Kohli first Indian batsmen to score 600+ in 3 series

[New guy]

During the course of his innings, Virat Kohli became the first Indian to score 600+ in 3 different Test series. 

692 v Aus, 2014-15 
655 v Eng, 2016-17
606* v SL, 2017-18

Dravid and Gavaskar did it twice.

[Gollum]

I respect his ability to cash in when the going is easy on flat tracks, runs are runs no matter how/where/against whom they come. This is an attribute GOATdulkar lacked. 

[zen]

Brilliant!

[Forever Indian]

Pujara and Kohli are our run machines in subcontinent. If they can replicate 75% of that in our next leg of overseas tours, we have a good chance of winning those series.

[Gollum]

8 minutes ago, Forever Indian said:

Pujara and Kohli are our run machines in subcontinent. If they can replicate 75% of that in our next leg of overseas tours, we have a good chance of winning those series.

Pujara is our only consistent run machine in SC. Kohli is a run machine on SC patta tracks while Vijay is our hope on SC difficult tracks. 

[vvvslaxman]

ONe of the most perplexing stat from an Indian is, Sachin never got 500 in any series.

[Gollum]

3 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

ONe of the most perplexing stat from an Indian is, Sachin never got 500 in any series.

+1, he is without a shadow of doubt the greatest underachiever from any sport. At least Federer made some corrections this year and still has 2-3 more years in him, SRT did nothing to fulfill his talent in his 30s. 

[Shunya]

King Kohli. Faadu batsman  5 more years and he would be surpassing everything.

[zen]

Sachin is one of the greatest batsmen when you consider performances across multiple formats, conditions and consistency. In test matches though, he would not be an automatic first pick for Ind when considering batsmen across various time frame. Gavaskar would most likely be the first automatic pick

[putrevus]

The thing to admire from Kohli is when in form he will carry the team.Bad patches happen to every batsman, what counts is if batsmen when in form will carry the burden.

 

This is where Tendulkar came up short big time. He never stamped his authority in a series. He always was a steady eddy who got his stats without ever being an outright match winner.

[Jimmy Cliff]

21 minutes ago, Gollum said:

+1, he is without a shadow of doubt the greatest underachiever from any sport. At least Federer made some corrections this year and still has 2-3 more years in him, SRT did nothing to fulfill his talent in his 30s. 

Huh? His post 2007 WC resurgence up until the 2011 WC was incredible. Was extra-ordinary in both formats.

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Jimmy Cliff

[Vk1]

13 minutes ago, zen said:

Sachin is one of the greatest batsmen when you consider performances across multiple formats, conditions and consistency. In test matches though, he would not be an automatic first pick for Ind when considering batsmen across various time frame. Gavaskar would most likely be the first automatic pick

This blog may make you think twice before picking Gavaskar 

http://historyofcricket.blogspot.in/2007/11/myth-of-sunil-gavaskar-and-west-indies.html?m=1

 

 

[Gollum]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Huh? His post 2007 WC resurgence up until the 2011 WC was incredible. Was extra-ordinary in both formats.

 

 

 

I cannot make peace with the fact that a batsman who averaged 58 in the 90s would average only 50 in the 2000s a.k.a the most batting friendly decade ever. Same goes with Lara. Only 3 batsmen averaged 50+ in the 90s as compared to 21 or 22 in the 2000s. Another fault with SRT is his abysmal 4th innings record and his consistent choking when we needed him to step up, on that front Lara, VVS, Dravid etc overshadow Sachin. 

[Jimmy Cliff]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

I cannot make peace with the fact that a batsman who averaged 58 in the 90s would average only 50 in the 2000s a.k.a the most batting friendly decade ever.

Better make peace with it. No batsman plays at the same level throughout his career. For a significant portion of the decade i.e. 2003-2006, he was struggling with injuries and general decline. The decline itself was inevitable considering the level at which he performed from 1993-2002 in both formats. Even if he had retired at around 2007, he would have still gone down as an ATG in both formats. The fact that he had an incredible second coming which culminated in becoming the no.1 ranked Test batsman nearly 17 years after he had first been no.1 as well as being the 2nd highest-scorer in the WC triumph is nearly miraculous.

 

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

Another fault with SRT is his abysmal 4th innings record and his consistent choking when we needed him to step up, on that front Lara, VVS, Dravid etc overshadow Sachin.

Meh. All these batsmen have significant faults of their own. Lara for instance has a worse 4th innings record than SRT. Not to mention his habit of going missing in live Tests and cashing in dead rubbers. Do you know that 29 of Lara's 34 Test hundreds were scored in draws, defeats, dead rubbers or against minnows? Or his pitiful record in tournament finals in ODIs with 3 sub-15 scores in 3 ICC Knock-out/CT Finals? So much for him stepping up. The thing is, a certain section of fans prefer to remember these guys based on their successes while chosing to remember SRT for what he couldn't achieve. That isn't SRT's fault.

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Jimmy Cliff

[Gollum]

50 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Better make peace with it. No batsman plays at the same level throughout his career. For a significant portion of the decade i.e. 2003-2006, he was struggling with injuries and general decline. The decline itself was inevitable considering the level at which he performed from 1993-2002 in both formats. Even if he had retired at around 2007, he would have still gone down as an ATG in both formats. The fact that he had an incredible second coming which culminated in becoming the no.1 ranked Test batsman nearly 17 years after he had first been no.1 as well as being the 2nd highest-scorer in the WC triumph is nearly miraculous.

 

Meh. All these batsmen have significant faults of their own. Lara for instance has a worse 4th innings record than SRT. Not to mention his habit of going missing in live Tests and cashing in dead rubbers. Do you know that 29 of Lara's 34 Test hundreds were scored in draws, defeats, dead rubbers or against minnows? Or his pitiful record in tournament finals in ODIs with 3 sub-15 scores in 3 ICC Knock-out/CT Finals? So much for him stepping up. The thing is, a certain section of fans prefer to remember these guys based on their successes while chosing to remember SRT for what he couldn't achieve. That isn't SRT's fault.

 

First para: Even if you count his injuries in 2003-06 he still underachieved. When I say underachieved I am not disrespecting him, quite the opposite actually. I believe he had it in him to do much better in easier conditions just like I expected Federer to win much more. He had a golden run in the 2007-2010 period otherwise he hardly justified his reputation post 2000. It's not just his runs, he didn't have many match winning, impactful knocks like VVS or Dravid had in their careers. On several occasions he couldn't battle out a draw in the 4th innings either. In 1999 Bradman compared SRT to himself but if you see the 2000s there were 10 other batsmen who surpassed him in that decade.

 

Second para: Firstly let us stick to test cricket because that is the real deal. I agree all batsmen have faults but Sachin was so perfect, that's my point. I hold Sachin to a higher yardstick, his real competition is Bradman, Sobers, Lara, Viv etc ( and I believe he had more ability than these giants) and not Hayden, Ponting, Kallis, Sanga...... Regarding Lara why would you count out dead rubbers, draws, defeats considering how weak his team was? For most of his career, his team made our 90s team look like world beaters. Lara had more iconic innings than any other batsman of his era, his 213 and 153 will find their place in any true fan's top 10 innings of all time. If those 2 innings don't come under the 'stepping up' category I don't know what to say. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Gollum

[King Tendulkar]

So Sachin under achieved lol god knows what other international batsman think when told that 

[New guy]

58 minutes ago, Gollum said:

First para: Even if you count his injuries in 2003-06 he still underachieved. When I say underachieved I am not disrespecting him, quite the opposite actually. I believe he had it in him to do much better in easier conditions just like I expected Federer to win much more. He had a golden run in the 2007-2010 period otherwise he hardly justified his reputation post 2000. It's not just his runs, he didn't have many match winning, impactful knocks like VVS or Dravid had in their careers. On several occasions he couldn't battle out a draw in the 4th innings either. In 1999 Bradman compared SRT to himself but if you see the 2000s there were 10 other batsmen who surpassed him in that decade.

 

Second para: Firstly let us stick to test cricket because that is the real deal. I agree all batsmen have faults but Sachin was so perfect, that's my point. I hold Sachin to a higher yardstick, his real competition is Bradman, Sobers, Lara, Viv etc ( and I believe he had more ability than these giants) and not Hayden, Ponting, Kallis, Sanga...... Regarding Lara why would you count out dead rubbers, draws, defeats considering how weak his team was? For most of his career, his team made our 90s team look like world beaters. Lara had more iconic innings than any other batsman of his era, his 213 and 153 will find their place in any true fan's top 10 innings of all time. If those 2 innings don't come under the 'stepping up' category I don't know what to say. 

If Lara's innings count why doesn't Sachin's unbeaten 100 in the greatest chase in India ever (387 against England) count?

[Gollum]

8 minutes ago, New guy said:

If Lara's innings count why doesn't Sachin's unbeaten 100 in the greatest chase in India ever (387 against England) count?

That innings by SRT is my favorite innings of his, I wrote a post about it in another thread recently.

 

Lara's 153* is next level dope because it was a single handed effort against Mcgrath-Warne-Gillespie-Macgill. Mcgrath especially was operating on peak level that year and that bowling attack was something !!!! I have never seen someone handle Mcgrath that well who I rate as the greatest bowler of all time. Had SRT finished the match in 1999 that innings too would have propelled him into Lara 153 level territory but alas he couldn't finish the job.  His Mumbai 100 was special for me because of the occasion of that match and mood of the nation, but Sehwag and Yuvi gave him solid support. 

[Vijy]

On 12/5/2017 at 8:18 AM, Gollum said:

I cannot make peace with the fact that a batsman who averaged 58 in the 90s would average only 50 in the 2000s a.k.a the most batting friendly decade ever. Same goes with Lara. Only 3 batsmen averaged 50+ in the 90s as compared to 21 or 22 in the 2000s. Another fault with SRT is his abysmal 4th innings record and his consistent choking when we needed him to step up, on that front Lara, VVS, Dravid etc overshadow Sachin. 

the same (underachieving) couldbe said of dravid who avg 50 in the 90s as well - he avgd 49.96 which is basically 50. he was avg 58+ at the end of WI series in 2006. another big underachiever.

 

btw, more than 3 batsmen avgd > 50 in the 90s even if one imposes a 1000 run cutoff in that decade. I can think of atleast gooch, tendu, lara and waugh.

[sarcastic]

On 12/5/2017 at 10:55 AM, Gollum said:

That innings by SRT is my favorite innings of his, I wrote a post about it in another thread recently.

 

Lara's 153* is next level dope because it was a single handed effort against Mcgrath-Warne-Gillespie-Macgill. Mcgrath especially was operating on peak level that year and that bowling attack was something !!!! I have never seen someone handle Mcgrath that well who I rate as the greatest bowler of all time. Had SRT finished the match in 1999 that innings too would have propelled him into Lara 153 level territory but alas he couldn't finish the job.  His Mumbai 100 was special for me because of the occasion of that match and mood of the nation, but Sehwag and Yuvi gave him solid support. 

I think the quick start that Veeru gave effectively made the chase a 260-270 run chase and from there good application by Tendulkar with good support from Yuvi did the rest. 

Problem is when SRT really did well like his 136 vs Pak, the tailenders could not finish the job for him to cement his legacy for eternity. They all choked and got dismissed by another 2-4 runs. In any case, Lara's 153* looks amazing that it is a victory by 1 wicket when everything seems going against WI but for Lara.