Virat Kohli or Steven Smith - over all better batsman as of now?

[King Tendulkar]

Smith will dip

 

 

no one can Sustain like Sachin . Fact 

 

smith has poor technique . When eyes and reflex dip he will hit a troff like all other pretenders 

 

sachin has seen them come and go . People hit peak and hyped as one to better him , then the dip comes ! 

[King Tendulkar]

Adam voges has average of 62 . Just saying ..

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, King Tendulkar said:

Smith will dip

 

 

no one can Sustain like Sachin . Fact 

 

smith has poor technique . When eyes and reflex dip he will hit a troff like all other pretenders 

 

sachin has seen them come and go . People hit peak and hyped as one to better him , then the dip comes ! 

It does not matter if Sachin holds that meaningless record of scoring most runs after 200 tests.Sachin's greatest legacy now is his longevity, I don't know in coming days and years it will hold that important given no of  tests are being down sized.

 

It is like Cy Young 512 wins in baseball, no pitcher in current world will have that longevity to reach that number .What will not change is the impact which batsmen at their peak make, sadly in this case Sachin is way behind.

[King Tendulkar]

5 minutes ago, putrevus said:

It does not matter if Sachin holds that meaningless record of scoring most runs after 200 tests.Sachin's greatest legacy now is his longevity, I don't know in coming days and years it will hold that important given no of  tests are being down sized.

 

It is like Cy Young 512 wins in baseball, no pitcher in current world will have that longevity to reach that number .What will not change is the impact which batsmen at their peak make, sadly in this case Sachin is way behind.

He was amazing dashing batsman . Unfortunately many only recollect later years when more clinical 

 

plus many people love to hate . Even hate India’s greates wielder of the willow 

[putrevus]

8 minutes ago, King Tendulkar said:

He was amazing dashing batsman . Unfortunately many only recollect later years when more clinical 

 

plus many people love to hate . Even hate India’s greates wielder of the willow 

He was amazing dashing batsman but not the best, even in his clinical years he was never this ,I don't know about others but I never hated Sachin but my two main complaints against him was him not carrying his form for whole series and leaving his mark on a series and showing up against tough bowling in their home conditions for every match not just odd match here and there.

 

To just give an example Rahane overseas is a  poor man's version of Sachin, he has never totally had bad series like Kohli in England but he never carried his team to series/test wins either even when in form.That's why I never rate Rahane that high.Kohli is king for this reason when he is in form he makes sure he scores heavily to give his bowlers a chance to win matches.

Edited December 16, 2017 by putrevus

[AmreekanDesi]

24 minutes ago, King Tendulkar said:

Adam voges has average of 62 . Just saying ..

After 20 tests. Not a big enough sample

 

and also most of those runs came against west indies

 

take them away it plummets

 

smith has outshined Kohli in test series in both Australia and India 

[Trichromatic]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

 

To just give an example Rahane overseas is a  poor man's version of Sachin, he has never totally had bad series like Kohli in England but he never carried his team to series/test wins either even when in form.That's why I never rate Rahane that high.Kohli is king for this reason when he is in form he makes sure he scores heavily to give his bowlers a chance to win matches.

If you are talking about giving chance to win overseas in case of Kohli and Rahane then how does this example fit in? When did Kohli scored heavily to give bowlers a chance to win matches. The match against WI where he scored 200 where we won.

 

Another match is Johannesberg test where Kohli and Pujara did give us a chance to bowlers.

 

Rahane gave us a chance in 2nd test WI, but bowlers failed to capitalise on it.

He did the same in 2nd test in NZ where he gave us lead of some 200, but bowlers didn't take it.

Rahane won tests in SL (2) and 1 in Eng. 

 

Are there some other mythical overseas matches in which Kohli has scored heavily and won the match or given chance to bowlers to win the match for the team because it seems like Rahane has given us more opportunity and wins in lesser number of matches than Kohli.

 

 

[rtmohanlal]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

We still don't know if this is Smith peak, he has just started and his last four years of batsmanship are unparalleled in history.

 

Second Sachin's peak you are talking about in 1997-2002 mean he has already had played ten years of international cricket and every great batsman has had similar peaks.Why is it we selectively choose Sachin's best years??

 

During that period he played one series against Akram and we all know he did little, other than his 136.That is the point I was trying to make, Sachin never had this peak  nor he had humongous appetite to score runs thru out any series.

 

The most runs he had score in this period are against a Srilanka beforeMurali became Murali and Zimbabwe , he did very little against Wi in 1997.Who can forget Sachin not able to pull his team to score 120 to win a series.

 

Even in this peak you mentioned he did not score more than one hundred against stronger bowling attacks.

Not taking into account  Smith's case  here. Just taking Sachin's record alone.And 89 Nov to  97 Apr is not 10 years , only around 7.5 years.Even  in this period , Sachin was a rookie till Mar 93 ENG series.Sachin's peak period which I filtered out pales nothing in comparison with any of the data of the players in the link you provided. This negates your claim that ' Sachin never had this ability to sustain form and score runs thru out the series '.He scored 2 100S vs AUS  in one series.And  more importantly when a batsman plays  such quality set of bowlers thru out a stretch of time, you can't expect him to score multiple 100s series after series ,even 1 100 per  series is  great.All in all 70 avg: in  41 tests with 18 100s against 10  <25 avg:ing bowlers is as brilliant a peak one can ever get. And what is this ' Murali became Murali ' ???Agreed Murali would have become a slightly  better bowler in the 2nd half of his career, but Sachin too was suffering from his tennis elbow injury during this period, it can be argued.Yet he did reasonably well against post 2000 Murali too. So all in all I think it is not sensible to do a postmortem of this peak period.To me

the data i filtered out is absolutely brilliant in every sense.

[goose]

sachin is like the girl with a pretty face AND  smoking body. smith has a fat arse.

[putrevus]

13 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

If you are talking about giving chance to win overseas in case of Kohli and Rahane then how does this example fit in? When did Kohli scored heavily to give bowlers a chance to win matches. The match against WI where he scored 200 where we won.

 

Another match is Johannesberg test where Kohli and Pujara did give us a chance to bowlers.

 

Rahane gave us a chance in 2nd test WI, but bowlers failed to capitalise on it.

He did the same in 2nd test in NZ where he gave us lead of some 200, but bowlers didn't take it.

Rahane won tests in SL (2) and 1 in Eng. 

 

Are there some other mythical overseas matches in which Kohli has scored heavily and won the match or given chance to bowlers to win the match for the team because it seems like Rahane has given us more opportunity and wins in lesser number of matches than Kohli.

 

 

Kohli did give their bowlers a chance to win in Joburg. Kohli did give his bowlers a chance to win in Australia , he did win a test in WI with his 200 , he did score a hundred in SL which it helped it win. in NZ, he did get them close to winning if only lower order with  Dhoni contributed they would have won. if he did not score his hundred they might have lost second test also.

 

The only places where Rahane better than Kohli is England and SL .At home it is no contest.Kohli is just started to become an good test batsman wait and watch.

[Vijy]

smith in tests, kohli in T20s and in ODIs it's a tie.

[putrevus]

30 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

Not taking into account  Smith's case  here. Just taking Sachin's record alone.And 89 Nov to  97 Apr is not 10 years , only around 7.5 years.Even  in this period , Sachin was a rookie till Mar 93 ENG series.Sachin's peak period which I filtered out pales nothing in comparison with any of the data of the players in the link you provided. This negates your claim that ' Sachin never had this ability to sustain form and score runs thru out the series '.He scored 2 100S vs AUS  in one series.And  more importantly when a batsman plays  such quality set of bowlers thru out a stretch of time, you can't expect him to score multiple 100s series after series ,even 1 100 per  series is  great.All in all 70 avg: in  41 tests with 18 100s against 10  <25 avg:ing bowlers is as brilliant a peak one can ever get. And what is this ' Murali became Murali ' ???Agreed Murali would have become a slightly  better bowler in the 2nd half of his career, but Sachin too was suffering from his tennis elbow injury during this period, it can be argued.Yet he did reasonably well against post 2000 Murali too. So all in all I think it is not sensible to do a postmortem of this peak period.To me

the data i filtered out is absolutely brilliant in every sense.

That Australian series you talking where Sachin scored two hundreds in 1998 about had Joe Wilson and Micheal Kasprowicz as their bowlers.

 

Why was Sachin a rookie till 1993 when he made his debut in 1989???

 

Murali did not become Murali till 1998-99 till then he was very ordinary offspinner.Siddhu was hitting sixes for fun in 1993  against old Murali.And when Murali became Murali Sachin did not play him till 2008 as he skipped 2001 series.We all know how well he did in 2008 and what an utter disaster he was in that series.

 

Gavaskar scored 13 100s against WI  but when you closely look at his stats Gavaskar other than 1983 home series, he rarely did well  against a full fledged bowling fearsome WI attack.

 

He made merry before they became a power house and scored 4 hundred against a weakened WI in 1978.

 

Smith is scoring 100s series after series with relentless ease and that is the reason why he is the best batsman since Bradman.His career is not even 7.5 year old.

 

[Trichromatic]

9 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Kohli did give their bowlers a chance to win in Joburg. Kohli did give his bowlers a chance to win in Australia , he did win a test in WI with his 200 , he did score a hundred in SL which it helped it win. in NZ, he did get them close to winning if only lower order with  Dhoni contributed they would have won. if he did not score his hundred they might have lost second test also.

 

The only places where Rahane better than Kohli is England and SL .At home it is no contest.Kohli is just started to become an good test batsman wait and watch.

We played only catching up game in Australia and always ended up short of Australian totals. He never gave us chance to go ahead and actually win the match. He can be credited to save the match for sure.

 

How does first test against NZ count as scoring heavily and giving bowlers a chance? Kohli scored 67 in 2nd inn. He did save the game in 2nd match, but it was Rahane and not Kohli who gave us chance to win the test which bowlers didn't take.  He actually took us way ahead in game. That was kind of performance bowlers want from their batsmen. Guess what, Kohli scored heavy 38 in that inning.

 

If anything Kohli's performance hardly fits narrative that he scores heaving and gives chances to bowlers and Rahane doesn't, while actually it other way around, Rahane has scored runs and given chances to bowlers more often than Kohli. 

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

That Australian series you talking where Sachin scored two hundreds in 1998 about had Joe Wilson and Micheal Kasprowicz as their bowlers.

 

Why was Sachin a rookie till 1993 when he made his debut in 1989???

 

Murali did not become Murali till 1998-99 till then he was very ordinary offspinner.Siddhu was hitting sixes for fun in 1993  against old Murali.And when Murali became Murali Sachin did not play him till 2008 as he skipped 2001 series.We all know how well he did in 2008 and what an utter disaster he was in that series.

 

Gavaskar scored 13 100s against WI  but when you closely look at his stats Gavaskar other than 1983 home series, he rarely did well  against a full fledged bowling fearsome WI attack.

 

He made merry before they became a power house and scored 4 hundred against a weakened WI in 1978.

 

Smith is scoring 100s series after series with relentless ease and that is the reason why he is the best batsman since Bradman.His career is not even 7.5 year old.

 

on a tangential note, kaspy was by no means world-class but he was a very solid player for oz, esp in ODIs. people often underestimate oz's supporting pacers like fleming, reiffel, kaspy and bichel.

[Vilander]

2 hours ago, King Tendulkar said:

Adam voges has average of 62 . Just saying ..

Dude Smith out shined Kohli in flat beds and raging turners i am not sure about bouncy pitches and i think kohli probably has better technique for swinging conditions. Smith already is a great batsman in making if he has 3 to 4 good years he will retire a great what is he 28 ? Its a given.

[putrevus]

Just now, Trichromatic said:

We played only catching up game in Australia and always ended up short of Australian totals. He never gave us chance to go ahead and actually win the match. He can be credited to save the match for sure.

 

How does first test against NZ count as scoring heavily and giving bowlers a chance? Kohli scored 67 in 2nd inn. He did save the game in 2nd match, but it was Rahane and not Kohli who gave us chance to win the test which bowlers didn't take.  He actually took us way ahead in game. That was kind of performance bowlers want from their batsmen. Guess what, Kohli scored heavy 38 in that inning.

 

If anything Kohli's performance hardly fits narrative that he scores heaving and gives chances to bowlers and Rahane doesn't, while actually it other way around, Rahane has scored runs and given chances to bowlers more often than Kohli. 

Is it Kohli's fault we played catch up. how much more than 700 runs you want any batsman to score in a series, if other batsmen did their bit that series would at least end up tied if not down 0-2 that would have been a win for India team.

 

Did he not take India to a winning position by scoring  67 in second innings, Rahane did give India a chance in second test where Kohli had to save it. 

 

Kohli has been a very inconsistent test batsman till 2016 he has just started to get to feel what test batting is all about and yet he has already scored 20 hundreds which is pretty impressive in my book.

 

Rahane has been dismissal at home .

[putrevus]

6 minutes ago, Vijy said:

on a tangential note, kaspy was by no means world-class but he was a very solid player for oz, esp in ODIs. people often underestimate oz's supporting pacers like fleming, reiffel, kaspy and bichel.

Fleming did not play in the series he was talking in India in 1998.That 1998 Australian bowling attack was pitiful and yet Indian team managed to lose one test to them.

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Fleming did not play in the series he was talking in India in 1998.That 1998 Australian bowling attack was pitiful and yet Indian team managed to lose one test to them.

hence, I used the phrase "tangential note" - i am aware that fleming, bichel, lillee or lindwall didn't play that series. the reason we lost is because everyone took it easy. besides on those pitches pacers were a non-entity for the most part. warne was expected to shoulder the wicket-taking duties and he got a right royal shellacking from diff batsmen (not just tendu)

[sergio04]

dont ever compare steven smith to virat kohli in test

it is insult for smith

[putrevus]

4 minutes ago, sergio04 said:

dont ever compare steven smith to virat kohli in test

it is insult for smith

You may be right there is that much gap between them.