are at it let me also convince the players and the cricket mad nations of the same... yeah sure anything else ? )

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

 

[Proactive_]

dude your entire argument was that the nature of the format meant all matches were important. But now you are discarding matches from these tournaments to suit your agenda. Either all matches are important in these tournaments or they are not. Which is it ?

Read the reply again. I didn't say they were not important. I said that performances against the better teams matter more (same as in Tests), in which Smith is miles better than Kohli (56 vs 41).

 

[Proactive_]

Again its just not that match got reduced that Iam looking for. That series was decided purely on merit based on the cricket played (Unless you want to argue against DLS lol ). Pakistan on the other hand got out of jail in broad daylight in 1992 WC. You can try as hard as you like but there isnt a comparison between the 1992 WC and 2011 Ind Series in Eng.

And ohh its the same DLS system thats used to determine winners in your beloved Multi-Team tournaments. So wither ways you lose ...

How do you know that series was purely decided on merit of teams in ODI 50 over cricket when none of the actual matches were proper ODIs?

 

[BreadPakoda]

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

Wins series in SA

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

 

[IndianFan2018]

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

Wins series in SA

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

Goal post keeps changing to degrade King Kohli performances 2 )

 

[Tusker]

Read the reply again. I didn't say they were not important. I said that performances against the better teams matter more (same as in Tests), in which Smith is miles better than Kohli (56 vs 41).

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

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

 

[Tusker]

How do you know that series was purely decided on merit of teams in ODI 50 over cricket when none of the actual matches were proper ODIs?

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