Discussion in 'Cricket Talk' started by abc_to_xyz, Apr 10, 2018.
A man who couldn't hit 12 in last over is up there again.
Yes he really is the best right now. Makes the rest below him look like a bunch of tom **** and harrys
Seeing a Pakistani Boy as no.1, we feel your misery.
I am a Pakistani.
If it was Fakhar, Sharjeel, Umar Akmal (the earlier one), it would have made more sense. If it was ODI ranking, Babar could be the deserving one. But T20i is not his strength.
btw why is Kohli so low? is he not playing t20Is or what?
he's not good enough I guess
Strange, T20Is/ODIs are his thing.
T20I may not be Babar's strength. However, these tables are comparing him to other batsmen in the world. Clearly he is outperforming the rest.
Like it or not, he is the best batsman in the world in t20I's
Babar has improved his game, but he will never become a power hitter, like Fakhar or Shajeel. He might improve a bit more but that's all - make piece with it.
On the flip side, people should take these T20 stats with a pinch of salt.
Just like Shahzad used to?
Man your trolling is too obvious. Keep it subtle.
No, he's gold for ODIs. Even good for T20i. It was heart-warming seeing him flicking away 4s in PSL and WI. But #1 t20 tag for a player who doesn't hit many sixes seems odd.
Whome do you want him to be replaced with? @abc_to_xyz
Who said you are not Pakistani? You have rights for your opinion, it is just that Pakistanis doing good, just tickles you wrong.
No, I really want Pakistanis to crush Kohli and co out. Kohli never deserve it even if he got 'Wisden leading cricketer' award for 2nd/3rd time. But I don't want Pakistan to bank over wrong set of players when they play against better teams instead of WIs.
I want Pakistanis to crush Kohli and co out as well. I hate Kohli when he plays against us, but give credit where credit is due, Kohli is great and deserve all the awards he got.
No he doesn't. Sachin did. He scored against the best. Kohli is Younis Khan of ODIs. Score tons on soft tracks, goes away early when there's enough quality.
I don’t understand why people do not rate him or even acknowledge his achievements and instead of praising him they downplay him by comparing him with big players.
It’s like we have so many Tendulkars and Pontings in Domestic cricket that they want him out of the side.
Shukar Karo aik Batsman mil Gaya jo batting karna janta hai.
What is the point of this thread the rankings state he is the number one batsman and he deserves it as he has performed well consistantly in T20s, even if he plays against the best in the world, once he gets past that initial period he will score runs, he is consistent and can score runs at a SR of 135+ if needed, it’s not like he is batting at Asad Shafiq pace or Ahmed Shehzad pace, unlike Ahmed he is consistent which is key in our batting line up as guys like Asif Ali, Malik, Faheem, Fakhar and Shadab can accelerate but how can you accelerate when you are 80/4?
He scored runs in NZ in the T20s but this excuse will pop up, “Boundries in NZ are short”
If he’s the first batsman to play on the NZ grounds than that argument is valid but lots of players have played in them grounds and haven't scored that quick and that same NZ team was at 50/4 odd.
He’s a decent player, he has most of the shots and is working on the pull shot Which will complete him as a batsman, in NZ he was unlucky, I belive in the ODIs as he got a wrong decision in one game and unluckily got run out in the 3rd game, he chased a wide one and played a cover drive that wasn’t there in the remaining games. In that series if he had found some runs it would have got him in flow, he would be disappointed as the bowling wasn’t all that special.
He is more than a decent player. Give him #1 in ODIs and I won't mind at all. We are never saying that he's bad. Just that hitting big is not his thing, t20 is not his best format. His strength is flicking away 4s in gaps (which is rare in Pak cricket these days).
T20 is not all about hitting big else Russel and Sammy would be openers
Yes but without it being best is very difficult.
How do you define best ? There has to be some parameter to define best. Statistics like averages, number of 100's , 50's, strike rates are the parameters. One who scores at a strike rate of 200 but averages in mid 20s versus one who scores at a strike rate of 125 but consistenetly averages 50. Which one is better ? For me the latter is better because everyone else can play around that batsman and take the score to competitiveness. Even bowlers these days can score quick 20-25 but at the end of the day you still need someone to bat through the 20 overs and score that 70-80 runs needed for a team to post a big total.
8+RPO Run-chase against quality teams.
8 RPO means 160 in 20 overs. With players like Babar playing till the end at a strike rate of 125 and others chipping around can easily chase this out. One must understand that higher the striker rate the greater the risk and lower the probability of consistently scoring runs and hence lower batting average. A team having players like Babar and Kohli have higher probability of chasing 8 RPO in a 20 over game.
Nothing wrong with Babar. He has got a S/R almost the same as Fakhar, lol.
Agree, critics are chasing some myth
Australia: V Kohli Avg: 51.39 | SR Tendulkar Avg: 44.59
England: V Kohli Avg: 41.86 | SR Tendulkar Avg: 44.09
South Africa: V Kohli Avg: 66.78 | SR Tendulkar Avg: 35.78
Pakistan: V Kohli Avg: 45.9 | SR Tendulkar Avg: 40.09
Kohli has better average 3 out of 4, then Tendulkar against top teams.