Virat Kohli middles it

Posted by
< 1 minute read

Virat Kohli playing cricket

Virat Kohli went a bit Nathan Astle earlier. In fact, we’re pretty sure Mahela Jayawardene said that he ‘batted out of his skins’ which raises the possibility that Kohli isn’t human.

India needed to chase down Sri Lanka’s total within 40 overs in order to secure the bonus point that would get them into the final of the CB Series. Sri Lanka scored 320.

Virat Kohli wasn’t phased. He started rapidly and then accelerated, like a cannon fired down a steep hill. By the end, everything was going for four. That’s why we used the A-word at the start of this piece. It was reminiscent of that innings. It was what happens when a set batsman swings his bat rapidly with perfect timing and middles the ball.

Lasith Malinga’s yorkers constituted ‘clip for four’ practice and Australia might want to take note of that for the finals (we have haven’t checked, but we presume there are several finals – best of nine, say). The odd bouncer to Kohli might not go amiss. In this form, they wouldn’t trouble him, but they might only go for three.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. Certainty certainly helps. When you’ve got 320 to get in 40 overs, you know with absolute clarity what you have to do. So you do it.

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s a remarkable thing to have achieved. It’s just that I can’t shake the feeling that 320 in 50 overs would have been harder.

  2. You probably mean Virat Kohli wasn’t fazed. Unless you meant he wasn’t introduced slowly, bit by bit. Which he wasn’t, of course.

    1. In the old days these slips might have been forgiven. But today is not one of those old days. Being today, it cannot be. By construction.

    2. Yellow faces with noseless expressions? Use of the word ‘zing’?

      Yes, we meant ‘fazed’. We’ll leave the error so that more people can revel in our failings.

      Sometimes writing this site is as bad as playing Scrabble.

  3. Just to add to the arch pedantry of the day, but shouldn’t Kohli’s innings be compared to a cannon ball fired down a steep hill, and not a cannon. The discharged cannon would remain static. It neither speeds up nor slows down. It has no motion, as its position is essentially fixed — it would stay at the top of the hill. The cannon ball, on the other hand…

    1. Come on, it is obvious that the hill is steep on *both* sides, and the recoil sends the cannon hurtling down the hill at an accelerating pace. That is what the innings felt like.

  4. Ahh but the cannon was “fired” down the hill – ie propelled. Not accidentally tilted over the back of the hill, and borne down the slope by the influence of gravity upon its mass. But perhaps the cannon was indeed flung down the hill by some kind of contraption like a medieval trebuchet. It’s the only logical explanation I can think of.

  5. I’m all for firing cannons down hills through whatever means available, but even if Kohli batted like the trebuchet itself fired down the hill, it won’t get India into the finals without some extra help. Australia will probably have some trouble beating SL on Friday.

  6. How can your N.Astle post have 0 comments?
    Astle scores a mental double hundred, against England no less, and no one cared.
    I guess you should have made more grammatical errors.

  7. Well yes this is all very jolly banter – but where is the article about Samit/Ian Austin we were promised yesterday – or have you given way to the arguments of thesmudge?

Comments are closed.