Thread:

Single performances winning you tests are rare, and as a batsmen nearly impossible as a team need 20 wkts to win. So the argument that a player performs in 'wins' is not a good enough to judge someone's ability in any way. Those performances have turned out to be winning

contributions because others have stepped up. Wins only make those performances memorable. On the other hand, what carries more weight regarding an individual ability is the performance(s) that come in a loss, because they truly show where you stand apart from your peers in terms

of skills & character. Tendulkar & Kohli are often brought down by the logic, 'ohh they have performed in losses & are not match winners or are selfish'. Anyone saying this couldn't be more wrong since those performances showed everyone else why they were better than the rest.

On the other hand, Laxman, Dravid, Pujara, Rahane are often spoken/labelled better than Sachin/Kohli because their performances came in wins. What people sometimes forget that for Dravid's 233, there was Agarkar's 6/42, for Pujara's 100 at MCG 2018, there was a Bumrah 6-fer too

For Rahane's hundred at Lords', there were Bhuvi's 6-fer & Ishant's 7-fer as well. For Rahane's twin centuries in Delhi (2015), there were Ashwin & Jadeja who bowled India to a win on a lifeless pitch as well. For Laxman's 96 in Durban, Bhajji took 4-10 as well. When Kohli scored

153 in Centurion or 149 in Edgbaston, no one scored a 50 in the innings. Similarly, Sachin scored his 50th test 100 when India were 400 runs behind. He scored a 100 when Dale Steyn took 7-51 in 1st inns in Nagpur. In the same series, when India won in Kolkata, Sachin, Viru, VVS,

MS all scored 100s & Bhajji/Ishant bowled India to victory. This is not to say that the players mentioned here apart from Sachin/Kohli weren't good enough. They were probably the best possible support possible. But there's a reason why some of Kohli's/Sachin's best performances

were in a loss. Both of them were good enough to rise to the occasion regularly when others around them failed. To say they performed in losses is incorrect, what would be appropriate to say is, they performed despite the team losing. When a team is losing, it's easier for

shoulders to drop & give up easily. It's take special character to then rise up to the occasion. When the team is doing well, the energy rubs off to others and everyone sort is able to do better. Hence, the argument the team wins when a player performs well isn't the best defence

of any player. If anything, it should be said that the player needs to perform a lot more so that the team wins consistently.