Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cricket Discussion' started by MattW, Jan 11, 2015.
We don't mention that Test matches are five days than three... Oops!
I just think it's really sporting of us to let our Commonwealth brethren win once in awhile..............admittedly it's sometimes a long while, but we'll be back........form is temporary, class is permanent.
You are obviously not feeling well... Quick my Pommie friend, back to reality... !
Currently what matters is ODIs.... World Cup is coming. And I think either ENG vs NZ or Eng vs India. No one else can be in the finals. Pakistan would be never.
Last season Champion with Perth Scorchers, Mitchell Johnson has announced his retirement from the Big Bash League.
"The intensity and length of the BBL is just too much for someone who will be 37 at the start of the summer," - his manager
Anyway he will still play in the Emirates Tournaments in Dubai where the season is half the length of the BBL
It is beyond me that people are hyping up Kohli taking the #1 test batsman spot. Smith has had it for 2 and a half years and Kohli could do nothing about it, especially when India have definitely had more home series' than we have. Looks like it had to take Smith being out of the game for an entire year for Kohli to be able to knock down the door.
Smith has missed only one test (against South Africa) so far since his ban. Kohli has also missed one test ( against Afghanistan ) since Smith's ban. Kohli has played one match more than Smith since the latter's ban which is against England. So, even if Smith was playing cricket right now, Kohli would have got 1st place. It doesn't have anything to do with Smith being banned.
Smith- home- 12 matches, average - 96
Kohli- home- 15 matches, average- 81
Smith- Away- 14 matches, average- 51
Kohli- Away- 11 matches, average- 60
Smith-overall- 26 matches, average- 67
Kohli-overall- 26 matches, average-73
Adding to my last statement from above post, as you can see, Kohli is faring better since 2 and half years and thus he is #1 right now. I don't deny Smith is better batsmen than Kohli in Tests, but the way you have put it, you are telling as if Kohli doesn't deserve this and I disagree to that. Give credit where it's due.
The fact that he cannot play until March next year and Kohli has a long series going on will only further his rating, without a doubt, Smith would've gotten a few tons against Pakistan and India this year, Kohli will not be as consistent the entire England tour so we will have to see what happens. The media is also making a big fuss out of it, what I'm saying is Smith had it for 2.5 years and now that he is out of the game, Kohli takes it.
Now that I see your second statement, look at the quality of teams that India have toured in the last year or 2; West Indies, Sri Lanka. The only good test nation they have toured in the past 2 years is South Africa. Scoring double hundreds and hundreds against mediocre teams means nothing. Last 2 years Australia have come up against India, New Zealand , etc. the quality of those 2 teams are completely different. Smith scored 250 odd in 3 innings in New Zealand, 400 odd against India in India. These are proper bowling attacks that he has come across in Away conditions. The 100 against England was good but those 130 Kph old Poms aren't doing anybody any harm mate.
You are probably going to say how Aus lost 3-0 to SL but Ind playing in SL is different from Aus playing in SL .India playing SL is like a home series for both teams
What I am telling is, even if Smith was in the game, aka not banned, Kohli would have still snatched it as I explained in my first post.
And whose fault is that ?
Ok, then let's take the recent series. Australia toured SA and India also toured SA. Smith averaged 24 and Kohli averaged 48, which is double of Smith's. And Kohli was the top scorer in the series and I didn't bother to check the list where Smith stood.
And Kohli scored double tons against England and New Zealand. Maybe you missed it. Surely they are not mediocre.
If you are telling SL, WI are not good, then everyone knows Australia pitches are nothing but road. The same logic applies to Smith also. And Smith averages 96 in the road compared to 51 overseas, which is a huge, huge difference.
I am not here to start a war as in Kohli vs Smith. I accept Smith is better test batsmen than Kohli. But Kohli earned the #1 position rightfully and deserves it.
You added this now and hence I am replying in different post. Did you even look at the 1st match ? The pitch was so damn difficult to bat on. 150 in 1st innings and 50 in 2nd innings ! And look how well Anderson is bowling now in this match. England attack under these conditions are still good mate.
You talk about Smith averaging 24 in the SA series and Kohli 48. What happened in the series against India IN India where Smith averaged 71 and Kohli 8. Those were roads too apparently. Also England's bowling attack is terrible anywhere other than England so a 200 against them isn't as special as you make it sound. The subcontinent will offer no swing and that is what Anderson and abroad need to perform well
I was talking about SA tour because you said playing abroad against WI and SL shouldn't be considered. And SA tour was the latest tour played by Kohli and Smith. And I never said the Indian pitches were roads. When did I say it ? Infact, I highly rated Smith's scores in India in the appropriate tour thread. I said the Australian pitches are roads.
Those pitches weren't roads. Those were raging turners, and there were many low scores below 300. Steve Smith played brilliantly in those conditions. And every player has a bad series, reason for why Kohli averaged 14 or something in that series. Smith didn't do very good on the SA tour when he was said to be in the form of his life.