"How many times have South Africa come close to winning in India?" : Virat Kohli

[pillionrider]

Just found this gem.. )

Maybe you could take a leaf out of this and change that flag

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Maybe you could take a leaf out of this and change that flag

LOL .... good one

 

[Protea Fan]

Teams today make the mistake of having the best player as captain.
INDIA
ENGLAND
NZ :kane
Of course a captain should be the first name on the sheet but you need a leader of men not a consistent performer for that job.

Irony is only root,kane and kohli are the only players safe to start every part of the world in those playing eleven and the only long term prospects too

so who can actually replace all of them as leaders realistically

 

[Dead Ball]

You dont go after journalists. He should learn to keep a calm front. Feel free to unleash your anger in the dressing room on the players. Also be prepared to be questioned on controversial choices. He seems to be losing it everytime someone mentions Rahane. He has been unfair in dropping one of our best batsmen overseas in favour of someone who has been only good in limited overs cricket and he is not willing to accept it because of his ego.

This is the way Kohli has always been. He is not a diplomat like Dhoni or Tendulkar who know when to talk and what to talk, he wears his heart on his sleeve. That can lead to him coming across like a kid at times, but that's the way it is. I personally found Dhoni's post match conferences to be boring and routine. After a point it looked like he didnt even care anymore.

 

[Railu Katta]

Well south Africa has won 5 games in India compared to India's 2 in South Africa so

 

[ManFan]

Irony is only root,kane and kohli are the only players safe to start every part of the world in those playing eleven and the only long term prospects too

so who can actually replace all of them as leaders realistically

That's the point. The boards see these guys as the best players so naturally they believe they have the respect of the team. But a leader doesn't require only respect to be successful. As far as their replacements, that depends on whom the team feels comfortable around.

 

[Billa86]

I have a lot of respect for VK as batsman but that attitude was uncalled for. Media will ask these questions to intimidate you. VK should have said ‘better team won & accept the faults made during the series’, winning and losing is part of parcel (I’m a Pakistan team fan btw) instead of quarrelling with journalist.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Final scoreline suggests that, but not otherwise. Both matches were competitive for long periods of time but SA should great resilience. They played better than India, but it was not one-sided.

The fact that SA won both tosses and opted to bat first also didn't help. Batting in the fourth innings has been very tough, and the Indian bowlers have bowled very well. SA batting has not been great, and the result could have 2-0 in India's favor now had they won the tosses.

Lol, did u see the wicket in the 1st test ? India would have lost by innings, if they batted first in the 1st test.

 

[Mamoon]

Lol, did u see the wicket in the 1st test ? India would have lost by innings, if they batted first in the 1st test.

Perhaps, but India would not have been bundled for a 100. The conditions eased out after the initial phase. Chasing in the fourth innings has defined this series so far, and India were unlucky to be on the receiving end both times.

 

[Savak]

Sore Looserish stuff. Lol at people he has anger management issues, he needs to keep his aggression and emotions in check, deep down he is just a bully who likes to prey on the weak and in favorable situations but does not have the character to take it back. Dont forsee him lasting very long and won't be surprised to see a revolt against him from his team mates the longer he carries on with his riddiculous selection policies.

 

[Smudger]

He is just showing his arrogance after scoring 100 in home conditions. Had he not scored any runs he would have answered in a polite/hypocratic way as he always does.
Didnt remmember Smith showing arrogance or anything after scoring 3 100s on doctored pitches. Where king all the shots kohli went missing

 

[Railu Katta]

Perhaps, but India would not have been bundled for a 100. The conditions eased out after the initial phase. Chasing in the fourth innings has defined this series so far, and India were unlucky to be on the receiving end both times.

Whitewash imminent. Hold on tight mamoon Bhai it's gonna be a bumpy ride for you. Have faith and focus on kohlis stats or Pandya sixes to get through this difficult time [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] [MENTION=1650]Usman Chadda[/MENTION] [MENTION=5665]shokz[/MENTION] [MENTION=129948]Bilal7[/MENTION]

 

[Monsee]

Team India may have not won but Kohli already has 2 centuries in SA. How many do Inzy,MoYo,YK together have in SA?

LOL, your needle is stuck in the same spot...Inzi's 93* in his last test in SA is better than almost all of Kohli's centuries abroad because he helped his team win under tough conditions by batting with the tail to get them a good score! Which of Kohli's century helped Indian win a match abroad, please jog our memory since he has 21 or some centuries so far?

Azhar Mehmood has two centuries against SA, one on debut (I think where he took on Donald at his peak) that should make him better then most of the Indian batsmen who have plyed against them in SA and never scored a century, right?

 

[waleed88]

LOL, your needle is stuck in the same spot...Inzi's 93* in his last test in SA is better than almost all of Kohli's centuries abroad because he helped his team win under tough conditions by batting with the tail to get them a good score! Which of Kohli's century helped Indian win a match abroad, please jog our memory since he has 21 or some centuries so far?

Azhar Mehmood has two centuries against SA, one on debut (I think where he took on Donald at his peak) that should make him better then most of the Indian batsmen who have plyed against them in SA and never scored a century, right?

That was an Inzi in his penultimate year too, underrated effort even on his last legs

 

[Slog]

after a massive pasting over two tests, seems Kohli couldn't handle the pressure even in the presser

 

[Hasan123]

He needs to calm down. As a skipper he can't be getting thisbemeotional infornt of the press. As Indian captain whenever they loss he will get such questions and critiscm so he needs to be able to handle it. Not picking the right team has a played a big part in India losing both games.

 

[MoJoJoJo]

lol..india still could nt manage to win the game while pitch suited them more than saffers.. excuses

 

[asadee]

Final scoreline suggests that, but not otherwise. Both matches were competitive for long periods of time but SA should great resilience. They played better than India, but it was not one-sided.

The fact that SA won both tosses and opted to bat first also didn't help. Batting in the fourth innings has been very tough, and the Indian bowlers have bowled very well. SA batting has not been great, and the result could have 2-0 in India's favor now had they won the tosses.

So its all due to tosses now? India has won 10 out of their 11 tosses against us in WC matches..guess thats why we have such a poor record against them in WC

 

[Dead Ball]

LOL, your needle is stuck in the same spot...Inzi's 93* in his last test in SA is better than almost all of Kohli's centuries abroad because he helped his team win under tough conditions by batting with the tail to get them a good score! Which of Kohli's century helped Indian win a match abroad, please jog our memory since he has 21 or some centuries so far?

Azhar Mehmood has two centuries against SA, one on debut (I think where he took on Donald at his peak) that should make him better then most of the Indian batsmen who have plyed against them in SA and never scored a century, right?

Aaah Inzamam's 'match winner' argument is back.

He had a very similar match to Kohli iirc. Scored 92 not out in the first innings and got out for a duck in the second innings. In Inzamam's case YK and Kamran bailed the team and chased the target with a stunning 100+ run partnership, but Kohli was not so lucky.

Two things though - Inzamam came into bat at number 8 during that innings thus completely avoiding the new ball (Kohli came in to bat before the 10th over) And the current attack of Rabada, Philander, Morkel and Lungi is superior to Nel, Ntini, Kallis and a over the hill Pollock that Inzamam faced.

Kohli's innings was superior.

 

[zulfiqar]

He's definitely immature when it comes to giving a post-match conference interview and has been since the start. He might learn to become better at it but who knows...

Though what he says is true, and the question was a bit of a rant, he could have definitely just stuck to the question that was asked in the end, which was "Why have you changed your playing XI?" He could have simply responded that it has worked for them in the past and brought them great success. That would have been the end of it But no two people are the same and this kind of communication is what people expect from Kohli anyways

 

[pakistani pride]

Maybe some 1 should tell him that teams like SA and AUS have actually won tests amd series in Asia.

Its really pathetic that no Asian team has been able to win a series in SA / AUS.

 

[Dark Magician]

Great player, kek captain. Unfortunately the Indian selectors are too cowardly to reign him in. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that in both occasions the teams selected where wrong. Kohli wants to play a brand of cricket without the players for that. ***?

 

[JaDed]

Pathetic attitude, we are going to lose a lot of matches if he keeps selecting his friends, brought down to earth by Saffers, our captains might have been arrogant but this guy seems to be getting away with it,not sure for how long.

Congrats to Saffers top performance,very Happy to see ABD do well and a new bowler.

 

[Lefthanded]

I understand that the journo was rude, but Kohli is the captain of the national side. Kohli should be asked tough questions and he's clearly not used to not getting his way. He booted Kumble, India's most successful spinner and a proper gent. Kumble had some power, and this journalist is a relative nobody. Being aggressive with someone like that is princely, and terrible behaviour.

Kohli is representing India, certainly when he's wearing India colours

And if you can't behave like a national representative, you shouldn't be the face the team.

He really shouldn't be captaining the side if he loses in England as well. Winning at home is easy, and if the captain can't win abroad, someone else should have a go who can.

I admire him as a batter, but beard or no beard, he's a child.

 

[Mr.Q]

Wow some of you guys just hate him! The journalist was trying to give him a lesson on cricket. Kohli responded in a rude manner, throwing some questions back at the guy but he surely didn't insult him or anything. Hope some of you remember things Ricky Ponting said after that bitterly fought test match against India in Jan 2008. "If you're actually questioning my integrity in the game, then you shouldn't be standing there." But he was the greatest captain ever right?

153 of the 295 runs scored off the bat were scored by him. All others combined couldn't score that much. I'm sorry but there can't be any excuse for that. But still the problem is Kohli's captaincy and selection isn't it? Every guy he didn't select could have should have would have won this test for India right? What did KL Rahul do in this test? Many of you were calling for his inclusion.

If he was a poor captain he would have washed his hands off by saying something like our top order failed to score runs or our bowlers weren't as good as theirs etc etc since his individual performance was blemish-free. Instead he defended the whole team. "We give it our best."

Some people evaluate him based on the aggression he shows on the field which is sometimes ridiculous I agree. Some others have other favourites. Then there are some young kids who have an inherent hate for anyone who is successful in their 20s. Happens.

Imagine what would these people have done if his individual performance was poor too? They would have buried him alive!

 

[Ab Fan]

While comparing Virat Kohli to Ricky Ponting, people do forget that Ponting, however, was a great tactician. He didnt won 3 consecutive WCs and so many test series just because he played in an ATG team but he was a great leader too.

Ponting and Kohli is not as straight comparison in test format. Yes, it can be as a batsmen but not a leader.

As far as selection is concerned, it is important to maintain stability in the side and not keep changing the playing XI every single match. It worked in India because there are huge numbers of options which are good enough for Indian conditions but won't work overseas against good sides.

Facing SA attack in SA is never easy unless they have produced pattas which they haven't served yet in this series and if an opening batsmen wasn't the part of XI in first test and has got no practice games in these conditions, then its completely harsh and I dare say absurd to question his performance on basis on just one test. These conditions are alien for subcontinent batters and if they play one test and get dropped for two tests and again play 2 tests to again get dropped, he won't be able to adjust himself to the conditions.

Now if we are using the same business logic with the likes of Dhawan and Rohit, one has to observe that KL Rahul is clearly a more all round player than Gabbar and Sharmaji. There is a term called "ability". These two dont have it to survive the hostile conditions of SA bar a rare game while Rahul if he could adjust he definitely has in him to do well.

Kohli's selection definitely is worth questioning because as a captain, you have to pick the best XI for that conditions and then give the right guys enough chances to adjust themselves to those pitches rather than picking up the wrong ones first up.

There is no comparison in terms of leadership between Ponting and Kohli.

Yes, there is a huge bias against Kohli but I dont really have anything against his batsmenship. Always praised it.

 

[Bewal Express]

Kohli the brilliant player isnt translating into Kohli the great captain. Maybe another Sachin in the making. The question is who will be Azhar or Ganguly in this team?

 

[Savak]

While comparing Virat Kohli to Ricky Ponting, people do forget that Ponting, however, was a great tactician. He didnt won 3 consecutive WCs and so many test series just because he played in an ATG team but he was a great leader too.

Ponting and Kohli is not as straight comparison in test format. Yes, it can be as a batsmen but not a leader.

As far as selection is concerned, it is important to maintain stability in the side and not keep changing the playing XI every single match. It worked in India because there are huge numbers of options which are good enough for Indian conditions but won't work overseas against good sides.

Facing SA attack in SA is never easy unless they have produced pattas which they haven't served yet in this series and if an opening batsmen wasn't the part of XI in first test and has got no practice games in these conditions, then its completely harsh and I dare say absurd to question his performance on basis on just one test. These conditions are alien for subcontinent batters and if they play one test and get dropped for two tests and again play 2 tests to again get dropped, he won't be able to adjust himself to the conditions.

Now if we are using the same business logic with the likes of Dhawan and Rohit, one has to observe that KL Rahul is clearly a more all round player than Gabbar and Sharmaji. There is a term called "ability". These two dont have it to survive the hostile conditions of SA bar a rare game while Rahul if he could adjust he definitely has in him to do well.

Kohli's selection definitely is worth questioning because as a captain, you have to pick the best XI for that conditions and then give the right guys enough chances to adjust themselves to those pitches rather than picking up the wrong ones first up.

There is no comparison in terms of leadership between Ponting and Kohli.

Yes, there is a huge bias against Kohli but I dont really have anything against his batsmenship. Always praised it.

Ponting was real and genuine and not a showman. He showed anger when it was warranted but overall never reacted or behaved out of proportion and had the unchallenged respect of his team filled with ATG's and massive egos.

Kohli is just a wanna be showman who has no real basis for behaving and conducting himself the way he does.

 

[Ab Fan]

Ponting was real and genuine and not a showman. He showed anger when it was warranted but overall never reacted or behaved out of proportion and had the unchallenged respect of his team filled with ATG's and massive egos.

Kohli is just a wanna be showman who has no real basis for behaving and conducting himself the way he does.

Ponting had massive ego too but that came after the achievement of being the undisputed no.1 side for 12 years between 1995-2007.

 

[Savak]

Ponting had massive ego too but that came after the achievement of being the undisputed no.1 side for 12 years between 1995-2007.

Ponting's ego was real and genuine and not something which an observer can look at and say "This guy is trying to pretend to be a tough guy, this looks very fake". Kohli in comparison is just a wanna be "Aussie" and nothing else.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

I don't see any problem here. The reporter mocked all the hard work they've put in the last two years. He rightfully defended his team.

 

[ayemgilani86]

Fiery press conference from the Indian skipper .

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j584FqaGBtg" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He can be a brat and all but besides the Rahane decision, India has fought well and competed in this series.

 

[Mr.Q]

While comparing Virat Kohli to Ricky Ponting, people do forget that Ponting, however, was a great tactician. He didnt won 3 consecutive WCs and so many test series just because he played in an ATG team but he was a great leader too.

Ponting and Kohli is not as straight comparison in test format. Yes, it can be as a batsmen but not a leader.

As far as selection is concerned, it is important to maintain stability in the side and not keep changing the playing XI every single match. It worked in India because there are huge numbers of options which are good enough for Indian conditions but won't work overseas against good sides.

Facing SA attack in SA is never easy unless they have produced pattas which they haven't served yet in this series and if an opening batsmen wasn't the part of XI in first test and has got no practice games in these conditions, then its completely harsh and I dare say absurd to question his performance on basis on just one test. These conditions are alien for subcontinent batters and if they play one test and get dropped for two tests and again play 2 tests to again get dropped, he won't be able to adjust himself to the conditions.

Now if we are using the same business logic with the likes of Dhawan and Rohit, one has to observe that KL Rahul is clearly a more all round player than Gabbar and Sharmaji. There is a term called "ability". These two dont have it to survive the hostile conditions of SA bar a rare game while Rahul if he could adjust he definitely has in him to do well.

Kohli's selection definitely is worth questioning because as a captain, you have to pick the best XI for that conditions and then give the right guys enough chances to adjust themselves to those pitches rather than picking up the wrong ones first up.

There is no comparison in terms of leadership between Ponting and Kohli.

Yes, there is a huge bias against Kohli but I dont really have anything against his batsmenship. Always praised it.

Basically responded to my post without quoting it .

You probably read too much into what I said about Ponting and made it into a comparison in captaincy between the two. Quite a few guys here were questioning his captaincy and character just because of how he responded to that guy. I was just reminding everyone that even the greatest captain has said things when provoked.

I think you missed my point in the second part as well. It's not like Kohli's team selection shouldn't be questioned but saying that we lost the match because of poor selection is utter rubbish. There's no excuse for how the other batsmen played. We lost because we didn't bat well enough and the bowlers often weren't bowling the right line and honestly weren't as good as their bowlers. Every batsman except him failed to contribute and everybody is conveniently ignoring it so that they can blame his selection and captaincy.

Let me use your argument for Rohit Sharma. A Rohit Sharma who is comfortable at the crease in his typical confident, offensive mode is a very dangerous batsman. He's one of the cleanest hitters of the cricket ball out there. It's just that we don't see him in that mode very often just like in Rahul's case now.

I know Rahul has a much better technique for test cricket but like I always say, you have to prove your worth with consistent performance. Selection is almost always based on performance; not ability .

 

[R3verse Swing]

Chopping and changing isn't going to win you many test matches in challenging conditions. You have to know your best XI and make one or two changes depending on conditions. This helps players in understanding their roles and good understanding between one another which automatically leads to a team creating good partnerships in a match. Personally it wasn't such a bad question.

VK is a gun player, but I think his attitude lets him down.

 

[Pete Rose]

I havent listened to the post-match presser. some of it sounds quite tone deaf.
I would have listened had Shastri given it, because that's comedy gold. Kohli the cricketer, I admire too much to listen to petulant griping.

 

[Dingolfy]

Sore Looserish stuff. Lol at people he has anger management issues, he needs to keep his aggression and emotions in check, deep down he is just a bully who likes to prey on the weak and in favorable situations but does not have the character to take it back. Dont forsee him lasting very long and won't be surprised to see a revolt against him from his team mates the longer he carries on with his riddiculous selection policies.

Bhaijan, he played a damn Ranji game next morning after his Dad had passed away and that too when he was a nobody.You don't get tougher things that in your life. Say what you want about him, but the bloke is made out of steel.

 

[Syed1]

He can be a brat and all but besides the Rahane decision, India has fought well and competed in this series.

They lost the first test in three days against 10 men. That's competing?

 

[Dingolfy]

I don't see nothing wrong with what he said. Journalist needled him and he replied back in same coin.There are plenty examples of champion sportsmen behaving rude with media.Mike Tyson,Eric Cantona,Richard Sherman are few examples. Sportsmen are not always Gandhis and that is not their primary job.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

I admire Kohli the batsman a huge amount.

But India will be better served with a calmer head as captain.

 

[giri26]

To be frank, if you read the full interview, he did not give any excuses. He did not blame the conditions or anything. I think he got little frustrated with people keeping on asking him about his selection choices.

 

[shane]

Kohli has always come across as a whinging, spoilt brat when he has not got exactly what he wanted. See the incidents with Steve Smith and Kumble for example. He is not fit to clean Dhoni's shoes.

 

[Bilal7]

Team India may have not won but Kohli already has 2 centuries in SA. How many do Inzy,MoYo,YK together have in SA?

Any of those batsman was at least twice the test batsman that Kohli is. As for your question, as many as Dravid, Sehwag and Gavasker.

 

[Savak]

There can be no tougher hard taskmaster captain than Imran Khan who would be bitterly dissapointed after a terrible defeat, but even then he would keep his anger, emotions under check and wouldn't berrate his players in public or make statements like "I am not here to comfort my team". His silence was enough to communicate his feelings and all the harsh, abusive, tough stick approach would be done indoors.

 

[jagatk]

Any of those batsman was at least twice the test batsman that Kohli is. As for your question, as many as Dravid, Sehwag and Gavasker.

As many centuries as Gavaskar, do we include Albert Einstein, Usian Bolt, Cristiano Ronaldo also to that list, because i am sure they have played as many matches in SA as Gavaskar did.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

To be fair, the journalist went on a rant than asking a question. Kohli could've dealt with it better but it seems like its not in his nature to let things slide.

At this point, the journalism of some outlets, like Cricinfo has become so anti-Kohli, that I sympathize. Also, it might be nearing a point where Kohli might actually develop a grudge against Rahane and Pujara simply because of the way these two are being pushed by cricinfo.

 

[Chrish]

At this point, the journalism of some outlets, like Cricinfo has become so anti-Kohli, that I sympathize. Also, it might be nearing a point where Kohli might actually develop a grudge against Rahane and Pujara simply because of the way these two are being pushed by cricinfo.

Cricinfo is a rubbish website as far as journalism is considered. Its value only lies in keeping statistics

 

[Slog]

Any of those batsman was at least twice the test batsman that Kohli is. As for your question, as many as Dravid, Sehwag and Gavasker.

Lol while Sehwag and Dravid had an overall poor record in SA, they actually do have a century each in that country

Gavaskar for obvious reasons doesn't have a century and the reason is the same as to why Inzamam doesn't have a century in Ireland

 

[Sarwar89]

Ponting had massive ego too but that came after the achievement of being the undisputed no.1 side for 12 years between 1995-2007.

Which ego ? The guy lost 3 Ashes series, including one at home. In UK he is only considered an average captain.

 

[Princejain191]

At this point, the journalism of some outlets, like Cricinfo has become so anti-Kohli, that I sympathize. Also, it might be nearing a point where Kohli might actually develop a grudge against Rahane and Pujara simply because of the way these two are being pushed by cricinfo.

This is true. Kohli isn't the most likeable guy but there should still be unbiased journalism. There is the perception that quiet guys are good guys and that is how everyone should be. Don't have any individual personality.

Also, heard his entire press conference. Seemed reasonable enough to me.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/video/clip?id=22133960

Was rude in replying to the best XI question but the way the question was asked was unfair too.

 

[Smbhayi]

We don't anyone else who is a sure starter except Pujara. This is his first series loss, either he will go Dhoni's way post 2011 or change the squad with some gutsy batters next series.

Also we need a WK for outside asia, Saha or Parthiv are pure jokers with bat.

better to have a WK who can't bat than WK who misses chance.

 

[Bilal7]

As many centuries as Gavaskar, do we include Albert Einstein, Usian Bolt, Cristiano Ronaldo also to that list, because i am sure they have played as many matches in SA as Gavaskar did.

Lol while Sehwag and Dravid had an overall poor record in SA, they actually do have a century each in that country

Gavaskar for obvious reasons doesn't have a century and the reason is the same as to why Inzamam doesn't have a century in Ireland

See, the point, that has flown way over your heads is that Asian batsmen usually suck in South Africa. Kohli has sucked there too whenever he has played on a true South African pitch.

The other guy was making it seem as if it is only Pakistani batsmen that have poor showings in South Africa.

 

[Ab Fan]

Basically responded to my post without quoting it .

You probably read too much into what I said about Ponting and made it into a comparison in captaincy between the two. Quite a few guys here were questioning his captaincy and character just because of how he responded to that guy. I was just reminding everyone that even the greatest captain has said things when provoked.

I think you missed my point in the second part as well. It's not like Kohli's team selection shouldn't be questioned but saying that we lost the match because of poor selection is utter rubbish. There's no excuse for how the other batsmen played. We lost because we didn't bat well enough and the bowlers often weren't bowling the right line and honestly weren't as good as their bowlers. Every batsman except him failed to contribute and everybody is conveniently ignoring it so that they can blame his selection and captaincy.

Let me use your argument for Rohit Sharma. A Rohit Sharma who is comfortable at the crease in his typical confident, offensive mode is a very dangerous batsman. He's one of the cleanest hitters of the cricket ball out there. It's just that we don't see him in that mode very often just like in Rahul's case now.

I know Rahul has a much better technique for test cricket but like I always say, you have to prove your worth with consistent performance. Selection is almost always based on performance; not ability .

I didnt quoted because I dont really disagree with your post but partially disagree with few points and I was well aware that your respond was to two three other guys who definitely were spouting rubbish.

Now, you cant use my argument with Rohit Sharma because I have already clarified that in my next paragraph. Rahul has got far more ability than Sharma or Gabbar when it comes to facing high quality attacks in tough conditions and performances have also been there for him although on a slightly inconsistent basis.

Rahane doesn't have recent performance backing up but one has to look at the ability of the guy who is replacing him for the given conditions and given bowling attack. Rohit has more ability when it comes to tearing apart an attack on a flat wicket when there is not much going around for bowlers. He has got recent performance but those performances haven't come against tough attacks or on tough pitch.

Rohit Sharma's recent performances doesn't give us the idea that he will do well here when it has already been proven that he lacks ability when it comes to facing tough bowling attacks on pitches which is doing a lot.He played well as per his bar in the first test but as said the failure simply goes to his lack of ability.

<B>I agree that selection should be on basis on performance. But performances should be valued while taking other factors into context. Your performance against Lanka at home dont give the idea of what should be the side when you tour SA and play aginst them.</B>

And it is harsh on Rahul because you are playing your first test in SA, your place in the side is instable and coming up first up will always be hard for a batsmen. This is why this stability part is pointed so much. Even the greatest batters like Kohli missed out on the first test but got things right in his 3rd chance with a 150+ score.

You gotta chose correct players and give them decent chances according to the reqd conditions and then really come into any judgement. This doesn't hold true for someone like Rohit Sharma and to some extent S Dhawan( who at times have scored tough runs in places like NZ and SL).

I am a criticiser of Kohli's selection because he isn't choosing right players and the amount of team changes he does every match( yes injury have also been one factor but not everything) leads to huge instability in the side.

 

[Slog]

See, the point, that has flown way over your heads is that Asian batsmen usually suck in South Africa. Kohli has sucked there too whenever he has played on a true South African pitch.

The other guy was making it seem as if it is only Pakistani batsmen that have poor showings in South Africa.

no whats clear is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and were factually wrong.

Inzamam has not scored 'as many as Sehwag and Dravid'

 

[Savage]

Kohli didn't said much wrong.However,He should've avoided the comment"How many times have South Africa come close to winning in India?" That was unnecessary and sounds like an excuse tbh

 

[pillionrider]

Kohli has sucked there too whenever he has played on a true South African pitch.

LOL this guy.

True pitch

 

[Hitman]

Any of those batsman was at least twice the test batsman that Kohli is. As for your question, as many as Dravid, Sehwag and Gavasker.

That's like saying that Imran Khan has ZERO Test wickets against South Africa.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

This is how pak posters behave, india lost and they started blowing their trumpets forgetting that their own team is getting thrashed left right centre in nz.

 

[Usman Chadda]

The reporter who asked him "How many test matches have you won in India?" was a savage beast. Kohli's reaction for a second there was priceless.

 

[Aman]

Kohli although positive doesn't have the acumen, leadership composure, or tactical prowess to be a good captain.

Get Rahane in ASAP.

 

[Mr.Q]

I didnt quoted because I dont really disagree with your post but partially disagree with few points and I was well aware that your respond was to two three other guys who definitely were spouting rubbish.

Now, you cant use my argument with Rohit Sharma because I have already clarified that in my next paragraph. Rahul has got far more ability than Sharma or Gabbar when it comes to facing high quality attacks in tough conditions and performances have also been there for him although on a slightly inconsistent basis.

Rahane doesn't have recent performance backing up but one has to look at the ability of the guy who is replacing him for the given conditions and given bowling attack. Rohit has more ability when it comes to tearing apart an attack on a flat wicket when there is not much going around for bowlers. He has got recent performance but those performances haven't come against tough attacks or on tough pitch.

Rohit Sharma's recent performances doesn't give us the idea that he will do well here when it has already been proven that he lacks ability when it comes to facing tough bowling attacks on pitches which is doing a lot.He played well as per his bar in the first test but as said the failure simply goes to his lack of ability.

<B>I agree that selection should be on basis on performance. But performances should be valued while taking other factors into context. Your performance against Lanka at home dont give the idea of what should be the side when you tour SA and play aginst them.</B>

And it is harsh on Rahul because you are playing your first test in SA, your place in the side is instable and coming up first up will always be hard for a batsmen. This is why this stability part is pointed so much. Even the greatest batters like Kohli missed out on the first test but got things right in his 3rd chance with a 150+ score.

You gotta chose correct players and give them decent chances according to the reqd conditions and then really come into any judgement. This doesn't hold true for someone like Rohit Sharma and to some extent S Dhawan( who at times have scored tough runs in places like NZ and SL).

I am a criticiser of Kohli's selection because he isn't choosing right players and the amount of team changes he does every match( yes injury have also been one factor but not everything) leads to huge instability in the side.

No man I said this ability argument can be twisted to include whoever you want. Rohit Sharma is no slouch with the bat. If he gets going runs will start flowing. Yeah I know Rahul is a better test batsman technically but he's not helping his cause one bit with his performances. Why does he deserve a place in the team despite failing in multiple occasions and why doesn't Rohit deserve it? Why shouldn't we give Rohit some chances to iron out his flaws and get his confidence back? What if he becomes the next Sehwag in tests? I know this sounds like a silly argument. But I'm very confident that I can defend Rohit's selection if the ability theory is followed.

I'll try to explain the issue with the 'ability' approach. Suppose you are Dhawan. You've been performing consistently for your side. Then one fine day a young lad enters the squad. His fans say he can turn the pitch upside down with his batting. Both you and him are given a chance in a home series ahead of an important away tour. You perform well and he struggles. You reach the other country and starts practising and then in the morning the captain/coach walks up to you and and says "you know we're selecting him over you because we feel he's more talented than you" . Or, "we're selecting him because we feel he will play better than you in these conditions". Or they just select him and don't give you an explanation as to why they did so. How would you feel? It can be very demoralising. You performed better and the management selects some other guy because of the hype! It'll create problems even in the most professional teams.

Dhawan got selected for the first test because he effing deserved it. Rahul didn't. The management was proactive enough to bring Rahul in, the moment Dhawan failed. It was like they were waiting for Dhawan to fail (something which Mr. Gavaskar also pointed out). Rahul has been given so many chances. He should now play an innings that justfies the hype.
[MENTION=139595]Ab Fan[/MENTION] I'm never against criticising Kohli's selection policies. But like you said some people here are stretching it waaay tooo far .

 

[Ab Fan]

No man I said this ability argument can be twisted to include whoever you want. Rohit Sharma is no slouch with the bat. If he gets going runs will start flowing. Yeah I know Rahul is a better test batsman technically but he's not helping his cause one bit with his performances. Why does he deserve a place in the team despite failing in multiple occasions and why doesn't Rohit deserve it? Why shouldn't we give Rohit some chances to iron out his flaws and get his confidence back? What if he becomes the next Sehwag in tests? I know this sounds like a silly argument. But I'm very confident that I can defend Rohit's selection if the ability theory is followed.

I'll try to explain the issue with the 'ability' approach. Suppose you are Dhawan. You've been performing consistently for your side. Then one fine day a young lad enters the squad. His fans say he can turn the pitch upside down with his batting. Both you and him are given a chance in a home series ahead of an important away tour. You perform well and he struggles. You reach the other country and starts practising and then in the morning the captain/coach walks up to you and and says "you know we're selecting him over you because we feel he's more talented than you" . Or, "we're selecting him because we feel he will play better than you in these conditions". Or they just select him and don't give you an explanation as to why they did so. How would you feel? It can be very demoralising. You performed better and the management selects some other guy because of the hype! It'll create problems even in the most professional teams.

Dhawan got selected for the first test because he effing deserved it. Rahul didn't. The management was proactive enough to bring Rahul in, the moment Dhawan failed. It was like they were waiting for Dhawan to fail (something which Mr. Gavaskar also pointed out). Rahul has been given so many chances. He should now play an innings that justfies the hype.

[MENTION=139595]Ab Fan[/MENTION] I'm never against criticising Kohli's selection policies. But like you said some people here are stretching it waaay tooo far .

These are Rahul performances across last few series:

India vs England Avgs 58
India vs Australia Avgs 65
India vs Ban Avgs 6( 1 test)
SL vs India Avgs 71
India vs SL Avgs 28

Where did he failed? Rather, he scored more when it is tougher bowling or against tougher sides.

And this guy is young, future prospect, all round batsmen and can become India's next big batsmen after Kohli.

Rohit Sharma, meanwhile, played just 2 tests vs SL at home after being dropped from home games vs England, Australia and away in SL. He averaged 217 there( which include 1 100s coming after Vijay, Pujara and Kohli already hit the 100 in that game). Clearly, he is picked because of his performance vs SL at home which we all are very well aware that he can bully them at home as often as he wants unless the pitch is doing a bit for bowlers.

S dhawan hasn't failed much either but I dont see when has Rahul failed as such that he was needed to be dropped?

Rohit has been given more than enough chances and he doesn't have age to become a half of what Sehwag is in test format. In odis, he got enough chances and it worked because age was there with him and his ability were precious for limited overs format not in the tests though.

 

[Ab Fan]

No man I said this ability argument can be twisted to include whoever you want. Rohit Sharma is no slouch with the bat. If he gets going runs will start flowing. Yeah I know Rahul is a better test batsman technically but he's not helping his cause one bit with his performances. Why does he deserve a place in the team despite failing in multiple occasions and why doesn't Rohit deserve it? Why shouldn't we give Rohit some chances to iron out his flaws and get his confidence back? What if he becomes the next Sehwag in tests? I know this sounds like a silly argument. But I'm very confident that I can defend Rohit's selection if the ability theory is followed.

I'll try to explain the issue with the 'ability' approach. Suppose you are Dhawan. You've been performing consistently for your side. Then one fine day a young lad enters the squad. His fans say he can turn the pitch upside down with his batting. Both you and him are given a chance in a home series ahead of an important away tour. You perform well and he struggles. You reach the other country and starts practising and then in the morning the captain/coach walks up to you and and says "you know we're selecting him over you because we feel he's more talented than you" . Or, "we're selecting him because we feel he will play better than you in these conditions". Or they just select him and don't give you an explanation as to why they did so. How would you feel? It can be very demoralising. You performed better and the management selects some other guy because of the hype! It'll create problems even in the most professional teams.

Dhawan got selected for the first test because he effing deserved it. Rahul didn't. The management was proactive enough to bring Rahul in, the moment Dhawan failed. It was like they were waiting for Dhawan to fail (something which Mr. Gavaskar also pointed out). Rahul has been given so many chances. He should now play an innings that justfies the hype.

[MENTION=139595]Ab Fan[/MENTION] I'm never against criticising Kohli's selection policies. But like you said some people here are stretching it waaay tooo far .

If you look at one by one series performance of Gabbar and Rohit, you will understand why people here are rooting for Rahul and Rahane instead.

Rohit has averages like 288 vs WI and 217 vs SL at home but when you look at averages against other sides or away from home, then it is as pathetic to say the least.

For Dhawan it is not as bad but clearly runs against Lanka exclusively should not be the parameter for selcting teams in alien conditions against other top teams.

 

[jagatk]

See, the point, that has flown way over your heads is that Asian batsmen usually suck in South Africa. Kohli has sucked there too whenever he has played on a true South African pitch.

The other guy was making it seem as if it is only Pakistani batsmen that have poor showings in South Africa.

You want to make a point use proper examples i don't disagree with your point but, when you include a batsman who never played in SA because of a boycott of SA through his entire career to make a point about batsman not scoring runs in SA it just seems stupid.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

I have a lot of respect for VK as batsman but that attitude was uncalled for. Media will ask these questions to intimidate you. VK should have said ‘better team won & accept the faults made during the series’, winning and losing is part of parcel (I’m a Pakistan team fan btw) instead of quarrelling with journalist.

Why should he accept a journalist being rude and asking ridiculous questions. Those questions were all either factual questions which he could have looked up in a database or personal attacks and arguments with Kohli.

One aspect of India's change is standing up for ourselves and I am glad Kohli gave it back instead of just meekly admitting fault when he did nothing wrong.

And he's right. We are much better in their conditions than they are in India. And why should it be that we have to adapt to their conditions to be considered good but not other way around? Sub-continent is now home of cricket.

 

[Abdullah]

Now we have this dead test it's easy fold up and go down 0-3 or man up and play positively, SA fast bowling > IND fast bowling but at least bat with some intent, there are tours of ENG, AUS, NZ coming in.

PS: I hope we win the toss for a change

Stop complaining about the toss- SA made the wrong call on the first game, so it was probably a good toss to lose

 

[Bilal7]

no whats clear is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and were factually wrong.

Inzamam has not scored 'as many as Sehwag and Dravid'

Inzi's 90-odd was as good as any century. No idea what I am talking about? Okay, then please tell me how Sehwag and Dravid were a success in South Africa?

 

[Bilal7]

You want to make a point use proper examples i don't disagree with your point but, when you include a batsman who never played in SA because of a boycott of SA through his entire career to make a point about batsman not scoring runs in SA it just seems stupid.

Yes, I forgot about that.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Abhi toh phainty shuru hui hai

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Kohli's captaincy, team selection and team has been exposed in just 2 tests away from home. Making faces and celebrating like jokers won't make you look aggressive. This team is full of sissies who should only stay at home and butcher teams in our own suitable conditions.

 

[Slog]

Inzi's 90-odd was as good as any century. No idea what I am talking about? Okay, then please tell me how Sehwag and Dravid were a success in South Africa?

No a 90-odd is not a century

Also asides from not having An idea seems like you don't read properly either. Nowhere have I claimed Dravid or Sehwag were successes in South Africa

 

[Mr.Q]

These are Rahul performances across last few series:

India vs England Avgs 58
India vs Australia Avgs 65
India vs Ban Avgs 6( 1 test)
SL vs India Avgs 71
India vs SL Avgs 28

Where did he failed? Rather, he scored more when it is tougher bowling or against tougher sides.

And this guy is young, future prospect, all round batsmen and can become India's next big batsmen after Kohli.

Rohit Sharma, meanwhile, played just 2 tests vs SL at home after being dropped from home games vs England, Australia and away in SL. He averaged 217 there( which include 1 100s coming after Vijay, Pujara and Kohli already hit the 100 in that game). Clearly, he is picked because of his performance vs SL at home which we all are very well aware that he can bully them at home as often as he wants unless the pitch is doing a bit for bowlers.

S dhawan hasn't failed much either but I dont see when has Rahul failed as such that he was needed to be dropped?

Rohit has been given more than enough chances and he doesn't have age to become a half of what Sehwag is in test format. In odis, he got enough chances and it worked because age was there with him and his ability were precious for limited overs format not in the tests though.

If you look at one by one series performance of Gabbar and Rohit, you will understand why people here are rooting for Rahul and Rahane instead.

Rohit has averages like 288 vs WI and 217 vs SL at home but when you look at averages against other sides or away from home, then it is as pathetic to say the least.

For Dhawan it is not as bad but clearly runs against Lanka exclusively should not be the parameter for selcting teams in alien conditions against other top teams.

Don't think about everything statistically. Think about the effect. 5 years of Sehwaglike performance by Rohit Sharma at the top of the order. Would you take it or not? Why not give him a chance? Rohit is a lot more matured as a batsman these days and has started valuing his wicket. Earlier on he was throwing away his wicket irrespective of the format. So I believe Rohit v2 deserves a run at the top of the order in tests. He's not a no. 5-6 material. See this is not a serious argument but I can keep justifying Rohit's inclusion by talking about the same potential factor.

Why not look at the overall stats of Rahul? He has scored 1442 from 35 innings at an average of 42.41. Nothing other worldly about it. And I don't understand the logic behind scores against big teams only. He bats well only when Dennis Lillee bowls? Why couldn't he score against Sri Lanka? The answer is poor form. And like Rohit, Rahul also has certain flaws in his batting (like playing away from the body) although those can be fixed relatively easily.

We're going a bit off topic here with this so let me just put the discussion back on track and conclude by making one more very important point.

It's natural to ask why doesn't the same logic apply to Bhuvneshwar Kumar (or any bowler). Shouldn't he be playing all matches based on performance. Yes and no. Bowling is highly dependent on the nature of the pitch and conditions. Different pitches help different type of bowlers. And for a bowler, fitness is arguably the most important thing. The rhythm (equivalent to 'form' in batting) is something you'll get at some point in your spell. Shami finding his rhythm on day 4 really gave India a glimmer of hope. Batting ain't like that because a batsman doesn't get a second chance. This is also why out of form batsmen are sent back to domestic cricket to regain their form. You always select a batsman who has been in good form recently. It's very different from bowling where potential and fitness are arguably more important.

On a flat track Kohli decided to drop Bhuvneshwar Kumar. How he would have performed on that deck we don't know. A look at Philander's figures in the second test suggests that we probably didn't miss much. But questions will be asked when you drop your best bowler in the series so far. Irrespective of the nature of the wicket he should have been included. At least to avoid a controversy . But saying that we lost the tests because of poor selection and captaincy is 1) nonsense 2) running away from the real issues.

 

[Ab Fan]

Don't think about everything statistically. Think about the effect. 5 years of Sehwaglike performance by Rohit Sharma at the top of the order. Would you take it or not? Why not give him a chance? Rohit is a lot more matured as a batsman these days and has started valuing his wicket. Earlier on he was throwing away his wicket irrespective of the format. <B>So I believe Rohit v2 deserves a run at the top of the order in tests. He's not a no. 5-6 material. See this is not a serious argument but I can keep justifying Rohit's inclusion by talking about the same potential factor.</B>

Why not look at the overall stats of Rahul? He has scored 1442 from 35 innings at an average of 42.41. Nothing other worldly about it. <B>And I don't understand the logic behind scores against big teams only. He bats well only when Dennis Lillee bowls? Why couldn't he score against Sri Lanka? The answer is poor form.</B> And like Rohit, Rahul also has certain flaws in his batting (like playing away from the body) although those can be fixed relatively easily.

We're going a bit off topic here with this so let me just put the discussion back on track and conclude by making one more very important point.

It's natural to ask why doesn't the same logic apply to Bhuvneshwar Kumar (or any bowler). Shouldn't he be playing all matches based on performance. Yes and no. Bowling is highly dependent on the nature of the pitch and conditions. Different pitches help different type of bowlers. And for a bowler, fitness is arguably the most important thing. The rhythm (equivalent to 'form' in batting) is something you'll get at some point in your spell. Shami finding his rhythm on day 4 really gave India a glimmer of hope. Batting ain't like that because a batsman doesn't get a second chance. This is also why out of form batsmen are sent back to domestic cricket to regain their form. You always select a batsman who has been in good form recently. It's very different from bowling where potential and fitness are arguably more important.

On a flat track Kohli decided to drop Bhuvneshwar Kumar. How he would have performed on that deck we don't know. A look at Philander's figures in the second test suggests that we probably didn't miss much. But questions will be asked when you drop your best bowler in the series so far. Irrespective of the nature of the wicket he should have been included. At least to avoid a controversy . But saying that we lost the tests because of poor selection and captaincy is 1) nonsense 2) running away from the real issues.

Age is one of the massive factor which comes into play for a player's performance.

Rohit's age is 31 which means he is having around 2 more years of peak and then his eyes and reflexes like every batsmen will go down. What is the point in wasting so many games on someone who won't turn out to be a huge contribution to the side after more than 2-3 years( whether he will contribute massively in these 2 years is itself a big question mark)?

KL Rahul age is 24. At this age, it is not the performance which matters but a player's ability and potential. Some 30-35 tests at young age isn't enough to really make any sort of comparison. Even there he has done very well for a opening batsmen who is yet to hit his peak years and emerge as one of the best batsmen in the world. Rahul's performance has been very good on whatever chances he got.

Yes, he missed out against Lankans but that is 2 games. How much a sample set is this? It is not that he scores only tough runs. He has also done his share of minnow bashing but has got runs in tough conditions and good attacks too. We cant come into any conclusion related to him on just the basis of 2 tests against SL. It happens that sometimes a player might miss out on doing minnow bashing when it is a 2 test match.

You are basing your points on basis of just that 2 test vs SL which isn't right.

 

[light]

This comment is not how you explain your loss against them. Seriously now ...

 

[ayemgilani86]

so youa re saying South AFrica were not under any pressure in any of those 3 days?

 

[ayemgilani86]

If we can waste 15 years with Malik and Hafeez and will continue to do so, surely India can do this with Rohit lol

 

[Mr.Q]

Age is one of the massive factor which comes into play for a player's performance.

Rohit's age is 31 which means he is having around 2 more years of peak and then his eyes and reflexes like every batsmen will go down. What is the point in wasting so many games on someone who won't turn out to be a huge contribution to the side after more than 2-3 years( whether he will contribute massively in these 2 years is itself a big question mark)?

KL Rahul age is 24. At this age, it is not the performance which matters but a player's ability and potential. Some 30-35 tests at young age isn't enough to really make any sort of comparison. Even there he has done very well for a opening batsmen who is yet to hit his peak years and emerge as one of the best batsmen in the world. Rahul's performance has been very good on whatever chances he got.

Yes, he missed out against Lankans but that is 2 games. How much a sample set is this? It is not that he scores only tough runs. He has also done his share of minnow bashing but has got runs in tough conditions and good attacks too. We cant come into any conclusion related to him on just the basis of 2 tests against SL. It happens that sometimes a player might miss out on doing minnow bashing when it is a 2 test match.

You are basing your points on basis of just that 2 test vs SL which isn't right.

At any age performance matters. We're talking about international cricket . The 'nurturing talent' thing happens in domestic cricket. Rahul has been given plenty of chances in the international arena.

You spoke like a true AB Fan. Unrealised potential over performance . Anyways I have nothing more to add.

 

[Ab Fan]

At any age performance matters. We're talking about international cricket . The 'nurturing talent' thing happens in domestic cricket. Rahul has been given plenty of chances in the international arena.

You spoke like a true AB Fan. Unrealised potential over performance . Anyways I have nothing more to add.

Okay let us ignore potential. Just look at their performance. Even on that basis , Rahul has done very well. It has been much better than Rohit till now. And Rahul's peak days are ahead while for Rohit it is not too long before he is on his last legs. I dont understand this love for Rohit- the test batsmen who has done well only vs SL and WI at home and went missing wherever he tours.

Do you know what is his away average? Or what is his average even if we exclude SL and WI? He doesn't have any performance to back. In comparison, Rahul had a good start to this career and has immense ability.You are saying as if he has been flop on whatever chances he got.

 

[Mr.Q]

Okay let us ignore potential. Just look at their performance. Even on that basis , Rahul has done very well. It has been much better than Rohit till now. And Rahul's peak days are ahead while for Rohit it is not too long before he is on his last legs. I dont understand this love for Rohit- the test batsmen who has done well only vs SL and WI at home and went missing wherever he tours.

Do you know what is his away average? Or what is his average even if we exclude SL and WI? He doesn't have any performance to back. In comparison, Rahul had a good start to this career and has immense ability.You are saying as if he has been flop on whatever chances he got.

Man read my posts again. I wasn't comparing the two and I clearly said I'm not raising that argument on Rohit as a serious one. I raised it only to say that if Rahul can be picked based on ability alone, same ability argument can be twisted (like I did) and used for Rohit too .

Rahul needs to perform now . Should be shown the door if doesn't.

 

[samplepiece]

A fair few times. I remember them winning a series as well under Cronje.

 

[Monsee]

This is how pak posters behave, india lost and they started blowing their trumpets forgetting that their own team is getting thrashed left right centre in nz.

Yep, that makes Kohli's behavior all the more great, true Indian cricket fan mentality...when questioned, attack the one who raised the question!