• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Waqar Younis vs Virat Kohli

Waqar vs Virat

  • Total voters
    22
R

Randomfan

U19 12th Man
subshakerz said:
Check your stats. His peak was 28 tests. The only non minnows he faced in his peak were Zimbabwe for three tests.
Click to expand...
SL had not won even 5 tests in entire history till mid 90s. That's minnow by any count. SL transitioned to good teams after 1994.

Waqar played only 20 tests against non-minnows in his prime.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Kohli had a batting average of 22 in 2011 how is that worldclass?

No, Kohli until his breakout series in SA in end 2013 was averaging 41 which is below worldclass.

After that for 6 six years he averaged 60.

To put these together as one peak is misleading.
Click to expand...
I think you may have a different definition of worldclass to some people.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Johan said:
he hit his peak after his double ton against NZ where he finally found consistency, otherwise until his 47th test he had 3326 @ 43.76, which is decent but nothing special.
Click to expand...
I agree. I mark his peak personally when he scored well in SA end of 2013 but you are right he only became really levelled up late.
 
R

Randomfan

U19 12th Man
subshakerz said:
SL of the 80s was a minnow.I would argue SL of the early 90s was around WIs that Kohli faced. It wasn't a minnow and had decent players who hadn't clicked together yet.
Click to expand...
A team in entire history has not won even 5 tests? That's a cerified minnow. Minnows can have some good players, but they are still minnow. To become a non-minnow, you got to start winning tests and SL did that after 1994.

Nah, WI is a far better team, WI has gotten 16 test wins against non-minnows since 2011 with a far greater W/L. WI is a weaker side for sure, but not minnow like SL was till 1994.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Randomfan said:
A team in entire history has not won even 5 tests? That's a cerified minnow. Minnows can have some good players, but they are still minnow. To become a non-minnow, you got to start winning tests and SL did that after 1994.

Nah, WI is a far better team, WI has gotten 16 test wins against non-minnows since 2011 with a far greater W/L. WI is a weaker side for sure, but not minnow like SL was till 1994.
Click to expand...
Yeah it doesn't work that way. A team with the same players doesn't magically become minnow to test standard in one year. The WI teams that Kohli faced were also extremely weak.

The point is, the batting lineup Waqar faced of Ranatunga, Gurusinha, DeSilva and Tillekaratne was obviously test standard.
 
R

Randomfan

U19 12th Man
subshakerz said:
Yeah it doesn't work that way. A team with the same players doesn't magically become minnow to test standard in one year. The WI teams that Kohli faced were also extremely weak.

The point is, the batting lineup Waqar faced of Ranatunga, Gurusinha, DeSilva and Tillekaratne was obviously test standard.
Click to expand...
That's how it works exactly. Minnow means they have not achieved anything of note till then as a team. That's how you define minnows.

Once you start winning as a team more often , you can shed your minnow tag. SL was minnow till 1994 with less than 5 test wins in entire history.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Randomfan said:
That's how it works exactly. Minnow means they have not achieved anything of note till then as a team. That's how you define minnows.

Once you start winning as a team more often , you can shed your minnow tag. 4 test win in entire history means you are a certified minnow.
Click to expand...
But the batting lineup Waqar bowled to was definitely test class even in the early 90s regardless of what you think about the team.
 
R

Randomfan

U19 12th Man
subshakerz said:
Define worldclass. Is averaging early 40s worldclass?
Click to expand...
No need to define anything. World class should be obvious.

If you think 2012 years was not world class then it's pointless to argue about definition.

Kohli in 2012: 2 tons at home and 1 ton in Aus with Avg 49.

1738162785247.png



I said Kohli was world class in period 2012-2019 for 75 tests against non-minnows,

Here is his entire year by year, highlighted are avg and tons in each year against non-minnows.

Kohli_World_Class.jpg



If you feel that Kohli was not world class from 2012-2019, then we see cricket very differently. We just have to agree to disagree when it comes to what world class means without trying to define it.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Define worldclass. Is averaging early 40s worldclass?
Click to expand...
I would define world class as a player who could hypothetically be picked in every current side. So yes, for almost all of cricket history an early 40’s batsman is world class.

ofc there are outliers such as 80’s Windies bowling or 00’s Aussie batting that don’t fit that.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
I would define world class as a player who could hypothetically be picked in every current side. So yes, for almost all of cricket history an early 40’s batsman is world class.

ofc there are outliers such as 80’s Windies bowling or 00’s Aussie batting that don’t fit that.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing general test standard with worldclass. The latter means a standard among the best in the world at the time. So averaging 50 would be generally a must.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top