In this content age, outlets have to come up with content to stay afloat, so I don't blame them for making content after Kohli's retirement when a million other outlets were doing the same.
I also think this is a bit of an uncharitable reading of Kohli's career, influence and impact. It would be kind to even describe Kohli as average over the past few years if you look just at the numbers. But it is inarguable that his influence extends far behind his numbers. He fundamentally changed Indian cricket, and thus the world's.
I think you’re being harsher on Kohli than me:) I don’t agree when you say his numbers make it kind to even call him ‘average’ - as I said at the top I think he was very good.
To be clear, the bit where I say they could have chosen a different timeframe and then used Kohli‘s relatively poor performance to say he wasn’t actually part of the big four was not meant to be taken literally – I was saying to do so would be just as incorrect as to do what they have done. They shouldn’t be cherry picking - for good or bad.
And definitely, his influence is massive – I wrote the other week that he has been test cricket’s greatest ally, and clearly he is one of the biggest draw cards in cricket history.
But purely on the numbers when it comes to test cricket I think he was very good and just below great.
Thanks Paul. Cracking article. I am so with you re test cricket in England! Just the best!
Enjoying your podcast also. Well done. Great to have you back.
Thank you Nick! Can’t wait for the Eng-Ind Test series. Thanks for the feedback on the podcast too - very much appreciated.
In this content age, outlets have to come up with content to stay afloat, so I don't blame them for making content after Kohli's retirement when a million other outlets were doing the same.
I also think this is a bit of an uncharitable reading of Kohli's career, influence and impact. It would be kind to even describe Kohli as average over the past few years if you look just at the numbers. But it is inarguable that his influence extends far behind his numbers. He fundamentally changed Indian cricket, and thus the world's.
I think you’re being harsher on Kohli than me:) I don’t agree when you say his numbers make it kind to even call him ‘average’ - as I said at the top I think he was very good.
To be clear, the bit where I say they could have chosen a different timeframe and then used Kohli‘s relatively poor performance to say he wasn’t actually part of the big four was not meant to be taken literally – I was saying to do so would be just as incorrect as to do what they have done. They shouldn’t be cherry picking - for good or bad.
And definitely, his influence is massive – I wrote the other week that he has been test cricket’s greatest ally, and clearly he is one of the biggest draw cards in cricket history.
But purely on the numbers when it comes to test cricket I think he was very good and just below great.