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

[Junaids]

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.

I'll accept that when I see Kohli repeatedly score 20 in five hours to try to save a match!

 

[Hasan123]

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.

Lol agree with this. Kohli centuries in Australia are played down due to being on flat pitches, the irony is Amla's triple century vs England in 2012 came on one of the flattest English pitches.

 

[SL_Fan]

Kohli has made a fair case thus far no doubt about that. Obviously early days yet and he has only just started to take his game to another level in Tests but to average 50+ in all three forms after 50 or so matches is an unreal achievement. All this batting is easier now stuff to downplay it is just nonsense. If that's the only reason then surely there should be a few more in that bracket. Not the case far from it.

 

[Mamoon]

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.

I don't know why people keep underrating Smith. He is a brilliant ODI batsman who has been as good as anyone since 2014, and has a century in a World Cup semifinal and a fifty in the final.

He is below Kohli and Root in T20Is but only a matter of time before he finds his feet in this format as well.

 

[JattMaula]

Kohli has failed in England and in both ODI world cups. What's so complete about him?

 

[Ozymandiasza]

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.

The SA series isn't really something to brag about. Nine batsmen, including Philander, averaged 60+ during that series. Almost 1400 runs were scored during the first test alone. The second test India lost by 10 wickets with Kohli being quite average.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

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.

So just to get this straight, he chokes every time it's important to score?

 

[Protea Fan]

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.

Yes i remember the last time kohli hammering australians at sydney cricket ground in the semifinals where De Villiers succumbing to pressure by hitting 65 at almost 150 odd strikerate

Kohli is an insane talent but stop overhyping him by dispatching other players

 

[Vivek_86]

The SA series isn't really something to brag about. Nine batsmen, including Philander, averaged 60+ during that series. Almost 1400 runs were scored during the first test alone. The second test India lost by 10 wickets with Kohli being quite average.

Typical explanation by looking at Stats without watching the match. That first test was a quintessential SA pitch which was lively for a couple of days . Check the scorecard of that one and then talk

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Typical explanation by looking at Stats without watching the match. That first test was a quintessential SA pitch which was lively for a couple of days . Check the scorecard of that one and then talk

I watched the match live, thanks.

 

[Vivek_86]

I watched the match live, thanks.

What was your opinion about the first day pitch at the Wanderers?

 

[Ozymandiasza]

What was your opinion about the first day pitch at the Wanderers?

So first you insist I'm ignorant, insult me, and then ask for my opinion of the pitch. I think you got the order wrong there, pal.

Also, BestEver brought up the stats. Maybe you should tell him his ignorant as well without knowing if he watched/looked at the match.

I'll answer your question though: I don't recall my exact thoughts.

 

[Vivek_86]

So first you insist I'm ignorant, insult me, and then ask for my opinion of the pitch. I think you got the order wrong there, pal.

Also, BestEver brought up the stats. Maybe you should tell him his ignorant as well without knowing if he watched/looked at the match.

I'll answer your question though: I don't recall my exact thoughts.

I am sorry if I sounded insulting. I never meant that way. Poor choice of words I would say.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

I am sorry if I sounded insulting. I never meant that way. Poor choice of words I would say.

No worries then.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Amla
Smith
Root
Devilliers
Qdk

Are more complete batsmen to Kohli, he has still a lot of achieve and prove in test and 50 over world cups to be treated as legend.

 

[Vivek_86]

Amla
Smith
Root
Devilliers
Qdk

Are more complete batsmen to Kohli, he has still a lot of achieve and prove in test and 50 over world cups to be treated as legend.

What has QDK achieved that Kohli hasn't?

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

What has QDK achieved that Kohli hasn't?

He is a south paw, looks stylish, keeps wickets, opens the batting in odi's, bats most of the time in bowling friendly SA pitches(except when India/ Kohli visit and score on those pitches), has not failed in ENG(doesn't matter whether he has toured or not), has a superior test batting avg and sr, he's not Indian

 

[Zeshan547]

Yeah statistically kohli have a case but to be actually claim this he will have to be best player in next ODI WC which is also in country where he have very average record albeit in different format, and he have to have atleast decent record in test in england, and if he can get those two things and still maintaini 50 plus average till 2020, than atleast for me he would be the greatest batsman the world has ever seen. Period.

 

[leatherface58]

I would rate Steve Smith comfortably above Kohli for the time being in tests. Smith has been unstoppable everywhere. His team let him down in Sri Lanka and he is a mediocre captain but as a batsman, he is peerless. This after they mismanaged him and tried turning him into Shane Warne 2.0.

Kohli is way ahead in ODIs and T20s but Smith is very good in ODIs and sure to be good in T20s.

 

[street cricketer]

I find the doubts over his T20I batting to be funny. In fact, he has the most legitimate claim to greatness in T20s than any other format. He just had a phenomenal year in Test cricket but needs to do it for a longer period. He's unbelievable in ODIs but still hasn't done anything befitting his stature in world cups. But in T20s, he's unarguably the GOAT. Consistently brilliant, has an outstanding record in world cups and has a great record in knockouts including the final. To average 50+ along with all this is comfortably better than his nearest competitor.

People probably mistake his way of playing along the ground and equate it to having less impact while find bish bashers like Finch as having more impact. I don't see how Gayle is better than him as a T20 batsman. Kohli is better in consistency. Performs in probably 8/10 matches. I can understand the "impact" criticisms if he's an Amla or Williamson like batsman. But the guy sees till the end that the match is finished almost entirely engineering many chases, which Gayle is not really great at. Doesn't help his cause that he chokes in the big matches unlike Kohli. The only aspect Gayle is better at is playing that humongous innings that he does once in every 10 or 15 matches and his ability to hit big sixes, which Kohli doesn't need to as he's excellent at playing conventional cricket shots.

 

[street cricketer]

The SA series isn't really something to brag about. Nine batsmen, including Philander, averaged 60+ during that series. Almost 1400 runs were scored during the first test alone. The second test India lost by 10 wickets with Kohli being quite average.

Your point would hold true if Kohli had made hay just in the 2nd innings after the pitch had flattened out. But he made his ton in the first innings in the very first day of the series with India and South Africa making 280 and 244 respectively in their first innings.

The 2nd test at Durban was actually more spin friendly with Jadeja taking a 5fer and Robin Peterson taking a 4fer.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Your point would hold true if Kohli had made hay just in the 2nd innings after the pitch had flattened out. But he made his ton in the first innings in the very first day of the series with India and South Africa making 280 and 244 respectively in their first innings.

The 2nd test at Durban was actually more spin friendly with Jadeja taking a 5fer and Robin Peterson taking a 4fer.

True, it was a good knock. There have been greater knocks in SA by "lesser" players. Also, that's not what BestEver said, now is it? He's pointing to the 60+ average in SA using 2 matches as a sample size. Where one match was a run fest.

I guess I should have made my point clearer. Using that 60+ avg stat isn't really a valid indicator of his performance in SA.

Let's look at his ODI average in SA vs SA then:

If I'm using this right he averages only 37.33 in SA against SA after 8 matches. I think we can safely say he's been "not that good" in SA.

I see a huge difference (60+ vs 37) there. So I feel confident when I say that his test average, in SA vs SA, using 2 tests of which one was a run fest, as a bragging point is wrong.

 

[jusarrived]

Amla
Smith
Root
Devilliers
Qdk

Are more complete batsmen to Kohli, he has still a lot of achieve and prove in test and 50 over world cups to be treated as legend.

None of the batsmen you have listed have proved themselves to be better than Virat if you apply the same criteria . Amla and QDK in the list is a joke .

 

[shaz619]

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.

I wouldn't say equally good, he is better at ODI's and T20I's then he's at Tests

 

[street cricketer]

True, it was a good knock. There have been greater knocks in SA by "lesser" players. Also, that's not what BestEver said, now is it? He's pointing to the 60+ average in SA using 2 matches as a sample size. Where one match was a run fest.

I guess I should have made my point clearer. Using that 60+ avg stat isn't really a valid indicator of his performance in SA.

Let's look at his ODI average in SA vs SA then:

If I'm using this right he averages only 37.33 in SA against SA after 8 matches. I think we can safely say he's been "not that good" in SA.

I see a huge difference (60+ vs 37) there. So I feel confident when I say that his test average, in SA vs SA, using 2 tests of which one was a run fest, as a bragging point is wrong.

Oh I was just talking about tests here. No complaints about ODIs. The Indian team as a whole flopped big time in that series when De Kock gave us the beating of our life time. Kohli has a lot to prove in odi cricket in south africa. Was talking more about test cricket here.

We can't correlate between two different formats as both are completely different ones and come with their own special requirements. Agree that it's a short sample size, but we can only go with what we have. He has performed well in the limited amount of test cricket he has played in South Africa and we shouldn't hold it against him. Guys like Ashwin are written off as a failure in overseas conditions with only a limited sample size. We can't have it both ways giving importance to a limited sample set for one cricketer when he has failed and ignoring the same limited sample set when another has succeeded.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Oh I was just talking about tests here. No complaints about ODIs. The Indian team as a whole flopped big time in that series when De Kock gave us the beating of our life time. Kohli has a lot to prove in odi cricket in south africa. Was talking more about test cricket here.

We can't correlate between two different formats as both are completely different ones and come with their own special requirements. Agree that it's a short sample size, but we can only go with what we have. He has performed well in the limited amount of test cricket he has played in South Africa and we shouldn't hold it against him. Guys like Ashwin are written off as a failure in overseas conditions with only a limited sample size. We can't have it both ways giving importance to a limited sample set for one cricketer when he has failed and ignoring the same limited sample set when another has succeeded.

Heh, I was actually using the ODI avg as a "fallback stat" seeing as how the test sample size is so small, and seeing how everybody rates his ODI abilities better. The massive difference betweeen the two, small sample size, and 2 match comparison with other players, indicates that the test average is inflated.

I agree about the double standard though. Either way, I suppose time will tell where Kohli ends up. My opinion would be that he's a bit overrated.

 

[FlickedOffHips]

kohli is the best batsmen across all formats. There's no two ways about this. That counts a lot in the modern game and can be used to make OP's argument BUT smith has been more productive in Tests over last couple years. That's a fact.

 

[street cricketer]

Heh, I was actually using the ODI avg as a "fallback stat" seeing as how the test sample size is so small, and seeing how everybody rates his ODI abilities better. The massive difference betweeen the two, small sample size, and 2 match comparison with other players, indicates that the test average is inflated.

I agree about the double standard though. Either way, I suppose time will tell where Kohli ends up. My opinion would be that he's a bit overrated.

Fair enough, as long as we apply the same standards, it's fine.

He has done well in whatever he has played in test cricket in South Africa. But I agree that next tour will be a big test for him, especially considering the possibility of green wickets India might receive next year.

 

[King Kong]

I just can't the flak ABD gets from some of the posters here. If we just look back at these, it was only one poster who started this campaign against ABD being a lesser player than his stats actually say. And then inferior people who can't form an opinion of own are just going by his posts.

In Tests, ABD is comfortably better than Kohli, who just started finding his feet in the longer format.

In ODIs, ABD has better average, strike rate, good average while chasing and what's not. Good in world cups statswise as well while Kohli has had average record in WCs. Kohli is great in ODIs, ABD is even greater. Though that could change if Kohli has an outstanding WC, then I will have him ahead of ABD.

In T20Is, Kohli is head and shoulders above ABD. But you can't give too much weight to shorter formats while rating players greatness.


What Kohli needs is to consolidate his 50+ average in tests by continuing this form for the next 3-4 years at least and a good WC in 2019.

 

[Ab Fan]

I would say yes but among current ones not overall.

Other contenders are Sachin, Ponting, Lara, AB, Smith and Root.

 

[Barragan]

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.

Let me put it this way:

If team A and team B were equal in every aspect, except one had a Gayle and the other a Kohli.

Gayle hits 85 at 174 for team A and Kohli hits 85* at 147 for team B, which one will have more impact?

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"



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



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.

Not entirely because Gayle has played only 6 more innings than Kohli, but there is only one 50+ score between them.

If Kohli scores another five or six 50+ scores in those 6 innings, then he will be regarded as the better without any doubt.

With an average of 57 and 35, you would think Kohli is miles ahead of Gayle with 50+ scores, but that is not the case.

 

[Sadevdesai]

If Kohli keeps up his average of 50 and above in all 3 formats, he should be considered as Greatest Batsman of all time ...... why not ????????

 

[Tusker]

Let me put it this way:

If team A and team B were equal in every aspect, except one had a Gayle and the other a Kohli.

Gayle hits 85 at 174 for team A and Kohli hits 85* at 147 for team B, which one will have more impact?

Well not all matches pan out that way in real life ... infact there are hardly any 2 teams that can be considered absolute equals. For Eg : WI have so many big hitters and India don't. But India still win plenty of matches by Kohli going at around 140 S/R. So unless if you have watched Kohli's inngs closely you cannot understand the importance of his wkt or runs depending on who you support.

To me the most stunning feature of his T20I batting is the near ZERO risk factor . You can pretty much be certain that he isnt going to get out till the inngs is over yet the man would have made a boat load of runs all through classical stroke play. Watch his inngs in Ind v Aus T20I ( ball by ball )earlier this year to see what I mean.

 

[Bilal7]

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.

Until Kohli scores some runs in pace-friendly conditions again, there is nothing to suggest that his weakness has been eradicated. Remember what Anderson said? You say Kohli had a 60+ in South Africa but forget that the series against England was AFTER he filled his boots on a South African pitch where the Saffers almost chased down the highest fourth innings total of all time. However, credit where it is due, he played out of his skin to get that first innings hundred in that match. He didn't do much of note in the second match however, and then was neutralized by the Saffers in the ODI series that followed the tests.

It's silly to say that Smith isn't a good LOI batsman or to act as if Amla and AB are terrible T20 players. They're all good/great players in every format of the game and most importantly, Amla, de Villiers and Root don't have any glaring weaknesses like Kohli does. That is what makes a batsman "balanced", not racking up fifties in a format that is barely a decade old.

 

[Barragan]

Well not all matches pan out that way in real life ... infact there are hardly any 2 teams that can be considered absolute equals. For Eg : WI have so many big hitters and India don't. But India still win plenty of matches by Kohli going at around 140 S/R. So unless if you have watched Kohli's inngs closely you cannot understand the importance of his wkt or runs depending on who you support.

To me the most stunning feature of his T20I batting is the near ZERO risk factor . You can pretty much be certain that he isnt going to get out till the inngs is over yet the man would have made a boat load of runs all through classical stroke play. Watch his inngs in Ind v Aus T20I ( ball by ball )earlier this year to see what I mean.

I was posing a hypothetical question, regarding the equal teams.

Also, the numbers also tell you Kohli goes around the 140's SR, so that is already known and I have seen Kohli in T20's, hence why I prefer Gayle.

Gayle scores 80 by 7.5 overs, whilst Kohli's 80 runs by the 9th over.

Gayle just takes the game away from the opposition and to the point, the are mentally scarred.

Btw, this is the reason why WI's have won 2 world cups with him.

 

[Tusker]

I was posing a hypothetical question, regarding the equal teams.

Also, the numbers also tell you Kohli goes around the 140's SR, so that is already known and I have seen Kohli in T20's, hence why I prefer Gayle.

Gayle scores 80 by 7.5 overs, whilst Kohli's 80 runs by the 9th over.

Gayle just takes the game away from the opposition and to the point, the are mentally scarred.

Btw, this is the reason why WI's have won 2 world cups with him.

Thats a no brainer ... if everything was equal the inngs with the higher S/R (For same no.of runs) would prevail. But thats not how it works. Almost never. Teams usually get into trouble lose wkts at the top or in the middle and someone bails them out. This is almost always the case with Kohli and anyone that understands limited overs cricket will tell you how priceless this aspect is and how difficult. Gayle is nowhere as good when it comes to that. The point is there is more to Cricket than just S/R.

Also you got your calculations slightly wrong ... Kohli scores more runs per inngs than Gayle.

Kohli : 40 at 135 (Per inngs )
Gayle : 32 at 145 (Per inngs )

So whether those 8 extra runs make a difference (or not) is dependent on the match situation.

 

[Barragan]

Thats a no brainer ... if everything was equal the inngs with the higher S/R (For same no.of runs) would prevail. But thats not how it works. Almost never. Teams usually get into trouble lose wkts at the top or in the middle and someone bails them out. This is almost always the case with Kohli and anyone that understands limited overs cricket will tell you how priceless this aspect is and how difficult. Gayle is nowhere as good when it comes to that. The point is there is more to Cricket than just S/R.

Also you got your calculations slightly wrong ... Kohli scores more runs per inngs than Gayle.

Kohli : 40 at 135 (Per inngs )
Gayle : 32 at 145 (Per inngs )

So whether those 8 extra runs make a difference (or not) is dependent on the match situation.

There you have it.

Also, SR is a huge part of T20 cricket and a big factor in deciding the better batsman.

Lastly, I didn't make any runs per innings comparison, just their 50+ scores and SR.

 

[Tusker]

There you have it.

Also, SR is a huge part of T20 cricket and a big factor in deciding the better batsman.

If S/R is such huge factor WI with Gayle should have won far more matches than India ... But reality is so far Kohli is ahead in terms of matches won . Like I said there is a reason why finishers are like Gold dust and is the main reason why Kohli will always be rated higher than the likes of Gayle or Afridi who are one dimensional big hitters.

Another thing is Gayle will find it very hard to maintain that S/R + Avg Combo. This IPL he wasnt anywhere near as successful as Kohli.

Lastly, I didn't make any runs per innings comparison, just their 50+ scores and SR.

In T20's even 30-40 runs can make a huge difference, so this is not entirely a reasonable criteria.

 

[Barragan]

If S/R is such huge factor WI with Gayle should have won far more matches than India ... But reality is so far Kohli is ahead in terms of matches won . Like I said there is a reason why finishers are like Gold dust and is the main reason why Kohli will always be rated higher than the likes of Gayle or Afridi who are one dimensional big hitters.

Another thing is Gayle will find it very hard to maintain that S/R + Avg Combo. This IPL he wasnt anywhere near as successful as Kohli.



In T20's even 30-40 runs can make a huge difference, so this is not entirely a reasonable criteria.

WI's have won two WC's, so he has done a wonderful job and even if Ind have won far more matches.

Don't give a crap about ipl performances or what goes on there.

As for the last line, clearly you haven't read why I went with the 50+ scores.

Those are the scores with the most impact and game changing, whilst you can argue 45 or 40 scores are there, but 30 scores aren't that impactful.

 

[Tusker]

WI's have won two WC's, so he has done a wonderful job and even if Ind have won far more matches.

Gayle has no real match winning inngs in knockout games. Almost always fails as he did this year. There is only one game where he did well IIRC in S/F 2012. Then promptly failed in the final where the WI were bailed out by Samuels. If you ask any WI fans ... they will pick Samuels as the clutch T20 player.

Don't give a crap about ipl performances or what goes on there.

Gayle himself would disagree with that as he prefers IPL over WI

As for the last line, clearly you haven't read why I went with the 50+ scores.

Those are the scores with the most impact and game changing, whilst you can argue 45 or 40 scores are there, but 30 scores aren't that impactful.

Again depends on match situation thats why you cannot condense a players achievements by looking at a stats link on stats guru.

 

[Barragan]

Gayle has no real match winning inngs in knockout games. Almost always fails as he did this year. There is only one game where he did well IIRC in S/F 2012. Then promptly failed in the final where the WI were bailed out by Samuels. If you ask any WI fans ... they will pick Samuels as the clutch T20 player.



Gayle himself would disagree with that as he prefers IPL over WI



Again depends on match situation thats why you cannot condense a players achievements by looking at a stats link on stats guru.

He may not have the best record in the knockouts, but how did the WI's qualify?

Without him scoring in the group stages, there would be no heroics from Samuels or whoever because they wouldn't even have qualified.

As mentioned before, don't give a crap about ipl performances and they have zero relevance.

So you're saying, that Kohli goes through different match situations compared to Gayle? In what way? He has to rebuild more often?

 

[soso_killer]

No, Kohli has a long way to go before being complete.
His Test average just touched 50, the challenge will be to maintain that over long stretches, especially playing away from home.
And those are just stats. He'll have to step up and win crunch games away leading from the front.

 

[soso_killer]

Lol agree with this. Kohli centuries in Australia are played down due to being on flat pitches, the irony is Amla's triple century vs England in 2012 came on one of the flattest English pitches.

That triple century isn't rated on the difficulty of the pitch, but it's context.
England were at the peak of their powers. Having destroyed all before them, especially in their home conditions. The number ranking was on the line.

SA lost an early wicket, in stepped Amla and rose to the occasion. SA won the match. Did the same at Lords. Did the same in Australia with his best knock of 192. Time and time again Amla has stepped up on foreign soil when it mattered most.
No current test player can be mentioned next to Amla when it comes to test batsmanship. What he has achieved in Test cricket is beyond what some greats could ever achieve in their careers.

 

[Hasan123]

That triple century isn't rated on the difficulty of the pitch, but it's context.
England were at the peak of their powers. Having destroyed all before them, especially in their home conditions. The number ranking was on the line.

SA lost an early wicket, in stepped Amla and rose to the occasion. SA won the match. Did the same at Lords. Did the same in Australia with his best knock of 192. Time and time again Amla has stepped up on foreign soil when it mattered most.
No current test player can be mentioned next to Amla when it comes to test batsmanship. What he has achieved in Test cricket is beyond what some greats could ever achieve in their careers.

Amla is a fine test player no doubt. I have criticism for him in LO but in tests I won't deny his quality.

The point I was trying to make was that Amla has cashed in on some flat tracks so let's not downgrade Kohlis good knocks on some tracks that are flat.

 

[soso_killer]

Amla is a fine test player no doubt. I have criticism for him in LO but in tests I won't deny his quality.

The point I was trying to make was that Amla has cashed in on some flat tracks so let's not downgrade Kohlis good knocks on some tracks that are flat.

he's scored on some tough ones as well though.
He has won SA matches irrespective of the pitch.

 

[Tusker]

He may not have the best record in the knockouts, but how did the WI's qualify?

Without him scoring in the group stages, there would be no heroics from Samuels or whoever because they wouldn't even have qualified.

True but pressure is lot more in the Knockout games and this is the single biggest reason for Kohli's high rating.

As mentioned before, don't give a crap about ipl performances and they have zero relevance.

Its not about your or my opinion. The man himself rates IPL higher than playing for WI ... so you cant dispute that and discard IPL performances.

So you're saying, that Kohli goes through different match situations compared to Gayle? In what way? He has to rebuild more often?

Watch this match if you can ... http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/951363.html
and see how he wins a pretty much lost match with ease in the end.

 

[Indiafan]

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.

Kohli v2. Amir was swinging miles in that Asia cup T20 and other batsmen couldnt put bat to ball while Kohli was cover driving him with ease. You do know he has changed his technique since then?

 

[Stallion__]

What I like about Kohli is that for a supposedly aggressive player, he doesn't get involved in personal battles, be it Anderson, Sohail or Faulkner, he just goes about his business. And that's the testament of his mental strength. He will most likely end up as a GOAT limited overs player and a great Test match player.

 

[cric_fanatic]

Amla
Smith
Root
Devilliers
Qdk

Are more complete batsmen to Kohli, he has still a lot of achieve and prove in test and 50 over world cups to be treated as legend.

No, to be treated a legend, he doesnt need more validation. Sorry pal, Different benchmarks for different players is hypocrisy. Are u saying ALL legends have had great WCs? I have several names coming who are legends despite.

This doesnt, in no way imply hes doesnt need to achieve more, but he is a legend already. Most batsmen fail do achieve in their entire careers, what he has already achieved.

 

[cric_fanatic]

Inzy,
Sanga,
Kallis,
Lara
KP
Amla

How many of these guys had great WCs. Are they not considered legends?

 

[Bilal7]

Inzy,
Sanga,
Kallis,
Lara
KP
Amla

How many of these guys had great WCs. Are they not considered legends?

Comparing Kohli to any of these guys in tests is like comparing a promising toddler to grown, successful men. Maybe one day this comparison will make sense but as of now, it is a joke.

As far as the WC goes, Sanga had a superb WC last time around and the only other guy who is a great ODI batsman in this list is Amla, and he like Kohli, needs to do more to become a bonafide ATG in this format.

 

[Bilal7]

^ I did not see Inzamam in that list. He's a great ODI player as well and his semi-final innings in the '92 WC was legendary.

 

[Bilal7]

Kohli v2. Amir was swinging miles in that Asia cup T20 and other batsmen couldnt put bat to ball while Kohli was cover driving him with ease. You do know he has changed his technique since then?

It was a T20 match. Doesn't prove anything.

 

[LastManstanding]

Until Kohli scores some runs in pace-friendly conditions again, there is nothing to suggest that his weakness has been eradicated. Remember what Anderson said? You say Kohli had a 60+ in South Africa but forget that the series against England was AFTER he filled his boots on a South African pitch where the Saffers almost chased down the highest fourth innings total of all time. However, credit where it is due, he played out of his skin to get that first innings hundred in that match. He didn't do much of note in the second match however, and then was neutralized by the Saffers in the ODI series that followed the tests.

It's silly to say that Smith isn't a good LOI batsman or to act as if Amla and AB are terrible T20 players. They're all good/great players in every format of the game and most importantly, Amla, de Villiers and Root don't have any glaring weaknesses like Kohli does. That is what makes a batsman "balanced", not racking up fifties in a format that is barely a decade old.

ODIs were before the tests. And while people often point out Kohli's failure in those ODIs they forget that Indian team arrived just a day before the series started. The tour was almost cancelled before BCCI and CSA agreed to a truncated tour of 3 ODIs and 2 tests.

 

[jusarrived]

That triple century isn't rated on the difficulty of the pitch, but it's context.
England were at the peak of their powers. Having destroyed all before them, especially in their home conditions. The number ranking was on the line.

SA lost an early wicket, in stepped Amla and rose to the occasion. SA won the match. Did the same at Lords. Did the same in Australia with his best knock of 192. Time and time again Amla has stepped up on foreign soil when it mattered most.
No current test player can be mentioned next to Amla when it comes to test batsmanship. What he has achieved in Test cricket is beyond what some greats could ever achieve in their careers.

on a flat pitch ? SA scored 450/4 in that innings ? I thought that doesnt count

 

[BestEver]

Until Kohli scores some runs in pace-friendly conditions again, there is nothing to suggest that his weakness has been eradicated. Remember what Anderson said? You say Kohli had a 60+ in South Africa but forget that the series against England was AFTER he filled his boots on a South African pitch where the Saffers almost chased down the highest fourth innings total of all time. However, credit where it is due, he played out of his skin to get that first innings hundred in that match. He didn't do much of note in the second match however, and then was neutralized by the Saffers in the ODI series that followed the tests.

It's silly to say that Smith isn't a good LOI batsman or to act as if Amla and AB are terrible T20 players. They're all good/great players in every format of the game and most importantly, Amla, de Villiers and Root don't have any glaring weaknesses like Kohli does. That is what makes a batsman "balanced", not racking up fifties in a format that is barely a decade old.

Smith is an avg. odi batsmen and a not a t20 batsmen at all. Amla failing on tough pitches against amateur sri lankan bowlers. Averaging 19 in last 10 innings. He too facing tough times Like kohli faced in England. Root failed in Aus and NZ too. His away avg. is same as kohli's. Root is not a perfect at all.
KOhli failed in SA odi series but how Root's performance in Odi still not better than kohli.

Every batsman face tough times. smith is only batsman having dream test career.

No batsmen playing right now is perfect. Actually Never was. Ponting failed in india. Dravid against SA & in SA. snaga's outside asia records is even worse than kohli. Lara too was avg. in NZ and India. Sachin was only close to perfect batsman.

Hell Bradman too just played in 2 countries.

 

[BestEver]

Until Kohli scores some runs in pace-friendly conditions again, there is nothing to suggest that his weakness has been eradicated. Remember what Anderson said? You say Kohli had a 60+ in South Africa but forget that the series against England was AFTER he filled his boots on a South African pitch where the Saffers almost chased down the highest fourth innings total of all time. However, credit where it is due, he played out of his skin to get that first innings hundred in that match. He didn't do much of note in the second match however, and then was neutralized by the Saffers in the ODI series that followed the tests.

It's silly to say that Smith isn't a good LOI batsman or to act as if Amla and AB are terrible T20 players. They're all good/great players in every format of the game and most importantly, Amla, de Villiers and Root don't have any glaring weaknesses like Kohli does. That is what makes a batsman "balanced", not racking up fifties in a format that is barely a decade old.

Smith is an avg. odi batsmen and a not a t20 batsmen at all. Amla failing on tough pitches against amateur sri lankan bowlers. Averaging 19 in last 10 innings. He too facing tough times Like kohli faced in England. Root failed in Aus and NZ too. His away avg. is same as kohli's. Root is not a perfect at all.
KOhli failed in SA odi series but how Root's performance in Odi still not better than kohli.

Every batsman face tough times. smith is only batsman having dream test career.

No batsmen playing right now is perfect. Actually Never was. Ponting failed in india. Dravid against SA & in SA. snaga's outside asia records is even worse than kohli. Lara too was avg. in NZ and India. Sachin was only close to perfect batsman.

Hell Bradman too just played in 2 countries.


racking up fifties in a format that is barely a decade old.

well, this is not what they said, when Viv Richards started smashing in a format[ODI] which was 6-7 years old.

 

[soso_killer]

Amla
Smith
Root
Devilliers
Qdk

Are more complete batsmen to Kohli, he has still a lot of achieve and prove in test and 50 over world cups to be treated as legend.

What's QdK doing there, even Smith for that matter?

 

[soso_killer]

on a flat pitch ? SA scored 450/4 in that innings ? I thought that doesnt count

Which pitch? the pitch in which both teams were 70/5 at one stage to be eventually dismissed under 250?

 

[Barragan]

True but pressure is lot more in the Knockout games and this is the single biggest reason for Kohli's high rating.




Its not about your or my opinion. The man himself rates IPL higher than playing for WI ... so you cant dispute that and discard IPL performances.




Watch this match if you can ... http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/951363.html
and see how he wins a pretty much lost match with ease in the end.

Hang on a minute, Gayle hasn't entirely failed in knockout stages and has hit 50+ scores twice in semi's and that is the same number as Kohli, plus has an average around 73 in semi-finals.

Still, ipl performances have zero relevance.

Yeah, but did you watch this match?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/412695.html

He decimated the opposition all by himself.

 

[cric_fanatic]

Comparing Kohli to any of these guys in tests is like comparing a promising toddler to grown, successful men. Maybe one day this comparison will make sense but as of now, it is a joke.

As far as the WC goes, Sanga had a superb WC last time around and the only other guy who is a great ODI batsman in this list is Amla, and he like Kohli, needs to do more to become a bonafide ATG in this format.

Exactly my point. If you are considered a legend also based on number of matches played, Well yes he has got someway to go. But if you look at the number of matches hes had an impact on purely on performance, is more than some of the other legends.

Point is, about WC matches doesnt make him any less a legend. In that case, Kohli has 2 WC centuries. One against Pakistan. Cant have different benchmarks for different players, as per convenience. That would be bias

PS: As i said, this doesnt mean he doesnt need to keep going in tests further.

 

[jusarrived]

Which pitch? the pitch in which both teams were 70/5 at one stage to be eventually dismissed under 250?

Not in the same innings . Amla got his 192 in an innings where SA scored 450 runs and i think at 5+ rpo .

 

[soso_killer]

Not in the same innings . Amla got his 192 in an innings where SA scored 450 runs and i think at 5+ rpo .

yes Amla was responsible for that.
Counter attacked when the commentators thought it would be a slow scoring match.
Did you watch that match? There's a reason that innings was supposed to be the innings of the year ahead of KP's 187. Far tougher pitch

 

[Snatch]

Kohli's better than AB overall across all forms atm, 2nd place could actually be Warner atm.

 

[static]

yes Amla was responsible for that.
Counter attacked when the commentators thought it would be a slow scoring match.
Did you watch that match? There's a reason that innings was supposed to be the innings of the year ahead of KP's 187. Far tougher pitch

that was a 196 btw
I saw the innings, it was brilliant no doubt. But the bowlers weren't all that great. Starc when he was into his 5th match, MJ before hitting form, john hastings, lyon and watson.

KP's innings was better.

 

[jusarrived]

yes Amla was responsible for that.
Counter attacked when the commentators thought it would be a slow scoring match.
Did you watch that match? There's a reason that innings was supposed to be the innings of the year ahead of KP's 187. Far tougher pitch

Was that not a flat pitch ? Thats all am asking .

 

[Hitman]

My favorite batsman since Sachin retired. But I still believe former player or pundits won't place him in the same league as Sobers (the greatest ever), Viv, Sachin or Lara.

 

[cricketfanfirst]

He has the hunger, talent, and determination. He is willing to put in extra effort and keep himself fit and willing to iron out his limitations and correct his technique.

I really hope by the time he retires, he will be remembered as the greatest batsman of his generation and top 5 batsmen of all time.

 

[soso_killer]

Was that not a flat pitch ? Thats all am asking .

Nope far from it, I've never seen an instance of both teams getting dismissed under 250 in their first innings on a flat deck. 70/5 Is that a flat pitch? The ball was nipping about. Again did you watch that game?
Even in Australia's 2nd innings and 4th of the match they struggled to even get to 300. It was thanks to Starc and Lyon who slogged an 90 odd in the end. SA should have won that game by 360+ runs.
Amla came in at 28/1 and the ball was still swinging.
That's how brilliant that innings was. Even Ponting quipped: in over a 100 Test matches in his career, he had never seen anyone grab the initiative the way Amla did in Australia. Teams have been on top of Australia before, but never have they been treated with such disdain.

Barring Amla's brilliance, that was a low scoring match. Australia aggregated 485 runs at 24 runs a wicket.
Amla contributed 34 percent of SA's total in that innings of 196. Removing Amla's 196 SA's total is a paltry 373 in the second innings.
Even including SA gigantic second innings total of 569. 1279 runs were scored for the loss of 40 wickets. That amounts to 31 runs a wicket. Excluding Amla's knock, that's 27 runs a wicket
Anyway 40 wickets fell on that pitch, the match finished inside 4 days. How was that pitch flat again? I'm struggling here, even if one didn't watch that game the evidence is staggering really.
Are you insinuating that the pitch was flat?

 

[Napa]

Nope far from it, I've never seen an instance of both teams getting dismissed under 250 in their first innings on a flat deck. 70/5 Is that a flat pitch? The ball was nipping about. Again did you watch that game?
Even in Australia's 2nd innings and 4th of the match they struggled to even get to 300. It was thanks to Starc and Lyon who slogged an 90 odd in the end. SA should have won that game by 360+ runs.
Amla came in at 28/1 and the ball was still swinging.
That's how brilliant that innings was. Even Ponting quipped: in over a 100 Test matches in his career, he had never seen anyone grab the initiative the way Amla did in Australia. Teams have been on top of Australia before, but never have they been treated with such disdain.

Barring Amla's brilliance, that was a low scoring match. Australia aggregated 485 runs at 24 runs a wicket.
Amla contributed 34 percent of SA's total in that innings of 196. Removing Amla's 196 SA's total is a paltry 373 in the second innings.
Even including SA gigantic second innings total of 569. 1279 runs were scored for the loss of 40 wickets. That amounts to 31 runs a wicket. Excluding Amla's knock, that's 27 runs a wicket
Anyway 40 wickets fell on that pitch, the match finished inside 4 days. How was that pitch flat again? I'm struggling here, even if one didn't watch that game the evidence is staggering really.
Are you insinuating that the pitch was flat?

Why are we even talking about Amla in this thread?

Amla is a joke when it comes to "most-complete-batsman-of-all-time". He has failed every time in ICC LOI tournaments. Kohli has a century against Pakistan in a WC, and a 49 in the recent ICC t20 which has kept enabled India to maintain a perfect record 11-0 against Pakistan. Amla has done nothing that compares in the world championship tourneys.

 

[soso_killer]

that was a 196 btw
I saw the innings, it was brilliant no doubt. But the bowlers weren't all that great. Starc when he was into his 5th match, MJ before hitting form, john hastings, lyon and watson.

KP's innings was better.

That bowling attack still dismissed SA for 225, would have been less if not for Faf's brilliance.
By the same metric the Jadeja and Ashwin KP faced were not in prime neither. It was an ordinary attack.
Ashwin almost destroyed his career with the carrom ball, which he's mastered today.
Amla was the only centurion until AB scored soft runs in the end with no pressure.

In KP's match both Pujara and Cook scored 100's (no opposition came even close at Sydney).
The aggregate runs per wicket was much higher. Less than 40 wickets fell. Amla scored at a far devastating rate, scored more runs than KP. The series was locked at nil-nil with SA second best throughout. Number one ranking on the line, yet again Amla scored crucial runs in a decider.
I could go on and on.
I see no evidence that KP's knock was superior.

 

[soso_killer]

Why are we even talking about Amla in this thread?

Amla is a joke when it comes to "most-complete-batsman-of-all-time". He has failed every time in ICC LOI tournaments. Kohli has a century against Pakistan in a WC, and a 49 in the recent ICC t20 which has kept enabled India to maintain a perfect record 11-0 against Pakistan. Amla has done nothing that compares in the world championship tourneys.

This thread is about the most complete bat of all time.
Evey batsman will be discussed at length.
And no I don't think Amla is a complete bat, mainly disputing a particular innings.
Neither is Kohli a complete bat though.
Has virtually done nothing away from home, I can't remember one innings he's won a game for his country. Which in itself is a joke. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[street cricketer]

This thread is about the most complete bat of all time.
Evey batsman will be discussed at length.
And no I don't think Amla is a complete bat, mainly disputing a particular innings.
Neither is Kohli a complete bat though.
Has virtually done nothing away from home, I can't remember one innings he's won a game for his country. Which in itself is a joke. Wouldn't you agree?

Yeah well Kohli would love to have Steyn, Rabada, Philander, Morkel et al backing him up instead of the Ishant Sharma brigade.

 

[Napa]

Neither is Kohli a complete bat though.
Has virtually done nothing away from home, I can't remember one innings he's won a game for his country. Which in itself is a joke. Wouldn't you agree?

The reason you can't remember is because you haven't being paying attention.

1) A double century in each of the last 3 series played by India against WI, NZ and Eng. India won all these 3 games.

2) Another near double (167) against Eng in a match that India also won.

3) A century against Pakistan in the last WC game against them, again an Indian victory.

4) 49 in the Asia Cup against Pakistan after Amir had reduced India to 3/8. Given out wrongly.

And so on and so forth.

Kohli is a grade above Amla easily.

 

[soso_killer]

The reason you can't remember is because you haven't being paying attention.

1) A double century in each of the last 3 series played by India against WI, NZ and Eng. India won all these 3 games.

2) Another near double (167) against Eng in a match that India also won.

3) A century against Pakistan in the last WC game against them, again an Indian victory.

4) 49 in the Asia Cup against Pakistan after Amir had reduced India to 3/8. Given out wrongly.

And so on and so forth.

Kohli is a grade above Amla easily.

Whoa when did Kohli ever score a match winning double ton in England? Please share a link.
In light of this new info maybe he is a "grade above", but please do share a link.

 

[soso_killer]

Yeah well Kohli would love to have Steyn, Rabada, Philander, Morkel et al backing him up instead of the Ishant Sharma brigade.

i find it amusing how different parameters are used to judge players
When it's pointed out that AB has a good world cup record. Others are just as quick to label him a choker as he's failed to win a world cup. No one quips "well he doesn't have a clutch player like a Yuvraj playing alongside him".

Why should I accept double standards and excuses?
International players simply play with what they've got.
You don't become a "complete" player by having a list of excuses next to your name. Kohli doesn't have a great record in World Cups either. Hasn't won a match for his country in either England, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand or the UAE. even in Sri Lanka he averages 38.
And then there's ODI's where again he hasn't singlehandedly won a game away. I'm not talking about bullying a meek Sri Lanka in Australia.

 

[BestEver]

i find it amusing how different parameters are used to judge players
When it's pointed out that AB has a good world cup record. Others are just as quick to label him a choker as he's failed to win a world cup. No one quips "well he doesn't have a clutch player like a Yuvraj playing alongside him".

Why should I accept double standards and excuses?
International players simply play with what they've got.
You don't become a "complete" player by having a list of excuses next to your name. Kohli doesn't have a great record in World Cups either. Hasn't won a match for his country in either England, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand or the UAE. even in Sri Lanka he averages 38.
And then there's ODI's where again he hasn't singlehandedly won a game away. I'm not talking about bullying a meek Sri Lanka in Australia.

A team wins matches not a single player.

How many 100s lara scored in winning matches away from home ?
Ans. 3. in NZ,Aus and ZIM

two of them before 1998 when WI has good fast bowlers. 3rd against Zimbabwe.

The biggest example of one man can't win matches is WI vs Srilanka 2001 where lara scored 221 and 130 in same match but still lost it. here is the scorecard.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63960.html

and
The meek sri lanka you are talking about was a strong team back then. they qualified for Final in that series.

 

[BestEver]

Whoa when did Kohli ever score a match winning double ton in England? Please share a link.
In light of this new info maybe he is a "grade above", but please do share a link.

He Said double ton in each series not in each country. At least read properly.

 

[soso_killer]

He Said double ton in each series not in each country. At least read properly.

and I clearly stated away from home, why would I care about the stipulated series?

 

[BestEver]

i find it amusing how different parameters are used to judge players
When it's pointed out that AB has a good world cup record. Others are just as quick to label him a choker as he's failed to win a world cup. No one quips "well he doesn't have a clutch player like a Yuvraj playing alongside him".

Why should I accept double standards and excuses?
International players simply play with what they've got.
You don't become a "complete" player by having a list of excuses next to your name. Kohli doesn't have a great record in World Cups either. Hasn't won a match for his country in either England, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand or the UAE. even in Sri Lanka he averages 38.
And then there's ODI's where again he hasn't singlehandedly won a game away. I'm not talking about bullying a meek Sri Lanka in Australia.

Best example of just batsmen can't win you matches is IndvsAus 2013 odi series where india chased 350+ two times and even defending 385 in last match looked difficult.
And
AusVsSA series last year. Aus got whitewashed even after an awesome batting performance.