What's new

Inzamam-ul-Haq or Virat Kohli? Who would you take in the Test format?

Virat has definitely not overtaken Inzamam yet, and Inzi is the superior player.

But Virat has shown the excellence in playing in Australia and SA, which Inzi did not.

So what does Virat need to do in order to overtake Inzi
1. Play more innings that are impactful and set the tone - With that I don't mean scoring in wins, because he has done that in India. It means innings where he sets the tone and dominates the opposition. He has already done that in multiple series in SA in 2013 (a century in the 1st test), Away in Australia 2014, Home against England in 2013 and Away against WI in 2016. He needs to do that a few more times

2. Correct his record in England - If he can have a decent series (not his Australia esque) where he averages 40-50, has a century and a couple of 50s. That will suffice.

3. Be more consistent - Has the tendency of going missing once in a while for the whole series. Needs to avoid by playing at least contributing in one innings in those series where he is not in form.

If he fixes any of the 2 points above over the next round of overseas tests, he will take over Inzamam.
 
Rahul Dravid. Actually no, didn't Dravid average worse in South Africa?

Also, fun fact, only reason that Dravid barely averages over 40 in Australia is because he had the pleasure of facing a second string Aussie attack which he promptly took advantage of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bilal7 said:
Rahul Dravid. Actually no, didn't Dravid average worse in South Africa?

Also, fun fact, only reason that Dravid barely averages over 40 in Australia is because he had the pleasure of facing a second string Aussie attack which he promptly took advantage of.
Click to expand...

Dravid has a century against Donald and Pollock in South Africa, a century against Steyn, Ntini and Morkel at home. and a century against McGrath, Gillespie and Warne. Inzamam couldn't do anything against South Africa or Australia and Miandad couldn't do anything against West Indies at home or away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sachin136 said:
Dravid has a century against Donald and Pollock in South Africa, a century against Steyn, Ntini and Morkel at home. and a century against McGrath, Gillespie and Warne. Inzamam couldn't do anything against South Africa or Australia and Miandad couldn't do anything against West Indies at home or away.
Click to expand...

Not interested in their performances at home. Just pointing out that it is not a given that every great batsman will perform against the best teams in their own backyard.
 
Bilal7 said:
Not interested in their performances at home. Just pointing out that it is not a given that every great batsman will perform against the best teams in their own backyard.
Click to expand...

The century against Donald and Pollock was not at home.

The difference is, Inzamam and Miandad couldn't even do it at home. Kohli has dominated against the best teams of his era away from home.
 
Bilal7 said:
^ Good information. Inzamam should have reached the ATG level but he underachieved. Despite that, he's a great batsman and far ahead of a nobody like Virat Kohli. Let Kohli overtake VVS and become a certain feature in his team's all-time XI first.
Click to expand...
Inzimam is an all time great for sure. He has an avg of 49 in test matches after playing much more than 100 matches and if overseas avg is considered then he will beat even younis.
 
Kohli is a good test cricketer and he will end up at same level as KP, Amla or AB.
 
rashmin said:
So benchmark should be 30+ avg in each country, right?
Click to expand...



You seriously need to work on your comprehension skills more than anything, I said this 'When Inzi's average of 30+ in Australia and SA is called really poor, then someone averaging 13 in England gotta be the worse batsman ever!',

I did not suggest 30+ becomes the bench mark:facepalm:
 
Sachin136 said:
Dravid has a century against Donald and Pollock in South Africa, a century against Steyn, Ntini and Morkel at home. and a century against McGrath, Gillespie and Warne. Inzamam couldn't do anything against South Africa or Australia and Miandad couldn't do anything against West Indies at home or away.
Click to expand...


Miandad had two centuries against WI in WI in one series during a time when Indian batting (and most otrhers as well) used to get swiped just like that by the same WI's team..Inzi's 93 NO in his last tour to rally the team to a memorable victory won the match for us and had he not run out of partners, he would have def scored his first 100 against them as well. That 93* is worth more than many useless centuries scored by these so-called superior players!
 
Monsee said:
Miandad had two centuries against WI in WI in one series during a time when Indian batting (and most otrhers as well) used to get swiped just like that by the same WI's team..Inzi's 93 NO in his last tour to rally the team to a memorable victory won the match for us and had he not run out of partners, he would have def scored his first 100 against them as well. That 93* is worth more than many useless centuries scored by these so-called superior players!
Click to expand...

My bad, I copy pasted from my other post and didn't remove the "home" part.

Which match was the 93*?
 
Hitman said:
Much like his predecessor Javed Miandad against the West Indies.
Click to expand...

I do wonder how good Javed was as I didn't see him play but he was rated one of the best of his era. I don't think Inzi was, you'd always choose people like Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid etc over him.

Only guy with a balanced record from Pakistan, success against the stronger test teams and in difficult foreign conditions for him (i.e. given from asia, SA, Eng and Aus would be the three that would be considered the most difficult) is Younis Khan. And after 2004 he was remarkably consistent and did often feature as no.1 ranked test batsman. Sometimes I feel we underrate YK, I used to hold him below Inzi and Yousuf in the past, but think that's changed, in many ways YK's simply better.

Also I think YK is one of the only batsmen from Pakistan who really excelled against at least one type of bowling. Inzi is said to be great against pace, but failed in pace friendly conditions against good pace attacks. On the other hand YK was clearly immense against spin and one of the best I've seen against spin from any nation.
 
Last edited:
Sachin136 said:
The century against Donald and Pollock was not at home.

The difference is, Inzamam and Miandad couldn't even do it at home. Kohli has dominated against the best teams of his era away from home.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was one good innings but he failed every time after that.

Which are the "best teams" of his era that Kohli has dominated? Definitely not Pakistan since he hasn't been tested against them at all. Certainly not South Africa because he has one good innings against them and has yet to play more than two test matches in that country. England... Let's not even go there.

He had a smashing series in Australia but the pitches in those series were absolute roads and Kohli was outbatted by Smith. Would hardly call that dominating. Azhar and Younis put his centuries to shame.
 
Bilal7 said:
Yes, that was one good innings but he failed every time after that.

Which are the "best teams" of his era that Kohli has dominated? Definitely not Pakistan since he hasn't been tested against them at all. Certainly not South Africa because he has one good innings against them and has yet to play more than two test matches in that country. England... Let's not even go there.

He had a smashing series in Australia but the pitches in those series were absolute roads and Kohli was outbatted by Smith. Would hardly call that dominating. Azhar and Younis put his centuries to shame.
Click to expand...

I was speaking with respect to Inzamam, not overall. By the way, I don't think Kohli is anywhere close to them right now, especially Miandad.

Compared to them, Kohli has outperformed them away from home against the best teams of their respective eras. Scoring centuries in Australia and South Africa is more than what Inzamam did there. Even with just 2 matches in South Africa, Kohli has done better than him.

Why do you keep bringing Pakistan up every time we talk about the best teams in the world? They are ranked 6th in the world and recently lost 2-0 to Sri Lanka. There's no need to Kohli to get tested against them. That's like arguing that Kohli hasn't been tested against Ireland and Zimbabwe.

How is it a bad thing to be outbatted by the best batsman from the home team who is also one of the best batsmen in the world? In Australia, Azhar and Younis didn't play a knock close to Kohli's at Adelaide.
 
Sachin136 said:
I was speaking with respect to Inzamam, not overall. By the way, I don't think Kohli is anywhere close to them right now, especially Miandad.

Compared to them, Kohli has outperformed them away from home against the best teams of their respective eras. Scoring centuries in Australia and South Africa is more than what Inzamam did there. Even with just 2 matches in South Africa, Kohli has done better than him.

Why do you keep bringing Pakistan up every time we talk about the best teams in the world? They are ranked 6th in the world and recently lost 2-0 to Sri Lanka. There's no need to Kohli to get tested against them. That's like arguing that Kohli hasn't been tested against Ireland and Zimbabwe.

How is it a bad thing to be outbatted by the best batsman from the home team who is also one of the best batsmen in the world? In Australia, Azhar and Younis didn't play a knock close to Kohli's at Adelaide.
Click to expand...

How has Kohli done better than Inzamam in South Africa? Inzamam has a match-winning 90-odd in South Africa, IIRC and Kohli's higher average can be attributed to the lesser number of matches that he has played in the country.

Pakistan have consistenly been ranked in the top four over the last seven years and have been as good, if not better than India in Asia. Furthermore, we have had the services of two of the best spinners of this era in Ajmal and Shah, along with several good pace bowlers like Asif, Amir, Junaid and now Hassan. It is idiotic to compare the Pakistani team to Ireland and Zimbabwe.

Azhar's double and Khan's century were better than any of Kohli's innings in Australia. That Adelaide pitch was challenging because it was taking turn, something that would not be the most difficult proposition for an Asian batsman.

Still waiting for you to justify your statement about Kohli dominating the best teams away from home. However, if you agree that Kohli is not at Inzamam's level right now, then we don't have to take this any further.
 
Bilal7 said:
Yes, that was one good innings but he failed every time after that.

Which are the "best teams" of his era that Kohli has dominated? Definitely not Pakistan since he hasn't been tested against them at all. Certainly not South Africa because he has one good innings against them and has yet to play more than two test matches in that country. England... Let's not even go there.

He had a smashing series in Australia but the pitches in those series were absolute roads and Kohli was outbatted by Smith. Would hardly call that dominating. Azhar and Younis put his centuries to shame.
Click to expand...

lol this has to be the joke of the year. Every one of Kohli's centuries were better. Azhar was striking under 50 for most of his innings and nor was YK's knock anywhere near the same SR at VK.

Out of all the posters on here you're unashamedly biased.

I'm a die hard Pakistan fan myself but this is getting ridiculous.
 
backfootpunch said:
lol this has to be the joke of the year. Every one of Kohli's centuries were better. Azhar was striking under 50 for most of his innings and nor was YK's knock anywhere near the same SR at VK.

Out of all the posters on here you're unashamedly biased.

I'm a die hard Pakistan fan myself but this is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Come back when kohli scores a 300.
 
backfootpunch said:
lol this has to be the joke of the year. Every one of Kohli's centuries were better. Azhar was striking under 50 for most of his innings and nor was YK's knock anywhere near the same SR at VK.

Out of all the posters on here you're unashamedly biased.

I'm a die hard Pakistan fan myself but this is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Don't waste your time . He'll even take Bavuma over Kohli if he had the choice.
 
Hasan123 said:
Don't waste your time . He'll even take Bavuma over Kohli if he had the choice.
Click to expand...

I agreed, his hatred for Kohli is well known as you can see from his posts in other threads as well. He says no great batsman has to perform in each countries but as soon as it comes to Kohli, he changes it to 180 degrees. No need to waste time, he is the most biased poster. No matter whatever the topic of discussion, he drags Kohli from nowhere, thats how much he is obsessed with Kohli.
 
Last edited:
backfootpunch said:
lol this has to be the joke of the year. Every one of Kohli's centuries were better. Azhar was striking under 50 for most of his innings and nor was YK's knock anywhere near the same SR at VK.

Out of all the posters on here you're unashamedly biased.

I'm a die hard Pakistan fan myself but this is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the most important criteria when judging test innings is the strike rate. :))

You're in the wrong thread.
 
backfootpunch said:
lol this has to be the joke of the year. Every one of Kohli's centuries were better. Azhar was striking under 50 for most of his innings and nor was YK's knock anywhere near the same SR at VK.

Out of all the posters on here you're unashamedly biased.

I'm a die hard Pakistan fan myself but this is getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...



SR in tests matters, especially when you didn't even win one game (in those matches) out of all those 'Out of this world centuries' by Kohli...man I learned something new?

He got lucky with one of the worst pitches/conditions for bowling and scored (have to give credit where due) but if Azhar and YK scored on better pitches (for bowlers), how does the SR argument comes in to play anyway? On a road you are supposed to score quickly if pitch is hardly doing anything!
 
Monsee said:
92* actually, had Asif not tried to act like a smartie and play a nothing shot, Inzi would have sompleted a remarkable century but still earned him a MOM award for playing with the tail to get Pak ahead in the game

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...2nd-Test-pakistan-in-south-africa-test-series
Click to expand...

Bilal7 said:
A far better innings than Kohli's century considering it did not come on a track where South Africa almost pulled off the highest fourth innings chase.
Click to expand...

Wasn't this the same match where Nitini took his 300th wicket or something ?? (If my memory serves me right) we just rained on that entire parade didn't we :)) :))

On Topic: Asif played one of the most tailenderish shots ever known to the human race :facepalm: :69: - I almost broke my TV in frustration at that brainfade :D :P
 
Ppers obsession with 'overseas stats' continues. This shouldn't be even a question. Inzi is miles above.

Kohli hasnt played a significant match winning innings in his career of 60, yes 60, matches and go missing always when the things get tough. Kohli even didn't show up in the recent two toughest series which India won i-e 2-1 against Aus and 2-1 against SL in 2015. He is currently India's 4th best test batsman. Not in top 10 best test batsmen of last 5 years. He has to do a lot to come into the list of top 10 best test batsmen of last 5 years.

Btw i will neve understand the obsession of majority with 'overseas stats'. When did we start watching cricket on stat sheets?
 
I saw Kohli in Australia and really without any bias the pitches there were not that difficult. The 4th innings century which is hyped a lot was in a dead rubber when India already lost the series and he was paying without any pressure. Still choked in the end getting out on an easy ball. His century in SA was decent though.
 
Bilal7 said:
Yes, because the most important criteria when judging test innings is the strike rate. :))

You're in the wrong thread.
Click to expand...

Seriously? without a decent strike rate you can't exert pressure on bowlers and you eventually dig yourself in a hole hence which is why Pakistan struggled in Aus and NZ where you have to play positively.

The reason why Smith, Williamson, Kohli, Root and etc are the best test players atm because not only can they score heavily in virtually all conditions but they can swing the momentum and therefore shape the innings with their dominant front and backfoot stroke play. This is where players like Azhar Ali, Rahane, Cook etc fall behind these crop of players.
 
SarfiBabarHaris said:
I saw Kohli in Australia and really without any bias the pitches there were not that difficult. The 4th innings century which is hyped a lot was in a dead rubber when India already lost the series and he was paying without any pressure. Still choked in the end getting out on an easy ball. His century in SA was decent though.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you watched the series? Kohli's 4th innings hundred at Adelaide was in the first test. Not surprised though given your bias against him.
 
SarfiBabarHaris said:
I saw Kohli in Australia and really without any bias the pitches there were not that difficult. The 4th innings century which is hyped a lot was in a dead rubber when India already lost the series and he was paying without any pressure. Still choked in the end getting out on an easy ball. His century in SA was decent though.
Click to expand...

Brother, how can you say dead rubber in first test of the tour? Need to remove biased glasses and hatredness
 
backfootpunch said:
So going by your logic Inzy is also better than SRT because the former has a triple hundred?

Notice how idiotic this sounds?
Click to expand...

You were talking about kohli's centuries being more meaningful than all of Azhar's so I am telling you to come back when kohli scores a triple ton :)
 
backfootpunch said:
Seriously? without a decent strike rate you can't exert pressure on bowlers and you eventually dig yourself in a hole hence which is why Pakistan struggled in Aus and NZ where you have to play positively.

The reason why Smith, Williamson, Kohli, Root and etc are the best test players atm because not only can they score heavily in virtually all conditions but they can swing the momentum and therefore shape the innings with their dominant front and backfoot stroke play. This is where players like Azhar Ali, Rahane, Cook etc fall behind these crop of players.
Click to expand...

Enough of this garbage. SR does not matter in test cricket otherwise the likes Gavasker and Dravid - both of whom had a career SR around 40 - wouldn't be known as elite test batsmen.

We lost in NZ because our batsmen could not score any runs, not because they were not batting at a SR of 100. :facepalm:

We lost in Australia because our bowlers were rubbish, not because we did not hit enough sixes. :facepalm:

Scoring big centuries is how you put pressure on the bowlers in test cricket.

Smith can score virtually everywhere and this might be true for Root as well, however Kohli certainly cannot score runs against the moving ball, a couple of exceptions aside.

backfootpunch said:
Inzamam v VVS Laxman would have been a more fair comparison which even I can't decide myself...
Click to expand...

This is because you clearly do not understand test cricket. Kohli is clearly inferior to Laxman who was clearly inferior to Inzamam.
 
With regards to Miandad's 2 centuries in West Indies, 3 of West Indies's premium bowlers had retired by then - Holding, Roberts and Garner. And 1 of those 2 centuries was scored when Marshall didn't play in that match. As for Inzamam, the less said about his performances against Aus and SA in both forms of the game both home and away, the better.
 
rashmin said:
Brother, how can you say dead rubber in first test of the tour? Need to remove biased glasses and hatredness
Click to expand...

A person with biased and hatredness will never say that Kohli is the GOAT odi batsman of last 15 years.
Yes I remember that, i mixed the innings as I wrote while I was half slept yesterday night. I saw the series and match. He got out to Lyon on deep mid wicket right? trying for the big shot. Choked in the end. The innings was good but Lyon is a spinner and you expect Indian batsmen to do well against spin. I remember clearly there was a 100 in last test test too. From dead rubber one I meant that innings.

Kher again my point was simple, come back when he has played few substantial match winning innings for his team which he hasnt in 60 matches. Right now he is India's 4th best batsman behind Pujara, Rahul, and Rahane.
 
And one more thing which I would like to mention is, from my cricket understanding Kohli will do good against pace and bounce but he struggles against lateral movement. Pace of Johnson wont trouble him much but swing of Amir, Junaid and Anderson will. In tests playing with red ball he will find conditions which supports swing bowlers and thats why he is much more successful in odis. I would say he is right now the Hashim Amla of tests. No signature match winning knock in tests while in odis he is the best and atleast have more than 10 great match winning innings.
 
I see Indian batting attaining a similar lineup in form of Rahul, Pujara, Kohli and Rahane as to what SA had few years back with Smith, Amla, Kallis and de Villiers. None of them will be at Tendulkar or Ponting level but great test players.

The problem is just that in Asia, Ashwin and Jadeja are as good as Steyn, Morkel/ Philander. Outside Asia, India's bowling isn't all that great although its still a workable attack. So, the coming overseas tour can bring something worthy enough this time as far as overseas performance is concerned.
 
SarfiBabarHaris said:
A person with biased and hatredness will never say that Kohli is the GOAT odi batsman of last 15 years.
Yes I remember that, i mixed the innings as I wrote while I was half slept yesterday night. I saw the series and match. He got out to Lyon on deep mid wicket right? trying for the big shot. Choked in the end. The innings was good but Lyon is a spinner and you expect Indian batsmen to do well against spin. I remember clearly there was a 100 in last test test too. From dead rubber one I meant that innings.

Kher again my point was simple, come back when he has played few substantial match winning innings for his team which he hasnt in 60 matches. Right now he is India's 4th best batsman behind Pujara, Rahul, and Rahane.
Click to expand...

Okay.
 
[MENTION=142494]Bay Garrett[/MENTION]

Anyone who is picking Inzamam over Kohli is kidding himself. Unless something bizarre happens, it is a foregone conclusion that the latter will go down as comfortably a superior Test batsman by the time he retires. He is already comparable even though he is only 28 and his best years are ahead of him. It is not as if he is going to retire tomorrow and suddenly lose his abilities.

He is simply a player of higher caliber, and one bad series in England early in your career is nothing the end of the world. Almost every great player has a kink in his armory.

The legendary player of 'spin' bowling (Lara) was rubbish in India;

Viv Richards' didn't face the best bowling attack of his era and his record against the second best bowling attack of his era was nothing special;

Ponting was poor in India, Kallis wasn't special against the top sides for almost his first 5-6 years, Dravid struggled against a full-strength Australian and South African attack, Inzamam himself failed against them, and there are many other examples. No player has a flawless record.

Kohli doesn't need to dominate England in England to be an ATG, but he will obviously do better there in the future. He is simply a much superior batsman to Inzamam and I don't have to think twice about it in any format including Tests.
 
Last edited:
ahmedwaqas92 said:
Quite a slow day at work......So I did the same above filtering for current players as well :D

Players I've selected: Smith, Cook, Williamson, Root, Virat, and Azhar

Smith

View attachment 77046

Cook

View attachment 77047

Williamson

View attachment 77048

Root

View attachment 77049

Virat

View attachment 77050

Azhar

View attachment 77051

Conclusion notes:

1) To be fair, I don't exactly know who came up with the whole Kane, Root, Virat, Smith analogy because Smith is so far ahead of the other three right now it's not even funny and the fact that Smith actually started his career as a leg spinner is just the perfect egg on the face :P - Similarly Azhar too was a proper tailender who commenced his career as a geuine leg spinning #10.

2) Among the 6 chosen logically, there are two tiers only (Smith and Cook - Tier 1: Possible Test ATGs) and (Kane, Root, Virat, Azhar - Tier 2: Can jump to Tier 1 if they correct their red marked averages).

3) Only root and virat are the ones in that list who have averages <20 in away venues - I am not too sure what I can make of that tbh but batting averages in the teens in any country should never let anyone stake claim to being an ATG. You can't be an ATG and have a <20 in any venue you might have featured (This is a personal opinion)

4) Azhar is the only one in that list that has a triple century to his name.
Click to expand...

Only in Pakistan will someone put Azhar in the same tier as Kohli, Root and Williamson. Absolutely comical.
 
Kohli is so far not even half the player Inzamam ul Haq was in Test Cricket.

Kohli has not much too show in this format apart from runs on batting surfaces. No match winnings innings. Nothing.

He can overtake Inzamam till the end of his carrier but things not looking promising for him. He fails on about every big occasion.
Was completely rubbish in his recent battle vs Steven Smith, at home. I think there was never so much difference of class and performance between two "leading" batsmen.
People often bring Kohli's performances in England, but that is far from his only failure.
Failed vs Australia at home, Failed vs South Africa at home also (two 4 test match series) and many others.

Inzamam was a class apart. He averages 78 in matches won and has played some of the best match winning innings ever.
As people are talking a lot about South Africa and Australia. Inzamam won a test match in South Africa with a tremendous 92*, the best innings ever played by an asian batsman in South Africa.
He also won a test in Australia against McGrath-Warne, something indians can only dream about and that too with a brilliant 59 with the tail.

Inzamam has scored the most runs ever by an asian batsman in winning matches outside Asia at an average of 68.72 with 6 hundreds.
It's an insult to compare him with Kohli but Kohli averages 34 in the same result with one hundred.

Inzamam scored a lot of quality runs where Kohli is more about quantity, and in tests he has not got a lot of quantity either.

That's probably one of the worst comparaison on PP in recent times. I am even surprised admins have let this kind of trolling on.

I will try to not post in the thread again till Kohli does something of note in the test format.
 
Mobashir said:
Kohli is so far not even half the player Inzamam ul Haq was in Test Cricket.

Kohli has not much too show in this format apart from runs on batting surfaces. No match winnings innings. Nothing.

He can overtake Inzamam till the end of his carrier but things not looking promising for him. He fails on about every big occasion.
Was completely rubbish in his recent battle vs Steven Smith, at home. I think there was never so much difference of class and performance between two "leading" batsmen.
People often bring Kohli's performances in England, but that is far from his only failure.
Failed vs Australia at home, Failed vs South Africa at home also (two 4 test match series) and many others.

Inzamam was a class apart. He averages 78 in matches won and has played some of the best match winning innings ever.
As people are talking a lot about South Africa and Australia. Inzamam won a test match in South Africa with a tremendous 92*, the best innings ever played by an asian batsman in South Africa.
He also won a test in Australia against McGrath-Warne, something indians can only dream about and that too with a brilliant 59 with the tail.

Inzamam has scored the most runs ever by an asian batsman in winning matches outside Asia at an average of 68.72 with 6 hundreds.
It's an insult to compare him with Kohli but Kohli averages 34 in the same result with one hundred.

Inzamam scored a lot of quality runs where Kohli is more about quantity, and in tests he has not got a lot of quantity either.

That's probably one of the worst comparaison on PP in recent times. I am even surprised admins have let this kind of trolling on.

I will try to not post in the thread again till Kohli does something of note in the test format.
Click to expand...

Don't you think it's better to check your facts before making laughable claims?
 
Inzzy was poor against SA and Aus, but he was very consistent in the test format. He is underrated in PP in the test format. I rate him much higher in the test than ODI.

You can't rate batsmen due to potentials. Only actual performance should be counted. People shouldn't take simply average of Inzzy to compare. It was very hard to average 50+ in 90s. Compare Inzzy's average in 90s vs 00s. If I have my numbers right then Inzzy averaged 55+ in 00s. That's in the same range as many top batsmen did.

Kohli has a way to go to overtake Inzzy as a test batsman.
 
Bilal7 said:
Enough of this garbage. SR does not matter in test cricket otherwise the likes Gavasker and Dravid - both of whom had a career SR around 40 - wouldn't be known as elite test batsmen.

We lost in NZ because our batsmen could not score any runs, not because they were not batting at a SR of 100. :facepalm:

We lost in Australia because our bowlers were rubbish, not because we did not hit enough sixes. :facepalm:

Scoring big centuries is how you put pressure on the bowlers in test cricket.

Smith can score virtually everywhere and this might be true for Root as well, however Kohli certainly cannot score runs against the moving ball, a couple of exceptions aside.



This is because you clearly do not understand test cricket. Kohli is clearly inferior to Laxman who was clearly inferior to Inzamam.
Click to expand...

The garbage I see is your hatred for Kohli and your biased drivel.

who said bat at a SR of 100? I'm talking about 50-60 is needed to keep pressure of batsman getting stuck, but the best batsman in full flow can go 70-80 on faster pitches conducive to more stroke play options off the seamers.

Gavaskar played in a completely different era which was dominated by defensive batting and hence draws. Dravid could also up his SR when he needed too because he had all the shots with a good solid defence.

Laxman's record in Aus and SA along with the subcontinent make him better because he was better against spin and pace.

Laxman's 281 innings is described best century ever in tests and a lot of his hundreds came in more challenging conditions/circumstances than those of Inzy, so it's quite absurd to think Inzy was better.

As for Kohli it is not a secret anymore with your hatred for him as pointed out by an above poster.
 
backfootpunch said:
The garbage I see is your hatred for Kohli and your biased drivel.

who said bat at a SR of 100? I'm talking about 50-60 is needed to keep pressure of batsman getting stuck, but the best batsman in full flow can go 70-80 on faster pitches conducive to more stroke play options off the seamers.

Gavaskar played in a completely different era which was dominated by defensive batting and hence draws. Dravid could also up his SR when he needed too because he had all the shots with a good solid defence.

Laxman's record in Aus and SA along with the subcontinent make him better because he was better against spin and pace.

Laxman's 281 innings is described best century ever in tests and a lot of his hundreds came in more challenging conditions/circumstances than those of Inzy, so it's quite absurd to think Inzy was better.

As for Kohli it is not a secret anymore with your hatred for him as pointed out by an above poster.
Click to expand...

No, I must insist that your obsession with strike rates in test cricket is stinking garbage.

Dravid, Gavasker, Kallis, Smith, Cook, Chanderpaul, Boycott, etc are all legendary/great test cricketers and rarely would you see them striking in the 70-80 frame you're talking about.

Once again, big hundreds puts pressure on bowlers in test cricket. High strike rates do not. In many cases it can actually be counter-intuitive because it gives the opposition more time to bat in their own innings.

Of course, someone who rates VVS as a better batsman than Inzamam cannot be expected to understand the nuances of test cricket.

My hatred or love is not the reason Kohli has done nothing of note in test cricket thus far, apart from bashing Australia on some uber-flat pitches, compared to a great test batsman like Inzamam ul Haq. Or even a very good one like Laxman.

Gotta love dat strike rate doe. Makes me wonder why we didn't beg Afridi to play more test matches. :))
 
Hitman said:
8 months later, what do you say now?
Click to expand...

He has done enough to go ahead of Inzzi now even if he hangs his boot today. Best batsman in all series he played in this period.
 
If Inzy had the work ethic and attitude to fitness as Kohli, he'd have achieved hell of a lot more than he did.

Inzy only started showing his true potential when given the responsibility of captaincy.
 
Kohli has already surpassed every pakistani batsman to play test cricket he is better than YK and Miandad as well.

His challenge is to beat Tendulkar and Lara. Let's see if he succeeds or not. The way he is doing he might beat them.
 
Markhor said:
If Inzy had the work ethic and attitude to fitness as Kohli, he'd have achieved hell of a lot more than he did.

Inzy only started showing his true potential when given the responsibility of captaincy.
Click to expand...

If Sachin had attitude and mental strength like Kohli he would be unstoppable.
If Kambli had attitude and work ethic like Kohli he would be a top player.

Every player has their pros and cons you just cant say if a player X had pros of another player and no cons he will be great.

Inzi did well for himself with all his cons and is a great player in his own rights. But what separates players like Inzi from being GOAT material players like Sachin/Lara/Kohli etc is that these players even with their negative attributes find ways to dominate and perform consistently over a long career.
 
Inzi was a good player but there isnt much of a contest here. Kohli is heading quickly towards the Richards bracket.
 
VK is comfortably better than Inziman in ODI’s and Test.

Only thing Inzi has over Kohli is a WC performance.
 
With 6000 test runs he is still a nobody in front of the giants of the game.

Longevity is the biggest test of any sportsman.

He is averaging 54 after 6000 test runs. People he is being compared to have averaged 57-59 at 10k runs and Tendulkar averages 54 after 15,500 test runs. That’s a whopping 3 times.

So let’s just appreciate a great talent but not go mad Amin hyping. Everyone looks great during a purple patch.

Always remember Bhaijaan’s golden rule of life - Neve judge a man during his best phase or his worst phase.
 
ManFan said:
VK is comfortably better than Inziman in ODI’s and Test.

Only thing Inzi has over Kohli is a WC performance.
Click to expand...

‘A’ World Cup performance ?

Inzamam has a pathetic record in world cups FYI.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
‘A’ World Cup performance ?

Inzamam has a pathetic record in world cups FYI.
Click to expand...

I know that, Bhaijaan.

But he has a SF performance for the ages, something Kohli has not yet produced.

I know he has a WC Final 50 but it was overshadowed by Dhoni and Gambhir.
 
ManFan said:
I know that, Bhaijaan.

But he has a SF performance for the ages, something Kohli has not yet produced.

I know he has a WC Final 50 but it was overshadowed by Dhoni and Gambhir.
Click to expand...

I don't recall it, but some one can correct me.
 
ManFan said:
I know that, Bhaijaan.

But he has a SF performance for the ages, something Kohli has not yet produced.

I know he has a WC Final 50 but it was overshadowed by Dhoni and Gambhir.
Click to expand...

It was not a 50 i think it was 37 crucial runs when he was very young, same ways how Inzi was.

He has a 100 against arch rivals in 2015 world cup and scored 2 more half centuries in 2015 WC.

2019 WC is when he will be in his peak so hopefully he will dominate the world cup and help us win.

Inzi;s 60 odd runs in semis was great no doubt but it was 1 innings. Apart from that 1 innings he has been poor in WC so Kohli is already ahead of him in WC due to consistency. Impact wise yes Inzi is ahead due to that 1 innings.
 
big_gamer007 said:
It was not a 50 i think it was 37 crucial runs when he was very young, same ways how Inzi was.

He has a 100 against arch rivals in 2015 world cup and scored 2 more half centuries in 2015 WC.

2019 WC is when he will be in his peak so hopefully he will dominate the world cup and help us win.

Inzi;s 60 odd runs in semis was great no doubt but it was 1 innings. Apart from that 1 innings he has been poor in WC so Kohli is already ahead of him in WC due to consistency. Impact wise yes Inzi is ahead due to that 1 innings.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction.

Yes and I’ve mentioned before that it will be unfortunate for every current cricket fan if he does not perform in the next WC.

I believe it’s a matter of when and not if.
 
big_gamer007 said:
If Sachin had attitude and mental strength like Kohli he would be unstoppable.
If Kambli had attitude and work ethic like Kohli he would be a top player.

Every player has their pros and cons you just cant say if a player X had pros of another player and no cons he will be great.

Inzi did well for himself with all his cons and is a great player in his own rights. But what separates players like Inzi from being GOAT material players like Sachin/Lara/Kohli etc is that these players even with their negative attributes find ways to dominate and perform consistently over a long career.
Click to expand...

Tendulkar's professionalism or attitude towards fitness was never in question though like Inzy whose idea of training was face a few overs in the nets and then pull up a deckchair.

Inzamam had a very good career but was still an underachiever given the talent he possessed. If you go through his LBWs and runouts, some of those dismissals were pure laziness. He was indulged too much and needed a stricter coach. Look at Younis Khan, he may not have had the natural talent of Inzamam but his work ethic was such that he was able to continue performing well into his late 30s.
 
Markhor said:
Tendulkar's professionalism or attitude towards fitness was never in question though like Inzy whose idea of training was face a few overs in the nets and then pull up a deckchair.

Inzamam had a very good career but was still an underachiever given the talent he possessed. If you go through his LBWs and runouts, some of those dismissals were pure laziness. He was indulged too much and needed a stricter coach. Look at Younis Khan, he may not have had the natural talent of Inzamam but his work ethic was such that he was able to continue performing well into his late 30s.
Click to expand...


That is my point not every player has everything. Inzi's strength was his natural talent. His weakness was his work ethic.

YK's strength was his hard work and mental fortitude. His weakness was not possessing enough raw talent like some of his counterparts.

If every player had everything then we will have all players will have similar records.
 
This thread should be a history now. Status of a great batsman like Inzam will be humiliated if he is compared with Virat.Virat is in another league already ,way above Inzam.Anybody any day will take Virat in any format anywhere.
 
Virat Kohli but Inzamam was still a quality player. Just because he doesn't have a great average against South Africa or Australia should not take away from the fact that he was a great player. But Virat has gone past him.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
With 6000 test runs he is still a nobody in front of the giants of the game.

Longevity is the biggest test of any sportsman.

He is averaging 54 after 6000 test runs. People he is being compared to have averaged 57-59 at 10k runs and Tendulkar averages 54 after 15,500 test runs. That’s a whopping 3 times.

So let’s just appreciate a great talent but not go mad Amin hyping. Everyone looks great during a purple patch.

Always remember Bhaijaan’s golden rule of life - Neve judge a man during his best phase or his worst phase.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you bhaijaan.
At this stage i won't put kohli ahead of vvs,inzi,viru,chanderpaul and not even jayawardene.As of now kohli is Nowhere near miandad.These legends played the game for a long time.
I am not basing these on stats or even impact but longevity and memories.
Yeah kohli will easily surpass inzi,lax,viru or even miandad.But onlu after he plays 100+ matches i'll compare him with these players .
Asof now all members of fab 4 are nowhere near inzi,miandad etc etc
 
As much as I like Inzamam but he is no where near Gavaskar or Dravid, forget about Tendulqar or even Kohli.
Inzamam will fail 8 of 10 times in seaming condition where Kohli will perform 7-8 times
 
freelance_cricketer said:
With 6000 test runs he is still a nobody in front of the giants of the game.

Longevity is the biggest test of any sportsman.

He is averaging 54 after 6000 test runs. People he is being compared to have averaged 57-59 at 10k runs and Tendulkar averages 54 after 15,500 test runs. That’s a whopping 3 times.

So let’s just appreciate a great talent but not go mad Amin hyping. Everyone looks great during a purple patch.

Always remember Bhaijaan’s golden rule of life - Neve judge a man during his best phase or his worst phase.
Click to expand...

Also Bhaijan if I'm not wrong SRT was averaging around 57 till 2011 when he had already played 22 years of cricket.
Now that's what you call a GOAT level longevity.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
yup 56.4 during that SA series
Click to expand...

That too after tennis elbow and other injuries when most 'experts' wrote him off.
Phenomenal player really. That's precisely the reason why I don't take the claims of Kohli being better than SRT and Lara better. Look at Amla's career for instance. Had he retired immediately at the end of that peak of his, he would have been counted amongst the tier 1 ATGs on par with SRT, Lara and Viv. But we all know how it ended for him. Same applies to Ponting and his horrid in last few years of his career.

If Kohli manages to remain this consistent for next 6-7 years, he will surpass Tendulkar for me to become the greatest batsman of all time.
 
Inzamam was a great test bat and a great ODI bat. ATG in neither.

Kohli will probably be a bonafide ATG in tests and GOAT in ODIs, more like Wasim Akram.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
Totally agree with you bhaijaan.
At this stage i won't put kohli ahead of vvs,inzi,viru,chanderpaul and not even jayawardene.As of now kohli is Nowhere near miandad.These legends played the game for a long time.
I am not basing these on stats or even impact but longevity and memories.
Yeah kohli will easily surpass inzi,lax,viru or even miandad.But onlu after he plays 100+ matches i'll compare him with these players .
Asof now all members of fab 4 are nowhere near inzi,miandad etc etc
Click to expand...

TM Riddle said:
Also Bhaijan if I'm not wrong SRT was averaging around 57 till 2011 when he had already played 22 years of cricket.
Now that's what you call a GOAT level longevity.
Click to expand...

Yes brothers.

We all remember days Mohd Yousuf, Hashim Amla, ABD, Cook etc were so hyped. Thats how people are influenced during purple patches. They just take it for granted that the player will maintain the same standards and rate of scoring for next 5-10 years. It doesn't always happen of course and rather the graph usually goes down.

Kohli's bad days will come too. He has to do his best now to make sure by the time he gets to 10k mark he is averaging close to 60 so he can manage a Ponting like fall and still end up with a 55+ average and runs close to Tendulkars mark. Its a long way to go.

I cringe at people putting Tendulkar down against people with half and even 1/3rd of his runs. Like someone mentioned, despite not being built like a genuine athlete and having to deal with game changing injuries like the tennis elbow what Tendulkar's achieved as a player is a monstrous achievement. We are only talking about batting. Tendulkar could make the best of batsmen look stupid with his cunning talent with the ball as well which he could focus on very little not having the fitness for playing as an AR.
 
TM Riddle said:
That too after tennis elbow and other injuries when most 'experts' wrote him off.
Phenomenal player really. That's precisely the reason why I don't take the claims of Kohli being better than SRT and Lara better. Look at Amla's career for instance. Had he retired immediately at the end of that peak of his, he would have been counted amongst the tier 1 ATGs on par with SRT, Lara and Viv. But we all know how it ended for him. Same applies to Ponting and his horrid in last few years of his career.

If Kohli manages to remain this consistent for next 6-7 years, he will surpass Tendulkar for me to become the greatest batsman of all time.
Click to expand...

Next 6-7 years is too much.
 
Rahul1 said:
Next 6-7 years is too much.
Click to expand...

Calling someone GOAT in his purple patch is too much as well(happened in Amla's case when people started putting him in ATG category).
GOAT title demands consistency and longevity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaz619
  • Poll Poll
Virat Kohli vs Misbah-ul-Haq - Who has the greater legacy in Tests?
2
Replies
84
Views
2K
just a fan
J
Buffet
Kumar Sangakkara versus Virat Kohli in the Test format
2 3
Replies
177
Views
7K
Hawkeye
H
S
  • Poll Poll
Rate Virat Kohli's impact in Test cricket as a batter
2 3
Replies
176
Views
6K
Romali_rotti
Romali_rotti
BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] Inzamam-ul-Haq, Misbah-ul-Haq, Mushtaq Mohammad and Saeed Anwar named in the PCB Hall of Fame for 2024
2
Replies
106
Views
4K
RizwanT20Champ
R
Devadwal
[VIDEOS] Inzamam-ul-Haq accuses the Indian team of ball-tampering in an ICC T20 World Cup 2024 match against Australia
2
Replies
119
Views
5K
Romali_rotti
Romali_rotti
Back
Top