But, again I have a reservation in your comments. It's not about Virat, I am a big fan of him - it's about your post. I understand, being rebellion or the devils advocate is a different status; but over doing something is not good.
I give another example - more or less, you have taken everything out of YK from helmet to underwear - UAE Khan, FTB, dancer .... I can go on. Same you are almost poet Kalidas, regarding Virat's last AUS tour - do you think, we don't understand cricket or don't watch it?
The topic of this post is, if Virat's stats should be held against him or not. My point is, NO - he is playing what is available in front of him. But, this is also true that he is playing in an era where batting stats are inflated for the nature of the game. Now, there are many players with 40/80 sort of stats - while Allen Border has 32/69 stats .... therefore that debate remains valid.
However, I think measuring Virat with stats is actually devaluing him - statistically, he is just at per with at least half a dozen contemporary player (he has 2 great home series hence now the stats are high - 3 months back, his Test average was in mid 40s - same can be said for Azhar - he is now batting at 48 average, as opener probably in 70s - in 10 Tests, 7 outside Asia without ZIM/WI, for an Asian opener, that's outstanding - but it's a small part of his career when he has hit the top).
Virat is far better player than what stats suggests, because he is contributing in win. Same can be said for Smith as well - and you said that for Root before he came to Asia, again you'll say that in English summer, before he goes to AUS.
These 4 are comparable to any era's top 4/5 players - I can say that beyond stats. How much ST would average now or Virat would have averaged in 90s is immaterial. By the way, Virat's IPL performance are not that great - if IPL is the benchmark, then you have to change your tone for AB De Villers ......
