Statistically speaking, Virat Kohli’s stature in ODI cricket is Bradmanesque. A tally of 28 centuries in just 189 matches, 18 of them in a run chase marks him out as an extraordinary batsman: potentially the best ever if he is not let down by fitness or form.
Runs and tons have boomed from his bat ever since he made his ODI debut. His average is 54+ and the strike rate too is a whopping 91+, which shows that Kohli has not just been a run accumulator, but dominates bowlers.
Moreover, he has scored heavily all over the world. It will be argued, justifiably, that his performances in Tests in England are modest. But that is certainly not the case in ODIs in the same country, where he has revelled. In that sense, his undefeated century in the last ODI against West Indies may not seem exceptional. The opposing team are no great shakes. Caribbean cricket has seen better days. On ranking alone – India number three, West Indies nine – who has the better players is evident.
But performances in cricket can’t be judged in the matrix of runs, averages and strike rates alone. These statistics at best provide a frame of reference — an important one — but not necessarily always the true worth of a performance.
The circumstances in which individual and team performs are often more critical than what numbers might reveal. This reveals not just talent, but also ambition and character. From a legacy point of view, this carries more value.
Kohli’s century in the fifth ODI came under deep pressure. Having lost the fourth match in a horribly pusillanimous batting display India were on the back foot: the captain even more so given the prevailing situation in Indian cricket.
A 3-1 verdict now appears emphatic. But coming on the heels of the massive defeat in the Champions Trophy final, had the West Indies squared the ODI series, it would have been a double whammy for Kohli. In fact, considering the bitter fall-out he had had with coach Anil Kumble for which a large number of people held Kohli in the wrong, defeat in the decider would have set thousands of tongues wagging.
Kohli had not only to score runs but also ensure that his team won. This brought out the best in him as player. Even the most talented can’t cope with such pressure. In Kohli’s case the greater difficulty quotient made him perform better.
This is not the first time he’s been able to raise the bar when most needed. To rouse yourself into a fiercely combative mode (or being “in the zone” to in contemporary parlance) requires both skill and mental toughness, which Kohli obviously is endowed with.
But while Kohli’s singular contribution in India’s series win is above question, I have a bone to pick with the selection policy on the tour. The opportunity to experiment, especially in the batting was ignored in favour of a play-safe approach.
Considering that the World Cup is just about two years away, there is a need to check out the bench strength: as much for ability as well as to send a firm message that there are no guarantees and every place has to be deserved.
Playing a not-so-formidable side like the West Indies afforded this opportunity without compromising on the basic tenet that all matches have to be won. This was squandered, despite the touring party having youngsters like Rishabh Pant for just this purpose.
There were only two changes in the top order, both forced: Rahane was played because Rohit Sharma was not on tour, and Dinesh Karthik found a place after Yuvraj Singh was injured. Pant, meanwhile, was left to languish in the dressing room.
While Yuvraj, Dhoni and even Karthik need to be kept match-ready, there is not much more to be learnt about their ability. In Pant’s case, playing international cricket at this stage of his career carries far more meaning — for himself and the team.
In the bowling department, there was enough experimentation, and the success of Umesh Yadav, Mohammed Shami and Kuldeep Yadav — none of whom were ‘regulars’ in recent tournaments, shows how this can be of value.
Hopefully, this will extend to the batting soon enough.
