Kohli is officially the greatest Chaser in the game

[Cricketics]

4 minutes ago, bleaf27 said:

I find it funny when people randomly throw athletes from other sports to justify their point. What the other mentioned athletes did for their sports, kohli hasn't achieved even 1/10th of that to be even compared to them. 

And Schumacher does not participate in a team sport! Big difference.  Comparing kohli to Schumacher or tiger is quite a bad comparison. 

 

No one comparing, this is just particular acievement logic I was pointing you out. Kohli is not the greatest like others and I have already said, I just said if you take out few oppositions from his record, doesn't mean he will decline as a player like you were wantint to see and hence you mentioned that to all of us here in your post. 

[Cricketics]

8 minutes ago, bleaf27 said:

Man , the past players from the 70s era were playing against the likes of Holding , Roberts , Croft ,  Marshall  - What you on about ?  Today's bowlers are a disgrace compared to that.   Ofcourse Kohli is an idiot , the guy has no cricketing sense quite evident by his captaincy.

 

You love comparing the sports but has every sport gone through the transformation that cricket has ?  Not necessarily. 

Secondly , comparing team sports to individual sports is apples and oranges. 

Every sport goes through changes, tennis too with courts gettinf slow etc, doesn't mean current players are compared any less to former greats.

 

Only in our sport Cricket is where fans continue to come out and put the current generating on the knees in front of former greats.

 

Better to not compare them, like I have been saying.

 

[bleaf27]

2 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

No one comparing, this is just particular acievement logic I was pointing you out. Kohli is not the greatest like others and I have already said, I just said if you take out few oppositions from his record, doesn't mean he will decline as a player like you were wantint to see and hence you mentioned that to all of us here in your post. 

If you sieve through his stats, they do not look as good and you can see that. 

Secondly, my point of contention is calling anyone, not kohli but anyone for that matter as a greatest chaser or whatever because you cannot just exclude all the other variable and look at just the numbers and make conclusions. 

[Cricketics]

13 minutes ago, bleaf27 said:

So if we cannot compare era's exactly is the reason why I do not think Kohli can be regarded as called the greatest chaser in the history of the game ...

The bowling of the 80s and 90s was ofcourse much much better than the standards for today.  Write down an all time greatest bowling 11 and see how many of the current bowlers do you see on that list - Not even 1 .  Look at the stats for Vengsarakar and Gavaskar -  They look quite pale to the stats nowadays but those guys are still regarded as one of the greats because of the era they played in and the level of competition they faced.

 

The questions isn't whether Kohli is better than his contemporaries or not - ofcourse he is but his stats when you compare against the past eras/ decades of play become insiginificant because they cannot be translated into the 90's  .   The level of bowling is the reasins why guys like ABD can play 360 shots .  My suggestion isn't that Kohli isn't good but when we canont compare across so many variables , how can we term one from the present era as the greatest considering how tilted the game is in the favor of the batsman now anyway ?

And like you mentioned yourself that the run scoring wasn't as high back inthe day and team scores were around 200-250 , scoring a 100 at that time had much higher value and was a bigger task than scoring 100 when 350 is a par score with smaller boundaries and logs as bats. 

 

You are comparing an era who hardly played odis and to eras where odi cricket dominated - Sachin's era and Kohli's era. So if need to be compared then these two are better than bringing 70s and 80s where odi game wasn't as big as it is today. Game has changd more so in last 15 years and especially in last 10.

 

I don't know why you keep bringing former test greats era etc.

 

Kohli is the greatest chaser in the game just like Tendulkar has the most 100s , more than Viv whom many regards as better than Sachin also, who cares, Tendulkar will still have more centuries always and we will continue to me tion that Tendulkar has more tons than viv because thats a fact.

 

Kohli having better record in chases is. a fact to regardless of whatever flat pitch theory you want to apply.

For gazilionth time, pitches were flat back in the days also and bowlers were crap back in the days even though there were many better than todays era.

 

 

[Cricketics]

5 minutes ago, bleaf27 said:

If you sieve through his stats, they do not look as good and you can see that. 

Secondly, my point of contention is calling anyone, not kohli but anyone for that matter as a greatest chaser or whatever because you cannot just exclude all the other variable and look at just the numbers and make conclusions. 

By your logic past great bowlers can not be considered great because since you say pitches were tougher to bat in the 70s as compared to today, that means bowlers found it easy to bowl in 70s and 80s as pitch would help them too.

 

Even though I don't agree with that logic and think past bowlers were great but you are applying this logic always for current bats that its easier for them today to score runs due to pitch, hence past bowlers were not great too then.

 

 

 

[bleaf27]

10 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

You are comparing an era who hardly played odis and to eras where odi cricket dominated - Sachin's era and Kohli's era. So if need to be compared then these two are better than bringing 70s and 80s where odi game wasn't as big as it is today. Game has changd more so in last 15 years and especially in last 10.

 

I don't know why you keep bringing former test greats era etc.

 

Kohli is the greatest chaser in the game just like Tendulkar has the most 100s , more than Viv whom many regards as better than Sachin also, who cares, Tendulkar will still have more centuries always and we will continue to me tion that Tendulkar has more tons than viv because thats a fact.

 

Kohli having better record in chases is. a fact to regardless of whatever flat pitch theory you want to apply.

For gazilionth time, pitches were flat back in the days also and bowlers were crap back in the days even though there were many better than todays era.

 

 

Because when a sport spans across such generations , has undergone such drastic transformations and the quality of play has changed so considerably , making statements like "greatest ever" has no relevance and is very disputed.   Just like no one can answer who's the best batsman ever -  Bradman or Sachin because you could not compare is exactly why saying Kohli is the best chaser in the game is redundant. 

The level of competition Kohli is playing against is laughable. ...and if you choose to ignore that , that's your perogative , not everyone is going to agree to such level of superficial number crunching and flag waving. 

Pitches were no way as flat as they are now , so you are mistake in that,   The boundaries are much smaller now and also with the power play rules and size of the bats nowadays - you are just conveniently ignoring many of these facts 

[bleaf27]

7 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

By your logic past great bowlers can not be considered great because since you say pitches were tougher to bat in the 70s as compared to today, that means bowlers found it easy to bowl in 70s and 80s as pitch would help them too.

 

Even though I don't agree with that logic and think past bowlers were great but you are applying this logic always for current bats that its easier for them today to score runs due to pitch, hence past bowlers were not great too then.

 

 

 

Tougher to bat doesn't necessarily mean easier to bowl.   The game then was in much better balance and this balance is horrendously in favor of the batsman now.   

[BeautifulGame]

Meaningless bilateral.Meaningless stats.

 

Do it in a world cup when it matters.

 

 

[rkt.india]

59 minutes ago, bleaf27 said:

So if we cannot compare era's exactly is the reason why I do not think Kohli can be regarded as called the greatest chaser in the history of the game ...

The bowling of the 80s and 90s was ofcourse much much better than the standards for today.  Write down an all time greatest bowling 11 and see how many of the current bowlers do you see on that list - Not even 1 .  Look at the stats for Vengsarakar and Gavaskar -  They look quite pale to the stats nowadays but those guys are still regarded as one of the greats because of the era they played in and the level of competition they faced.

 

The questions isn't whether Kohli is better than his contemporaries or not - ofcourse he is but his stats when you compare against the past eras/ decades of play become insiginificant because they cannot be translated into the 90's  .   The level of bowling is the reasins why guys like ABD can play 360 shots .  My suggestion isn't that Kohli isn't good but when we canont compare across so many variables , how can we term one from the present era as the greatest considering how tilted the game is in the favor of the batsman now anyway ?

And like you mentioned yourself that the run scoring wasn't as high back inthe day and team scores were around 200-250 , scoring a 100 at that time had much higher value and was a bigger task than scoring 100 when 350 is a par score with smaller boundaries and logs as bats. 

 

This is some pootiyappa. bring bowlers from the past today and most of them will be facing the same fate as the bowler's from today are facing. Why do you think bowling has gone down. Bowler's have actually become more skilful these days and ABD's 360 degree batting has nothing to do with bowling but more to do with his skills and fearless approach. Stop eulogizing past. Cricket in general is a notch higher in quality now than what it was in 90s. Vengsarkar, Amarnath likes are no where near as good as Batsmen today are and their stats do show that. Quality of bowling is the biggest myth propagated by people like you who glorifies the past overlooking the changes the game has gone through and how batting has evolved.

[bleaf27]

30 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

This is some pootiyappa. bring bowlers from the past today and most of them will be facing the same fate as the bowler's from today are facing. Why do you think bowling has gone down. Bowler's have actually become more skilful these days and ABD's 360 degree batting has nothing to do with bowling but more to do with his skills and fearless approach. Stop eulogizing past. Cricket in general is a notch higher in quality now than what it was in 90s. Vengsarkar, Amarnath likes are no where near as good as Batsmen today are and their stats do show that. Quality of bowling is the biggest myth propagated by people like you who glorifies the past overlooking the changes the game has gone through and how batting has evolved.

The bowlers from the past will have the same fate ?  Really are you reading that from your magic crystal ball or it it your stupidity ? 

Bowler's have become more skillful ?  What makes you think that ?   They definitely do have to work much harder because of how much the game favors the batsman !   Why do you reckon the scores have gone up from 200 to 350 ,   The quality of batting has gone so much better all of a sudden or the bowling has declined  so bad ?   

If you had followed any cricket prior to 2000 and seen real bowlers bowl , the Stokes and Boults of today wouldn't impress you much.  Batting has evolved because it has been allowed to evolve while stepping on the neck of the bowling ?  Why such flat tracks ?  Why shorter boundaries ? Why is ICC finally waking up to the size of the bats ?  Why the power play tangibles for batsman to take advantage of ?   

[ThePhenomenal1]

5 hours ago, Shaz1 said:

The way he chases Pakistan is truly remarkable. The only cricketer in your team who wants to belong in the Pakistan team.

He was only like this since last year asia cup. Before that he would chase any Pak score and give some MCBC if he wanted. Even last year he chased in the pak asia cup match and world t20 game. Has lost his big match marbles though.

[maniac]

57 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

This is some pootiyappa. bring bowlers from the past today and most of them will be facing the same fate as the bowler's from today are facing. Why do you think bowling has gone down. Bowler's have actually become more skilful these days and ABD's 360 degree batting has nothing to do with bowling but more to do with his skills and fearless approach. Stop eulogizing past. Cricket in general is a notch higher in quality now than what it was in 90s. Vengsarkar, Amarnath likes are no where near as good as Batsmen today are and their stats do show that. Quality of bowling is the biggest myth propagated by people like you who glorifies the past overlooking the changes the game has gone through and how batting has evolved.

While I agree with the gist of your post, Vengsarkar was high quality against swing bowling, batsmen these days are sitting ducks when there is hint of swing. Do you think pre 90s  or even 90s batsmen would give wickets to Moeen Ali and Okeefe?

 

Amarnath played against the great Wi attack in the 80s without a helmet on some rough pitches.

 

Yes ask these batsmen to play a dilscoop or ABDV style or in a pressure of a T20'chase probably they may not have the "temparament" for that.

 

More than skills increasing or decreasing,Skills have evolved as per the need.

 

A guy from the past will know horse riding but cannot drive a car and vice versa with the current gen doesn't make b better than a

[Cricketics]

9 minutes ago, maniac said:

A guy from the past will know horse riding but cannot drive a car and vice versa with the current gen doesn't make b better than a

On similar lines, this won't make A better than B, which is what the user Bleaf is claiming that everything done by past players is better than what current players do.  Thats what is called "glorifying the past" and underappreciating the current lot of cricketers.

 

 

[maniac]

5 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

On similar lines, this won't make A better than B, which is what the user Bleaf is claiming that everything done by past players is better than what current players do.  Thats what is called "glorifying the past" and underappreciating the current lot of cricketers.

 

 

I personally think 90s was the most competitive era in cricket 

 

only Eng and Nzl are better now than what they were in the 90s and Bangladesh was technically not a Full member

 

if you look at how SL,WI,Zim and even Pak (despite the CT win) and SA have regressed that should say something.

 

 

[maniac]

Kohli is one of the best among his peers and that makes him great-Period

 

People either calling him the greatest thing since Alice bread are exaggerating as much as the ones challenging his accomplishments.

 

However Kohli is yet to reach the level of Bradman or Tendulkar or Lara because don't think he has had that career defining knock yet.

[Cricketics]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

I personally think 90s was the most competitive era in cricket 

 

only Eng and Nzl are better now than what they were in the 90s and Bangladesh was technically not a Full member

 

if you look at how SL,WI,Zim and even Pak (despite the CT win) and SA have regressed that should say something.

 

 

Sl regressed currently in last year but they have been top odi side otherwise reaching 2003 wc semis, 2007 world cup final, 2011 world cup final too 2015 q/f. Sl actualy has been a good ODI side. Teams are still competitive in ODi's, we can not see just bilateral wins and losses. 

 

 

90s was competitive and fun for all of us as  those were the days we grew up and watvhed some brilliant cricket from players who recently retired in last 5-7 years. Our elders would feel the same about 80s and 70s.

 

I bet when Steyn and Anderson, Morkel and co retire along with De Villers, Cook, Kohli, Root etc in next 4-8 years, we would feel the same about them and call this one of the best era and competitive era.

 

 

 

[maniac]

Just now, Cricketics said:

Sl regressed currently in last year but they have been top odi side otherwise reaching 2003 wc semis, 2007 world cup final, 2011 world cup final too 2015 q/f. Sl actualy has been a good ODI side. Teams are still competitive in ODi's, we can not see just bilateral wins and losses. 

 

 

90s was competitive and fun for all of us as  those were the days we grew up and watvhed some brilliant cricket from players who recently retired in last 5-7 years. Our elders would feel the same about 80s and 70s.

 

I bet when Steyn and Anderson, Morkel and co retire along with De Villers, Cook, Kohli, Root etc in next 4-8 years, we would feel the same about them and call this one of the best era and competitive era.

 

 

 

Steyn and Anderson are ATG in tests and I rate them especially Steyn greater than some bowlers of the past because of the kind of pitches he has bowled on...clearly there is a reason he is head and shoulders above others. That is why probably 2000 onwards he can be the only guy batsman or bowler who can be in that category.

[maniac]

@Cricketics I agree with you that Kohli is head and shoulders above his peers in the LOI format and qualifies for the ATG LOI status...in T20Is I think he is arguably  the Greatest of all time

 

in ODis he is an ATG based on how he is above his peers.

 

similarly in tests I don't think he is anywhere close...the only guy who will get there in a couple of years is Steve Smith if he carrys on like he has.

[Cricketics]

4 minutes ago, maniac said:

@Cricketics I agree with you that Kohli is head and shoulders above his peers in the LOI format and qualifies for the ATG LOI status...in T20Is I think he is arguably  the Greatest of all time

 

in ODis he is an ATG based on how he is above his peers.

 

similarly in tests I don't think he is anywhere close...the only guy who will get there in a couple of years is Steve Smith if he carrys on like he has.

Yes and I will put it this way-

 

Even in ODI's Kohli has long way to go and he has to be consistent, probably not as consistent like he has been so far, but even little consistency will take him to the GOAT status and till then he can't be compared to Tendulkar because clearly Tendulkar has way too many runs.

 

In test, Smith and Root are way up and Kohli right after them along with Williamson.  Cook is the best current test bat who is currently playing the game in terms of players from before 2010.

 

 

 

I also would say Rahane even though he had few poor series, is our no.1 test bat overall in last 2-3 years ahead of Pujara and Kohli both. Rahane had a poor run just recently when Kohli was scoring double hundreds every series but overall I want to say in the last 2-3 years, I enjoyed Rahane's performance more.

 

 

That said, when players retire, all of the aformentioned players, Kohli would have overtaken all of them in all the formats, yes that includes Smith in test matches, thats my gut feeling. Today as it stands, I rate Kohli below Rahane in test.

 

 

 

 

 

[rageaddict]

King of Bi-Laterals who goes missing during the important matches.

 

Was batting like a headless Chicken against a Semi Decent Bowling line up from Pakistan. That day one could clearly notice that this is a very weak and nervous batsman struggling against quality bowlers and  is no invincible World Beater that he looks against teams like WI and SL. 

 

Even the Zimbabwean bowlers of the 90s had more class than most of the teams of current era.