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

[AmreekanDesi]

Smith :bowsdown

[AmreekanDesi]

I might be among the minority but I actually enjoying watching him bat

 

brilliant cover drives and keeps the scoreboard ticking

 

and his shuffle across the stumps in the last. Second all but negates any chance of an lbw

 

superhuman

[AmreekanDesi]

59 minutes ago, King Tendulkar said:

We know home bully . But not all purpose we bat . His technique exposed in Asia and England 

Trolling? I hope you are for sake of your own sanity 

[King Tendulkar]

28 minutes ago, AmreekanDesi said:

Trolling? I hope you are for sake of your own sanity 

Checks his stats in Asia and in engaknd . You will have to say mediocre ?

[Trichromatic]

2 hours ago, King Tendulkar said:

Checks his stats in Asia and in engaknd . You will have to say mediocre ?

Averages of his peers in Asia and England in away/neutral matches:

 

Virat Kohli: 27.10

Williamson: 41.87

Root: 48.45 (Only Asia)

Smith: 45.80

Rahane: 42.81

Pujara: 45.06

 

In what world is avg of 46 mediocre? This is like saying VVS Laxman was mediocre batsman in his career for avg 46 overall. 

 

Moreover, Smith has most 100s (7) in Asia and England since his debut.

 

If he is mediocre then what are others? Tailenders? 43-48 is level of great batsmen in cricket. 

 

[Trichromatic]

You get to learn new things on ICF every week. 

 

List of some of medicre batsmen in history of game by new definition:

 

Alastair Cook

Graham Gooch

VVS Laxman

David Gower

Clive Lloyd

Justin Langer

Gordon Greenidge

Desmond Haynes

Gary Kirsten

 

[TheWall]

4 hours ago, Gollum said:

Got a double 100 and a 100 in England, got more runs in the 2015 series than VK will probably get over there in his lifetime. Scored 3 100s earlier this year when entire Indian team combined could muster only 2, funny part is Kohli went MIA there when the team needed him most. Smith scored 100 in Pune, Kohli got 46 runs in 6 innings 

Watch how Kohli can't even make eye contact with his master 

 

But smith is a cheat....

[rtmohanlal]

3 hours ago, Vilander said:

What were the averages of batsmen at that time. If there were lesser 50+ batsmen then we can say they bowled to poorer batsmen.

Agreed that  the number of  50+ avg: ing batsmen are not much when compared to those of Sachin's days. Yet you  find much lesser <25 avg:ing bowlers now a days implies only one thing, the general standard of test  batting & bowling  has decreased.The abundance of sub 25 avg:ing bowlers during Sachin's days were not only because of them  being of higher standards in general but also due to much condusive bowling conditions.Both combined to make  test batting lot tougher those days.Naturally in these T20 based batting freindly conditions 'limited overs'  batting has become much easier.That is why we don't find  a rapid increase in the number of 50+ avg:ing test batsmen, but consider the number of 50+ avg:in one day batsmen.In 90s there was only one Bevan and that too with a very low str: rate.Today??? Dhoni,Kohli,ABDV,Amla,Babar ,Root etc etc all avg: 50+ in one dayers .So the lack of  proportional increase in the no: of 50+ avg:ing test batsman implies   only one thing, that is the general test batting standards have regressed and that is well reflected in the form of '50 to even 55' avg:s in one dayers.

           To put it more precise take Dravid.His avg: of 52.3 is far worth than Kohli's 53.74 for me,because that avg: was  made against 'higher caliber bowlers & tougher batting conditions in general combined'.I have seen Dravid dancing to the tunes of Mcgrath,Warne, Akram etc etc in tougher batting conditions. On the other hand Dravid has only around 39 avg:  in one dayers compared to Kohli's 55+. But  based on the difference in avg:, can we conclude that Dravid was  proportionally lesser one day player to Kohli? No, I simply can't.Let alone Dravid, even Lara avg:ed around 40 .Amla avg:s around 50.To consider that Lara was  only  around 80%  an one day player as Amla (40/50 = 80%) is as sense less as it can get.Similarly  just because Kohli avg:s 53.74 to Dravid's 52.3 in tests , to think that Kohli is better test player than Dravid is out of my cricketing sense.Naturally Smith who is the best test batsman of current generation , because of  avg:ing   62+ is lot closer to say a Ponting or Dravid as a test batsman despite considerabe difference in averages.In short , in general the 90s batsmen were lot closer to now a days batsmen  in one dayers despite convincing differences in averages.And 90s batsmen were superior test batsmen in general  despite more or less even avg:s when compared to now a days batsmen.Smith being  at 62+  in tests  is comparable to Ponting,Dravid,Kallis,Lara ,Sanga etc   etc.  

[putrevus]

^^^ Dravid played against Akram once and looked like utter novice and Dravid other than his scores on flattest pitches in Australia in 2003 didn't score much there against a very weak Aussie attack.

 

Sachin never had this consistency of scoring runs thru out series. It is reflected by his lack of 500 plus scores. Lara too never was this consistent.Sachin was consistent in making sure his average was high but he never had penchant of scoring humongous runs series after series.There is a reason why Sachin rating as batsman never crossed 900 both in LOI and tests.

 

Kohli improvement as a test batsman started in 2016 where Smith's started in 2013.Kohli needs to couple of more years to prove himself that he is a class test batsman, at the moment this guy Smith is on another level.

[Trichromatic]

21 minutes ago, putrevus said:

^^^ Dravid played against Akram once and looked like utter novice and Dravid other than his scores on flattest pitches in Australia in 2003 didn't score much there against a very weak Aussie attack.

 

Sachin never had this consistency of scoring runs thru out series. It is reflected by his lack of 500 plus scores. Lara too never was this consistent.Sachin was consistent in making sure his average was high but he never had penchant of scoring humongous runs series after series.There is a reason why Sachin rating as batsman never crossed 900 both in LOI and tests.

 

Kohli improvement as a test batsman started in 2016 where Smith's started in 2013.Kohli needs to couple of more years to prove himself that he is a class test batsman, at the moment this guy Smith is on another level.

Apart from his inability to score big consistently, another reason was that all his big best series were mostly 3 match series. India played only 3 series with more than 3 matches in each. Even in 5 match series like WI tour, he got to play only 6 innings.

 

Scoring 500+ in 3 match series was so rare before 2000s. Warner is only batsman to do it twice. Lara did it once. Kohli has done it recently.

 

Lara had played 18 series with 4 or more matches, 10 with 5 or more and 2 with 6 matches. Out of all series he played, he got 400+ in 11.

 

SRT played 9 series with 4 or more matches til 2010 and he had 400+ in 7 series (of any number of matches). So, it can be said that it was combination of both his lack of big scores as well his lesser opportunity to really carry on good form for possibly extra matches.

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, Trichromatic said:

Apart from his inability to score big consistently, another reason was that all his big best series were mostly 3 match series. India played only 3 series with more than 3 matches in each. Even in 5 match series like WI tour, he got to play only 6 innings.

 

Scoring 500+ in 3 match series was so rare before 2000s. Warner is only batsman to do it twice. Lara did it once. Kohli has done it recently.

 

Lara had played 18 series with 4 or more matches, 10 with 5 or more and 2 with 6 matches. Out of all series he played, he got 400+ in 11.

 

SRT played 9 series with 4 or more matches til 2010 and he had 400+ in 7 series (of any number of matches). So, it can be said that it was combination of both his lack of big scores as well his lesser opportunity to really carry on good form for possibly extra matches.

Kohli has two scores of 600 plus in one 3 match test series and other 4 test matches.So this argument that Sachin did not play enough 4 plus match test series does not hold water.What happened after 2010????

 

 

[Trichromatic]

28 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Kohli has two scores of 600 plus in one 3 match test series and other 4 test matches.So this argument that Sachin did not play enough 4 plus match test series does not hold water.What happened after 2010????

Guess you missed the point. 

[rtmohanlal]

41 minutes ago, putrevus said:

^^^ Dravid played against Akram once and looked like utter novice and Dravid other than his scores on flattest pitches in Australia in 2003 didn't score much there against a very weak Aussie attack.

 

Sachin never had this consistency of scoring runs thru out series. It is reflected by his lack of 500 plus scores. Lara too never was this consistent.Sachin was consistent in making sure his average was high but he never had penchant of scoring humongous runs series after series.There is a reason why Sachin rating as batsman never crossed 900 both in LOI and tests.

 

Kohli improvement as a test batsman started in 2016 where Smith's started in 2013.Kohli needs to couple of more years to prove himself that he is a class test batsman, at the moment this guy Smith is on another level.

I don't think your accusing of Sachin  "never had penchant of scoring humongous runs series after series" is true.There are 21 or 22 series in which Sachin scored  >=100runs/test. Agreed that Sachin's highest series aggregate was 493 in that 2008 AUS series.But that was not Sachin's fault. It just happend that in his peak(starting from 93  ENG series to 2010 SAF series) Sachin played only 6  'more than 3 tests'  test series.And in several of the other '3 or less tests' series  Sachin scored hugely.Can Sachin be blamed for those series being so short???????

[putrevus]

10 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

I don't think your accusing of Sachin  "never had penchant of scoring humongous runs series after series" is true.There are 21 or 22 series in which Sachin scored  >=100runs/test. Agreed that Sachin's highest series aggregate was 493 in that 2008 AUS series.But that was not Sachin's fault. It just happend that in his peak(starting from 93  ENG series to 2010 SAF series) Sachin played only 6  'more than 3 tests'  test series.And in several of the other '3 or less tests' series  Sachin scored hugely.Can Sachin be blamed for those series being so short???????

I am not accusing Sachin of anything. I have seen Sachin thru out his career. Sachin never had this ability to sustain form and score runs thru out the series.Why do we always come with an excuse for Sachin,  Sachin did not play more in his peak or Sachin did not have anybody to support him.

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21780489/steven-smith-glorious-four-year-run. 

 

 

If you look that article you will Sachin never had a peak like other batsmen. There is a reason why his batting rating never over 900.

 

Kohli when compared to Smith has long way to go also as a test batsman, Smith is on another planet.Kohli has two good year one great 2016 one okay because of the last series he has made up for this year.Even he has better series than Sachin.Kohli has just started becoming good test batsman, we still don't know he will become a great one yet.

 

 

 

[mancalledsting]

lol at people comparing Steve smith to Sachin and Lara- absolute lol 

[rtmohanlal]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

I am not accusing Sachin of anything. I have seen Sachin thru out his career. Sachin never had this ability to sustain form and score runs thru out the series.Why do we always come with an excuse for Sachin,  Sachin did not play more in his peak or Sachin did not have anybody to support him.

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21780489/steven-smith-glorious-four-year-run. 

 

 

If you look that article you will Sachin never had a peak like other batsmen. There is a reason why his batting rating never over 900.

 

Kohli when compared to Smith has long way to go also as a test batsman, Smith is on another planet.Kohli has two good year one great 2016 one okay because of the last series he has made up for this year.Even he has better series than Sachin.Kohli has just started becoming good test batsman, we still don't know he will become a great one yet.

 

 

 

Sachin's peak is a sequence from  17 apr  1997 to  19 apr 2002 where he played  41 tests, 69 inns  scored 4335  runs @69.92 average.And he had 18 100s & 14 50s too.And he played only 11 tests in 98 & 2000 combined.The more important thing here is the set of bowlers he had to cope with.They were Ambrose,Walsh,Bishop,Akram,Waqar,Donald,Pollock,Mcgrath,Warne & Murali.All sub 25 avg:ing bowlers. To avg: almost 70  facing 10 ATG bowlers  is the epitome of peak for me.And to think that he played only 11 tests in 2 of those peak period years  & also had to cope with huge loads of  expectations makes the feat even more memorable.Whether he crossed 900 points or not does not count 

Edited December 16, 2017 by rtmohanlal

[Pollack]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

I am not accusing Sachin of anything. I have seen Sachin thru out his career. Sachin never had this ability to sustain form and score runs thru out the series.Why do we always come with an excuse for Sachin,  Sachin did not play more in his peak or Sachin did not have anybody to support him.

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21780489/steven-smith-glorious-four-year-run. 

 

 

If you look that article you will Sachin never had a peak like other batsmen. There is a reason why his batting rating never over 900.

 

Kohli when compared to Smith has long way to go also as a test batsman, Smith is on another planet.Kohli has two good year one great 2016 one okay because of the last series he has made up for this year.Even he has better series than Sachin.Kohli has just started becoming good test batsman, we still don't know he will become a great one yet.

 

 

 

This may sound too familiar excuse in Sachin's defence but there is definitely truth to it. Bowlers Sachin faced were much much better than current lot and am not going to look at stats of current lot and compare.

[putrevus]

57 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

Sachin's peak is a sequence from  17 apr  1997 to  19 apr 2002 where he played  41 tests, 69 inns  scored 4335  runs @69.92 average.And he had 18 100s & 14 50s too.And he played only 11 tests in 98 & 2000 combined.The more important thing here is the set of bowlers he had to cope with.They were Ambrose,Walsh,Bishop,Akram,Waqar,Donald,Pollock,Mcgrath,Warne & Murali.All sub 25 avg:ing bowlers. To avg: almost 70  facing 10 ATG bowlers  is the epitome of peak for me.And to think that he played only 11 tests in 2 of those peak period years  & also had to cope with huge loads of  expectations makes the feat even more memorable.Whether he crossed 900 points or not does not count 

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 before Murali 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.

Edited December 16, 2017 by putrevus

[putrevus]

1 hour ago, Pollack said:

This may sound too familiar excuse in Sachin's defence but there is definitely truth to it. Bowlers Sachin faced were much much better than current lot and am not going to look at stats of current lot and compare.

If you look closely Sachin did not set fire against any world class attacks thru out any series.He had always this ability to score one 100 plus score in a series.There is a reason why none of Sachin's innings were counted in top one hundred .We have to accept that fact.But he was part of many teams which got unstuck and performed pitiful against stronger bowling attacks.

 

Only batsmen who comes close to having this kind peak is Ricky Ponting 2002-2006.Lara when he had mind had this ability which reflects in him scoring three consecutive years 50 plus avg and 1000 plus runs.

 

We are witnessing something very very unique, run scoring is not this easy as this guy is making it look like.This guy has scored runs every where and when pitches are flat bowlers are helpless against him. Have you even seen bowlers being rendered this hopeless.

 

 

Jimmy and Broad are not the worst bowlers even though they might be having pace they are pretty skillful even in this conditions if you take out Smith from Australia, this series take a different route.

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by putrevus

[Vilander]

6 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

Agreed that  the number of  50+ avg: ing batsmen are not much when compared to those of Sachin's days. Yet you  find much lesser <25 avg:ing bowlers now a days implies only one thing, the general standard of test  batting & bowling  has decreased.The abundance of sub 25 avg:ing bowlers during Sachin's days were not only because of them  being of higher standards in general but also due to much condusive bowling conditions.Both combined to make  test batting lot tougher those days.Naturally in these T20 based batting freindly conditions 'limited overs'  batting has become much easier.That is why we don't find  a rapid increase in the number of 50+ avg:ing test batsmen, but consider the number of 50+ avg:in one day batsmen.In 90s there was only one Bevan and that too with a very low str: rate.Today??? Dhoni,Kohli,ABDV,Amla,Babar ,Root etc etc all avg: 50+ in one dayers .So the lack of  proportional increase in the no: of 50+ avg:ing test batsman implies   only one thing, that is the general test batting standards have regressed and that is well reflected in the form of '50 to even 55' avg:s in one dayers.

           To put it more precise take Dravid.His avg: of 52.3 is far worth than Kohli's 53.74 for me,because that avg: was  made against 'higher caliber bowlers & tougher batting conditions in general combined'.I have seen Dravid dancing to the tunes of Mcgrath,Warne, Akram etc etc in tougher batting conditions. On the other hand Dravid has only around 39 avg:  in one dayers compared to Kohli's 55+. But  based on the difference in avg:, can we conclude that Dravid was  proportionally lesser one day player to Kohli? No, I simply can't.Let alone Dravid, even Lara avg:ed around 40 .Amla avg:s around 50.To consider that Lara was  only  around 80%  an one day player as Amla (40/50 = 80%) is as sense less as it can get.Similarly  just because Kohli avg:s 53.74 to Dravid's 52.3 in tests , to think that Kohli is better test player than Dravid is out of my cricketing sense.Naturally Smith who is the best test batsman of current generation , because of  avg:ing   62+ is lot closer to say a Ponting or Dravid as a test batsman despite considerabe difference in averages.In short , in general the 90s batsmen were lot closer to now a days batsmen  in one dayers despite convincing differences in averages.And 90s batsmen were superior test batsmen in general  despite more or less even avg:s when compared to now a days batsmen.Smith being  at 62+  in tests  is comparable to Ponting,Dravid,Kallis,Lara ,Sanga etc   etc.  

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.