Smith v Kohli (test match batting)

[Prince EWS]

That Kohli stat really, really surprises me.

Same, I'd like to see the strike rates too though. It might be that he's just defending them well and not trying to score off them lots trather than getting out to them all the time.

That doesn't seem to line up with what I think when I think "bowler pitched it up to Kohli on middle and leg" either though.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Can the Wagner method work on Kohli?

 

[Spark]

Same, I'd like to see the strike rates too though. It might be that he's just defending them well and not trying to score off them lots trather than getting out to them all the time.

That doesn't seem to line up with what I think when I think "bowler pitched it up to Kohli on middle and leg" either though.

Yeah I kind of suspect there are a bunch of LBWs in there from playing across the line, and also I'd like to see a pace/spin breakdown because I suspect a few of those are to offspinners pinning him in front (sometimes having not played a shot). I still think it's basically death to bowl at his pads, the conventional wisdom is that he'll ping those through midwicket all day if you let him.

 

[Flem274*]

Can the Wagner method work on Kohli?

did in 2013

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah I kind of suspect there are a bunch of LBWs in there from playing across the line, and also I'd like to see a pace/spin breakdown because I suspect a few of those are to offspinners pinning him in front (sometimes having not played a shot). I still think it's basically death to bowl at his pads, the conventional wisdom is that he'll ping those through midwicket all day if you let him.

Conventional wisdom could be wrong. At the risk of stating the obvious, I'm assuming the reason you wouldn't attack Kohli's stumps all day is that they're not all going to be hitting the stumps but a large proportion will be off target sliding down leg and go for bulk runs

 

[Spark]

Conventional wisdom could be wrong. At the risk of stating the obvious, I'm assuming the reason you wouldn't attack Kohli's stumps all day is that they're not all going to be hitting the stumps but a large proportion will be off target sliding down leg and go for bulk runs

I mean the reason I always thought you shouldn't attack his stumps was because he has a naturally strong bottom-handed grip and has exceptional balance and hand-eye coordination and so bowling on the stumps = death through midwicket.

EDIT: I see that bowled/LBW is only about a quarter of Kohli's dismissals, and the overwhelming majority of those are LBW. Compare that to ~38% for Smith (although Smith definitely plays on a fair bit more than Kohli so it's not a perfect comparison) and it makes me think the above stat is just a weird smallsamplesizelol artifact. Either that or he really is just extremely disciplined vs anything that actually is on off stump, whereas that's Smith's chief scoring zone.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I mean the reason I always thought you shouldn't attack his stumps was because he has a naturally strong bottom-handed grip and has exceptional balance and hand-eye coordination and so bowling on the stumps = death through midwicket.

EDIT: I see that bowled/LBW is only about a quarter of Kohli's dismissals, and the overwhelming majority of those are LBW. Compare that to ~38% for Smith (although Smith definitely plays on a fair bit more than Kohli so it's not a perfect comparison) and it makes me think the above stat is just a weird smallsamplesizelol artifact. Either that or he really is just extremely disciplined vs anything that actually is on off stump, whereas that's Smith's chief scoring zone.

Assuming the stats are accurate though it would evidently need a rethink

 

[Spark]

Assuming the stats are accurate though it would evidently need a rethink

Perhaps. Smallsamplesizelol and lack of context always means you shouldn't take these stats too seriously.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Perhaps. Smallsamplesizelol and lack of context always means you shouldn't take these stats too seriously.

small sample size for a bloke who's faced 12,500 deliveries? and with 25% of his dismissals being bowled and lbw? Surely not

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Can the Wagner method work on Kohli?

What worked against Bradman will work against Kohli

 

[Spark]

small sample size for a bloke who's faced 12,500 deliveries? and with 25% of his dismissals being bowled and lbw? Surely not

25% isn't that high though

 

[aussie tragic]

Kohli actually has the 4th lowest ever % bowled

HowSTAT! Batting Dismissal Analysis

 

[TheJediBrah]

25% isn't that high though

what? he's played 84 Tests, faced 12,500 balls and been dismissed 131 times

If you consider that a small sample size in this context then there can't be much in cricket that you consider statistically relevant

 

[Spark]

what? he's played 84 Tests, faced 12,500 balls and been dismissed 131 times

If you consider that a small sample size in this context then there can't be much in cricket that you consider statistically relevant

this is actually increasingly true tbf (cc cribb)

but no my point was more that he doesn't really get bowled/lbw that much (especially not bowled) compared to other top test batsman, which would seem to contradict the superficial reading of that stat which is that he had a weakness against straight balls.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

did in 2013

An update is needed

 

[TheJediBrah]

this is actually increasingly true tbf (cc cribb)

but no my point was more that he doesn't really get bowled/lbw that much (especially not bowled) compared to other top test batsman, which would seem to contradict the superficial reading of that stat which is that he had a weakness against straight balls.

maybe he gets caught whipping them to midwicket, doesn't have to be bowled and lbw. Or maybe his bowled/lbw is so low because he gets his stumps bowled more rarely than you'd expect because everyone sees it as his strength and the usual plan is to bowl just outside off.

assuming the stats are right then you'd have to accept that conventional wisdom just isn't right about this one.

 

[Spark]

maybe he gets caught whipping them to midwicket, doesn't have to be bowled and lbw. Or maybe his bowled/lbw is so low because he gets his stumps bowled more rarely than you'd expect because everyone sees it as his strength and the usual plan is to bowl just outside off.

assuming the stats are right then you'd have to accept that conventional wisdom just isn't right about this one.

there are too many "maybes" there to be sure about anything. if there's an actual, identifiable and robust reason for it then sure. until then i still think you should probably stay off his pads.

 

[stephen]

To get batsmen out you need too set them up. So a batsman could average lower vs balls on the stumps because they are set up more easily with out swingers and the money ball is the inswinger. But balls on the stumps might not cause the batsman problems if the bowler is continually bowling there.

 

[honestbharani]

Cummins called it a "high risk - high reward" method of bowling at Kohli when India were down there last year. I think it makes sense. You may get picked for a few boundaries but you can also get him out LBW/bowled/caught on the leg side. And I also think that the chief scoring shots we think of when bowlers are bowling at the stumps are usually bals that will miss leg stump. Bowler aiming to bowl at the stumps does not always mean a ball that is going on to hit the stumps if not interrupted.

 

[Daemon]

Are we saying that 24 is too low for Kohli when it's the 6th best of the last ~15 years?