Virat Kohli vs Sarfaraz Ahmed - Who is the better captain?

[Dingolfy]

So by that logic, Sri Lanka is also a better team than India since Pakistan beat India just last year in a final but they couldn't beat Sri Lanka at home. Is that the way you think about sports? Just focussing on the flaws of a team and blatantly ignoring the positives? If you can't realise that Pakistan has improved a lot under Sarfaraz then you must've started watching cricket after the Pak vs NZ series.

Lol.Are you mixing two formats? And one-off wins can happen between any teams.We beat Windies in 1983 final and we all know what happened when we met them few months after that in a series.Consistant performance is the key.That is what will show how good a leader you are.
Tell me what exactly you have improved under Sarfi.You always had better bowlers.Its your batting which was failing you.And that is still the same.Still cant chase anything above 250 against non-minnows in this age of super roads.

 

[Pakhs]

Too early to say but definitely in test matches it has to be Virat so far as he has won more matches then sarfraz so far. In ODIs also its touch and go Sarfraz has won CT but virat also got to the final and has a series win is SA too!

 

[topspin]

Just one question for you. Who was a better captain, Ranatunga (he captained SL in 96 in case you don't know) or Ponting?

I'm well aware of Ranatunga's leadership which inspired SL to win the 96 WC and also rate him more highly than Ponting because of what he achieved without the presence of many ATGs whereas Ponting wasn't even the best Australia captain from the 90s onwards; he just happened to inherit possibly the greatest side of all time. But credit to him, he is statistically and silverware wise the most successful captain ever.

As mentioned previously, Ranatunga isn't a good yardstick to follow with the modern game as he wouldn't have been as successful if he was captain today because he would have got shown up in with his lack of fitness and athleticism. It wouldn't set a good precedent and his batting would have suffered, but at least he wouldn't have gone hiding like we saw with Sarfraz in CT final bringing up an inferior bat in Imad who limped Pakistan to 338 when it should have been 350+.

Until Sarfraz wins a WC or at least brings Pakistan to a top 4 side in tests and LOIs, he will remain inferior to both Rantunga and Ponting.

Sarfraz is an upgrade from Misbah, Azhar Ali, Shahid Afridi, Inzamam and Waqar Younis but that doesn't isn't enough to make him a great captain. I don't expect him to last long as skipper and batsman in the side, so his legacy will be the equivalent of Younis Khan who was also tactically astute and also led the side commendably with an ICC trophy but because he only led the side for a very short period of time that doesn't mean he is better than Kohli, Ranatunga or Ponting for that matter does it?

 

[ManFan]

You can use as many statistical jagnor and as many as proverbs as you want, but your so-called statistical jagnor means nothing when you don’t factor in the strength of the opposition.

Comparing W/L ratios or averages and strike rates mean nothing unless you take the opposition into account.

Kohli has captained ODI series against Australia, New Zealand, england and South Africa, while the only tough team Sarfraz has faced in ODIs was New Zealand and we were beaten like donkeys.

In Tests, he has played a series against all tough teams while Sarfraz has only captained 5 matches, including two against Sri Lanka in the UAE where his brilliant captaincy shown through, as well as a match in Ireland.

In T20s his record is impressive, but he has played a lot of matches against weak opposition.

Henceforth, your comparison of W/L ratios and percentages is meaningless and has added zero value to this discourse.

All your Type 1s and alphas and betas have failed.

I know that numbers do not often tell the entire story themselves but to dismiss [MENTION=136079]ahmedwaqas92[/MENTION]’s arguement simply because “the opposition is weak” or the same old NZ diatribe is not a great rebuttal.

If you can claim that the SL whitewash was not a one-off for Sarfraz than so can I about the CT Final. In fact, the tournamnet held greater significance for India than the SL series did for PAK.

Right now, Sarfraz has failed at two assignments: his first as Test captain and his first overseas ODI series. They were grand failures at that with a score line that read 0-7 but he proved himself by beating SL 8-0 in the LOI’s and NZ (the then ranked #1 T20 team) 2-1 after being 0-1.

That shows you that the more he played against them the better he was able to understand their strengths and weaknesses. That is the sign of someone who can lead a side and than have the war-like ability of seizing the moment as it arrives.

 

[Titan24]

Its funny that so called cricketing experts here dont realize that Sarfaraz is achieving (or not achieving according to some) with team in which other than him and Malik no player has played even 100 matches in ODIs and half the team players has not even played 40. Top 3 batsmen havent even played 100 matches between them.

In tests against eng our 4 bowlers out of 5 werent even 10 test matches experienced each. Our batsmen in tests other than Azhar, Asad and Sarfaraz all had less than 12 matches of experience.

Indian batting and bowling is more than 6,7 times more experienced in tests than Pakistan and batting in ODIs as well.

We will see in next 3,4 years when Kohli would need a transition from Rohit, Dhawan, Rahane, Dhoni, Ashwin, etc.

Experience of team plays a big role but the way Sarfaraz has used his players he didnt let these issues effect a lot and in T 20s we have become no 1 in his captaincy, in ODIs have improved and currently are at 5. A home test season is coming so test ranking is gonna improve also.

Virat isnt a bad captain but doesnt have a lot of plains when team is under pressure and isnt that good tactically.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I'm well aware of Ranatunga's leadership which inspired SL to win the 96 WC and also rate him more highly than Ponting because of what he achieved without the presence of many ATGs whereas Ponting wasn't even the best Australia captain from the 90s onwards; he just happened to inherit possibly the greatest side of all time. But credit to him, he is statistically and silverware wise the most successful captain ever.

As mentioned previously, Ranatunga isn't a good yardstick to follow with the modern game as he wouldn't have been as successful if he was captain today because he would have got shown up in with his lack of fitness and athleticism. It wouldn't set a good precedent and his batting would have suffered, but at least he wouldn't have gone hiding like we saw with Sarfraz in CT final bringing up an inferior bat in Imad who limped Pakistan to 338 when it should have been 350+.

Until Sarfraz wins a WC or at least brings Pakistan to a top 4 side in tests and LOIs, he will remain inferior to both Rantunga and Ponting.

Sarfraz is an upgrade from Misbah, Azhar Ali, Shahid Afridi, Inzamam and Waqar Younis but that doesn't isn't enough to make him a great captain. I don't expect him to last long as skipper and batsman in the side, so his legacy will be the equivalent of Younis Khan who was also tactically astute and also led the side commendably with an ICC trophy but because he only led the side for a very short period of time that doesn't mean he is better than Kohli, Ranatunga or Ponting for that matter does it?

I used the example of Ranatunga to make a point that a better captain does not necessarily has to be a better player. Tendulkar was a better batsman than Ganguly but none in their right mind will prefer Tendulkar over Ganguly as a captain.

It is ironic that you want Sarfraz to win a World Cup to become a great captain, yet you are perfectly fine with calling Kohli better who is yet to win anything major as a captain.

Sarfraz' resume is full of captaincy accomplishments, Kohli's is blank. Until he wins a World Cup, he's also not better than Sarfraz by the same logic.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I have maintained from the start of this so-called discussion that Kohli is a good captain but he needs to improve in certain areas.

I have also called Sarfraz a good captain and better than Azhar, although the latter had to cope with much tougher opposition, so I am not sure from where you have pulled this out.

As far as the rest of the post is concerned, you have made irrational arguments to prove that Kohli is a dud captain and that Sarfraz is far better.

You refuse to give Kohli credit for winning a Test series against all major teams and thrashed South Africa 5-1 in an away ODI series, because apparently India would have won all those series without Kohli’s captaincy.

However, you refuse to extend the same logic to Sarfraz winning series against Scotland, Zimbabwe, West Indies, Sri Lanka who are weak in ODIs now as well as a second string Australian team against whom Sarfraz has a 2-1 record.

You also have nothing to say over why Sarfraz could not win Pakistan a single ODI in New Zealand (the only tough series since the Champions Trophy) if he is such a tactical genius. Perhaps it would help if he can perform as a player against a good team for once? He has been garbage against any good team since 2016.

You criticize Kohli for not kicking Dhoni out and for protecting him in press conferences, but you have not explained what you want Kohli to tell the media? That Dhoni is a selfish player who is blackmailing the management?

What would Sarfraz have done if he was the Indian captain? What would he have said regarding Dhoni in press conferences?

You have ignored the fact that he couldn’t even kick Hafeez out of the team and even demoted himself down the order to accommodate him at number four.

The only reason Hafeez is out of the team is because Mickey has had enough of him. Sarfraz doesn’t have the personality or the guts to stand up to seniors.

As far as the Champions Trophy is concerned, yes Sarfraz won the trophy, but Kohli smashed his team earlier and made it to the final.

It was a bad day for India and a great day for Pakistan. The fact that Bumrah dismissed Fakhar on a no-ball had nothing to do with the captaincy of Kohli and Sarfraz.

The hypocrisy is off the charts here. You are perfectly fine with crediting Pandya for his great showing against a B string Australian team but you have a problem when Pakistan beat similar team in a tournament.

You will bash Sarfraz for 5-0 and 2-0 but you will not give him any credit for beating the same opponents in shorter formats. You will mention all the weak teams but you will never bring up Lord's test.

You will ridicule Sarfraz for being a poor performer yet you are completely fine with Kohli getting out twice in two consecutive balls in probably the biggest match of his career.

In short, when Pakistan win anything, Sarfraz gets no credit. When the team loses then he takes all the blame. When India lose a test series in SA due to proven tactical failure of Kohli, don't call him a poor captain but when he beats poor spin playing teams in his backyard, give him all the credit.

I know the burn is real to see Sarfraz doing well as captain when we were told that Azhar was the right choice before him. He proved that wrong. Then we were told that he wouldn't survive for more than a year. That too was proved wrong. Now eagerly awaiting for another shut up call to his critics.

 

[kuskash]

India can only dream of having a captain like S. Ahmed. Period.

 

[CricVet]

Good record overseas as Pakistan? LOL. The last time you won/drew a Test in Australia was in 1995, 23 years back. That too even with way better fast bowlers than us.

LOL...care to explain your PATHETIC TOTAL # OF TEST victories in AU + SA + ENG vs Pak? Again, considering how Pak has been doing so terrible as a whole in the past 2 decades with so much turmoil in the country, one should die with shame doing it...

 

[Dingolfy]

LOL...care to explain your PATHETIC TOTAL # OF TEST victories in AU + SA + ENG vs Pak? Again, considering how Pak has been doing so terrible as a whole in the past 2 decades with so much turmoil in the country, one should die with shame doing it...

Why so serious? Chillax, it is just a game.Not war.

 

[Dingolfy]

Its funny that so called cricketing experts here dont realize that Sarfaraz is achieving (or not achieving according to some) with team in which other than him and Malik no player has played even 100 matches in ODIs and half the team players has not even played 40. Top 3 batsmen havent even played 100 matches between them.

In tests against eng our 4 bowlers out of 5 werent even 10 test matches experienced each. Our batsmen in tests other than Azhar, Asad and Sarfaraz all had less than 12 matches of experience.

Indian batting and bowling is more than 6,7 times more experienced in tests than Pakistan and batting in ODIs as well.

We will see in next 3,4 years when Kohli would need a transition from Rohit, Dhawan, Rahane, Dhoni, Ashwin, etc.

Experience of team plays a big role but the way Sarfaraz has used his players he didnt let these issues effect a lot and in T 20s we have become no 1 in his captaincy, in ODIs have improved and currently are at 5. A home test season is coming so test ranking is gonna improve also.

Virat isnt a bad captain but doesnt have a lot of plains when team is under pressure and isnt that good tactically.

Kohli already transitioned Ashwin and Jadeja in ODIs and reaped the benefits.And please don't bring up T20s, a format where Windies are the world champs.A hack going berserk in two overs can win in that format.
A captains mettle is most tested in the longer formats and that is where Sarafarz is yet to prove.His decision to go with a lone spinner against Srilanka was criticized in this same forum as the reason for your whitewash.And now you are saying he is tactically ahead of Kohli. I had only seen him yelling at players under pressure and that is not tactical in any universe.
Like I said earlier, let him lead Pakistan to beat some non-minnows ( home or away) in Test or ODI series like Kohli have done and then we will hype him up.

 

[mohan11]

Come back when you AT LEAST tie the series in eng. LoL lowly. Your mahaan bhaarat team is worse than pathetic lowly in over seas test cricket. You wanna discuss more, join the thread for our overseas record.

By the way, Pak as a country let alone cricket, has gone thru its worst phase in past few decades and even then we have maintained the best overseas test record. Your better hope your soormas won't embarrass you in England. Tata.

You are too much deluded buddy. You recently got thrashed by Sri Lanka in emriates and India is already a top ranked team under the leadership of Kohli. No comparison.

 

[CricVet]

Kohli already transitioned Ashwin and Jadeja in ODIs and reaped the benefits.And please don't bring up T20s, a format where Windies are the world champs.A hack going berserk in two overs can win in that format.
A captains mettle is most tested in the longer formats and that is where Sarafarz is yet to prove.His decision to go with a lone spinner against Srilanka was criticized in this same forum as the reason for your whitewash.And now you are saying he is tactically ahead of Kohli. I had only seen him yelling at players under pressure and that is not tactical in any universe.
Like I said earlier, let him lead Pakistan to beat some non-minnows ( home or away) in Test or ODI series like Kohli have done and then we will hype him up.

Let see how many games kohli wins as a captain in eng with all the experience behind him. Sarfraz does not have a magic wand to turn the team around in the most difficult cricket format - test cricket. Given the experience Pak cricketers have, not even stephen flemmings can do much about it. I know we have one Indian pithoo trolling uncle who brings NZ and SL series over and over into discussion and the rest of the Padosis follow his tune but the truth is, Pak does not have experience to perform consistently and in test especially.

As far as t20 is concerned, Sarfraz winning percentage is too high to call it a luck. Instead of being bitter, one should give him credit for outsmarting his oppositions. It is though not expected from many Indians.

 

[CricVet]

You are too much deluded buddy. You recently got thrashed by Sri Lanka in emriates and India is already a top ranked team under the leadership of Kohli. No comparison.

Hahah..delulded Indian fan...expected...back up with numbers?

 

[Dingolfy]

Let see how many games kohli wins as a captain in eng with all the experience behind him. Sarfraz does not have a magic wand to turn the team around in the most difficult cricket format - test cricket. Given the experience Pak cricketers have, not even stephen flemmings can do much about it. I know we have one Indian pithoo trolling uncle who brings NZ and SL series over and over into discussion and the rest of the Padosis follow his tune but the truth is, Pak does not have experience to perform consistently and in test especially.

As far as t20 is concerned, Sarfraz winning percentage is too high to call it a luck. Instead of being bitter, one should give him credit for outsmarting his oppositions. It is though not expected from many Indians.

Lol.Shanth hoja, Gadhadhari Bheem,Shanth Hoja. No need to get hyper. You ain't waging a war here. This is just a simple internet forum.So don't increase your BP over that.
Regarding T20s,Kohli also had won a lot including away ones against SA and England.But I dont care or big up about that because it is a hack's format.Too short for any proof of strategy.
When you say Sarfi is better than Kohli, you should back it up actual performances against non-minnows Which Sarfi doesn't have at this moment.So he cant be better than Kohli at this moment. As simple as that.

 

[BaankeJi]

Is there even a doubt? Sarfaraz hands down. No thinking required.

 

[Mute Witness]

I think what a lot of people are missing here quoting x series win and y series loss is how teams and captains evolve over time. When judging captains you look at overall trend and whether as a whole the trajectory of the team is moving up or down.

When sarfaraz led the side to a CT win, Pakistan was ranked the bottom side, last to qualify, 8th out of 8. So credit to him for winning it. He followed it up with the whitewash of Sri Lanka, again, a team ranked higher when he took over. Neither wins made Pakistan the best team in the world overnight. New Zealand only confirmed the work that still needed to be done, the gulf that still existed. It is also pertinent to note the gap before the new zealand series in the calender, leaving Mickey frustrated at the poor fitness levels after the players returned from holiday. Something that has been rectified since. So has the team improved and learned from NZ? There are hints to suggest so. Hints like settling on an opening pair, dropping Hafeez for a late order smasher in Asif Ali. And increasing depth in the fast bowling reserves(shaheen!).
So Pakistan today ranks above Australia, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh in ODIs, teams that were ahead of Pakistan before Sarfaraz took over. Similarly Pakistan were ranked seventh in T20s in 2016, now ranked first in 2018. The direction is almost certainly upwards so denying him, mickey or inzi the credit would be a disservice to Pakistan cricket.
So what then about the test side? Which direction is that headed. The loss against Sri Lanka was almost certainly a massive blow. The first series post MisYou, and Pakistan lose their 7 year unbeaten streak in the UAE. But honest appraisals followed. Mickey confessing that going with three fast bowlers and a spinner in the series was a significant miscalculation on his part, a departure from Misbah's signature method of choking teams in the UAE. Will Sarfaraz and Mickey learn from that, you bet. The only other test series Sarfaraz has lead in was the recent tour to GB and Ireland, and that was far from a disaster. So in conclusion, the direction under Sarfaraz as captain has for the most part been positive. Of course there will be bumps along the way, but I'm fairly content right now and optimistic for the most part, particularly given half the team is yet to reach their full potential individually. A similar evaluation of the direction and evolution the indian side under kohli from fellow commentators would be appreciated. Kohli too will learn and evolve i believe, but i am not in a position to evaluate where he stands as captain right now.

 

[Mamoon]

The hypocrisy is off the charts here. You are perfectly fine with crediting Pandya for his great showing against a B string Australian team but you have a problem when Pakistan beat similar team in a tournament.

You will bash Sarfraz for 5-0 and 2-0 but you will not give him any credit for beating the same opponents in shorter formats. You will mention all the weak teams but you will never bring up Lord's test.

You will ridicule Sarfraz for being a poor performer yet you are completely fine with Kohli getting out twice in two consecutive balls in probably the biggest match of his career.

In short, when Pakistan win anything, Sarfraz gets no credit. When the team loses then he takes all the blame. When India lose a test series in SA due to proven tactical failure of Kohli, don't call him a poor captain but when he beats poor spin playing teams in his backyard, give him all the credit.

I know the burn is real to see Sarfraz doing well as captain when we were told that Azhar was the right choice before him. He proved that wrong. Then we were told that he wouldn't survive for more than a year. That too was proved wrong. Now eagerly awaiting for another shut up call to his critics.

What?

You lost me completely here. Kohli is one of the greatest batsmen of all time and failing in the Champions Trophy Final doesn’t change that.

On the contrary, except for 2014-15, Sarfraz has been a substandard player throughout his career.

I don’t understand the point of using Kohli’s failure in the Champions Trophy Final to defend Sarfraz’s mediocrity.

Even if Kohli fails for the next 100 matches, he will still be 100 times the cricketer Sarfraz ever will be.

Also, don’t kid yourself that the Champions Trophy Final was the biggest match of Kohli’s career.

For a second rate cricketer like Sarfraz, a B grade tournament like the Champions Trophy might be the pinnacle, but it means little to all time greats like Kohli.

The two biggest individual matches of Kohli’s career so far are the 2011 World Cup Final and the 2015 World Cup Semifinal.

He failed in the latter, but he played a crucial cameo in the 2011 Final which was worth more than a half-century in normal circumstances, and was a better knock than many of his fifty plus scores.

If Kohli doesn’t dominate a World Cup in his career - or wins a big World Cup knockout match, it will be a black mark on his legacy, but a tournament like the Champions Trophy has no impact on the legacies of all-time greats.

That tournament will be the greatest moment for many of our mediocre players including Sarfraz, but please don’t kid yourself that someone like Kohli is going to look back at his career and consider it a big moment, especially when he has won that tournament already, and has already achieved much better things in his career including World Cup glory and the Test Mace as captain.

No one is burning because Sarfraz has led Pakistan to a few wins against a bunch of minnows, associates and weak teams; people want his fans to calm down and wait and see how he fares against quality opposition, especially when he was brutally exposed in the only tough ODI series that he has captained since the Champions Trophy.

 

[JaDed]

Sarfaraz has overachieved and Kohli underachieved, meaning Sarfaraz is better.

As a player though don't think he can continue with current form, it would rub his team mates the wrong way if he explodes on them and it could lead PCT back to square one and right now PCT is very exciting to watch, so hopefully Sarfaraz improves.

 

[hadi123]

The hypocrisy is off the charts here. You are perfectly fine with crediting Pandya for his great showing against a B string Australian team but you have a problem when Pakistan beat similar team in a tournament.

You will bash Sarfraz for 5-0 and 2-0 but you will not give him any credit for beating the same opponents in shorter formats. You will mention all the weak teams but you will never bring up Lord's test.

You will ridicule Sarfraz for being a poor performer yet you are completely fine with Kohli getting out twice in two consecutive balls in probably the biggest match of his career.

In short, when Pakistan win anything, Sarfraz gets no credit. When the team loses then he takes all the blame. When India lose a test series in SA due to proven tactical failure of Kohli, don't call him a poor captain but when he beats poor spin playing teams in his backyard, give him all the credit.

I know the burn is real to see Sarfraz doing well as captain when we were told that Azhar was the right choice before him. He proved that wrong. Then we were told that he wouldn't survive for more than a year. That too was proved wrong. Now eagerly awaiting for another shut up call to his critics.

Oh bhai Kohli failed in this one match, this out twice in two balls is not true, he was dropped the first time, I have to agree with mamoon on this one that he is 10x the batsman Sarfaraz will ever be.

 

[topspin]

The hypocrisy is off the charts here. You are perfectly fine with crediting Pandya for his great showing against a B string Australian team but you have a problem when Pakistan beat similar team in a tournament.

You will bash Sarfraz for 5-0 and 2-0 but you will not give him any credit for beating the same opponents in shorter formats. You will mention all the weak teams but you will never bring up Lord's test.

You will ridicule Sarfraz for being a poor performer yet you are completely fine with Kohli getting out twice in two consecutive balls in probably the biggest match of his career.

In short, when Pakistan win anything, Sarfraz gets no credit. When the team loses then he takes all the blame. When India lose a test series in SA due to proven tactical failure of Kohli, don't call him a poor captain but when he beats poor spin playing teams in his backyard, give him all the credit.

I know the burn is real to see Sarfraz doing well as captain when we were told that Azhar was the right choice before him. He proved that wrong. Then we were told that he wouldn't survive for more than a year. That too was proved wrong. Now eagerly awaiting for another shut up call to his critics.

This is a really desperate attempt to take shots at Kohli and belittle him. If for once you took off your green tinted specs, you would realise this statement is wrong in so many ways:

1. Biggest match was 2011 WC final where he played a good knock when India was in trouble after Malinga got Sehwag and Tendulkar out early in their chase.

2. A dropped catch doesn't mean he was out. Going by the same logic Fakhar Zaman got out before he reached double figures. So all this "getting out twice in two consecutive balls" is just nonsense

3. Despite the failure in that one final - Sarfraz is not even close to being half as good as Kohli, so the criticism with his failure in the CT final isn't warranted.

 

[Mamoon]

Oh bhai Kohli failed in this one match, this out twice in two balls is not true, he was dropped the first time, I have to agree with mamoon on this one that he is 10x the batsman Sarfaraz will ever be.

This is a really desperate attempt to take shots at Kohli and belittle him. If for once you took off your green tinted specs, you would realise this statement is wrong in so many ways:

1. Biggest match was 2011 WC final where he played a good knock when India was in trouble after Malinga got Sehwag and Tendulkar out early in their chase.

2. A dropped catch doesn't mean he was out. Going by the same logic Fakhar Zaman got out before he reached double figures. So all this "getting out twice in two consecutive balls" is just nonsense

3. Despite the failure in that one final - Sarfraz is not even close to being half as good as Kohli, so the criticism with his failure in the CT final isn't warranted.

I have seen many desperate attempts to defend Sarfraz’s poor performances, but this one certainly takes the cake.

 

[Hawkeye]

Lol.

Not even a competition. Nobody knows or rates Sarf.

 

[Pakhs]

What?

You lost me completely here. Kohli is one of the greatest batsmen of all time and failing in the Champions Trophy Final doesn’t change that.

On the contrary, except for 2014-15, Sarfraz has been a substandard player throughout his career.

I don’t understand the point of using Kohli’s failure in the Champions Trophy Final to defend Sarfraz’s mediocrity.

Even if Kohli fails for the next 100 matches, he will still be 100 times the cricketer Sarfraz ever will be.

Also, don’t kid yourself that the Champions Trophy Final was the biggest match of Kohli’s career.

For a second rate cricketer like Sarfraz, a B grade tournament like the Champions Trophy might be the pinnacle, but it means little to all time greats like Kohli.

The two biggest individual matches of Kohli’s career so far are the 2011 World Cup Final and the 2015 World Cup Semifinal.

He failed in the latter, but he played a crucial cameo in the 2011 Final which was worth more than a half-century in normal circumstances, and was a better knock than many of his fifty plus scores.

If Kohli doesn’t dominate a World Cup in his career - or wins a big World Cup knockout match, it will be a black mark on his legacy, but a tournament like the Champions Trophy has no impact on the legacies of all-time greats.

That tournament will be the greatest moment for many of our mediocre players including Sarfraz, but please don’t kid yourself that someone like Kohli is going to look back at his career and consider it a big moment, especially when he has won that tournament already, and has already achieved much better things in his career including World Cup glory and the Test Mace as captain.

No one is burning because Sarfraz has led Pakistan to a few wins against a bunch of minnows, associates and weak teams; people want his fans to calm down and wait and see how he fares against quality opposition, especially when he was brutally exposed in the only tough ODI series that he has captained since the Champions Trophy.

By which definition CT is B grade tournament? Best top 8 teams in the world participated in the tournament no messing about up against each other unlike WC where the likes of UAE participate diluting the quality, meaning and value of the tournament.

 

[Mamoon]

By which definition CT is B grade tournament? Best top 8 teams in the world participated in the tournament no messing about up against each other unlike WC where the likes of UAE participate diluting the quality, meaning and value of the tournament.

Champions Trophy was an irrelevant tournament and that is why it has become defunct. The absence of associate teams doesn’t make it more significant than the World Cup - it is not even close.

The most important tournament by far is the World Cup followed by the World T20; the Champions Trophy was pointless because winning the tournament doesn’t make you the world champion in the format.

That is why it has been replaced by the Test Championship - three trophies for three formats, and the winner becomes the world champion in the respective format.

 

[Pakhs]

Champions Trophy was an irrelevant tournament and that is why it has become defunct. The absence of associate teams doesn’t make it more significant than the World Cup - it is not even close.

The most important tournament by far is the World Cup followed by the World T20; the Champions Trophy was pointless because winning the tournament doesn’t make you the world champion in the format.

That is why it has been replaced by the Test Championship - three trophies for three formats, and the winner becomes the world champion in the respective format.

You tried to say it was B grade tournament? whether it was relevant or not is not the question here fact is while it was played it featured the best 8 teams in the world and qualification criteria was harder than the WC proven by the fact WI couldn't qualify. When Pak won it proved they were the best side at that moment in time in the world. I would suggest next time give it a bit of thought before posting.

 

[Mamoon]

You tried to say it was B grade tournament? whether it was relevant or not is not the question here fact is while it was played it featured the best 8 teams in the world and qualification criteria was harder than the WC proven by the fact WI couldn't qualify. When Pak won it proved they were the best side at that moment in time in the world. I would suggest next time give it a bit of thought before posting.

The Champions Trophy was a B grade tournament. A grade tournaments are the World Cup and the WT20, because they are the premier tournaments of ODIs and T20Is.

The Champions Trophy was not a premier tournament, and it did not make sense to have to two tournaments for one format.

Winning the World Cup makes you the world champion in ODIs, but where does winning the Champions Trophy leave you?

It is understandable that Pakistani fans are now overrating the importance of the Champions Trophy now that we have won it, but it is what it is.

 

[topspin]

The Champions Trophy was a B grade tournament. A grade tournaments are the World Cup and the WT20, because they are the premier tournaments of ODIs and T20Is.

The Champions Trophy was not a premier tournament, and it did not make sense to have to two tournaments for one format.

Winning the World Cup makes you the world champion in ODIs, but where does winning the Champions Trophy leave you?

It is understandable that Pakistani fans are now overrating the importance of the Champions Trophy now that we have won it, but it is what it is.

I remember in the early 2000s the great Aussie side didn't even care about it because their eyes were set on winning test series and the 2003 WC which they won without a single defeat.

No wonder a poor WI side won it in 2004.

CT is nice addition to Pakistan's LOI silverware but it's importance has been inflated on here as if we've won a WC in England. Ever since Sarfraz has lifted that trophy he has been less committed and regressed far more with the bat because he seems content with this B grade trophy. With this kind of laid back attitude dare I say it, the CT win could be a curse come next year's WC.

 

[Mamoon]

I remember in the early 2000s the great Aussie side didn't even care about it because their eyes were set on winning test series and the 2003 WC which they won without a single defeat.

No wonder a poor WI side won it in 2004.

CT is nice addition to Pakistan's LOI silverware but it's importance has been inflated on here as if we've won a WC in England. Ever since Sarfraz has lifted that trophy he has been less committed and regressed far more with the bat because he seems content with this B grade trophy. With this kind of laid back attitude dare I say it, the CT win could be a curse come next year's WC.

This is what happens when you give a mediocre captain and a mediocre team success.

The Champions Trophy is nowhere near the World Cup and the Test Mace in terms of significance. It is even less important than the World T20.

South Africa won it in 1998 but it didn’t help them shed the C tag, and New Zealand won it in 2000 but no one cares.

 

[Pakhs]

The Champions Trophy was a B grade tournament. A grade tournaments are the World Cup and the WT20, because they are the premier tournaments of ODIs and T20Is.

The Champions Trophy was not a premier tournament, and it did not make sense to have to two tournaments for one format.

Winning the World Cup makes you the world champion in ODIs, but where does winning the Champions Trophy leave you?

It is understandable that Pakistani fans are now overrating the importance of the Champions Trophy now that we have won it, but it is what it is.

Go and educate yourself a little bit, it can be argued it was not needed or whatever but once it was held it consisted of top 8 teams. it was by no means B grade tournament.

 

[Syed1]

Go and educate yourself a little bit, it can be argued it was not needed or whatever but once it was held it consisted of top 8 teams. it was by no means B grade tournament.

The only reason it was a B grade tournament was because Pakistan won. Last time India won and this same tournament held alot of significance. #PP experts

 

[Pakhs]

The only reason it was a B grade tournament was because Pakistan won. Last time India won and this same tournament held alot of significance. #PP experts

In fact it can also be argued that it was a higher class tournament than the WC as there are not enough high quality teams in the world at the moment to have a meaningful WC. That according to logic above.

 

[Mamoon]

Go and educate yourself a little bit, it can be argued it was not needed or whatever but once it was held it consisted of top 8 teams. it was by no means B grade tournament.

It was a B grade tournament because of its value. It wasn’t a premier tournament like the World Cup and the World T20. They are A grade tournaments.

If it wasn’t B grade, the ICC would not have gotten rid of it.

The fact that only top 8 teams played in it does not make it an A grade tournament. It is a B grade tournament by design, it doesn’t matter which teams took part in it.

I don’t know if you watch football, but I will give you an analogy:

If Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Juventus, Man United etc. fail to qualify for the Champions League and end up in the Europa League, the quality of the Europa League will be higher, but it will remain a second rate competition, and that is because tournaments have intrinsic value that go beyond the quality of the teams that participate in it.

 

[Mamoon]

In fact it can also be argued that it was a higher class tournament than the WC as there are not enough high quality teams in the world at the moment to have a meaningful WC. That according to logic above.

Once again, the Champions Trophy is a second rate tournament by design. Having no associate teams doesn’t make it bigger than the flagship trophy in cricket - the World Cup.

The World Cup defines legacies and has the power to make players legends. The Champions Trophy doesn’t do that.

 

[Pakhs]

It was a B grade tournament because of its value. It wasn’t a premier tournament like the World Cup and the World T20. They are A grade tournaments.

If it wasn’t B grade, the ICC would not have gotten rid of it.

The fact that only top 8 teams played in it does not make it an A grade tournament. It is a B grade tournament by design, it doesn’t matter which teams took part in it.

I don’t know if you watch football, but I will give you an analogy:

If Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Juventus, Man United etc. fail to qualify for the Champions League and end up in the Europa League, the quality of the Europa League will be higher, but it will remain a second rate competition, and that is because tournaments have intrinsic value that go beyond the quality of the teams that participate in it.

Totally wrong! I f the teams mentioned above end up playing Europa league for some unknown reason and they are still the best sides in the world then Europa league would be a higher quality tournament than Champions league. No tournament can be classed B grade if the best teams play in it. As I said if its relevant or not its a different topic all together. As I said just make sure to think a little bit before posting rubbish next time. No Need to keep defending yourself its looking more and more stupid.

 

[Mamoon]

Totally wrong! I f the teams mentioned above end up playing Europa league for some unknown reason and they are still the best sides in the world then Europa league would be a higher quality tournament than Champions league. No tournament can be classed B grade if the best teams play in it. As I said if its relevant or not its a different topic all together. As I said just make sure to think a little bit before posting rubbish next time. No Need to keep defending yourself its looking more and more stupid.

The only one who is looking stupid here is the person who is attempting to make the Champions Trophy a bigger tournament than the World Cup because only the top 8 teams play in the Champions Trophy.

You can consider the Champions Trophy the biggest sporting event in the world if you wish, but it is simply your opinion. A nonsense opinion but an opinion nonetheless.

However, it is a globally recognized fact that the Champions Trophy is not close to the World Cup in terms of importance. A fact that you are not willing to accept.

That is all.

 

[Hitman]

ICC was planning to scrap the Champions Trophy since 2006. I wonder why if it meant so much to the game.

 

[topspin]

Totally wrong! I f the teams mentioned above end up playing Europa league for some unknown reason and they are still the best sides in the world then Europa league would be a higher quality tournament than Champions league. No tournament can be classed B grade if the best teams play in it. As I said if its relevant or not its a different topic all together. As I said just make sure to think a little bit before posting rubbish next time. No Need to keep defending yourself its looking more and more stupid.

Honestly?!

Telling others to educate themselves but you come up with this? UCL will always be a far superior tournament than Europa regardless of the teams that participate in it because only the best sides in Europe gain the chance to compete in it hence why it is Europe's most prestigious prize.

Just like in cricket the most prestigious prize in ODIs has always been the ICC ODI World Cup even during the Champions Trophy era (1998 - 2017).

 

[Pakhs]

Honestly?!

Telling others to educate themselves but you come up with this? UCL will always be a far superior tournament than Europa regardless of the teams that participate in it because only the best sides in Europe gain the chance to compete in it hence why it is Europe's most prestigious prize.

Just like in cricket the most prestigious prize in ODIs has always been the ICC ODI World Cup even during the Champions Trophy era (1998 - 2017).

I think the argument was if this was no longer the case and in fact the best teams participated in Europa league instead. I think you missed the earlier threads.

 

[Pakhs]

The only one who is looking stupid here is the person who is attempting to make the Champions Trophy a bigger tournament than the World Cup because only the top 8 teams play in the Champions Trophy.

You can consider the Champions Trophy the biggest sporting event in the world if you wish, but it is simply your opinion. A nonsense opinion but an opinion nonetheless.

However, it is a globally recognized fact that the Champions Trophy is not close to the World Cup in terms of importance. A fact that you are not willing to accept.

That is all.

When did I say CT was bigger than WC? All I said CT was not a B grade tournament because worlds best sides participated in it. And you can keep trying but this fact wont change.

 

[Pakhs]

ICC was planning to scrap the Champions Trophy since 2006. I wonder why if it meant so much to the game.

Thats a different argument all together. But the fact remains once held it had the best teams participating so was in no way B grade tournament.

 

[Mamoon]

When did I say CT was bigger than WC? All I said CT was not a B grade tournament because worlds best sides participated in it. And you can keep trying but this fact wont change.

It is not the most important tournament in its format and the team that wins it does not become the world champion.

If you still want to call such a tournament an A grade one, go ahead.

 

[Pakhs]

It is not the most important tournament in its format and the team that wins it does not become the world champion.

If you still want to call such a tournament an A grade one, go ahead.

Correct they become Champions Trophy winners instead. And by its definition it was an A Grade tournament. The only time it can be classed as B grade tournament if the top teams didn't play in it.

 

[Hitman]

Thats a different argument all together. But the fact remains once held it had the best teams participating so was in no way B grade tournament.

ICC wouldn't really scrap an A class prestigious tournament.

 

[CricVet]

Lol.Shanth hoja, Gadhadhari Bheem,Shanth Hoja. No need to get hyper. You ain't waging a war here. This is just a simple internet forum.So don't increase your BP over that.
Regarding T20s,Kohli also had won a lot including away ones against SA and England.But I dont care or big up about that because it is a hack's format.Too short for any proof of strategy.
When you say Sarfi is better than Kohli, you should back it up actual performances against non-minnows Which Sarfi doesn't have at this moment.So he cant be better than Kohli at this moment. As simple as that.

Ohoo..Bhishma Pitamah sahab...Yar aap jazbati ho rahay ho...Shanti...zyada akadna or Jalan theek nahi hay aapkay Sehat kay lyay.

T20 is a great gauge to understand the quick thinking process of a captain. You can't expriment much in this game. When I get the time, I will pull up stats of Sarfraz Vs good team and Kohli Vs good teams and then will analyze. Jab tak apnay dil to sambhalna ...or Jalna kum yaar. this is all in fun.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Oh bhai Kohli failed in this one match, this out twice in two balls is not true, he was dropped the first time, I have to agree with mamoon on this one that he is 10x the batsman Sarfaraz will ever be.

I am not comparing Sarfraz's batting with Kohli. I am highlighting the hypocrisy that how Sarfraz is bashed for every single thing while Kohli gets away with everything.

 

[The_Odd_One]

This is a really desperate attempt to take shots at Kohli and belittle him. If for once you took off your green tinted specs, you would realise this statement is wrong in so many ways:

1. Biggest match was 2011 WC final where he played a good knock when India was in trouble after Malinga got Sehwag and Tendulkar out early in their chase.

2. A dropped catch doesn't mean he was out. Going by the same logic Fakhar Zaman got out before he reached double figures. So all this "getting out twice in two consecutive balls" is just nonsense

3. Despite the failure in that one final - Sarfraz is not even close to being half as good as Kohli, so the criticism with his failure in the CT final isn't warranted.

Did you miss the word "probably" before biggest match? In 2011, Kohli was a nobody so his failure would not have been important.

Fakhar Zaman was not dropped, he got out to an illegal delivery.

How many times do you see a batsman like Kohli gifting his wicket twice? It is hard to dismiss him once usually and there he was out twice on two balls.

 

[The_Odd_One]

What?

You lost me completely here. Kohli is one of the greatest batsmen of all time and failing in the Champions Trophy Final doesn’t change that.

On the contrary, except for 2014-15, Sarfraz has been a substandard player throughout his career.

I don’t understand the point of using Kohli’s failure in the Champions Trophy Final to defend Sarfraz’s mediocrity.

Even if Kohli fails for the next 100 matches, he will still be 100 times the cricketer Sarfraz ever will be.

Also, don’t kid yourself that the Champions Trophy Final was the biggest match of Kohli’s career.

For a second rate cricketer like Sarfraz, a B grade tournament like the Champions Trophy might be the pinnacle, but it means little to all time greats like Kohli.

The two biggest individual matches of Kohli’s career so far are the 2011 World Cup Final and the 2015 World Cup Semifinal.

He failed in the latter, but he played a crucial cameo in the 2011 Final which was worth more than a half-century in normal circumstances, and was a better knock than many of his fifty plus scores.

If Kohli doesn’t dominate a World Cup in his career - or wins a big World Cup knockout match, it will be a black mark on his legacy, but a tournament like the Champions Trophy has no impact on the legacies of all-time greats.

That tournament will be the greatest moment for many of our mediocre players including Sarfraz, but please don’t kid yourself that someone like Kohli is going to look back at his career and consider it a big moment, especially when he has won that tournament already, and has already achieved much better things in his career including World Cup glory and the Test Mace as captain.

No one is burning because Sarfraz has led Pakistan to a few wins against a bunch of minnows, associates and weak teams; people want his fans to calm down and wait and see how he fares against quality opposition, especially when he was brutally exposed in the only tough ODI series that he has captained since the Champions Trophy.

None is comparing Kohli the cricketer or batsman to Sarfraz. This thread is about captaincy, so even if Kohli averages 100 in all formats, it is irrelevant to the captaincy debate.

No matter how hard you try to downgrade the CT final, the fact is it is the 3rd most watched game in the history of cricket. and possibly the biggest match of Kohli's career so far. The viewership for that match was far greater than the 2015 WC semi-final against Australia.

In 2011 WC, the focus was not Kohli. His failure had no significance. This time, he was the captain of his team and the #1 batsman in the world. Millions of people tuned in to watch if he could be as good as Dhoni and continue the trend of beating Pakistan in high pressure games. He was the highlight and what happened? He choked harder than Amla. He was completely clueless in the field as captain and batted like Rahat Ali.

 

[The_Odd_One]

This is what happens when you give a mediocre captain and a mediocre team success.

The Champions Trophy is nowhere near the World Cup and the Test Mace in terms of significance. It is even less important than the World T20.

South Africa won it in 1998 but it didn’t help them shed the C tag, and New Zealand won it in 2000 but no one cares.

Nice try but both 1998 and 2000 were not CT in its current form, it used to be ICC Knockout Trophy and you had to win just 3 matches to win lift the trophy.

I have seen you using India's CT win several times in the past and here you are trying hard to make a top 8 team tournament with full strength teams a B grade tournament. Only 2011 WC final and semi-final have been watched by more people than the final of 2017 CT.

 

[Sadevdesai]

Comparing Apples to Oranges !!!!!!

 

[topspin]

Did you miss the word "probably" before biggest match? In 2011, Kohli was a nobody so his failure would not have been important.

Fakhar Zaman was not dropped, he got out to an illegal delivery.

How many times do you see a batsman like Kohli gifting his wicket twice? It is hard to dismiss him once usually and there he was out twice on two balls.

I think you need to realise the importance of the match situation. If Kohli had got out, India would have been reeling at 3 down with so few runs on the board with over 250 runs required in a WC final chase. If India had lost the final, Kohli would have been one of the batsmen blamed for losing the WC and as a host nation of cricket fanatics, it would have been a big deal! These occasions can make or break players and I'm sure those runs played a big part of what he is today because it not only gave him the belief that he belongs at international level, it gave him the confidence that he could be the champion player that he is today.

 

[Hitman]

Did you miss the word "probably" before biggest match? In 2011, Kohli was a nobody so his failure would not have been important.

Fakhar Zaman was not dropped, he got out to an illegal delivery.

How many times do you see a batsman like Kohli gifting his wicket twice? It is hard to dismiss him once usually and there he was out twice on two balls.

Why did Pakistan have. to dismiss him twice? Doesn't the rule say that a batsman has to walk off the field after he is dismissed once?

 

[kuskash]

Why did Pakistan have. to dismiss him twice? Doesn't the rule say that a batsman has to walk off the field after he is dismissed once?

It means Pak had to take 11 wickets.

 

[Ab Fan]

Kohli is an average captain but an outstanding cricketer.

Sarfaraz is an average cricketer but we are yet to see how good a captain he is. He is an upgrade over what Pakistan had a few years ago but we dont know how good a captain he is.

 

[Pakhs]

ICC wouldn't really scrap an A class prestigious tournament.

They scraped it because they had two A grade tournaments. At present there is no need for two as there are only 8 top teams and once PAK won CT it meant they were the best team in the world as the same top 8 teams participated at the WC. Thats the only reason why I wont have two ICC level tournaments as there are not enough teams to counter CT with WC.

 

[Hitman]

They scraped it because they had two A grade tournaments. At present there is no need for two as there are only 8 top teams and once PAK won CT it meant they were the best team in the world as the same top 8 teams participated at the WC. Thats the only reason why I wont have two ICC level tournaments as there are not enough teams to counter CT with WC.

So why didn't they think of scrapping the World Cup instead of the Champions trophy if they are both A grade tournaments?

 

[Mamoon]

Nice try but both 1998 and 2000 were not CT in its current form, it used to be ICC Knockout Trophy and you had to win just 3 matches to win lift the trophy.

I have seen you using India's CT win several times in the past and here you are trying hard to make a top 8 team tournament with full strength teams a B grade tournament. Only 2011 WC final and semi-final have been watched by more people than the final of 2017 CT.

The format of the tournament is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how many matches you had to win - it has always been a B grade tournament and that is why it has been scrapped. It served no purpose.

The World Cup format has also been changed multiple times, but that doesn’t make one World Cup more important than the other.

In 2011 and 2015, you had to win 3 knockout games to win. In 2019, you only need to win 2 knockout games.

That doesn’t make 2011 and 2015 World Cups more important than the 2019 World Cup.

Also, the viewership point is moot. Pakistan vs India match will always attract eyeballs, but even if 0 people watch a World Cup knockout and a million watch the Champions Trophy Final, the World Cup knockout will always be more significant.

 

[Pakhs]

So why didn't they think of scrapping the World Cup instead of the Champions trophy if they are both A grade tournaments?

Because WC started before CT? Seriously are you this stupid? Fact is there is no point of two tournaments when there are only 8 teams.

 

[Mamoon]

Because WC started before CT? Seriously are you this stupid? Fact is there is no point of two tournaments when there are only 8 teams.

No, because the World Cup is the “World Cup”.

The Champions Trophy is more like the FIFA Confederations Cup. You would rather win it than not, but it is a meaningless title and means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Every cricketer in the world would happily swap the Champions Trophy winners medal for a World Cup winners medal.

No cricketer in the world would be happy to make a vice versa swap.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Kohli is an average captain but an outstanding cricketer.

Sarfaraz is an average cricketer but we are yet to see how good a captain he is. He is an upgrade over what Pakistan had a few years ago but we dont know how good a captain he is.

The reason you see the "upgrade" is because Mickey is doing back seat driving and some fearless cricketers emerging in this period.

Take Mickey away and you will see the scared Sarfraz coming out in full glory.

 

[Pakhs]

No, because the World Cup is the “World Cup”.

The Champions Trophy is more like the FIFA Confederations Cup. You would rather win it than not, but it is a meaningless title and means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Every cricketer in the world would happily swap the Champions Trophy winners medal for a World Cup winners medal.

No cricketer in the world would be happy to make a vice versa swap.

SO? I never devalued the WC? And which grand scheme of things you are talking about? PAK would want to win every tournament organised by ICC specially if it got the top teams participating in it and winning the CT meant we achieved that goal. Cherry on top was we beat the arch rivals in the final which was the game of a life time. Nobody knows when will be the next time the two teams will meet in any ICC final again infact that remains the only time so far that's why its was so special. I dont count T20 as real cricket so its not important for any team to be that good at it although most teams are!

 

[Mamoon]

None is comparing Kohli the cricketer or batsman to Sarfraz. This thread is about captaincy, so even if Kohli averages 100 in all formats, it is irrelevant to the captaincy debate.

Well, you are the one who compared them as cricketers in an earlier post. This is what you said:

“You will ridicule Sarfraz for being a poor performer yet you are completely fine with Kohli getting out twice in two consecutive balls in probably the biggest match of his career.”

If this is not comparing them as cricketers or as batsmen, what is it?

No matter how hard you try to downgrade the CT final, the fact is it is the 3rd most watched game in the history of cricket. and possibly the biggest match of Kohli's career so far. The viewership for that match was far greater than the 2015 WC semi-final against Australia.

Viewership is irrelevant. A Pakistani India match is always watched by billions. A Pakistan vs India World Cup group match will probably be watched by more people than an England vs South Africa World Cup Semifinal, but that latter is a far bigger game anyway.

The 2011 World Cup Final and the 2015 World Cup Semifinals were far bigger games of Kohli’s career than the 2017 Champions Trophy Final.

In 2011 WC, the focus was not Kohli. His failure had no significance. This time, he was the captain of his team and the #1 batsman in the world. Millions of people tuned in to watch if he could be as good as Dhoni and continue the trend of beating Pakistan in high pressure games. He was the highlight and what happened? He choked harder than Amla. He was completely clueless in the field as captain and batted like Rahat Ali.

Once again, a World Cup Final at any stage of the career of a player will always be bigger than a Champions Trophy Final. Similarly, a World Cup Semifinal is also bigger.

However, a Champions Trophy Final or Semifinal is obviously bigger than than a World Cup Group game.

 

[iniqbal223]

T20:
Sarfaraz >>>>> Kohli
[Kohli has all the resources in the world, yet they are just not reaching there]

ODI:
Sarfaraz ~ Kohli
Almost same, Kohli has better batting resources, Sarfaraz has better variety in bowling

Test:
Kohli >>>>> Sarfaraz
Barring, England test, Sarfaraz has a long way to go to reach to what Kohli has achieved so far

Well, you are the one who compared them as cricketers in an earlier post. This is what you said:

“You will ridicule Sarfraz for being a poor performer yet you are completely fine with Kohli getting out twice in two consecutive balls in probably the biggest match of his career.”

If this is not comparing them as cricketers or as batsmen, what is it?



Viewership is irrelevant. A Pakistani India match is always watched by billions. A Pakistan vs India World Cup group match will probably be watched by more people than an England vs South Africa World Cup Semifinal, but that latter is a far bigger game anyway.

The 2011 World Cup Final and the 2015 World Cup Semifinals were far bigger games of Kohli’s career than the 2017 Champions Trophy Final.



Once again, a World Cup Final at any stage of the career of a player will always be bigger than a Champions Trophy Final. Similarly, a World Cup Semifinal is also bigger.

However, a Champions Trophy Final or Semifinal is obviously bigger than than a World Cup Group game.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Going with 2 fast bowlers in overcast conditions in England, best captain ladies and gentleman!

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Going with 2 fast bowlers in overcast conditions in England, best captain ladies and gentleman!

honestly he is poor tactically, he even had time after 1 day was lost to rain to change the team and considering overcast conditions in next 4 days. Even in Indian team Ashwin and Rahane will do better than him i am pretty sure.

 

[ExplicitAI]

I would rather have Kohli has captain in Tests, but when it comes to ODI's and T20's I think Sarfraz gets the nod here, he's very authoritative and has this canny ability to attack and choke batting sides at the same time.

 

[InziRules]

Going with two fast bowlers (Unless you count Pandya as a frontline pacer) in England on a swinging wicket....

 

[Adijazz1706]

Looking lost out there and team selection have been criticised by the commentators all day, even by Bhajji

 

[Darkrai]

The guy who won the CT with the worst ranked team in the tournament vs the guy who lost with one of the best in the tournament?

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

The guy who won the CT with the worst ranked team in the tournament vs the guy who lost with one of the best in the tournament?

bhai dont make logical points. Let people live in their bubble.

 

[Arham_PakFan]

Clive Lloyd, the former Windies captain, feels Virat Kohli is an exceptional batsman, but is still a “work in progress” as a captain.

Lloyd famously led the legendary Windies sides in the 1970s and 80s. He was in attendance at Lord’s during the ongoing second Test between England and India, and watched the visitors concede a 250-run lead at stumps by the third day.

He said Kohli was an aggressive captain, and that was good so long as he toed the line. “Virat is still a work in progress and it will take us some time to take a final call on his captaincy,” Lloyd told The Times of India.

“But yes, he has shown positive signs. Yes, he is aggressive, but as long as he doesn't cross the line, it's fine by me. Aggression, after all, is not a bad thing.”

He reminisced about the Indian captains he had played against. “When I was playing, I had seen five different Indian captains: Tiger Pataudi, Ajit Wadekar, Bishan Bedi, Sunil Gavaskar and Kapil Dev. They had their own distinctive styles. I found Bedi quite good,” he said.

“In recent times, it has to be Sourav Ganguly and MS Dhoni. Dhoni was such a fantastic captain. He was quite inspirational, a good tactician and led the team with a lot of authority. I liked his style of captaincy.”

Lloyd, however, had no doubts regarding Kohli’s ability as a batsman – he scored 200 runs in India’s 31-run loss in Edgbaston, and rose to No.1 in the MRF Tyres ICC Rankings for Test Batsmen.

“There's no doubt about the fact that Kohli is an exceptional batsman,” said Lloyd. “He is doing a few great things for his country and if you ask me whether he would have made my side, I would say yes. In fact, Kohli would make a number of great sides across generations.”

Asked if Jimmy Anderson would have made it into his Windies sides as well, Lloyd said: “Oh yes, why not? He is a terrific swing bowler and right up there with the best in the business. There's a reason why he has got a such a huge number of wickets and I have always enjoyed watching him.”

https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/804302

 

[mak36]

bhai dont make logical points. Let people live in their bubble.

Is this still a debate?

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Is this still a debate?

haha but bhai Kohli speaks good English and has an aura, personality etc etc

 

[mak36]

haha but bhai Kohli speaks good English and has an aura, personality etc etc

Haha, very true. The sooner he realises he is not captaincy material (like Tendulkar) the better.

Also not sure if you have noticed but he is very selfish when it comes to reviews and also running out his partners.

The worst thing is he doesn't seem to care when he does it. Just one example: in the first innings, immediately after running out Pujara the players came off for rain and Kohli starts raising his bat in the Lord's long room as a joke with Pujara immediately behind him. Talk about having no shame.

 

[Ab Fan]

I dont rate Kohli's captaincy at all.

I am not even sure if Kohli's team can go on and beat the 2001 Australian team, 2010 South African team or 2012 England team in his home conditions either.

They have mostly won against non-Asian sides who cant play spin these days at all and outside that, perhaps Sri Lanka, who although are not minnows but not a strong team either.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Haha, very true. The sooner he realises he is not captaincy material (like Tendulkar) the better.

Also not sure if you have noticed but he is very selfish when it comes to reviews and also running out his partners.

The worst thing is he doesn't seem to care when he does it. Just one example: in the first innings, immediately after running out Pujara the players came off for rain and Kohli starts raising his bat in the Lord's long room as a joke with Pujara immediately behind him. Talk about having no shame.

Nice notice yar, didn't follow that. I sometimes feel he think he is bigger than the game and superior to others. Bas inhi ki chalni chaheye.

And yes I also think that Ashwin or Rahane will do a better job as captain.

Btw a see a of lot criticism on Sarfi as Kohli is is a better batsman (hence a better captain in some peoples opinion as for them individual play is equal to captaincy) but is there a single important/clutch match he has won with his bat or with good captaincy in tests?

 

[Savak]

Again i repeat, people are barking at the wrong person. Ravi Shastri did not select himself, everyone knew exactly what he bought to the table from the very beginning i.e. nothing. It was Kohli who had Anil Kumble removed and then lobbied very hard to have him replaced with Shastri.

It is Kohli who likes to humiliate his team mates and others with his arrogrant body language and demeanour where they mean nothing to him because he is a better player than them. It is Kohli who is chopping, changing the playing 11 in every game and making his decisions with regards to team selection, team tactics, whether they will have practice games or not.

Lastly Kohli got 4 chances in his 148 runs and has still not removed the technical flaws in his game which he should have learnt from the experience he had from the 2014 tour that in these English conditions you have to properly grind for your runs and literally adopt a Boycott approach towards batting when the ball is moving around all over the place and his approach of playing his shots like he is used to in the flat IPL type pitches in India and wickets like Australia and South Africa will not work here.

People used to worship Teenda as a god but with Kohli they are taking it to a whole new level.

Lastly if anything it appears that Kohli is as distracted of the field as his team mates if not more. Just check his twitter page where he is photographed shopping and touring England all over the place.

He rightfully should take the blame for everything that has transpired on this tour.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

Kohli is not a natural leader. Sarfaraz is.

 

[The_Odd_One]

But but but Kohli has an aura, will win more games with his bat, inspires his teammates, is 10x times the batsman than Sarfraz, etc etc

 

[Aman]

Kohli is an awful captain, should give over the captaincy to Rohit in LOIs and Rahane in Tests.

But he wont because he's gotten rid of people who can get him out and he knows it wont be good for his brand.

The only way he goes is if he steps down and that doesn't seem very likely unless he faces fan backlash, in which case he has no choice but to step down.