Virat Kohli vs AB de Villiers in ODIs

[Joseph Gomes]

As most people agree that Amla is a notch below these 2, it's time to see who's the best ODI batsman of modern era

Basic stats

Kohli
Innings- 175
Runs- 8008
Avg- 54.47
Strike Rate- 91.04

ABD
Innings- 213
Runs- 9319
Avg- 53.55
Strike Rate- 100.25

Lets discuss the other criterias and see who's the better one overall

 

[Hasan123]

Virat Kohli

 

[Cricketfan2016]

Virat The King Kohli

End of discussion

 

[Brodipet_baadshah]

cricket is not a game played on paper nd u know who is THE KING on the field

 

[vandokkum]

It's very close, if you are batting first I will take De Villiers, but in chasing it has to be Kohli by a mile.

 

[chuck]

Ok, so have we settled the great U.Akmal vs. Kohli debate?

 

[Mamoon]

No comparison. Kohli is far ahead.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Not even a comparison anymore. Kohli is galaxies ahead.

 

[Brodipet_baadshah]

After watching all dese icc tourneys nd performances...can v atleast put an end to dese kind of comparisons like kohli vs abd, kohli vs amlaa?

 

[CanadianG00se]

Virat Kohli in pressure games. ABD in non-pressure games (Bilaterals).

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Ok, so have we settled the great U.Akmal vs. Kohli debate?

Of course Umar Akmal is better, it was never a debate

 

[Dead Ball]

I still consider World Cups as a bigger stage than CT.

ABDV was godly in 2015 WC, while Kohli was average (also in 2011 WC). If he dominates an ODI WC the way he did in 2016 t20 WC, i will rate him as the greatest since Viv/Sachin (probably better). Till then ABDV and Kohli at par for me.

 

[Mamoon]

Kohli will obviously dominate a World Cup. Simply too good and too mentally strong not too. The 2015 World Cup came at the wrong time because it was an underwhelming year for him overall. He has dominated every tournament since.

The best ODI batsman since Viv.

 

[Hasan123]

There is no comparison anymore. Kohli is ahead in every aspect of LO batting apart from power hitting. Kohli is approaching the league of Viv,Sachin, Lara,and Ponting, etc.

He has left AB for dust.

 

[English August]

Kohli vs. choker-in-chief? Really?

 

[vandokkum]

There is no comparison anymore. Kohli is ahead in every aspect of LO batting apart from power hitting. Kohli is approaching the league of Viv,Sachin, Lara,and Ponting, etc.

He has left AB for dust.

Kohli has surpassed Lara and Ponting in odis a while ago.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

There is no comparison anymore. Kohli is ahead in every aspect of LO batting apart from power hitting. Kohli is approaching the league of Viv,Sachin, Lara,and Ponting, etc.

He has left AB for dust.

Lara? Lara is nothing more than an ODI great. He's not an ATG in ODIs

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Kohli will obviously dominate a World Cup. Simply too good and too mentally strong not too. The 2015 World Cup came at the wrong time because it was an underwhelming year for him overall. He has dominated every tournament since.

The best ODI batsman since Viv.

He wasn't even bad at the tournament tbh. Just bad by his own standards

 

[Bhaijaan]

King Kohli thanks to tournaments performances, clutch knocks.

ABD is wonderful in bilaterals and non pressure games. When the heat is on, King Kohli seems like a batsman couple of leagues ahead of ABD.

 

[Aman]

This isn't a comparison....

 

[QalandarFan]

I don't know probably Kohli in chases and Ab D in 1st innings but if I had to choose I would go for my favourite batsman right now Ab De Billiers!

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Kohli will obviously dominate a World Cup. Simply too good and too mentally strong not too. The 2015 World Cup came at the wrong time because it was an underwhelming year for him overall. He has dominated every tournament since.

The best ODI batsman since Viv.

Still has to though. Until then, his performances to date are the only yardstick we have to measure him by. Pointing to multiple failures are quite easy.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Kohli vs. choker-in-chief? Really?

What chokes are you referring to?

 

[English August]

What chokes are you referring to?

Pick any must-win game and your choker-in-chief never fails to deliver. The latest being SA-India game last week.

 

[Mamoon]

Still has to though. Until then, his performances to date are the only yardstick we have to measure him by. Pointing to multiple failures are quite easy.

Yeah, but it is as likely as the Sun rising from the East tomorrow.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Pick any must-win game and your choker-in-chief never fails to deliver. The latest being SA-India game last week.

"The team let him down. I ran him out. There's nothing that he did wrong today..." - Faf du Plessis

Source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-champions-trophy-2017/content/story/1102965.html

Anything else?

 

[Mamoon]

He either gets run out in big matches or gets out at a crucial time before finishing the job. The bottom line is that de Villiers does not have the temperament to win big matches for SA. The fact that SA have not won a single knockout in any ICC tournament due to his batting sums up what he brings to the table on the big stage.

A fair-weather cricketer who for multiple reasons, cannot grab the game by the scruff of its neck and run with it.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

He either gets run out in big matches or gets out at a crucial time before finishing the job. The bottom line is that de Villiers does not have the temperament to win big matches for SA. The fact that SA have not won a single knockout in any ICC tournament due to his batting sums up what he brings to the table on the big stage.

A fair-weather cricketer who for multiple reasons, cannot grab the game by the scruff of its neck and run with it.

Is this like a copy and paste response? 68* was a damn good knock and you know it.

 

[English August]

"The team let him down. I ran him out. There's nothing that he did wrong today..." - Faf du Plessis

Source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-champions-trophy-2017/content/story/1102965.html

Anything else?

Seriously, this is your response?

Why don't you post a link to semi-final or final match where the choker's taken his team home, and then we'll talk.

 

[Mamoon]

Is this like a copy and paste response? 68* was a damn good knock and you know it.

I presume you are referring to the 2015 World Cup Semifinal?

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Seriously, this is your response?

Why don't you post a link to semi-final or final match where the choker's taken his team home, and then we'll talk.

How is this response invalid? Also, you're not showing me your evidence of 'chokes'...

You know full well South Africa has never won a final, how must a point you to one?

 

[Ozymandiasza]

I presume you are referring to the 2015 World Cup Semifinal?

Yes, 65* not 68*, my mistake.

 

[captain crook]

Yes, 65* not 68*, my mistake.

To be fair, ABD panicked during fielding and let off a simple run out and a catch. I'm sad to write this but he is a 'CHOKER'.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes, 65* not 68*, my mistake.

That 65* could have been a match-winning 165* if he would have had the confidence to bat at number 3 and not hide at number 5.

Faf and Rossouw nearly batted for 30 overs between them and trotted at a SR of 75, while the vastly superior captain de Villiers was sitting in the pavilion with his feet up, restricting himself to 20-25 overs only. The end result? He played the best knock of that SA innings, but he did not give himself enough time in the middle to take the game away from NZ.

Yes he did not know that the rain will curtail their innings the way it did, but that is what happens when your best batsman bats as low as number 5 in ODIs. In Limited Overs cricket, you need your best batsman to face the maximum number of deliveries, which means he should not bat below 3. Yes he has been batting at 4 lately, but he spent most of his peak at 5.

Had de Villiers batted at 3 in the game, or in a lot of other important games, the result could have different. It is criminal for someone like Faf or Rossouw to bat above him.

In response, the NZ captain lead from the front and took the game head on from the word go. The early onslaught put SA on the back-foot, and in spite of the stutter in the middle-overs, they were able to ride on that momentum and the RRR was never out of hand. If he would have demoted himself below the likes of Williamson and Taylor, the outcome of the match could have been vastly different.

The reluctance of de Villiers to bat up the order has cost SA many matches, and batting at number 5 doesn't really help when you are not a top finisher like Dhoni either. So the end result is that de Villiers either arrives to the crease when it is too late to change the game, or he plays a fancy knock and gets out before finishing the job, which means that his stats look wonderful on paper, but he doesn't win big matches for his team.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

To be fair, ABD panicked during fielding and let off a simple run out and a catch. I'm sad to write this but he is a 'CHOKER'.

A fielding error, for sure. He had a great knock with the bat and an error in the field, this only points to being human. AB is a great fielder, even my [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]'s admission. Also, this threads highlights batting does it not?

 

[Ozymandiasza]

That 65* could have been a match-winning 165* if he would have had the confidence to bat at number 3 and not hide at number 5.

Faf and Rossouw nearly batted for 30 overs between them and trotted at a SR of 75, while the vastly superior captain de Villiers was sitting in the pavilion with his feet up, restricting himself to 20-25 overs only. The end result? He played the best knock of that SA innings, but he did not give himself enough time in the middle to take the game away from NZ.

Yes he did not know that the rain will curtail their innings the way it did, but that is what happens when your best batsman bats as low as number 5 in ODIs. In Limited Overs cricket, you need your best batsman to face the maximum number of deliveries, which means he should not bat below 3. Yes he has been batting at 4 lately, but he spent most of his peak at 5.

Had de Villiers batted at 3 in the game, or in a lot of other important games, the result could have different. It is criminal for someone like Faf or Rossouw to bat above him.

In response, the NZ captain lead from the front and took the game head on from the word go. The early onslaught put SA on the back-foot, and in spite of the stutter in the middle-overs, they were able to ride on that momentum and the RRR was never out of hand. If he would have demoted himself below the likes of Williamson and Taylor, the outcome of the match could have been vastly different.

The reluctance of de Villiers to bat up the order has cost SA many matches, and batting at number 5 doesn't really help when you are not a top finisher like Dhoni either. So the end result is that de Villiers either arrives to the crease when it is too late to change the game, or he plays a fancy knock and gets out before finishing the job, which means that his stats look wonderful on paper, but he doesn't win big matches for his team.

Good read, thanks.

I fully understand your argument as we've had this one many times before. My response is always the same. He has won South Africa so many matches batting exactly where he has, why would they change just for the WC? Perhaps you are correct, perhaps he should bat higher, but he didn't. We can only, again, use his history as a 'yardstick we have to measure him by'.

You're essentially using Enron-tier accounting tactics to rate Kohli based on prospective performances. Surely, you see the flaw in that logic.

 

[Sidilicious]

Good read, thanks.

I fully understand your argument as we've had this one many times before. My response is always the same. He has won South Africa so many matches batting exactly where he has, why would they change just for the WC? Perhaps you are correct, perhaps he should bat higher, but he didn't. We can only, again, use his history as a 'yardstick we have to measure him by'.

You're essentially using Enron-tier accounting tactics to rate Kohli based on prospective performances. Surely, you see the flaw in that logic.

The point is that the best batsmen in the side in ODIs generally bat in the top 3. Just like your best batsmen in tests bat at either 3 and 4.

Thats why its criminal in my opinion that ABD batted at 5. Ponting, Sachin & Viv, the true ODI ATGs, all batted in the top 3. Unless you are a finisher like Bevan or Dhoni, you need to bat in the top 3 as those are the positions where you'll script most games. As long as ABD doesn't do that SA will keep falling short.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

The point is that the best batsmen in the side in ODIs generally bat in the top 3. Just like your best batsmen in tests bat at either 3 and 4.

Thats why its criminal in my opinion that ABD batted at 5. Ponting, Sachin & Viv, the true ODI ATGs, all batted in the top 3. Unless you are a finisher like Bevan or Dhoni, you need to bat in the top 3 as those are the positions where you'll script most games. As long as ABD doesn't do that SA will keep falling short.

Again, I understand you and [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]'s point. Perhaps you are correct, but he didn't. Due to our choking habits I can only point to other 'pressure' situations where this strategy worked perfectly even while chasing.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/zimbabwe-triangular-series-2014/engine/match/736455.html

 

[Sidilicious]

Again, I understand you and [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]'s point. Perhaps you are correct, but he didn't. Due to our choking habits I can only point to other 'pressure' situations where this strategy worked perfectly even while chasing.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/zimbabwe-triangular-series-2014/engine/match/736455.html

Fair enough. To each his own.

I personally don't believe he is a choker. Just not someone who will make bold decisions.

Amla is a choker. Not ABD.

 

[SandyB]

I think AB approaches ODI the same way Sehwag did . Both feel like they need to hit out everything, which leads them to play low percentage shots and get out .

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Both are awesome, probably like Sachin & Lara of previous generation.

 

[Mamoon]

Good read, thanks.

I fully understand your argument as we've had this one many times before. My response is always the same. He has won South Africa so many matches batting exactly where he has, why would they change just for the WC? Perhaps you are correct, perhaps he should bat higher, but he didn't. We can only, again, use his history as a 'yardstick we have to measure him by'.

You're essentially using Enron-tier accounting tactics to rate Kohli based on prospective performances. Surely, you see the flaw in that logic.

But these tactics don't seem to work in tournaments and in big run chases, at least not most of the time, and the run chase in Harare against Australia is one of the rare instances where it has worked. You are right that Kohli should not be given free points on prospective performances, but surely you'd agree that these prospective performances are extremely likely. He is entering his peak years, he is driven and he can handle pressure.

 

[Ab Fan]

Many used to say AB is ahead by galaxy after the 15 WC mostly because of Kohli's poor performance in that WC and now its the other way.

However, I believe its close and both will go down as two of the best batsmen of all time in odis and the one with superior record in all facets will obviously be rated higher.Currently its kohli no doubt.

However, these two are quite easily the biggest stars of the era along with Mitchell Starc and others are quite behind them.

In tests, Smith is at different level to others while Root, Kohli and Kane are more or less at same level and its all upto personal liking.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Kohli is better than everyone except King Viv.

Devilliers has only himself to blame. The best batsmen in the team should not be batting behind the likes of Faf and Russow, Duminy, etc. He could have achieved more had he batted in top 3.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Kohli is better than everyone except King Viv.

Devilliers has only himself to blame. The best batsmen in the team should not be batting behind the likes of Faf and Russow, Duminy, etc. He could have achieved more had he batted in top 3.

Maybe he's scared to take the lead? There's a reason why South Africa doesn't win in tourneys, AB comes in too late and his contribution doesn't make any difference

 

[Talented]

Kohli.
And ABD is not a choker. A very good batsman but Kohli is ahead in playing impact innings.

 

[aniket1911]

Well timing of this thread couldn't be more wrong. When Ab is going through his worst phase of form and Kohli is rolling out stellar performances. To say Kohli is galaxies ahead of AB is a statement of as much blasphemous proportion as claiming that AB is better than Kohli. Both are quite close with Kohli edging him in pressure games, nothing more nothing less

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Kohli is not that clutch it seems.

Gone for 5, right after being dropped.

 

[Muhammad10]

Virat has bottled more ICC 50-over knockouts than AB, who was superb in the WC15 semi-final against New Zealand.

 

[waleed88]

Both are big match failiures

 

[Aman]

Looks like Kohli might not be that good either.

Viv, Tendulkar and Ponting still the top 3 it seems.

 

[Ab Fan]

Its always tough to chase 338 in a big tournament final no matter how big a player you are.Cant remember any such stuffs by any legend in WC/CT finals.

But this is for the fans who call him the greatest ever and galaxy ahead of any current player.

 

[SLcric123]

Bump!

Both will go down as ATG in ODI cricket.

 

[Bilal7]

ABD is already an ATG and at the level of Viv, Ponting and Sachin and arguably being better than the latter two.

Kohli is a level below these players, alongside Amla and neither is an ATG as of yet. That can certainly change depending on what happens in the next couple of years.

 

[Ted123]

de Villiers because he outperformed Kohli and won his team an ODI series against India in India with standout performance from bat while Kohli hasn't won any series away from home against any of top opposition.

Neither has done great in ICC tournaments but were still decent overall.

 

[Ab Fan]

ABDV but Kohli is also an ATG in odis.

 

[Bilal7]

de Villiers because he outperformed Kohli and won his team an ODI series against India in India with standout performance from bat while Kohli hasn't won any series away from home against any of top opposition.

Neither has done great in ICC tournaments but were still decent overall.

Don't forget that he does not have a single match-winning hundred against Australia, South Africa or England away from home and averages 20 in games that India has won against those teams away. He also failed against Pakistan in the only bilateral series he played and would no doubt, find it tough if he were to play against them every two years or so.

 

[bujhee kom]

Kohli will obviously dominate a World Cup. Simply too good and too mentally strong not too. The 2015 World Cup came at the wrong time because it was an underwhelming year for him overall. He has dominated every tournament since.

The best ODI batsman since Viv.

Did you see a lot of Viv?

 

[bujhee kom]

Looks like Kohli might not be that good either.

Viv, Tendulkar and Ponting still the top 3 it seems.

Viv, Ponting, Sachin. That order.

 

[Mamoon]

Did you see a lot of Viv?

No, but I wish that I had. Easily the most captivating cricketer ever.

 

[QalandarFan]

Most people will say Virat and rightfully so but I am a huge AB fan. I also admire Virat Kohli probably one of my favorite cricketers from India. However I love ABD's style of play and would choose him at the end of the day.

 

[Ab Fan]

I admire de villiers highly because he is arguably the most unique and exciting ( when on song) cricketer the world has seen. Unique in the way that nobody in the world can do things which he can do when on song.

Kohli is also one of the top 5 ODI cricketers of all-time.

 

[kingusama92]

Huge fan of ABD but Kohli is top dog in ODIs.

 

[Hasan123]

Don't forget that he does not have a single match-winning hundred against Australia, South Africa or England away from home and averages 20 in games that India has won against those teams away. He also failed against Pakistan in the only bilateral series he played and would no doubt, find it tough if he were to play against them every two years or so.

These famous 8 matches you consistently go on about, tell us more about the pitches and the context of these games so we can fully analyse these failures. Since you are judging a player off 8 games in a 10 year career we need to more about these famous games.

 

[logicsupreme]

How are people are saying Kohli is better by a mile? Stats don't indicate that. I think Kohli is definitely a better chaser but overall they are equal!

 

[Hasan123]

Don't forget that he does not have a single match-winning hundred against Australia, South Africa or England away from home and averages 20 in games that India has won against those teams away. He also failed against Pakistan in the only bilateral series he played and would no doubt, find it tough if he were to play against them every two years or so.

Since your so concerned about scoring in all conditions, you called Inzamam Ul Haq a "great batsmen" so you should know that Inzi has batted in the top four against Australia,England, and South Africa 20 times away from home in ODIs . He averages 28 with no match winning centurie, he doesn't even have 1 century . Not a single century. So Kohli can't be a great player for not winning a game in those countries. Even though he has centuries in Australia and England. But Inzamam can be considered a great despite having no centuries in those countries. So Inzamam has batted up the order in these countries and failed . So now you can't use your excuse of him batting lower down the order .

Spin your way out of that web. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] [MENTION=297]Prince[/MENTION]jain 191 [MENTION=140665]rashmin[/MENTION] [MENTION=131539]CricFan2012[/MENTION] [MENTION=139108]Sachin136[/MENTION]

 

[Bilal7]

These famous 8 matches you consistently go on about, tell us more about the pitches and the context of these games so we can fully analyse these failures. Since you are judging a player off 8 games in a 10 year career we need to more about these famous games.

Since your so concerned about scoring in all conditions, you called Inzamam Ul Haq a "great batsmen" so you should know that Inzi has batted in the top four against Australia,England, and South Africa 20 times away from home in ODIs . He averages 28 with no match winning centurie, he doesn't even have 1 century . Not a single century. So Kohli can't be a great player for not winning a game in those countries. Even though he has centuries in Australia and England. But Inzamam can be considered a great despite having no centuries in those countries. So Inzamam has batted up the order in these countries and failed . So now you can't use your excuse of him batting lower down the order .

Spin your way out of that web. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] [MENTION=297]Prince[/MENTION]jain 191 [MENTION=140665]rashmin[/MENTION] [MENTION=131539]CricFan2012[/MENTION] [MENTION=139108]Sachin136[/MENTION]

Kohli is a great ODI player, just like Inzamam. He's just not better than ABD, just like Inzamam.

Perhaps if he wasn't such a bunny against the moving ball, India would have won more than 8 games in his nearly 10 year career.

 

[Hasan123]

Kohli is a great ODI player, just like Inzamam. He's just not better than ABD, just like Inzamam.

Perhaps if he wasn't such a bunny against the moving ball, India would have won more than 8 games in his nearly 10 year career.

These famous 8 games you refer to, tell us more about them . Since that's how you judge Kohlis career.

In those 8 games, what were the conditions of the pitch? Because Kohli failed I'm assuming the pitch wasn't flat . You would know that even if you can't remember the game.

 

[CricFan2012]

Since your so concerned about scoring in all conditions, you called Inzamam Ul Haq a "great batsmen" so you should know that Inzi has batted in the top four against Australia,England, and South Africa 20 times away from home in ODIs . He averages 28 with no match winning centurie, he doesn't even have 1 century . Not a single century. So Kohli can't be a great player for not winning a game in those countries. Even though he has centuries in Australia and England. But Inzamam can be considered a great despite having no centuries in those countries. So Inzamam has batted up the order in these countries and failed . So now you can't use your excuse of him batting lower down the order .

Spin your way out of that web. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] [MENTION=297]Prince[/MENTION]jain 191 [MENTION=140665]rashmin[/MENTION] [MENTION=131539]CricFan2012[/MENTION] [MENTION=139108]Sachin136[/MENTION]

Kohli is a better batsman than Inzi easily, even if they were similar in skill against the Aussies, Saffers and England Kohli would come on top because of his work ethic, keeps improving every year and doesn't involve in as many run outs like Inzi.

Kohli is a very hungry player, won't be surprised if he wins India a 50 over World Cup on his own, and that will cement him as the 3rd best player ever after Viv and Tendu.

 

[Hasan123]

Kohli is a great ODI player, just like Inzamam. He's just not better than ABD, just like Inzamam.

Perhaps if he wasn't such a bunny against the moving ball, India would have won more than 8 games in his nearly 10 year career.

In 10 matches batting in the top 3 versus NZ,Australia,and England AB averages 23. With those stats how do you judge him versus the new ball? Also he averages just 34 in England in 14 games with no centuries. And before you say he bats down the order he batted at four 10 times out of 14 and averages 27.

See how you can minapulate stats to make other players look weak. Your obsession with those 8 games is a joke. You can't even remember when they were played or know the context of the game. You don't know the conditions , yet you harp on about them continuously.

 

[Hasan123]

Kohli is a better batsman than Inzi easily, even if they were similar in skill against the Aussies, Saffers and England Kohli would come on top because of his work ethic, keeps improving every year and doesn't involve in as many run outs like Inzi.

Kohli is a very hungry player, won't be surprised if he wins India a 50 over World Cup on his own, and that will cement him as the 3rd best player ever after Viv and Tendu.

I know Kohli is the better batsmen , I'm just exposing his hypocrisy which he has no answer for at all.

 

[Mamoon]

Kohli is leagues above Inzamam, and Inzamam was a great player.

 

[Ted123]

de Villiers has won SA matches/series away from home almost everywhere except Australia while Kohli hasn't won any series anywhere outside Asia.

Neither of them have been great in World Cups.

 

[Hasan123]

Kohli is leagues above Inzamam, and Inzamam was a great player.

I was just showing him,how he contradicts himself and he has no response.

Inzamam is of course a brilliant batsmen.

 

[Bilal7]

These famous 8 games you refer to, tell us more about them . Since that's how you judge Kohlis career.

In those 8 games, what were the conditions of the pitch? Because Kohli failed I'm assuming the pitch wasn't flat . You would know that even if you can't remember the game.

In 10 matches batting in the top 3 versus NZ,Australia,and England AB averages 23. With those stats how do you judge him versus the new ball? Also he averages just 34 in England in 14 games with no centuries. And before you say he bats down the order he batted at four 10 times out of 14 and averages 27.

See how you can minapulate stats to make other players look weak. Your obsession with those 8 games is a joke. You can't even remember when they were played or know the context of the game. You don't know the conditions , yet you harp on about them continuously.

I know Kohli is the better batsmen , I'm just exposing his hypocrisy which he has no answer for at all.

I was just showing him,how he contradicts himself and he has no response.

Inzamam is of course a brilliant batsmen.

Firstly, the only person you are exposing is yourself.

Secondly, what about ABD's stats in South Africa? Swing and seam is the same, whether at home or away. This is also why Kohli got owned by Junaid, even though the matches took place at home. Besides, ABD's best positions are 4 and 5, he is not a top order batter and definitely not as good against the new ball as some other top order players.

I don't need to remember everything about those games because the only thing I am concerned about is that Kohli averages a mere 20 in games that his team has won against Aus, Eng and SA away. There is no manipulation with this, it is a simple stat.

Every idiot can see that Kohli is weak against seam and swing. There really is no debating this.

 

[Hasan123]

Firstly, the only person you are exposing is yourself.

Secondly, what about ABD's stats in South Africa? Swing and seam is the same, whether at home or away. This is also why Kohli got owned by Junaid, even though the matches took place at home. Besides, ABD's best positions are 4 and 5, he is not a top order batter and definitely not as good against the new ball as some other top order players.

I don't need to remember everything about those games because the only thing I am concerned about is that Kohli averages a mere 20 in games that his team has won against Aus, Eng and SA away. There is no manipulation with this, it is a simple stat.

Every idiot can see that Kohli is weak against seam and swing. There really is no debating this.

It's clear you have different rules for different players.

 

[Princejain191]

Haha, how can you compare Inzamam and Kohli in ODIs. What is up with Bilal man?

In 10 matches batting in the top 3 versus NZ,Australia,and England AB averages 23. With those stats how do you judge him versus the new ball? Also he averages just 34 in England in 14 games with no centuries. And before you say he bats down the order he batted at four 10 times out of 14 and averages 27.

See how you can manipulate stats to make other players look weak. Your obsession with those 8 games is a joke. You can't even remember when they were played or know the context of the game. You don't know the conditions , yet you harp on about them continuously.

I really don't think he cares about any rational argument. In his mind, every Indian pitch is flat, and every English and SA pitch seams and swings (ofcourse, not when Indian players score on them). And runs in bi-laterals don't count unless we are talking about Amla.

 

[Mobashir]

Kohli can't do anything that Abdv can't.

Kohli score lot of runs so does ABDV.

But ABDV score at a pace Kohli can't dream of.
ABDV has great performances in world cups, where as Kohli is failure so far.

ABDV has proved himself all over the world and against every bowling attack, Kohli hasn't.

 

[Ab Fan]

Firstly, the only person you are exposing is yourself.

Secondly, what about ABD's stats in South Africa? Swing and seam is the same, whether at home or away. This is also why Kohli got owned by Junaid, even though the matches took place at home. Besides, ABD's best positions are 4 and 5, he is not a top order batter and definitely not as good against the new ball as some other top order players.

I don't need to remember everything about those games because the only thing I am concerned about is that <B>Kohli averages a mere 20 in games that his team has won against Aus, Eng and SA away.</B> There is no manipulation with this, it is a simple stat.

Every idiot can see that Kohli is weak against seam and swing. There really is no debating this.

What is so important about this stat? A player might have scored big but lost the match while someone else would have scored on other day and won that match for his team.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

One of those classic examples when stats can mislead you.

VK > ABDV for me.