Can Cheteshwar Pujara emulate Younis Khan?

[HuzaifaE]

Pujara gets some extra credit for the upward trajectory he's shown in improving away from home, this series from him is certainly better than anything Younus mustered in a series in SENA. Putting him at the same level or above Younus before he hits 20 tons however is premature. He's on the right path for now.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Ohh i soo wish we have a batsman like Puji :/

 

[Bhaijaan]

To go past YK in Asia, Che still needs big daddy hundreds. Lots of them for a few years more. YK was a great on Asian pitches. Right up there with Mahela, Sanga etc.

Outside Asia, YK should is not the right role model and shouldn't be emulated.

Performance in SC was never an issue. Pujara is as good as it gets in India/SC. Last few years India's dished out the most bowling friendly pitches in Asia and Pujara's been the best in this team on them.

The big question mark on him was always his credentials in SENA nations and hes finally shown he can score runs there.

Hes still behind Younis who's scored twice as many test runs but then it wouod be a shame if hes set his sight on beating Younis when he shouod be aimimg for Dravid instead.

 

[Swashbuckler]

So happy for him
Many players succeed because of support from captain and team management. Pujara has achieved success despite Kohli and co trying their best to block him.

 

[Oligochaetes]

Ok, Pujara has more 100's in Australia. One box ticked. many more to go.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

People and their obsession with averages, ughhh.

Pujara is a match and series winner. Forget Younis, he is even better than Kohli.

Kohli test centuries in away conditions mostly end in loses while Pujara make sure the opposition are completely down and out and score tough match winning runs. Even at home Pujara was the star in tough series and matches.

He is the 3rd best test batsman for me right now behind Willy and Smith.

I agree with most of your post but can u tell me what's the difference between pujaras 120 in adelaide and kohlis 120+ in perth, how was pujaras innings more clutch?
The result of the match depended not only on their respective scores but also the batting and bowling performances of other players. It is nothing but pure luck that pujaras innings end in wins.

If a player makes runs when all others fail (resulting in a loss) then does it make his innings worthless?According to me it makes his innings more special.
You may have your own opinion but i will surely like to know your take on this.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Ok, Pujara has more 100's in Australia. One box ticked. many more to go.

Younis khan is a legend but his performance in Australia is nothing special. His 50 avg is just because of one innings of 170*.

 

[jeetu]

Younis Khan is still ahead. Pujara should have 6-7 years of cricket ahead he is nearing 31 now.

[table=width: 500, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Player [/td][td]Match [/td][td]Runs [/td][td]Ave [/td][td]SR [/td][td]100 [/td][td]50 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pujara [/td][td]68 [/td][td]5363 [/td][td]51.07 [/td][td]46.39 [/td][td]18 [/td][td]20 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Younis [/td][td]118 [/td][td]10099 [/td][td]52.05 [/td][td]52.12 [/td][td]34 [/td][td]33 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pujara [/td][td]Match [/td][td]Runs [/td][td]Ave [/td][td]SR [/td][td]100 [/td][td]50 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in Australia [/td][td]7 [/td][td]659 [/td][td]54.91 [/td][td]41.03 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]2 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in England [/td][td]9 [/td][td]500 [/td][td]29.41 [/td][td]40.45 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]2 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in India [/td][td]36 [/td][td]3217 [/td][td]61.86 [/td][td]50.3 [/td][td]10 [/td][td]14 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in New Zealand [/td][td]2 [/td][td]60 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]32.78 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in South Africa [/td][td]7 [/td][td]411 [/td][td]31.61 [/td][td]38.88 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]2 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in Sri Lanka [/td][td]4 [/td][td]454 [/td][td]90.8 [/td][td]53.03 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]0 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in West Indies [/td][td]3 [/td][td]62 [/td][td]31 [/td][td]27.43 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td] [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][td] [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Younis [/td][td]Match [/td][td]Runs [/td][td]Ave [/td][td]SR [/td][td]100 [/td][td]50 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in Australia [/td][td]6 [/td][td]557 [/td][td]50.63 [/td][td]49.64 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]2 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in Bangladesh [/td][td]6 [/td][td]604 [/td][td]100.66 [/td][td]62.59 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]0 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in England [/td][td]9 [/td][td]810 [/td][td]50.62 [/td][td]55.06 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]3 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in India [/td][td]6 [/td][td]768 [/td][td]76.8 [/td][td]56.55 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]2 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in New Zealand [/td][td]7 [/td][td]473 [/td][td]43 [/td][td]57.96 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]3 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in Pakistan [/td][td]19 [/td][td]1898 [/td][td]59.31 [/td][td]55.17 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]5 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in South Africa [/td][td]8 [/td][td]489 [/td][td]32.6 [/td][td]44.57 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]2 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in Sri Lanka [/td][td]17 [/td][td]1172 [/td][td]45.07 [/td][td]50.25 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]5 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in U.A.E. [/td][td]27 [/td][td]2484 [/td][td]55.2 [/td][td]51.69 [/td][td]11 [/td][td]7 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in West Indies [/td][td]8 [/td][td]333 [/td][td]22.2 [/td][td]45.3 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]1 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]in Zimbabwe [/td][td]5 [/td][td]511 [/td][td]73 [/td][td]41.41 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]3 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

I agree with most of your post but can u tell me what's the difference between pujaras 120 in adelaide and kohlis 120+ in perth, how was pujaras innings more clutch?
The result of the match depended not only on their respective scores but also the batting and bowling performances of other players. It is nothing but pure luck that pujaras innings end in wins.

If a player makes runs when all others fail (resulting in a loss) then does it make his innings worthless?According to me it makes his innings more special.
You may have your own opinion but i will surely like to know your take on this.

I watched both innings, Pujara was more clutch and India won the match. 1st test, tougher conditions, series 0-0 draw and tougher match situation.

You can be lucky 1 or 2 times but not always.

Pujara 3 centuries and India won all matches, Kohli 1 century and India lost.

Not saying Kohli played bad or something he was great too in 2nd test its just that I will definitely take a match winner over someone who doesnt win you matches.

 

[Mamoon]

Kohli has comfortably outperformed Pujara in every overseas tour (barring this one) so far. However yes, the latter is more clutch. Looking forward to more pearls of wisdom.

 

[jadaja]

I like younis but Pujara has now elevated himself into elite status.

 

[topspin]

Much better innings from Pujara. This time round not using 300+ balls to score a hundred (at a SR of 33) but over 50, that is more like it. Overall he's had a very good tour of Australia and if the Man of the Series is going to be awarded to an Indian batsman then he deserves to be the recipient of this.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Kohli has comfortably outperformed Pujara in every overseas tour (barring this one) so far. However yes, the latter is more clutch. Looking forward to more pearls of wisdom.

Are you saying Pujara ain't more clutch than Kohli?

 

[Savage]

Only a biased person would say Kohli has been more clutch than Pujara.

 

[Mamoon]

Are you saying Pujara ain't more clutch than Kohli?

No. It is simply an illusion because he bats slowly and grinds more. If he was more clutch, he would not be outclassed by Kohli time and time again. No team in the world would take Pujara over Kohli and for good reason.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

No. It is simply an illusion because he bats slowly and grinds more. If he was more clutch, he would not be outclassed by Kohli time and time again. No team in the world would take Pujara over Kohli and for good reason.

Clutch doesn't mean better batsman.

So VVS is not the most clutch of the Fab 4?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The things Pujara has done when his team was in dire straits pales what Kohli has done.

 

[anoop]

I watched both innings, Pujara was more clutch and India won the match. 1st test, tougher conditions, series 0-0 draw and tougher match situation.

You can be lucky 1 or 2 times but not always.

Pujara 3 centuries and India won all matches, Kohli 1 century and India lost.

Not saying Kohli played bad or something he was great too in 2nd test its just that I will definitely take a match winner over someone who doesnt win you matches.

None of pujara innings can match Kohli's 149 in England where he managed to score 100+ runs with 10th and 11 batsman including 50+ partnership with the last batsman where the last one scored only 1 run.

Series winner !! Only because his maximum runs have came here in Australia where the opposite team doesn't have a batting line up to match up. SA and England both easily matched and outscored Indians as they were better batting units then current Aussies.

 

[Savage]

149 by Kohli was easily the knock of the year 2018.

 

[AMSS]

People and their obsession with averages, ughhh.

Pujara is a match and series winner. Forget Younis, he is even better than Kohli.

Kohli test centuries in away conditions mostly end in loses while Pujara make sure the opposition are completely down and out and score tough match winning runs. Even at home Pujara was the star in tough series and matches.

He is the 3rd best test batsman for me right now behind Willy and Smith.

Yeah. Pakistani fans are maturing finally. No hair splitting on runs scored in sena or whatever when it comes to proving who's the better batsman.

 

[Mamoon]

Clutch doesn't mean better batsman.

So VVS is not the most clutch of the Fab 4?

Pujara is no Laxman. He has failed many, many times in tough conditions. However, because of his defensive mindset, every now and then he scores while others fail which gives people the impression that he is a pressure cooker player.

 

[Savage]

149 by Kohli was easily the knock of the year 2018.

Probably the greatest knock I've ever seen in losing cause.(definitely in top 3 knocks ever in losing cause)

 

[AMSS]

No. It is simply an illusion because he bats slowly and grinds more. If he was more clutch, he would not be outclassed by Kohli time and time again. No team in the world would take Pujara over Kohli and for good reason.

Correct. It's shocking that this obvious point even needs to made. Pujara is excellent but he's two rungs below Kohli. Not one, but two. In fact, Pujara's fans do him a disservice comparing him to Kohli. Pujara is in a happy place, batting like only he can so all of you malcontents should enjoy that instead of inventing third rate arguments online.

 

[Stark]

Since the discussion (inevitably) has him here... Kohli somehow finds ridiculous ways to get out. Is a motormouth as well. Pujara on the other hand - Classic batsman. Put in the hardwork, grind the opposition, do it at top of the order - take control of the match, deflate the bowlers/opposition. All these are vital traits.

This inns has been crucially important, AND came at a faster clip. If Mayank/Kohli had not done the stupid, the aussies would have been severly outclassed. Oh well.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Pujara is no Laxman. He has failed many, many times in tough conditions. However, because of his defensive mindset, every now and then he scores while others fail which gives people the impression that he is a pressure cooker player.

What about tough conditions in Asia?

Who scored all the tough runs and who stat boosted?

Who saved India on a green seamer in SL with the series on the line?

Who scored all the runs on rank turners and heavy turners while certain others went missing?

Its not like Pujara was useless in SENA before.

Joberg 2013 century.. Durban knock... Lords negotiating on a green seamer... Slow knocks that helped us draw 2 tests in Aus 2014... Then Joberg 2018 knock... Southampton knock... And now Aus 2018 series where he has been legendary.

Kohli is the better overall bat but Pujara has contributed wayyyy more for our wins than Kohli ever did.

Its Pujara why we became the number 1 team in the world. And stayed there.

 

[Proactive_]

Pujara is the most impactful Indian batsman of this generation, bar none. And that's when Kohli and Shastri have been needling him incessantly since 2015. He's etched his name in history with this tour. 3 Centuries facing a very potent Australian attack, most of whom are at their peak ages. Legendary performance.

 

[Mamoon]

What about tough conditions in Asia?

Who scored all the tough runs and who stat boosted?

Who saved India on a green seamer in SL with the series on the line?

Who scored all the runs on rank turners and heavy turners while certain others went missing?

Its not like Pujara was useless in SENA before.

Joberg 2013 century.. Durban knock... Lords negotiating on a green seamer... Slow knocks that helped us draw 2 tests in Aus 2014... Then Joberg 2018 knock... Southampton knock... And now Aus 2018 series where he has been legendary.

Kohli is the better overall bat but Pujara has contributed wayyyy more for our wins than Kohli ever did.

Its Pujara why we became the number 1 team in the world. And stayed there.

Pujara was nowhere near Kohli in Australia in 2014 and England last year. Even in India, he has been second best to Kohli since his dream run of form since 2016.

Pujara's best innings are as good as anyone and no one can deny that. However, he routinely goes missing as well and that is something his fans never choose to highlight for some reason. A clutch player comes good under pressure more often than not, but Pujara does not. Secondly, quite often he is the one who puts India under pressure by getting out cheaply and Kohli has to do the repair job.

The number of hundreds that Kohli has scored in South Africa, Australia, England and New Zealand compared to the number of hundreds Pujara has scored clearly dispels the myth that the latter is clutch while the former pads his stats only.

Pujara was better in Asia from 2012 to 2014, but Kohli has taken his game to a different level now. He had a rare bad series against Australia in 2017. Apart from that, he regularly outperforms Pujara in Asia now. Pujara is a very good batsman, but Kohli is a different breed with or without pressure. I don't see any purpose in comparing the two and calling Pujara more clutch when there is no evidence to back it up barring a few knocks here and there.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I watched both innings, Pujara was more clutch and India won the match. 1st test, tougher conditions, series 0-0 draw and tougher match situation.

You can be lucky 1 or 2 times but not always.

Pujara 3 centuries and India won all matches, Kohli 1 century and India lost.

Not saying Kohli played bad or something he was great too in 2nd test its just that I will definitely take a match winner over someone who doesnt win you matches.

Ok, its your opinion ,but still i dont agree with the bolded parts.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Pujara was nowhere near Kohli in Australia in 2014 and England last year. Even in India, he has been second best to Kohli since his dream run of form since 2016.

Pujara's best innings are as good as anyone and no one can deny that. However, he routinely goes missing as well and that is something his fans never choose to highlight for some reason. A clutch player comes good under pressure more often than not, but Pujara does not. Secondly, quite often he is the one who puts India under pressure by getting out cheaply and Kohli has to do the repair job.

The number of hundreds that Kohli has scored in South Africa, Australia, England and New Zealand compared to the number of hundreds Pujara has scored clearly dispels the myth that the latter is clutch while the former pads his stats only.

Pujara was better in Asia from 2012 to 2014, but Kohli has taken his game to a different level now. He had a rare bad series against Australia in 2017. Apart from that, he regularly outperforms Pujara in Asia now. Pujara is a very good batsman, but Kohli is a different breed with or without pressure. I don't see any purpose in comparing the two and calling Pujara more clutch when there is no evidence to back it up barring a few knocks here and there.

Nah man.

In Asia, from 2016 onwards, Kohli outperformed Pujara in one series. The Eng home series. That's it. There too Pujara played a MIGHTY role. Just that Kohli played a MIGHTIER role.

Against Aus 2017, he went missing and guess who saved India from a series loss?

That's right. Pujara.

Outside Asia, post 2016, Kohli has outperformed Pujara in SA and Eng tours while Pujara has outperformed Kohli in this tour.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Kohli stands tall against dangerous bowlers in away conditions ,becoming the highest scorer in SA,ENG while the other players including the "Clutch" batsman fails to support him which results in series loss.So all effort of the batsman goes in vain and hence he is "Not clutch"or"soft run scorer".

Come easier batting conditions and the "clutch batsman" scores more than the Kohli,but the other thing so called fans fail to grasp is that even though kohli is'nt the highest scorer but he has played a much better supporting role than what pujara did in SA,ENG .Thus the combined effort of these two batsman helps india win/draw the series .
IT IS KOHLI'S EFFORT THAT MAKES PUJARAS INNINGS CLUTCH.
Only if pujara had supported kohli in the way kohli supported him in aus, ind could have won series in Sa and Eng.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I watched both innings, Pujara was more clutch and India won the match. 1st test, tougher conditions, series 0-0 draw and tougher match situation.

You can be lucky 1 or 2 times but not always.

Pujara 3 centuries and India won all matches, Kohli 1 century and India lost.

Not saying Kohli played bad or something he was great too in 2nd test its just that I will definitely take a match winner over someone who doesnt win you matches.

Pujara is more clutch but not the better player. Atleast not yet.

Greater players will score against tougher opponents and tougher conditions. So their runs will go to waste as compared to players who don't score there.

Same Inzi vs Tendu situation where Aus/SA had the strongest bowling attacks. Runs there don't guarantee wins cos you need support of your team.

Even in this series, if not for Bumrah, all of Pujara's runs were going to go to waste.

Kohli had no Bumrah in 2014.

 

[AMSS]

Pujara is the most impactful Indian batsman of this generation, bar none. And that's when Kohli and Shastri have been needling him incessantly since 2015. He's etched his name in history with this tour. 3 Centuries facing a very potent Australian attack, most of whom are at their peak ages. Legendary performance.

No doubt you'd have been just as charitable if it were Kohli who had scored these runs. No chance of you doing a vidhwa vilaap about flat pitches, aussie bowlers being sprayguns etc. Absolutely not.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Clutch doesn't mean better batsman.

So VVS is not the most clutch of the Fab 4?

One of the conditions for clutch knocks probably also includes the other better batsmen failing thereby making Laxman’s efforts seem even more phenomenal coming in at #6.

I think Dravid at 3, Tendulkar at 4 played numerous outstanding innings under severe pressure.

It’s just that when one of your top batsmen has a good day, they take the pressure completely off and make things look easier.

 

[Savage]

Nah man.

In Asia, from 2016 onwards, Kohli outperformed Pujara in one series. The Eng home series. That's it. There too Pujara played a MIGHTY role. Just that Kohli played a MIGHTIER role.

Against Aus 2017, he went missing and guess who saved India from a series loss?

That's right. Pujara.

Outside Asia, post 2016, Kohli has outperformed Pujara in SA and Eng tours while Pujara has outperformed Kohli in this tour.

Even statement like " Post 2014 or 2016 kohli has ""completely"" outperformed Pujara" is wrong on so many levels.Yes in 2014 Kohli was far better than Pujara but it was only due to one tour of Australia 2014-15.

In 2015,Pujara was again best test batsmen of the year as he was India's best batsmen in SL series(yes it only took one knock for Pujara to become best Indian batsmen of that series while Ashwin was by some distance Best player of that series) and SA series(along with Vijay but atleast he was way better than Kohli in that series).

In 2016,Kohli was easily best but Pujara was still distant second batsmen in that year.

In 2017,Pujara was by far best batsmen of that year while Rahul was distant second best batsmen in that year.I value runs in that Australia 2017 home series far more than the runs in 2014-15 Australia series.Every single runs scored by batsmen in that series were like goldust.

In 2018,Kohli was by far best Indian batsmen but Pujara was still distant second best batsmen of the year.

In 2019,Pujara has started the year with bang.

Yes Kohli is better than Pujara now(but not by much) and will end up as better batsmen at the end of the year but there is no need of already overhyping him.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

One of the conditions for clutch knocks probably also includes the other better batsmen failing thereby making Laxman’s efforts seem even more phenomenal coming in at #6.

I think Dravid at 3, Tendulkar at 4 played numerous outstanding innings under severe pressure.

It’s just that when one of your top batsmen has a good day, they take the pressure completely off and make things look easier.

That's very true but still...you can sense it.

1. Like 8 down and Laxman plays with the tail and chases down the target.
2. Kolkata 2001 knock.
3. Adelaide support for Dravid to turn a loss into a win (with Agarkar's support).
4. Chasing 250 against SL (him and Tendulkar were batting..Tendu got out at 50 but Laxman scored a 100 and won the game). I think it was this game.
5. Durban knock where he scored 94 while no one scored even 50.
6. Perth 2008 knock his 2nd innings knock was crucial for us to win. Take out Lax knock and we would have lost that test inspite of Tendulkar, Dravid and Ishant heroics.

That's clutch.

That's Lax.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Even statement like " Post 2014 or 2016 kohli has ""completely"" outperformed Pujara" is wrong on so many levels.Yes in 2014 Kohli was far better than Pujara but it was only due to one tour of Australia 2014-15.

In 2015,Pujara was again best test batsmen of the year as he was India's best batsmen in SL series(yes it only took one knock for Pujara to become best Indian batsmen of that series while Ashwin was by some distance Best player of that series) and SA series(along with Vijay but atleast he was way better than Kohli in that series).

In 2016,Kohli was easily best but Pujara was still distant second batsmen in that year.

In 2017,Pujara was by far best batsmen of that year while Rahul was distant second best batsmen in that year.I value runs in that Australia 2017 home series far more than the runs in 2014-15 Australia series.Every single runs scored by batsmen in that series were like goldust.

In 2018,Kohli was by far best Indian batsmen but Pujara was still distant second best batsmen of the year.

In 2019,Pujara has started the year with bang.

Yes Kohli is better than Pujara now(but not by much) and will end up as better batsmen at the end of the year but there is no need of already overhyping him.

Agreed. Wasn't in a mood for another long post. So just kept it short.

 

[Savage]

Even statement like " Post 2014 or 2016 kohli has ""completely"" outperformed Pujara" is wrong on so many levels.Yes in 2014 Kohli was far better than Pujara but it was only due to one tour of Australia 2014-15.

In 2015,Pujara was again best test batsmen of the year as he was India's best batsmen in SL series(yes it only took one knock for Pujara to become best Indian batsmen of that series while Ashwin was by some distance Best player of that series) and SA series(along with Vijay but atleast he was way better than Kohli in that series).

In 2016,Kohli was easily best but Pujara was still distant second batsmen in that year.

In 2017,Pujara was by far best batsmen of that year while Rahul was distant second best batsmen in that year.I value runs in that Australia 2017 home series far more than the runs in 2014-15 Australia series.Every single runs scored by batsmen in that series were like goldust.

In 2018,Kohli was by far best Indian batsmen but Pujara was still distant second best batsmen of the year.

In 2019,Pujara has started the year with bang.

Yes Kohli is better than Pujara now(but not by much) and will end up as better batsmen at the end of the year but there is no need of already overhyping him.

*Career

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Yeah. Pakistani fans are maturing finally. No hair splitting on runs scored in sena or whatever when it comes to proving who's the better batsman.

What do you mean?

So only Indians can reply in this thread?

 

[Sin Nombre]

As I said to Buffet last week, correlation does not equate to causation but people are again falling to this normal statistical bias.

Also, clutch in a cricketing context means scoring the bulk of the runs when everyone else struggles. When has Pujara actually been that? One test against SL in SL, one test against Aus at home and one against Aus in Adelaide in this tour.

In the end, if only one batsman scores, you are unlikely to win. A lot of Kohli's top efforts are when the rest of the Indian lineup gets dismantled.

 

[Sin Nombre]

The thing with the YK comparison is that the 2000s decade was the easiest to bat in a long time. Keep in mind that top order batsmen globally were averaging 8 points higher than they did in the 2010s decade.

Averages will never reflect that.

All of Sanga, Kallis, Sehwag, YK benefited from a lot of flat pitches in the 2000s and have overinflated test batting averages.

 

[AMSS]

What do you mean?

So only Indians can reply in this thread?

LMAO, is that what you understood from the post?

I am happy for fans like you who have matured to appreciate a talent like Pujara without bringing in his record from England or South Africa or wherever. I am happy you value Pujara's runs in subcontinent as much as Kohli's in South Africa, England and everywhere else.

 

[Smbhayi]

I agree with most of your post but can u tell me what's the difference between pujaras 120 in adelaide and kohlis 120+ in perth, how was pujaras innings more clutch?
The result of the match depended not only on their respective scores but also the batting and bowling performances of other players. It is nothing but pure luck that pujaras innings end in wins.

If a player makes runs when all others fail (resulting in a loss) then does it make his innings worthless?According to me it makes his innings more special.
You may have your own opinion but i will surely like to know your take on this.

the reason Pujara is more clutch cos he can metally and physically tire's bowlers so others too cash in...

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

LMAO, is that what you understood from the post?

I am happy for fans like you who have matured to appreciate a talent like Pujara without bringing in his record from England or South Africa or wherever. I am happy you value Pujara's runs in subcontinent as much as Kohli's in South Africa, England and everywhere else.

Of course why not. Pujara is the most clutch batsman in world cricket right now for me.

You can read my old posts i dont like hyping players if they score in SENA or ridiculing players just because they dont score there. I watch matches and see the conditions and match situations myself to make an opinion.

Pujara has won 3 toughest series for India in last 4 years i-e Against SL, against Aus in Ind and against Aus in Aus now most probably while Kohli for all his runs hardly won tough matches let aside series.

 

[Chokli]

pujara has already surpassed younis khan

 

[Gabbar Singh]

It’s unfair comparing a player half way or 2/3 of the way through his career to one who has retired.

Younis Khan after the age of 34/35 scored a lot of runs - he was one of the few batsmen around who lasted well into his late 30s/early 40s.

I don’t think Pujara will match YK’s longevity or even his 100s total however he will end his career as a batsman who scored lots of important runs all over the world.

 

[dildilpak]

If only Pujara had played half as well in the England series, India would have fared much better there. For all the the comparision between Kohli & Pujara, Kohli had absolutely no support from any top-order batsman in England unlike Pujara here. Pujara is also still a little dicey in swinging or extremely pacy/bouncy pitches like Perth. Plus his 2nd innings average is still bad compared to Kohli, so no way he is a better clutch player than Kohli.

 

[Ab Fan]

Brilliant player. Among top 10 batsmen to have come from Asia.

 

[Swashbuckler]

If only Pujara had played half as well in the England series, India would have fared much better there. For all the the comparision between Kohli & Pujara, Kohli had absolutely no support from any top-order batsman in England unlike Pujara here. Pujara is also still a little dicey in swinging or extremely pacy/bouncy pitches like Perth. Plus his 2nd innings average is still bad compared to Kohli, so no way he is a better clutch player than Kohli.

IMO Pujara did well in England this time around. Played only 4 tests because TM dropped him in the 1st test. Lord's was a bizarre match where we got horrible conditions and got bowled out for 100 twice.

In Trent Bridge test which we won he scored a solid 72 to support Kohli in the 2nd innings. In Southampton he scored a brilliant 132* with little support from the other end, shame we lost that match.

I don't think he is better than Kohli but he has been very good in recent times even overseas. In Asia he was always our best batsman.

 

[Napa]

Pujara was nowhere near Kohli in Australia in 2014 and England last year. Even in India, he has been second best to Kohli since his dream run of form since 2016.

That's right. Pujara.

Outside Asia, post 2016, Kohli has outperformed Pujara in SA and Eng tours while Pujara has outperformed Kohli in this tour.

While both of you make good points, there is one little detail that must be considered in Pujara's favor. Given the horrible performance of Indian openers of late, for practical purposes Pujara often plays the opener's role.

 

[Hasan123]

Pujara will surpass Younis.

 

[Sidilicious]

Pujara will surpass Younis.

1 swallow doesnt make a summer

 

[Hasan123]

1 swallow doesnt make a summer

YK has never had a series like this in Australia, and Pujara is gun in Asia. He has 2/3 more years of his peak left.

 

[Sidilicious]

YK has never had a series like this in Australia, and Pujara is gun in Asia. He has 2/3 more years of his peak left.

The thing is YK scored 10k runs, whereas Pujara has 5k runs. You are underrating longevity here. In order for Pujara to overtake YK, he would need to get close to 10k at a 50+ average. With 5 years of test cricket left in him (he does have a dodgy knee, so it might not even go to 5 years) with 2-3 years of peak, I dont think he will get close to 10k.

As for SENA countries, YK is still ahead, in terms of important innings and averages.

In England, YK does have the 200, which puts YK ahead in England.
In SA, both have very similar with both contributing in important wins.
In NZ, Pujara has played only 2 tests, but YK is significantly ahead.
In Aus, Pujara is way way ahead after this series. It does make up a bit for the failures in England and NZ, but not by that much.

If Pujara can have a god NZ series, and have another important innings in England and score 10k @50+, then I would agree that he has overtaken YK. But that is very far from happening.

 

[dravidthewall]

Pujara already surprassed younis khan and will going to become ATG.

 

[Hasan123]

The thing is YK scored 10k runs, whereas Pujara has 5k runs. You are underrating longevity here. In order for Pujara to overtake YK, he would need to get close to 10k at a 50+ average. With 5 years of test cricket left in him (he does have a dodgy knee, so it might not even go to 5 years) with 2-3 years of peak, I dont think he will get close to 10k.

As for SENA countries, YK is still ahead, in terms of important innings and averages.

In England, YK does have the 200, which puts YK ahead in England.
In SA, both have very similar with both contributing in important wins.
In NZ, Pujara has played only 2 tests, but YK is significantly ahead.
In Aus, Pujara is way way ahead after this series. It does make up a bit for the failures in England and NZ, but not by that much.

If Pujara can have a god NZ series, and have another important innings in England and score 10k @50+, then I would agree that he has overtaken YK. But that is very far from happening.

If Pujara plays for 5 more years he will surpass YK.

 

[Ab Fan]

It is an interesting comparison now. Pujara's performance in Australia now ranks as one of the greatest series performance in Australia conditions. Younis never had such performance.

However, Younis did put up some useful runs time and again, namely, 218 at Oval, 174 at Headingley and 149 at Auckland. He had this knack of going big if he gets set which is why he averages 50 in England and same in Australia(this is a highly misleading one though) as well.

Cheteswar Pujara has clearly hit the elite level now and should end up in the same league as other two test specialists IMO- Younis Khan and Alastair Cook.

 

[The Viper]

Pujara needs to succeed in NZ or Eng. He did score a hundred in ENG but his average is still pretty low. He improves those records then he can match Younis as he is amazing in Asia.

 

[leatherface58]

Pujara needs to succeed in NZ or Eng. He did score a hundred in ENG but his average is still pretty low. He improves those records then he can match Younis as he is amazing in Asia.

He scored a 145 in Sri Lanka when all fell around him. Does that not matter since it is in Asia?

 

[PakPremi]

Pujara is facing a bowling attack inferior to what Younis Khan faced in Australia, and playing a team who has declined a lot.

 

[Rishta Aunty]

Will end up similarly rated at the end of their career's. Will have the numbers, and the impact, but not the accolades of their peers thanks to their inelegant batting styles.

There's a reason people rave about Rohit or Shafiq (a strongly top-hand batter), to Pujara (bottom hand). They just look a million bucks even if the cheques don't cash.

 

[Rahul1]

Pujara is facing a bowling attack inferior to what Younis Khan faced in Australia, and playing a team who has declined a lot.

So what you're indirectly trying to tell us is that Younis was a failure against world class bowling attack.

 

[charlie007]

I watched both innings, Pujara was more clutch and India won the match. 1st test, tougher conditions, series 0-0 draw and tougher match situation.

You can be lucky 1 or 2 times but not always.

Pujara 3 centuries and India won all matches, Kohli 1 century and India lost.

Not saying Kohli played bad or something he was great too in 2nd test its just that I will definitely take a match winner over someone who doesnt win you matches.

With your arguments, given that you keep losing Test matches left and right to all kinds of opposition, stop hyping Babar and Haris as the next big things to come out of Pakistan - from your same argument, their runs don't mean zilch if Pakistan is not winning matches.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

While both of you make good points, there is one little detail that must be considered in Pujara's favor. Given the horrible performance of Indian openers of late, for practical purposes Pujara often plays the opener's role.

True but then there were many instances when Kohli came in at 10-2 in the current overseas cycle. So he too was practically opening in every series except the current Aus series.

So I didn't make that point.

Both great bats. Pujara is more clutch for me. Even in this Aus series, his knock in Adelaide 2nd innings ENSURED that his century in first innings resulted in a victory.

In Sydney, he could have got out after 100 and no one would have blamed him but he went to score 192 consuming so many balls that it practically destroyed almost any chance Aussies had of leveling the series.

In Asia, Pujara is gun. Peerless when it comes to impact runs.

Outside Asia, he has held his own and played crucial knocks.

Not Kohli's equal as a bat but more clutch surely.

 

[Ab Fan]

Pujara is brilliant but Kohli clearly is superior than him. He averages 55 in the tough batting conditions of South Africa and also 55 in Australia. In New Zealand, he was excellent as well in that one tour he had while Pujara struggled for runs.

 

[Saurav]

Happy that Pujara is finally justifying his promise

Time for Rahane to get his act together too.Too many young batsmen waiting

 

[Sidilicious]

True but then there were many instances when Kohli came in at 10-2 in the current overseas cycle. So he too was practically opening in every series except the current Aus series.

So I didn't make that point.

Both great bats. Pujara is more clutch for me. Even in this Aus series, his knock in Adelaide 2nd innings ENSURED that his century in first innings resulted in a victory.

In Sydney, he could have got out after 100 and no one would have blamed him but he went to score 192 consuming so many balls that it practically destroyed almost any chance Aussies had of leveling the series.

In Asia, Pujara is gun. Peerless when it comes to impact runs.

Outside Asia, he has held his own and played crucial knocks.

Not Kohli's equal as a bat but more clutch surely.

The reason Kohli is better than Pujara is just not numbers. Kohli has actually performed in the toughest of the circumstances when every one else failed. He alone kept India in the game on those occasions. 1st test England an 2nd test SA.

Pujara didn't do much on the really tough occasions and generally had another scorer (Aus 1st and 3rd test Kohli, 4th test Pant, to help take the game away from the opposition (except 4th test in England). The only time Pujara did not have support but he scored runs, India lost.

So Pujara is clutch, but Kohli is better. A bit like Sachin vs Dravid

Though you could say that had Kohli played Pujara in the 1st test in England, we would have won that test. So, it is Kohli's fault

 

[PakPremi]

So what you're indirectly trying to tell us is that Younis was a failure against world class bowling attack.

No I am saying Pujara would not have scored this many runs against a a better Australia pace attacks that Younis faced, and with Australia also dominating matches with their batting to create additional pressure. I do not know why anyone would compare Pujara with Younis or Kohli, they play their cricket different way. Pujara is a limited defensive accumulator. These batsmen are lile gold in test matches. Compare him with Dravid or Azhar (even though Azhar is mentally weak).

 

[Buffet]

"Other batsmen have scored more centuries and accumulated substantially more runs in a series but it's doubtful any player has had a greater influence over the result. " Ian Chappell on Pujara

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

With your arguments, given that you keep losing Test matches left and right to all kinds of opposition, stop hyping Babar and Haris as the next big things to come out of Pakistan - from your same argument, their runs don't mean zilch if Pakistan is not winning matches.

Yep their wins wont have much value if Pakistan doesnt win and continues to lose.

The same reason why i never rated Azhar despite he has 300 to his name and a 200 in Australia.

I am consistent on my pov.

 

[charlie007]

Yep their wins wont have much value if Pakistan doesnt win and continues to lose.

The same reason why i never rated Azhar despite he has 300 to his name and a 200 in Australia.

I am consistent on my pov.

I was trying to point out the glaring flaw in your argument!
Problem with this approach is that you are unfavorably comparing people who are performing to people who are not performing. The results in most cases are a result of the team performance. If Babar and Haris score centuries while your bowlers can't get the opposition out, that does not imply Babar and Haris suddenly become useless, right?
Let's put the shoe on the other foot now: let's say 4 batsmen are carrying the team and Pakistan starts winning - does that mean the other 2 batsmen who are not performing and still part of the winning team suddenly become world beaters?
Stop rating individual performances by equating them to team wins. Cricket is a team game and results can be swayed by 10 other people on your team.

 

[topspin]

Pujara was gold in this series and is without a doubt one of the best performances by an overseas batsman in Australia given how clutch his knocks were.

At 30 years of age he's hit his peak but in my opinion this purple patch will be short lived. Once he gets to that stage his decline will be magnified because he's a limited batsman. The question is can he still keep a spot when he's past his prime? I don't think so.

Younis Khan even n his late 30s was still batting at an excellent tempo and scoring daddy hundreds. He made batting look so easy at times. I can bet he could still outscore most, if not all Pakistani batsmen in UAE.

 

[transparent opacity]

Another low score by Pujara.
Younis Khan post 32nd birthday scored at an average of 55. Whereas, Pujara's average in the last 2 years is below 30. So, getting a bit difficult to emulate Younis khan

 

[mastimasti]

YK is one of the great test batsmen, Pujara on the other hand has been a very useful servant, I am a fan of his grit and determination but he is not a great batsman.

 

[PakPremi]

Pujara is to India what Azhar Ali was to Pakistan, but Azhar needs to stop playing to preserve his reputation. Younis Khan as an overall batsman was better than both in terms of flair and ability, but all three have/had grit.

 

[Devadwal]

Pujara is to India what Azhar Ali was to Pakistan, but Azhar needs to stop playing to preserve his reputation. Younis Khan as an overall batsman was better than both in terms of flair and ability, but all three have/had grit.

How many series Younis won for Pakistan in sena tour ?? Just want to know .

 

[sweep_shot]

I don't think there are similarities between them.

Younis Khan seemed far more attacking. Pujara is a slowpoke.

Younis Khan has also won a T20 world title as a captain.

 

[PakEngFan]

Pujara should be compared with Azhar Ali not Younis khan. It’s a joke.

 

[PakPremi]

How many series Younis won for Pakistan in sena tour ?? Just want to know .

One man does not win a match let alone series.
You have to score substantial amount of runs as a team and then bowl opposition out twice, and your captain has to lead you smartly.

 

[MesonK]

Pujara should be compared with Azhar Ali not Younis khan. It’s a joke.

Azhar Ali has far better SENAW stats if you filter the stats. He averages way more than Pujara in 4/5 SENAW venues while practically opening the batting for pakistan. Pujara is a home track bully who got bigger overall average by averaging close to 60 at home.

 

[HappyWarsFan]

How many series Younis won for Pakistan in sena tour ?? Just want to know .

NZ 2003 and 2011