What do you think of Virat Kohli?

[Pap Finn Keighl]

VVS was inconsistent

 

[OverratedSanity]

VVS was inconsistent

Ftr, Laxman's yearly averages once he stopped opening until his last series in Australia:

52
54
52
85
32
46
40
55
47
67
67
41

That's a world class stretch of 12 years, 118 tests average of 51. His problem was getting big tons, and being made to open when he clearly didn't want to. VVS being 'inconsistent' is very very overblown.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Ftr, Laxman's yearly averages once he stopped opening until his last series in Australia:

52
54
52
85
32
46
40
55
47
67
67
41

That's a world class stretch of 12 years, 118 tests average of 51. His problem was getting big tons, and being made to open when he clearly didn't want to. VVS being 'inconsistent' is very very overblown.

Agreed. VVS easily better.
Can we make a case for him being better than Dravid in the said period?

Azhar was very stylish, not just in batting.. Even on the field. He was my favorite cricketer back then.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Ftr, Laxman's yearly averages once he stopped opening until his last series in Australia:

52
54
52
85
32
46
40
55
47
67
67
41

That's a world class stretch of 12 years, 118 tests average of 51. His problem was getting big tons, and being made to open when he clearly didn't want to. VVS being 'inconsistent' is very very overblown.

Thanks for that! That is actually some startling consistency. He rarely made top top scores but he was often batting with the tAil, and some of his 70s and 90s etc were incredibly valuable.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Since only games against Australia really count, VVS is probably the greatest Indian batsman in history

 

[_00_deathscar]

Can we make a case for him being better than Dravid in the said period?

To answer this question, no.

1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2011

VVS LAXMAN
Test: 115
Innings: 191
Runs: 8,003
Average: 50.33
N/Os: 32
100s: 17
50s: 50

RAHUL DRAVID
Tests: 127
Innings: 222
Runs: 10,474
Average: 53.98
N/Os: 28
100s: 30
50s: 47


And for comparison's sake....

SACHIN TENDULKAR
Tests: 112
Innings: 190
Runs: 9,447
Average: 55.57
N/Os: 20
100s: 29
50s: 29

Of course, they're not necessarily comparable because Laxman batted low (higher not outs, less centuries) while Dravid came in one down.

Azhar was very stylish, not just in batting.. Even on the field. He was my favorite cricketer back then.

Agreed, but especially with the bat. Very stylish cricketer.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Since only games against Australia really count, VVS is probably the greatest Indian batsman in history

Laxman has a very poor record against England, surprisingly, in 17 tests (and Bangladesh but that was only 3 tests). 40+ against everyone else.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

To answer this question, no.

1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2011

VVS LAXMAN
Test: 115
Innings: 191
Runs: 8,003
Average: 50.33
N/Os: 32
100s: 17
50s: 50

RAHUL DRAVID
Tests: 127
Innings: 222
Runs: 10,474
Average: 53.98
N/Os: 28
100s: 30
50s: 47


And for comparison's sake....

SACHIN TENDULKAR
Tests: 112
Innings: 190
Runs: 9,447
Average: 55.57
N/Os: 20
100s: 29
50s: 29

Of course, they're not necessarily comparable because Laxman batted low (higher not outs, less centuries) while Dravid came in one down.



Agreed, but especially with the bat. Very stylish cricketer.

Hmm.. Azhar would have Averaged 50 in Laxman's era. But Laxman was capable of Laraeseque performances.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Hmm.. Azhar would have Averaged 50 in Laxman's era. But Laxman was capable of Laraeseque performances.

No chance, would be taking bungs to get out the cheating ****.

 

[Shri]

Lexicographically speaking, only the first two are true

Virat Chloe

 

[trundler]

Don't feel bad Shri. Some ****head in 1929 thought that Bradman wouldn't last on soft English pitches since his runs came off 'poor' strokes, which only works in Australia where ball comes into bat. Anyway he scored 974 in the 30' Ashes. So yes, Shri could have been more wrong.

 

[Tom Flint]

IMO the guy has an awful attitude, personality wise.

As a player, he's not exactly going to set the world alight either imo. Seems to be better against pace than spin so a decent option at one down. Having said that, he's certainly no Dravid or Tendulkar or anything like that. Average at best imo. Good fielder I reckon and thats something the Indian team need.

Was somewhat promising sometime back but I doubt he will deliver consistently for India. Time on the sidelines and a few more games in the domestic circuit is probably best.

Pretty awful prediction this was.

 

[Slifer]

Laxman has a very poor record against England, surprisingly, in 17 tests (and Bangladesh but that was only 3 tests). 40+ against everyone else.

Sorry to fact check but he was also sub 40 vs RSA

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I'll remember Laxman only for his 281...and lots of chest hair

 

[Gnske]

I believe Saurabh Tiwary and Manish Pandey are better than him tbh. They look much more attacking have shown glimpses of what they could do in T20 games. Would like to see them given an extended run in ODIs.

#justshrithings

 

[Shri]

die

 

[Gnske]

Don't feel bad man, I once said Raina would make more runs than Kohli in the 2014/15 series in Australia.

 

[vcs]

Starting this thread was one of my finer contributions to this forum, which I'm sure you're all grateful for.

 

[stephen]

Kohli is basically Ponting if he were Indian.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

2009 Kohli> 2018 Kohli