Australians are delusional about Steve Smith's ranking

[Mean&Green]

So I am watching the newzeland vs Australia test match and all the commies keep mentioning and saying Steve smith the best batsman in the world. Not only that is quite funny but repeatedly all the commentators including warne, isa guha, Allan border, and even Micheal Vaughan keep mentioning he’s ranked number one in the world when he is not anymore. Is it just that they can’t accept fact that he’s not number one anymore or it’s just that they are way too arrogant about him being the best and number one in the world when he is not currently.

 

[jnaveen1980]

He is not even the best batsman in his side at this point lol. Labu is the new Smithy.

 

[andy0204]

Nope he is not,Kohli is no 1

 

[Slog]

Regardless of what his rank is, Steve Smith is the best test batsman in the world today and of that there is no question

 

[jiduguravindra]

Whatever it is he is such a ugly ugly batsmen to watch.Best or not I will think twice before paying to watch him bat.As per scoring and consistency he is best in tests but there are handful of players better than him in limited overs.

 

[wrongun]

They just think that despite his year out of the game...

That he was clearly the best batsman in the world before his break (daylight second, then Kohli). Fact.

Then he has scored heavily in English conditions on his return & now looks set to start scoring heavily at home...

Who is better? Williamson isn't in the same league- Kohli might be close but doesn't score at the same volume at his best.

It is a bit arrogant but who is better?

Find me another current batsman who averages 50+ in the 3 most varied countries with good Test attacks- Oz, India, England...

 

[jnaveen1980]

He could overtake kohli if he makes a 100 here. only 17 points seperating them. Where as it is hard to match Pat cummins in the bowling. Kagiso is some way behind. But this boxing day test will decide who will be the no.1 bowler.

 

[JattMaula]

He is and Australians are justifiably proud of him.

 

[BreadPakoda]

They just think that despite his year out of the game...

That he was clearly the best batsman in the world before his break (daylight second, then Kohli). Fact.

Then he has scored heavily in English conditions on his return & now looks set to start scoring heavily at home...

Who is better? Williamson isn't in the same league- Kohli might be close but doesn't score at the same volume at his best.

It is a bit arrogant but who is better?

Find me another current batsman who averages 50+ in the 3 most varied countries with good Test attacks- Oz, India, England...

He is the best test batsman as per me too, but he isn't rank #1. That's what the OP is trying to point out. Commentators cannot afford to be factually incorrect.

 

[Aman]

I'm fine with Indians calling Kohli the best and Aussies calling Smith the best

Both are the two best batsmen in the world, in a league of their own.

 

[tyron_woodley]

smith in terms of consistency is better than kohli. Kohli at his absolute best might be slightly ahead. I don't know. I have no problem with people labelling smith as the best. Either one of these 2 could be the best in the world.

smith is messi - a more naturally talented guy with GOAT level ability to survive and fight like a true warrior.

virat is more like ronaldo - a by product of hard work who is tough and tenacious and strives for excellence with GOAT level ability to bat in difficult conditions.

 

[jnaveen1980]

smith in terms of consistency is better than kohli. Kohli at his absolute best might be slightly ahead. I don't know. I have no problem with people labelling smith as the best. Either one of these 2 could be the best in the world.

smith is messi - a more naturally talented guy with GOAT level ability to survive and fight like a true warrior.

virat is more like ronaldo - a by product of hard work who is tough and tenacious and strives for excellence with GOAT level ability to bat in difficult conditions.

Kohli's workload is very high. Captain of India in 3 formats, Captain of RCB. India relies on him in all 3 formats.

 

[Mean&Green]

He is the best test batsman as per me too, but he isn't rank #1. That's what the OP is trying to point out. Commentators cannot afford to be factually incorrect.

Exactly it’s just that they are blatantly ignoring the rankings isha guha and Shane warne especially they are acting like the rankings are different or they haven’t been updated which is ridiculous as they are tv commentators and their voice is going out to millions and their blind biasness is just not good for the people watching because it’s gets quite Cringey upto a point when it’s not even true and they keep repeating themselves to get a false point across.

 

[Mean&Green]

smith in terms of consistency is better than kohli. Kohli at his absolute best might be slightly ahead. I don't know. I have no problem with people labelling smith as the best. Either one of these 2 could be the best in the world.

smith is messi - a more naturally talented guy with GOAT level ability to survive and fight like a true warrior.

virat is more like ronaldo - a by product of hard work who is tough and tenacious and strives for excellence with GOAT level ability to bat in difficult conditions.

Virat calls himself a Ronaldo as well which is funny cause he wants to be cool cause I guess Ronaldo is more cool compared to Messi that’s what he says when he is compared with ab de Villiers that is Ronaldo and ab is a Messi but I don’t beleive that to be honest. All football players work hard Ronaldo was a magician like Messi when he came onto the scene he was destined for greatness as was Messi so that narrative of kohli is quite is quite false and just another gig to look more cool imo.

 

[CricketDon]

He is such a ugly batsman to watch. So uneasy on the eye. He’s a product of flat pitches and ICC goal to make cricket a batsman game. His amazing purple patch is over and he’s return to a 50-54 average and retire an ATG. However he ain’t in conversation for top 5 all time.

Virat kohli is the best batsman in the world in every single format. He’s retaken the throne and Smith May enter it here and there but ultimately it is Kohli who will hold that mantle.

 

[Slog]

He is such a ugly batsman to watch. So uneasy on the eye. He’s a product of flat pitches and ICC goal to make cricket a batsman game. His amazing purple patch is over and he’s return to a 50-54 average and retire an ATG. However he ain’t in conversation for top 5 all time.

Virat kohli is the best batsman in the world in every single format. He’s retaken the throne and Smith May enter it here and there but ultimately it is Kohli who will hold that mantle.

Grapes are sour

Yea he’s product of flat pitches but has scored centuries on green tracks, raging turners and bouncy pitches

 

[CricketDon]

Grapes are sour

Yea he’s product of flat pitches but has scored centuries on green tracks, raging turners and bouncy pitches

Why would I be sour? I’m not a smith hater haha. Smith is a great player and I believe If he retires today he is an ATG. He’s a limited batsman with a small scoring zone. His technique won’t last. Especially if pitch standards change and ball type etc.

I think you’re sour People rate Kohli as the best and that does not sit well with people like yourself.

 

[Mesozoic]

Grapes are sour

Yea he’s product of flat pitches but has scored centuries on green tracks, raging turners and bouncy pitches

Lol. We have two guys who is of his calibre if not better than him. Kohli in all formats and Rohit in LOIs. We don't need those sweet grapes. Thanks.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Greatest test batsman of this generation doesn't need anh validation by ranking. Tendulkar was ranking below Kallis, Ponting, Sangakkara for most of 2000s and he was still regarded ahead of them. Its about stature

 

[Mean&Green]

Greatest test batsman of this generation doesn't need anh validation by ranking. Tendulkar was ranking below Kallis, Ponting, Sangakkara for most of 2000s and he was still regarded ahead of them. Its about stature

That’s not the point the Australians repeatedly claiming him to be “ranked” number one batsman in the world is what I have a problem with

 

[Mamoon]

Smith is the best Test batsman today no matter the official ranking at the moment. However, Kohli is the best overall batsman in the world by some distance and is the best player of his era.

Only Australian fans will remember this generation for Smith. The rest of the world will remember this generation as the Kohli era. Such dominance across formats was not deemed possible before he came along.

I remember creating a thread over the possibility of a batsman averaging 50+ in all three formats at the same time. Kohli has made it look like a walk in the park.

Not to mention his legacy as a captain is at a completely different level compared to cheater Smith.

 

[hk031992]

Smith is the best Test batsman today no matter the official ranking at the moment. However, Kohli is the best overall batsman in the world by some distance and is the best player of his era.

Only Australian fans will remember this generation for Smith. The rest of the world will remember this generation as the Kohli era. Such dominance across formats was not deemed possible before he came along.

I remember creating a thread over the possibility of a batsman averaging 50+ in all three formats at the same time. Kohli has made it look like a walk in the park.

Not to mention his legacy as a captain is at a completely different level compared to cheater Smith.

Kohli era? No. He hasn't been that dominant, especially not in crucial WC games.

Ponting's run between 2000-07 was better (test + ODI). And Ponting performed in the big WC game. Kohli didn't.

I know you are a Kohli fan but he isn't the best batsmen of his era. Smith is. Smith has performed in WC in the later stages, and i will gladly take that over Kohli's better average. And like you stated, Smith is the better test player.

 

[kingusama92]

In Tests Smith is better than Kohli.

So it's understandable why Australian fans/commentators are positioning him as the best batsman in Test cricket.

But yes, Kohli is the greatest batsman of this generation across all formats. No doubt about it.

 

[Ami]

Doesnt matter about ranking...Smith is no.1 in tests...way ahead of Kohli.

 

[ak619]

Whatever the rankings may be at this exact point in time, there is no doubt that Steve Smith is the best test batsman going around in world cricket right now.

 

[wrongun]

Kohli era? No. He hasn't been that dominant, especially not in crucial WC games.

Ponting's run between 2000-07 was better (test + ODI). And Ponting performed in the big WC game. Kohli didn't.

I know you are a Kohli fan but he isn't the best batsmen of his era. Smith is. Smith has performed in WC in the later stages, and i will gladly take that over Kohli's better average. And like you stated, Smith is the better test player.

It's an interesting one. As an Aussie i natural favour Smith & the Test format, even as I recognise WC as very important.

I can understand though if Indian fans prefer WC & put ODI alongside Tests.

Kohli hasn't dominated WC's & major ODI tournaments- Amir twice dismissing him or dropped/out in the CT was a turning point in that match. Like you say, that doesn't happen in your favoured format if this is YOUR era. You can fail here or there but need to own many or most of the big matches. Kohli performs plenty often but not yet dominant in the big ends enough.

Good thing is the duel isn't done yet. The next 5 years of each career might just decide this one.

 

[silent ischemia]

Well Pakistan might have had a torrid time Down Under recently but one favour that they have done to Kohli fans is my dismissing Smith cheaply on two occasions which has helped Kohli gain no 1 Test batting rankings

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Let me say this, Smith is THE number 1 test batsman, regardless of whatever any ranking says, whether it's made by ICC, CA or BCCI. He is above rankings, number 1 test batsman is his title based on his stature. Rankings come and go, Smith is >>>>> all test batsmen in 2010s, that's a fact.

Bradman could be behind Kohli in some 'ranking' and that doesn't mean anything. The GOAT players transcend this ranking talk. Another GOAT from this decade was Dale Steyn.

 

[Waleed93]

Rankings can change, but nobody can deny that Smith is the best Test batsman in the world at the moment.

Kohli certainly is on a different level in LOIs, and is a great Test batsman as well. The gap between both of them in Tests is not as big as the gap between them in ODIs/T20Is, where Kohli towers above Smith and every other batsman in the world.

Kohli is the greatest batsman of this generation by a country mile, if you take into consideration every format of the game.

 

[Abdullah719]

Last 5 years in Tests.

 

[kingusama92]

It's an interesting one. As an Aussie i natural favour Smith & the Test format, even as I recognise WC as very important.

I can understand though if Indian fans prefer WC & put ODI alongside Tests.

Kohli hasn't dominated WC's & major ODI tournaments- Amir twice dismissing him or dropped/out in the CT was a turning point in that match. Like you say, that doesn't happen in your favoured format if this is YOUR era. You can fail here or there but need to own many or most of the big matches. Kohli performs plenty often but not yet dominant in the big ends enough.

Good thing is the duel isn't done yet. The next 5 years of each career might just decide this one.

I think it's important to remember this is now a three-format era. I know it displeases purists but that's the reality of the situation.

Smith isn't very good in T20Is with an AVG of 27.47 and 19.50 in ICC knockout games. If you can't perform in a format, you aren't worthy of being the generation's best batsman. It means your skillset isn't capable of handling a fast-paced, aggressive game.

In comparison, Kohli's ONLY flaw is ICC ODI knockout games. The guy averages 119.00 in ICC T20I knockout matches.

He also performs in Tests (home and away), ODIs (home and away), T20Is (home and away) and yes even ICC tournament group matches (home and away). Plus, he's also one of the greatest (if not greatest) ODI/T20I chasers in the game.

As a complete batsman, Kohli is ahead of Smith both technically and statistically in this era.

 

[silent ischemia]

Smith's credentials will be tested when he plays in the subcontinent

 

[Joseph Gomes]

I think it's important to remember this is now a three-format era. I know it displeases purists but that's the reality of the situation.

Smith isn't very good in T20Is with an AVG of 27.47 and 19.50 in ICC knockout games. If you can't perform in a format, you aren't worthy of being the generation's best batsman. It means your skillset isn't capable of handling a fast-paced, aggressive game.

In comparison, Kohli's ONLY flaw is ICC ODI knockout games. The guy averages 119.00 in ICC T20I knockout matches.

He also performs in Tests (home and away), ODIs (home and away), T20Is (home and away) and yes even ICC tournament group matches (home and away). Plus, he's also one of the greatest (if not greatest) ODI/T20I chasers in the game.

As a complete batsman, Kohli is ahead of Smith both technically and statistically in this era.

You forgot Smith's stats in World Cup KO matches. He averages 103.66 with 1 hundred and 3 fifties. Smith is as clutch as it gets. There's a reason why he's considered big match player over Kohli.

 

[andy0204]

Smith's credentials will be tested when he plays in the subcontinent

He already proved 2 years ago in India.

 

[Slog]

Why would I be sour? I’m not a smith hater haha. Smith is a great player and I believe If he retires today he is an ATG. He’s a limited batsman with a small scoring zone. His technique won’t last. Especially if pitch standards change and ball type etc.

I think you’re sour People rate Kohli as the best and that does not sit well with people like yourself.

Small scoring zone? Won’t last long?

LMAOOO

Grapes are indeed sour. I would suggest you go have a mango to sweeten your palette

 

[Slog]

Smith's credentials will be tested when he plays in the subcontinent

Lol his record in India is amazing.

He has proven himself and in fact outbatted Kohli

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Smith's credentials will be tested when he plays in the subcontinent

Smith already scored 3 tons in India when Ashwin and Jadeja were the no.1 and no.2 bowlers. His credentials dwarf Kohli's lol.

 

[Slog]

Smith is the best Test batsman today no matter the official ranking at the moment. However, Kohli is the best overall batsman in the world by some distance and is the best player of his era.

Only Australian fans will remember this generation for Smith. The rest of the world will remember this generation as the Kohli era. Such dominance across formats was not deemed possible before he came along.

I remember creating a thread over the possibility of a batsman averaging 50+ in all three formats at the same time. Kohli has made it look like a walk in the park.

Not to mention his legacy as a captain is at a completely different level compared to cheater Smith.

England and South Africa fans will also remember as generation of Smith. Esp English considering how much grief he had given them in the series they care about

Overall Kohli is ahead of Smith. But in ICC ODI knockouts and obviously tests, Smith has the lead. In fact I would say at this point Kohli is closer to Smith in tests than in ICC knockouts.

 

[Slog]

I don’t see why you need to put one down to big up the other though

 

[kingusama92]

You forgot Smith's stats in World Cup KO matches. He averages 103.66 with 1 hundred and 3 fifties. Smith is as clutch as it gets. There's a reason why he's considered big match player over Kohli.

Yes and he averages 19.50 in T20I knockout matches.

His ODI bilateral record is also massively flawed. Struggles in India, New Zealand, England, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and even Zimbabwe. He's literally propping his ODI average up by scoring in home matches.

Smith's ODI average away from home = 33.66

How is someone like this supposed to be the best batsman of his generation?

Fans pay big money to watch these players play throughout the international calendar. The best batsman cannot be someone who doesn't show up for two formats (minus World Cup KO matches).

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Even if they are factually wrong I don't see what is delusional about it. Smith is an unbelievable test batsman. Probably the GOAT. He's scoring in the most competitive era of test cricket.

 

[Mamoon]

Kohli era? No. He hasn't been that dominant, especially not in crucial WC games.

Ponting's run between 2000-07 was better (test + ODI). And Ponting performed in the big WC game. Kohli didn't.

I know you are a Kohli fan but he isn't the best batsmen of his era. Smith is. Smith has performed in WC in the later stages, and i will gladly take that over Kohli's better average. And like you stated, Smith is the better test player.

In my opinion which I share with de Villiers, the truly best player in the world today is the one who dominates all formats. Kohli is the only batsman in the world and possibly the only player in the world who is among the top 2 in all three formats.

Smith has done better than him in World Cup knockouts, but overall he is leagues below him in ODIs. You would take Smith over Kohli in ODIs because of that, but you are in the extreme minority.

Hardly 1 or 2% of the cricket population including the fans, players, commentators, former legends etc. would take Smith over Kohli in ODIs regardless of their World Cup knockouts record.

Fan is a strong word because there are several players that I enjoy watching more than Kohli because of their playing style, shots etc.

I actually enjoy watching Smith, Root and Buttler bat more than I enjoy watching Kohli bat, so technically, I am probably their fan and not Kohli. However, I cannot downplay Kohli’s dominance.

It is true that Kohli has not been at his best in the World Cup knockouts, but it is ridiculous how far ahead he is of everyone else. His competition is with himself and how far he can go, because he left everyone else behind long ago.

43 hundreds at the age of 31 with an average of almost 60 is beyond belief. No batsman in history has come close to such dominance and consistency. Not Tendulkar, not Viv not Ponting. No one.

Ponting had a great peak in the 2000s, but in spite of playing for the best team in the world by a country mile and playing on plenty of flat ODI wickets, he couldn’t achieve the consistency that Kohli has reached today.

For reference, Ponting scored 30 hundreds in 365 ODI innings.

Kohli has 43 in 233 ODI innings. No comparison whatsoever.

Furthermore, Kohli is the only ODI batsman in history who is not only a top-order anchor but also a lethal finisher. Cricket has had plenty of top-order ODI batsman and plenty of lower-order finishers, but Kohli is the first 2 in 1 player.

He is like Ponting and Bevan or Tendulkar and Dhoni rolled into one.

World Cup knockout performances are very important. However, how important are they?

Can a batsman like Smith with 8 ODI hundreds at an average of 40 be considered better than Kohli because of 2-3 innings in World Cup knockouts?

Does those 2-3 innings negate Kohli’s 43 ODI hundreds (a staggering 35 more than Smith), an average of almost 60 and a ridiculous chasing record because of his dual role of anchor and finisher?

Don’t you think that is incredibly harsh and also completely illogical?

Can we consider someone like Grant Elliot a better ODI batsman than Amla because he has scored in a World Cup final and semifinal?

World Cup knockouts add gloss to a career. It doesn’t make or break a career. If your overall record is mediocre than a World Cup knockout performance does not make you a legend.

Similarly, if your overall record is phenomenal then a World Cup knockout failure doesn’t make you an average player.

World Cup knockout performances can turn a very good career into a legendary career. However, you need to have a very good career in the first place.

Smith has less ODI hundreds than Hafeez and Malik, and Kohli has more hundreds than him in ODIs than Smith does in his international career.

If he scores 30 odd hundreds then we can argue that he is better than Kohli because of his World Cup knockout performances, but someone with 8 hundreds isn’t even worthy of discussion.

In my opinion, the four greatest batsmen of the 21st century are (in no particular order) Tendulkar, Lara, Kohli and Ponting. You can make a case for either to be number 1 because of different reasons.

Smith has to do a lot more in ODIs to enter that discussion. However, purely in Tests, he is as good as anyone to have ever played the game.

If someone completely ignores ODI cricket than you can call Smith the best batsman ever, but if you give even a semblance of importance to ODIs, Smith cannot be compared to Kohli.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Last 5 years in Tests.

This is why Joe root being in the fab 4 is a joke. Pujara has been the better batsman.

 

[Mamoon]

England and South Africa fans will also remember as generation of Smith. Esp English considering how much grief he had given them in the series they care about

Overall Kohli is ahead of Smith. But in ICC ODI knockouts and obviously tests, Smith has the lead. In fact I would say at this point Kohli is closer to Smith in tests than in ICC knockouts.

Kohli is so far ahead of Smith in ODIs that the World Cup knockout argument has no relevance. You are essentially comparing a batsman with 8 ODI hundreds to someone who has 43.

If they were comparable in ODIs than you can use Smith’s knockout record to consider him better.

This is like comparing Griezmann to Messi because Griezmann played far better in a World Cup Final.

 

[Mean&Green]

In my opinion which I share with de Villiers, the truly best player in the world today is the one who dominates all formats. Kohli is the only batsman in the world and possibly the only player in the world who is among the top 2 in all three formats.

Smith has done better than him in World Cup knockouts, but overall he is leagues below him in ODIs. You would take Smith over Kohli in ODIs because of that, but you are in the extreme minority.

Hardly 1 or 2% of the cricket population including the fans, players, commentators, former legends etc. would take Smith over Kohli in ODIs regardless of their World Cup knockouts record.

Fan is a strong word because there are several players that I enjoy watching more than Kohli because of their playing style, shots etc.

I actually enjoy watching Smith, Root and Buttler bat more than I enjoy watching Kohli bat, so technically, I am probably their fan and not Kohli. However, I cannot downplay Kohli’s dominance.

It is true that Kohli has not been at his best in the World Cup knockouts, but it is ridiculous how far ahead he is of everyone else. His competition is with himself and how far he can go, because he left everyone else behind long ago.

43 hundreds at the age of 31 with an average of almost 60 is beyond belief. No batsman in history has come close to such dominance and consistency. Not Tendulkar, not Viv not Ponting. No one.

Ponting had a great peak in the 2000s, but in spite of playing for the best team in the world by a country mile and playing on plenty of flat ODI wickets, he couldn’t achieve the consistency that Kohli has reached today.

For reference, Ponting scored 30 hundreds in 365 ODI innings.

Kohli has 43 in 233 ODI innings. No comparison whatsoever.

Furthermore, Kohli is the only ODI batsman in history who is not only a top-order anchor but also a lethal finisher. Cricket has had plenty of top-order ODI batsman and plenty of lower-order finishers, but Kohli is the first 2 in 1 player.

He is like Ponting and Bevan or Tendulkar and Dhoni rolled into one.

World Cup knockout performances are very important. However, how important are they?

Can a batsman like Smith with 8 ODI hundreds at an average of 40 be considered better than Kohli because of 2-3 innings in World Cup knockouts?

Does those 2-3 innings negate Kohli’s 43 ODI hundreds (a staggering 35 more than Smith), an average of almost 60 and a ridiculous chasing record because of his dual role of anchor and finisher?

Don’t you think that is incredibly harsh and also completely illogical?

Can we consider someone like Grant Elliot a better ODI batsman than Amla because he has scored in a World Cup final and semifinal?

World Cup knockouts add gloss to a career. It doesn’t make or break a career. If your overall record is mediocre than a World Cup knockout performance does not make you a legend.

Similarly, if your overall record is phenomenal then a World Cup knockout failure doesn’t make you an average player.

World Cup knockout performances can turn a very good career into a legendary career. However, you need to have a very good career in the first place.

Smith has less ODI hundreds than Hafeez and Malik, and Kohli has more hundreds than him in ODIs than Smith does in his international career.

If he scores 30 odd hundreds then we can argue that he is better than Kohli because of his World Cup knockout performances, but someone with 8 hundreds isn’t even worthy of discussion.

In my opinion, the four greatest batsmen of the 21st century are (in no particular order) Tendulkar, Lara, Kohli and Ponting. You can make a case for either to be number 1 because of different reasons.

Smith has to do a lot more in ODIs to enter that discussion. However, purely in Tests, he is as good as anyone to have ever played the game.

If someone completely ignores ODI cricket than you can call Smith the best batsman ever, but if you give even a semblance of importance to ODIs, Smith cannot be compared to Kohli.

That average is boosted upto 60 because of those 3 consecutive hundreds against that mediocre West Indian bowling attack in West Indies after the World Cup that average will come back down to low to mid 50s very soon

 

[Mamoon]

That average is boosted upto 60 because of those 3 consecutive hundreds against that mediocre West Indian bowling attack in West Indies after the World Cup that average will come back down to low to mid 50s very soon

He has played very few matches against associate teams and he averages 60+ against New Zealand and South Africa. His average of 59.8 is not misleading at all.

 

[RainStopsPlay]

The most ugliest batsman I've ever seen in Cricket! His stance, body language, shot making, everything makes me want to turn off the Tele instantly!

 

[Mean&Green]

The most ugliest batsman I've ever seen in Cricket! His stance, body language, shot making, everything makes me want to turn off the Tele instantly!

Honestly so true and he plays way too slow as well I know it’s test cricket but he’s way too predictable that he will not score a run for a good 5 overs. Than plus all the useless movement and feeling his box moving awkwardly around crease weird leaves. Not only ugly to watch but he’ll make you smash your tv

 

[andy0204]

The most ugliest batsman I've ever seen in Cricket! His stance, body language, shot making, everything makes me want to turn off the Tele instantly!

This is not fashion show that you will only want to see a beautiful girl.

 

[BaankeJi]

Let me say this, Smith is THE number 1 test batsman, regardless of whatever any ranking says, whether it's made by ICC, CA or BCCI. He is above rankings, number 1 test batsman is his title based on his stature. Rankings come and go, Smith is >>>>> all test batsmen in 2010s, that's a fact.

Bradman could be behind Kohli in some 'ranking' and that doesn't mean anything. The GOAT players transcend this ranking talk. Another GOAT from this decade was Dale Steyn.

This thread is not only about tests.

 

[shahid10]

Lol at Smith being best batsman,He's only good at the minority format and less said about his batting technique the better it would be..

 

[MenInG]

<div style="width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.250%;"><iframe src="https://streamable.com/s/p0h0k/lrhi" frameborder="0" width="100%" height="100%" allowfullscreen style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>

Good Analysis of what he has done well in this game

 

[Slog]

Kohli is so far ahead of Smith in ODIs that the World Cup knockout argument has no relevance. You are essentially comparing a batsman with 8 ODI hundreds to someone who has 43.

If they were comparable in ODIs than you can use Smith’s knockout record to consider him better.

This is like comparing Griezmann to Messi because Griezmann played far better in a World Cup Final.

Griezzman comparison is flawed because in cricket the World Cup is hands down the pinnacle of ODI cricket whereas in football people can argue for champions league and even domestic leagues being of equivalent prestige.

Besides I didn’t say Smith is better than Kohli in Odis. I just said he has done better in ICC knockout games which are the most important odi games. This is not my opinion. It is fact.

 

[NoBallZombie]

In my opinion which I share with de Villiers, the truly best player in the world today is the one who dominates all formats. Kohli is the only batsman in the world and possibly the only player in the world who is among the top 2 in all three formats.

Smith has done better than him in World Cup knockouts, but overall he is leagues below him in ODIs. You would take Smith over Kohli in ODIs because of that, but you are in the extreme minority.

Hardly 1 or 2% of the cricket population including the fans, players, commentators, former legends etc. would take Smith over Kohli in ODIs regardless of their World Cup knockouts record.

Fan is a strong word because there are several players that I enjoy watching more than Kohli because of their playing style, shots etc.

I actually enjoy watching Smith, Root and Buttler bat more than I enjoy watching Kohli bat, so technically, I am probably their fan and not Kohli. However, I cannot downplay Kohli’s dominance.

It is true that Kohli has not been at his best in the World Cup knockouts, but it is ridiculous how far ahead he is of everyone else. His competition is with himself and how far he can go, because he left everyone else behind long ago.

43 hundreds at the age of 31 with an average of almost 60 is beyond belief. No batsman in history has come close to such dominance and consistency. Not Tendulkar, not Viv not Ponting. No one.

Ponting had a great peak in the 2000s, but in spite of playing for the best team in the world by a country mile and playing on plenty of flat ODI wickets, he couldn’t achieve the consistency that Kohli has reached today.

For reference, Ponting scored 30 hundreds in 365 ODI innings.

Kohli has 43 in 233 ODI innings. No comparison whatsoever.

Furthermore, Kohli is the only ODI batsman in history who is not only a top-order anchor but also a lethal finisher. Cricket has had plenty of top-order ODI batsman and plenty of lower-order finishers, but Kohli is the first 2 in 1 player.

He is like Ponting and Bevan or Tendulkar and Dhoni rolled into one.

World Cup knockout performances are very important. However, how important are they?

Can a batsman like Smith with 8 ODI hundreds at an average of 40 be considered better than Kohli because of 2-3 innings in World Cup knockouts?

Does those 2-3 innings negate Kohli’s 43 ODI hundreds (a staggering 35 more than Smith), an average of almost 60 and a ridiculous chasing record because of his dual role of anchor and finisher?

Don’t you think that is incredibly harsh and also completely illogical?

Can we consider someone like Grant Elliot a better ODI batsman than Amla because he has scored in a World Cup final and semifinal?

World Cup knockouts add gloss to a career. It doesn’t make or break a career. If your overall record is mediocre than a World Cup knockout performance does not make you a legend.

Similarly, if your overall record is phenomenal then a World Cup knockout failure doesn’t make you an average player.

World Cup knockout performances can turn a very good career into a legendary career. However, you need to have a very good career in the first place.

Smith has less ODI hundreds than Hafeez and Malik, and Kohli has more hundreds than him in ODIs than Smith does in his international career.

If he scores 30 odd hundreds then we can argue that he is better than Kohli because of his World Cup knockout performances, but someone with 8 hundreds isn’t even worthy of discussion.

In my opinion, the four greatest batsmen of the 21st century are (in no particular order) Tendulkar, Lara, Kohli and Ponting. You can make a case for either to be number 1 because of different reasons.

Smith has to do a lot more in ODIs to enter that discussion. However, purely in Tests, he is as good as anyone to have ever played the game.

If someone completely ignores ODI cricket than you can call Smith the best batsman ever, but if you give even a semblance of importance to ODIs, Smith cannot be compared to Kohli.

Where can I find these rankings from?

 

[tyron_woodley]

In my opinion which I share with de Villiers, the truly best player in the world today is the one who dominates all formats. Kohli is the only batsman in the world and possibly the only player in the world who is among the top 2 in all three formats.

Smith has done better than him in World Cup knockouts, but overall he is leagues below him in ODIs. You would take Smith over Kohli in ODIs because of that, but you are in the extreme minority.

Hardly 1 or 2% of the cricket population including the fans, players, commentators, former legends etc. would take Smith over Kohli in ODIs regardless of their World Cup knockouts record.

Fan is a strong word because there are several players that I enjoy watching more than Kohli because of their playing style, shots etc.

I actually enjoy watching Smith, Root and Buttler bat more than I enjoy watching Kohli bat, so technically, I am probably their fan and not Kohli. However, I cannot downplay Kohli’s dominance.

It is true that Kohli has not been at his best in the World Cup knockouts, but it is ridiculous how far ahead he is of everyone else. His competition is with himself and how far he can go, because he left everyone else behind long ago.

43 hundreds at the age of 31 with an average of almost 60 is beyond belief. No batsman in history has come close to such dominance and consistency. Not Tendulkar, not Viv not Ponting. No one.

Ponting had a great peak in the 2000s, but in spite of playing for the best team in the world by a country mile and playing on plenty of flat ODI wickets, he couldn’t achieve the consistency that Kohli has reached today.

For reference, Ponting scored 30 hundreds in 365 ODI innings.

Kohli has 43 in 233 ODI innings. No comparison whatsoever.

Furthermore, Kohli is the only ODI batsman in history who is not only a top-order anchor but also a lethal finisher. Cricket has had plenty of top-order ODI batsman and plenty of lower-order finishers, but Kohli is the first 2 in 1 player.

He is like Ponting and Bevan or Tendulkar and Dhoni rolled into one.

World Cup knockout performances are very important. However, how important are they?

Can a batsman like Smith with 8 ODI hundreds at an average of 40 be considered better than Kohli because of 2-3 innings in World Cup knockouts?

Does those 2-3 innings negate Kohli’s 43 ODI hundreds (a staggering 35 more than Smith), an average of almost 60 and a ridiculous chasing record because of his dual role of anchor and finisher?

Don’t you think that is incredibly harsh and also completely illogical?

Can we consider someone like Grant Elliot a better ODI batsman than Amla because he has scored in a World Cup final and semifinal?

World Cup knockouts add gloss to a career. It doesn’t make or break a career. If your overall record is mediocre than a World Cup knockout performance does not make you a legend.

Similarly, if your overall record is phenomenal then a World Cup knockout failure doesn’t make you an average player.

World Cup knockout performances can turn a very good career into a legendary career. However, you need to have a very good career in the first place.

Smith has less ODI hundreds than Hafeez and Malik, and Kohli has more hundreds than him in ODIs than Smith does in his international career.

If he scores 30 odd hundreds then we can argue that he is better than Kohli because of his World Cup knockout performances, but someone with 8 hundreds isn’t even worthy of discussion.

In my opinion, the four greatest batsmen of the 21st century are (in no particular order) Tendulkar, Lara, Kohli and Ponting. You can make a case for either to be number 1 because of different reasons.

Smith has to do a lot more in ODIs to enter that discussion. However, purely in Tests, he is as good as anyone to have ever played the game.

If someone completely ignores ODI cricket than you can call Smith the best batsman ever, but if you give even a semblance of importance to ODIs, Smith cannot be compared to Kohli.

why do everyone forget that kohli already played an important role for india in 2011 and 2013 world cup play champions trophy lol.

why?
Kohli has already performed in the big stage in odi.

Anything in addition from.now on is a bonus. He is far ahead of smith in odi.

smith is very slightly ahead of him in tests

 

[tyron_woodley]

That average is boosted upto 60 because of those 3 consecutive hundreds against that mediocre West Indian bowling attack in West Indies after the World Cup that average will come back down to low to mid 50s very soon

he has pummelld every team in the world.

 

[Mamoon]

Where can I find these rankings from?

I am not talking about the official rankings here. Kohli is ranked 1 in both Tests and ODIs and while his ranking is 10th in T20s, anyone who does not have an anti-Kohli bias will agree that he is better than all of the T20 batsmen ranked above him at the moment. His low ranking has everything to do with the fact that he has skipped quite a lot of T20 matches in the last few years.

If you are picking a team for all three formats, Kohli is inevitably going to be the first or second pick in all three formats. That is why he is easily the best player of this generation.

 

[Mamoon]

Griezzman comparison is flawed because in cricket the World Cup is hands down the pinnacle of ODI cricket whereas in football people can argue for champions league and even domestic leagues being of equivalent prestige.

Besides I didn’t say Smith is better than Kohli in Odis. I just said he has done better in ICC knockout games which are the most important odi games. This is not my opinion. It is fact.

If we take international football only and thus ignore league football and the Champions League, then obviously the World Cup is the pinnacle. So in that case would it make sense to compare Griezmann to Messi because has outperformed him in a World Cup Final? Clearly not, because even in international football, Messi is miles ahead of him.

It is indeed a fact that Smith has a better record in World Cup knockouts. However, what do we with this information? It doesn’t change anything because Kohli is several leagues above him in ODIs and there is no comparison between the two.

It is logical to factor in World Cup knockouts performances etc. when two players are at least somewhat comparable. Kohli and Smith are not comparable in ODIs regardless of the latter’s heroics in World Cup knockouts.

Kohli is quite literally four times the ODI batsman Smith is.

 

[Mamoon]

why do everyone forget that kohli already played an important role for india in 2011 and 2013 world cup play champions trophy lol.

why?
Kohli has already performed in the big stage in odi.

Anything in addition from.now on is a bonus. He is far ahead of smith in odi.

smith is very slightly ahead of him in tests

Yes. Kohli’s competition is only with himself in ODIs. It is about how far he can go. Even if he retires today and Smith plays ODIs for another 15 years, it is unlikely that he will get anywhere close. That is how huge the gap is between the two.

The gap between Kohli and Smith in ODIs is far, far bigger than the gap between the two in Test cricket. There is clearly no argument over the notion that Kohli is by far the best player of this generation UNLESS you believe that ODI cricket has zero weightage compared to Test cricket.

Even if you say that Test cricketer is 80% and ODI cricket is 20%, Kohli is still comfortably ahead of Smith.

 

[hk031992]

In my opinion which I share with de Villiers, the truly best player in the world today is the one who dominates all formats. Kohli is the only batsman in the world and possibly the only player in the world who is among the top 2 in all three formats.

Smith has done better than him in World Cup knockouts, but overall he is leagues below him in ODIs. You would take Smith over Kohli in ODIs because of that, but you are in the extreme minority.

Hardly 1 or 2% of the cricket population including the fans, players, commentators, former legends etc. would take Smith over Kohli in ODIs regardless of their World Cup knockouts record.

Fan is a strong word because there are several players that I enjoy watching more than Kohli because of their playing style, shots etc.

I actually enjoy watching Smith, Root and Buttler bat more than I enjoy watching Kohli bat, so technically, I am probably their fan and not Kohli. However, I cannot downplay Kohli’s dominance.

It is true that Kohli has not been at his best in the World Cup knockouts, but it is ridiculous how far ahead he is of everyone else. His competition is with himself and how far he can go, because he left everyone else behind long ago.

43 hundreds at the age of 31 with an average of almost 60 is beyond belief. No batsman in history has come close to such dominance and consistency. Not Tendulkar, not Viv not Ponting. No one.

Ponting had a great peak in the 2000s, but in spite of playing for the best team in the world by a country mile and playing on plenty of flat ODI wickets, he couldn’t achieve the consistency that Kohli has reached today.

For reference, Ponting scored 30 hundreds in 365 ODI innings.

Kohli has 43 in 233 ODI innings. No comparison whatsoever.

Furthermore, Kohli is the only ODI batsman in history who is not only a top-order anchor but also a lethal finisher. Cricket has had plenty of top-order ODI batsman and plenty of lower-order finishers, but Kohli is the first 2 in 1 player.

He is like Ponting and Bevan or Tendulkar and Dhoni rolled into one.

World Cup knockout performances are very important. However, how important are they?

Can a batsman like Smith with 8 ODI hundreds at an average of 40 be considered better than Kohli because of 2-3 innings in World Cup knockouts?

Does those 2-3 innings negate Kohli’s 43 ODI hundreds (a staggering 35 more than Smith), an average of almost 60 and a ridiculous chasing record because of his dual role of anchor and finisher?

Don’t you think that is incredibly harsh and also completely illogical?

Can we consider someone like Grant Elliot a better ODI batsman than Amla because he has scored in a World Cup final and semifinal?

World Cup knockouts add gloss to a career. It doesn’t make or break a career. If your overall record is mediocre than a World Cup knockout performance does not make you a legend.

Similarly, if your overall record is phenomenal then a World Cup knockout failure doesn’t make you an average player.

World Cup knockout performances can turn a very good career into a legendary career. However, you need to have a very good career in the first place.

Smith has less ODI hundreds than Hafeez and Malik, and Kohli has more hundreds than him in ODIs than Smith does in his international career.

If he scores 30 odd hundreds then we can argue that he is better than Kohli because of his World Cup knockout performances, but someone with 8 hundreds isn’t even worthy of discussion.

In my opinion, the four greatest batsmen of the 21st century are (in no particular order) Tendulkar, Lara, Kohli and Ponting. You can make a case for either to be number 1 because of different reasons.

Smith has to do a lot more in ODIs to enter that discussion. However, purely in Tests, he is as good as anyone to have ever played the game.

If someone completely ignores ODI cricket than you can call Smith the best batsman ever, but if you give even a semblance of importance to ODIs, Smith cannot be compared to Kohli.

Of course i would choose Kohli in bilaterals. However, i do not rank bilateral ODI in the same league as test series. I do, however, rank WC in the same league as important test series.

Who would you pick, Hasim Amla or Saeed Anwar? Amla has a far superior ODI record, and if you are playing bilaterals, you would pick Amla. However, if i am going into a WC, i would take Saeed anytime. Yes, Saeed failed in the one ODI wc final, but he performed well overall including a stunning 100 in a WC final.

Kohli is a superb player. However, i would not choose him over Smith if i was picking a team to take into an ODI world cup. Maybe Kohli will do well in 2023 world cup.

And i am not saying that Smith is an overall better ODI batsman than Kohli. I am merely saying that i would pick Smith in a WC team, which to me is more important.

Similarly, i would pick Jayasuria, Gilchrist and even Saeed Anwar over Hashim Amla in a WC ODI tournament.

Overall, i rank test performances first and then one day performances. Smith is considerably ahead in tests for me. Kohli is ahead in ODI's but the WC difference narrows it down. Ultimately, i value Smith's test contributions more than Kohli's ODI contributions because i find tests far more important than bilateral ODI's. However, if Kohli were to perform in the knockout stages in 2023, then i would value Kohli's ODI accomplishments and Smith's test accomplishments equally.

 

[Gilly]

Smith is probably the worst player to play for Australia..........apparently.

 

[kingusama92]

Of course i would choose Kohli in bilaterals. However, i do not rank bilateral ODI in the same league as test series. I do, however, rank WC in the same league as important test series.

Who would you pick, Hasim Amla or Saeed Anwar? Amla has a far superior ODI record, and if you are playing bilaterals, you would pick Amla. However, if i am going into a WC, i would take Saeed anytime. Yes, Saeed failed in the one ODI wc final, but he performed well overall including a stunning 100 in a WC final.

Kohli is a superb player. However, i would not choose him over Smith if i was picking a team to take into an ODI world cup. Maybe Kohli will do well in 2023 world cup.

And i am not saying that Smith is an overall better ODI batsman than Kohli. I am merely saying that i would pick Smith in a WC team, which to me is more important.

Similarly, i would pick Jayasuria, Gilchrist and even Saeed Anwar over Hashim Amla in a WC ODI tournament.

Overall, i rank test performances first and then one day performances. Smith is considerably ahead in tests for me. Kohli is ahead in ODI's but the WC difference narrows it down. Ultimately, i value Smith's test contributions more than Kohli's ODI contributions because i find tests far more important than bilateral ODI's. However, if Kohli were to perform in the knockout stages in 2023, then i would value Kohli's ODI accomplishments and Smith's test accomplishments equally.

Hashim Amla is a bad example because he has an inflated average.

His ODI record has major flaws unlike Kohli and that doesn't just include WC knock out games. Amla has a horrible away record in India, New Zealand, and Bangladesh while also doing poorly against the best ODI team of his generation (Australia). Amla's average also drops during preliminary matches in World Cups let alone knockouts. He's indeed a horrible WC player and shouldn't make anyone's final XI for this generation.

Plus, he's a below-par ODI chaser in bilaterals too.

In comparison, Kohli has none of those issues. His record is flawless home and away while being an exceptional chaser. Nothing about his average is inflated because he's dominant everywhere.

 

[Mamoon]

Of course i would choose Kohli in bilaterals. However, i do not rank bilateral ODI in the same league as test series. I do, however, rank WC in the same league as important test series.

Who would you pick, Hasim Amla or Saeed Anwar? Amla has a far superior ODI record, and if you are playing bilaterals, you would pick Amla. However, if i am going into a WC, i would take Saeed anytime. Yes, Saeed failed in the one ODI wc final, but he performed well overall including a stunning 100 in a WC final.

Kohli is a superb player. However, i would not choose him over Smith if i was picking a team to take into an ODI world cup. Maybe Kohli will do well in 2023 world cup.

And i am not saying that Smith is an overall better ODI batsman than Kohli. I am merely saying that i would pick Smith in a WC team, which to me is more important.

Similarly, i would pick Jayasuria, Gilchrist and even Saeed Anwar over Hashim Amla in a WC ODI tournament.

Overall, i rank test performances first and then one day performances. Smith is considerably ahead in tests for me. Kohli is ahead in ODI's but the WC difference narrows it down. Ultimately, i value Smith's test contributions more than Kohli's ODI contributions because i find tests far more important than bilateral ODI's. However, if Kohli were to perform in the knockout stages in 2023, then i would value Kohli's ODI accomplishments and Smith's test accomplishments equally.

The gap between Amla and Saed Anwar is not as big as the gap between Kohli and Smith. Amla retired with less runs (albeit less innings) only 7 more hundreds. In addition, when you factor in Saeed Anwar’s superior World Cup record and the fact that he held the highest individual score in ODIs for 13 years, it clearly won’t be wrong to say that he was a better ODI opener than Amla.

But Kohli has 35 more hundreds and 7,000 more runs than Smith at roughly the same age. Hence I will pick Kohli over Smith for any ODI against any opposition in any conditions in any context simply because of the astronomical gulf between the two players.

It will be a massive, massive risk if I opt for Smith to bat for me in World Cup knockouts because of a sample of 2-3 games. Considering the gigantic gap between the two in ODIs, Kohli is far, far more likely to outperform him at any given moment.

Kohli hasn’t been a failure like someone like Amla in ICC tournaments. He has played plenty of quality knocks in all tournaments but so far he not been able to deliver in 3 semifinals. That really doesn’t prove anything. At times, the gap between failing and succeeding is not that great.

It is good that you mentioned Gilchrist because I wanted to bring him up. People today remember Gilchrist for his heroics in World Cups finals, especially the 2007 one. However, what people don’t remember today is that Gilchrist completely failed in all three semifinals. However, because he played for a very strong team, he was carried into the final on all three occasions and gave him the opportunity to make amends.

Had Australia lost the 1999, 2003 and 2007 semifinals with Gilchrist scoring 20, 22 and 2, people would now be calling him a bottler. Similarly, had India carried Kohli into the final in 2015 and 2019 and he would have scored runs against New Zealand and England, people would not be questioning his contribution in World Cup knockouts.

My point is that the construction of your team plays a big role. Someone like Gilchrist could afford to fail because his team would always give him chances to make amends, but considering how crucial Kohli’s runs are to India, his failure in a World Cup semifinal basically guarantees an exit for India. You cannot crucify a player for failing in 2-3 games over an unprecedented, record breaking career because of 2-3 failures.

The objection that I have is with your assessment that Smith’s World Cup knockout performances have narrowed the gap between him and Kohli. My perspective is that a gap can only be narrowed if there is a comparison in the first place.

When you have two batsmen who have a gap of 35 hundreds and 7,000 runs between them, it is not possible to have a comparison. If Smith even had half the ODI career of Kohli, we could factor in his World Cup knockout performances but as things stand, it is completely illogical to establish a comparison.

The likes of Jayasuria, Anwar, Gilchrist etc. are all comparable to Amla and it is perfectly reasonable to prefer the former three because of better World Cup knockout records. However, Smith is not comparable to Kohli at all.

 

[Slog]

If we take international football only and thus ignore league football and the Champions League, then obviously the World Cup is the pinnacle. So in that case would it make sense to compare Griezmann to Messi because has outperformed him in a World Cup Final? Clearly not, because even in international football, Messi is miles ahead of him.

It is indeed a fact that Smith has a better record in World Cup knockouts. However, what do we with this information? It doesn’t change anything because Kohli is several leagues above him in ODIs and there is no comparison between the two.

It is logical to factor in World Cup knockouts performances etc. when two players are at least somewhat comparable. Kohli and Smith are not comparable in ODIs regardless of the latter’s heroics in World Cup knockouts.

Kohli is quite literally four times the ODI batsman Smith is.

Well for most people Odis are only relevant when world cups come around. Everyone including Indians would rather lose all bilateral series and win the World Cup if they have the option.

I’m not even debating what you’re saying though so am but confused what you’re trying to prove. Kohli is clearly superior to Smith in ODIs. However as a part of a post I said Smith is superior to Kohli in ICC knockouts. It’s not an opinion or claim I am making. It’s a fact.

 

[Slog]

why do everyone forget that kohli already played an important role for india in 2011 and 2013 world cup play champions trophy lol.

why?
Kohli has already performed in the big stage in odi.

Anything in addition from.now on is a bonus. He is far ahead of smith in odi.

smith is very slightly ahead of him in tests

Kohli played an important role in 2013 champions trophy.

In 2011 WC he was not even the 3rd best batsman in Indian team lol.

He has bosses WT20s

 

[Slog]

Kohli played an important role in 2013 champions trophy.

In 2011 WC he was not even the 3rd best batsman in Indian team lol.

He has bosses WT20s

For 2011 WC Kohli made 282 runs in 9 matches and one of the scores was a 100 not out against a minnow.

 

[JibranAnsari]

He is the best test batsman in the world , not the best batsman overall. He has had a couple of failures , thats a very high standard for him.

Look at pakistans twst captain , after two years of failure he was given the job of captaining pakistan.

 

[therealAB]

The gap between Amla and Saed Anwar is not as big as the gap between Kohli and Smith. Amla retired with less runs (albeit less innings) only 7 more hundreds. In addition, when you factor in Saeed Anwar’s superior World Cup record and the fact that he held the highest individual score in ODIs for 13 years, it clearly won’t be wrong to say that he was a better ODI opener than Amla.

But Kohli has 35 more hundreds and 7,000 more runs than Smith at roughly the same age. Hence I will pick Kohli over Smith for any ODI against any opposition in any conditions in any context simply because of the astronomical gulf between the two players.

It will be a massive, massive risk if I opt for Smith to bat for me in World Cup knockouts because of a sample of 2-3 games. Considering the gigantic gap between the two in ODIs, Kohli is far, far more likely to outperform him at any given moment.

Kohli hasn’t been a failure like someone like Amla in ICC tournaments. He has played plenty of quality knocks in all tournaments but so far he not been able to deliver in 3 semifinals. That really doesn’t prove anything. At times, the gap between failing and succeeding is not that great.

It is good that you mentioned Gilchrist because I wanted to bring him up. People today remember Gilchrist for his heroics in World Cups finals, especially the 2007 one. However, what people don’t remember today is that Gilchrist completely failed in all three semifinals. However, because he played for a very strong team, he was carried into the final on all three occasions and gave him the opportunity to make amends.

Had Australia lost the 1999, 2003 and 2007 semifinals with Gilchrist scoring 20, 22 and 2, people would now be calling him a bottler. Similarly, had India carried Kohli into the final in 2015 and 2019 and he would have scored runs against New Zealand and England, people would not be questioning his contribution in World Cup knockouts.

My point is that the construction of your team plays a big role. Someone like Gilchrist could afford to fail because his team would always give him chances to make amends, but considering how crucial Kohli’s runs are to India, his failure in a World Cup semifinal basically guarantees an exit for India. You cannot crucify a player for failing in 2-3 games over an unprecedented, record breaking career because of 2-3 failures.

The objection that I have is with your assessment that Smith’s World Cup knockout performances have narrowed the gap between him and Kohli. My perspective is that a gap can only be narrowed if there is a comparison in the first place.

When you have two batsmen who have a gap of 35 hundreds and 7,000 runs between them, it is not possible to have a comparison. If Smith even had half the ODI career of Kohli, we could factor in his World Cup knockout performances but as things stand, it is completely illogical to establish a comparison.

The likes of Jayasuria, Anwar, Gilchrist etc. are all comparable to Amla and it is perfectly reasonable to prefer the former three because of better World Cup knockout records. However, Smith is not comparable to Kohli at all.

Generally agree. Only in one situation within ODI cricket is Smith better than Kohli (rebuilding an innings attempting to salvage a score) but in all other scenarios Kohli is the better batsmen.

In test cricket, Smith is slightly but noticeably better than Kohli. This does not manifest when facing weaker teams, but Smith definitely does better in tough situations

 

[Hasan123]

Kohli is the best overall batter in the world due to success in all 3 formats over a prolonged period of time. Smith is the best test batter in the world.

 

[Mamoon]

Generally agree. Only in one situation within ODI cricket is Smith better than Kohli (rebuilding an innings attempting to salvage a score) but in all other scenarios Kohli is the better batsmen.

In test cricket, Smith is slightly but noticeably better than Kohli. This does not manifest when facing weaker teams, but Smith definitely does better in tough situations

When you have 43 hundreds and 11,000 runs, you have basically covered all scenarios and situations multiple times.

While Smith has done well in terms of rebuilding an innings and salvaging a score, Kohli has probably done than many more times than we can even remember now.

The gap of 35 hundreds and 7,000 runs between the two cannot be underestimated. The gulf is basically equivalent to having no career and having a legendary career.

People say Kohli and Smith are the two best batsmen today, but I have never seen two best players in any era with such a humongous gulf between them in terms of records.

Ponting was not better than Tendulkar but not far behind statically, and similarly, Lara was neck to neck with Tendulkar in the 90s before his ODI form dropped off in the 2000s.

However, the gap between Kohli and Smith in this decade when you take all three formats into considering is actually hilarious.

Kohli stands all alone when it comes to all format dominance. Even someone like Rohit might be closer to him than someone like Smith.

 

[Nadeem98]

Even if Smith is not number one right now, he will be veey soon. He is Bradman"s legacy carrier - both being unconventional and lateral thinkers but more importantly both were/are blood hounds. Their mind-set is to not add runs but rather multiply them exponentially.

Smith and Kohli are the cricket equivalents of Messi and Ronaldo; both 30 somethings pushing the boundaries further and further. Smith gets into a zone so intense that he can barely sleep. Once in that bubble, he just sees each and every all like a football no matter where it is pitched. Occasionally when he comes out of the bubble, the performance drops , he takes a breather and goes back to doing what he does best. Case in point being the whole captaincy saga. His batting brain could not coexist with his captaincy brain and the rest is history .

Smith is in love with batting. Not the art of batting clearly. Not even with the science of batting. It's the feeling of batting that he lives so much. Mentally, spiritually, personally, holistically- he is hooked. This live us jealous of all rivals including captaincy. He will reinvent batting, rebuild his personality, redeem his post- tampering life, he'll do anything it takes. The guy is addicted to cricket like my nephew is addicted to PS4. This is his eat, drink and sleep. This is his 24/7. This is his life.

Kohli, on the other hand, is a different animal. He has an extremely high degree of self respect and self esteem. The guy kept on batting through his father's death. This is personal to him. If there was no cricket, he would invent it. He would be the best in any profession. Diet, exercise, mental fortitude, professionalism, passion and obsession. He , just like Cristiano in football, has turned our sport into a glamorous form of entertainment.

He is not Imran Khan right now who has a bigger vision beyond himself. However, this kind of self respect and industry can take him to even greater heights after cricket. He is Nadal. He is Robaldo. He is the face of cricket. His midas touch has given every form of cricket an eternal kiss of life . Nevertheless, Smith is the successor to Don in tests because live will always beat obsession. And test cricket is real cricket. Everything else us pyjama cricket.

 

[therealAB]

When you have 43 hundreds and 11,000 runs, you have basically covered all scenarios and situations multiple times.

While Smith has done well in terms of rebuilding an innings and salvaging a score, Kohli has probably done than many more times than we can even remember now.

The gap of 35 hundreds and 7,000 runs between the two cannot be underestimated. The gulf is basically equivalent to having no career and having a legendary career.

People say Kohli and Smith are the two best batsmen today, but I have never seen two best players in any era with such a humongous gulf between them in terms of records.

Ponting was not better than Tendulkar but not far behind statically, and similarly, Lara was neck to neck with Tendulkar in the 90s before his ODI form dropped off in the 2000s.

However, the gap between Kohli and Smith in this decade when you take all three formats into considering is actually hilarious.

Kohli stands all alone when it comes to all format dominance. Even someone like Rohit might be closer to him than someone like Smith.

I feel like all of these all-format comparisons are a bit irrelevant unless a weighting can be decided on. For me, it is 80-19.5-0.5, with about 70% of the ODI weighting being contained in WC's. I understand why others may disagree but this is an opinion of mine that is unlikely to change.

I feel that much of Australia's success through cricket history is due to this focus on test cricket, with technical focus carrying through to ODI's. As a schoolkid, (I am only 19) every member of the 1st school XI wanted to play test cricket above all else. 90 over cricket is played and innings like 30(90) are applauded

 

[Space Cat]

So they should be there is nobody remotely close to him in test cricket right now. He is out of form currently and still grinding out runs.

You can go on about best overall batsman all day but it doesnt mean anything. Limited overs doesnt measure up to test cricket unless its a world cup.

 

[BreadPakoda]

When comparing Smith and Babar.
Babar is the better overall batsman as he is #1 in t20s and better in ODIs.

When comparing Smith and Kohli.
Smith is the better overall batsman as tests is the most important format and Kohli is yet to win a world cup for his team.

 

[andy0204]

When comparing Smith and Babar.
Babar is the better overall batsman as he is #1 in t20s and better in ODIs.

When comparing Smith and Kohli.
Smith is the better overall batsman as tests is the most important format and Kohli is yet to win a world cup for his team.

 

[James]

He is the world’s best.

I can’t think of many batters who still regularly scored 50+ and often into the 80s when they were supposedly “out of form”.

Usually “out of form” means that a bloke can’t even get a start - even top top players would keep finding the fielder and eventually be sent back to the hutch for a sub-20 score. But this guy just keeps grinding the runs.

He scored how many impregnable tons in English conditions just a few months ago, after a year out of the game, and now he’s past it all of a sudden? I mean come on.