Home and away runs by batsmen in the last 10 years

[Buffet]

I highlighted the home and away with 58 Avg cut off. Marked it by red.

Lots of batsmen averaged 58+ at home. Only AB avearge 58+ outside home.

Smith has taken home dominance to another level by averaging 74 at home.

.
.

Last 10 years at home for all teams except Pakistan
.

.
.


Last 10 years at UAE for Pakistan
.


.
.

Last 10 years away for all teams except Pakistan
.

.
.

Last 10 years away for Pakistan
.


.

There were few comments about home and away not making too much difference in another thread. Clearly, there is huge difference between home and away performance for pretty much every batsman. Most batsmen capitalize on familiar conditions and it's not going to change.

 

[Gilly]

Comparing stats home and away for teams from different countries can be distorted though. you are not comparing apples with apples.

If you compare Root to Smith for example when you show home stats it will fall into Smith's favour because Smith's home is in Australia where the pitches are suited more towards the batsman and Root's home stats in England are on mostly bowler favoured wickets.

When you look at away stats you are then doing the opposite and taking the harder conditions from one player and giving the other easier conditions. So basically its a flawed stat that often gets twisted just to suit a purpose.

 

[Buffet]

Comparing stats home and away for teams from different countries can be distorted though. you are not comparing apples with apples.

If you compare Root to Smith for example when you show home stats it will fall into Smith's favour because Smith's home is in Australia where the pitches are suited more towards the batsman and Root's home stats in England are on mostly bowler favoured wickets.

When you look at away stats you are then doing the opposite and taking the harder conditions from one player and giving the other easier conditions. So basically its a flawed stat that often gets twisted just to suit a purpose.

I also don't think that home records can be sorted and then you can rank batsmen. All homes are not same. That will be obviously flawed way to compare batsmen due to the reasons you pointed.

Stats are not to compare batsmen, but simply to show that home conditions does matter. We have just one batsman averaging 58+ outside of home , but many averaging 58+ at home.

 

[Buffet]

If you compare Root to Smith for example when you show home stats it will fall into Smith's favour because Smith's home is in Australia where the pitches are suited more towards the batsman and Root's home stats in England are on mostly bowler favoured wickets.

I wan't comparing Root with Smith with these stats, but let's use both of them for example for the point I was trying to make. Let's go with an assumption that Eng is bowler's favored wickets and Aus is suited for batsmen. What do we have here?

Root in Eng ( bowler favored pitch) - Avg 59
Root outside of Eng - Avg 44
Avg difference : 15


Smith in Aus(suited more for batsmen) - Avg 74
Smith outside Aus - Avg 53
Avg difference : 21

Suited for bowler(Eng) or suited for batsmen(Aus) is not making difference for both of these players when it comes to finding it easy to score at home. I know we can find opposite examples for few, but most will follow the same pattern and do better at home irrespective of country.

 

[Gilly]

I wan't comparing Root with Smith with these stats, but let's use both of them for example for the point I was trying to make. Let's go with an assumption that Eng is bowler's favored wickets and Aus is suited for batsmen. What do we have here?

Root in Eng ( bowler favored pitch) - Avg 59
Root outside of Eng - Avg 44
Avg difference : 15


Smith in Aus(suited more for batsmen) - Avg 74
Smith outside Aus - Avg 53
Avg difference : 21

Suited for bowler(Eng) or suited for batsmen(Aus) is not making difference for both of these players when it comes to finding it easy to score at home. I know we can find opposite examples for few, but most will follow the same pattern and do better at home irrespective of country.

Still going nowhere, Root does not have to face bowlers like Anderson and Broad in England where they are suited to take advantage of the conditions so his stats in England will be skewed in his favour and same for Smith. It will always be comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Buffet]

Still going nowhere, Root does not have to face bowlers like Anderson and Broad in England where they are suited to take advantage of the conditions so his stats in England will be skewed in his favour and same for Smith. It will always be comparing apples and oranges.

If it will favor Smith and Root both to bat at home due to reasons you pointed out, same reasons applies to everyone at home and pretty much everyone will find it easy to bat at home. That's the point I was making and not comparing batsmen here.

I guess statement about Smith taking it to another level at home may have created confusion, but I was mainly talking about home being easy for most batsmen.

 

[Bilal7]

This makes sense seeing how Sachin (of course), Amla, Sangakkara, Kallis and to a lesser extent, ABD, Smith and G Smith are the only all-conditions batsmen to have played test cricket in this time period.

 

[Bilal7]

If it will favor Smith and Root both to bat at home due to reasons you pointed out, same reasons applies to everyone at home and pretty much everyone will find it easy to bat at home. That's the point I was making and not comparing batsmen here.

I guess statement about Smith taking it to another level at home may have created confusion, but I was mainly talking about home being easy for most batsmen.

Everyone does not find it "easy" to bat at home and all home conditions are not equal. Batsmen from South Africa and England have it much much more difficult than batsmen from Australia and the UAE.

 

[CricFan2012]

This makes sense seeing how Sachin (of course), Amla, Sangakkara, Kallis and to a lesser extent, ABD, Smith and G Smith are the only all-conditions batsmen to have played test cricket in this time period.

I'm disappointed by Misbah's away average, was expecting more from a batsman with that experience

 

[Gilly]

This makes sense seeing how Sachin (of course), Amla, Sangakkara, Kallis and to a lesser extent, ABD, Smith and G Smith are the only all-conditions batsmen to have played test cricket in this time period.

If you say all conditions then you just look at their career stats without removing anything.

 

[Bilal7]

If you say all conditions then you just look at their career stats without removing anything.

No, because batsmen like Clarke and Jayawardene have great career stats based mostly on home success.

I'm disappointed by Misbah's away average, was expecting more from a batsman with that experience

He was never a great batsman.

 

[Gilly]

No, because batsmen like Clarke and Jayawardene have great career stats based mostly on home success.

Their career stats include all conditions, if you discount their home stats then its not all conditions its only in certain conditions.

 

[Bilal7]

Their career stats include all conditions, if you discount their home stats then its not all conditions its only in certain conditions.

All-conditions means that the player is able to handle all or most types of bowling conditions, pitches and bowlers themselves. Career stats do not tell you which player is a HTB and which player is an all-conditions player. Home stats can be looked at in isolation to find out whether or not a player can score runs in those conditions or not.

 

[Buffet]

Everyone does not find it "easy" to bat at home and all home conditions are not equal. Batsmen from South Africa and England have it much much more difficult than batsmen from Australia and the UAE.

That's why I said most and that applies to even most SA batsmen.

SA batsmen have averaged 40 in SA in the last 10 years. Same batting has not averaged higher than 40 in Aus, Ind, BD, SL, Eng and NZ.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Kohli averages more than Pujara at home.

Good for him and he has been very good off late but if there is a stat that's misleading, it's this.

Pujara is 5X the player Kohli is at home.

 

[Sam99]

Kohli averages more than Pujara at home.

Good for him and he has been very good off late but if there is a stat that's misleading, it's this.

Pujara is 5X the player Kohli is at home.

Kohli's avg boosted after recent srilanka series. He made most of it.

 

[WengerOut]

Kohli's avg boosted after recent srilanka series. He made most of it.

Yes and he dint allow Pujara to score also

 

[Ab Fan]

Kohli averages more than Pujara at home.

Good for him and he has been very good off late but if there is a stat that's misleading, it's this.

Pujara is 5X the player Kohli is at home.

Do you think Pujara will come good overseas this time around?I dont think his failure issue was not being good enough against swing, seam, pace and bounce.

 

[prop558]

Greame Smith, Steven Smith, A.B. De Villiers & Kane Williamson

 

[Smbhayi]

despite not being top Amla has more centuries and fifties than others. And not much difference in stat too.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Do you think Pujara will come good overseas this time around?I dont think his failure issue was not being good enough against swing, seam, pace and bounce.

Honestly don't know.

I just hope he does well but gun to head, I have no idea if he will do well or not.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Kohli's avg boosted after recent srilanka series. He made most of it.

'Boosted'?

By a win against Srilanka in the sub-continent?

This is the team that 3-0ed Australia and 2-0'd Pakistan away...and his stats are 'boosted' by playing against them in a series where we won 1 out of 3 games.

Seriously there are limits to this rubbish.

And no, Kohli is a better player than Pujara.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

despite not being top Amla has more centuries and fifties than others. And not much difference in stat too.

Amla is a marvellous test player who doesn't get enough credit.

 

[Sam99]

'Boosted'?

By a win against Srilanka in the sub-continent?

This is the team that 3-0ed Australia and 2-0'd Pakistan away...and his stats are 'boosted' by playing against them in a series where we won 1 out of 3 games.

Seriously there are limits to this rubbish.

And no, Kohli is a better player than Pujara.

He was averaging around 49 in tests before that series now around 54. Scored 3 centuries (2 double centuries).
Surely his stats got alot better playing one series. And not to forget he played 3 more tests few months ago in srilanka.

I wonder how come india ends up playing srilanka 9 times in just 2 years. They played 4 matches in west indies as well. And to play against south africa they are just playing 3 matches in 4 years gap.

 

[WengerOut]

He was averaging around 49 in tests before that series now around 54. Scored 3 centuries (2 double centuries).
Surely his stats got alot better playing one series. And not to forget he played 3 more tests few months ago in srilanka.

I wonder how come india ends up playing srilanka 9 times in just 2 years. They played 4 matches in west indies as well. And to play against south africa they are just playing 3 matches in 4 years gap.

He was averaging 52 in February. Had a bad series and it came down. What is your point?

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Kohli averages more than Pujara at home.

Good for him and he has been very good off late but if there is a stat that's misleading, it's this.

Pujara is 5X the player Kohli is at home.

Not anymore.

Maybe in initial days but Kohli has turned it around big time. His double hundred at Mumbai is seriously under-rated by many. Maybe because he's scored too many in short period.

It's not a joke to score 5 double hundred in space of 18 months even if it's at home.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Not anymore.

Maybe in initial days but Kohli has turned it around big time. His double hundred at Mumbai is seriously under-rated by many. Maybe because he's scored too many in short period.

It's not a joke to score 5 double hundred in space of 18 months even if it's at home.

And yet when it came to deliver in Australia series in rank turners with the series on line, who saved us?

Pujara or Kohli?

At home, Pujara is next level. Kohli has to perform on good turners big time to overtake Pujara in Asia.

 

[rudra]

Kohli also would have been averaging 50+ away if not for the disastrous eng tour.

 

[Buffet]

I wonder how come india ends up playing srilanka 9 times in just 2 years.

I think India and SL didn't play for 5 years before that.

If you look at from the start of 2000 then Indians played SA and SL 23-34 tests against both. Ideally, India would have played more against SA because SA did well in India, but I guess vote from Sl in ICC played some part here.

 

[Savage]

Wow some stunning stats

Sad to see no vijay.He could've been on same level as Root,KW and Kholi if only he'd learned the art of FTBing from his captain.

 

[HuzaifaE]

Kohli also would have been averaging 50+ away if not for the disastrous eng tour.

Every player looks better if you take away their most rubbish tour

 

[Savage]

Not anymore.

Maybe in initial days but Kohli has turned it around big time. His double hundred at Mumbai is seriously under-rated by many. Maybe because he's scored too many in short period.

It's not a joke to score 5 double hundred in space of 18 months even if it's at home.

Scoring 5 double hundred is a great achievment but how many of them would he have rated amongst his top 5-10 innings.(probably 1 or 2).pujara scored around 150 against SL recently,even if he had scored 200 in that innings(lets assume) then i don't think he would've rated that knock amongst his top 15.I hope you're getting my point.Despite those double hundreds,I still rate King kohli league or two below Pujara at home (where they have played 60-70% of matches so far).

 

[Savage]

Kohli also would have been averaging 50+ away if not for the disastrous eng tour.

Kohli averages 37.63 away from home if you remove his stats in Australia and Even Less if you remove Only his stats from 2014 Aus Tour(Where pitches were flat as compared to english series).In comparison,HTB Pujara averages 38.52 away from home.

 

[Bilal7]

Kohli averages 37.63 away from home if you remove his stats in Australia and Even Less if you remove Only his stats from 2014 Aus Tour(Where pitches were flat as compared to english series).In comparison,HTB Pujara averages 38.52 away from home.

Australian pitches have never been as flat as they were during that series. It was an absolute farce.

 

[The_Odd_One]

There is a lot of hypocrisy on PP. None rated Younis when he scored runs series after series in Asia. Suddenly, scoring runs at home became difficult as soon as Kohli started doing it.

 

[Savage]

There is a lot of hypocrisy on PP. None rated Younis when he scored runs series after series in Asia. Suddenly, scoring runs at home became difficult as soon as Kohli started doing it.

Pujara and vijay have performed better than Kohli on difficult pitches so far.His multiple 200s against Ban and SL would always be rated as ATG knock because he is King Kohli(Biggest superstar of this generation).While more meaningful innings like 92 or 202 by pujara(an indian who is not good enough to play ipl) would be completely forgotten after couple of weeks.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Australian pitches have never been as flat as they were during that series. It was an absolute farce.

Pakistan series saw 33 Australian wickets that too with DN test. Indian series had 47 Australian wickets in first 3 matches.

 

[Proactive_]

Pujara and vijay have performed better than Kohli on difficult pitches so far.His multiple 200s against Ban and SL would always be rated as ATG knock because he is King Kohli(Biggest superstar of this generation).While more meaningful innings like 92 or 202 by pujara(an indian who is not good enough to play ipl) would be completely forgotten after couple of weeks.

That 92 by Pujara is the innings of the year for me. Imagine being 1-0 down in a home series, facing a 90 run deficit after the first innings of the 2nd Test on a raging turner, staring down the barrel in the 2nd innings as well.. the series on the line and you come up with a performance like that. Incredible. Not to forget Rahane who played incredibly well for his 50+ as well despite all his documented troubles against spin. Without Pujara Aus would have run over India for 2-0, 3-0 easily in that series.

 

[rashmin]

No matter what is the topic, eventually the discussion about Kohli....and PPers say they dont rate him much, then why bother to discuss him in every thread????

 

[Abdullah719]

No matter what is the topic, eventually the discussion about Kohli....and PPers say they dont rate him much, then why bother to discuss him in every thread????

Well, the topic here is batsmen in general and I don't think Kohli is a bowler. So...

 

[rashmin]

Well, the topic here is batsmen in general and I don't think Kohli is a bowler. So...

Yes Einstein, we all know he is not a bowler. The whole thing is people will find a way to bash him anyways....

 

[Abdullah719]

Yes Einstein, we all know he is not a bowler. The whole thing is people will find a way to bash him anyways....

Works both ways. There's others who proclaim that he's the 'Fab 1' and that no one comes close to him which is obviously not the case.

I don't think you understand how a forum works if you need to keep asking why a certain discussion is taking place, by the way. Forums = discussions = disagreements.

 

[rashmin]

Works both ways. There's others who proclaim that he's the 'Fab 1' and that no one comes close to him which is obviously not the case.

I don't think you understand how a forum works if you need to keep asking why a certain discussion is taking place, by the way. Forums = discussions = disagreements.

Agreed bro.

 

[Gilly]

I also don't think that home records can be sorted and then you can rank batsmen. All homes are not same. That will be obviously flawed way to compare batsmen due to the reasons you pointed.

Stats are not to compare batsmen, but simply to show that home conditions does matter. We have just one batsman averaging 58+ outside of home , but many averaging 58+ at home.

But that is only cherry picking his stats, he only averages 55 if you include his whole career.

 

[Buffet]

But that is only cherry picking his stats, he only averages 55 if you include his whole career.

His? You meant AB? Hardly a thread to glorify AB by cherrypicking 10 years here. If that's what you took out of this thread then I can't add much.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Australian pitches have never been as flat as they were during that series. It was an absolute farce.

What about Aus pitches vs Pakistan and NZ?

England Ashes pitches were better (uptil now) except for WACA which was an utter bouncy patta.

 

[Princejain191]

Australian pitches have never been as flat as they were during that series. It was an absolute farce.

With good Indian batting and our awful bowling, the pitches always look flatter when India play. Cos our batsmen are capable of making runs and our bowling makes every pitch look flat, atleast that is how it was last time around.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

With good Indian batting and our awful bowling, the pitches always look flatter when India play. Cos our batsmen are capable of making runs and our bowling makes every pitch look flat, atleast that is how it was last time around.

No wait.......he has made a claim. I am confused. So asking to get things clarified.

 

[Princejain191]

Do you think Pujara will come good overseas this time around?I dont think his failure issue was not being good enough against swing, seam, pace and bounce.

I am still sceptical of whether he would be able to cope with the pace and bounce. There are signs still that he isn't comfortable when it is bouncy. He might still get those 25 off 70 starts but I don't see him having a really good conversion rate of starts-to-fifties. Incredible on slow pitches though

 

[EliteCynical]

Do you think Pujara will come good overseas this time around?I dont think his failure issue was not being good enough against swing, seam, pace and bounce.

Nope. I can see him failing in SA. REady to accept if proven wrong. Has a major chink where in he is late on his defence and gets LBW and bowled far too often in India (Dasun Shanaka bowled him for heavens sake). Would find it hard to deal with Rabada. Just my take, he is a good batsman who may work on it, but im not very sure. Seems very uptight to me!

 

[Savage]

That 92 by Pujara is the innings of the year for me. Imagine being 1-0 down in a home series, facing a 90 run deficit after the first innings of the 2nd Test on a raging turner, staring down the barrel in the 2nd innings as well.. the series on the line and you come up with a performance like that. Incredible. Not to forget Rahane who played incredibly well for his 50+ as well despite all his documented troubles against spin. Without Pujara Aus would have run over India for 2-0, 3-0 easily in that series.

Probably Yes.certainly the most impactful knock of the year 2017.Before the start of pujara innings,Australia were completely dominating the series.With the help of his knock, india were slightly favourite in defending 188.You can even say that pujara 92 changed the entire complexion of the series

 

[Ab Fan]

I am still sceptical of whether he would be able to cope with the pace and bounce. There are signs still that he isn't comfortable when it is bouncy. He might still get those 25 off 70 starts but I don't see him having a really good conversion rate of starts-to-fifties. Incredible on slow pitches though

And your opinion regarding how he would fare in England? He will most probably have to do the dirty work there but unless he gets big runs it won't really be useful as much.

 

[Ab Fan]

Nope. I can see him failing in SA. REady to accept if proven wrong. Has a major chink where in he is late on his defence and gets LBW and bowled far too often in India (Dasun Shanaka bowled him for heavens sake). Would find it hard to deal with Rabada. Just my take, he is a good batsman who may work on it, but im not very sure. Seems very uptight to me!

Yes , it is sceptical.It will be interesting to se how he fares in England and Australia too. He will have big role to play if India have to compete and win a couple of games in each of those countries.

 

[Ab Fan]

Probably Yes.certainly the most impactful knock of the year 2017.Before the start of pujara innings,Australia were completely dominating the series.With the help of his knock, india were slightly favourite in defending 188.<B>You can even say that pujara 92 changed the entire complexion of the series</B>

This part is true. It was a series changing knock no doubt.

 

[Savage]

And yet when it came to deliver in Australia series in rank turners with the series on line, who saved us?

Pujara or Kohli?

At home, Pujara is next level. Kohli has to perform on good turners big time to overtake Pujara in Asia.

Even if you completely remove that series,pujara is still ahead of kohli at home.(atleast for me)

And if you include that series,then Pujara at home is league or two above kohli.Pujara was best indian batsmen while Kohli was worst batsmen of the series(even if you're including both sides)

IND-AUS 2017 was perhaps the most memorable indian test series of this decade.

 

[Savage]

This part is true. It was a series changing knock no doubt.

His 200 in next match was also special even if pitch was not tough for batting.Pujara faced over 500 balls against quality attack of Hazlewood,lyon and cummins.(they don't give easy runs no matter how good is pitch)Even If pujara had scored suppose 120(of 250 balls) then india would've still most likely lost that match.

 

[maxamax]

Distorted stats. There are flat tracks almost everywhere now. Should handpick each game where ball was moving.

 

[Bilal7]

With good Indian batting and our awful bowling, the pitches always look flatter when India play. Cos our batsmen are capable of making runs and our bowling makes every pitch look flat, atleast that is how it was last time around.

It's not just the Indian bowlers but the Australians looked harmless as well. There was backlash from the bowlers and therefore we haven't seen pitches as flat as those again.

What about Aus pitches vs Pakistan and NZ?

England Ashes pitches were better (uptil now) except for WACA which was an utter bouncy patta.

The ones against NZ were similarly terrible, although not as much, but South Africa and Pakistan played on better wickets. On regular Aussie wickets, traditional swing bowlers bowling in the 130s and offies will most likely fail but certain bowlers can succeed. There was a phase however, when no bowler was having any success in Australia and it was at its worst during that Australia vs India series.

Pakistan bowled pretty poorly even though the wickets they got were a bit more balanced.

 

[Princejain191]

It's not just the Indian bowlers but the Australians looked harmless as well. There was backlash from the bowlers and therefore we haven't seen pitches as flat as those again.



The ones against NZ were similarly terrible, although not as much, but South Africa and Pakistan played on better wickets. On regular Aussie wickets, traditional swing bowlers bowling in the 130s and offies will most likely fail but certain bowlers can succeed. There was a phase however, when no bowler was having any success in Australia and it was at its worst during that Australia vs India series.

Pakistan bowled pretty poorly even though the wickets they got were a bit more balanced.

*BUZZER* Wrong again pal!

 

[Chief Destroyer]

But Cook is better.

 

[Princejain191]

And your opinion regarding how he would fare in England? He will most probably have to do the dirty work there but unless he gets big runs it won't really be useful as much.

The good thing for Indians is that players will have a good break before the England test series this time. We'll even have the ODIs before the tests. So players will have plenty of time to prepare. Also, given the series is in August, the ball might not swing excessively, just like vs. Pak. I think Pujara will again make good starts, but the hard work never stops if the pitch is swinging a lot, so we might see starts not being converted often - like it happened in County cricket for Pujara. But yeah, Pujara should do well in England and tbh, out of SA, Eng and Aus next year - England is probably our easiest assignment given how inconsistent their team is and now we have good bowlers for swing conditions.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The ones against NZ were similarly terrible, although not as much, but South Africa and Pakistan played on better wickets. On regular Aussie wickets, traditional swing bowlers bowling in the 130s and offies will most likely fail but certain bowlers can succeed. There was a phase however, when no bowler was having any success in Australia and it was at its worst during that Australia vs India series.

Pakistan bowled pretty poorly even though the wickets they got were a bit more balanced.

I agree SA definitely played on better wickets after which Aus reverted back to pattas. Pakistan had a day night game so overall better wickets if you compare India series but apart from that match, the rest were pattas.

You are right there was backlash from players regarding the India Australia pitches but part of it is also due to the fact that since Indian lineup is strong (ok 3 batsmen were strong), Australians found it harder to bundle us out and hence the frustration. Modern Indian bats ain't that great with swing, seam or spin (barring a few) but most are good with bounce.

Inspite of it all, think about it: A bowling attack of Rhyno, Hazlewood, Johnson, Starc and Lyon......if England were made to play against those attacks in Aus, you think they would have scored? Unlikely.

That's what makes Kohli's 4 knocks special. He even had one of the knocks on a spitting Day 5 Adelaide pitch where Lyon was spinning it a lot. That's a complete attack against which Kohli scored and while other batsmen have made runs in Australia (odd century), no one has had the domination that Kohli has had.

Now coming to the pitches, I know that you don't rate Ashwin cos he is garbage outside Asia (mainly Aus tour 2014). But in your own words, the pitches were utter rubbish in the Aus series and yet Ashwin matched Lyon in stats (more wickets too if I am not wrong) in the games they played together inspite of the VAST difference in pacers' quality who are the main strike bowlers in those conditions.

You don't rate Kohli's heroics against a complete pacey bowling attack (cos its a flat pitch) and yet you don't rate Ashwin's efforts on the same pitches where even Ryan Harris averaged 30.

Don't you think perhaps you have to evaluate the way you are judging these two players?

Of course, you are entitled to your views and the criticism both Kohli and Ash face does have some validity but extent matters.

Something to ponder about.

 

[BaankeJi]

Australian pitches have never been as flat as they were during that series. It was an absolute farce.

It's all BCCI conspiracy.

 

[Bilal7]

It's all BCCI conspiracy.

It was a financial decision. [MENTION=132373]Convict[/MENTION]

I agree SA definitely played on better wickets after which Aus reverted back to pattas. Pakistan had a day night game so overall better wickets if you compare India series but apart from that match, the rest were pattas.

You are right there was backlash from players regarding the India Australia pitches but part of it is also due to the fact that since Indian lineup is strong (ok 3 batsmen were strong), Australians found it harder to bundle us out and hence the frustration. Modern Indian bats ain't that great with swing, seam or spin (barring a few) but most are good with bounce.

Inspite of it all, think about it: A bowling attack of Rhyno, Hazlewood, Johnson, Starc and Lyon......if England were made to play against those attacks in Aus, you think they would have scored? Unlikely.

That's what makes Kohli's 4 knocks special. He even had one of the knocks on a spitting Day 5 Adelaide pitch where Lyon was spinning it a lot. That's a complete attack against which Kohli scored and while other batsmen have made runs in Australia (odd century), no one has had the domination that Kohli has had.

Now coming to the pitches, I know that you don't rate Ashwin cos he is garbage outside Asia (mainly Aus tour 2014). But in your own words, the pitches were utter rubbish in the Aus series and yet Ashwin matched Lyon in stats (more wickets too if I am not wrong) in the games they played together inspite of the VAST difference in pacers' quality who are the main strike bowlers in those conditions.

You don't rate Kohli's heroics against a complete pacey bowling attack (cos its a flat pitch) and yet you don't rate Ashwin's efforts on the same pitches where even Ryan Harris averaged 30.

Don't you think perhaps you have to evaluate the way you are judging these two players?

Of course, you are entitled to your views and the criticism both Kohli and Ash face does have some validity but extent matters.

Something to ponder about.

Yeah, the D/N game helped. However, generally the Aussies have reverted back to their traditional wickets that are roads but quick roads. The bounce has also returned somewhat. Same seems to be true of Indian ODI pitches which will only benefit the game.

Kohli certainly batted very well in that series, so did Smith. However, there is no denying that he was helped by the flat pitches. That Australian attack was superb but when there is absolutely nothing for the bowlers in the pitches, even the finest of attacks can be left wanting.

Just look at the difference in pitches from the 2013 Ashes series and that India series. Is Kohli that much better than the likes of KP, Cook, Trott, Clarke, Warner, etc? When the players themselves are complaining, you and I are no one to disagree.

As for Ashwin, what was his average in the series, what was his SR? You can't really compliment a bowler too much if he just ended up failing by any metric. So yes, the odds were stacked against him (and every other bowler in that series), but since Ashwin failed, you can't really compliment him in any way. Besides, he's also bowled in England and South Africa and been similarly ineffective. If he does well next year in these countries, then he'll definitely be known as a great spin bowler. Same goes for Kohli in the batting department, although Kohli has already had some success overseas.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Yeah, the D/N game helped. However, generally the Aussies have reverted back to their traditional wickets that are roads but quick roads. The bounce has also returned somewhat. Same seems to be true of Indian ODI pitches which will only benefit the game.

Kohli certainly batted very well in that series, so did Smith. However, there is no denying that he was helped by the flat pitches. That Australian attack was superb but when there is absolutely nothing for the bowlers in the pitches, even the finest of attacks can be left wanting.

Just look at the difference in pitches from the 2013 Ashes series and that India series. Is Kohli that much better than the likes of KP, Cook, Trott, Clarke, Warner, etc? When the players themselves are complaining, you and I are no one to disagree.

As for Ashwin, what was his average in the series, what was his SR? You can't really compliment a bowler too much if he just ended up failing by any metric. So yes, the odds were stacked against him (and every other bowler in that series), but since Ashwin failed, you can't really compliment him in any way. Besides, he's also bowled in England and South Africa and been similarly ineffective. If he does well next year in these countries, then he'll definitely be known as a great spin bowler. Same goes for Kohli in the batting department, although Kohli has already had some success overseas.

Kohli certainly batted very well in that series, so did Smith. However, there is no denying that he was helped by the flat pitches. That Australian attack was superb but when there is absolutely nothing for the bowlers in the pitches, even the finest of attacks can be left wanting.

Yes, Smith batted well and averaged over 100.

One small problem though: It was against Indian pacers who were spraying it around. Kohli batted against a disciplined and complete Aussie attack to score 4 centuries.

Yes, he was helped by flat pitches but you have to note that he didn't score a customary hundred, one 50, a couple of pretty 40s and done.

He scored BULK of the runs and almost SINGLE HANDEDLY helped us draw 2 tests. In fact, if him and Vijay had decided to pull down the shutters for Adelaide test, we would have walked away from the series 0-1.

There is a reason why Australia decimates oppositions at home even when pitches are flat. It's because their attack is relentless in dismantling oppositions. Look at what happened to deep English tail which wags everywhere. Aus made quick work of them because they know how to use those bouncy conditions well.

Is Kohli that much better than the likes of KP, Cook, Trott, Clarke, Warner, etc?

Is he better than English batsmen in English conditions? No as of now. But in Australia, his performance was better.

Look at the attack which those batsmen scored against in 2010 and look at the attack Kohli scored in 2014. Heaven and earth difference.

Look at their own team bowlers' performance in that series and look at Kohli's bowlers in that series. Again heaven and earth difference.

That's what makes Kohli's performance super special.

As for Ashwin, what was his average in the series, what was his SR? You can't really compliment a bowler too much if he just ended up failing by any metric. So yes, the odds were stacked against him (and every other bowler in that series), but since Ashwin failed, you can't really compliment him in any way. Besides, he's also bowled in England and South Africa and been similarly ineffective. If he does well next year in these countries, then he'll definitely be known as a great spin bowler. Same goes for Kohli in the batting department, although Kohli has already had some success overseas.

There is something in between being great and being rubbish. I watched the series very closely. He wasn't great. But he wasn't rubbish either. But he bowled very very well (but without much guile) in the most testing conditions where he had virtually no support.

We have to remember that there is a fundamental difference between pacers and spinners. Pacers can perform much better on non responsive pitches (bouncers, yorkers, cutters, channel bowling) and pick wickets even if their supporting spinners don't. Spinners find it much harder to pick wickets overseas without pacer's help. More so when pacers are leaking runs hopelessly with a lone spinner in play.

As for stats, here's it in the tests he played:

Similar average, SR and economy to Lyon but more wickets. More wickets because lesser competition for picking up wickets but the average, SR and economy weren't hit when logically it should have been.

Just check the stats of the pacers (average, SR and economy).

In fact, Ashwin has more wickets than even Swann in his successful Australia 2010 series (15 wickets in 5 games at 39 average with 87 SR). And Swann is a bonafide great bowler in outside Asia conditions.

As for other countries, SA was a failure.

And for England, in what world is 0/28 (14 overs) and 3/73 a failure? Both games we were innings defeated after getting bundled out in first innings for 150 batting first.

Dunno how he is going to perform in SA now. This overseas cycle will tell us about him.

 

[Princejain191]

Yes, Smith batted well and averaged over 100.

One small problem though: It was against Indian pacers who were spraying it around. Kohli batted against a disciplined and complete Aussie attack to score 4 centuries.

Yes, he was helped by flat pitches but you have to note that he didn't score a customary hundred, one 50, a couple of pretty 40s and done.

He scored BULK of the runs and almost SINGLE HANDEDLY helped us draw 2 tests. In fact, if him and Vijay had decided to pull down the shutters for Adelaide test, we would have walked away from the series 0-1.

There is a reason why Australia decimates oppositions at home even when pitches are flat. It's because their attack is relentless in dismantling oppositions. Look at what happened to deep English tail which wags everywhere. Aus made quick work of them because they know how to use those bouncy conditions well.



Is he better than English batsmen in English conditions? No as of now. But in Australia, his performance was better.

Look at the attack which those batsmen scored against in 2010 and look at the attack Kohli scored in 2014. Heaven and earth difference.

Look at their own team bowlers' performance in that series and look at Kohli's bowlers in that series. Again heaven and earth difference.

That's what makes Kohli's performance super special.



There is something in between being great and being rubbish. I watched the series very closely. He wasn't great. But he wasn't rubbish either. But he bowled very very well (but without much guile) in the most testing conditions where he had virtually no support.

We have to remember that there is a fundamental difference between pacers and spinners. Pacers can perform much better on non responsive pitches (bouncers, yorkers, cutters, channel bowling) and pick wickets even if their supporting spinners don't. Spinners find it much harder to pick wickets overseas without pacer's help. More so when pacers are leaking runs hopelessly with a lone spinner in play.

As for stats, here's it in the tests he played:

Similar average, SR and economy to Lyon but more wickets. More wickets because lesser competition for picking up wickets but the average, SR and economy weren't hit when logically it should have been.

Just check the stats of the pacers (average, SR and economy).

In fact, Ashwin has more wickets than even Swann in his successful Australia 2010 series (15 wickets in 5 games at 39 average with 87 SR). And Swann is a bonafide great bowler in outside Asia conditions.

As for other countries, SA was a failure.

And for England, in what world is 0/28 (14 overs) and 3/73 a failure? Both games we were innings defeated after getting bundled out in first innings for 150 batting first.

Dunno how he is going to perform in SA now. This overseas cycle will tell us about him.

Well argued. But I don't think Bilal cares for a good argument that favours Virat and Ash in any way.

Also, should we be playing Ash in SA or Jaddu? Jaddu has more runs in first-class cricket in the last year (and by some distance too), and a better bowling average. Also is a more accomplished fielder, and SA's best batsmen (except Elgar - RHB - Amla, Faf, AB) are right-handed. I think if we go with Ash as one spinner (though we might go with 2 spinners in Cape town), it would purely be an emotional call.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

And yet when it came to deliver in Australia series in rank turners with the series on line, who saved us?

Pujara or Kohli?

At home, Pujara is next level. Kohli has to perform on good turners big time to overtake Pujara in Asia.

On a turning pitch at Adelaide who played the knock of his life? Why pick and choose? Kohli had an off series against Australia and they were hardly the turners. Against SA Pujara did nothing just like Kohli. So I guess Rahane is next level?

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Scoring 5 double hundred is a great achievment but how many of them would he have rated amongst his top 5-10 innings.(probably 1 or 2).pujara scored around 150 against SL recently,even if he had scored 200 in that innings(lets assume) then i don't think he would've rated that knock amongst his top 15.I hope you're getting my point.Despite those double hundreds,I still rate King kohli league or two below Pujara at home (where they have played 60-70% of matches so far).

Since 2016 Home season

Kohli 1862 runs @ 81 - S/R 68
Pujara 1605 runs @ 62 - S/R 47

League or two below Pujara (lol)

Pujara has fantastic stats, he's a fantastic batsman but the perception that he's the best player of spin in the side is stuck to some probably because he stood out in that 2012 series against England, where India ordered turning pitches and he was the only one scoring.

Kohli's 200 are written off so easily because of S/R he scores them at it. It's his fault he makes batting look so ridiculously easy, I guess.

Had he batted for 500+ balls, maybe then some of you folks would have thought he earned it.

 

[Sam99]

Since 2016 Home season

Kohli 1862 runs @ 81 - S/R 68
Pujara 1605 runs @ 62 - S/R 47

League or two below Pujara (lol)

Pujara has fantastic stats, he's a fantastic batsman but the perception that he's the best player of spin in the side is stuck to some probably because he stood out in that 2012 series against England, where India ordered turning pitches and he was the only one scoring.

Kohli's 200 are written off so easily because of S/R he scores them at it. It's his fault he makes batting look so ridiculously easy, I guess.

Had he batted for 500+ balls, maybe then some of you folks would have thought he earned it.

Those 200 were in easiest condition you can get and not to forget bowl gets old at position kohli bats also bowlers are little tired. 4 double hundred vs lanka , west indies and bangladesh & against england even karun nair scored 300 no way those were made in difficult conditions. Kohli milks runs in easy conditions just that he does it more consistently so he is rated high.

 

[jnaveen1980]

home and away record don't give you a correct picture. As i said in many posts it all depends on grounds, season, form of the home team, absence of key bowlers, on what day you bat, what your form is. So many things. Even in India there are occasions pitch is way too fresh and helps seamers abundantly in the first two sessions and will go completely flat in the rest of the test. It has happened several times. India itself became victim of such situation several times. Since you don't play there often you can't make up for it for a while. Most of the players fail because they don't practice when they go there. Sachin had some unique overseas preparations. Matthew Hayden practiced by creating rough outside the leg and asked aussie spinners to bowl for hours. He made over 500 runs in that epic 2001 series.

 

[Bilal7]

Yes, Smith batted well and averaged over 100.

One small problem though: It was against Indian pacers who were spraying it around. Kohli batted against a disciplined and complete Aussie attack to score 4 centuries.

Yes, he was helped by flat pitches but you have to note that he didn't score a customary hundred, one 50, a couple of pretty 40s and done.

He scored BULK of the runs and almost SINGLE HANDEDLY helped us draw 2 tests. In fact, if him and Vijay had decided to pull down the shutters for Adelaide test, we would have walked away from the series 0-1.

There is a reason why Australia decimates oppositions at home even when pitches are flat. It's because their attack is relentless in dismantling oppositions. Look at what happened to deep English tail which wags everywhere. Aus made quick work of them because they know how to use those bouncy conditions well.



Is he better than English batsmen in English conditions? No as of now. But in Australia, his performance was better.

Look at the attack which those batsmen scored against in 2010 and look at the attack Kohli scored in 2014. Heaven and earth difference.

Look at their own team bowlers' performance in that series and look at Kohli's bowlers in that series. Again heaven and earth difference.

That's what makes Kohli's performance super special.



There is something in between being great and being rubbish. I watched the series very closely. He wasn't great. But he wasn't rubbish either. But he bowled very very well (but without much guile) in the most testing conditions where he had virtually no support.

We have to remember that there is a fundamental difference between pacers and spinners. Pacers can perform much better on non responsive pitches (bouncers, yorkers, cutters, channel bowling) and pick wickets even if their supporting spinners don't. Spinners find it much harder to pick wickets overseas without pacer's help. More so when pacers are leaking runs hopelessly with a lone spinner in play.

As for stats, here's it in the tests he played:

Similar average, SR and economy to Lyon but more wickets. More wickets because lesser competition for picking up wickets but the average, SR and economy weren't hit when logically it should have been.

Just check the stats of the pacers (average, SR and economy).

In fact, Ashwin has more wickets than even Swann in his successful Australia 2010 series (15 wickets in 5 games at 39 average with 87 SR). And Swann is a bonafide great bowler in outside Asia conditions.

As for other countries, SA was a failure.

And for England, in what world is 0/28 (14 overs) and 3/73 a failure? Both games we were innings defeated after getting bundled out in first innings for 150 batting first.

Dunno how he is going to perform in SA now. This overseas cycle will tell us about him.

The Aussies certainly know how to bowl on flat tracks and that is my point exactly. Given how even the likes of MJ and Harris were nullified during the series and the Australian bowlers were reduced to pleading for more balanced pitches tells us that those pitches were a special sort of flat.

I was referring to the 2013 Ashes, given that it took place only a few months prior to the Australia vs India series. Why did the performance of the Aussie bowlers degrade so much? They certainly were not facing vastly superior batsmen and said batsmen do not have more experience batting in Australian conditions. The pitches remain the answer. However, Kohli did bat very well in that series and apart from Smith, no one batted better than him on those pitches.


I admit I do not remember much of Ashwin's bowling from that series because like any of his overseas performances, it lacked any shred of impact. No one is denying that Ashwin had it tough but praising him in this situation is akin to praising a student who failed a hard exam along with 90% of his class.

An average of 50 and economy rate of 3.40 is rubbish but I'll take your word that he bowled better than his numbers suggest. However, please do not pretend like this was just a three match series. Lyon took a 10-fer in the first match and vastly outperformed Ashwin in this series. Just like Moeen Ali did in England. The fact that Ashwin did not play as many games as he could overseas is down to him not bowling as well as he should have.

Plus, in the stats you posted, Shami averaged just over 30 and Ishant averages in the mid-30s. In fact, Shami also has a better SR than anyone else in the two matches he played.

 

[Savage]

On a turning pitch at Adelaide who played the knock of his life? Why pick and choose? Kohli had an off series against Australia and they were hardly the turners. Against SA Pujara did nothing just like Kohli. So I guess Rahane is next level?

he was talking about performance at home/Asia.His 49* in rajkot was probably his best knock in 4th innings at Home.But it still was nowhere near as great as 82* scored by pujara in delhi.Kapil dev said anything over 150 target and Aus would be favourite.India had to chase 155 in that test.It was terrific win which helped India whitewash Australia.(exact revenge of whitewash in 2011-2012 against Australia)

Kohli had perfect opportunity to replicate that knock in 1st Test against SL 2015.But Unfortunately,He Scored only 3 and SL went on to win that test by defending 180 odd.Kohli and Dhawan scored century in 1st inning of 1st test but Pujara scored matchwinning 145* in series decider.Pujara 145* was also best knock of 2015 by an indian.

 

[Savage]

karun nair scored 300 no way those were made in difficult conditions.

Yep it was also quickfire 300.Here's what Nair had to say about ENG and AUS bowling attack.

"There was a lot a difference, the Australians were more at you. Even the English were good but the Australians had more aggression I felt,"

 

[Savage]

Since 2016 Home season

Kohli 1862 runs @ 81 - S/R 68
Pujara 1605 runs @ 62 - S/R 47

League or two below Pujara (lol)

Pujara has fantastic stats, he's a fantastic batsman but the perception that he's the best player of spin in the side is stuck to some probably because he stood out in that 2012 series against England, where India ordered turning pitches and he was the only one scoring.

Kohli's 200 are written off so easily because of S/R he scores them at it. It's his fault he makes batting look so ridiculously easy, I guess.

Had he batted for 500+ balls, maybe then some of you folks would have thought he earned it.

kohli is definitely league below Pujara(overall not since 2016) at home.Similarly Kohli is definitely league above Pujara away.

 

[Savage]

If kohli is as good as Pujara at home then why did he averaged only 49.6 as compared to 52.6 by pujara before the recent SL series.Their overall avg comparison is more relevant(than suppose kohli vs smith) because they both play for same team and faced same attacks in same conditions.Despite kohli having superior away record,His overall avg was still below pujara (before recent India-sl series).

 

[Savage]

At Home

Pujara>Root=Smith>Kohli=>Williamson

If kohli hadn't scored multiple double hundreds against Ban and Sl,Then I might've rated his home performance even below Williamson.

 

[Savage]

Stats does give you some idea but doesn't tell you exact story.Pujara rated his 92 in 2nd test above his 200 in next test.And I rate that 200 above any double century kohli has scored in his test career.(235 vs England was kohli's best).

If Sangakkara's(ATG player) multiple double century (against Zim or Ban) was rated as good as Sachin/Lara 100s vs Aus.Then Sangakkara would've been not only better but also a league above Sachin/lara.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Pujara is a one format player who doesn't really have to worry about switching between formats. Kohli on the other hand plays ODI, T20, IPL. Look at the strike rate of Kohli. He is a fast aggressive scorer. Pujara is temperamentally designed to play Tests. He can bide his time all day. DIfferent types of players. At the end of the day they have to complement each other. If everyone bats exactly like Pujara or Kohli it may or may not be good for team. Just like how Dravid/Laxman/Tendulkar/Sehwag complemented each other Kohli/Pujara/Rahane/Vijay have to complement each other. That is when you become a successful team.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The Aussies certainly know how to bowl on flat tracks and that is my point exactly. Given how even the likes of MJ and Harris were nullified during the series and the Australian bowlers were reduced to pleading for more balanced pitches tells us that those pitches were a special sort of flat.

I was referring to the 2013 Ashes, given that it took place only a few months prior to the Australia vs India series. Why did the performance of the Aussie bowlers degrade so much? They certainly were not facing vastly superior batsmen and said batsmen do not have more experience batting in Australian conditions. The pitches remain the answer. However, Kohli did bat very well in that series and apart from Smith, no one batted better than him on those pitches.


I admit I do not remember much of Ashwin's bowling from that series because like any of his overseas performances, it lacked any shred of impact. No one is denying that Ashwin had it tough but praising him in this situation is akin to praising a student who failed a hard exam along with 90% of his class.

An average of 50 and economy rate of 3.40 is rubbish but I'll take your word that he bowled better than his numbers suggest. However, please do not pretend like this was just a three match series. Lyon took a 10-fer in the first match and vastly outperformed Ashwin in this series. Just like Moeen Ali did in England. The fact that Ashwin did not play as many games as he could overseas is down to him not bowling as well as he should have.

Plus, in the stats you posted, Shami averaged just over 30 and Ishant averages in the mid-30s. In fact, Shami also has a better SR than anyone else in the two matches he played.

1. It's not that the performance of Australian bowlers degraded so much (except Mitch losing a bit of pace and bite). It's just that kohli was so much better on those bouncy pitches with little to no seam or swing. It's not like Ashes 2013 was played in minefields.

2. Care to see Shami's economy? 4+. Also when you take wicket matters. Taking wickets after batsmen have done smashing around (like Anderson's recent 4/116) ain't impact. I think Rashid was the highest wicket taking bowler after 3 tests in India tour...doesn't mean he was the best bowler. Also Ishant averages 38.50.

3. How did Lyon outbowl Ashwin in that series when both their stats match inspite of vast difference in pacer quality? Cos he took 10fer in a game that Ashwin didn't play? I suppose you can explain why Lyon was impactless in 4th innings in Sydney with India under the pump after Ashwin took a 4fer in 3rd innings being the only bowler looking like taking wickets. Anyways, point still remains that Ash has to perform overseas.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

On a turning pitch at Adelaide who played the knock of his life? Why pick and choose? Kohli had an off series against Australia and they were hardly the turners. Against SA Pujara did nothing just like Kohli. So I guess Rahane is next level?

Why pick and choose?

Like really?

Let's not pick and choose the series with tough pitches at home/Asia (which is where I call Pujara to be better than Kohli).

2012 England home series - Pujara hit. Kohli flop (unless you count his Nagpur 100 on a dead track).
2013 Australia home series - Pujara hit. Kohli flop (except one innings of 83)
2015 SA home series - Pujara hit. Kohli flop (unless you count his 100 on a dead rubber with pitch eased out)
2017 Australia home series - Pujara hit. Kohli flop.

In all these series, when the series was alive, Pujara averaged 50-80 (except SA tour) while Kohli averaged in teens (except Australia 2013 series whose stats I am yet to calculate).

Also who can forget the 3rd test in 2015 SL tour on a green track? Pujara made to open and he carried the bat 145* batting first. Or his 4th innings knock against Australia in 2013 chasing 150 where he scored 80 at 80 SR while others were screwing up? Or his 2017 Bangalore knock with the series on line?

At home, Pujara is next level.