Virat Kohli has mounted a case for being the most complete batsman of all time

[BestEver]

There was this thread three years ago:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...-three-formats

Exact three year later on Dec.10,2016 VIRAT KOHLI became the first ever batsman to average 50+ in all three formats.
Only batsmen in the world to avg. 50+ in Tests, ODIs, T20Is, First Class And List A cricket right now
Tests - 50.10
ODIs - 52.93
T20Is - 57.13
First Class - 51.66
List A - 52.09

No other Batsman have managed to achieve this feat.

Is there any batsmen in world cricket right now who can do this ?

 

[R0H1T]

Atm no there ain't anyone out there who'll be able to repeat this feat. Maybe someone sometime in the future, but even then they'll have a mighty hard time managing an avg in excess of 50 across all three formats.

 

[Belawal2014]

He is an absolute beast, with a beast-like mentality. I'm envious...It's not fair, we get guys like Umar Akmal and Shahzad and you've guys like Kohli and Rahane.

 

[jog_1]

T20 average will prob drop to the mid to high 40s by the time he retires, but yeah amazing feat.

 

[transitional]

Too early in his career to talk about "all time"

ODI - Yes, he is ATG already. Amazing stats by any measures.

T20 - He remains not out a lot, and had exceptional 2016. But T20 still feels a relatively new format, and the averages can be very volatile.

Tests - He just had his best year. The only memorable performance before this was the series in Australia. Otherwise, he has had only a "good" career at best. He has long way to go before being ATG in tests.

Many batsmen have their best years between 28-33. MoYo, Ponting, Sangakkara had such amazing years during their peak. Let's see how many great years Kohli can have in future, and if he can help India WIN in England, Australia, South Africa.

Although he might be slightly past his prime, AB Devilliers is probably ahead of Kohli in being called as the all time great in all formats. He has 50+ averages in tests and ODIs over much longer timeframes, and he is probably more destructive and feared batsman in T20s (although he averages only 24). But ABDV has 10 not outs in 68 innings to Kohli's 12 not outs in 41.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Too early in his career to talk about "all time"

ODI - Yes, he is ATG already. Amazing stats by any measures.

T20 - He remains not out a lot, and had exceptional 2016. But T20 still feels a relatively new format, and the averages can be very volatile.

Tests - He just had his best year. The only memorable performance before this was the series in Australia. Otherwise, he has had only a "good" career at best. He has long way to go before being ATG in tests.

Many batsmen have their best years between 28-33. MoYo, Ponting, Sangakkara had such amazing years during their peak. Let's see how many great years Kohli can have in future, and if he can help India WIN in England, Australia, South Africa.

Although he might be slightly past his prime, AB Devilliers is probably ahead of Kohli in being called as the all time great in all formats. He has 50+ averages in tests and ODIs over much longer timeframes, and he is probably more destructive and feared batsman in T20s (although he averages only 24). But ABDV has 10 not outs in 68 innings to Kohli's 12 not outs in 41.

While not outs boost his average in T20, you have to note what KIND of not outs Kohli has.

He is not out cos he completes the chase without getting out. Its not a case of him staying not out while others crumble to a low score leaving his stats unaffected.

In T20s, if a top order bat remains not out a lot of times (with a good SR)., it means he is a supreme match winner. So 50 average in T20 actually reflects Kohli's ability.

ABD has been not out less times cos he gets out. Plus he rarely ever has taken his team home in crunch games in T20s be it T20I or IPL. Kohli too has flopped in a lot on IPL crunch games but he has been a super beast in T20I crunch games.

 

[jeetu]

I still would wait few more years to label Kohli that. But he does prove that 50+ avg is possible in all 3 formats.

 

[transitional]

Yes, Kohli is probably ahead of ABDV in T20s. Average of 57 vs 24 - is too far ahead. I agree with you.

But ABDV has averages 50+ after 100+ tests AND 54 at SR of 99 after 200+ ODIs. So he is ahead overall as of now, for the "complete batsman" for all formats title IMO.

 

[Mamoon]

Kohli is comfortably a better batsman than de Villiers, will pick him ahead of the latter in any format. de Villiers is the most overrated player in history.

 

[Chrish]

He might suppress Sachin (including in tests)

Foolish statement perhaps but what he has achieved this years is nothing sort of supernatural.. Didn't he score like 8-10 consecutive 50s in t20?

He doesn't get satisfied with scoring 110-120 and has insatiable appetite for runs/ win

 

[Napa]

While not outs boost his average in T20, you have to note what KIND of not outs Kohli has.

Statistics theory says counting not outs do not boost a player's average. Treat each ball as an independent event.

The average run scored by a batsman is the average expected runs scored per ball divided by the probability of getting out per ball.

Counting innings with not outs gives the right average, not counting underestimates the average.

 

[Big Mac]

I still would wait few more years to label Kohli that. But he does prove that 50+ avg is possible in all 3 formats.

^^^^^

He's in incredible form at the moment but let's wait before we start talking about all-time.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Statistics theory says counting not outs do not boost a player's average. Treat each ball as an independent event.

The average run scored by a batsman is the average expected runs scored per ball divided by the probability of getting out per ball.

Counting innings with not outs gives the right average, not counting underestimates the average.

I was talking from a game impact point of view than pure stats. There are good not outs and bad not outs.

If a player scores 50*(60), 60*(50), 70(55) in a high scoring 3 match T20 series....statistically, he would average 180 but impact wise he probably played 2 match losing innings (maybe even 3). So in such cases, his average of 180 in a series is almost meaningless compared to someone averaging 70 or even 50 at a higher rate while helping his team sweep the series.

 

[Itachi]

I think.... There are players with equivalent capability if not better.

But what stands out is.... His work ethic and mental strength.

I see Tendus hunger of reaching excellence in him.

Not many people can continue that with that much intensity year after year.

 

[street cricketer]

Not sure if he's the most complete batsman of all time because the sport is more than 150 years old and has seen so many characters. And Kohli has a long way to go in the longer format although he is on the right path.

Can only judge with the present generation and what sets Kohli apart is his unique ability to appear at utmost ease on any surface. I saw him play on a green seamer in Dhaka against Pakistan when Amir was swinging corners and Kohli was the only batsman who looked remotely close to being comfortable at the crease while the rest of the batsmen from both sides looked like fish out of water. Fast forward two weeks after and you have a minefield in Kolkata when the ball was spitting and turning. Kohli looked like he was batting on a different venue in that match.

Then you go to Vizag in the 2nd innings of the 2nd test between India and England when there was variable bounce with one ball staying high and another staying low. Everyone found it very difficult to bat on it but not Kohli. The very next match India faced a daunting prospect of a deficit of 400 runs after England's first innings on a square turner and guy breezes to a double hundred without breaking a sweat. Think that's one unique quality of his, he rarely if ever appears out of control while he's batting. I don't quite get the same vibe from any other batsman in world cricket atm.

 

[BestEver]

Sanga never helped sri lanka in winning matches in India, Aus, NZ and SA.
Ponting was a failure in India.

Kohli far better batsman than AB in T20I

Runs/Innings in T20I

AB - 20.11 with 8 half-centuries
Kohli - 40.41 with 16 half-centuries

Kohli has more not outs because kohli finished matches. AB hardely ever finnished T20 a match and failed in WT20s

 

[Etherealistic]

Currently no batsman in the entire world is as dependable, as determined and as responsible in guiding his team to a win than Virat Kohli. His mindset is win-at-all cost. He's been magnificent in all forms of the game. Long may it continue. He does make us proud. 2

 

[Hasan123]

Certainly a future great no doubt. Can play clutch knocks in LO and has the perfect strategy to score runs in these formats with rotation of strike and playing percentage shots.

In tests he is finding his feet. A golden summer in England in 2018 puts him inches away from greatness. Will back him to score runs everywhere else just needs to score in England which I believe he will. He's a much better player than he was in 2014.

 

[shaz619]

He has a chance to be a legend in the pro-batting modern era of flat pitches etc overall I doubt it in Tests as I've seen very little which suggests otherwise

 

[BestEver]

Certainly a future great no doubt. Can play clutch knocks in LO and has the perfect strategy to score runs in these formats with rotation of strike and playing percentage shots.

In tests he is finding his feet. A golden summer in England in 2018 puts him inches away from greatness. Will back him to score runs everywhere else just needs to score in England which I believe he will. He's a much better player than he was in 2014.

Not Scoring Runs in England doesn't mean that he can not be ATG.
Ponting failed in India on all Six tours.
Sanga's Outside asia stats are ordinary(worse than kohli's). Even failed in India
Dravid's stats in SA and Aus not Impressive at all.

They all are Hailed as Test Cricket Greats.

 

[BestEver]

He has a chance to be a legend in the pro-batting modern era of flat pitches etc overall I doubt it in Tests as I've seen very little which suggests otherwise

Interestingly Avg. First Class Runs scored in diff. Eras are almost same. This pro-batting batting era talks are just to overrate the abilities of batsmen before 80s

 

[Hasan123]

Not Scoring Runs in England doesn't mean that he can not be ATG.
Ponting failed in India on all Six tours.
Sanga's Outside asia stats are ordinary(worse than kohli's). Even failed in India
Dravid's stats in SA and Aus not Impressive at all.

They all are Hailed as Test Cricket Greats.

I know but it's the only place where he hasn't scored heavily and many pundits especially English pundits hold it against him. Scoring there will leave cement his greatness.

 

[BestEver]

I know but it's the only place where he hasn't scored heavily and many pundits especially English pundits hold it against him. Scoring there will leave cement his greatness.

Who Cares for English Pandits. They hates WI's Celebration. Pakistan's press-ups. They are Bunch of crybabies. you think anyone in India care what a below avg. batsmen like Mike atherton and Nasseer think about KOhli ? They hardly had an all round batsmen in their 150 years long history. Talking about abilities of other countries batsmen is something they are doing for quite some time.

 

[Hitman]

Who Cares for English Pandits. They hates WI's Celebration. Pakistan's press-ups. They are Bunch of crybabies. you think anyone in India care what a below avg. batsmen like Mike atherton and Nasseer think about KOhli ? They hardly had an all round batsmen in their 150 years long history. Talking about abilities of other countries batsmen is something they are doing for quite some time.

Jack Hobbs, arguably the best batsman after Bradman.

 

[Arham_PakFan]

He's a LOI ATG while he's getting there in tests.Best batsman in the world currently but don't know about All Time.

 

[BestEver]

Jack Hobbs, arguably the best batsman after Bradman.

There were no pundits back then. No footages to analyse technique. No play on diff. kind of pitches. Every Player was a big player and even Adam voges, Steve smith, Sanga has better Avg. than him.

 

[transitional]

Okay, here is my shorter reply from earlier discussion:

ODI - ATG
T20 - ATG, with grain of salt
Tests - Nowhere close to being ATG!!

Tests- Kohli has been playing since 2011. The only time he was "outstanding" was in one season in Australia 2014-15, and all of 2016. His average is barely over 50 now. Nothing really out of this world, YET.

All the great players - Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Sangakkara, Kallis, Dravid - had several years like Kohli 2016 before they were called ATG. So lets WAIT.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Jack Hobbs, arguably the best batsman after Bradman.

Don't think so, I rate Pollock, Sobers, Tendulkar equally if not better.

 

[shaz619]

Interestingly Avg. First Class Runs scored in diff. Eras are almost same. This pro-batting batting era talks are just to overrate the abilities of batsmen before 80s

Luxury of flat pitches and pro-batting era in modern times have boosted his prowess as a batsman and his greatness is being advocated at the Test level, he's also lucky not to be facing ATG bowling attacks on flat pitches further boosting his stats.

 

[BestEver]

Luxury of flat pitches and pro-batting era in modern times have boosted his prowess as a batsman and his greatness is being advocated at the Test level, he's also lucky not to be facing ATG bowling attacks on flat pitches further boosting his stats.

So acc. to you there won't be a ATG batsman in World cricket from now on. Sachin was the last.

OK Bradman.

 

[BestEver]

Luxury of flat pitches and pro-batting era in modern times have boosted his prowess as a batsman and his greatness is being advocated at the Test level, he's also lucky not to be facing ATG bowling attacks on flat pitches further boosting his stats.

BTW, Acc. to you in which year did this pro-batting era came into existence ?

 

[sajeebmcj]

i don't know whether he fits in the list of accomplished batsman. but i know he is the t20 GOAT, Second best odi batsman after devilliers and fourth or fifth best test batsman of this on going decade.

 

[Hitman]

There were no pundits back then. No footages to analyse technique. No play on diff. kind of pitches. Every Player was a big player and even Adam voges, Steve smith, Sanga has better Avg. than him.

Sanga has a far superior average than Lara as well. So what?

 

[Hitman]

Don't think so, I rate Pollock, Sobers, Tendulkar equally if not better.

That's the point. Jack Hobbs is in their league.

 

[BestEver]

Sanga has a far superior average than Lara as well. So what?

So does Adam Voges. you think he is a world class player ?

 

[shaz619]

So acc. to you there won't be a ATG batsman in World cricket from now on. Sachin was the last.

OK Bradman.

BTW, Acc. to you in which year did this pro-batting era came into existence ?

When the laws were changed to favour batsman and pitches became flatter, never say never but I won't call anyone an ATG when they average what like 10 in England? and a few good performances in Tests, fans who have studied the game won't resort to superficial, narrow minded nonsense. Not a big fan of Tendulkar but don't mention him in the same sentence as the Motorway King Kohli or Bradman for that matter.

 

[R0H1T]

When the laws were changed to favour batsman and pitches became flatter, never say never but I won't call anyone an ATG when they average what like 10 in England? and a few good performances in Tests, fans who have studied the game won't resort to superficial, narrow minded nonsense. Not a big fan of Tendulkar but don't mention him in the same sentence as the Motorway King Kohli or Bradman for that matter.

So in your opinion SRT is better than Bradman, finally

 

[BestEver]

When the laws were changed to favour batsman and pitches became flatter, never say never but I won't call anyone an ATG when they average what like 10 in England? and a few good performances in Tests, fans who have studied the game won't resort to superficial, narrow minded nonsense. Not a big fan of Tendulkar but don't mention him in the same sentence as the Motorway King Kohli or Bradman for that matter.

Never said Kohli is as good as sachin was. just mentioned his achievement that no one else ever achieved in cricket yet and no batsman playing right now looking as good to achieve this feat. you just came here with your thoughts of Pro-batting era and everyone is playing just a meaningless games in which all are Avg. players with no one good enough. Just a guy living in past. who think a batsman who play Reverse sweep can never be test batsman.

 

[shaz619]

So in your opinion SRT is better than Bradman, finally

That was a typo or maybe it wasn't

 

[Hitman]

So does Adam Voges. you think he is a world class player ?

Beg your pardon, but Adam Voges played merely 20 odd Tests.

 

[shaz619]

Never said Kohli is as good as sachin was. just mentioned his achievement that no one else ever achieved in cricket yet and no batsman playing right now looking as good to achieve this feat. you just came here with your thoughts of Pro-batting era and everyone is playing just a meaningless games in which all are Avg. players with no one good enough. Just a guy living in past. who think a batsman who play Reverse sweep can never be test batsman.

Maybe by factoring in the past and present my opinion is far more objective then those living in modern times, I've studied the game across all the era's and it seems a couple of hundreds on flat pitches these days are enough for people to accept that a cricketer is an ATG, greatness can certainly be achieved in modern times to but I guess you have lower standards.

 

[R0H1T]

That was a typo or maybe it wasn't

But for the fact that you (probably?) hate Kohli's guts, not unlike Negan hating Rick, I generally like everything you post

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Best batsman in tests along with Smith and best batsman overall if you consider all formats .

 

[Justcrazy]

Kohli will break tendulkar record of most hundred in OD and most runs.

 

[Vivek_86]

Kohli will break tendulkar record of most hundred in OD and most runs.

ODI maybe , but tests not.

 

[GullyCricketFlop]

In the Limited over formats he is an ATG.He is not a test ATG yet,although he had an amazing year.Lets see how he does in the future.

 

[BestEver]

Maybe by factoring in the past and present my opinion is far more objective then those living in modern times, I've studied the game across all the era's and it seems a couple of hundreds on flat pitches these days are enough for people to accept that a cricketer is an ATG, greatness can certainly be achieved in modern times to but I guess you have lower standards.

3 out of 5 highest test innings total was before 1960 and 1 in 1197. 3 0f them with Run rate more than 3. bowling friendly tracks ?

Thats why asked you for year. so i can pull some stats. because i wasn't born then to watch those glorious games you are talking about.

 

[shaz619]

3 out of 5 highest test innings total was before 1960 and 1 in 1197. 3 0f them with Run rate more than 3. bowling friendly tracks ?

Thats why asked you for year. so i can pull some stats. because i wasn't born then to watch those glorious games you are talking about.

Your all about the stats which you often take out of context forming an inept opinion which is incredibly laughable, the nature of the wicket, quality of bowling attack and the laws of the game are all fundamental factors which need to be looked at when judging a batsman across all era's, video footage is essential but so are peer reviews and literature which would broaden your knowledge of the game. Unfortunately all it takes is a couple of knocks on flat decks to boost an average in the modern era and you got superficial people calling so and so ATG, the Motorway King got a long way to go at the Test Level before we even entertain the idea of a legendary status; it seems to me it is stats alone which are pivotal factor more then anything and India's obsession with them is why you've never quiet produced the ultimate GOAT at the Test Level

 

[shaz619]

But for the fact that you (probably?) hate Kohli's guts, not unlike Negan hating Rick, I generally like everything you post

I don't hate Kohli, I enjoy watching him bat in ODI's I just don't agree with people over hyping him, same is with Smith. They are good players but not ATG's in Tests.

 

[Sachin136]

I don't hate Kohli, I enjoy watching him bat in ODI's I just don't agree with people over hyping him, same is with Smith. They are good players but not ATG's in Tests.

Who said they were?

 

[R0H1T]

I don't hate Kohli, I enjoy watching him bat in ODI's I just don't agree with people over hyping him, same is with Smith. They are good players but not ATG's in Tests.

They may or may not end up as (test) ATG's but as you rightly said their output has increased significantly due to the roads we see on offer today. Smith with his awful technique would probably have averaged no more than early 40's if he were playing in the decade of 90's & that with his purple patch. If the bowlers didn't get him I'm sure the movement off the track would, same with Kohli.

The fact that we don't see "all track" bowlers exaggerates the output of HTB or FTB, though it also has a lot to do with the way ODI & especially T20, seeing how they've changed the cricketing landscape. The point being good players cash in massively on roads, with their ODI & T20 strokes, whilst on tracks with a bit of nip they fall like nine pins far more often than the past gen of greats or ATG.

 

[world cup captain]

i don't know whether he fits in the list of accomplished batsman. but i know he is the t20 GOAT, Second best odi batsman after devilliers and fourth or fifth best test batsman of this on going decade.

Huh? AB is ahead of Kohli in ODIs? How? One takes his team home most of the time while the other succumbs to pressure most of the time.

Who are the better players? I can only see Cook and Smith ahead of Kohli. That's it.

 

[Barragan]

I think he is a wonderful ODI batsman and already on track for ATG status in ODI's, but I'm not convinced with him as a Test batsman.

Still a long way to go for him in Tests.

As for T20I's, I'd still pick McCullum or Gayle ahead of him, despite his 50+ average.

 

[oneindia]

He is an absolute beast, with a beast-like mentality. I'm envious...It's not fair, we get guys like Umar Akmal and Shahzad and you've guys like Kohli and Rahane.

When we had the likes of Manoj Prabhakar, You had Wasim & Waqar. When we has Venky Prasad, you got Akhtar, totally not fair!!

 

[Sin Nombre]

Atm no there ain't anyone out there who'll be able to repeat this feat. Maybe someone sometime in the future, but even then they'll have a mighty hard time managing an avg in excess of 50 across all three formats.

Mostly because of T20Is; AB and Amla (until the last test) had the first 2. QdK, Root, Williamson all are close to the first 2 as well.

The net to get all 3 has to be a newer player like Rahul or Babar (not counting after 3 games).

As for Kohli, he is currently


T20I - GOAT. man of the series in the last 2 WCs and also a jamodi beast. No other batsman has shown consistency in this format.

ODI - ATG. Needs to win India a WC to get to top 3 status. jamodi beast like the other ATG from this generation in de Villiers.

Tests - India great. Still some ways from ATG. He has 2 world class series so far (Aus away, Eng home). He needs to get that number past 5 to be considered in the ATG argument.

 

[Napa]

I think he is a wonderful ODI batsman and already on track for ATG status in ODI's, but I'm not convinced with him as a Test batsman.

Still a long way to go for him in Tests.

As for T20I's, I'd still pick McCullum or Gayle ahead of him, despite his 50+ average.

In the last 6 months he has raised his average in Tests from 44.02 to 50.10. That's incredible.

Gayle may score faster in some games, but his technique and reliability is nowhere close to Kohli's. That is the reason why Kohli averages 57.13 after 45 games and Gayle averages 35.32 after 50 games.

To say that you would prefer a player who averages 35 to one who averages 57 is either due to a lack of information or deep bias.

 

[shaz619]

They may or may not end up as (test) ATG's but as you rightly said their output has increased significantly due to the roads we see on offer today. Smith with his awful technique would probably have averaged no more than early 40's if he were playing in the decade of 90's & that with his purple patch. If the bowlers didn't get him I'm sure the movement off the track would, same with Kohli.

The fact that we don't see "all track" bowlers exaggerates the output of HTB or FTB, though it also has a lot to do with the way ODI & especially T20, seeing how they've changed the cricketing landscape. The point being good players cash in massively on roads, with their ODI & T20 strokes, whilst on tracks with a bit of nip they fall like nine pins far more often than the past gen of greats or ATG.

It's the same reason why I believe Sachin was on another level in ODi's aswell in comparison to Virat Kohli, we've seen him flourish on a variety of wickets against world class bowling, many hall of famers; that too at an S/R which would hold in the modern era which is insane. Kohli is good but we've seen him struggle in challenging conditions never mind the quality of bowling or the evolving laws in favour of modern batsman, bigger bats and boundaries etc so it doesn't sit well with me when stars are overly hyped these days. Am not saying that greatness can't be achieved because it will always be easier for bats these days but in the few instances where they come across a challenging situation they need to flourish 9 times out of 10 at a consistent level for me to even contemplate putting them on a level playing field as Sachin and Viv Richards. I was looking at Sachin record in the 90's today the wickets he played on, his S/R and the bowling attacks in the 90's it was pretty incredible really and he use to open to!

 

[Bilal7]

He's not a complete batsman. Almost every time that Kohli has been faced with a pacer-friendly pitch, he has been exposed. Junaid, Steyn, Anderson, etc will all attest to this.

Sachin was the more complete batsman and from today's batsmen, Amla, de Villiers and Root are much more complete batsman.

 

[Barragan]

In the last 6 months he has raised his average in Tests from 44.02 to 50.10. That's incredible.

Gayle may score faster in some games, but his technique and reliability is nowhere close to Kohli's. That is the reason why Kohli averages 57.13 after 45 games and Gayle averages 35.32 after 50 games.

To say that you would prefer a player who averages 35 to one who averages 57 is either due to a lack of information or deep bias.

So, that 6 months includes: WI away, Eng and NZ at home.

That doesn't sound like it is an incredible achievement and in fact, it is quite the norm.

Btw, 6 months doesn't equal a Test career, otherwise there are others who have done even better within a 6 month period.

Voges is the greatest batsman ever, going by your 6 month logic.

As for the Gayle comparison, both have roughly played the same number of games, with Gayle playing just 5 more, but the almost the same number of 50+ scores (15 for Gayle and 16 for Kohlli).

If you delve into the numbers, you'll realise Kohli's SR goes from 135 to 147, however Gayle's goes from 145 to 174 and a massive jump.

Gayle's 50+ scores are far greater in impact and match-winning.

Don't know who you're calling bias, but the numbers certainly don't back you up and tbh, it seems you are being blinded by bias and not me.

 

[Chrish]

Funny thing is people were criticizing him for not scoring runs in Asia before this home season.. Now that he has done it on minnefields that Ashwin and Jadeja owe all their success to, all of sudden it became easy FTB runs.

 

[Napa]

So, that 6 months includes: WI away, Eng and NZ at home.

That doesn't sound like it is an incredible achievement and in fact, it is quite the norm.

Btw, 6 months doesn't equal a Test career, otherwise there are others who have done even better within a 6 month period.

Voges is the greatest batsman ever, going by your 6 month logic.

As for the Gayle comparison, both have roughly played the same number of games, with Gayle playing just 5 more, but the almost the same number of 50+ scores (15 for Gayle and 16 for Kohlli).

If you delve into the numbers, you'll realise Kohli's SR goes from 135 to 147, however Gayle's goes from 145 to 174 and a massive jump.

Gayle's 50+ scores are far greater in impact and match-winning.

Don't know who you're calling bias, but the numbers certainly don't back you up and tbh, it seems you are being blinded by bias and not me.

So your argument is that we ignore averages and look at only 50+ scores. There are many different ways in which statistics are manipulated, and this attempt is certainly praiseworthy.

The difference in averages of 35 and 57 is so large, that if you still want to argue that you prefer the player with the 35 average, there is really no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Barragan]

So your argument is that we ignore averages and look at only 50+ scores. There are many different ways in which statistics are manipulated, and this attempt is certainly praiseworthy.

The difference in averages of 35 and 57 is so large, that if you still want to argue that you prefer the player with the 35 average, there is really no point in continuing this discussion.

Are you serious?

Do you even know, what average means?

An average implies, he hits a 57 score every game, but obviously that is not the case here and the average can vary, due to higher scores than 57 and coupled with some not outs.

Just to show you what I mean, if he scored 57 in every one of those 41 innings and didn't have not outs, he would amass a total 2337 runs and still have an average of 57.

But as I mentioned before, he only has one 50+ score more than Gayle, hence the 50+ score comparison is quite valid and a great way to compare them both.

 

[R0H1T]

So your argument is that we ignore averages and look at only 50+ scores. There are many different ways in which statistics are manipulated, and this attempt is certainly praiseworthy.

The difference in averages of 35 and 57 is so large, that if you still want to argue that you prefer the player with the 35 average, there is really no point in continuing this discussion.

Kohli averages over 100 in T20I this year IIRC, to undermine that you'll need a S/R well in excess of 200 & avg over 40. I doubt there's a top order bat who's achieved that ever in T20I, where the sample size is 10 or more.

 

[Napa]

Are you serious?

Do you even know, what average means?

<b>An average implies, he hits a 57 score every game,</b> but obviously that is not the case here and the average can vary, due to higher scores than 57 and coupled with some not outs.

Just to show you what I mean, if he scored 57 in every one of those 41 innings and didn't have not outs, he would amass a total 2337 runs and still have an average of 57.

But as I mentioned before, he only has one 50+ score more than Gayle, hence the 50+ score comparison is quite valid and a great way to compare them both.

No, an average does not mean that. This is not quite the place to teach statistics but I will just copy and paste something I wrote in another thread "Statistics theory says counting not outs do not boost a player's average. Treat each ball as an independent event. The average run scored by a batsman is the average expected runs scored per ball divided by the probability of getting out per ball. Counting innings with not outs gives the right average, not counting underestimates the average."

If Kohli and Gayle have played about the same number of innings and have scored about the same number of 50s, but have wildly different averages of 35 and 57, it could imply one of the following:

1) Gayle has a lot more low scores compared to Kohli, say a lot of single digit scores.
2) Kohli has many more high scores (say 75+) compared to Gayle.

etc. etc.

You wrote "the 50+ score comparison is quite valid and a great way to compare them both". The number of times they have 50+ scores is about a third of innings played. You are basically saying:

1) about 70% of innings played do not matter
2) a score of 45 is the same as a score of 5
3) a score of 85 is the same as a score of 55
etc. etc.

If you ever happen to take a stats course, I suggest you spend some time revising your current thinking.

 

[Tusker]

So, that 6 months includes: WI away, Eng and NZ at home.

That doesn't sound like it is an incredible achievement and in fact, it is quite the norm.

Btw, 6 months doesn't equal a Test career, otherwise there are others who have done even better within a 6 month period.

Voges is the greatest batsman ever, going by your 6 month logic.

As for the Gayle comparison, both have roughly played the same number of games, with Gayle playing just 5 more, but the almost the same number of 50+ scores (15 for Gayle and 16 for Kohlli).

If you delve into the numbers, you'll realise Kohli's SR goes from 135 to 147, however Gayle's goes from 145 to 174 and a massive jump.

Gayle's 50+ scores are far greater in impact and match-winning.

Don't know who you're calling bias, but the numbers certainly don't back you up and tbh, it seems you are being blinded by bias and not me.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ore1;template=results;type=batting;view=match

9 out of 12 Not outs have scores above 55 and Ind won 8 of those 9 with usually Kohli staying till the end. Even the not outs under 50 are matches that India Won. So not sure how you can claim Kohli inngs dont have Impact.

 

[Barragan]

No, an average does not mean that. This is not quite the place to teach statistics but I will just copy and paste something I wrote in another thread "Statistics theory says counting not outs do not boost a player's average. Treat each ball as an independent event. The average run scored by a batsman is the average expected runs scored per ball divided by the probability of getting out per ball. Counting innings with not outs gives the right average, not counting underestimates the average."

Are you trying to say, if he scored 57 and got out in those 41 innings, it wouldn't add to a total of 57 average?

If Kohli and Gayle have played about the same number of innings and have scored about the same number of 50s, but have wildly different averages of 35 and 57, it could imply one of the following:

1) Gayle has a lot more low scores compared to Kohli, say a lot of single digit scores.
2) Kohli has many more high scores (say 75+) compared to Gayle.

etc. etc.

Gayle is more prone to getting out at a lower score because of his style of play and that is exactly what you have explained.

You wrote "the 50+ score comparison is quite valid and a great way to compare them both". The number of times they have 50+ scores is about a third of innings played. You are basically saying:

1) about 70% of innings played do not matter
2) a score of 45 is the same as a score of 5
3) a score of 85 is the same as a score of 55
etc. etc.

If you ever happen to take a stats course, I suggest you spend some time revising your current thinking.

No, that 45 is not the same as a 5 run.

Simply put, a 50+ score is much more likely to yield a win than the other scores and even if you want to bring in 45+ scores, I don't mind because it would still prove Gayle's impact to be more.

 

[Barragan]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ore1;template=results;type=batting;view=match

9 out of 12 Not outs have scores above 55 and Ind won 8 of those 9 with usually Kohli staying till the end. Even the not outs under 50 are matches that India Won. So not sure how you can claim Kohli inngs dont have Impact.

How gives a crap about not outs?

This about 50+ scores and the impact between the two.

 

[Tusker]

How gives a crap about not outs?

This about 50+ scores and the impact between the two.

The point is that Kohli's avg is well justified no matter how you look at it ... he has more runs than Gayle in 6 less inngs and just to be sure he also stays there till the end which in cricket is an invaluable quality that can only be measured by Not outs and the no.of runs he has in each not out inngs (and ofcourse the result). The only thing going for Gayle is his Strike rate.

And then there is this stat ( runs scored while Chasing ) : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...y=runs;result=1;template=results;type=batting

Kohli clearly well ahead of Gayle here.

 

[Barragan]

The point is that Kohli's avg is well justified no matter how you look at it ... he has more runs than Gayle in 6 less inngs and just to be sure he also stays there till the end which in cricket is an invaluable quality that can only be measured by Not outs and the no.of runs he has in each not out inngs (and ofcourse the result). The only thing going for Gayle is his Strike rate.

And then there is this stat ( runs scored while Chasing ) : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...y=runs;result=1;template=results;type=batting

Kohli clearly well ahead of Gayle here.

I don't give a crap about his average, that's the whole point.

Unless he hits 57 every match (even if he gets out and scores no more than that), then it truly would have been a remarkable and extraordinary effort.

Staying 85* off 58 is not better than 85 off 49.

Also, read this:

As for the Gayle comparison, both have roughly played the same number of games, with Gayle playing just 5 more, but the almost the same number of 50+ scores (15 for Gayle and 16 for Kohlli).

If you delve into the numbers, you'll realise Kohli's SR goes from 135 to 147, however Gayle's goes from 145 to 174 and a massive jump.

Gayle's 50+ scores are far greater in impact and match-winning.

Lastly, SR is a huge part of T20's and it is obviously going to play a vital role in the comparison.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Lol @ Amla as a complete batsmen.

Amla is brilliant test batsmen, an okay ODI batsmen (nowhere near the same impact as Kohli) and is a non-entity in T20s.

De Villiers is a brilliant ODI batsmen (with ability to choke whenever it is important to score) , a good test batsmen (with ability to bat but nowhere near the impact as Amla has ) and a brilliant T20 batsmen.

Kohli is a brilliant ODI batsmen (no choking, continuous runs all the time) , a good test batsmen (who is improving consistently in the Test Arena) and a brilliant T20 batsmen (averages more than 50 while making sure his team wins 75 percent plus time).

Root is a good batsmen in all 3 formats.

But as some of our biased fans say .. despite all this evidence of Amla being the poorer of 3 players in 2 categories (ODI and T20) some have him as a complete batsmen.

Lmao.

The irony couldn't be stronger.

 

[Justcrazy]

ODI maybe , but tests not.

I am talking about OD , he already has 26 hundreds.

 

[heddie19]

Huh? AB is ahead of Kohli in ODIs? How? One takes his team home most of the time while the other succumbs to pressure most of the time.

Who are the better players? I can only see Cook and Smith ahead of Kohli. That's it.

You're saying as if AB has never played match winning innings. They're more than kohli's in ODI fyi

 

[Tusker]

I don't give a crap about his average, that's the whole point.

Unless he hits 57 every match (even if he gets out and scores no more than that), then it truly would have been a remarkable and extraordinary effort.

Staying 85* off 58 is not better than 85 off 49.

not all the time ... a great example is Misbah in that 2007 WC Final. By repeatedly staying till the End Kohli almost guarantees a win. This is an outstanding aspecT and the not outs are the only way to statistically point that out. Gayle can have as many fifties as Kohli but without the staying power he will more often have to rely on others to finish the job.

 

[Bilal7]

not all the time ... a great example is Misbah in that 2007 WC Final. By repeatedly staying till the End Kohli almost guarantees a win. This is an outstanding aspecT and the not outs are the only way to statistically point that out. Gayle can have as many fifties as Kohli but without the staying power he will more often have to rely on others to finish the job.

Gayle is an opener. Kohli bats at #3 and #4 for India. Much harder to bat through 20 overs than it is to bat through 13-15 overs.

 

[BestEver]

He's not a complete batsman. Almost every time that Kohli has been faced with a pacer-friendly pitch, he has been exposed. Junaid, Steyn, Anderson, etc will all attest to this.

Sachin was the more complete batsman and from today's batsmen, Amla, de Villiers and Root are much more complete batsman.

Wrong.
Anderson is past. That failure was more than 2.5 years ago. Kohli is way better batsman now.

Junaid is an other over hyped pakistani bowler like Wahab living on his performance vs India 4 years ago. Kohli had scored in much difficult conditions after that.

Kohli did scored Runs In SA with Avg. of 60+ against steyn, Philander, Morkel.
with a 100 in first innings and 96 in 2nd and Johannesburg.

Amla and AB are good but not as good in T20I. Joe root failed in Aus. NZ and even Bangladesh, hasn't played in Sri yet. and Joe scored most of his runs at home and he is not as good in LOI as in test. Smith is best in test right now but he too ain't a good LOI batsman.

 

[BestEver]

Gayle is an opener. Kohli bats at #3 and #4 for India. Much harder to bat through 20 overs than it is to bat through 13-15 overs.

Gayle is good T20 Batsman but failed every time in crunch situation and on tough wickets.

 

[BestEver]

it seems to me it is stats alone which are pivotal factor more then anything and India's obsession with them is why you've never quiet produced the ultimate GOAT at the Test Level

So India never produced an Ultimate GOAT at test level. Sachin and Gavasker not a GOAT. Sachin is considered as one of the top 5 cricketers of all time. one of the most complete batsman. yeah but No because a guy on online forum know all about 150 Years old game. every player in the game yet is just and ordinary player.

BTW we are rating players on kind of condition they are playing in world right now. Not on how would they perform in conditions 40 or 50 years ago.

 

[BestEver]

I don't hate Kohli, I enjoy watching him bat in ODI's I just don't agree with people over hyping him, same is with Smith. They are good players but not ATG's in Tests.

No one mentioned Kohli as an ATG in test. Just mentioned that He is a complete batsman in world right now who can perform equally good in all three formats.

 

[Napa]

Are you trying to say, if he scored 57 and got out in those 41 innings, it wouldn't add to a total of 57 average?

I said an average of 57 does not mean that he has scored 57 in every innings.
I did not say that scoring 57 in every innings will not lead to an average of 57.

You are making the most basic logic error.
A -> B
does not imply B -> A
all it does is to imply "not B" -> "not A"

Gayle is more prone to getting out at a lower score because of his style of play and that is exactly what you have explained.

So you prefer a player who is more prone to getting out at a lower score. Very odd or likely just biased.

Simply put, a 50+ score is much more likely to yield a win than the other scores and even if you want to bring in 45+ scores, I don't mind because it would still prove Gayle's impact to be more.

No, it won't prove Gayle's impact. Even if one goes by your illogical criteria, the percentage of innings that Kohli scores 50s is more than Gayle, but you still prefer Gayle. At this point your arguments are getting increasingly unconvincing and I won't continue after this post.

 

[Junaids]

There was this thread three years ago:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/sh...-three-formats

Exact three year later on Dec.10,2016 VIRAT KOHLI became the first ever batsman to average 50+ in all three formats.
Only batsmen in the world to avg. 50+ in Tests, ODIs, T20Is, First Class And List A cricket right now
Tests - 50.10
ODIs - 52.93
T20Is - 57.13
First Class - 51.66
List A - 52.09

No other Batsman have managed to achieve this feat.

Is there any batsmen in world cricket right now who can do this ?

If 20% of the criteria relates to T20i, then "all-time" started less than 12 years ago!

Kohli is terrific but on modern 50 and 20 overs pitches with gigantic bats and short boundaries and bizarre "wide" rules, Barry and Viv Richards would have been terrifying!