Virat Kohli vs Inzamam ul Haq

[PlayerComparisons]

Two players that underachieved

 

[Johan]

I think Cook is better than Inzamam and don't really think Kohli has declined enough for me to put him below Cook honestly.

 

[Coronis]

Inzamam is another who greatly benefited by playing in the 00’s vs 90’s.

90’s
58 matches 97 innings 3717 @ 43.22 8 tons
00’s
62 matches 103 innings 5113 @ 55.57 17 tons

 

[sayon basak]

Inzamam is another who greatly benefited by playing in the 00’s vs 90’s.

90’s
58 matches 97 innings 3717 @ 43.22 8 tons
00’s
62 matches 103 innings 5113 @ 55.57 17 tons

Chanderpaul:-
90's
37 matches 62 innings 2234 @40.61 2 tons
00's
86 matches 148 innings 6435 @52.31 19 tons

 

[Coronis]

Chanderpaul:-
90's
37 matches 62 innings 2234 @40.61 2 tons
00's
86 matches 148 innings 6435 @52.31 19 tons

2010’s
41 matches 70 innings 3198 @ 60.33 9 tons

 

[Randomfan]

Inzamam is another who greatly benefited by playing in the 00’s vs 90’s.

90’s
58 matches 97 innings 3717 @ 43.22 8 tons
00’s
62 matches 103 innings 5113 @ 55.57 17 tons

Despite those benefits, he couldn't score against two best teams of his era, Aus and SA. Not just in Aus/SA, but even at home against them.



Inzzy some how always found a way to get out against SA and Aus no matter where the game was played. Just 1 ton. If it was only away then I would think bounce was the reason but it was at all venues so not sure.

 

[subshakerz]

Kohli but Inzi if Kohli fails again in England.

 

[Johan]

Kohli comfortably imho, can't believe this was entertained.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Kohli but Inzi if Kohli fails again in England.

He retired just so you would rate him above Inzi

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Despite those benefits, he couldn't score against two best teams of his era, Aus and SA. Not just in Aus/SA, but even at home against them.

View attachment 44989

Inzzy some how always found a way to get out against SA and Aus no matter where the game was played. Just 1 ton. If it was only away then I would think bounce was the reason but it was at all venues so not sure.

I just looked up the scorecard from 1994 when Inzy had the last wicket partnership with Mustaq Ahmed to beat Oz. For some reason he was batting 8. Does anyone know why?

 

[sayon basak]

Kohli but Inzi if Kohli fails again in England.

So he is somehow better because he decided not to continue?

 

[Coronis]

So he is somehow better because he decided not to continue?

iirc for subz a big factor for him is amount of series succeeded in x country vs amount of series failed in x country. So probably

 

[sayon basak]

iirc for subz a big factor for him is amount of series succeeded in x country vs amount of series failed in x country. So probably

So, he takes the ratio of succeeded series and failed series and decides who is better? Sounds great. Somebody should ask him to create a thread and post the list of batters with the highest ratios.

 

[Coronis]

So, he takes the ratio of succeeded series and failed series and decides who is better? Sounds great. Somebody should ask him to create a thread and post the list of batters with the highest ratios.

I think its just a roundabout way of checklisting but that’s just my view.

 

[subshakerz]

iirc for subz a big factor for him is amount of series succeeded in x country vs amount of series failed in x country. So probably

I mean we also look at quality of their series too. Kohli had an ATG series in 2018 so that offsets some of his failures. But it would be harder to justify if he had three failures in a country.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

So he is somehow better because he decided not to continue?

That’s probably how most people think tbh. Players should retire at their peaks before the decline phase if they want to be rated as high as possible by cricket fans.

 

[sayon basak]

That’s probably how most people think tbh. Players should retire at their peaks before the decline phase if they want to be rated as high as possible by cricket fans.

Sad world we live in.

 

[Johan]

This is not close either, Kohli stomps.

 

[Thala_0710]

That’s probably how most people think tbh. Players should retire at their peaks before the decline phase if they want to be rated as high as possible by cricket fans.

It depends on the decline phase though, if you're still averaging 40ish in your decline, you're still better than most replacement bats. But if you're averaging 30 you're really just hogging up a place for someone else who deserves it. For me, I'd say it basically comes down to whether you're having a net +ve or -ve impact on your team

 

[Johan]

It depends on the decline phase though, if you're still averaging 40ish in your decline, you're still better than most replacement bats. But if you're averaging 30 you're really just hogging up a place for someone else who deserves it. For me, I'd say it basically comes down to whether you're having a net +ve or -ve impact on your team

more the reasons Compton is a GOAT