Jump to content

Kohli's chances of beating SRT's 1998 record year


surajmal

Recommended Posts

Kohli's had a fantastic year with a bat but he still needs to bat at an average of 67 to break tendulkar's record. Just shows the true magnitude of Sachin's genius, Sachin did this in the year 1998 on not so batting friendly tracks, Kohli in prime touch will have trouble getting near that record even on these batting friendly pitches. All the sachin haters who didn't witness the 1998 Tendulkar, just see how far ahead of others the true GOD of Cricket was.

Link to comment

1998 was way too good for SRT.

 

1894 runs in 33 innings and 9 centuries - most runs and most 100s with SRT of 102.

 

Among 45+ times when 1200+ runs were scored in a year, only Warner managed to score it at 100+ SR in 2016.

 

SRT played 8 finals in that year and scored in 4 consecutive centuries in finals. One score of 95(78) and another of 41(26). 

 

 

Link to comment

That record will be broken by someone, if not by Kohli this year someone else will break it in the coming years, who knows someone may double the tally in the future. ODI batting stats have become meaningless now, but common public will live in a delusional world. In their minds Kohli is already a bigger player then SRT. To those of us who watched cricket religiously in the 90s, it will be a heartbreaking moment even if another Indian takes the record. I am privileged to have watched most of Sachin's runs in 1998 and no other batsman has given me that much of joy after that. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, kira said:

Kohli's had a fantastic year with a bat but he still needs to bat at an average of 67 to break tendulkar's record. Just shows the true magnitude of Sachin's genius, Sachin did this in the year 1998 on not so batting friendly tracks, Kohli in prime touch will have trouble getting near that record even on these batting friendly pitches. All the sachin haters who didn't witness the 1998 Tendulkar, just see how far ahead of others the true GOD of Cricket was.

Why do you think tracks were not batting friendly?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

1998 was way too good for SRT.

 

1894 runs in 33 innings and 9 centuries - most runs and most 100s with SRT of 102.

 

Among 45+ times when 1200+ runs were scored in a year, only Warner managed to score it at 100+ SR in 2016.

 

SRT played 8 finals in that year and scored in 4 consecutive centuries in finals. One score of 95(78) and another of 41(26). 

 

 

Haters will ignore his prime, compare his bad years to other batsmen's best years and go to town over it.   

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Why do you think tracks were not batting friendly?

Who said tracks weren't batting friendly, I said not so batting friendly, meaning not as batting friendly as today. Just look at the difference in quality between sachin and his contemporaries, Sachin was striking at over 100 while his contemporaries were reeling in the 70s strike rate. The one and only GOD of cricket, no one comes close to him, no one ever will

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;spanmax1=31+dec+1998;spanmin1=1+jan+1998;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Link to comment

Adding to what's already been said, most one-day sides in 1998 were an extension of the test side if not identical, in terms of both personnel and aura. What he did in Sharjah against the Aussies has to be lauded with this in mind  - he destroyed arguably the best cricket side the world had ever seen. Does any side really have an aura today? I think not apart from perhaps India playing in India.

Link to comment
Just now, goose said:

Adding to what's already been said, most one-day sides in 1998 were an extension of the test side if not identical, in terms of both personnel and aura. What he did in Sharjah against the Aussies has to be lauded with this in mind  - he destroyed arguably the best cricket side the world had ever seen. Does any side really have an aura today? I think not apart from perhaps India playing in India.

Sau baat ki ek baat.  

 

Ya had to be there, to understand the magnitude of what he did.  On a regular basis.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, goose said:

to compound the issue those that were not there think they were.

Its hard for them to fathom that Tendulkar of the late 2000s was an altogether different beast than Tendy of the late 1990s.  Their loss really.  

 

I have said this before and will say it again, all batsmen have a career graph - they start out as rookies, hit their stride after a couple of seasons, have their 'prime' phase, followed by a couple of seasons of decline ending in eventual retirement.  Some of those that weren't around for Tendy's prime, and only saw the 'human' version of him post-tennis elbow, just can't get what they missed.  Numbers can't convey the combination of solidity, technique, flair and dominance across all conditions that was Tendy back then.  The detractors fail to realize that Tendy was still good enough in his decline phase to play for 10 years.  That he managed to do so, is a tribute to his quality.  All the Pontings, Laras, Clarkes, Dravids, of the world couldn't eke out more than a couple of years once they started fading.  

 

The current challenger Cook has started his decline phase recently, but the batting friendly nature of the current era means that he will probably be able to extend his decline phase to 3 or 4 seasons instead of 2.   I'm still confident that inspite the large number of tests per year that Cooky gets to play, he's not coming close to Sachin. 

Link to comment

Agree. In Dec 2002 Wisden rated Tendulkar only 2nd to Bradman in tests and 2nd to IVA in ODI in the all time rankings. Reckon his legacy would have been greater had he retired right then. Just look at Barry Richards and how highly he is regarded despite barely having a test career.

 

Cook is in no way a challenger. By giving credence to this comparison you are are buying into the myth that Tendulkar's greatness stems from his longevity. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, goose said:

Adding to what's already been said, most one-day sides in 1998 were an extension of the test side if not identical, in terms of both personnel and aura. What he did in Sharjah against the Aussies has to be lauded with this in mind  - he destroyed arguably the best cricket side the world had ever seen. Does any side really have an aura today? I think not apart from perhaps India playing in India.

 

How many of those matches in 1998 were against Kenya and Zimbabwe ??

 

"Destroyed arguably the best cricket side the world had ever seen " 

 

Such dishonest and silly hyperbole can only come from a dimwit fanbuoy.

 

Who were the ODI bowlers in this " best cricket side the world had ever seen " team ?

 

Tom Moody, Steve Waugh, Kasprowicz, Fleming , and a Shane Warne returning from shoulder injury and getting tonked by every top order Indian batter -- and this is the " greatest ODI Bowlers " the world has ever seen.

 

And what was the wicket ? -- Sharjah patta tracks.

 

Everybody with little bit of cricket understanding and more importantly honesty would know that McGrath OWNED Tendulkar- ODIs or Test cricket. Tendulkars avg in both ODIS and Test Cricket drops more than 50 % when McGrath is playing vs not.

 

Tendulkar made some merry on Sharjah pattas in 1998 against a way below par Aussie attack and the BS about this goes on and on ..

 

For an unbiased observer - Kohlis assault on Malingas 140K plus Yorkers in Australia and that blistering knock to make us qualify for the finals was 100 times a stronger display of batting skill.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...