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

[Trichromatic]

21 minutes ago, putrevus said:

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.

No, it's not his fault. He has done very well overseas. A batsman can  score 500 runs in 4th inning, but still saying that he gave bowlers chance to win the match would be wrong picture to paint about the batsman. If a batsman scores 300 runs in 2nd inning (first inning of his team) and still team trails by 100-200 runs, then also no one should say that he gave chance to bowlers to win the match. Of course it's fault of others who didn't turn up and only way to describe the performance of the batsman would be to say that batsman fought. 

 

Giving chance to bowlers is what Rahane did when he scored 100 against NZ when he took team ahead by 200+ runs or what Kohli did in Johanesberg when India gave target of 400+. There have been more instances of Rahane giving opportunity than Kohli in away matches.

[Vijy]

47 minutes ago, BeardedAladdin said:

 

and what's austraya's record in Lanka and bangladesh? They couldn't win a single session in Sri Lanka, let alone a test match...lol

 

Smith is a DRS cheat and a flat track bully that happens to be in the middle of a purple patch.

 

If we're so obsessed with flat track averages, then Pujara is just as good a batsman as Smith.

no, he is not. smith averages >40 (or close) in all countries he has played, which only srt sustained for all/majority of his career. chepu has been ordinary in most countries outside SC.

[raki05]

6 hours ago, 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. 

Kohli won a series agsinst eng dominated the entire series and was leading run scorer. Lets talk when rahane dominate a 4 match series with his bat.  Reality is rahane has tempramental issue, you cant count on him to dominate a series like kohli or pujara does and he fails quite often than not in crunch time barring lords , even in that match Ishant performance overshadowed his performance and was major contributor to the victory, nevertheless it was good inning and he did well. But he has that temprament issue, You cant count on him in crunch sitaution no matter how much he is set and irrespective of the format.

[raki05]

6 hours ago, sergio04 said:

dont ever compare steven smith to virat kohli in test

it is insult for smith

Dont be so judgemental. People are getting caaried away after every match, same was the case when kohli scored 600 against sl. Again because of smith double ton today people are getting over excited, if you see this match there are already 4 centuries has been hit, hack even mitch marsh whose career seemed over was abt to hit doubleton inspite of missing in action for so long. That tells how much down and out this eng attack is and this team is considerably weeker than the one which visted india.  In addition to that Kohli is late bloomer in this format and just started making runs and he is consistent across all format and impactful as well. So no they both infact all 4 ll be compared till the time their carrer end or someones goes completely out of form and team. People go gaga abt each smith century, where were he in day night test when ball started swinging a bit. Also the century on rank turner against india , he got 6-7 life in that match its not that player dont get life but giving that many in a single test match was unpardonable. Having said all this smith is a great batsmen in test.but i m ammused with people who always find so many issue when kohli scred century and they come with various execuse like pitch was flat, other scored as well , dint score in pressure situation blah blah. Reallity is any score is score especially if its 100 or 200 and cricket and football is 11 player game its not individual sport like tennis, so everyone has to play their part  even if its a liitle bit to win the game.

Edited December 17, 2017 by raki05

[raki05]

6 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

No, it's not his fault. He has done very well overseas. A batsman can  score 500 runs in 4th inning, but still saying that he gave bowlers chance to win the match would be wrong picture to paint about the batsman. If a batsman scores 300 runs in 2nd inning (first inning of his team) and still team trails by 100-200 runs, then also no one should say that he gave chance to bowlers to win the match. Of course it's fault of others who didn't turn up and only way to describe the performance of the batsman would be to say that batsman fought. 

 

Giving chance to bowlers is what Rahane did when he scored 100 against NZ when he took team ahead by 200+ runs or what Kohli did in Johanesberg when India gave target of 400+. There have been more instances of Rahane giving opportunity than Kohli in away matches.

There also instances where Rahane brainfade cost us a game or abt to cost a game. Both are good player for oversees condition so no need tl compare them. 

[rtmohanlal]

On 12/17/2017 at 1:09 AM, Vilander said:

One might argue its not this simplistic. You cant say the pitches are same for t20 and tests. Tests start 9 am in morning with some juice. Loi wickets are flat usually except for some extreme cases like dharamshala. Odi has had rule changes increasing runs tests have remained same. I would say batsmen have more resources now to study and prep for a bolwler they are also fitter and better athletes in batting this has ment that there are better averaging test bats and as a result lesser averages for bowlers. 

Then why don't now a days higher averaging test batsmen have much higher averages when compared to those in the 90s in general?

Now I would take 3 examples to justify my case.

1.Ponting(51.85,42.03)-Kohli(53.74, 55.74)

2.Lara (52.88,40.48)-Devilliers(50.46,54.06)

3.Dravid(52.31,39.16)-Amla(49.87,51.25)

I have provided the test & one day avg:s of 6 batsmen , 3 each from 90s and 2000s .It carries a common trait.Their test avg:es all lie around 50.But their one day avg:es vary vastly in favour of now a days batsman.Based on that, do you want me to think that 2000's batsmen  are more or less the same test quality , but vastly superior one day bats when compared to those in the 90s.?Let alone Ponting & Dravid, do you want me to conclude that the great Lara was such an inferior one day batsman when compared to Devilliers based on their averages??.No , I simply cant'. I would like to conclude like this.They are all more or less equal calibre batsmen comparable to one another.If any, 90's batsmen are lot closer  one day batsmen to those of 2000's irrespective of huge average differences, but slightly inferior in general.And they are superior test batsmen when compared to those from 2000s by more or less the same difference level in one dayers,  despite all of them  having the averages around 50.This proves only one thing.The conditions are so condusive to batting now  a days, yet current generation greats can't exploit that to their advantage except a certain Steven Smith.Only Smith with his 62+ is comparable to 90s greats.And generally these greats makes up for that deficiency thru their vastly superior averages in one dayers.On the other hand bits and pieces players and all rounders like Stokes,Woakes Jadeja,Ashwin,Ali,Philander etc etc & wicket keppers  take adavantage of these battling conditions to their benefit .

Hence the average of test bowlers pales in comparison to those from the 90s.Hope it is clear.

Edited December 18, 2017 by rtmohanlal

[rtmohanlal]

On 12/17/2017 at 3:58 AM, 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.

 

But that Ausrtalian team had Shane Warne to operate on the most spin friendly conditions. Isn't it?And even after 'Murali became Murali' as per yourself ,Indians were virtually toying with him except for that 2008 Lanka series.No wonder Lanka could never win a test in India even with 'Murali became Murali'.And every body know as to what was the major factor in that 2008 Lanka series...that was simply ' Ajantha Mendis mystery' .And Sachin had the added 'tennis elbow'  problem too which resulted in his undoing  on that tour.Not only Sachin, every Indian batsman struggled.Except for Gambhir who had 3 50s, no body scored consistantly in that series.

Even Sehwag, baring that glorious match winning 200 could do nothing.So it was the 'Mendis factor' that created the problem.Except for that series Sachin tackled Murali quite well even with his tennis elbow problem.And more importantly ,when a batsman plays so many quality bowlers, it is quite natural that he may find one bowler more difficult than  some other bowler. 

So an   almost 70 avg: in 41 tests with 18 100s against so many ATG bowlers is a brilliant purple patch effort .  And hence I don't think that fault you find with Sachin is a valid one.

[Jimmy Cliff]

With Australia winning this Test, Smith is all set to surpass Bradman's peak rating of 961 in the official rankings 

[Sachinism]

On 12/16/2017 at 8:11 PM, AmreekanDesi said:

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 

G Pollock is considered legendary. He played 23 tests

[nevada]

On 12/17/2017 at 7:48 AM, BeardedAladdin said:

 

and what's austraya's record in Lanka and bangladesh? They couldn't win a single session in Sri Lanka, let alone a test match...lol

 

Smith is a DRS cheat and a flat track bully that happens to be in the middle of a purple patch.

 

If we're so obsessed with flat track averages, then Pujara is just as good a batsman as Smith.

Smith is a DRS cheat, a potty mouthed brat and a flat track bully but he makes runs whenever his team is in trouble. He is so consistent that it has become boring to see him play the rescue act again and again and again. Kohli, on the other hand went awol in the home series against Australia and even sat out the last game while doing drink man duty. Until he does rescue acts with boring regularity for 2-3 consecutive years which Smith has done, Kohli cannot be called an equal of Smith as a test batsman.

[putrevus]

2 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

But that Ausrtalian team had Shane Warne to operate on the most spin friendly conditions. Isn't it?And even after 'Murali became Murali' as per yourself ,Indians were virtually toying with him except for that 2008 Lanka series.No wonder Lanka could never win a test in India even with 'Murali became Murali'.And every body know as to what was the major factor in that 2008 Lanka series...that was simply ' Ajantha Mendis mystery' .And Sachin had the added 'tennis elbow'  problem too which resulted in his undoing  on that tour.Not only Sachin, every Indian batsman struggled.Except for Gambhir who had 3 50s, no body scored consistantly in that series.

Even Sehwag, baring that glorious match winning 200 could do nothing.So it was the 'Mendis factor' that created the problem.Except for that series Sachin tackled Murali quite well even with his tennis elbow problem.And more importantly ,when a batsman plays so many quality bowlers, it is quite natural that he may find one bowler more difficult than  some other bowler. 

So an   almost 70 avg: in 41 tests with 18 100s against so many ATG bowlers is a brilliant purple patch effort .  And hence I don't think that fault you find with Sachin is a valid one.

You expect one bowler in Warne to impact on Indian batsmen without aid of any great fast bowlers.Yet they did win one match in that series with that useless attack, where Tendulkar along with others lost unloseable match by failing in second innings in Bangalore.

 

Srilanka not winning in India is not a big news but Tendulkar's India not able to make any impact in Srilanka in bigger news.It was due to Sehwag Tendulkar ended up winning one test in 2008.If Sachin had elbow problem he should have sat down and taken rest nobody forced him to play, all these elbow problems are excuses for his below par performances.Mendis might have been a mystery but make no mistake it was Murali who caused havoc in 2008 series.Every other Indian batsmen struggled that is why I don't rate Fab 4 that high, they never were mentally strong to battle in adverse positions.

 

Who are the ATG great bowlers you are talking about Sachin faced in that purple patch.Other than SA and Australia in one series, I don't see any ATG great fast bowlers playing against SA.

 

Tell me one innings/match where Sachin was so much superior to everyone from both teams in series/test.

[New guy]

18 minutes ago, putrevus said:

If Sachin had elbow problem he should have sat down and taken rest nobody forced him to play, all these elbow problems are excuses for his below par performances.

LMAO, doctors had said his career was over, but yes excuses. We can give a 100 series where he was superior but will people like you even accept ever? Averaging over 90s and 80s in a year is somehow not dominating. This discussion has been done to death with data, stats presented but nothing on earth can ever convince a hater. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by New guy

[putrevus]

5 minutes ago, New guy said:

LMAO, doctors had said his career was over, but yes excuses. We can give a 100 series where he was superior but will people like you even accept ever? This discussion has been done to death with data, stats presented but nothing on earth can ever convince a hater. 

Why do people brand term hater if one doesn't agree with Sachin's stats. It is not hating, just presenting our perspective. 

 

Doctors said his career was over so why was he playing and why is it he gets a pass for his stinking performances. As you have seen in last 30 years you don't need to be Sachin to have great stats in India.

Edited December 18, 2017 by putrevus

[AmreekanDesi]

1 hour ago, Sachinism said:

G Pollock is considered legendary. He played 23 tests

Are you wilfully making asinine posts with half baked logics?

 

you do know why Graeme pollock didn't play more matches? 

 

Hint: it wasn't because he couldn't hack it against the top teams.

 

further hint: Same reason 

[rtmohanlal]

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

You expect one bowler in Warne to impact on Indian batsmen without aid of any great fast bowlers.Yet they did win one match in that series with that useless attack, where Tendulkar along with others lost unloseable match by failing in second innings in Bangalore.

 

Srilanka not winning in India is not a big news but Tendulkar's India not able to make any impact in Srilanka in bigger news.It was due to Sehwag Tendulkar ended up winning one test in 2008.If Sachin had elbow problem he should have sat down and taken rest nobody forced him to play, all these elbow problems are excuses for his below par performances.Mendis might have been a mystery but make no mistake it was Murali who caused havoc in 2008 series.Every other Indian batsmen struggled that is why I don't rate Fab 4 that high, they never were mentally strong to battle in adverse positions.

 

Who are the ATG great bowlers you are talking about Sachin faced in that purple patch.Other than SA and Australia in one series, I don't see any ATG great fast bowlers playing against SA.

 

Tell me one innings/match where Sachin was so much superior to everyone from both teams in series/test.

In the first test Paul Reiffel(26.96) & Kasprowicz(32.88) aided Shane Warne.If these combined three is atleast not a descent attack, then I don't know what would make it. And the same Kasprowicz was the chief architect of that Bangalore win.Yeah SL not winning a single test in India with Murali(22 avg:),Vas(29.55)  along side Mahela,Sanga,Attapattu,Jayasurya(all great to good batsmen) is not a big news but India with Kumble(29.64),Harbhajan(32+) along with  these batsmen not winning a series in Lanka(atleast Ganguly led India has 2 drawn series in Lanka & a 1-2 loss & total  3 test wins in Lanka) is a big news.Sorry to tell this, your double standards have no limits.Any way you keep on with your assumptions, I shall stick with mine.No regrets.

Edited December 18, 2017 by rtmohanlal

[putrevus]

5 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

In the first test Paul Reiffel(26.96) & Kasprowicz(32.88) aided Shane Warne.If these combined three is atleast a descent attack, then I don't know what would make it. And the same Kasprowicz was the chief architect of that Bangalore win.Yeah SL not winning a single test in India with Murali(22 avg:),Vas(29.55)  along side Mahela,Sanga,Attapattu,Jayasurya(all great to good batsmen) is not a big news but India with Kumble(29.64),Harbhajan(32+) along with  these batsmen not winning a series in Lanka(atleast Ganguly led India has 2 drawn series in Lanka & a 1-2 loss & total  3 test wins in Lanka) is a big news.Sorry to tell this, your double standards have no limits.Any way you keep on with your assumptions, I shall stick with mine.No regrets.

The reason why Srilanka not winning in India is not a big deal is simple they were minnows especially in tests even with Murali but Australia and India are not ,especially in Sachin's era.If you feel India was also minnows then there is no discussion.

 

Srilanka suffered from same malaise which India even with fab four suffered, the moment they stepped out of their friendly confines their strength became half and all the confidence they had at home disappeared.There is a reason why in spite of all the stats  both teams remained poor travellers.

[Sachinism]

1 hour ago, AmreekanDesi said:

Are you wilfully making asinine posts with half baked logics?

 

you do know why Graeme pollock didn't play more matches? 

 

Hint: it wasn't because he couldn't hack it against the top teams.

 

further hint: Same reason 

What?

I was refuting your dismissal of Voges' average because he has played 20 games.

I don't care why Pollock didn't play more. The fact remains he played 23 matches. If you're willing to accept that as greatness, Voges should also be considered a 'great'.

 

Also do your original post which I quote. Presenting your arguments based on selective stats isn't worth diddly. WIndies are a test nation, why do you get to ignore them for Voges? 

 

[mishra]

Virat is generally on holiday, He will be back by IPL 2018. So lets wait

[AmreekanDesi]

11 hours ago, Sachinism said:

What?

I was refuting your dismissal of Voges' average because he has played 20 games.

I don't care why Pollock didn't play more. The fact remains he played 23 matches. If you're willing to accept that as greatness, Voges should also be considered a 'great'.

 

Also do your original post which I quote. Presenting your arguments based on selective stats isn't worth diddly. WIndies are a test nation, why do you get to ignore them for Voges? 

 

Again you are showing amazing lack of awareness here. And a very reductionist point of view

 

also Pollock is known more for what could and should have been if not for apartheid ban... To claim he is held in same regard as let's say a Viv Richards or even border is laughable 

 

less said about Voges the better

[AmreekanDesi]

He's not keeping pace with Smith either