The greatest men's international cricketers of the century

[Gollum]

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Nobody is denying stats, and you are quoting the same. Don’t just read scorecard of yesteryears , but look into quality of runs 

MOTM, MOTS ke liye impact zarurat hai. I have seen enough of Kallis to know the quality of his runs. Guy was directly responsible for series wins in Ind, Pak, Eng, Aus, NZ. 

Edited June 2 by Gollum

[Gollum]

5 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

Mahela played 31% of his tests on two grounds and made 44% of his test runs there.  Has poor average in all 4 SENA countries.

Younis Khan any day over Mahela. Guy is criminally underrated, GOAT Pakistani batsman for me, above overrated Miandad, Inzi. 

 

In 4th innings, Younis and Graeme Smith were on a different level. Btw Smith is a glaring omission, ATG opener, and a captain who went undefeated away from home for 10 years. 

[coffee_rules]

13 minutes ago, Gollum said:

MOTM, MOTS ke liye impact zarurat hai. I have seen enough of Kallis to know the quality of his runs. Guy was directly responsible for series wins in Ind, Eng, Aus, NZ. 

MoTM and MOTS are usually educated by scorecard trailers, favoring batsmen top scoring in the Home team. A lot of times we have discussed that they are so not deserving the award. It is very rarely given to bowlers, whereas a batsman makes 100, he gets the award.  I don’t think it is a measure of greatness. 

[deathmonger]

4 hours ago, tapandrun said:

KP , warner and gayle are true 3 format players

Kohli bumrah too

[vvvslaxman]

7 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

MoTM and MOTS are usually educated by scorecard trailers, favoring batsmen top scoring in the Home team. A lot of times we have discussed that they are so not deserving the award. It is very rarely given to bowlers, whereas a batsman makes 100, he gets the award.  I don’t think it is a measure of greatness. 

This one series which was batting friendly for INdia where Karun Nair made 300,  Jayant Yadav made 100. 

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/series/averages-batting-bowling-by-team/eng-in-india-test-series-2016-17-11351?team=6

 

I fed to Gemini AI

 

Evaluating whether Virat Kohli deserved the Player of the Series award over Ravichandran Ashwin or Ravindra Jadeja in the 2016/17 home Test series against England is one of the most fascinating cricketing debates from India's dominant home era.

While the official award went to Kohli, a strong statistical case can be built for all three. The debate boils down to how you weigh supreme, series-defining batting volume against relentless, heavy-lifting spin partnerships.

Here is how their performances stack up head-to-head across the 5-match series:

The Big Three: Series Numbers

Player	Primary Impact	Secondary Impact / Context
Virat Kohli	655 runs @ 109.16 (2 100s, 1 50)	High score of 235; marshaled the team as captain.
Ravichandran Ashwin	28 wickets @ 30.25 (3 five-wicket hauls)	306 runs @ 43.71 with the bat (4 50s).
Ravindra Jadeja	26 wickets @ 25.84 (1 five-wicket haul)	224 runs @ 37.33 with the bat (2 50s), plus elite fielding.

The Case for Virat Kohli (Why he won it)

Kohli's 2016 was arguably the absolute peak of his Test career, and this series was his masterpiece.

• Sheer Volume and Dominance: Scoring 655 runs in a 5-match series is rare territory. He didn’t just accumulate runs; he dictated terms, completely deflating England’s bowling plans.

• Match-Winning Knocks: His 167 in Vizag set up India's first win after a tense draw in Rajkot. His career-best 235 at the Wankhede in the 4th Test effectively batted England out of the series, turning a competitive game into an innings victory.

• The Leadership Premium: It's impossible to completely detach his batting from his captaincy. Leading from the front to secure a 4-0 demolition heavily weighed in the voters' minds.

The Case for R. Ashwin (The true MVP?)

If someone was robbed of the award, Ashwin has the biggest grievance.

• The Ultimate All-Round Performance: To be the leading wicket-taker of the series with 28 scalps and score over 300 runs batting at number 7 is an incredible feat.

• Crisis Management with the Bat: People forget that England posted massive first-innings totals in this series (537 in Rajkot, 400 in Mumbai, 477 in Chennai). Ashwin consistently bailed India out of trouble alongside the lower order, hitting 4 crucial half-centuries.

• Sustained Threat: He took three 5-wicket hauls, acting as the primary weapon that broke England's resistance in back-to-back Tests.

The Case for Ravindra Jadeja (The silent assassin)

Jadeja was arguably more efficient than Ashwin across the five matches.

• Superior Bowling Metrics: He took just two fewer wickets than Ashwin (26 vs 28) but did so at a significantly better average (25.84 compared to Ashwin's 30.25) and a much lower economy rate (2.31). He kept England in a continuous chokehold.

• The Chennai Climax: In the final Test on a flat Chennai deck, Jadeja ripped through England with career-best figures of 7/48 on Day 5 to script an improbable innings win.

• All-Round Value: Like Ashwin, he averaged over 37 with the bat, including a vital 90 in Mohali, while saving dozens of runs in the field.

The Verdict: Did Kohli deserve it?

Yes, but it was incredibly close.

The argument for Kohli deserving it lies in the scarcity of batting control during that series. While Ashwin and Jadeja were exceptional, they essentially hunted as a pair, sharing 54 wickets between them. They amplified each other's impact—when Ashwin didn't get you, Jadeja did.

Kohli, on the other hand, stood completely alone as a mountain of stability at the top. The next highest Indian run-scorer who played the full series was Cheteshwar Pujara with 401 runs. Kohli outscored his closest teammate by more than 250 runs and averaged over 109. On tracks that weren't raging turners (England regularly crossed 400), Kohli’s ability to completely bat the opposition out of the game was the ultimate differentiator.

However, if you lean toward the value of a true all-rounder, Ashwin's 28 wickets and 306 runs represents an equally valid, historically elite claim to that trophy.

 

[tapandrun]

15 hours ago, deathmonger said:

Kohli bumrah too

bhumrah is bowler.

 

Kolhi was an accumulator in t20,not really cut out for t20s, its just that cricket kept running with this role for far too long and finally realized do not need a dedicated anchor upfront, yes may be when there was mini collapse.

kp was playing at 140 sr even back then