I think people are blinded by the Aussie bowler's career stats and just assume our attack performed accordingly. In actual fact Johnson was no where near his Ashes self, Harris too was a shadow of his former self and our back up seamers never quite achieved the heights expected of them, save for perhaps Hazelwood. I think Ashwin and Lyon were on a par, in fact I'd say that Lyon is grossly overrated. Also, it was not only Kohli who dominated the Aussie bowlers, guys like Vijay and Rahane were also very comfortable facing our attack. Kohli had some luck too being dropped before reaching his century twice and also benefiting from one of the worst on field umpiring decisions of the series after Erasmus gave him not out to Lyon, again prior to reaching his century, which Hawkeye later showed was as plumb as the fruit in your pudding. Smith was never gifted a life prior to making any of his centuries. In any other series Kohli may well have made just the one century.

Kohli played wonderful innings in the series. just because of the quality if attack. johnson starc harris hazlewood. Kohli and vijay played lyon best. on the other hand Smith was up against a much weaker attack or even call a school team attack. He did not find himself in pressure situations and got so many hit me deliveries. but Kohli was made to earn each and every run. he was so aggresive in his attack. Kohli sure was the better of the both

Kohli because he has scored generally batting second while taking pressure of chasing 500+ scores of Aussies and scored century on a very-very difficult pitch in 5th day Adelaide pitch against strong bowling unit

What Prithviraj said!

Playing in Australia and dominating a very good bowling attack . If Kohli played the Indian bowelrs, his average would be better than Bradman's haha

Kohli for couple of reasons. Firstly, Kohli played against a stronger bowling attack includes Johnson, Harris, Lyon and Watson, While Smith played against Umesh Yadav and Ishant Sharma

Secondly, Kohli doesn't have home advantage of familiar grounds with known conditions

This is a tough call. In terms of stats, Smith has been better with the bat, fielding and captaincy. However, he had a settled team (captaincy), his bowlers were creating chances on several occasions (fielding) and he was batting with lesser pressure due to the horrible Indian bowling attack (batting). Kohli did superb with some good decisions when batting and was scoring runs against a much tougher bowling attack. I think the honours should have been shared, time to adopt the English policy.

Neither Smith nor Kohli. Rohit Sharma is the MVP (as per Shastri-Gavaskar-Manjrekar-Agarkar & the team selection committee)...After he is from Mumbai cricket board, he automatically qualifies as MVP.

Runs made in a losing cause are no runs at all. Even if Kohli had made 1200 runs in the series with India losing, it's a pointless achievement.

Cricket is a team sport, Smiths contribution helped his team win, hence clearly the MVP. Yes, he's yet to be tested but I've a feeling Smith would go on to grow in the mould of Ponting, making winning contributions to the team whereas from what I see, Kohli has all the makings of the next Tendulkar, he'll score a lot of runs, which won't lead necessarily lead India to very many wins. Having said that, Kohli is a top ODI bat.

Gotta love Smithys humility though.

Respect to Aussies from J&K.

waiting for smith's performance in the next india series,score atleast a fifty in india,then only i will say smith is better compared to kohli

To be fair for both of them I think Man of the Series should be shared between both of them as both of them played brilliantly