Virat Kohli not a 'match-winner' in Tests?

[austerlitz]

This charge was levelled against tendulkar very often ,that in 4rth innings chases he was not usually the man to take his team home.Why is the same standard not applied to kohli?Like tendulkar in chennai he failed at adelaide after a great innings.
Against south africa first test chasing 201,failed.
Here edgbaston chasing 193 ,failed.
Again today.Sorry,the king of chase is not that in tests.

 

[topspin]

Ashwin lost India this game when he should have ran through an inferior batting line up against spin on a turning wicket, in fact he had more favourable conditions than when Moeen was bowling during India's 1st innings, but he deserves full credit, he was superb and couldn't have bowled any better. The difference between the sides was due to the the difference in the bowling of these offies.

We know Ashwin averages 25 and Moeen 40 but in this match it looked like it was the English spinner who had the mid 20s bowling average.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So matches are won by 1 batsman only?

 

[j_kazmi]

Your argument would make sense if Kohli literally wasn’t the only making runs on this tour.

 

[kuskash]

What 10 other players have to do in the team? They are there for a reason too.

 

[Ab Fan]

Micro analysis

 

[Dead Ball]

KL Rahul, Dhawan, Pant, Ashwin, Pandya have been utterly useless throughout the match.

There's not much one person can do when half the team is playing rubbish.

 

[javier]

This thread suggests to me that Kohli got dismissed for a Duck while his team-mates fought right till the end.

 

[Bilal7]

Batsmen are generally not match-winners in test cricket, bowlers are. However, a batsman can certainly set up his team to win a series with a huge number of runs and/or a match-turning innings. The bowlers still have to take the wickets though, which is why many iconic innings end in defeat because the bowlers were unable to capitalize.

If you're judging Kohli against his contemporaries then there is nothing more he could have done. However, if you're comparing him to the greats, then he certainly could have. A double or triple, a superb fourth-innings chase or 4 centuries over the course of the series would have certainly given India the win.

 

[slipcatch]

To be fair to Kholi, the whole Indian team isn't match winner in tests, and that includes the incompetent coach.

As a captain, having biggest stock value in Indian cricket, perhaps in the world of cricket, comparability to Sachin, Indian team heavily depended on him to score to win, to some extent Indian fans also believe if he come good then India will have greater chance to win, he will always be criticized first whenever India lose a series or test.

 

[Dead Ball]

Batsmen are generally not match-winners in test cricket, bowlers are. However, a batsman can certainly set up his team to win a series with a huge number of runs and/or a match-turning innings. The bowlers still have to take the wickets though, which is why many iconic innings end in defeat because the bowlers were unable to capitalize.

If you're judging Kohli against his contemporaries then there is nothing more he could have done. However, if you're comparing him to the greats, then he certainly could have. A double or triple, a superb fourth-innings chase or 4 centuries over the course of the series would have certainly given India the win.

As far as subcontinent batsmen go, I can't think of a single batsman barring Dravid 2002 who scored more in a single series in England.

And Dravid was facing a mediocre bowling attack in comparison, was not captaining, and had an excellent batting attack supporting him unlike Kohli who is batting with 9 tail enders.

I don't think he could have done better. Excellent performance from Kohli.

 

[mak36]

Kohli: ‘We’ll be so comfortable [in England], we won’t even feel like we’re playing away’

3-1 down, with a test still to go. Will he be regretting what he said?

Virat Kohli insists India are ready to play “difficult” Test cricket and, given the amount of preparation time they’ve afforded themselves, will be “so comfortable that we won’t even feel like we’ll be playing an away series”.

The India captain was speaking on Friday ahead of his team’s departure, with some of the squad set to embark on an 81-day tour of the UK, with the Test series against England starting on August 1.

“The last time we played [in England], we felt that collectively as a team we didn’t perform consistently in all three skills,” Kohli said in Delhi before departure. “Because of that, the batsmen feel the extra pressure, or the bowlers feel the pressure because they feel batsmen aren’t doing enough.
“But when both click together and whether it’s swinging or seaming, bounce or turn, if you have momentum, any conditions feel favourable and if you don’t have momentum, flat pitches may also feel tough.

“But yes, the conditions are going to be different, we will have to respect that. By the time the Tests come, we’ll be so comfortable that we won’t even feel like we’ll be playing an away series.

“So, once you spend time there, you get comfortable and that’s the biggest factor. If you are at ease mentally, it will show in your performances.”

India coach Ravi Shastri will be focusing on the conditions and believes starting the tour with ODIs and T20Is is “ideal”, agreeing with Kohli’s view that they won’t feel like an away side.

Having fought their way back in the Test series in South Africa, Kohli believes his squad has the attitude to cause an upset in England. “For us as a team this is a very exciting time because we are actually looking forward to playing more difficult Test cricket after what happened in South Africa,” he said.

“That I feel is the best thing that can happen to any side. You don’t want to go to England and say: ‘Oh, the Test series is one month [away]’. We want it to be sooner. It is a great phase for Indian cricket.”

 

[Bilal7]

As far as subcontinent batsmen go, I can't think of a single batsman barring Dravid 2002 who scored more in a single series in England.

And Dravid was facing a mediocre bowling attack in comparison, was not captaining, and had an excellent batting attack supporting him unlike Kohli who is batting with 9 tail enders.

I don't think he could have done better. Excellent performance from Kohli.

Well, he's playing five tests in a series which many of the great Asian batsmen never did. The quantity will obviously be there, however the quality could have been better if you're comparing him to the Dravids, Sachins, Khans, etc.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

So matches are won by 1 batsman only?

Let me tell you the story of AB de Villers...

 

[Markhor]

It was nonsense logic then and now - the white ball doesn't swing an inch in England so the LOIs were never going to prepare you for Test match conditions with the red Dukes.

 

[Itachi]

The match was lost in England's first innings. Killer punch is necessary for a reason.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Let me tell you the story of AB de Villers...

Smith Kallis Amla didnot exist?

 

[Srtfan]

Can u tell me the some player name who chase more than 2 time in 4 th inning outside of comfort zone,like asian batsman outside asia chase and non asian batsman in asia

 

[cricketjoshila]

It was nonsense logic then and now - the white ball doesn't swing an inch in England so the LOIs were never going to prepare you for Test match conditions with the red Dukes.

Apparently the vocal tonic shastri and Kohli didnt even get this simple thing.

LoIs are with kookaburra and tests with Dukes.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Let me tell you the story of AB de Villers...

Amla was much better than ABD in tests until 2013, ABD was the 3rd/4th best batsman in his own team for 60% of his career.

 

[Dead Ball]

Well, he's playing five tests in a series which many of the great Asian batsmen never did. The quantity will obviously be there, however the quality could have been better if you're comparing him to the Dravids, Sachins, Khans, etc.

Younis Khan ? He performed in one match out of 4, unlike Kohli whi has in 3 out of 4.

Only performance I probably would rate more that Kohli s in England by an SC batsman is 2011 Dravid.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Smith Kallis Amla didnot exist?

I'm referring to the expectations placed on him.

 

[Srtfan]

Kohli 4th inning average is 54 and abd abd average is 38 in 4th inning.

 

[Bilal7]

Younis Khan ? He performed in one match out of 4, unlike Kohli whi has in 3 out of 4.

Only performance I probably would rate more that Kohli s in England by an SC batsman is 2011 Dravid.

Khan's double is a far greater performance than anything Kohli has done in this series for the sole fact that his performance won Pakistan a test match, drew a series and took them to #1. Kohli has been very good but his performances have not brought about the same results. Stop overhyping him.

Kohli's performances fall short even when disregarding the results of matches. Mohammad Yousuf had a far better series back in 2006-07.

 

[Bilal7]

Kohli 4th inning average is 54 and abd abd average is 38 in 4th inning.

Younis Khan also has a 50+ fourth innings average while Sachin's is below 40, I believe.

 

[sjahmed23]

All due respect to Kohli, I think he is too optimistic for leadership. India needs someone more practical like Dhoni, I would even consider Ashwin tbh if he can keep his place in the side.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Khan's double is a far greater performance than anything Kohli has done in this series for the sole fact that his performance won Pakistan a test match, drew a series and took them to #1. Kohli has been very good but his performances have not brought about the same results. Stop overhyping him.

Kohli's performances fall short even when disregarding the results of matches. Mohammad Yousuf had a far better series back in 2006-07.

Kohli's 100 won India the last test. He is the reason India are number one for close to two years.

 

[Bilal7]

Kohli's 100 won India the last test. He is the reason India are number one for close to two years.

Not good enough, if you're comparing him to the greats, as I've explained already. Let's not even get started on India's fake, undeserved #1 ranking.

 

[topspin]

Khan's double is a far greater performance than anything Kohli has done in this series for the sole fact that his performance won Pakistan a test match, drew a series and took them to #1. Kohli has been very good but his performances have not brought about the same results. Stop overhyping him.

Kohli's performances fall short even when disregarding the results of matches. Mohammad Yousuf had a far better series back in 2006-07.

Kohli scored 200 runs (including a ton) at an average of a 100 in the Nottingham test and was therefore deservedly awarded the MOTM.

Even a 10 year old could see that the Indian captain was the main man for his side during that game and come up with better logic than the drivel you're spewing here.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Not good enough, if you're comparing him to the greats, as I've explained already. Let's not even get started on India's fake, undeserved #1 ranking.

Oh he is already among the greats. Almost every expert out there is calling him the best.

It doesnot matter what you think, Rankings show India is number 1. Change it if you can.

 

[Dead Ball]

Khan's double is a far greater performance than anything Kohli has done in this series for the sole fact that his performance won Pakistan a test match, drew a series and took them to #1. Kohli has been very good but his performances have not brought about the same results. Stop overhyping him.

Kohli's performances fall short even when disregarding the results of matches. Mohammad Yousuf had a far better series back in 2006-07.

Please have a look at the totals and batting averages of batsmen in that series. Not to mention the sub standard English attack in comparison.

 

[zeusathon]

Sachin played probably the best knock of all time against one of the most lethal attack the game has ever seen to come close. Kohli had all the time in the world against a spin bowler. Even DRS saved him. Still couldnt even score 100. He is only a glorified stats padder.

 

[Ab Fan]

Some absurd logic there. Kohli has got 500+ runs in 4 tests of this series. He has been ruthless this series, did his part . Others just didnt supported and also India werent good enough in the situations when the game was in balance, which led them to losing two matches which they could have won.

On Kohli, his 149 at Edgabastan came when there were clouds hovering against Anderson, Broad, Curran and Stokes. It was a phenomenal inning and he has got runs in other tests of the series. So, he did his part.

 

[Bilal7]

Kohli scored 200 runs (including a ton) at an average of a 100 in the Nottingham test and was therefore deservedly awarded the MOTM.

Even a 10 year old could see that the Indian captain was the main man for his side during that game and come up with better logic than the drivel you're spewing here.

Yes, but Khan's performance was better. Why do you not understand something this simple? His double century did not just win Pakistan the game, it drew the series and took Pakistan to #1. Kohli's performance just delayed the inevitable and although a nice feather in his cap after his humiliating showing in 2014, ultimately did nothing to forward India's cause.

Oh he is already among the greats. Almost every expert out there is calling him the best.

It doesnot matter what you think, Rankings show India is number 1. Change it if you can.

Best in the world yes, partly because Smith is sidelined. I actually do not want to change it because I want to see the #1 team get thrashed by a second-string Australian side later this year, with you stubbornly spamming 'India is #1' all over this forum.

Please have a look at the totals and batting averages of batsmen in that series. Not to mention the sub standard English attack in comparison.

England have a pretty identical attack to what they did in that series. In fact, Woakes, Moeen and Stokes have been in and out of the side whereas they were all present and in form during that series.

 

[Ab Fan]

I'm referring to the expectations placed on him.

AB has definitely changed the course of the game quite often and he is a game changer as well, although in PP, this part is underrated. His innings in Perth 2008, Adelaide 2012 came in 4th inning of the series and he completely changed the course of the match/series in Port Elizabeth this year as well.

But you should consider the fact that Kohli has pretty much carried the batting single-handedly. If not hundreds, he evsn comes up with a 50 if required. In terms of leading run-scorer, he is so far ahead of the rest, take anyone from England even, they have Root, Bairstow, Buttler etc.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

have always maintained this. he is not a match winner in tests and i rate Pujara above him.

 

[Ab Fan]

have always maintained this. he is not a match winner in tests and i rate Pujara over him.

Why none of Pujara's hundred came in wins outside Asia?

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Why none of Pujara's hundred came in wins outside Asia?

Outside Asia, both don't gave a defining innings and I wont call any of them match winner. In Asia Pujara is gold, a proper match and series winner.

 

[Bilal7]

Some absurd logic there. Kohli has got 500+ runs in 4 tests of this series. He has been ruthless this series, did his part . Others just didnt supported and also India werent good enough in the situations when the game was in balance, which led them to losing two matches which they could have won.

On Kohli, his 149 at Edgabastan came when there were clouds hovering against Anderson, Broad, Curran and Stokes. It was a phenomenal inning and he has got runs in other tests of the series. So, he did his part.

Where was he today when India needed him most? Dismissed twice by Moeen Ali (Not to mention all the other times he's been lucky this series). Either stop comparing him to the great batsmen and be satisfied with calling him the 'best batsman in the world today' or hold him to the same standard of those great batsmen and admit that doing his part is not enough. Guys like Amla, Cook, Younis, KP and even Inzamam and Dravid have won or drawn their respective teams multiple matches and series outside their comfort-zone. Kohli has not done the same.

 

[Ab Fan]

Outside Asia, both don't gave a defining innings and I wont call any of them match winner. In Asia Pujara is gold, a proper match and series winner.

In Asia, everyone scores and everyone takes wickets which is why India wins. Outside Asia, no-one does except Kohli.

Kohli has an innings of 100 and 93 in Eng in winning cause though as well as scores of 54 and 41 in Johannesburg 3rd test in SA in winning cause.

 

[Dead Ball]

Yes, but Khan's performance was better. Why do you not understand something this simple? His double century did not just win Pakistan the game, it drew the series and took Pakistan to #1. Kohli's performance just delayed the inevitable and although a nice feather in his cap after his humiliating showing in 2014, ultimately did nothing to forward India's cause.



Best in the world yes, partly because Smith is sidelined. I actually do not want to change it because I want to see the #1 team get thrashed by a second-string Australian side later this year, with you stubbornly spamming 'India is #1' all over this forum.



England have a pretty identical attack to what they did in that series. In fact, Woakes, Moeen and Stokes have been in and out of the side whereas they were all present and in form during that series.

Talking about the Yousuf series.

Jones/Hoggard/Harmison/Panesar/Mahmood (lol) is a poor attack in comparison.

Anyway it's good to have you back and providing necessary entertainment on this forum

 

[happydavy]

Kohli's enthusiasm at times brings down his downfall but i hav no complaints from him. He doesn't believe in drawing matches, and goes for victories...He has built an aggressive fast bowling unit, who go for wickets all the time..Unfortunately, he has very ordinary batting partners at the moment, who can't match up with his approach or his attitude..

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

In Asia, everyone scores and everyone takes wickets which is why India wins. Outside Asia, no-one does except Kohli.

Pujara won India the series vs SL in 3rd test by scoring 130 not out. Kohli hasn't played a series defining innings like that till now. Then Pujara played a major part with Rahul in winning home series vs Aus which otherwise was going Aus way. My criteria of rating players is different from others.

 

[Ab Fan]

Where was he today when India needed him most? Dismissed twice by Moeen Ali (Not to mention all the other times he's been lucky this series). Either stop comparing him to the great batsmen and be satisfied with calling him the 'best batsman in the world today' or hold him to the same standard of those great batsmen and admit that doing his part is not enough. Guys like Amla, Cook, Younis, KP and even Inzamam and Dravid have won or drawn their respective teams multiple matches and series outside their comfort-zone. Kohli has not done the same.

Very poor logic. He already won his team a match with 100 and 93 in Tent Bridge and 54 and 41 in low-scoring Johannesburg test.

I dont know which all matches which Inzamam won for his team outside Asia and Younis also won just one match in England.

The other guys didnt do anything special which you are mentioning. I can do an analysis on everyone but it will require me to do a long typing. Kohli will end up well ahead of any of those guys mentioned in the longer format of the game.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Where was he today when India needed him most? Dismissed twice by Moeen Ali (Not to mention all the other times he's been lucky this series). Either stop comparing him to the great batsmen and be satisfied with calling him the 'best batsman in the world today' or hold him to the same standard of those great batsmen and admit that doing his part is not enough. Guys like Amla, Cook, Younis, KP and even Inzamam and Dravid have won or drawn their respective teams multiple matches and series outside their comfort-zone. Kohli has not done the same.

Except Dravid, Kohli is a better batsman than everyone in that list.

 

[Ab Fan]

Pujara won India the series vs SL in 3rd test by scoring 130 not out. Kohli hasn't played a series defining innings like that till now. Then Pujara played a major part with Rahul in winning home series vs Aus which otherwise was going Aus way. My criteria of rating players is different from others.

If I go with your criteria, Ashwin will be the greatest match-winner as he has won his team so many matches at home, SL and WI. But point remains that it is easier out there and everyone performs, unlike in Aus, SA, Eng and NZ.

 

[kuskash]

Yes, but Khan's performance was better. Why do you not understand something this simple? His double century did not just win Pakistan the game, it drew the series and took Pakistan to #1. Kohli's performance just delayed the inevitable and although a nice feather in his cap after his humiliating showing in 2014, ultimately did nothing to forward India's cause.



Best in the world yes, partly because Smith is sidelined. I actually do not want to change it because I want to see the #1 team get thrashed by a second-string Australian side later this year, with you stubbornly spamming 'India is #1' all over this forum.



England have a pretty identical attack to what they did in that series. In fact, Woakes, Moeen and Stokes have been in and out of the side whereas they were all present and in form during that series.

Bilalbhai, just one question for you. I asked you in other thread as well. Where do you go from this forum when India do well? You are always to bash India, specifically Kohli when they lose or do not do well.

 

[kuskash]

Not good enough, if you're comparing him to the greats, as I've explained already. Let's not even get started on India's fake, undeserved #1 ranking.

Then what do you say about performances of teams which are not number 1? Garbage performances? I agreed India is not deserving #1 at the moment.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

So matches are won by 1 batsman only?

You are really a confused soul. In the other thread you were arguing that absence of Kohli will make this Indian team look like India A team? Which one is true?

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

If I go with your criteria, Ashwin will be the greatest match-winner as he has won his team so many matches at home, SL and WI. But point remains that it is easier out there and everyone performs, unlike in Aus, SA, Eng and NZ.

I have gained great respect for Kohli in this series but still a career defining knock is needed. A series winning one type. Plus his captaincy has led his team down. If you ask me now, I will take Pujara over Kohli in my Pakistani team if i have a choice.

Plus bro scoring in those dust-bowls of India isn't easy so we cant compare Ashwin with Pujara, one is spinner and the other is batsman.

 

[kuskash]

Where was he today when India needed him most? Dismissed twice by Moeen Ali (Not to mention all the other times he's been lucky this series). Either stop comparing him to the great batsmen and be satisfied with calling him the 'best batsman in the world today' or hold him to the same standard of those great batsmen and admit that doing his part is not enough. Guys like Amla, Cook, Younis, KP and even Inzamam and Dravid have won or drawn their respective teams multiple matches and series outside their comfort-zone. Kohli has not done the same.

Agreed with Dravid’s name but what others are doing in this inclusion? And Inzi’s name, for what?

 

[Bilal7]

Very poor logic. He already won his team a match with 100 and 93 in Tent Bridge and 54 and 41 in low-scoring Johannesburg test.

I dont know which all matches which Inzamam won for his team outside Asia and Younis also won just one match in England.

The other guys didnt do anything special which you are mentioning. I can do an analysis on everyone but it will require me to do a long typing. Kohli will end up well ahead of any of those guys mentioned in the longer format of the game.

Misbah ul Haq also scored a classy hundred to set his team up for a win in England. However, one off performances do not make great batsmen. It's a little funny that you have no clue what all those batsmen have done for their respective teams so let me help you out a little bit:

Amla:

- Helped his team draw a series in India with a huge double hundred and twin hundreds in the second match.
- Helped his team win a series in England with a triple and a second hundred in the deciding match.
- Helped his team win a series in Australia with a match and series-winning 190 in the final match of the series.
- Helped his team win a series in Sri Lanka by scoring a match-saving hundred in the last match.

Cook:

- His famous Ashes series where he bossed the opposing bowlers throughout.
- His series in India where he scored two hundreds to turn certain defeat into a series victory.

ABD:

- Scored a fantastic ton in Australia to give South Africa their famous 2008 series victory.
- Like Amla, he was outstanding during the 2012 tour of Australia as well and staved off defeat in the second test match to set up victory in the third.

Khan:

- Series winning century against Sri Lanka in the fourth innings of a 300+ chase.
- Match-winning and series-drawing double hundred in England.
- 267 to win the match and draw the series against India.

These are just the performances that come to mind. When you think about similar performances for Kohli, you can maybe name a couple of performances against Sri Lanka but nothing else. So, like I said, Kohli is easily the best batsman in the world right now (Until Smith returns) but is he at the same level as the great batsmen past and present? No, not yet.

 

[Bilal7]

Bilalbhai, just one question for you. I asked you in other thread as well. Where do you go from this forum when India do well? You are always to bash India, specifically Kohli when they lose or do not do well.

I had my first child, Alhamdulillah, and was also busy with work, etc. So I did not follow any Cricket for the past few months and therefore, could not partake in the discussions here either.

 

[Ab Fan]

Misbah ul Haq also scored a classy hundred to set his team up for a win in England. However, one off performances do not make great batsmen. It's a little funny that you have no clue what all those batsmen have done for their respective teams so let me help you out a little bit:

Amla:

- Helped his team draw a series in India with a huge double hundred and twin hundreds in the second match.
- Helped his team win a series in England with a triple and a second hundred in the deciding match.
- Helped his team win a series in Australia with a match and series-winning 190 in the final match of the series.
- Helped his team win a series in Sri Lanka by scoring a match-saving hundred in the last match.

Cook:

- His famous Ashes series where he bossed the opposing bowlers throughout.
- His series in India where he scored two hundreds to turn certain defeat into a series victory.

ABD:

- Scored a fantastic ton in Australia to give South Africa their famous 2008 series victory.
- Like Amla, he was outstanding during the 2012 tour of Australia as well and staved off defeat in the second test match to set up victory in the third.

Khan:

- Series winning century against Sri Lanka in the fourth innings of a 300+ chase.
- Match-winning and series-drawing double hundred in England.
- 267 to win the match and draw the series against India.

These are just the performances that come to mind. When you think about similar performances for Kohli, you can maybe name a couple of performances against Sri Lanka but nothing else. So, like I said, Kohli is easily the best batsman in the world right now (Until Smith returns) but is he at the same level as the great batsmen past and present? No, not yet.

Actually, I said that about Inzamam, not others. Now let us analyze others:-

Amla:-

1) First test in that India series, he made a brilliant 200 but helped by Kallis who got a 175 and helped massively by Steyn who got a 7-fer against that Indian lineup. Result- SA won due to Amla, Steyn and Kallis. 2nd test, when only Amla scored, the result was India won. So, it was the team that won, not Amla. Amla was the standout batsmen, to his credit.

2) That triple hundred he got in England had support with hundreds from Smith and Amla leading their side to 600-1 and then in one of the match, Philander got a 5-fer and won his team the series. So, again it was the team that won them the series.

3) That 190 won't have won his team the series if not AB and a newbie Faf rescued his team in Adelaide. The hope of winning the series could have been ended there.In third test also, Amla was supported by AB's 169 and Steyn got 7 wickets in that match as well.

4) It was a great inning from Amla but had it been a longer series, SL might have won it or drew it because SA were weak.

Cook:-

He had luxury of Swann and Monty taking 20 wickets and Anderson got wickets as well and he was supported by KP who played some magnificent innings as well.

ABD:-

His inning in Perth 2008 was given platform by Smith and his inning in last two series had support by fast bowlers.

Younis also had support from Yasir, Misbah and Asad in winning that test.

You can say all you want but those matches were won because they had a much stronger team at that point and a team to win as well. The same players failed massively when those big names left.

 

[topspin]

Yes, but Khan's performance was better. Why do you not understand something this simple? His double century did not just win Pakistan the game, it drew the series and took Pakistan to #1. Kohli's performance just delayed the inevitable and although a nice feather in his cap after his humiliating showing in 2014, ultimately did nothing to forward India's cause.

Whether YK's performance was better or not, they both won their respective tests for their side. Yes his performance was the reason why Pakistan came back from 2-1 down to 2-2 but he did not score a single 50 in Lords, Old Trafford and Edgbaston. He was one of the reasons why Pakistan had lost 2 games in the first place, so overall in wasn't such a good series for him.

On the other hand with Kohli only under performed at Lords where he only managed 40 runs in his 2 innings. In the first test at Edgbaston, he scored 200 runs in total - his team fell short by 31 runs because no one else could score more than 31 throughout both innings other than him. In this test he still scored over 100 runs.

Doesn't matter which way you try to spin with fraudulent statements like "he drew us the series and got us to number 1", Kohli's tour of England this year is miles ahead of what Younis Khan achieved in 2016 (even if he goes out for a pair at Oval) because he's not only scored more runs but he has been far more consistent. Scoring runs in one test match of a series does not win you matches.

 

[topspin]

Very poor logic. He already won his team a match with 100 and 93 in Tent Bridge and 54 and 41 in low-scoring Johannesburg test.

I dont know which all matches which Inzamam won for his team outside Asia and Younis also won just one match in England.

The other guys didnt do anything special which you are mentioning. I can do an analysis on everyone but it will require me to do a long typing. Kohli will end up well ahead of any of those guys mentioned in the longer format of the game.

103 and 97

 

[austerlitz]

Not good enough, if you're comparing him to the greats, as I've explained already. Let's not even get started on India's fake, undeserved #1 ranking.

Don't kid yourself on 'undeserved'.We are still putting up a far better fight in these countries ,than they would in india.We whitewashed SA,4-0 england,whitewashed SL in SL twice where australia and south africa got crushed and who whitewashed Pak.Only australia put up a bit of fight against us in india.Others were steamrolled.While we have lost in SA and England,several matches could have gone either way and our toss luck is also bad.

 

[kuskash]

I had my first child, Alhamdulillah, and was also busy with work, etc. So I did not follow any Cricket for the past few months and therefore, could not partake in the discussions here either.

Congratulations bro, welcome to the club of sleepless nights.

 

[kingusama92]

Test cricket is far too complex for one batsman to win a match on his own.

There are so many variables and those cannot be trumped by one big performance. In general, you will notice even with some of the best performances, there's someone else along for the ride. Whether it's a bowler when the team is fielding or a supporting batsman that builds a partnership.

In T20s and ODIs, you can definitely take the game away on your own. Rohit Sharma literally beat SL on his own with 264.

 

[kingusama92]

I had my first child, Alhamdulillah, and was also busy with work, etc. So I did not follow any Cricket for the past few months and therefore, could not partake in the discussions here either.

Congrats brother!

That's wonderful news.

 

[Hasan123]

1 batsmen can't win a test series. Lol he's the only batsmen who performed . Why is there no threads about Rahane ,Dhwaan,etc rubbish performances ?

 

[Dead Ball]

I had my first child, Alhamdulillah, and was also busy with work, etc. So I did not follow any Cricket for the past few months and therefore, could not partake in the discussions here either.

That's great to hear

Congrats and wish you a great fatherhood ahead

 

[Bilal7]

Actually, I said that about Inzamam, not others. Now let us analyze others:-

Amla:-

1) First test in that India series, he made a brilliant 200 but helped by Kallis who got a 175 and helped massively by Steyn who got a 7-fer against that Indian lineup. Result- SA won due to Amla, Steyn and Kallis. 2nd test, when only Amla scored, the result was India won. So, it was the team that won, not Amla. Amla was the standout batsmen, to his credit.

2) That triple hundred he got in England had support with hundreds from Smith and Amla leading their side to 600-1 and then in one of the match, Philander got a 5-fer and won his team the series. So, again it was the team that won them the series.

3) That 190 won't have won his team the series if not AB and a newbie Faf rescued his team in Adelaide. The hope of winning the series could have been ended there.In third test also, Amla was supported by AB's 169 and Steyn got 7 wickets in that match as well.

4) It was a great inning from Amla but had it been a longer series, SL might have won it or drew it because SA were weak.

Cook:-

He had luxury of Swann and Monty taking 20 wickets and Anderson got wickets as well and he was supported by KP who played some magnificent innings as well.

ABD:-

His inning in Perth 2008 was given platform by Smith and his inning in last two series had support by fast bowlers.

Younis also had support from Yasir, Misbah and Asad in winning that test.

You can say all you want but those matches were won because they had a much stronger team at that point and a team to win as well. The same players failed massively when those big names left.

This weak team, strong team excuse does not work with Kohli. He's played with the likes of Sachin, Dravid, Pujara, Rahane, 'Bowling Bradman' and now a very good battery of pace bowlers. His team is as strong as those other teams, when taking the relative strength of their opposition into account.

Of course the rest of the team has to help and Kohli has been helped but he has been unable to leave a mark with his own performances. Baby hundreds are good for padding one's own stats but they don't win matches. Had Kohli scored a double hundred in the last match against England, India would have drawn or potentially won this series as well.

Do not get me wrong, I would not expect any of the current Pakistani batsmen to be able to do the above. However, if you want to call Kohli a great then you have to compare his performances to those of the great batsmen and in that regard, he comes up short.

Congratulations bro, welcome to the club of sleepless nights.

Congrats brother!

That's wonderful news.

That's great to hear

Congrats and wish you a great fatherhood ahead ��

Thanks, guys. She was born a day before Eid as well.

 

[Pakhs]

Kohli's 100 won India the last test. He is the reason India are number one for close to two years.

What rubbish they are number 1 for one reason only. a long home season! they dint win a series away from home before or after.

And now to the thread no batsman is actually a match winner in tests. In tests batsmen are simply required to score runs and then eventually that will result in winning and sometimes not. Its mostly in the hands of bowlers to actually win the matches by taking 20 wickets.

 

[Ab Fan]

This weak team, strong team excuse does not work with Kohli. He's played with the likes of Sachin, Dravid, Pujara, Rahane, 'Bowling Bradman' and now a very good battery of pace bowlers. His team is as strong as those other teams, when taking the relative strength of their opposition into account.

Of course the rest of the team has to help and Kohli has been helped but he has been unable to leave a mark with his own performances. Baby hundreds are good for padding one's own stats but they don't win matches. Had Kohli scored a double hundred in the last match against England, India would have drawn or potentially won this series as well.

Do not get me wrong, I would not expect any of the current Pakistani batsmen to be able to do the above. However, if you want to call Kohli a great then you have to compare his performances to those of the great batsmen and in that regard, he comes up short.







Thanks, guys. She was born a day before Eid as well.

First of all, Congratulations, brother and wish you a great fatherhood ahead!

Now coming back to our cricketing discussion, look, winning is a function of team and not individuals. An individual can only take a game to a certain level and it will be the team that needs to make sure that they dont let the batsmen down.

Yes, true, India had the team to beat opposition but unfortunately they missed out on some big moments and struggled to turn the game by the scruff of its neck. Ashwin was disappointing, Rahane batted terribly, Pujara was only decent enough and openers were massive disappointment.

However,Kohli, as a batsmen,did his job completely in both SA and England tour, being the leading run-scorer from both the sides.That's an excellent performance overall.

He already has dominated a series in Australia and has been a leading run-scorer from both sides on tours to South Africa and now England. So, he now has series defining performance in Australia, South Africa and England. At this point, as a batsmen, it is hard really to micro-analyze if there is anything Kohli hasn't done with his batting in last few years.

 

[barah_admi]

Oh he is already among the greats. Almost every expert out there is calling him the best.

It doesnot matter what you think, Rankings show India is number 1. Change it if you can.

If that's what you think, then fair enough but you know, in your heart, that a true number one team would not have lost 6 out of 8 tests outside of India. If you think that makes a team number one, then fair enough.

 

[kuskash]

No, Virat is not a match winner. Just name a player who is a match winner? A player can contribute towards a win but its very difficult to understand a player by himself can win a whole match. Its a team game for a reason. There was nothing to bash Virat so lets introduce a new criteria.

Just a hint for a new criteria: Hafeez scored more runs against Zim among all Pak players when Pak lost tosses.

 

[Chrish]

He most definitely has played the match-winner role. Dominates the whole series. Unfortunately has been surrounded by other overrated batsmen..

 

[cricketjoshila]

What rubbish they are number 1 for one reason only. a long home season! they dint win a series away from home before or after.

And now to the thread no batsman is actually a match winner in tests. In tests batsmen are simply required to score runs and then eventually that will result in winning and sometimes not. Its mostly in the hands of bowlers to actually win the matches by taking 20 wickets.

They did win series in SL and WI. The same SL that blanked Pakistan 2-0 in UAE.

This bowler needs 20 wickets theory is another fantasy of few pakistanis.

Even if bowlers dont take 20 wickets and give away 600 runs, batsmen can win it by scoring 601 runs. But even if bowlers get the other team out for 100 runs, the batsmen still have to score 101.

Getting 20 wickets isnt the cricteria to win a test match, scoring more runs than the opposition is.

 

[cricketjoshila]

If that's what you think, then fair enough but you know, in your heart, that a true number one team would not have lost 6 out of 8 tests outside of India. If you think that makes a team number one, then fair enough.

Change the rankings.

 

[the_outsider]

If that's what you think, then fair enough but you know, in your heart, that a true number one team would not have lost 6 out of 8 tests outside of India. If you think that makes a team number one, then fair enough.

It's actually losses in 5 out of 18 tests outside India.

India has won 9 out 18 tests outside India.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

If that's what you think, then fair enough but you know, in your heart, that a true number one team would not have lost 6 out of 8 tests outside of India. If you think that makes a team number one, then fair enough.

Ok lets see, we lost in SA, 2-1. We lost in England 3-1*.

However, in 3 of those 5 tests we lost, we were in with a chance to win and failed to do so because of poor batting in 4th innings. None of the chases were on a minefield of a pitch where we couldn't have won and we were chasing <200 on 2 occasions.

But turn things around. SA got manhandled 3-0 in our conditions, the draw was due to rain where they won the toss and got bundled out for 200 on day 1 (the most batting friendly track of that tour).

England lost 4-0(5) never with a chance to win any of the test.

So are England and SA better than us? No.

To become number one you don't have to be an ATG side like Australia or WI. Let's not mix the two things.

India's last reign at 1, 2009-11 and this one. No one claims they are like the Aussie greats or WI. They had a chance to do what they did, but they lost the chance. But if they end this series 3-2 or 4-1 and still be on top. That just shows the kind of performances they've had to still be at the top.

 

[Bilal7]

First of all, Congratulations, brother and wish you a great fatherhood ahead!

Now coming back to our cricketing discussion, look, winning is a function of team and not individuals. An individual can only take a game to a certain level and it will be the team that needs to make sure that they dont let the batsmen down.

Yes, true, India had the team to beat opposition but unfortunately they missed out on some big moments and struggled to turn the game by the scruff of its neck. Ashwin was disappointing, Rahane batted terribly, Pujara was only decent enough and openers were massive disappointment.

However,Kohli, as a batsmen,did his job completely in both SA and England tour, being the leading run-scorer from both the sides.That's an excellent performance overall.

He already has dominated a series in Australia and has been a leading run-scorer from both sides on tours to South Africa and now England. So, he now has series defining performance in Australia, South Africa and England. At this point, as a batsmen, it is hard really to micro-analyze if there is anything Kohli hasn't done with his batting in last few years.

Thanks, buddy. Hopefully all goes well.

We can agree to disagree on this. I don't consider these performances "series-defining" because Kohli did not define the series, the opposition players who won their respective teams the matches and ultimately the series did (Smith, ABD, Rabada, Moeen, Curran, etc).

Kohli did superbly well and proved that he's far ahead of any current Asian batsmen and has even pulled ahead of the likes of Root and Kane. However, he now needs to raise his performances to an even higher level and help his team win and/or draw series away from home. All the great batsmen did so. Of course, he'll need help but let me tell you, if Kohli scores a couple of doubles or triples or plays a match-turning innings or two in Australia, the Indian team will ensure that his performances turn into match-winning ones.

 

[Bilal7]

Ok lets see, we lost in SA, 2-1. We lost in England 3-1*.

However, in 3 of those 5 tests we lost, we were in with a chance to win and failed to do so because of poor batting in 4th innings. None of the chases were on a minefield of a pitch where we couldn't have won and we were chasing <200 on 2 occasions.

But turn things around. SA got manhandled 3-0 in our conditions, the draw was due to rain where they won the toss and got bundled out for 200 on day 1 (the most batting friendly track of that tour).

England lost 4-0(5) never with a chance to win any of the test.

So are England and SA better than us? No.

To become number one you don't have to be an ATG side like Australia or WI. Let's not mix the two things.

India's last reign at 1, 2009-11 and this one. No one claims they are like the Aussie greats or WI. They had a chance to do what they did, but they lost the chance. But if they end this series 3-2 or 4-1 and still be on top. That just shows the kind of performances they've had to still be at the top.

So if you get "manhandled" in Australia, you will admit that Australia are a better team than India since they almost beat you in your backyard?

As for the Indian team that reached #1 back in 2011, did they not get "manhandled" home and away by England and therefore, were an inferior team to that English side?

 

[Cricfan4eva]

So if you get "manhandled" in Australia, you will admit that Australia are a better team than India since they almost beat you in your backyard?

As for the Indian team that reached #1 back in 2011, did they not get "manhandled" home and away by England and therefore, were an inferior team to that English side?

Which is why we lost our ranking to them in 2011, no?

If we lose 4-0 to Australia and lose our ranking. Sure we deserve it.

But until then India is number one team deservedly so.

 

[lolpakistan]

The kind of match-winner you're referring to makes up a picture of an alpha-human, god-like creature who single-handedly takes his team home every teams he steps on a field.

Unless you and I are from a different dimension, such a player hasn't ever been produced nor do I think will he ever come in the near future.

If you're talking about a human who's very good at cricket and is the most reliant in an army of 11, by all standards of this definition, Kohli is a match winner.

 

[RamLakhan]

India lost at least 1 match in both the tours due to stupidity of highest orders (in terms of team selection & management) besides the preparation regime. And that 1 match was enough to win the series (if not dominate like Australia or West Indies, let's not dream that and please Pakistanis should not demand such things they can rather worry about their own lost glory - never in the past Pakistani fast bowlers very looking like cheap trundlers & inferior to Indian counterparts, that's the biggest thing to worry rather than questioning India's No.1 status!)

The coach - the idiot Shastri is the biggest match loser for us! Kumble helped us win the last match against Australia at home and hence the series with a critical decision of playing Kuldeep over injured Kohli (Kohli who thinks like Shastri again tried to commit a mistake of playing a batsman in his place!) So Shastri & "Captain" Kohli are the biggest losers for this Indian team, and its sad to see the blame going to innocent & genius "batsman" Kohli

 

[RamLakhan]

How can a batsman score double century (or even century for that matter) if nobody else is there to support from the other end? Even Laxman played that iconic innings only because Dravid was there to support! Batting is about partnerships! Otherwise it will result in one-dimensional boring selfish, individual-stats based Lara-innings which only WI audience can enjoy! (And by the way Lara could play such innings only at home with doctored pitches without any intent of winning the matches! Kohli would never do that even at home!) Its better if Kohli is criticized for match-winning innings rather than getting targeted for selfish hundreds/two-hundreds!

Kohli had to play all these matches in South Africa & England thinking all the time about losing his partners besides his poor captaincy tactics and the only confidence he got was the form of his bowlers!

 

[Pakhs]

They did win series in SL and WI. The same SL that blanked Pakistan 2-0 in UAE.

This bowler needs 20 wickets theory is another fantasy of few pakistanis.

Even if bowlers dont take 20 wickets and give away 600 runs, batsmen can win it by scoring 601 runs. But even if bowlers get the other team out for 100 runs, the batsmen still have to score 101.

Getting 20 wickets isnt the cricteria to win a test match, scoring more runs than the opposition is.

Yes Pak have lost to SL and dont deserve to be no1. But definitely the only reason why India is no1 is because of long home season. They didn't win nothing since then. And if you dont understand that to win team needs 20 wickets then i cant help you sorry.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yes Pak have lost to SL and dont deserve to be no1. But definitely the only reason why India is no1 is because of long home season. They didn't win nothing since then. And if you dont understand that to win team needs 20 wickets then i cant help you sorry.

Please tell me how its impossible to win a test match without taking 20 wickets.

So India should lose the number 1 ranking now that they are playing SA ENG AUS one after another. No?