What's new

Rate Virat Kohli's Impact in Test Cricket as a Batter

How would you rate Virat Kohli as an overall Test batter based on his performances up to this point?

  • Total voters
    17
S

starpain

Debutant
Joined
Oct 9, 2024
Runs
25
Virat Kohli has scored

- 6 centuries in Australia.
- 2 centuries in South Africa
- 2 centuries in England
- 1 centuries in New Zealand

Combined 11 centuries in toughest conditions for an Asian batter, only Asian batter ahead of him is Sachin.

Despite showcasing his skill across challenging conditions and building a comprehensive batting record, Kohli might be India's greatest stat-padder and among the least impactful players to cross 8000 runs in Test cricket.

We praise him for 4 centuries in 2014 Australia series, but what about his epic failure in England that took place same year across 5 Test matches?

We praise his excellent performances in South Africa on difficult pitches. But what about his mediocre and pathetic performance in Humiliating home series losses against England (2012)and New Zealand series (2024) where he could've single handedly prevented those series losses.

Yes we praise him for epic stat-padding and multiple double hundreds against mediocre Sri Lankan attack in 2017 which was arguably the most forgettable Test series known to mankind. But what about his performance against Australia that same year where scored 49 runs at average of 9 while his rival Steve Smith scored most runs in the same series with 499 runs at 70+ average . Somehow we were saved from humiliation of facing another home series loss thanks largely to Kohli being dropped (or rested) in a series decider and replaced by Kuldeep Yadav. Kuldeep shifted the momentum towards India by taking most wickets in the first innings and breaking crucial Warner-Smith 100+ partnership.

Kohli has scored 4336 runs with average of 55.58 in India which is better than any other post 2010 batsmen.

But How many Crucial knocks has Kohli played In India?

Has Kohli even proven to be a more impactful batsmen than Jadeja or Ashwin in India?

How would you rate Kohli as a overall Test batsman based on his performances up to this point?
 
Not a bad player but an overrated one.

Kohli was never top 5 batters of all time, people hyped him up way too much
 
Arguably the most overrated Test batsman in history. He has been bang average apart from the 2015-19 period.

Only in India can a 46-47 averaging batsman with less than 10k runs and average of 32-33 in ENG/NZ can be considered one of the GOATs.

The Indian delusion and fake narratives need to be studied.
 
He is an excellent test player and one of the most exciting players in flat or helpful conditions like India or the Phattas Aussies rolled out to make sure BGT matches would go to day 5.

In challenging conditions away from like in England or Bangladesh he becomes a walking wicket.

His peak was a brilliant peak and he was one of the few players that gave the aura of being able to win the match single handedly.

In terms of impact on Indian cricket I think after Gavaskar he is number 2.
 
Top 10 Indian test batsman:-

1.Sachin Tendulkar
2.Sunil Gavaskar
3.Rahul Dravid
4.Vijay Merchant
5.Virender Sehwag
6.Vijay Hazare
7.VVS Laxman
8. Virat Kohli
9. Gundappa Vishwanath
10. Mohinder Amarnath

Virat Kohli is 8th best Indian test batsman in my opinion.
 
Ab Fan said:
Top 10 Indian test batsman:-

1.Sachin Tendulkar
2.Sunil Gavaskar
3.Rahul Dravid
4.Vijay Merchant
5.Virender Sehwag
6.Vijay Hazare
7.VVS Laxman
8. Virat Kohli
9. Gundappa Vishwanath
10. Mohinder Amarnath

Virat Kohli is 8th best Indian test batsman in my opinion.
Click to expand...
He is better than the garbage Laxman who averaged 46 and scored only 17 centuries in 225 innings in an era where Indian pitches were better for batting than the Indian pitches in the last 10 years.
 
I was thinking this morning about his test career and I think he really never impacted a test series.
He scored a lot of soft runs in his form years, That's all.
But if I have to raté his impact in the format, it will be 1/10.
 
peak kohli, amazing batsmen, over his whole career, not in indians top 5. he contributed to wins because he had world class bowlers to take twenty wickets. dravid, tendu, ganguly, laxman middle order would have won you lots of games if they had bumrah, shami, ashwin, jadeja in their team.
 
Mamoon said:
He is better than the garbage Laxman who averaged 46 and scored only 17 centuries in 225 innings in an era where Indian pitches were better for batting than the Indian pitches in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
Naah, VVS is better. Remember the Mohali test he won with 9 wickets down. That’s the kind of clutch batting that India are lacking today.

Kolkata
Adelaide
Sydney
Perth
Joburg
Durban
Mohali
Ahmedabad
Napier
Colombo
And few more

Every era will have players with great stats. But good tight test matches are won by true fighters and all these matches were saved by VVS after team was in precarious position. Additionally, number of test tons can be low for #5 and #6 compared to #3 and #4. For example, compare S Waugh/ Allan Border vs Ponting.

If you look at test tons and statistics, someone may say Will Young and Rishabh Pant are at same level as Kohli, Rohit in the Ind-NZ series but that’s rubbish. You can’t measure Will Young and Daryl Mitchell contribution in 1st innings via stats and test tons.
 
Ab Fan said:
Naah, VVS is better. Remember the Mohali test he won with 9 wickets down. That’s the kind of clutch batting that India are lacking today.

Kolkata
Adelaide
Sydney
Perth
Joburg
Durban
Mohali
Ahmedabad
Napier
Colombo
And few more

Every era will have players with great stats. But good tight test matches are won by true fighters and all these matches were saved by VVS after team was in precarious position. Additionally, number of test tons can be low for #5 and #6 compared to #3 and #4. For example, compare S Waugh/ Allan Border vs Ponting.

If you look at test tons and statistics, someone may say Will Young and Rishabh Pant are at same level as Kohli, Rohit in the Ind-NZ series but that’s rubbish. You can’t measure Will Young and Daryl Mitchell contribution in 1st innings via stats and test tons.
Click to expand...
This is a classic example of Indian fans putting a different spin on things to create a fake narrative.

Laxman played 225 Test innings and all Indian fans can do is quote 10-11 innings to project the narrative that he was a man of crisis, conveniently sidestepping the fact that he has cost India about 3x more matches because of his inconsistency.

He was an inconsistent batsman but was romanticized as a man of crisis to protect his legacy.
 
Mamoon said:
This is a classic example of Indian fans putting a different spin on things to create a fake narrative.

Laxman played 225 Test innings and all Indian fans can do is quote 10-11 innings to project the narrative that he was a man of crisis, conveniently sidestepping the fact that he has cost India about 3x more matches because of his inconsistency.

He was an inconsistent batsman but was romanticized as a man of crisis to protect his legacy.
Click to expand...

Many of those "Laxman 10-11 innings" were against the ATG Australian side.

Your hero Kohli can't do zilch in comparison against far inferior teams.
 
Mamoon said:
This is a classic example of Indian fans putting a different spin on things to create a fake narrative.

Laxman played 225 Test innings and all Indian fans can do is quote 10-11 innings to project the narrative that he was a man of crisis, conveniently sidestepping the fact that he has cost India about 3x more matches because of his inconsistency.

He was an inconsistent batsman but was romanticized as a man of crisis to protect his legacy.
Click to expand...
These are 10-11 knocks on top of my head in different conditions and different oppositions where he came at precarious situation and changed/won games with his knock. There would be more but the value of these knocks are far more than their stats especially given into context how poor current India’s batting has been in pressure situations.

So, do you want me to list down 50 knocks of Laxman in which he helped his team win/save test matches just to prove that he was not a garbage cricketer which is a narrative that actually you are trying to create? And guess who is asking, the guy who is the biggest hypocrite on this forum and changes his opinion/views like a chameleon. I would recommend to stop this rubbish in your recent agenda of trying to defame past Indian greats. Go ahead and take your shot on the Indian team that lost to NZ, not the past greats and this thread isn’t even about it to begin with.
 
Varun said:
Many of those "Laxman 10-11 innings" were against the ATG Australian side.

Your hero Kohli can't do zilch in comparison against far inferior teams.
Click to expand...
But who told you that Kohli is my hero in Test cricket? Both Kohli and Laxman are bang average Test batsmen.

Kohli’s prime was better though. Laxman never had a prime. He just leeched off a few innings.

Kohli is an average Test batsman with a great peak; Laxman is an average Test batsman with a few great innings.
 
Ab Fan said:
These are 10-11 knocks on top of my head in different conditions and different oppositions where he came at precarious situation and changed/won games with his knock. There would be more but the value of these knocks are far more than their stats especially given into context how poor current India’s batting has been in pressure situations.

So, do you want me to list down 50 knocks of Laxman in which he helped his team win/save test matches just to prove that he was not a garbage cricketer which is a narrative that actually you are trying to create? And guess who is asking, the guy who is the biggest hypocrite on this forum and changes his opinion/views like a chameleon. I would recommend to stop this rubbish in your recent agenda of trying to defame past Indian greats. Go ahead and take your shot on the Indian team that lost to NZ, not the past greats and this thread isn’t even about it to begin with.
Click to expand...
You are ranting but not saying anything intelligent. The reality is that Laxman wasn’t good enough mentally and technically to be a 50+ averaging batsman and score centuries.

17 centuries in 225 innings when more than 70% of his innings were on batting-friendly pitches is rubbish.

He was lucky to play alongside Tendulkar, Dravid and Sehwag because of whom his inconsistency was not highlighted and he was able to con gullible fans with the crisis man gimmick.
 
Not even close to the likes of Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag and Gavaskar. India's 4 best test batters in no particular order IMO.
 
Mamoon said:
Arguably the most overrated Test batsman in history. He has been bang average apart from the 2015-19 period.

Only in India can a 46-47 averaging batsman with less than 10k runs and average of 32-33 in ENG/NZ can be considered one of the GOATs.

The Indian delusion and fake narratives need to be studied.
Click to expand...
I can understand why People can overrate Kohli tho cause He's got incredible peak performances in big series which people most likely remember. But he's also batted like tailender in several marquee series(Australia 2017, England 2014) to compensate for it. I think my post was a friendly reminder of his failures as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mamoon said:
He is better than the garbage Laxman who averaged 46 and scored only 17 centuries in 225 innings in an era where Indian pitches were better for batting than the Indian pitches in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
Why are you acting average of 46 is bad 😂 and no one calls him ATG. He is rated fairly as India don't have dozen of batsmen averaging over 50. I got your point he was very inconsistent but when he scored runs, he usually helped India get over the line with the win.
 
starpain said:
Why are you acting average of 46 is bad 😂 and no one calls him ATG. He is rated fairly as India don't have dozen of batsmen averaging over 50. I got your point he was very inconsistent but when he scored runs, he usually helped India get over the line with the win.
Click to expand...
Any middle-order Test batsman with below 50 average cannot be considered as one of the greats. That is the benchmark.

And it is especially poor for a player like Kohli who is worshipped by billions as the biggest cricket star in history.
 
Mamoon said:
Any middle-order Test batsman with below 50 average cannot be considered as one of the greats. That is the benchmark.

And it is especially poor for a player like Kohli who is worshipped by billions as the biggest cricket star in history.
Click to expand...
Do you consider Younis khan as one of the greats then?
 
Mamoon said:
You are ranting but not saying anything intelligent. The reality is that Laxman wasn’t good enough mentally and technically to be a 50+ averaging batsman and score centuries.

17 centuries in 225 innings when more than 70% of his innings were on batting-friendly pitches is rubbish.

He was lucky to play alongside Tendulkar, Dravid and Sehwag because of whom his inconsistency was not highlighted and he was able to con gullible fans with the crisis man gimmick.
Click to expand...
Yes I am ranting because you are the one providing facts and explanation to your point as to how VVS was a garbage cricketer. I only mentioned 10 knocks on top of my head afterall. I must mention 50 knocks to prove my point, one of them being one of the greatest knock of all time again ATG Australian attack. A test match (kolkata 2001) which India rates as its most memorable one ever.

I will conclude my point one final time again, VVS is a better batsman than his stats no matter whatever narrative you try to build. He may average 46 but he is much better than that. Kohli is not better than his stats, he clearly stat padded a lot in home conditions when he hit double tons for fun on flat decks but difficult conditions knocks are lacking for him. If you want to include his captaincy and wins, it becomes a different point though but purely as test batter, VVS is better.
 
Ab Fan said:
Yes I am ranting because you are the one providing facts and explanation to your point as to how VVS was a garbage cricketer. I only mentioned 10 knocks on top of my head afterall. I must mention 50 knocks to prove my point, one of them being one of the greatest knock of all time again ATG Australian attack. A test match (kolkata 2001) which India rates as its most memorable one ever.

I will conclude my point one final time again, VVS is a better batsman than his stats no matter whatever narrative you try to build. He may average 46 but he is much better than that. Kohli is not better than his stats, he clearly stat padded a lot in home conditions when he hit double tons for fun on flat decks but difficult conditions knocks are lacking for him. If you want to include his captaincy and wins, it becomes a different point though but purely as test batter, VVS is better.
Click to expand...
No one is better than their stats because your stats are a reflection of your output. This logically fallacious argument is used to defend average, non-prolific players like Laxman.

The fact is that with an average 46 and only 17 hundreds in 225 innings, he was not a prolific scorer and his value to the team would have been non-existent if he wasn’t lucky to play alongside three 50+ averaging batsmen like Tendulkar, Dravid and Sehwag.

Indian batting in that era would have been even stronger if they had another 50+ averaging batsman instead of Laxman playing in his position.

Laxman is one of the biggest frauds in Indian cricket history. A huge beneficiary of whom he played with. He would have nowhere to hide if he was playing for India today.

Not to mention, like Tendulkar, he too was a failure in Pakistan. Did better than him vs Pakistan in India though.
 
No one who knows anything about cricket rates Kohli as the GOAT in test cricket.

PPers just open random threads without anyone even calling Kohli the GOAT test bat and start arguing/debating with themselves.
That’s how free people on PP are.
 
Mamoon said:
No one is better than their stats because your stats are a reflection of your output. This logically fallacious argument is used to defend average, non-prolific players like Laxman.

The fact is that with an average 46 and only 17 hundreds in 225 innings, he was not a prolific scorer and his value to the team would have been non-existent if he wasn’t lucky to play alongside three 50+ averaging batsmen like Tendulkar, Dravid and Sehwag.

Indian batting in that era would have been even stronger if they had another 50+ averaging batsman instead of Laxman playing in his position.

Laxman is one of the biggest frauds in Indian cricket history. A huge beneficiary of whom he played with. He would have nowhere to hide if he was playing for India today.

Not to mention, like Tendulkar, he too was a failure in Pakistan. Did better than him vs Pakistan in India though.
Click to expand...
Once again, this argument is flawed and illogical. If stats are considered the ultimate basis for any discussion, we would be equating Samaraweera with Clarke, Yousuf with Lara, and Williamson with Kallis, which is clearly an oversimplification.

Your whole argument is flawed because you are repeating same thing again and again and it is senseless. I have no intention of debating with folks like you anymore as you seem motivated by a clear agenda of trolling and are contributing baseless points that clearly lacks logical coherence these days.
 
Indian fans need to come back with better arguments. For too long the best said Indian could do was reference statistics, but now these statistics are either superceded or destroyed, Indian have very little option other than to apply filters and pigeon hole stats.

Dravid and Gavaskar were 10 times the test batsmen compared with Tendulkar, Kohli, Rohit etc.
 
Technics 1210 said:
Indian fans need to come back with better arguments. For too long the best said Indian could do was reference statistics, but now these statistics are either superceded or destroyed, Indian have very little option other than to apply filters and pigeon hole stats.

Dravid and Gavaskar were 10 times the test batsmen compared with Tendulkar, Kohli, Rohit etc.
Click to expand...
Dravid and Gavaskar yes but I don't see how you can lump Tendulkar into this category. No batter in history has managed to find success and consistency for a longer period of time. In any sport, sustained success is the mark of true greats, and what separates them from the rest. Personally, I rate both Dravid and Gavaskar much more highly but this idea that Sachin Tendulkar isn't one of the greatest cricketers to have ever played the game is revisionist history that has zero basis in reality.
 
big_gamer007 said:
No one who knows anything about cricket rates Kohli as the GOAT in test cricket.

PPers just open random threads without anyone even calling Kohli the GOAT test bat and start arguing/debating with themselves.
That’s how free people on PP are.
Click to expand...
And you come here and tell people that which makes you no less free than everyone else.
 
In his peak he was a great test batsman. Since 2019 he has been average. The more he plays the more average his numbers will look.
An embarassing comparison but his test career is similar to Azhar Ali.
 
RedwoodOriginal said:
Dravid and Gavaskar yes but I don't see how you can lump Tendulkar into this category. No batter in history has managed to find success and consistency for a longer period of time. In any sport, sustained success is the mark of true greats, and what separates them from the rest. Personally, I rate both Dravid and Gavaskar much more highly but this idea that Sachin Tendulkar isn't one of the greatest cricketers to have ever played the game is revisionist history that has zero basis in reality.
Click to expand...
the only blotch in Sachin's resume is his test numbers in his last 3 years of his test career (after that high octane series in SA)
 
ElRaja said:
peak kohli, amazing batsmen, over his whole career, not in indians top 5. he contributed to wins because he had world class bowlers to take twenty wickets. dravid, tendu, ganguly, laxman middle order would have won you lots of games if they had bumrah, shami, ashwin, jadeja in their team.
Click to expand...
But credit to kohli to back pacers.. For Example how ishanth fared under Dhoni & Kohli..
 
I'd say impact wise he's even below the likes of Cheteshwar Pujara.. Not his fault though when he's played well in sena condition other batsmen failed him..
 
BunnyRabbit said:
the only blotch in Sachin's resume is his test numbers in his last 3 years of his test career (after that high octane series in SA)
Click to expand...
Honestly it was kinda pathetic to see him keep playing just to reach that milestone but overstaying his welcome isn't something unique to him. Alot of great South Asian cricketers have been guilty of that. Still doesn't take away from what he achieved for close to 3 decades.
 
Smbhayi said:
But credit to kohli to back pacers.. For Example how ishanth fared under Dhoni & Kohli..
Click to expand...
thread is abt his impact as a batter, as a captain i think he was second after ganguly in the indian test captains i saw.
 
RedwoodOriginal said:
Honestly it was kinda pathetic to see him keep playing just to reach that milestone but overstaying his welcome isn't something unique to him. Alot of great South Asian cricketers have been guilty of that. Still doesn't take away from what he achieved for close to 3 decades.
Click to expand...
Definitely but it did dent his batting average from 57 to 53
 
If you want my honest take on Kohli (No Indian posters and trolls, please buzz off, am not on the mood today)

Kohli just like steve smith hit his golden period In test cricket.

At his absolute peak, Both kohli are steve smith are superior test batters then even peak Sachin in test cricket.

However both smith and Kohli after that golden period ended, dropped their form while Sachin remained consistent and recieved longetivity points. Hence Sachin achieved more in test cricket and is overall the better test batter thanks to his longetivity.

The difference between kohli and smith is, that smith only lost his ability to single handidely play certain types of test innings, Nowadays he's more or less a test accumulator. But steve smith is still scoring 100's and he's still scoring across the entire planet. Infact he literally handed India another L in wtc 2023.

Kohli on the other hand fell off a cliff. As soon as his golden period ended, he became a total loser in test cricket.

In other words he's nowhere close to the likes of Younis, Dravid and many other test batters who are a few pegs below smith, Lara, Sachin, viv etc.
 
Mamoon said:
10k runs, 52 average, an excellent hundreds to innings ratio. He is certainly a Test legend. However, where he ranks within the legendary Test batsmen group is a different debate.

But he is clearly above the likes of Kohli, Laxman, Rohit etc. in Test cricket.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree but I think Miadad is pakistan greatest ever test batter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FearlessRoar
[PICTURES] Is the Border-Gavaskar Trophy (2024-25) the final frontier for Virat Kohli's Test career?
2
Replies
91
Views
2K
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
FearlessRoar
Will Young: Blackcaps' elegant stroke play batter
Replies
8
Views
150
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
D
Congratulations to New Zealand for a historic Test series win against India in India
Replies
73
Views
830
uppercut
U
FearlessRoar
Dhananjaya de Silva: Sri Lanka's Middle-Order Maestro
Replies
5
Views
277
jnaveen1980
J
The Bald Eagle
  • Poll
[PICTURES] Virat Kohli or Rohit Sharma, whom do you rate higher as a batter & captain and why?
2
Replies
102
Views
2K
LegendAli
LegendAli
Back
Top