Why doesn't Hashim Amla have peer reputation on a similar level to Virat Kohli and AB de Villiers?

[Ted123]

Surprising really but alongside those two, Amla is also one of the top bats of his generation. However, why doesn't he have peer-reputation as much as Kohli or de Villiers has. Is it because he lacks charisma or he doesn't have the x-factor in his game which could appeal and gain more popularity to him?

Well, I do agree he is not as audacious as say de Villiers, but even the likes of Dravid or Kallis who weren't audacious enough and were boring to watch, has got far more peer reputation than Amla got. What do you think is the main reason behind it?

 

[Slog]

Simply because he isn't as good as them

In Tests he had a 4 year peak and asides from that he has just been okay

In ODIs he has runs but little impact and goes missing in big games

 

[Chrish]

He is fully appreciated by purists..

 

[Mamoon]

He has zero charisma and the spine of a jelly. A world renowned bottler.

A living example of how misleading statistics can be when taken at face value.

While de Villiers is nowhere close to Kohli simply because he does not have the same mental edge, he is leagues ahead of Amla as a cricketer.

Kohli is the cricketer of this generation, with de Villiers a distant second. Amla is nowhere in the picture.

 

[Sachin136]

Simply because he isn't as good as them

In Tests he had a 4 year peak and asides from that he has just been okay

In ODIs he has runs but little impact and goes missing in big games

In tests, at this point in their careers so far, Amla is better than AB and Kohli. But there's little doubt that Kohli will be ahead of him in tests by the time they retire.

In ODIs, like you said, Kohli and AB are just much better despite having similar stats.

 

[Slog]

In tests, at this point in their careers so far, Amla is better than AB and Kohli.

This was def true till maybe a year ago

However Amla has been poor for an extended period now.

He has not had a year of over 50 average since 2014. (2 of those years he didnt even break 35)

His impact has been neglibible. Barring one home series against England, all his major innings since 2014
have come against Bangladesh, WI or Sri Lanka.

 

[Slog]

Smith is the cricketer of this generation hands down. No debate at this point

 

[Mamoon]

Smith is the cricketer of this generation hands down. No debate at this point

Better Test average does not make him the cricketer of the generation. He is not even close to Kohli in terms of stature. Smith barely exists for the casual fans.

20-30 years down the line, this era will be remembered as the Kohli era and not the Smith era.

Kohli has the dominance across formats, the superstar status and the brand recognition. He is the face of modern cricket. Smith is just a brilliant Test batsman, that is all.

Almost every young batsman around the world looks up to Kohli and not Smith. Only in Australia perhaps, but Kohli is what young kids want to be elsewhere.

 

[Slog]

Better Test average does not make him the cricketer of the generation. He is not even close to Kohli in terms of stature. Smith barely exists for the casual fans.

20-30 years down the line, this era will be remembered as the Kohli era and not the Smith era.

Kohli has the dominance across formats, the superstar status and the brand recognition. He is the face of modern cricket. Smith is just a brilliant Test batsman, that is all.

Almost every young batsman around the world looks up to Kohli and not Smith. Only in Australia perhaps, but Kohli is what young kids want to be elsewhere.

Smith is a brilliant ODI batsman as well

He has achieved more in WC's than Kohli hands down

Only T20s is where Kohli is head and shoulders above Smith but no one considers the format as a standard for legacies yet

Smith has as much traction as Kohli outside India and perhaps subcontinent. And certainly in England and Australia, Smith is considered streets ahead of Kohli at this point and we all know why.

Dont generalize your opinion to the rest of the world.

 

[Sachin136]

Smith is a brilliant ODI batsman as well

He has achieved more in WC's than Kohli hands down

Only T20s is where Kohli is head and shoulders above Smith but no one considers the format as a standard for legacies yet

Smith has as much traction as Kohli outside India and perhaps subcontinent. And certainly in England and Australia, Smith is considered streets ahead of Kohli at this point and we all know why.

Dont generalize your opinion to the rest of the world.

If you don't think Kohli is head and shoulders above Smith in ODIs, then I don't know what to tell you. But no point bringing Smith here.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Smith is a brilliant ODI batsman as well

He has achieved more in WC's than Kohli hands down

Only T20s is where Kohli is head and shoulders above Smith but no one considers the format as a standard for legacies yet

Smith has as much traction as Kohli outside India and perhaps subcontinent. And certainly in England and Australia, Smith is considered streets ahead of Kohli at this point and we all know why.

Dont generalize your opinion to the rest of the world.

Of course, Root should be more popular in England and Smith in Australia, but Kohli is much more popular and has a better reputation globally. Infact, there is even a video on youtube where Aussie domestic cricketers were asked who their favorite batsman is - almost all of them said Kohli.

 

[Slog]

If you don't think Kohli is head and shoulders above Smith in ODIs, then I don't know what to tell you. But no point bringing Smith here.

I actually dont

Over the years on this forum I have been very consistent that I attach a disproportionate importance to WCs and CTs and knockout matches of such tournaments when determining a legacy of a player in the ODI format. Its also why I don't rate Amla that high despite his amazing stats in bilateral bashing fests

Smith smoked Kohli in that regard in 2015.

 

[Chrish]

Yeah Kohli is already considered within top 4 ODI batsman ever and Smith is no where near that consideration. It's obvious troll attempt or plain idiocy if you consider Smith as good as Kohli in ODI.

 

[Slog]

Of course, Root should be more popular in England and Smith in Australia, but Kohli is much more popular and has a better reputation globally. Infact, there is even a video on youtube where Aussie domestic cricketers were asked who their favorite batsman is - almost all of them said Kohli.

Smith is rated higher in England than Kohli. They arent even in the same conversation at times.

Anyways this is not the thread for this. I was just pointing out an inaccuracy where a poster was trying to pass off his own opinion as something factual.

 

[dhonixi]

Smith is popular in England because of rivalries between countries, like Kohli is popular in Pakistan.
On topic, it is a combination of many things, meek character, no impact runs. I feel happy as an indian fan when Amla is scoring runs. I know he cant hurt us, he will just scores impactless runs and maintain his average.

 

[Mamoon]

Smith is a brilliant ODI batsman as well

He has achieved more in WC's than Kohli hands down

Only T20s is where Kohli is head and shoulders above Smith but no one considers the format as a standard for legacies yet

Smith has as much traction as Kohli outside India and perhaps subcontinent. And certainly in England and Australia, Smith is considered streets ahead of Kohli at this point and we all know why.

Dont generalize your opinion to the rest of the world.

That is ironic because you are probably in the 1% minority that considers Smith as the cricketer of this generation and not Kohli, which is quite frankly laughable.

Smith is not a brilliant ODI batsman, and he is not even close to Kohli in that format and never will be.

In fact, he is not even number two. Joe Root is a better ODI batsman than him, over the last decade, de Villiers has been phenomenal as well and is far ahead of Smith as well.

Smith did well in the 2015 World Cup, but he has been nothing great apart from that. World Cup performances transforms world class players into legends, but it does not transform decent players into legends.

Jayawardene has hundreds in a World Cup Semifinal and a World Cup Final, but what legacy does he have in ODIs? He is just a good ODI batsman like Smith - nothing more, nothing less.

The gap between Kohli and Smith in Limited Overs cricket is bigger than the gap between them in Tests. Both are far ahead of the competition in ODIs/T20s and Tests respectively, but Smith is not even in the top 3 in ODIs/T20s while Kohli is clearly #2 in Tests at the moment.

Smith does not have more traction than Kohli in England. Nasser Hussain has called him the best batsman in the world on numerous occasions, and Bob Willis also considers him as the leader of the pack.

Obviously, it has partly to do with England’s new found love for Limited Overs cricket. His status will further enhance in England after this summer.

Smith simply does not have the dominance across formats, the aura, the batting style, the personality, the charisma, the stardom and the fan base etc. etc. to compete with Kohli.

All of these factors make you the “cricketer of the generation” and not just your Test average. Smith will probably be forgotten in a few years after his retirement except for Australians fans and Tests purists, but Kohli will always be remembered and glorified.

He is already one of the most influential cricketers ever.

 

[Slog]

Yeah Kohli is already considered within top 4 ODI batsman ever and Smith is no where near that consideration. It's obvious troll attempt or plain idiocy if you consider Smith as good as Kohli in ODI.

Nowhere did I say Smith is better than Kohli in ODIs.

Kohli is obviously better in ODIs . But Smith is non a non-entity as some suggested and actually has delivered where it matters. Smith is leagues ahead in Tests and has outperformed Kohli in both India and Australia. Kohli is getting there though and was great in SA.

So its just opinion and not factual to say that Kohli is the gold standard batsman of this era. Smith has a claim too. Its not clear cut at this point. Its just that Smith doesnt have a billion obsessed people shoving that narrative every day.

 

[Mamoon]

Smith is rated higher in England than Kohli. They arent even in the same conversation at times.

Anyways this is not the thread for this. I was just pointing out an inaccuracy where a poster was trying to pass off his own opinion as something factual.

It is a fact, take it or leave it. Kohli is the cricketer of this generation and is a huge compared to Smith.

The fact the even the Australian domestic batsmen consider him as their favorite nullifies any argument that you might have had.

 

[Mamoon]

World Cup performances are huge, but a World Cup will not make a Jayawardene, a Smith or an Amla into an ODI legend.

However, it will certainly make the likes of Kohli and de Villiers immortal.

 

[Mamoon]

It is a fact, take it or leave it. Kohli is the cricketer of this generation and is a huge compared to Smith.

The fact the even the Australian domestic batsmen consider him as their favorite nullifies any argument that you might have had.

and is huge*

 

[Slog]

[/b]

That is ironic because you are probably in the 1% minority that considers Smith as the cricketer of this generation and not Kohli, which is quite frankly laughable.

Smith is not a brilliant ODI batsman, and he is not even close to Kohli in that format and never will be.

In fact, he is not even number two. Joe Root is a better ODI batsman than him, over the last decade, de Villiers has been phenomenal as well and is far ahead of Smith as well.

Smith did well in the 2015 World Cup, but he has been nothing great apart from that. World Cup performances transforms world class players into legends, but it does not transform decent players into legends.

Jayawardene has hundreds in a World Cup Semifinal and a World Cup Final, but what legacy does he have in ODIs? He is just a good ODI batsman like Smith - nothing more, nothing less.

The gap between Kohli and Smith in Limited Overs cricket is bigger than the gap between them in Tests. Both are far ahead of the competition in ODIs/T20s and Tests respectively, but Smith is not even in the top 3 in ODIs/T20s while Kohli is clearly #2 in Tests at the moment.

Smith does not have more traction than Kohli in England. Nasser Hussain has called him the best batsman in the world on numerous occasions, and Bob Willis also considers him as the leader of the pack.

Obviously, it has partly to do with England’s new found love for Limited Overs cricket. His status will further enhance in England after this summer.

Smith simply does not have the dominance across formats, the aura, the batting style, the personality, the charisma, the stardom and the fan base etc. etc. to compete with Kohli.

All of these factors make you the “cricketer of the generation” and not just your Test average. Smith will probably be forgotten in a few years after his retirement except for Australians fans and Tests purists, but Kohli will always be remembered and glorified.

He is already one of the most influential cricketers ever.

Where are you getting this made up 1% stat from?

Smith did 'well' in 2015 WC . If thats what happened then Kohli has 'done well' in ODIs too.

In England generally Smith is considered superior to Kohli at this point theres no doubt. Hard for Kohli to be considered as great with an average of 13.

 

[Slog]

It is a fact, take it or leave it. Kohli is the cricketer of this generation and is a huge compared to Smith.

The fact the even the Australian domestic batsmen consider him as their favorite nullifies any argument that you might have had.

lol this is a childish argument on your part. who are these legions of aussie domestic batsmen anyway?

 

[Slog]

Kohli is great and so is Smith

In Tests, Smith is leagues ahead eventhough Kohli has shown he will be in same league soon enough

In ODI, statistically Kohli is way ahead but in WC's which is what matters Smith has been better so the gap is not as great. Yes if Kohli has one daddy WC and Smith's ODI trajectory is same than Kohli will be in a different league

In T20s its not even a debate right now but I personally dont care about it much

Lets get back to thread

 

[Mamoon]

Where are you getting this made up 1% stat from?

Smith did 'well' in 2015 WC . If thats what happened then Kohli has 'done well' in ODIs too.

In England generally Smith is considered superior to Kohli at this point theres no doubt. Hard for Kohli to be considered as great with an average of 13.

It is arbitrary and of course you know it, but it appears that you want to drag a discussion that has reached its conclusion.

You can call his performance well, brilliant, world class etc. or anything you wish. Obviously he had a great tournament, but you seemed to have ignored my Jayawardene example.

He has hundreds in a World Cup Semifinal and Final. Where do you rate him as an ODI batsman? Where do you rate Dravid, who was the top-scorer in the 1999 World Cup?

Are both better or even close to Kohli who has been a World Cup flop so far? How far are you willing to go with this logic?

You also seem to have ignored the fact the Smith played the 2015 World Cup at home, when he was at the peak of his powers. Kohli in 2011 was not the player he is today.

The English fans and observers have enough understand to know that his series in 2014 was an aberration - he was caught in a web by a top class bowler and he was not experienced enough to find his way out.

However, everyone loves a good redemption story and Kohli has redeemed himself since that series. In fact, when he destroyed England at home two years ago, the English media were full of praise and how they saw a “different Kohli”, even though it was in India.

Anderson was the only one who made those salty comments.

He will obviously score runs in England take this summer. Secondly, you do not have to score runs in a particular country to have the appreciation of its fans.

Ponting was a tailender in India throughout his career, but he is still held in great esteem. Lara was also a flop in India but he was huge there.

 

[Mamoon]

lol this is a childish argument on your part. who are these legions of aussie domestic batsmen anyway?

It is not a childish argument. The fact that even young Australian batsmen consider Kohli better should mean something. He is at a different level in terms of stature.

 

[Mamoon]

Kohli is great and so is Smith

In Tests, Smith is leagues ahead eventhough Kohli has shown he will be in same league soon enough

In ODI, statistically Kohli is way ahead but in WC's which is what matters Smith has been better so the gap is not as great. Yes if Kohli has one daddy WC and Smith's ODI trajectory is same than Kohli will be in a different league

In T20s its not even a debate right now but I personally dont care about it much

Lets get back to thread

Kohli is already in a different league to Smith in ODIs and the gap is huge. He is Tendulkar and the latter is Jayawardene.

The latter is not better because he has World Cup knockout hundreds and the former does not, who also failed in two World Cup finals.

Tendulkar was great in World Cups overall, but even if he was not, the gap between the two would still be massive.

 

[Slog]

Ponting was not a tailender in India. He has multiple fifties and a century and has also won a series. He was poor in India. Kohli was a tailender in England. Good luck to him this summer but till then I'll recognize that he is one of the great players.

Repeating one thing a hundred times doesnt make it factual. But you have a right to your opinion obv

 

[AMSS]

Where are you getting this made up 1% stat from?

Smith did 'well' in 2015 WC . If thats what happened then Kohli has 'done well' in ODIs too.

In England generally Smith is considered superior to Kohli at this point theres no doubt. Hard for Kohli to be considered as great with an average of 13.

Possibly the same place from where you sourced your data about 'Smith being rated higher than Kohli in England'?

 

[Slog]

Possibly the same place from where you sourced your data about 'Smith being rated higher than Kohli in England'?

I'm basing that on comments by players such as Anderson, experts such as Holding, journalists in English publications and statistical facts such as Kohli's record in that country.

 

[AMSS]

Ponting was not a tailender in India. He has multiple fifties and a century and has also won a series. He was poor in India. Kohli was a tailender in England. Good luck to him this summer but till then I'll recognize that he is one of the great players.

Repeating one thing a hundred times doesnt make it factual. But you have a right to your opinion obv

LMAO, what? 5 fifties and 1 hundred in 14 tests over multiple tours puts you in Philander category at best. Ponting flopped miserably in his first 4 tours to India, averaging a hysterical 12 after 8 tests.

Only in his last two tours did he manage to look like someone familiar with a cricket bat, averaging 38 and 56. Overall average, 26. That's probably what Philander averages, yes? A tailender for me.

 

[AMSS]

I'm basing that on comments by players such as Anderson, experts such as Holding, journalists in English publications and statistical facts such as Kohli's record in that country.

You are basing it on hot air till you can show yourself capable of differentiating between anecdote and data. Good luck.

 

[Slog]

LMAO, what? 5 fifties and 1 hundred in 14 tests over multiple tours puts you in Philander category at best. Ponting flopped miserably in his first 4 tours to India, averaging a hysterical 12 after 8 tests.

Only in his last two tours did he manage to look like someone familiar with a cricket bat, averaging 38 and 56. Overall average, 26. That's probably what Philander averages, yes? A tailender for me.

This post was in comparison to Kohli. Aso I wish all tailenders scored multiple fifties and a century in their worst country.

Compared to Kohli its far ahead. But obv Kohli has several tours to go and this year will have 5 tests in late summer so the point may not be valid for long. But till then I wont make assumptions.

 

[Slog]

You are basing it on hot air till you can show yourself capable of differentiating between anecdote and data. Good luck.

The data is Kohli's average in England. Go check it on cricinfo.

Its in the Glenn McGrath territory rather than Smith that much is for sure

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

I can't speak for everyone but most youngsters who want to pursue a career in cricket here in Australia view Smith to be their idol. I'm sure alot of them view Kohli as their idol, but the overwhelming majority in my experience rates Smith more than any other cricketers of this generation. I'm sure alot of young Indian cricketers view Steve Smith as their role-model as well, but that isn't the majority. It goes both ways.

 

[AMSS]

The data is Kohli's average in England. Go check it on cricinfo.

Its in the Glenn McGrath territory rather than Smith that much is for sure

Kohli's record in England is data for Smith rated higher than Kohli in that country? And legendary English cricketer Holding's (lol) opinion is further proof according to you. Lol ok.

 

[Mamoon]

Ponting was not a tailender in India. He has multiple fifties and a century and has also won a series. He was poor in India. Kohli was a tailender in England. Good luck to him this summer but till then I'll recognize that he is one of the great players.

Repeating one thing a hundred times doesnt make it factual. But you have a right to your opinion obv

An average of 26 over 14 Tests (spread across a decade) is not even tail-ender like for a giant like Ponting - it is absolutely disastrous, and a lot worse than Kohli averaging 14 overall a single series. After 14 Tests, Kohli will certainly have a better record than that in England.

Yes we both have a right to our opinions, but your opinion on this matter is very absurd. Actually it is not even an opinion that Kohli is the cricketer of this generation - it is a fact.

 

[Slog]

Yes we both have a right to our opinions, but your opinion on this matter is very absurd. Actually it is not even an opinion that Kohli is the cricketer of this generation - it is a fact.

As I said repeating one thing multiple times doesnt make it fact. You clearly dont seem to have a grasp of what a 'fact' actually means.

But carry on. Repeat it a few more times and you'll start believing it sincerely. Good luck!

 

[Mamoon]

I can't speak for everyone but most youngsters who want to pursue a career in cricket here in Australia view Smith to be their idol. I'm sure alot of them view Kohli as their idol, but the overwhelming majority in my experience rates Smith more than any other cricketers of this generation. I'm sure alot of young Indian cricketers view Steve Smith as their role-model as well, but that isn't the majority. It goes both ways.

That is reasonable, obviously there is a Smith bias in Australia and a Kohli bias in India.

However, if we look at the young players in England, South Africa, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Caribbean Islands, Zimbabwe now Afghanistan, I am certain that the vast majority look up to Kohli and not Smith for obvious reasons.

 

[AMSS]

This post was in comparison to Kohli. Aso I wish all tailenders scored multiple fifties and a century in their worst country.

Compared to Kohli its far ahead. But obv Kohli has several tours to go and this year will have 5 tests in late summer so the point may not be valid for long. But till then I wont make assumptions.

Depends what kind of tailender. For example, Bhuvi is one and he averages better in South Africa than Ponting does in India. Ponting being a veritable tailender in India is incontrovertible as.

 

[Mamoon]

As I said repeating one thing multiple times doesnt make it fact. You clearly dont seem to have a grasp of what a 'fact' actually means.

But carry on. Repeat it a few more times and you'll start believing it sincerely. Good luck!

With all due respect, your opinion on this topic, i.e. Smith is a bigger cricketer than Kohli, is as relevant as the opinions of the people who believe that the Earth is flat. It is hilarious, and something even Smith would probably laugh at.

Also, please go back to the Jayawardene example (which you ignored twice and for good reason) the next time you start calling Smith a brilliant ODI batsman and someone who is in the same league as Kohli.

Smith is a tremendous Test batsman, but Kohli is one of the biggest cricketers in history.

 

[Slog]

Kohli's record in England is data for Smith rated higher than Kohli in that country? And legendary English cricketer Holding's (lol) opinion is further proof according to you. Lol ok.

English fans will base their opinion on what they see and statistics dont paint a good picture for Kohli.

Yes Holding lives in England and is preeminent fixture of their cricketing community despite his West Indian roots. So is Anderson and others.

In any case I am interested in the 1% figure which has no basis.

 

[Slog]

With all due respect, your opinion on this topic, i.e. Smith is a bigger cricketer than Kohli, is as relevant as the opinions of the people who believe that the Earth is flat. It is hilarious, and something even Smith would probably laugh at.

Also, please go back to the Jayawardene example (which you ignored twice and for good reason) the next time you start calling Smith a brilliant ODI batsman and someone who is in the same league as Kohli.

Smith is a tremendous Test batsman, but Kohli is one of the biggest cricketers in history.

You clearly have comprehension issues if you think I said Smith is a bigger cricketer than Kohli.

Jayawardene example is irrelevant because he has zero WC medals around his neck. It was a poor point to begin with which wasnt worthy or a response.

Also good job making more assumptions out of thin air. Now you also know what Smith would laugh at! Brilliant

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Anybody who is comparing Smith to Kohli remotely in ODIs is trolling or has possible issues. Smith is struggling to keep his average above 40 in ODIs. That's right, Smith's ODi average is stuck on the same level as 90s legends, except that he bats on flat tracks against poor bowlers of modern day LOIs. Speaking of World Cup (which is being used to hype up Smith), Mahmudullah has better stats than Hashim Amla, so is Mahmudullah is an ODI great? Lmao.

Smith is a complete nobody in ODIs. He's not even better than Finch, let alone Warner (Warner is head and shoulders above Smith in ODIs). Smith had 2 years with 50+ average in ODIs, his best year in ODIs had lower average than Kohli's career average. Putting Smith in the same sentence as Kohli in ODIs is a pretty insult to Kohli. Smith isn't even amongst the top 15 ODI batsman of this era, Kohli is already amongst top 5 ODI batsmen of all time. Kohli needs a single good WC to become possibly GOAT. Smith might not even ever be the best ODI batsman in his own team.

 

[AMSS]

You clearly have comprehension issues if you think I said Smith is a bigger cricketer than Kohli.

Jayawardene example is irrelevant because he has zero WC medals around his neck. It was a poor point to begin with which wasnt worthy or a response.

Also good job making more assumptions out of thin air. Now you also know what Smith would laugh at! Brilliant

Replace Jayawardene with Aravinda then. Has a match winning hundred in WC final. Yet, while recognized as a fine batsman, rated nowhere closed to his peers in the 90s.

 

[AMSS]

English fans will base their opinion on what they see and statistics dont paint a good picture for Kohli.

Yes Holding lives in England and is preeminent fixture of their cricketing community despite his West Indian roots. So is Anderson and others.

In any case I am interested in the 1% figure which has no basis.

English fans can base their opinion on whatever they like. They may actually rate Smith higher than Kohli for all I care. My limited point was that you are asking Mamoon to provide data while spouting unvarnished nonsense (smith rated higher than Kohli) supported by nothing but cherrypicked anecdote.

 

[Slog]

Anybody who is comparing Smith to Kohli remotely in ODIs is trolling or has possible issues. Smith is struggling to keep his average above 40 in ODIs. That's right, Smith's ODi average is stuck on the same level as 90s legends, except that he bats on flat tracks against poor bowlers of modern day LOIs. Speaking of World Cup (which is being used to hype up Smith), Mahmudullah has better stats than Hashim Amla, so is Mahmudullah is an ODI great? Lmao.

Smith is a complete nobody in ODIs. He's not even better than Finch, let alone Warner (Warner is head and shoulders above Smith in ODIs). Smith had 2 years with 50+ average in ODIs, his best year in ODIs had lower average than Kohli's career average. Putting Smith in the same sentence as Kohli in ODIs is a pretty insult to Kohli. Smith isn't even amongst the top 15 ODI batsman of this era, Kohli is already amongst top 5 ODI batsmen of all time. Kohli needs a single good WC to become possibly GOAT. Smith might not even ever be the best ODI batsman in his own team. Either trolling attempts are getting poor or average IQ level on PP has dropped.

How many WCs have Bangladesh won courtesy of Mahmudullah's performances?

 

[BlackShadow]

Lol, comparing Steven Smith to Kohli in ODIs is like comparing Munaf Patel to Shoaib Akhtar. A couple of WC performances mean zilch when the gulf in class is so wide.

 

[Mamoon]

You clearly have comprehension issues if you think I said Smith is a bigger cricketer than Kohli.

Jayawardene example is irrelevant because he has zero WC medals around his neck. It was a poor point to begin with which wasnt worthy or a response.

Also good job making more assumptions out of thin air. Now you also know what Smith would laugh at! Brilliant

So according to you, Smith is the cricketer of the generation - the same generation that Kohli is in - but still, he is not a bigger cricketer than Kohli?

How do you explain this paradox in your argument. You seem to be contradicting yourself at a different level.

The Jayawardene example was not irrelevant. You ignored it because you could not come with a satisfactory answer, because if you are rating Smith as a brilliant ODI batsman and in the same league Kohli for obvious reasons, then there is no way you cannot do the same for Jayawardene in comparison to the other great ODI batsman of past and present, without contradicting yourself. Something that you have done already.

However, what is his legacy in ODIs?

The zero World Cup medals excuse seems to be your get-out-of-jail card but unfortunately it does not work. A World Cup is a team trophy and not a single World Cup in history has been won on the shoulders of one man.

We have seen some great performances go in vain and some absolute passengers winning the World Cup medal.

It was not Jayawardene's fault that Sri Lanka could not win the World Cups in spite of his heroics in the Semifinal in 2007 and Final in 2011.

In 2007, they were up against arguably the greatest ODI team of all time and finishing second was pretty much the best any team could have done at that time.

In 2011, India were the strongest team in Asian conditions and it was not Jayawardene's fault that the whole top-order failed.

He produced a masterclass and without him, the final would have been a thumping. However, if Sangakkara, Dilshan, Tharanga etc. would have given him support, he could have won the World Cup for Sri Lanka.

Smith's Australia was clearly a cut above the rest in those Australian conditions at that time. They had all the basis covered and were too good for the opposition. Fantastic bowling attack, aggressive openers and a deep batting lineup. They were virtually unbeatable at home.

Would have Smith have been able to take Sri Lanka across the finish line in 2007 and 2011? Obviously not, he could not have done anything against Australia in 2007, and he could not have played a better innings than Jayawardene in the 2011 Final.

Nonetheless, to support our baseless opinion and free ourselves of the tangle that we have got ourselves into, let us conveniently state that it is an irrelevant comparison, and somehow it is Jayawardene's fault that he does not have a World Cup medal around his neck, as if his performances in World Cups have been inferior to what Smith produced in 2015.

 

[Slog]

For people who struggle with comprehension issues:

No where here has it been claimed Smith is better or even equal to Kohli in ODIs. However his undisputed claim of being leagues ahead of any other Test batsman in this era as well as his daddy WC performances means that he is in the debate to be the batsmen of the generation. Certainly not a 'non-entity' and certainly not someone who 'barely exists'

 

[Mamoon]

Replace Jayawardene with Aravinda then. Has a match winning hundred in WC final. Yet, while recognized as a fine batsman, rated nowhere closed to his peers in the 90s.

Forget Jayawardene, I lost it when he said that Smith is the cricketer of this generation but he is not a bigger cricket than Kohli.

It took me a while to get my head around that.

 

[Slog]

So according to you, Smith is the cricketer of the generation - the same generation that Kohli is in - but still, he is not a bigger cricketer than Kohli?

How do you explain this paradox in your argument. You seem to be contradicting yourself at a different level.

I have always maintained its up for debate at this point. To already term it as either the Smith era or Kohli's era is premature at this point. Surely that much was an easy deduction to make.

 

[Slog]

At this moment I think Smith is the cricketer of the generation but its not set in stone

 

[Mamoon]

For people who struggle with comprehension issues:

No where here has it been claimed Smith is better or even equal to Kohli in ODIs. However his undisputed claim of being leagues ahead of any other Test batsman in this era as well as his daddy WC performances means that he is in the debate to be the batsmen of the generation. Certainly not a 'non-entity' and certainly not someone who 'barely exists'

Post #7:

"Smith is the cricketer of this generation hands down. No debate at this point."

Post #50:

"However his undisputed claim of being leagues ahead of any other Test batsman in this era as well as his daddy WC performances means that he is in the debate to be the batsmen of the generation."

Post #55:

"At this moment I think Smith is the cricketer of the generation but its not set in stone"

Although you contradicted yourself four times in the same thread, it is good to see that you are finally on the right track.

 

[Mamoon]

I have always maintained its up for debate at this point. To already term it as either the Smith era or Kohli's era is premature at this point. Surely that much was an easy deduction to make.

No you did not "always maintain" that. Please read what you wrote in post #7.

Please do not blame my comprehension skills for your contradictions and paradoxical statements.

 

[Slog]

Post #7:

"Smith is the cricketer of this generation hands down. No debate at this point."

Post #50:

"However his undisputed claim of being leagues ahead of any other Test batsman in this era as well as his daddy WC performances means that he is in the debate to be the batsmen of the generation."

Post #55:

"At this moment I think Smith is the cricketer of the generation but its not set in stone"

Although you contradicted yourself four times in the same thread, it is good to see that you are finally on the right track.

You are saying that its set in stone and is not up for debate. You said sth to the effect of '20,30 years from now Kohli will be remembered not Smith'

I have maintained that at this point 'Smith is the cricketer of the generation.' But both are still in competition and to dismiss Smith completely as you have done is laughable.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[Slog]

Smith is the cricketer of this generation hands down at this point. No debate at this point

Does that make it better for you? [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]

When I posted that I said that as of today. However your claim was for beyond the current time period and 20,30 years in the future which is when I went into the subsequent posts.

 

[Mamoon]

You are saying that its set in stone and is not up for debate. You said sth to the effect of '20,30 years from now Kohli will be remembered not Smith'

I have maintained that at this point 'Smith is the cricketer of the generation.' But both are still in competition and to dismiss Smith completely as you have done is laughable.

Hope that clears it up.

You went from calling Smith the undisputed cricketer of this generation, to suggesting that he is in contention for being the batsman of this generation, to then going back to your original opinion but this time it is not set in stone, i.e. it is disputable unlike before.

He is either the cricket of this generation or he is one of the leading batsman of this generation.

If he is the cricketer of this generation then he is automatically the leading batsman of this generation as well, because he is a batsman.

His status as the greatest cricketer of this era is either disputable or it is not. It cannot be both. Please make up your mind because you are confused and you also confusing others.

As far as I am concerned, yes I do believe it is a fact that Kohli is the biggest cricketer of this era by some distance, and he will leave a far greater legacy than Smith unless the latter does something out of this world in ODIs over the next few years, because it will take a miracle for him to get anywhere close to Kohli in that format.

Unless Smith establishes a legacy in ODIs (again, World Cup performances alone are not enough as we have seen already), he will be forgotten after his retirement because Test purists are a dying breed and you can no longer be a superstar of the game unless you also dominate Limited Overs cricket.

Kohli's stardom has little to do with his personality and tattoos and more to do with the fact that he is already one of the greatest Limited Overs batsman of all time. That is essentially the difference between him and Kohli, and why he is a bigger name and the face of cricket today.

 

[Mamoon]

You went from calling Smith the undisputed cricketer of this generation, to suggesting that he is in contention for being the batsman of this generation, to then going back to your original opinion but this time it is not set in stone, i.e. it is disputable unlike before.

He is either the cricket of this generation or he is one of the leading batsman of this generation.

If he is the cricketer of this generation then he is automatically the leading batsman of this generation as well, because he is a batsman.

His status as the greatest cricketer of this era is either disputable or it is not. It cannot be both. Please make up your mind because you are confused and you also confusing others.

As far as I am concerned, yes I do believe it is a fact that Kohli is the biggest cricketer of this era by some distance, and he will leave a far greater legacy than Smith unless the latter does something out of this world in ODIs over the next few years, because it will take a miracle for him to get anywhere close to Kohli in that format.

Unless Smith establishes a legacy in ODIs (again, World Cup performances alone are not enough as we have seen already), he will be forgotten after his retirement because Test purists are a dying breed and you can no longer be a superstar of the game unless you also dominate Limited Overs cricket.

Kohli's stardom has little to do with his personality and tattoos and more to do with the fact that he is already one of the greatest Limited Overs batsman of all time. That is essentially the difference between him and Kohli, and why he is a bigger name and the face of cricket today.

Smith*

 

[Mamoon]

Does that make it better for you? [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]

When I posted that I said that as of today. However your claim was for beyond the current time period and 20,30 years in the future which is when I went into the subsequent posts.

It does to an extent, but you still have not clarified if he is status as the greatest cricketer of this era is set in stone or disputable.

 

[GBK_Fan]

Smith is rated higher in England than Kohli. They arent even in the same conversation at times.

Anyways this is not the thread for this. I was just pointing out an inaccuracy where a poster was trying to pass off his own opinion as something factual.

What are you on about? I play first division here and no Kohli is considered a better bat. White or brown the opinion does not change

 

[Savage]

Steve Smith is most definitely Not Best batsmen of this generation.

I can understand few Australian fans but it is strange to see some sub-continental fans claiming Smith to be best cricketer of this generation.

Kohli and Ab devilliers are clearly ahead of Smith.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I actually dont

Over the years on this forum I have been very consistent that I attach a disproportionate importance to WCs and CTs and knockout matches of such tournaments when determining a legacy of a player in the ODI format. Its also why I don't rate Amla that high despite his amazing stats in bilateral bashing fests

Smith smoked Kohli in that regard in 2015.

By this metric Brian Lara or Jacques Kallis or Allan Donald or Shaun Pollock or Saqlain etc are lesser players than Tom Moody or Rameez Raja or Aqib Javed etc.

WCs are only additional cricteria. The difference between Kohli and Smith is huge in ODIs.

 

[Tusker]

Smith is a brilliant ODI batsman as well

He has achieved more in WC's than Kohli hands down

Only T20s is where Kohli is head and shoulders above Smith but no one considers the format as a standard for legacies yet

Smith has as much traction as Kohli outside India and perhaps subcontinent. And certainly in England and Australia, Smith is considered streets ahead of Kohli at this point and we all know why.

Dont generalize your opinion to the rest of the world.

Kohli has played vs Pak 5 times in WC and CT. There is not a single ODI that Smith has played which comes remotely close in terms of pressure as in any of those matches except perhaps the WC st 2015.

 

[Slog]

It does to an extent, but you still have not clarified if he is status as the greatest cricketer of this era is set in stone or disputable.

Ive said at this point he is greatest cricketer of the generation for me.

But its not set in stone because these are active cricketers

 

[Slog]

His status as the greatest cricketer of this era is either disputable or it is not. It cannot be both. Please make up your mind because you are confused and you also confusing others.

That seems your issue as well.

Both Smith and Kohli as well as guys like Root have atleast five years of their cricket left where you can expect them to give peak performances

So to say that their legacy and place in terms of where they stand in this generation is set in stone is not correct imo.

You seem to prematurely want to make a final judgement on this right now for the next '20,30 years' eventhough both have conceivably 1/3rd of their careers left

 

[Slog]

By this metric Brian Lara or Jacques Kallis or Allan Donald or Shaun Pollock or Saqlain etc are lesser players than Tom Moody or Rameez Raja or Aqib Javed etc.

WCs are only additional cricteria. The difference between Kohli and Smith is huge in ODIs.

Where have I said Kohli is a lesser player than Smith in ODIs?

 

[Slog]

Steve Smith is most definitely Not Best batsmen of this generation.
.

He definitely is in contention and arguably is the best at this point.

He has been a beast in Tests and there is no comparison to him. He has dominated Kohli both at home and in India in terms of performances in that format.

In ODIs he has delivered where it matters.

For me tests come first, then ODI WCs and then rest of ODIs and T20s.

 

[todfod 11]

he lacks charisma as well as never stands up to the situation scores a decent 50 at max and thats it.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I actually dont

Over the years on this forum I have been very consistent that I attach a disproportionate importance to WCs and CTs and knockout matches of such tournaments when determining a legacy of a player in the ODI format. Its also why I don't rate Amla that high despite his amazing stats in bilateral bashing fests

Smith smoked Kohli in that regard in 2015.

So according to you gambhir is an odi atg?
Or is this criteria only valid for non indians.

 

[Zahid87]

Smith gets an easy ride from an anglo-centric media. In much the same way, Lara was heralded for so long because he performed against England and Australia. Same with Warne against England, even though Murali was in the same league stats/impact wise.

So as long as Smith continues to play 5 tests every 2 years against England, he will be the media darling.

That is not to say he does not deserve it in tests. Best test batsmen in the world.

But Kohli is by far a much better ODI batsmen than him. I don't know how you can even debate this.

Using the performance of one World Cup at home where Smith played well?

Give Kohli a World Cup in the SC now, and he will pummel everyone. In every other world tournament to date, Kohli has left his mark. I don't think Smith has.

 

[Slog]

So according to you gambhir is an odi atg?
Or is this criteria only valid for non indians.

actually for me he is one of the great limited overs players of our times. Ive said it multiple times and its not a popular opinion here

delivered in WT20 final and WC final

also note one thing. at no point have i said smith is equal to kohli in odis, let alone better

I have said that allied with his scarcely believable Test record and ATG WC 2015, it is laughable to say that Smith is irrelevant. I believe that he is in contention to be considered the best batsman of the generation

 

[Mamoon]

That seems your issue as well.

Both Smith and Kohli as well as guys like Root have atleast five years of their cricket left where you can expect them to give peak performances

So to say that their legacy and place in terms of where they stand in this generation is set in stone is not correct imo.

You seem to prematurely want to make a final judgement on this right now for the next '20,30 years' eventhough both have conceivably 1/3rd of their careers left

Kohli is so far ahead of both across formats that it will take something extraordinary for them to match or surpass him. Both will have to take their Limited Overs game to the next level and Kohli will have to go off the boil completely, which is highly unlikely to happen.

Kohli can retire today and Smith and Root can play for the next 5-6 years, but they are still going to struggle to match him in the ODI format. He is that far ahead of the pack.

Smith and Root are in contention for the #2 spot in this era as far as batsmen are concerned. Smith is much better in Tests but Root is better in Limited Overs. If Root can improve his conversion rate, he is likely to surpass Smith as a batsman, assuming that Smith might not have a good end to his career because of his technique.

Root in his 30s is likely to be a better batsman than Smith in his 30s, although he is unlikely to match what Smith is doing today, i.e. in his peak years.

In a nutshell, Kohli is too far ahead for Smith and Root to have a realistic chance of overtaking him.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

World Cup performances are huge, but a World Cup will not make a Jayawardene, a Smith or an Amla into an ODI legend.

However, it will certainly make the likes of Kohli and de Villiers immortal.

This.
Criteria of performing only in wc knockouts will make lot of mediocre batsman look like atg.
So kohli is already an odi atg but he needs a knockout innings to become goat.
Smith on the other hand is a test atgbut in odis he is just a decent bat,he is nowhere near to yuvraj,ganguly,inzi let alone kohli.

 

[Mamoon]

Smith gets an easy ride from an anglo-centric media. In much the same way, Lara was heralded for so long because he performed against England and Australia. Same with Warne against England, even though Murali was in the same league stats/impact wise.

So as long as Smith continues to play 5 tests every 2 years against England, he will be the media darling.

That is not to say he does not deserve it in tests. Best test batsmen in the world.

But Kohli is by far a much better ODI batsmen than him. I don't know how you can even debate this.

Using the performance of one World Cup at home where Smith played well?

Give Kohli a World Cup in the SC now, and he will pummel everyone. In every other world tournament to date, Kohli has left his mark. I don't think Smith has.

I agree with this. Kohli has taken his game to another level in the last couple of years, and he is almost certain to be the standout player if a World Cup is held today, and I believe he is going to deliver big time next year.

It is like Messi and 2014 World Cup. It was almost a foregone conclusion that he will be the best player on show. India may or not win the World Cup next year, but it will be shocking if Kohli does not boss the tournament.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Reminder
This post was about amla

 

[Princejain191]

Smith is a brilliant ODI batsman as well

He has achieved more in WC's than Kohli hands down

Only T20s is where Kohli is head and shoulders above Smith but no one considers the format as a standard for legacies yet

Smith has as much traction as Kohli outside India and perhaps subcontinent. And certainly in England and Australia, Smith is considered streets ahead of Kohli at this point and we all know why.

Dont generalize your opinion to the rest of the world.

Jeez, don't say that out loud. There is probably as big a difference between Kohli and Smith in ODIs as there is between Smith and me. HUGEEEEE! If you give someone an option to choose between the two in their ODI XI, you would probably hear a laugh, followed by "Are you serious?"

 

[anoop]

I actually dont

Over the years on this forum I have been very consistent that I attach a disproportionate importance to WCs and CTs and knockout matches of such tournaments when determining a legacy of a player in the ODI format. Its also why I don't rate Amla that high despite his amazing stats in bilateral bashing fests

Smith smoked Kohli in that regard in 2015.

By that logic Mohinder Amarnath should be considered greatest indian cricketer as he has two MoM in WC semifinal and final but he isnt considered one. Smith is nowhere near kohli in Odis even taking his WC knockout stats.

 

[Itachi]

Amla has so less charisma that even his thread turned into Smith vs kohli.

 

[Buffet]

Why you guys are discussing Smith vs Kohli in this thread?

Amla is gun test batsmen, but not really anywhere close to AB or Kohli in the shorter formats. Shorter formats catches more eyeballs than longer formats. Clearly, Amla won't be talked the same way as Kohli or AB.

 

[Hitman]

Amla has so less charisma that even his thread turned into Smith vs kohli.

) This one is a gem.