Virat Kohli's 141 at Adelaide vs Asad Shafiq's century at the Gabba

[leg-side-flick]

or Kamrans epic in karachi

Yeah that was good and Pak won the match

 

[shaz619]

Are you kidding me? Of course you are kidding!!

Nope, it's widely regarded as an ATG knock given the circumstances in which he helped his country win

 

[Smbhayi]

Kohli one was better (to me). Answer is simple, India has a chance to draw the match but instead Kohli goes for the win. In Asad's situation when he was come to the crease there's no chance to draw, either score runs or get out. so in those situations there'll be less pressure compared to Kohli's..

 

[Metron]

Nope, it's widely regarded as an ATG knock given the circumstances in which he helped his country win

Seriously lets not lower the bar for ATG knocks!
Such knocks would be happening a couple of times every year at least if not more.

 

[shaz619]

Seriously lets not lower the bar for ATG knocks!
Such knocks would be happening a couple of times every year at least if not more.

Honestly speaking I'd say Kohli certainly lowers it in comparison to that epic knock

 

[Metron]

Honestly speaking I'd say Kohli certainly lowers it in comparison to that epic knock

Neither are as memorable as people are making them to be! Both teams lost, had they won people would have remembered them for ages. But they didn't. Rest all is about different POV. Some people will have green tinted lens while other have blue!

 

[Mamoon]

Did Kohli take India over the line?

Both didn't, but Kohli's knock was better.

 

[Aman]

Both didn't win their teams the match, so I'm still going with Kohli purely on quality.

I've said it time and time again, he is a superstar

 

[Syed1]

Anybody rating Kohli's knock higher is either an Indian or just a plain hater.


Shafiq's innings was one of the all-time best in the history of test cricket, heck he almost single handedly orchestrated the HIGHEST, I repeat the HIGHEST, run chase in test cricket history. In the process successfully managing to take his side to the THIRD HIGHEST total EVER scored in the FOURTH innings of a test match.


Learn to appreciate someone even if you dislike them due to their nationality or other reasons.

 

[Solid Snake]

Anybody rating Kohli's knock higher is either an Indian or just a plain hater.


Shafiq's innings was one of the all-time best in the history of test cricket, heck he almost single handedly orchestrated the HIGHEST, I repeat the HIGHEST, run chase in test cricket history. In the process successfully managing to take his side to the THIRD HIGHEST total EVER scored in the FOURTH innings of a test match.


Learn to appreciate someone even if you dislike them due to their nationality or other reasons.

I have no problem if in people's opinion Kohli's was better. There is no question he is shaping up to be ATG and that was a terrific knock, but some of the justifications have been downright bizarre (because something was so improbable, that makes it somehow easier... smh).

But at the end of the day, focusing simply on the bolded part of your post, very surprised people are overlooking this so easily. Reminds me of Slater's response to Michael Clarke's assessment of whether this run chase could be achieved, and if it was shafiq would have orchestrated potentially one of the greatest chases of... well ever. To which Slater quickly replied with a chuckle, not one of, but the greatest and that was a matter of fact [no team has come anywhere close to successfully chasing 490].

I dislike a lot of what I've read on this thread, it has turned out to be quite childish, so I will leave it at saying both were fantastic innings. I guess a little shine was taken off that neither were able to guide their team to victory. I won't put it down to them 'bottling it' as so many armchair pundits have condescendingly stated.

In Shafiq's case, the way he was playing he looked very composed and I actually thought that unless Yasir got out we were going to win it. He looked very calm and assured this morning. Took a gem to get him out, and you can't fault him for that.

 

[itsme]

Anybody rating Kohli's knock higher is either an Indian or just a plain hater.


Shafiq's innings was one of the all-time best in the history of test cricket, heck he almost single handedly orchestrated the HIGHEST, I repeat the HIGHEST, run chase in test cricket history. In the process successfully managing to take his side to the THIRD HIGHEST total EVER scored in the FOURTH innings of a test match.


Learn to appreciate someone even if you dislike them due to their nationality or other reasons.

111 runs beetween amir wahab and yasir ,33 of the 68 runs coming from yasir in the final day.

 

[Syed1]

111 runs beetween amir wahab and yasir ,33 of the 68 runs coming from yasir in the final day.

Murali Vijay also scored 99. Having an opener score runs is easier or having three tailenders score runs?

#checkmate

 

[soso_killer]

Neither knocks are consequential in the grand scheme of things as Australia still won comfortable in the end. Yeah sure people tend to get over excited when the margin of defeat isn't as huge and comprehensive as expected.
The bigger picture here is that Australia declared in both matches, could have easily batted longer to completely take victory out of sight for either teams (albeit negative tactics).

As far as which knock was better? Anyone with an IQ level high enough would know, and it's not even up for debate.
Here is the first clue: One pitch was slightly tougher, the other was a complete road. If anyone knows me well enough would know I don't rate highways.
Second clue: In one particular match Australia declared in both innings at an aggregate of 807 runs for a loss of just 12 wickets. That amounts to 67 runs per wicket. Over 1500 runs were scored in the match at a whooping average of 48 runs per wicket.
Here is another big clue: in one match the aggregate runs per wicket was a mere 34.

And we are 4/5 pages in a thread that was not even suppose to be 30/40 comments long?
Seriously not all great/good knocks belong to overrated "super stars".

 

[Sachin136]

Neither knocks are consequential in the grand scheme of things as Australia still won comfortable in the end. Yeah sure people tend to get over excited when the margin of defeat isn't as huge and comprehensive as expected.
The bigger picture here is that Australia declared in both matches, could have easily batted longer to completely take victory out of sight for either teams (albeit negative tactics).

As far as which knock was better? Anyone with an IQ level high enough would know, and it's not even up for debate.
Here is the first clue: One pitch was slightly tougher, the other was a complete road. If anyone knows me well enough would know I don't rate highways.
Second clue: In one particular match Australia declared in both innings at an aggregate of 807 runs for a loss of just 12 wickets. That amounts to 67 runs per wicket. Over 1500 runs were scored in the match at a whooping average of 48 runs per wicket.
Here is another big clue: in one match the aggregate runs per wicket was a mere 34.

And we are 4/5 pages in a thread that was not even suppose to be 30/40 comments long?
Seriously not all great/good knocks belong to overrated "super stars".

By no means was that Adelaide pitch a highway. There are many highlights of it available on Youtube, so feel free to rewatch it.

Why do aggregrate runs per wicket matter? If Pakistan got out cheaply in the first innings and India didn't, why does that affect the quality of Shafiq's or Kohli's innings?

 

[Sachin136]

I don't understand why people think taking the team over the line is all that matters. If Australia had declared 40 runs earlier and Pakistan had won, would you rate Shafiq's innings higher? That is flawed logic.

Both were fantastic innings, but I would rate Kohli's much higher because I think he played better (I saw Kohli's entire innings and Day 4 of the Pak-Aus match) and Lyon was bowling brilliantly while the pitch supported him.

 

[Chrish]

I don't understand why people think taking the team over the line is all that matters. If Australia had declared 40 runs earlier and Pakistan had won, would you rate Shafiq's innings higher?

If Pakistan had won his inning would be rated better than VVS 281 or Lara 153

And if Australia had declared 40 runs earlier Pakistan probably would have crumbed at 400 rather than 450

 

[jusarrived]

I don't understand why people think taking the team over the line is all that matters. If Australia had declared 40 runs earlier and Pakistan had won, would you rate Shafiq's innings higher? That is flawed logic.

Both were fantastic innings, but I would rate Kohli's much higher because I think he played better (I saw Kohli's entire innings and Day 4 of the Pak-Aus match) and Lyon was bowling brilliantly while the pitch supported him.

You got it wrong there .
Most likely Pak would have still fallen short of the target , it dosent matter if the target is 180 or 480 teams find it extremely difficult to chase targets and thats why taking the team over the line gets so much weight-age

 

[Sachin136]

If Pakistan had won his inning would be rated better than VVS 281 or Lara 153

And if Australia had declared 40 runs earlier Pakistan probably would have crumbed at 400 rather than 450

That doesn't make sense to me. Why does the quality of an innings depend on things like that? For instance, if Shafiq had run out of batting partners, why should it affect how you rate his innings?

 

[Chrish]

That doesn't make sense to me. Why does the quality of an innings depend on things like that? For instance, if Shafiq had run out of batting partners, why should it affect how you rate his innings?

He would have got his team out of impossible situation resulting in biggest chase of test history

Why is it so difficult to understand?

 

[Slog]

People who are saying Shafiq played on an easier pitch should atleast see the bounce and zip the delivery he got out on got. And the ball was sixty overs old.

For a subcontinent batsmen that bounce is definitely tougher than some imaginary Indian pitch transported to Adelaide

 

[Sachin136]

He would have got his team out of impossible situation resulting in biggest chase of test history

Why is it so difficult to understand?

But why does it matter if the team wins or not? If Rahat Ali had come in and hit 36 off an over and Pakistan had won, but Shafiq had scored the same amount of runs, that should have absolutely no effect on how you rate Shafiq's innings.

 

[Slog]

But why does it matter if the team wins or not? If Rahat Ali had come in and hit 36 off an over and Pakistan had won, but Shafiq had scored the same amount of runs, that should have absolutely no effect on how you rate Shafiq's innings.

Are you playing dumb and naive just for the heck of it and to carry on the argument

 

[Belawal2014]

Murali Vijay also scored 99. Having an opener score runs is easier or having three tailenders score runs?

#checkmate

It's just a testament to how well Shafiq guided and played with the tail.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Bunch of cry babies no Kohli's innings was better oh hell no Shafiq's inning was better. THEY were both quality innings Kohli faced a better bowling attack on a slower wicket while Shafiq played on a bouncier wicket against a less quality bowling attack. Both would have faced the same amount of pressure chasing such a big target and both fell short.... No one is wrong if you picked one innings over the other but trying to play another innings down for personal bias is stupid.

 

[Sachin136]

Are you playing dumb and naive just for the heck of it and to carry on the argument

No, I seriously don't understand why external factors leading to Pakistan winning the match would change how someone rates Shafiq's innings.

 

[Chrish]

It's irrelevant at this point which inning was better..

Loss is a loss

 

[Sachin136]

Murali Vijay also scored 99. Having an opener score runs is easier or having three tailenders score runs?

#checkmate

Vijay is a solid batsman who has done well overseas. Renshaw and Handscomb on the other hand...

 

[cric_fanatic]

Anybody rating Kohli's knock higher is either an Indian or just a plain hater.


Shafiq's innings was one of the all-time best in the history of test cricket, heck he almost single handedly orchestrated the HIGHEST, I repeat the HIGHEST, run chase in test cricket history. In the process successfully managing to take his side to the THIRD HIGHEST total EVER scored in the FOURTH innings of a test match.


Learn to appreciate someone even if you dislike them due to their nationality or other reasons.

On what basis? I request you to watch that Kohli innings again, and not let the recent memory of Shafiq innings leading to bias.

Kohli scored more. He took the attack to the opposition. Complete control of the innings at all times. Single handed attacking.

Highest pakistan chase has contributions from several others in team. Taking nothing away from Shafiq

In fact, if there is bias it is from you against Kohl

 

[soso_killer]

By no means was that Adelaide pitch a highway. There are many highlights of it available on Youtube, so feel free to rewatch it.

Why do aggregrate runs per wicket matter? If Pakistan got out cheaply in the first innings and India didn't, why does that affect the quality of Shafiq's or Kohli's innings?

A pitch where 1500 runs were scored is not flat?
Australia lost 12 wickets for 800 odd runs at 67 runs for a cost of a wicket.
This pitch was far from impossible, but it was a good wicket. Even neglecting Pakistan's collapse, Australia scored at a significant less rate. They aggregate 42 runs a wicket, almost similar to India's 37 in the losing course.
Anyway I won't be debating further in this thread. It doesn't make sense.

 

[street cricketer]

A pitch where 1500 runs were scored is not flat?
Australia lost 12 wickets for 800 odd runs at 67 runs for a cost of a wicket.
This pitch was far from impossible, but it was a good wicket. Even neglecting Pakistan's collapse, Australia scored at a significant less rate. They aggregate 42 runs a wicket, almost similar to India's 37 in the losing course.
Anyway I won't be debating further in this thread. It doesn't make sense.

I don't have a problem with those rating Asad's knock better but you're arguing with a pretty weak logic here.

The runs per wicket or the run rate is entirely dependent on the quality of the batting line ups. Pakistan were tottering at 60/8 at one stage in their first innings while a line up of Warner, Rogers, Watson, Clarke, Smith, Marsh and Wade is any day better than Warner, Renshaw, Handscomb, Smith, Maddinson, Wade while a bowling attack of MJ, Harris, Siddle, Marsh and Lyon is better than Starc, Hazelwood, Bird and Lyon as well.

 

[adit_sh]

Murali Vijay also scored 99. Having an opener score runs is easier or having three tailenders score runs?

#checkmate

most of the time tailenders scoring runs is by fluke specially when you are 250 away. cant depend on those. my only point is it was a lost cause for Pakistan when they were 6 down and till about 380 they were playing without any pressure. It was like nathan astle's fastest 200 chasing 500 against england in 2002 -03 and hitting without any pressure.
nevertheless was a good innings so it probably deserves comparison with Astle's innings