Jump to content
Austin 3:!6

What exactly is KL Rahul's injury?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Vijy said:

no, he isn't... his avg is a reflection of him as a batter. talented but highly inconsistent.

He hasn't played enough home games which is why that average is low. Very few Indian batsman have the skills to bat the way Rahul batted in the first two tests in England.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Majestic said:

He hasn't played enough home games which is why that average is low. Very few Indian batsman have the skills to bat the way Rahul batted in the first two tests in England.

14 home games and an avg of 44-odd. hardly amazing numbers, especially when one compares him with Mayank and Rohit at home. It only proves my point - he is an avg batter, not because of his ability but because of his sheer inconsistency.

 

even in eng tour, he went missing after first 2 tests. very poor temperament.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Vijy said:

14 home games and an avg of 44-odd. hardly amazing numbers, especially when one compares him with Mayank and Rohit at home. It only proves my point - he is an avg batter, not because of his ability but because of his sheer inconsistency.

 

even in eng tour, he went missing after first 2 tests. very poor temperament.

He hasn't played any home games since his comeback in tests.

 

Reason why he is better bat than a 35 average :-

 

1. He had a great series vs Australia at home on turning wickets. He scored consistent 90s in that series and was a major reason for us winning that series.

 

2.He has test centuries in match winning cause in England and South Africa which is a good achievement for an opener. For an Asian opener, a test century in Aus, SA and Eng is not a small achievement by any stretch.

 

All these do conclude that he will surely improve his home average and in away conditions also he is a better batsman than that.

 

He is inconsistent that's true but is he not as good a test match opening batsman as Murali Vijay, Gautam Gambhir are? I would say he is that good.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Vijy said:

14 home games and an avg of 44-odd. hardly amazing numbers, especially when one compares him with Mayank and Rohit at home. It only proves my point - he is an avg batter, not because of his ability but because of his sheer inconsistency.

 

even in eng tour, he went missing after first 2 tests. very poor temperament.

Mythical kela. Still waiting for his level up......

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Majestic said:

He hasn't played any home games since his comeback in tests.

 

Reason why he is better bat than a 35 average :-

 

1. He had a great series vs Australia at home on turning wickets. He scored consistent 90s in that series and was a major reason for us winning that series.

 

2.He has test centuries in match winning cause in England and South Africa which is a good achievement for an opener. For an Asian opener, a test century in Aus, SA and Eng is not a small achievement by any stretch.

 

All these do conclude that he will surely improve his home average and in away conditions also he is a better batsman than that.

 

He is inconsistent that's true but is he not as good a test match opening batsman as Murali Vijay, Gautam Gambhir are? I would say he is that good.

nowhere near peak Gambhir or Vijay, both of whom had genuine bumper years. KL's modus operandi is to score some attractive knocks and then go missing, so that his fans can hype him up

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Vijy said:

nowhere near peak Gambhir or Vijay, both of whom had genuine bumper years. KL's modus operandi is to score some attractive knocks and then go missing, so that his fans can hype him up

Gambhir and Vijay were highly inconsistent overseas too. Gambhir had a peak of 3-4 years where he bullied mostly in subcontinent.Wait for Rahul to play some tests at home, bullying at home is not really much of challenge today. Overseas KL has done as good as Vijay and better than Gambhir.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Gambhir and Vijay were highly inconsistent overseas too. Gambhir had a peak of 3-4 years where he bullied mostly in subcontinent.Wait for Rahul to play some tests at home, bullying at home is not really much of challenge today. Overseas KL has done as good as Vijay and better than Gambhir.

they were better than the great Kela. Kela has a "wonderful" SENA avg of 28.56; compare with Gambhir's 36.85 and Vijay's 35.48. even with flat tracks accounted for (which may add about 5-6 runs), both gambhir and vijay did better. I recall gambhir in SA in 2010 or Vijay in Eng & Aus. KL has a handful of scattered good knocks, that's it.

 

What next... is Kela also better than Sunny?

Edited by Vijy
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Vijy said:

they were better than the great Kela. Kela has a "wonderful" SENA avg of 28.56; compare with Gambhir's 36.85 and Vijay's 35.48. even with flat tracks accounted for (which may add about 5-6 runs), both gambhir and vijay did better. I recall gambhir in SA in 2010 or Vijay in Eng & Aus. KL has a handful of scattered good knocks, that's it.

 

What next... is Kela also better than Sunny?

A case of how plain stats can represent a wrong story. Nobody is saying Kela is a good or great batsman. The only point here is that he is better than that 35 average which is associated to him.

 

Now let's dig deep to understand why your plain stats are wrong here :-

 

Gambhir played 34 out of his 58 tests at home. That's about 60% of his matches at home. It also means that he only toured Australia, England and South Africa only once and that too at peak but still never scored a hundred there.

 

Rahul on other hand has played 14 out of his 43 tests at home. That's about 30% of the matches at home.

 

So, that is where plain stats go wrong. 

Players who will keep playing at home and not play tough away games as much will obviously find their stats inflated.

 

Rahul is only a matter of two years good run at home pitches behind to get his average back on track. As for being inconsistent, actually that is also wrongly portrayed. 

 

Since his return to test format, he has only played two series and both were in England and South Africa which are generally tough conditions for any Asian opener. It is really hard to be consistent in those conditions for an Asian opener.

 

Has he shown inconsistency at home since his return? The answer is No there. Was he inconsistent before 2018?? Again, he actually wasn't, he had good two years run at the start of his career and then bowlers started exposing his technical weakness which is where his bad phase started and he was terrible during that period even after getting backed except for that one knock on a flat wicket in England. Before the bad phase, he was averaging a good 40s.

 

 

Edited by Majestic
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Majestic said:

A case of how plain stats can represent a wrong story. Nobody is saying Kela is a good or great batsman. The only point here is that he is better than that 35 average which is associated to him.

 

Now let's dig deep to understand why your plain stats are wrong here :-

 

Gambhir played 34 out of his 58 tests at home. That's about 60% of his matches at home. It also means that he only toured Australia, England and South Africa only once and that too at peak but still never scored a hundred there.

 

Rahul on other hand has played 14 out of his 43 tests at home. That's about 30% of the matches at home.

 

So, that is where plain stats go wrong. 

Players who will keep playing at home and not play tough away games as much will obviously find their stats inflated.

 

Rahul is only a matter of two years good run at home pitches behind to get his average back on track. As for being inconsistent, actually that is also wrongly portrayed. 

 

Since his return to test format, he has only played two series and both were in England and South Africa which are generally tough conditions for any Asian opener. It is really hard to be consistent in those conditions for an Asian opener.

 

Has he shown inconsistency at home since his return? The answer is No there. Was he inconsistent before 2018?? Again, he actually wasn't, he had good two years run at the start of his career and then bowlers started exposing his technical weakness which is where his bad phase started and he was terrible during that period even after getting backed except for that one knock on a flat wicket in England. Before the bad phase, he was averaging a good 40s.

 

 

I'm not discussing his overall avg in last couple of posts though. sure his overall avg can improve if he plays more at home. the point is that I don't see him doing a lot in SENA, which is the gold standard for judging openers. gambhir may not have made 100s in SA, but he was comfortably 2nd best after Tendu in 2010-11, where we came close to winning the series. The 100 metric is also a naive application of stats, since it is an arbitrary number - 50s in low scoring matches are as important. also, no mention of vijay in your long post, who did score 100s in Aus and Eng (topscored in eng tour in 2014 if memory is correct).

 

To look at Rahul "since his return to test format" is just blatant cherrypicking, much as though one were to only pick best 2-3 yr of gambhir or vijay's career.

 

KL is a decent/average batter as of now. until he fixes his temperament, he will continue to be the same. whether he does so or not remains to be seen, but he has given plenty of cause for skepticism. I should add he is quite excellent in LOIs, no question there

Edited by Vijy
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Vijy said:

I'm not discussing his overall avg in last couple of posts though. sure his overall avg can improve if he plays more at home. the point is that I don't see him doing a lot in SENA, which is the gold standard for judging openers. gambhir may not have made 100s in SA, but he was comfortably 2nd best after Tendu in 2010-11, where we came close to winning the series. The 100 metric is also a naive application of stats, since it is an arbitrary number - 50s in low scoring matches are as important. also, no mention of vijay in your long post, who did score 100s in Aus and Eng (topscored in eng tour in 2014 if memory is correct).

 

To look at Rahul "since his return to test format" is just blatant cherrypicking, much as though one were to only pick best 2-3 yr of gambhir or vijay's career.

 

KL is a decent/average batter as of now. until he fixes his temperament, he will continue to be the same. whether he does so or not remains to be seen, but he has given plenty of cause for skepticism. I should add he is quite excellent in LOIs, no question there

Murali Vijay's away average is 30 with three hundreds away from home.

 

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/Players/PlayerHomeAway.asp?PlayerID=3626

 

Not much really seperate here too and Rahul's peak days aren't over.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Rahul is one lucky guy to be still playing test cricket. There is nothing great about Rahul the test batsman,Some morons are talking as if he is guy is some great batsman.

Problem is he is the best of the lot currently...Openers like  Gaikwad / Majumdar /Abhimanyu Easwaran  are not proven on A-tours. Need to wait for credible alternatives to emerge

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, diga said:

Problem is he is the best of the lot currently...Openers like  Gaikwad / Majumdar /Abhimanyu Easwaran  are not proven on A-tours. Need to wait for credible alternatives to emerge

No he is not best of the lot. I would rather invest time on a unproven young guy than this overrated guy. He will never show up in crunch , he is 31 and has been playing international cricket since 2013.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...