Hashim Amla vs Virat Kohli in ODIs

[AmreekanDesi]

Which is why Dhoni is called overrated by many.

Oh! So the goal post has changed from Kohli to Dhoni now.

Anyway, even Dhoni averages 11 runs more than Amla in multi-nation tournaments against non-minnows.

 

[tempus123]

You can't expect Amla to perform like Sachin obviously, but he has done well. Look at that century he scored against the Lankans recently when everyone else was falling like nine-pins and it looked as if he was batting on a different pitch.

Amla is a good player with a lot of ability, you can't score at 50+ average being an opener without being top-class. The issue is more mental where big and important matches, he doesn't seem to come through.. he needs to work on that, in fact whole SA team needs to work on that, and Amla being their premier batsman, will take a lot of blame for SA's poor performance in ICC tournaments.

 

[akki]

yo my aspiring rapper boy- this no rapper forum you know, you look more fool than cool the way you type

i didnt know about the sms language ..you could have told me in better way i suppose..i took it wrongly ....anyway

 

[tempus123]

He played an excellent knock in the 96 semifinal as well. The difference between him and the rest in that game was astonishing. I think he got stumped off Jayasuriya in that one.

That innings didn't take the match to any good position as he got out when India was around 100 chasing 250, so can't call it a very good innings. The match wasn't set up.

 

[samplepiece]

That innings didn't take the match to any good position as he got out when India was around 100 chasing 250, so can't call it a very good innings. The match wasn't set up.

The gulf in the batting quality was astonishing. The rest of the guys seemed to have batted on a different pitch.

 

[tempus123]

The gulf in the batting quality was astonishing. The rest of the guys seemed to have batted on a different pitch.

true.

 

[Bilal7]

See Amla's performance against non minnows in last WC. In Indian batting tracks.

See his performance in knockouts. Avg 19.

Amla's game drops in almost all pressure situations in ODI.

He can change it but as of now, no one will call him a pressure player or a clutch player.

If WC's are the sole criteria, I wouldn't call Dhoni or Kohli clutch players either. Both had averages in the low 30s by the end of the last WC, despite it being in their backyard, and one has only gotten worse in this one.

Amla has played 3 WC knockout matches and the only one that came in the 50 over version was the one in which he was dismissed due to a shoe.

 

[Bilal7]

Amla is a good player with a lot of ability, you can't score at 50+ average being an opener without being top-class. The issue is more mental where big and important matches, he doesn't seem to come through.. he needs to work on that, in fact whole SA team needs to work on that, and Amla being their premier batsman, will take a lot of blame for SA's poor performance in ICC tournaments.

Balanced post. I'll take it.

Oh! So the goal post has changed from Kohli to Dhoni now.

Anyway, even Dhoni averages 11 runs more than Amla in multi-nation tournaments against non-minnows.

Multi-nation tournaments? Talk about changing goal-posts. The WC is the only tournament that has significantly more pressure than regular ODIs. The Asia Cups are handed out like Candy and even the choking South Africans have managed to win the Champions Trophy.

 

[tempus123]

If WC's are the sole criteria, I wouldn't call Dhoni or Kohli clutch players either. Both had averages in the low 30s by the end of the last WC, despite it being in their backyard, and one has only gotten worse in this one.

Amla has played 3 WC knockout matches and the only one that came in the 50 over version was the one in which he was dismissed due to a shoe.

Let's take all ICC tournaments including CT/T20WC/ODI WC. It would be unfair to judge the players based on 1 or 2 WC appearances only.

 

[Mamoon]

Bilal continues to defend Amla bhai with such vigour. You have to respect his relentless love .

 

[Sandeep]

Did I just see people compare Amla bhai to a certain Sachin Tendulkar? God sachin), what days have come?!

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

If WC's are the sole criteria, I wouldn't call Dhoni or Kohli clutch players either. Both had averages in the low 30s by the end of the last WC, despite it being in their backyard, and one has only gotten worse in this one.

Amla has played 3 WC knockout matches and the only one that came in the 50 over version was the one in which he was dismissed due to a shoe.

That's a good point.

But let me present some examples.

If you take a poll among neutrals on who is a better clutch player amonst Dhoni and Sachin, who do you think will win?

A poll is ONLY about clutch player and not who is the better player?

I would say atleast 70% would vote for Dhoni.

Inspite of him not having stats in the same planet as SRT's in WCs or tournament finals.

Why?

Cos when you watch them play, you know who is clutch.

SRT averages 56 in tournament finals and 44 overall. Statistically one can conclude SRT raises his game in finals which isn't exactly true if you watched him play (sure he has some memorable final knocks but you can't exactly say come the finals, SRT powers up).

Bevan is regarded a clutch player and no one even knows what his WC stats are (I think its good but don't remember).

Kohli is regarded by most Indians and neutrals as more clutch than SRT even though he is yet to perform in World Cups and finals like SRT. That's because as of now, Kohli's game RAISES when his team needs him. Yes he hasn't had a great WC 2011 and if he doesn't perform in this WC or in future tournaments, his clutch player image may get tarnished but you just had to see his dominance during Hobart (when we needed to win like hell), Dhaka, T20 Semi Final, Final, CT 2013 (partly - won't say fully) to know he is well and truly the most clutch player in the world now.

When you score and HOW you score matters a lot. When you watch the game, you know who raises their game when their team needs them the most.

SRT may be a better Test batsman but most Indians would say Dravid was a better pressure player than SRT in tests. And Laxman was the MOST clutch test player for us EVER.

So people rate Dhoni, Bevan as the most clutch not because of World Cup stats but because how he performed in general.

When you watch Amla, you don't feel the same.

How many neutrals will come running and say Amla is a clutch player?

None. Almost none.

That's because he isn't (as of now).

He is a great player no doubt but not a clutch (as of now).

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

SRT was a good clutch player but not a great clutch player.

The problem comes in when some present SRT as no good in pressure situations which is 100% false.

The other spectrum is presenting SRT to be some kind of God in clutch situations which isn't 100% true either.

He lies somewhere in between. I put him as a good clutch player but not great.

 

[tempus123]

That's a good point.

But let me present some examples.

If you take a poll among neutrals on who is a better clutch player amonst Dhoni and Sachin, who do you think will win?

A poll is ONLY about clutch player and not who is the better player?

I would say atleast 70% would vote for Dhoni.

Inspite of him not having stats in the same planet as SRT's in WCs or tournament finals.

Why?

Cos when you watch them play, you know who is clutch.

SRT averages 56 in tournament finals and 44 overall. Statistically one can conclude SRT raises his game in finals which isn't exactly true if you watched him play (sure he has some memorable final knocks but you can't exactly say come the finals, SRT powers up).

Bevan is regarded a clutch player and no one even knows what his WC stats are (I think its good but don't remember).

Kohli is regarded by most Indians and neutrals as more clutch than SRT even though he is yet to perform in World Cups and finals like SRT. That's because as of now, Kohli's game RAISES when his team needs him. Yes he hasn't had a great WC 2011 and if he doesn't perform in this WC or in future tournaments, his clutch player image may get tarnished but you just had to see his dominance during Hobart (when we needed to win like hell), Dhaka, T20 Semi Final, Final, CT 2013 (partly - won't say fully) to know he is well and truly the most clutch player in the world now.

When you score and HOW you score matters a lot. When you watch the game, you know who raises their game when their team needs them the most.

SRT may be a better Test batsman but most Indians would say Dravid was a better pressure player than SRT in tests. And Laxman was the MOST clutch test player for us EVER.

So people rate Dhoni, Bevan as the most clutch not because of World Cup stats but because how he performed in general.

When you watch Amla, you don't feel the same.

How many neutrals will come running and say Amla is a clutch player?

None. Almost none.

That's because he isn't (as of now).

He is a great player no doubt but not a clutch (as of now).

Actually "performing when the team needs it most" is a cliche but nothing else. When does your team not need you to perform well ?

Let us take WC 2011 example, Dhoni failed in QF and SF and had Tendulkar, Yuvraj and Raina didn't perform there, we wouldn't be talking of Dhoni as a clutch player at all. For all his feats, his world cup final match winning innings will be remembered forever.

Bevan is regarded as clutch player because he used to take the match through and a major part of it is due to the fact that he wasn't batting in top order. I haven't seen much of him batting in top-4 and winning the match in a high profile game. Usually, people in 5-7 batting position have more chances to be called clutch players, and I am only talking about the very best of them.

And stop hyping that Kohli innings of Hobart like the best innings ever played, just look at the situation he came in, and the support he got at the other end. I think he has played other much better ODI/T20 innings than that where he single handed took the match through.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Actually "performing when the team needs it most" is a cliche but nothing else. When does your team not need you to perform well ?

Let us take WC 2011 example, Dhoni failed in QF and SF and had Tendulkar, Yuvraj and Raina didn't perform there, we wouldn't be talking of Dhoni as a clutch player at all. For all his feats, his world cup final match winning innings will be remembered forever.

Bevan is regarded as clutch player because he used to take the match through and a major part of it is due to the fact that he wasn't batting in top order. I haven't seen much of him batting in top-4 and winning the match in a high profile game. Usually, people in 5-7 batting position have more chances to be called clutch players, and I am only talking about the very best of them.

And stop hyping that Kohli innings of Hobart like the best innings ever played, just look at the situation he came in, and the support he got at the other end. I think he has played other much better ODI/T20 innings than that where he single handed took the match through.

Kohli's Hobart innings is one of the best ODI ever played. It was one of the top top innings ever played.

Your opinion may be different.

I agree with your point that 5-7 position players have better chance to be called clutch players but that's a high pressure situation. But Dhoni was regarded a super clutch player (even by neutrals) even before WC 2011.

As far as when your team needs the most.....yes its a cliche but it does have its relevance. All runs are not definitely equal. Or else Amla is definitely a better ODI player than Kohli cos he has balanced stats all over the world. But ask most posters and they would choose Kohli over Amla in ODIs if they had only one choice to make.

 

[jusarrived]

Actually "performing when the team needs it most" is a cliche but nothing else. When does your team not need you to perform well ?

Let us take WC 2011 example, Dhoni failed in QF and SF and had Tendulkar, Yuvraj and Raina didn't perform there, we wouldn't be talking of Dhoni as a clutch player at all. For all his feats, his world cup final match winning innings will be remembered forever.

Bevan is regarded as clutch player because he used to take the match through and a major part of it is due to the fact that he wasn't batting in top order. I haven't seen much of him batting in top-4 and winning the match in a high profile game. Usually, people in 5-7 batting position have more chances to be called clutch players, and I am only talking about the very best of them.

And stop hyping that Kohli innings of Hobart like the best innings ever played, just look at the situation he came in, and the support he got at the other end. I think he has played other much better ODI/T20 innings than that where he single handed took the match through.

Hes played a dozen such innings , Can Amla play such knocks ? even one ? except for inflated avgs thanks to the opening slot there is no comparison between these two . Even Rohit avgs 50+ as an opener & hes useless .
9 out of 10 people would take Brendon mccullum or Warner over Amla any day just as an opener , in spite of those stats which means little if those runs dont help your team .

 

[Itachi]

That's a good point.

But let me present some examples.

If you take a poll among neutrals on who is a better clutch player amonst Dhoni and Sachin, who do you think will win?

A poll is ONLY about clutch player and not who is the better player?

I would say atleast 70% would vote for Dhoni.

Inspite of him not having stats in the same planet as SRT's in WCs or tournament finals.

Why?

Cos when you watch them play, you know who is clutch.

SRT averages 56 in tournament finals and 44 overall. Statistically one can conclude SRT raises his game in finals which isn't exactly true if you watched him play (sure he has some memorable final knocks but you can't exactly say come the finals, SRT powers up).

Bevan is regarded a clutch player and no one even knows what his WC stats are (I think its good but don't remember).

Kohli is regarded by most Indians and neutrals as more clutch than SRT even though he is yet to perform in World Cups and finals like SRT. That's because as of now, Kohli's game RAISES when his team needs him. Yes he hasn't had a great WC 2011 and if he doesn't perform in this WC or in future tournaments, his clutch player image may get tarnished but you just had to see his dominance during Hobart (when we needed to win like hell), Dhaka, T20 Semi Final, Final, CT 2013 (partly - won't say fully) to know he is well and truly the most clutch player in the world now.

When you score and HOW you score matters a lot. When you watch the game, you know who raises their game when their team needs them the most.

SRT may be a better Test batsman but most Indians would say Dravid was a better pressure player than SRT in tests. And Laxman was the MOST clutch test player for us EVER.

So people rate Dhoni, Bevan as the most clutch not because of World Cup stats but because how he performed in general.

When you watch Amla, you don't feel the same.

How many neutrals will come running and say Amla is a clutch player?

None. Almost none.

That's because he isn't (as of now).

He is a great player no doubt but not a clutch (as of now).

poll means nothing....

poll stats are skewed by publicity. playing in same quality, an indian player gets better exposure than any other countries (media wise). hence neutrals will know him more than the other who player, who co-incidentally happend to have equal quality.

if you tell a lie 1000 times consistently, people will start to believe it as the truth. it is a psychological effect. and power of publicity.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

poll means nothing....

poll stats are skewed by publicity. playing in same quality, an indian player gets better exposure than any other countries (media wise). hence neutrals will know him more than the other who player, who co-incidentally happend to have equal quality.

if you tell a lie 1000 times consistently, people will start to believe it as the truth. it is a psychological effect. and power of publicity.

Poll among neutrals bro.

Yes polls in general are not the right way to go.

But amongst neutrals, it can atleast give an idea.

Anyways, forget about polls.

Ask most Indians.

Who is a better ODI player? SRT by a mile.

Who is a more clutch player? Dhoni.

 

[IndianWillow]

That's a good point.

But let me present some examples.

If you take a poll among neutrals on who is a better clutch player amonst Dhoni and Sachin, who do you think will win?

A poll is ONLY about clutch player and not who is the better player?

I would say atleast 70% would vote for Dhoni.

Inspite of him not having stats in the same planet as SRT's in WCs or tournament finals.

Why?

Cos when you watch them play, you know who is clutch.

SRT averages 56 in tournament finals and 44 overall. Statistically one can conclude SRT raises his game in finals which isn't exactly true if you watched him play (sure he has some memorable final knocks but you can't exactly say come the finals, SRT powers up).

Bevan is regarded a clutch player and no one even knows what his WC stats are (I think its good but don't remember).

Kohli is regarded by most Indians and neutrals as more clutch than SRT even though he is yet to perform in World Cups and finals like SRT. That's because as of now, Kohli's game RAISES when his team needs him. Yes he hasn't had a great WC 2011 and if he doesn't perform in this WC or in future tournaments, his clutch player image may get tarnished but you just had to see his dominance during Hobart (when we needed to win like hell), Dhaka, T20 Semi Final, Final, CT 2013 (partly - won't say fully) to know he is well and truly the most clutch player in the world now.

When you score and HOW you score matters a lot. When you watch the game, you know who raises their game when their team needs them the most.

SRT may be a better Test batsman but most Indians would say Dravid was a better pressure player than SRT in tests. And Laxman was the MOST clutch test player for us EVER.

So people rate Dhoni, Bevan as the most clutch not because of World Cup stats but because how he performed in general.

When you watch Amla, you don't feel the same.

How many neutrals will come running and say Amla is a clutch player?

None. Almost none.

That's because he isn't (as of now).

He is a great player no doubt but not a clutch (as of now).

If this is the case, why Bevan and Dhoni were mostly missing from the nine All time ODI XIs released recently? I guess there is more to this than stats, polls and even opinions of former/current players.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

If this is the case, why Bevan and Dhoni were mostly missing from the nine All time ODI XIs released recently? I guess there is more to this than stats, polls and even opinions of former/current players.

There are a lot of factors.

Dhoni was competing with Gilly for the WK slot. Heavy middle order competition.

Plus he didn't have a great record in WCs and it was a WC XI.

Team combo matters too.

Waqar didn't make it to most XIs. Cos he had to compete for 1 pacer slot because mcGrath, Wasim and a ATG spinner took out the rest.

Jayasuriya didn't make it in most teams. Doesn't mean he wasn't a great opener.

Clutch isn't everything. Consistency and everything matters.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Bevan not picked for World XI was a crime.

He could bowl also.

Dhoni or Bevan is a must for any World XI.

 

[samplepiece]

Bevan not picked for World XI was a crime.

He could bowl also.

Dhoni or Bevan is a must for any World XI.

Maybe ATG World XI doesnt need a finisher. With their batting, its not expected that a number 6 gets to bat most of the times

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Maybe ATG World XI doesnt need a finisher. With their batting, its not expected that a number 6 gets to bat most of the times

Every team needs a finisher.

ATG World XI means every aspect is covered.

If a game is played in a tough SA or Aus track, No 7 would definitely come into play.

The very fact that most experts chose Kallis as ODI allrounder (ignoring Klusener) shows how clueless they are.

Even Saffers would say Kallis slow batting harmed them quite a few times.

 

[samplepiece]

Every team needs a finisher.

ATG World XI means every aspect is covered.

If a game is played in a tough SA or Aus track, No 7 would definitely come into play.

The very fact that most experts chose Kallis as ODI allrounder (ignoring Klusener) shows how clueless they are.

Even Saffers would say Kallis slow batting harmed them quite a few times.

I think anyone can do the job of finisher when the pressure is not on and playing for an ATG XI will mean that the pressure is mostly not on.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I think anyone can do the job of finisher when the pressure is not on and playing for an ATG XI will mean that the pressure is mostly not on.

No bro.

It will be.

See SRT's record in SA and Aus against the home team in bilaterals. Its not great.

See Viv's record against Pakistan. Its not that great.

Let's say one ODI XI plays another ODI XI.

Allan Donald can have an inspired spell and get SRT, Viv and Ponting out in quick succession.

On paper, those 3 are invincible but an ATG in full flow can take them out in one inspired spell. Won't happen always. But when it happens, you need a No 7 who can withstand pressure.

 

[samplepiece]

No bro.

It will be.

See SRT's record in SA and Aus against the home team in bilaterals. Its not great.

See Viv's record against Pakistan. Its not that great.

Let's say one ODI XI plays another ODI XI.

Allan Donald can have an inspired spell and get SRT, Viv and Ponting out in quick succession.

On paper, those 3 are invincible but an ATG in full flow can take them out in one inspired spell. Won't happen always. But when it happens, you need a No 7 who can withstand pressure.

I was just having some fun but if a great bowler is bowling so well that he knocks off SRT, Viv and Ponting and I fear it wont end prettily for the Bevans and the Dhonis either.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I was just having some fun but if a great bowler is bowling so well that he knocks off SRT, Viv and Ponting and I fear it wont end prettily for the Bevans and the Dhonis either.

I know bro.

Not necessarily.

See SRT and Dravid's record in SA against SA bilaterals. Dravid has done better.

Yes he did a lot of tuk tuk but the SA pace battery couldn't remove Dravid as easily they removed SRT.

The ball getting older helps too.

So batsmen like Dhoni and Bevan could do well.

 

[Itachi]

Poll among neutrals bro.

Yes polls in general are not the right way to go.

But amongst neutrals, it can atleast give an idea.

Anyways, forget about polls.

Ask most Indians.

Who is a better ODI player? SRT by a mile.

Who is a more clutch player? Dhoni.

here's the issue, the above two question, which you asked, depends on the time frame. my dad will answer gavaskar, i will say tendu and the younger generation will say dhoni.

we can not neutrally measure the greats of different era. the sportsman, whom we watched while growing up, will always take precedence no matter how hard we try not to get sway. it is just human psychology. a mixture of nostalgia, memory and comfort zone. and we will find our own logic to justify our decision.

 

[ForeverIndian]

Poll among neutrals bro.

Yes polls in general are not the right way to go.

But amongst neutrals, it can atleast give an idea.

Anyways, forget about polls.

Ask most Indians.

Who is a better ODI player? SRT by a mile.

Who is a more clutch player? Dhoni.

Dhoni is more clutch player because he has a much better team behind him to support him. While during Sachin's peak during the 90s he was the lone warrior from Indian team.

 

[tempus123]

Kohli's Hobart innings is one of the best ODI ever played. It was one of the top top innings ever played.

Your opinion may be different.

I agree with your point that 5-7 position players have better chance to be called clutch players but that's a high pressure situation. But Dhoni was regarded a super clutch player (even by neutrals) even before WC 2011.

As far as when your team needs the most.....yes its a cliche but it does have its relevance. All runs are not definitely equal. Or else Amla is definitely a better ODI player than Kohli cos he has balanced stats all over the world. But ask most posters and they would choose Kohli over Amla in ODIs if they had only one choice to make.

I am not saying all runs are equal, of course the quality of pitch, bowling attack, match situation etc. matter a lot.. however, I have a problem with people (not talking about you, but in general) who seem to mean that the team needs it most during chasing or in the final of a cup.. it's these personal parameters of defining the "need" which I have a problem against.

Amla is definitely a better ODI batsman than Kohli at the moment, but it doesn't mean he is better than Kohli by a mile, once he corrects his issues of not turning up in important matches, he will definitely be there. I wouldn't worry too much about him not performing in WCs had it not been so consistently apparent.. he doesn't seem to be out of form, so the issue is definitely mental, and hence puts a question mark on his ability as a batsman when heat is ON.

Regarding that Kohli innings, if that is the definition of a top innings, I am not sure what constitutes it, coz the platform was laid well, and it wasn't wickets falling around him either. No doubt a very special innings, but certainly not ONE of the VERY BEST.

 

[tempus123]

Hes played a dozen such innings , Can Amla play such knocks ? even one ? except for inflated avgs thanks to the opening slot there is no comparison between these two . Even Rohit avgs 50+ as an opener & hes useless .
9 out of 10 people would take Brendon mccullum or Warner over Amla any day just as an opener , in spite of those stats which means little if those runs dont help your team .

If Rohit averages 50+ on different surfaces and against different bowling attacks, I would rate him better than Amla.

 

[Enforcer]

I am not saying all runs are equal, of course the quality of pitch, bowling attack, match situation etc. matter a lot.. however, I have a problem with people (not talking about you, but in general) who seem to mean that the team needs it most during chasing or in the final of a cup.. it's these personal parameters of defining the "need" which I have a problem against.

Amla is definitely a better ODI batsman than Kohli at the moment, but it doesn't mean he is better than Kohli by a mile, once he corrects his issues of not turning up in important matches, he will definitely be there. I wouldn't worry too much about him not performing in WCs had it not been so consistently apparent.. he doesn't seem to be out of form, so the issue is definitely mental, and hence puts a question mark on his ability as a batsman when heat is ON.

Regarding that Kohli innings, if that is the definition of a top innings, I am not sure what constitutes it, coz the platform was laid well, and it wasn't wickets falling around him either. No doubt a very special innings, but certainly not ONE of the VERY BEST.

you are missing the point here. Team definitely need batsman who can score more in chasing, especially when it comes to chasing high scores. Definitely Amla is a great player but it is relatively easier to find players who can score heaps of runs while batting first but difficult to find such good batsman when it comes to chasing. you can search records if you want. That is why i feel kohli is better than amla

 

[tempus123]

you are missing the point here. Team definitely need batsman who can score more in chasing, especially when it comes to chasing high scores. Definitely Amla is a great player but it is relatively easier to find players who can score heaps of runs while batting first but difficult to find such good batsman when it comes to chasing. you can search records if you want. That is why i feel kohli is better than amla

I think it's a misplaced generalization that teams need batsmen to chase runs.. at the end of the day, the team needs batsmen to score runs preferably more than the opposition. Most of the top ODI innings in WCs (and otherwise) have come in the 1st innings. A good innings is a good innings, and over the period of time, the pressure factor is balanced out.

It's a matter of personal preference, some batsmen find it easy to chase scores, and find themselves at sea while setting up the target. Some others find it reverse.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I am not saying all runs are equal, of course the quality of pitch, bowling attack, match situation etc. matter a lot.. however, I have a problem with people (not talking about you, but in general) who seem to mean that the team needs it most during chasing or in the final of a cup.. it's these personal parameters of defining the "need" which I have a problem against.

Amla is definitely a better ODI batsman than Kohli at the moment, but it doesn't mean he is better than Kohli by a mile, once he corrects his issues of not turning up in important matches, he will definitely be there. I wouldn't worry too much about him not performing in WCs had it not been so consistently apparent.. he doesn't seem to be out of form, so the issue is definitely mental, and hence puts a question mark on his ability as a batsman when heat is ON.

Regarding that Kohli innings, if that is the definition of a top innings, I am not sure what constitutes it, coz the platform was laid well, and it wasn't wickets falling around him either. No doubt a very special innings, but certainly not ONE of the VERY BEST.

I am not saying chasing or finals will only be considered though those are more high pressure stuff. Setting targets are important too.

As for Amla vs Kohli, I am of the firm belief that as of now, Kohli is simply better.

Amla is more consistent and solid but he has a distinct weakness of letting his game drop whenever pressure gets really high. The way he fumbled against Pakistan in 2nd ODI was surprising. Those are the innings that Kohli would finish with ease.

Amla CAN beat Kohli but he doesn't as of now IMHO.

Kohli is simply better IMHO.

 

[Itachi]

I think it's a misplaced generalization that teams need batsmen to chase runs.. at the end of the day, the team needs batsmen to score runs preferably more than the opposition. Most of the top ODI innings in WCs (and otherwise) have come in the 1st innings. A good innings is a good innings, and over the period of time, the pressure factor is balanced out.

It's a matter of personal preference, some batsmen find it easy to chase scores, and find themselves at sea while setting up the target. Some others find it reverse.

i agree here.

if making runs while batting 1st is easy, why kohli struggles when india bats 1st?

 

[tempus123]

I am not saying chasing or finals will only be considered though those are more high pressure stuff. Setting targets are important too.

As for Amla vs Kohli, I am of the firm belief that as of now, Kohli is simply better.

Amla is more consistent and solid but he has a distinct weakness of letting his game drop whenever pressure gets really high. The way he fumbled against Pakistan in 2nd ODI was surprising. Those are the innings that Kohli would finish with ease.

Amla CAN beat Kohli but he doesn't as of now IMHO.

Kohli is simply better IMHO.

The day Amla breaks the jinx of not performing in WC/CT matches, there would be a better debate. I hope it's a jinx though, coz if it isn't, not being able to handle high profile/pressure matches, is a definite weakness of any player, let alone the batsman.

 

[Enforcer]

I think it's a misplaced generalization that teams need batsmen to chase runs.. at the end of the day, the team needs batsmen to score runs preferably more than the opposition. Most of the top ODI innings in WCs (and otherwise) have come in the 1st innings. A good innings is a good innings, and over the period of time, the pressure factor is balanced out.

It's a matter of personal preference, some batsmen find it easy to chase scores, and find themselves at sea while setting up the target. Some others find it reverse.

And who are those batsman? Apart from kohli i dont find many batsman who find difficult to set the target. if you know such batsman please share. History will tell you always it is rather easier to find batsman who can set up the target than who can chase them.

 

[IndianWillow]

i agree here.

if making runs while batting 1st is easy, why kohli struggles when india bats 1st?

It is. Which is why 90% of all 300+ scores are made batting first. Why do you think the Saffers made only 177 chasing 307? Had they batted first I am 100% sure they too would have made 300.

Kohli does have a weakness when batting first, but this is more like failing against a weaker team for lack of motivation. Failing while chasing is like failing against strong teams and failing under pressure and is a more serious weakness as far as temperament is concerned.

 

[jusarrived]

If Rohit averages 50+ on different surfaces and against different bowling attacks, I would rate him better than Amla.

Again the same quality / different conditions argument . Please let me know which great bowling attack on a difficult surface has Amla done well against ? he clearly struggles when there is bounce .

 

[Buffet]

It's a matter of personal preference, some batsmen find it easy to chase scores, and find themselves at sea while setting up the target. Some others find it reverse.

Two batsmen, who make it to my all time XI, find it easy in both situations. Two gun finishers will make it extremely difficult for any team because one is always going to fire. Batting first or batting second is non-issue for these two.
.

50+ avg & 1000+ runs:
.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Again the same quality / different conditions argument . Please let me know which great bowling attack on a difficult surface has Amla done well against ? he clearly struggles when there is bounce .

Great bowling attack on difficult surfaces?

Same question can be asked for SRT and Kohli too.

 

[Enforcer]

i agree here.

if making runs while batting 1st is easy, why kohli struggles when india bats 1st?

Some people does find difficulty in doing easier things but can do difficult things rather easily. if you feel chasing is so easy then find some established top order batsman like kohli who have done better while chasing than setting the target. I can give you heaps of examples of players who are better while batting first.

 

[tempus123]

And who are those batsman? Apart from kohli i dont find many batsman who find difficult to set the target. if you know such batsman please share. History will tell you always it is rather easier to find batsman who can set up the target than who can chase them.

Almost all of SL's 1996 success formula was based on the fact that their team was comfortable in chasing the target and almost always picked fielding on winning the toss. Ranatunga mentioned it was more the mental setup of the batting unit of the team where we find chasing targets easier.

 

[tempus123]

Two batsmen, who make it to my all time XI, find it easy in both situations. Two gun finishers will make it extremely difficult for any team because one is always going to fire. Batting first or batting second is non-issue for these two.
.

50+ avg & 1000+ runs:
.

View attachment 54580

Some are comfortable doing both, but at times have their personal preferences. Dhoni liked to chase more for a long time in his career.

 

[jusarrived]

Great bowling attack on difficult surfaces?

Same question can be asked for SRT and Kohli too.

Did I put that condition on the table . its always an argument used against Indian batsmen that we always play on flat pitches . So I want to know which are these knocks Amla has played against great bowling attacks on difficult surfaces .

wasnt it poor technique which cos Amlas wicket ib both the matches in WC so far ? one against swinging ball & other against short ball ?

 

[le_petit_prince]

The thing that makes kohli stand apart from others is his hunger to score runs and win.Even after scoring hundreds,when he gets out he looks so disappointed.by disappointed i mean as disappointed and angry as those fans sitting at home cheering.I think its something different these days when a lot of players take these matches so lightly and play irresponsibly.All they care about is the money.Feels like breaking the TV everytime when I see some player playing irresponsibly during some important scenario,failing and walking back smiling like it was some charity event match.

 

[jusarrived]

Some are comfortable doing both, but at times have their personal preferences. Dhoni liked to chase more for a long time in his career.

lol Amla cant chase cos of personal choice ?

 

[tempus123]

lol Amla cant chase cos of personal choice ?

When did I mention Amla here ? I am talking of Dhoni and Bevan.

 

[Enforcer]

Two batsmen, who make it to my all time XI, find it easy in both situations. Two gun finishers will make it extremely difficult for any team because one is always going to fire. Batting first or batting second is non-issue for these two.
.

50+ avg & 1000+ runs:
.

View attachment 54580

true but it is easier for finisher to maintain high avg while chasing. Look at the s/r of Dhoni while setting up target and while chasing. Big difference. That means dhoni has only done well in less than 300, but not done much when it comes to 300+ chases. His strike rate confirms that. Look kohli's strike rate, absolute beast, which confirms his masterclass in 300+ chases.

 

[Buffet]

.. why 90% of all 300+ scores are made batting first.

Let's say you have an ability to cross 300 - one out of ten times. Irrespective of batting first or second.

Imagine you play 100 matches:

Batting first - You bat 100 times then you will cross 300- ten times based on your ability.

Batting second - You bat 100 times and majority of times you don't even need to cross 300. Now let's say, you need to cross 300 to win games 10-15 times then going by ability of team you are going to chase it only 1-2 times. That's in 100 games while batting second with the same ability.

Getting less number of 300+ ,when batting second, is a simple case of probability.

 

[tempus123]

The thing that makes kohli stand apart from others is his hunger to score runs and win.Even after scoring hundreds,when he gets out he looks so disappointed.by disappointed i mean as disappointed and angry as those fans sitting at home cheering.I think its something different these days when a lot of players take these matches so lightly and play irresponsibly.All they care about is the money.Feels like breaking the TV everytime when I see some player playing irresponsibly during some important scenario,failing and walking back smiling like it was some charity event match.

So, if you don't look angry on getting out, you are not hungry enough, and don't care much about runs ?

 

[Enforcer]

Almost all of SL's 1996 success formula was based on the fact that their team was comfortable in chasing the target and almost always picked fielding on winning the toss. Ranatunga mentioned it was more the mental setup of the batting unit of the team where we find chasing targets easier.

if chasing so easier in those days than why india failed against the same SL in 1996 WC in eden gardens.

 

[tempus123]

if chasing so easier in those days than why india failed against the same SL in 1996 WC in eden gardens.

Arre bhai, who said chasing was easier. I said some preferred chasing because they were more comfortable doing it, you asked me to give example, so I mentioned SL in 1996.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Did I put that condition on the table . its always an argument used against Indian batsmen that we always play on flat pitches . So I want to know which are these knocks Amla has played against great bowling attacks on difficult surfaces .

wasnt it poor technique which cos Amlas wicket ib both the matches in WC so far ? one against swinging ball & other against short ball ?

I see....then fine...

Amla does well in Tests so I wouldn't put it down to poor technique. Maybe due to some technical issues but mainly its bcos he doesn't take pressure well.

 

[tempus123]

Did I put that condition on the table . its always an argument used against Indian batsmen that we always play on flat pitches . So I want to know which are these knocks Amla has played against great bowling attacks on difficult surfaces .

wasnt it poor technique which cos Amlas wicket ib both the matches in WC so far ? one against swinging ball & other against short ball ?

The reason for Amla and Rohit not doing well, seem to be much different. Amla can't seem to handle the pressure of high profile matches, and Rohit struggles against good balls.

 

[Buffet]

true but it is easier for finisher to maintain high avg while chasing. Look at the s/r of Dhoni while setting up target and while chasing. Big difference.

That's a sign of great finisher. When batting first, you don't have a fixed amount of runs so you try to take more risk and play faster to set a bigger total. When a great finisher will bat second then he will have a target in mind. It makes no sense to bat faster than what's needed and take more risk when batting second. That's why Dhoni and Bevan have lower SR when batting second.

Most important point - both bat well in both situations and both are gun finishers. You can name many gun higher order batsmen but when it comes to finishers , these two have been in different league. I wasn't comparing Kohli with Dhoni here. Going by their entire career, I rate Dhoni higher right now because finishers are rare species.

 

[tempus123]

if chasing so easier in those days than why india failed against the same SL in 1996 WC in eden gardens.

Even Tendulkar mentioned in 1998, that he was more comfortable chasing than setting up the score and that's why asked Azhar to opt for fielding in 1998 Sharjah cup final against Australia.

 

[Enforcer]

Arre bhai, who said chasing was easier. I said some preferred chasing because they were more comfortable doing it, you asked me to give example, so I mentioned SL in 1996.

And aren't those examples are rare, that is what i am implying. It is easier to find a batsman like Amla who is so good in batting first, than Kohli who thrives while chasing. Amla is top class, but kohli is a rare jewel. hence i rate kohli more than Amla.

 

[Enforcer]

Even Tendulkar mentioned in 1998, that he was more comfortable chasing than setting up the score and that's why asked Azhar to opt for fielding in 1998 Sharjah cup final against Australia.

But his average suggest otherwise. Averages 39 while chasing.

 

[tempus123]

And aren't those examples are rare, that is what i am implying. It is easier to find a batsman like Amla who is so good in batting first, than Kohli who thrives while chasing. Amla is top class, but kohli is a rare jewel. hence i rate kohli more than Amla.

It's not about being rare, different batsmen have at different times in their career have been more comfortable doing one job better than the other.

Klusener in 1999 WC was almost always coming in situation of chasing and cherished them more.. and have seen him at sea while putting up the score.. it doesn't mean he isn't good batting first, but had his comfort zone lying in the 2nd innings.

 

[Itachi]

It is. Which is why 90% of all 300+ scores are made batting first. Why do you think the Saffers made only 177 chasing 307? Had they batted first I am 100% sure they too would have made 300.

Kohli does have a weakness when batting first, but this is more like failing against a weaker team for lack of motivation. Failing while chasing is like failing against strong teams and failing under pressure and is a more serious weakness as far as temperament is concerned.

it isn't lack of motivation. it is about not being able to set a target. that's a big deficit.

 

[tempus123]

But his average suggest otherwise. Averages 39 while chasing.

Over the entire period of his career.

There were certain times, he felt more comfortable doing the chasing (like the example I gave) and had told his captain the same.

Also remember 2005-06 India's tour of Pakistan 5 ODIs, I think almost all were won by team batting second and chasing big scores because chasing was easier in that series (somehow).

 

[Itachi]

Some people does find difficulty in doing easier things but can do difficult things rather easily. if you feel chasing is so easy then find some established top order batsman like kohli who have done better while chasing than setting the target. I can give you heaps of examples of players who are better while batting first.

you guys make it more complicated than it is.

simple example,

task A: make runs batting 1st.
task B: make runs batting 2nd.

Amla excels at task A, Kohli excels at task B.

hence kohli > amla....

what a conclusion....

 

[Enforcer]

That's a sign of great finisher. When batting first, you don't have a fixed amount of runs so you try to take more risk and play faster to set a bigger total. When a great finisher will bat second then he will have a target in mind. It makes no sense to bat faster than what's needed and take more risk when batting second. That's why Dhoni and Bevan have lower SR when batting second.

Most important point - both bat well in both situations and both are gun finishers. You can name many gun higher order batsmen but when it comes to finishers , these two have been in different league. I wasn't comparing Kohli with Dhoni here. Going by their entire career, I rate Dhoni higher right now because finishers are rare species.

And Kohli has such a great S/R while chasing. Can you bring me the stats of Dhoni's contribution in India's successful 300+ chases. Dhoni is nowhere close to kohli when it ccomes to big chases. His best knock while chasing perhaps was in pakistan back in 2006. I don't remember the match,but that was a big chase. And ofcourse his 183 against Srilanka. Other than that he has not done much recently.

 

[Itachi]

And Kohli has such a great S/R while chasing. Can you bring me the stats of Dhoni's contribution in India's successful 300+ chases. Dhoni is nowhere close to kohli when it ccomes to big chases. His best knock while chasing perhaps was in pakistan back in 2006. I don't remember the match,but that was a big chase. And ofcourse his 183 against Srilanka. Other than that he has not done much recently.

kohli bats at 3, dhoni at 6.... see the difference?

 

[Enforcer]

you guys make it more complicated than it is.

simple example,

task A: make runs batting 1st.
task B: make runs batting 2nd.

Amla excels at task A, Kohli excels at task B.

hence kohli > amla....

what a conclusion....

Since to do task B is not every one's cup of tea. But Task A though Difficult can be done by others too.

 

[Enforcer]

kohli bats at 3, dhoni at 6.... see the difference?

So where kaif batted when we chased 326 against England? Why can't Dhoni never had such innings while chasing 300+. I am not berating Dhoni, he is surely an ATG, but better while setting the target than chasing.

 

[Buffet]

And Kohli has such a great S/R while chasing. Can you bring me the stats of Dhoni's contribution in India's successful 300+ chases. Dhoni is nowhere close to kohli when it ccomes to big chases. His best knock while chasing perhaps was in pakistan back in 2006. I don't remember the match,but that was a big chase. And ofcourse his 183 against Srilanka. Other than that he has not done much recently.

I don't judge payers based on only big chase. I judge players based on their ability to do well in their assigned roles. They can bat first or they can bat second. As long as they do a good job based on the role given to them, I will rate them.

Dhoni has done far better than players like Kohli or Amla in his assigned role irrespective of batting first or second. Kudos to Kohli for doing well in few big chases but that sample size is less than 10% of his career. Players are judged based on their entire career.

 

[jusarrived]

I see....then fine...

Amla does well in Tests so I wouldn't put it down to poor technique. Maybe due to some technical issues but mainly its bcos he doesn't take pressure well.

There is a massive difference between technique to play in ODIs and Tests . Just cos some one has done well in Tests dosent necessarily mean he has technique to score in ODIs . The difference is the pace at which you have to score . That hook or ondrive Amla was trying to play and got out , he wudnt have to do in Tests , he can be a lot more selective and leave those balls . Thats where its absurd to compare these two . you need to be a lot more versatile and have shots all around to be able to score quickly in ODIs & when you dont and try to do that , you simply get out .
when you chase the score board pressure makes it even more difficult , makes to play shots which you wud normally dont have to batting first . Thats where the likes of Amla get exposed , its not jinx bad luck or some black magic , simply lack of ability score a

 

[tempus123]

Since to do task B is not every one's cup of tea. But Task A though Difficult can be done by others too.

I think it depends more on the pitch, some pitches play better after the early moisture is gone, and hence being the opener playing first on those pitches is a big loss.

The same goes for Test matches and on a more pronounced level. India lost the 2nd Test in 2004 tour of Pakistan because batting first on that track wasn't easy, and conditions got better by the time Pakistan got their chance to bat. Dravid took a brave decision to bat first in the larger interest of the team to face "tough" conditions.

 

[jusarrived]

I see....then fine...

Amla does well in Tests so I wouldn't put it down to poor technique. Maybe due to some technical issues but mainly its bcos he doesn't take pressure well.

There is a massive difference between technique to play in ODIs and Tests . Just cos some one has done well in Tests dosent necessarily mean he has technique to score in ODIs . The difference is the pace at which you have to score . That hook or ondrive Amla was trying to play and got out , he wudnt have to do in Tests , he can be a lot more selective and leave those balls . Thats where its absurd to compare these two . you need to be a lot more versatile and have shots all around to be able to score quickly in ODIs & when you dont and try to do that , you simply get out .
when you chase the score board pressure makes it even more difficult , makes to play shots which you wud normally dont have to batting first . Thats where the likes of Amla get exposed , its not jinx bad luck or some black magic , simply lack of ability score at will

 

[tempus123]

So where kaif batted when we chased 326 against England? Why can't Dhoni never had such innings while chasing 300+. I am not berating Dhoni, he is surely an ATG, but better while setting the target than chasing.

And how many times has Kaif replicated that ?

The WC final innings while chasing 275 is as good as chasing 300 on any other day.

 

[Enforcer]

Over the entire period of his career.

There were certain times, he felt more comfortable doing the chasing (like the example I gave) and had told his captain the same.

Also remember 2005-06 India's tour of Pakistan 5 ODIs, I think almost all were won by team batting second and chasing big scores because chasing was easier in that series (somehow).

That is over a ccertain period of time, and not all time. But kohli is special, because he has an incredible average, which isn't everyone's cup of tea. Since he is belong to a rare category that is why i rate him.

 

[Itachi]

Since to do task B is not every one's cup of tea. But Task A though Difficult can be done by others too.

you have had a case if the person considered could do task A too. but he fails in it.

it is like a surgeon, who can do a complicated surgery yet, he can't give an injection, can't prescribe medicine and (hence) who is worthless on day to day routine..

 

[jusarrived]

Virat will go down as one of the Top3 ODI batsmen in the world , are you guys seriously suggesting Amla is in that league ? A guy I bet most of you cant think of one impact innings ?
This is getting ridiculous

 

[Enforcer]

And how many times has Kaif replicated that ?

The WC final innings while chasing 275 is as good as chasing 300 on any other day.

But Why can't Dhoni able to do what kaif did once in a such a prolonged career? Again i have already mentioned than Dhoni is an ATG but kohli is a rare gem. just that

 

[tempus123]

That is over a ccertain period of time, and not all time. But kohli is special, because he has an incredible average, which isn't everyone's cup of tea. Since he is belong to a rare category that is why i rate him.

When Kohli has his 1st innings sorted out (I am sure he will), his stature will increase, till then it's a weakness. Doesn't matter if you think it's ok to fail while batting first. I have given 4-5 examples of chasing conditions being easier than defending, if you need more, I will have to search more, certainly in Test matches I can give better examples as I followed Test cricket more.

 

[tempus123]

But Why can't Dhoni able to do what kaif did once in a such a prolonged career? Again i have already mentioned than Dhoni is an ATG but kohli is a rare gem. just that

What is your point, Kaif has done something which Dhoni can't do ?

 

[Itachi]

Virat will go down as one of the Top3 ODI batsmen in the world , are you guys seriously suggesting Amla is in that league ? A guy I bet most of you cant think of one impact innings ?
This is getting ridiculous

everything in this world is relative. depends upon what frame of reference you take.

you and i take different frame of reference. hence we come to different conclusion.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

There is a massive difference between technique to play in ODIs and Tests . Just cos some one has done well in Tests dosent necessarily mean he has technique to score in ODIs . The difference is the pace at which you have to score . That hook or ondrive Amla was trying to play and got out , he wudnt have to do in Tests , he can be a lot more selective and leave those balls . Thats where its absurd to compare these two . you need to be a lot more versatile and have shots all around to be able to score quickly in ODIs & when you dont and try to do that , you simply get out .
when you chase the score board pressure makes it even more difficult , makes to play shots which you wud normally dont have to batting first . Thats where the likes of Amla get exposed , its not jinx bad luck or some black magic , simply lack of ability score at will

Very interesting point.

Let's see if Amla can do it in pressure situations.

He still averages 45 with 83 SR while chasing.