Virat Kohli- the Test batsmen

[Majestic]

Virat recently turned 32. Currently his stats are

 

Matches - 86 tests

7240 Runs 

Avg 53.6

100s- 28

Home Average- 68

Away Average- 44

 

Kohli averages in different countries:-

 

India- 68

Australia- 55

SA- 55

England- 36

New Zealand- 36

Sri Lanka- 43

West Indies- 35

 

How do you rate Virat Kohli in tests? And can he become as good as Tendulkar across all formats?

 

Discuss!

Edited November 15, 2020 by Majestic
Adding more information

[express bowling]

Another very important stat

 

Kohli averages 55.4 from 12 tests IN Australia. with 6 centuries.

 

And he averages 55.8 from 5 tests IN South Africa, with 2 centuries and a 90+.

 

South Africa and Australia are the 2 best test match fast bowling attacks nowadays, along with India. And scoring a century in every alternate test IN their countries and averaging 55+, is a huge achievement.

[Majestic]

14 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Another very important stat

 

Kohli averages 55.4 from 12 tests IN Australia. with 6 centuries.

 

And he averages 55.8 from 5 tests IN South Africa, with 2 centuries and a 90+.

 

South Africa and Australia are the 2 best test match fast bowling attacks nowadays, along with India. And scoring a century in every alternate test IN their countries and averaging 55+, is a huge achievement.

Kohli averages in different countries:-

 

India- 68

Australia- 55

SA- 55

England- 36

New Zealand- 36

Sri Lanka- 43

West Indies- 35

 

Now, let's get to the question raised in the OP. How do you compare him with Tendulkar in test cricket?

[express bowling]

12 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Kohli averages in different countries:-

 

India- 68

Australia- 55

SA- 55

England- 36

New Zealand- 36

Sri Lanka- 43

West Indies- 35

 

Now, let's get to the question raised in the OP. How do you compare him with Tendulkar in test cricket?

 

 

Both are very comparable in test cricket.

[Serpico]

Second best test batsman in his era. Has a chance to be considered best ever test batsman for India if he can end his career on high note. 

 

I wish he played all four tests in Australia so that he can get another 3 centuries and equal Hobbs for most centuries by touring batsmen in australia. Right now Hobbs has 9, Hammond has 7, Sachin, Schutlife and Kohli have 6. 

 

 

[putrevus]

The biggest troubling aspect of Kohli the test batsman,  he has gone missing completely from some series. A great batsman cannot do it that too in his prime.A great batsman has to find a way to cope with conditions even when not in form over the course of a series.You cannot average under 10-15 in a series.

[Majestic]

5 hours ago, Banton said:

He is just as good as Sachin in Test cricket. Although he could have won 2-3 test matches in SA and England when India were chasing 180-200 in fourth inning.

In defense of Sachin, he had 15900 runs at average of 53 and was literally averaging 58 at age of 25-26.

 

Kohli was averaging 43 at the same age.

[Forever Indian]

The one thing comparable for me also seems that both Sachin and Kohli used to get big runs when India went on to not win the test. Whereas someone like Dravid/Laxman and Pujara/Rahane seem to play impactful innings which lead to a Test win. This is mainly in SENA I am talking about.

[Adamant]

1 hour ago, Forever Indian said:

The one thing comparable for me also seems that both Sachin and Kohli used to get big runs when India went on to not win the test. Whereas someone like Dravid/Laxman and Pujara/Rahane seem to play impactful innings which lead to a Test win. This is mainly in SENA I am talking about.

You are right about the fact that dravid and pujaras knocks have won us more matches in sena. 

I don't think that its anyway related to kohli and sachin making soft runs. For example kohlis century at edgbaston was as good as pujaras in adelaide but the other players failed. Similarly kohlis century in centurion was a great knock but again the team let him down. 

 

 

[Serpico]

2 hours ago, Forever Indian said:

The one thing comparable for me also seems that both Sachin and Kohli used to get big runs when India went on to not win the test. Whereas someone like Dravid/Laxman and Pujara/Rahane seem to play impactful innings which lead to a Test win. This is mainly in SENA I am talking about.

sometimes its just bad luck don't you think? laxman and dravid were lucky that bhajji could take 8 wickets on day 5 including a hatrick. Othewise their magnum opus would have been drawn match and drawn series. Whereas sachin was unlucky that kumble couldn't do the same at sydney. End of the day no matter how great a batsman is, they can only put their teams in a winnable position.. its bowlers who has to convert that into a complete win.

[SK_IH]

A great test batsman no doubt about it. But he has missed out on some performances which would have certainly made him an undisputed ATG. 

However, apart from numbers, cricket is also entertainment for some fans (including me), Virat is one who many would pay to watch in test cricket.

[Gollum]

Certified ATG, when it comes to perception he suffers because he is in the same era as GOAT Smith. Kohli is Prost to Smith's Senna, unlucky for him but it is what it is, Smith has set a new benchmark in test batting and is closest to Don Bradman. Almost 65 avg, peak rating of 947, unparalleled consistency, master of all conditions, dominance over all great bowlers of his era, daddy series one after the other, series-winner, clutch.....how does one match that? In any other era Kohli would be regarded as among the A+ tier (Sobers, Viv, Sunny, SRT, Lara, Kallis.....), now there is an A++ tier which happens once or twice in a century. 

Edited November 15, 2020 by Gollum

[zen]

Among those with 5K or more test runs excluding BD & ZIM, Kohli is the highest avg Ind batsman atm: 

 

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team India

Opposition team Australia  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka  or West Indies

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 5000

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 12 of 12

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
V Kohli	2011-2020	82	140	10	6848	254*	52.67	25	22	9
SM Gavaskar	1971-1987	125	214	16	10122	236*	51.12	34	45	12
SR Tendulkar	1989-2013	184	306	28	14183	241*	51.01	43	65	13
R Dravid	1996-2012	147	261	27	11726	270	50.11	30	57	6
V Sehwag	2001-2013	96	168	4	8151	319	49.70	23	28	16
CA Pujara	2010-2020	73	123	7	5559	206*	47.92	18	21	7
VVS Laxman	1996-2012	125	213	32	8384	281	46.32	16	55	14
M Azharuddin	1984-2000	96	143	9	6156	199	45.94	22	21	5
DB Vengsarkar	1976-1992	116	185	22	6868	166	42.13	17	35	15
GR Viswanath	1969-1983	91	155	10	6080	222	41.93	14	35	10
SC Ganguly	1996-2008	99	169	16	6311	239	41.24	13	31	12
N Kapil Dev	1978-1994	129	182	15	5172	163	30.97	8	26	16

Edited November 15, 2020 by zen

[zen]

PS in the list above, in terms of innings/100 atm:

 

Kohli 5.6

Gavaskar 6.3

Azhar 6.5

Pujara 6.8

Tendulkar 7.1

Sehwag 7.3

Dravid 8.7

Vengsarkar 10.9

Vishwanath 11.1

Ganguly 13.0

VVS 13.3

Kapil 22.8

[Majestic]

31 minutes ago, zen said:

Among those with 5K or more test runs excluding BD & ZIM, Kohli is the highest avg Ind batsman atm: 

 

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team India

Opposition team Australia  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka  or West Indies

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 5000

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 12 of 12

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
V Kohli	2011-2020	82	140	10	6848	254*	52.67	25	22	9
SM Gavaskar	1971-1987	125	214	16	10122	236*	51.12	34	45	12
SR Tendulkar	1989-2013	184	306	28	14183	241*	51.01	43	65	13
R Dravid	1996-2012	147	261	27	11726	270	50.11	30	57	6
V Sehwag	2001-2013	96	168	4	8151	319	49.70	23	28	16
CA Pujara	2010-2020	73	123	7	5559	206*	47.92	18	21	7
VVS Laxman	1996-2012	125	213	32	8384	281	46.32	16	55	14
M Azharuddin	1984-2000	96	143	9	6156	199	45.94	22	21	5
DB Vengsarkar	1976-1992	116	185	22	6868	166	42.13	17	35	15
GR Viswanath	1969-1983	91	155	10	6080	222	41.93	14	35	10
SC Ganguly	1996-2008	99	169	16	6311	239	41.24	13	31	12
N Kapil Dev	1978-1994	129	182	15	5172	163	30.97	8	26	16

Longevity matters. Look at the difference in total runs.

[zen]

6 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Longevity matters. Look at the difference in total runs.

 

Once you go over an identified minimum threshold (runs, matches, ....), # of runs/100s becomes the least imp criteria -> what matters is performance/innings metrics such as averages, innings/100, etc. 

 

PS not many are going to rate Kapil Dev as a better bowler than Roberts or Lillee based on longevity/number of wkts 

Edited November 15, 2020 by zen

[Majestic]

1 minute ago, zen said:

 

Once you go over an identified minimum threshold (runs, matches, ....), # of runs becomes the least imp criteria -> what matters is performance/innings metrics such as averages, innings/100, etc. 

The thing is a couple of bad series in the final years and those stats will get messed up quite easily. 

 

Tendulkar was averaging 55-56 around 2010.  Also, guys like Ponting or Dravid during the same age of Kohli were averaging 58-60. Longevity matters IMO.

[zen]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

The thing is a couple of bad series in the final years and those stats will get messed up quite easily. 

 

Tendulkar was averaging 55-56 around 2010.  Also, guys like Ponting or Dravid during the same age of Kohli were averaging 58-60. Longevity matters IMO.

 

Many folks on this forum are well versed on numbers, history and have discussed various pros and cons over the years .... 

 

 

[speedheat]

Those are some majestic numbers

[Forever Indian]

3 hours ago, Adamant said:

You are right about the fact that dravid and pujaras knocks have won us more matches in sena. 

I don't think that its anyway related to kohli and sachin making soft runs. For example kohlis century at edgbaston was as good as pujaras in adelaide but the other players failed. Similarly kohlis century in centurion was a great knock but again the team let him down. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Serpico said:

sometimes its just bad luck don't you think? laxman and dravid were lucky that bhajji could take 8 wickets on day 5 including a hatrick. Othewise their magnum opus would have been drawn match and drawn series. Whereas sachin was unlucky that kumble couldn't do the same at sydney. End of the day no matter how great a batsman is, they can only put their teams in a winnable position.. its bowlers who has to convert that into a complete win.

 

Luck is part and parcel of the game, end of the day it is the Win that counts. So, although statistically Sachin/Kohli are the greater batsmen Dravid/Pujara have been better match winners for us in SENA.

 

This can be taken in the same analogy as say a country like South Africa, which always does well in Bilaterals/non-ICC tourneys and had some of the greatest players but always comes short in ICC tourneys or when it really matters. Sometimes it is due to Luck and sometimes due to other reasons but it is what it is!