What do you think of Virat Kohli?

[Furball]

Raina has developed a strange phobia against short ball. In the Sydney test, he was stuck deep in the crease and Watson bowled a straight ball on good length without any movement with Raina edging it to Haddin.

Developed?

He was hopeless 5 years ago in England.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Cricket predictions are a tricky business. When this thread was created, most people would have expected Umar Akmal to become a better batsman than Kohli.

True but it also depends on different players and what stage of their game they are at.
Kohli was always pretty solid as a player, in terms of basics and overall technique like most batsmen coming from India. I cannot see why someone would not rate him back in 2010-11. Now the extent to how good he would be can be a reasonable point of disagreement. I mean I don't think anyone (and not even Jono) could have predicted that within a few years, he would have close to 30 ODI centuries and be in the conversation about all time great ODI batsmen.

Other player are different. Weldone brought up Amla and to be honest he did look pretty ordinary in his early years. Umar Akmal is again a different case because while he got century on debut and runs pretty early in both formats, he never looked as solid a batsman as Kohli. He was(is) just exciting to watch because of the way he played.

Similar to Amla, Smith demonstrated remarkable improvement and again it would have been almost impossible to predict this kind of success back in 2010 when he started.

 

[Jono]

If that's when he made the century then yeah

Same Test Warner hit 180 off 150 balls or something like that, 2012 sounds right

edit: checked the score and Kohli didn't actually make a century, he made 75. I think he made a hundred some other time that tour and I just amalgamated the 2 innings' in my head

Yeah he got that 75 in Perth looking good while everyone else stank, and then he continued that form into Adelaide.

Before that people were calling for him to be dropped for Rohit, so he really stepped up after his two poor tests. He began leaving the ball more, which you have to do in Australia.

 

[GIMH]

That's not a defence. The whole point was predicting who would be the best.

It is like saying you don't think someone will be that good, and when they become that good, you retort with "yeah but to be fair they improved."

It's the old Richard defence. 'Nobody could reasonably have foreseen that he'd have turned out to be good'

As it happens. My older brother is constantly texting me every time Kohli plays a blinder to bang on about how good he is. Am wondering if Jono is behind it

 

[Furball]

True but it also depends on different players and what stage of their game they are at.
Kohli was always pretty solid as a player, in terms of basics and overall technique like most batsmen coming from India. I cannot see why someone would not rate him back in 2010-11. Now the extent to how good he would be can be a reasonable point of disagreement. I mean I don't think anyone (and not even Jono) could have predicted that within a few years, he would have close to 30 ODI centuries and be in the conversation about all time great ODI batsmen.

Other player are different. Weldone brought up Amla and to be honest he did look pretty ordinary in his early years. Umar Akmal is again a different case because while he got century on debut and runs pretty early in both formats, he never looked as solid a batsman as Kohli. He was(is) just exciting to watch because of the way he played.

Similar to Amla, Smith demonstrated remarkable improvement and again it would have been almost impossible to predict this kind of success back in 2010 when he started.

Speak for yourself re: Smith.

 

[Jono]

It's the old Richard defence. 'Nobody could reasonably have foreseen that he'd have turned out to be good'

As it happens. My older brother is constantly texting me every time Kohli plays a blinder to bang on about how good he is. Am wondering if Jono is behind it

I am your brother

 

[cnerd123]

I think a player's attitude/work ethic/personality is a better idicator of future success than things such as technique and domestic performances tbh.

 

[ankitj]

I think a player's attitude/work ethic/personality is a better idicator of future success than things such as technique and domestic performances tbh.

On that basis you wouldn't have predicted Kohli to be such a success.

EDIT: his work ethics were probably always good. But his attitude and personality were repugnant until he earned his right to be so ****y with his dazzling batting.

 

[cnerd123]

I mean Kohli has always had amazing work ethic and self belief, and he was considered a good enough leader to captain India U-19. All his coaches sung praises of his drive and determination.

Technically speaking Kohli always had (and still has) some flaws. The hype behind him had less to do with the quality of his batting, and more to do with his performances and persona.

 

[Prince EWS]

EDIT: his work ethics were probably always good. But his attitude and personality were repugnant until he earned his right to be so ****y with his dazzling batting.

I think there's a difference between a 'good' attitude/personality and one that will lead to success when combined with talent, opportunity and work-ethic. To a certain extent I suspect being a self-absorbed arsehole could help given the right combination of other attributes.

 

[ankitj]

I think there's a difference between a 'good' attitude/personality and one that will lead to success when combined with talent, opportunity and work-ethic. To a certain extent I suspect being a self-absorbed arsehole could help given the right combination of other attributes.

Yeah, I agree with that. Back in 2010 or 2011 when this thread was originally started I posted that I worry Kohli will lose focus and waste his talent. Only too happy to be proven wrong.

 

[GIMH]

I am your brother

I don't know what to say now

 

[honestbharani]

I think a player's attitude/work ethic/personality is a better idicator of future success than things such as technique and domestic performances tbh.

Raina and Dinesh Karthik say hi..

 

[cnerd123]

I mean in terms of talent-to-success ratio they've both done pretty damn well for themselves IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

I think there's a difference between a 'good' attitude/personality and one that will lead to success when combined with talent, opportunity and work-ethic. To a certain extent I suspect being a self-absorbed arsehole could help given the right combination of other attributes.

True but just funny the way you posted it.

 

[Prince EWS]

True but just funny the way you posted it.

Haha yeah looking back on it it's definitely the sort of thing Uppercut would identify as a classic Cribb post.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Kohli is the anti-Maxwell

 

[andruid]

I don't think of Viral Kohli. Is something wrong with me?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Speak for yourself re: Smith.

Always mate always. Anything I say is nothing but the mere reflection of my own views and perspectives. How could I possibly dare to speak for a supreme, all seeing, all knowing being such as yourself, who has seen eternity.

 

[Black_Warrior]

On that basis you wouldn't have predicted Kohli to be such a success.

EDIT: his work ethics were probably always good. But his attitude and personality were repugnant until he earned his right to be so ****y with his dazzling batting.

Words like 'attitude' and 'personality' are often vague terms because they often mean different things in different contexts. I don't think Kohli's attitude or personality was ever a threat to his growth or development as a player. He gives everything on the field, plays for the team, cares about his team mates, works hard, ambitious, disciplined etc. This is limited to only those factors that are relevant to his growth as a player.

Regarding the other factors that he gets flak for, those are merely people's perception of him. This is not to say those perceptions are right or wrong, but those have nothing to do with his cricketing ability, skills and growth.