Kohli is definitely a match-winner. This is so incredibly obvious. Look at the first Test when he stuck it.out for a while in the second innings. There are lots of players, who, after scoring a century in the first innings would cheaply lose their wicket in the second, because of the pressure to live up to the expectations created by the score in the first innings. Then you have the tight run chase which adds more pressure and he still manages to score a fifty, and would have won the game if he had a single decent partner at the other end. Then there are the scores in the third Test, when India had to win and capitalise on opportunities. Kohli did just what was needed to give India a chance. Fourth Test: solid first innings score to keep India ahead and that fantastic partnership in the second. It's not his fault that Rahane got too nervous after he got out. Look at the greatest match winners in history and they all had at least 2-3 consistently performing partners to help them out. There is no such thing as a single player literally single-handedly winning many matches for their team. Not Bevan, not Viv, not even Bradman. They all needed solid support from capable teammates. With the kind of support that Kohli got, no one could have won this series for India, unless they scored a century every innings, which is obviously too much to ask. Ironically, the one match where Kohli failed is the one match where India had no chance. The reason why Teendu got so much criticism is that it would often be the opposite. He'd score big in draws but get out for single figures in many clutch situations. Kohli had 3-4 such situations in this series and he succeeded in each and every one of them. If the team as a whole even played at a 6/10 level at scoring runs, India would have won both the first and third Tests. I think the term 'match winner' is thrown around way too often. If you think about genuine match winning innings in Tests, there aren't too many, atleast compared to limited overs. The fact that Kohli was MotM in 1 Test and one of India's two best players in 2 other Tests (both of which were close) speaks volumes about his abilities in tight situations. You can't look at it binary terms, where he can only be a match-winner if he literally wins a match for India single-handedly) every single time. If we were to apply such high standards, then there would be no one in Test history who can be considered one. If Kohli had lots of support, then we can indeed expect him to take India over the line and judge his match-winning capabilities. If the entire team fails, then there is no point in using the match to assess his match-winning abilities. The reason why people say Teendu was not a match winner was not because of games such as the 96 WC semi where the entire team failed. It's because of his performances in many other matches where he had a realistic chance of getting India over the line, but failed to do so. Here, Kohli was not given such chances.
Last edited:
