Jump to content

Steve Smith reclaims No.1 Test ranking from Virat Kohli


Nikola

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Kohli is so far ahead in odis it is not even a comparision.

What far ahead kohli is just biletral  king. Compare their AVG in WC thats the only meaningful event in odi. Kohli is good only for biletral where most of the team play their b sides and there is no pressure.This generation ll be remember for Smith generation not for choker kohli.

Edited by bahubali
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bahubali said:

What far ahead kohli is just biletral  king. Compare their AVG in WC thats the only meaningful event in odi. Kohli is good only for biletral where most of the team play their b sides and there is no pressure.This generation ll be remember for Smith generation not for choker kohli.

Yes right what are tests, get real, Kohli is far better overall batsmen than Smith.It is not even close.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

In terms of tests, I'd put him above Sachin and Lara in terms of impact. Forget Kohli lol. Bats and bats and bats forever. Great hand eye, skilful, physically and mentally tough. Privilege to watch him bat. 

 

In tests, I would put Smith above everyone ever.

 

Bradman played in an amateur era with one other good team ... and amateur eras are marked by lots of below average players with a handful of naturally talented players doing way better than the rest.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

In tests, I would put Smith above everyone ever.

 

Bradman played in an amateur era with one other good team ... and amateur eras are marked by lots of below average players with a handful of naturally talented players doing way better than the rest.

Simple question. Why didn't everyone avg like bradman then? why other greats were around 50 - 55 avg and he was double? 

Link to comment

When he walks across the stumps, he looks like a big lbw candidate and most bowlers think they have a chance if he misses the ball but the fact is he never misses. He can walk across the stumps all day and flick the ball to leg side and score. When his reflexes slow down as he ages, he might have a problem. But right now he is king.

Link to comment
On 9/4/2019 at 11:42 AM, Stan AF said:

Let;s just count 2018 alone. Where kohli played 12 tests (3 in SA, 5 in england and 4 in Australia). It's not like he really set the series on fire with his knocks. SA series wasn't really much to write about except for the 1 hundred. 

 

No.  

 

Apart from the 153 in the 2nd test, Kohli scored 54  and  41 in the 3rd test, on a very tough pitch, which we won.

 

And he was the highest scorer from either side in a very low scoring series where batting was not easy.

 

 

On 9/4/2019 at 11:42 AM, Stan AF said:

Pujara outscored him in Australia.

 

Yes. but Kohli did score 123 on a tough Perth pitch and another 82 in Melbourne. It wasn't a flop tour.

 

On 9/4/2019 at 11:42 AM, Stan AF said:

Even most of the runs he scored in england came after dropped chances.

 

Early drops happened only in his innings of 149 in the first test.  Being dropped on 91 and then scoring 103, as happened in the 3rd test, is not much of an impactful happening. Moreover, dropped catches are part and parcel of the game.

 

Kohli was the highest scorer from either side in a long series in England too. Includes innings of 149,  103, 97,  58,  51, 49, 46.   Definitely creditable considering that batting conditions were rather tough in the first 4 tests.

 

On 9/4/2019 at 11:42 AM, Stan AF said:

Compare that to Smith's performances in england when he was MOTM in 2 wins in 2015 and another one now in 2019.

 

Smith is a much better test batsman than Kohli. Nothing much to discuss here.  But that does not make Kohli an average test batsman. He is the 2nd best test batsman now, albeit quite some distance below Smith. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Nikola said:

Simple question. Why didn't everyone avg like bradman then? why other greats were around 50 - 55 avg and he was double? 

 

Because Bradman was much better than other batsmen of his era.

 

If a Steve Smith or a Sachin Tendulkar were born in that era, they might have averaged way more.

Edited by express bowling
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Because Bradman was much better than other batsmen of his era.

 

If a Steve Smith or a Sachin Tendulkar were born in that era, they might have averaged way more.

He could only play in his era. Who knows in this era he would have worked more hard and ofcourse there is more protection to batsman, covered pitches, better bats.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Nikola said:

He could only play in his era. Who knows in this era he would have worked more hard and ofcourse there is more protection to batsman, covered pitches, better bats.

 

Debates will rage on and we will never know.

 

But amateur eras in all sports are marked by the naturally gifted players performing way better than the average player. And the super naturally gifted ones have amazing numbers.

 

Professional eras are marked by high quality average players as a result of high quality training methods and coaching. And the performance or statistical gap between the gifted and average guy becomes much narrower. The players with natural flair are often reined in partially by analysis and strategies of coaches which are implemented by professional players.

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...