What do you think of Virat Kohli?

[Zinzan]

There's a few anomalies in T20Is batting records to be fair on AB. It could be the more stagnant number of games or where in the world the cricket was played, opposition etc. IPl/BB tends to be more indicative with the continuity of 12+ games on the trot.

 

[Zinzan]

It's why I hate that batting averages aren't even shown in t20s when a batsman comes out to bat.

Yup & hate even more that it appears to have been replaced with "30+ scores"

 

[Zinzan]

It absolutely can't at all when you look at Kohli's performances in the t20 WC and Asia cup where he almost won both tournaments for us basically on his own.

Ftr, I don't think either of them 'rely' on each other

My position too, just pointing out to harsh.ag that he can't claim one without the other.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The reason Kohli plays like he does us because his aim is to not just lay the platform but go the distance and finish off the game as well. That's why he's been better than AB in this particular IPL. He's taken multiple games from beginning to end and killed the opposition. The article basically argues that scoring 60(30) is better than scoring 100(60) because of the difference in strike rates. What he's effectively saying is that he assumes that the 60(30) will be followed by the next batsman who will carry on at the same pace for the remaining runs which is bonkers.

The analysis does a total disservice to both AB and Kohli imo.

 

[vcs]

India is completely reliant on Kohli right now in T20s.. this was evident for example, watching India vs. NZ in the T20 World Cup, it did not matter how many wickets fell at the other end.. you just knew that if Kohli stayed, he'd get India home with a "boring" 60(55) or something (as he did on tricky pitches chasing low scores vs. Pakistan). The moment he went, it was pretty much done.

 

[indiaholic]

The other part of his article is rubbish too. The idea that 5-10 runs are not important because that much can be easily scored through edges is just ********.

 

[Jono]

Nah, Article might be a long way off, but AB's good enough to not rely on earlier batsmen to do his thing, as he's proved many times before, including his match-winning innings (79* off 46) in the semi after Kohli was dismissed for a duck. Let's not pretend AB isn't AB.

Important to note it wasn't a semi, it was a qualifying game. South Africans by default are mentally and physically incapable of playing an innings that awesome in a knock out game.

 

[harsh.ag]

My position too, just pointing out to harsh.ag that he can't claim one without the other.

Never did that. Was always talking about complex interactions.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The other part of his article is rubbish too. The idea that 5-10 runs are not important because that much can be easily scored through edges is just ********.

That whole article is bafflingly stupid. I don't know who the writer is but I hope he doesn't get paid for that ****

 

[Daemon]

What a dumb piece. This especially was a highlight - "the art of building innings and navigating different types of bowling on different types of pitches reliably and scoring big runs - is a distraction in T20."

 

[indiaholic]

That whole article is bafflingly stupid. I don't know who the writer is but I hope he doesn't get paid for that ****

When I first saw his articles, I assumed it was a reader's submission. Turns out he is a staff writer. Sad really.

 

[vcs]

TBF to him, he's put a lot of thought into it and made the argument as cogently as possible.. too bad the premise is blatantly false.

 

[harsh.ag]

TBF to him, he's put a lot of thought into it and made the argument as cogently as possible.. too bad the premise is blatantly false.

Giving too much credit. Hardly any thought has been put into it, just effort.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Being way too harsh on him imo. It's way better than an Anantha Narayan article.

 

[vcs]

Being way too harsh on him imo. It's way better than an Anantha Narayan article.

That guy is the dullest man in existence.. I mean I'm fairly nerdy about stats and stuff but no way I can make it through one of his pieces..

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think the writer pays disservice to strike rates by focusing on boundaries. 4-0-0-6-0-0 is equivalent to 2-2-0-4-0-2, which makes hailing the greater boundary percentage of the former an academic argument that need not necessarily relate to real-world outcomes.

Accepting that then makes it possible to explain a 10 point difference in strike rates as the natural consequence of different batsmen taking on different roles as demanded.

The reasons to claim that such differences in strike rates ought not to exist in T20 for comparable batsmen are that:

(a) one holds the view of a T20 innings as a flat linear progression with none of the organic phases of teeing off, base establishment, consolidation, acceleration and slogging in it's various permutations.
and (b) that even batsmen who generally appear at the crease together should not take on differing roles as per team and situational requirements, and should instead both focus on maximising returns (which might prove counter-productive) instead of optimising them.

This philosophy that seems to colour the writers assessment reminds me of the frustrating algorithm of the VC4 ODI simulator that continually failed to throw up real-worldly scorecards because it seemed to incorporate (a) as a non-negotiable component.

 

[cnerd123]

I agree with the idea that T20 cricket is going to evolve into the sport that emphasises big-hitting depth and that redefines what a quality bowler is. I mean it's kinda already there. The value of a powerful big hitter who mis-hits sixes is quite clear already, and the the best bowlers are the ones that have their wits about them and have hard to pick variations, or of the rare un-hittable breed such as Starc.

Things such as having classical batting technique, being a bowler who swings the ball at pace or gets a certain amount of turn, don't really matter as much in T20s as they do in the longer forms. There will definitely be a place for it in certain conditions and situations, but the game is going to be ruled by clever bowlers and batsmen who score quickly rather than heavily.

Having said that; Kohli's a beast.

 

[Burner]

There is always going to be value for a consistent gap-pincher imo. More bowlers are going to learn the art of bowling yorkers and it's going to be much more difficult to contain the guy who's going to play the ball than the guy who's already made his mind about going over your head.

 

[Jono]

Gap pincher, awesome phrase

 

[honestbharani]

Always good to bump this up, if only to pat myself, Joni and Xuhaib on the back for calling it all those years ago..