Virat Kohli Thread

[PKBasu]

India still need Virat in all 3 formats. But in T20Is, India can afford to have only ONE among Rohit, Virat and Rahul at the top. I think the one who should be retained is Kohli. (In tests, Rahul absolutely doesn't deserve to be in the side based on his career record). In ODIs, Kohli remains the greatest of all time, although his numbers have deteriorated a bit. He took another 3 years from the time we started this thread to get the next 5 ODI centuries. He has 44 now, just 5 behind Tendulkar (who played 463 ODIs, to 265 for Kohli). Kohli averages 57+ in ODIs, at a strike rate of 93+. Awe-inspiring figures.

[SaniaFan]

In ODIs, Kohli remains the greatest of all time, although his numbers have deteriorated a bit. He took another 3 years from the time we started this thread to get the next 5 ODI centuries. He has 44 now, just 5 behind Tendulkar (who played 463 ODIs, to 265 for Kohli). Kohli averages 57+ in ODIs, at a strike rate of 93+. Awe-inspiring figures.

I think that would be Richards. He had an average of 47+ and strike rate of 90+ when 200+ in 50 overs was considered as a good score. It will be interesting to see what was the average and strike rate differential against the overall average and strike rate in their respective era to arrive at the GOAT. We can also throw in Tendulkar there.

[prasen9]

India still need Virat in all 3 formats. But in T20Is, India can afford to have only ONE among Rohit, Virat and Rahul at the top. I think the one who should be retained is Kohli. (In tests, Rahul absolutely doesn't deserve to be in the side based on his career record). In ODIs, Kohli remains the greatest of all time, although his numbers have deteriorated a bit. He took another 3 years from the time we started this thread to get the next 5 ODI centuries. He has 44 now, just 5 behind Tendulkar (who played 463 ODIs, to 265 for Kohli). Kohli averages 57+ in ODIs, at a strike rate of 93+. Awe-inspiring figures.

In tests, Kohli's form has been bad in the last 2-3 years. Is it terminal decline or temporary decline in form?

In ODIs, my impression is that he is still pretty good.

In T20Is, he is very good. At the moment, if I were to choose a team to play in a WC today, I will choose him. But, we need to do better than Rahul, Rohit, and Kohli wrt SR and thus we need to play the youngsters this year while "resting" the oldies. If the youngsters show they are better, which Pant and Ishan have failed to do despite a lot of chances, then they come in. Rahul, Rohit, and Kohli may not be good enough as a top-3 but if we have no better options, we roll the dice with them if the youngsters do not do any better. We add Surya and Shreyas with Hardik and another bat/keeper (for now Hooda because he can bowl a bit) and that is our best option. For whatever reason, Shreyas was dumped and that caused our batting to be weak.

[PKBasu]

Kohli gets his 45th ODI century in his 266th match. Tendulkar had 49 centuries in 463 ODIs.
Ponting had 30 centuries in 375 ODIs, Rohit Sharma has 29 in 236 ODIs. Viv Richards had 11 centuries in 187 ODIs.

I had the honour of watching Kohli make his first ODI century -- at the Eden Gardens in December 2009, when the stadium was being reconstructed, giving the place a rather barren look.

[Sin Hombre]

In tests, Kohli's form has been bad in the last 2-3 years. Is it terminal decline or temporary decline in form?

20 tests and almost 3 years at an average of 26 is not form - it is more than most people's test careers. Otherwise agree with you.

[PKBasu]

Kohli's test form is definitely a problem. He was very poor in Bangladesh, and needs to get some big scores at the start of the Australia series. If he keeps failing, he needs to be dropped.

When I started this thread, Kohli was the world's best all-format batsman -- and among the top 3 in all formats. He is now a 2-format batsman (perhaps the best 2-format batsman in the world), but is undeserving of a test place.

Tendulkar, by the way, averaged 12 in tests in 2003. He then had lean patch of 7-8 ODIs in 2005 averaging below 20 at very low strike rates, which is what led to my original Sachin thread suggesting he retire to preserve his stellar record. For consistency's sake, I must now advise Kohli to take a break from tests. But I don't think we can afford the psychological disruption of going into an important series against Australia without both Pant and Kohli

[prasen9]

It took us enormous effort and media pressure to purge Rahane and get Iyer his chances. I doubt these selectors will tackle the problem that we have. We are too reverant as a nation to our "Gods". People (not on this board) shake their head and tell me, "Nah, how can you drop *Kohli*?" It is very simple. But, then again, Pujara tells us a story. He kept failing and just managing a good series here and there when he was almost going to be dropped and then he comes back. So, maybe Kohli has it in him. Maybe the century in the ODIs is what he needed. For the sake of India, we need him to fire against Australia. We have not also honed his replacement really. Who is next in line?

So, what happened to Vihari? Feel bad for him. He got played a lot abroad and maybe just got a series in India. Our stalwarts (not named Kohli) average about 35 abroad. He sort of was close to that. Is he dumped for good? On the other hand, if Vihari had made a ton of runs, then the pressure on Kohli would have been more.

In hindsight, Rahane was a mistake. We should have given Rohit more chances. Actually, the best solution would be to platoon Rahane and Rohit (as a MO bat) when we had good openers. That is, play Rohit in India and spinning nations (sub-continent, etc.) and Rahane in SENA.

[PKBasu]

ODI century #46 for the great man. He came in with India on 95/1 in 15.2 overs. He faced 110 of the 208 balls that remained from that point, and finished 166* -- taking the team total to 390/5.

Then Siraj took 4 quick wickets to reduce SL to 35/4, then 42/6 and (with Shami and Kuldeep taking two apiece) SL were all out for 73. A more humiliating defeat of SL is difficult to imagine!