Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

[vvvslaxman]

Pandora's box :)

[zep1706]

I will always consider Sachin to be the better batsman of the two even if VK goes on to overtake him, which he very well might. But in terms on temperament Kohli is in a league of his own, and well ahead of Tendulkar. If Tendulkar had Kohli's temperament he would have scored 65-70 test hundreds, 20,000 runs at an average of over 60, he was that talented. 

[Ankit_sharma03]

On 12/3/2017 at 11:44 PM, Muloghonto said:

Virat isn't fit to tie Sachin's shoelaces. Made runs against way lesser bowlers and is yet to demonstrate the decades-old consistency the little master did. 

Malinga, Ajmal, Lee, Johnson, Starc, Rabadda, Steyn, Boult, southee, Morkel, Swann

 

How are these lesser bowlers 

 

Decade old consistency- he has been consistent ever since........u dnt get so many 100s like that if ur not consistent 

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Ankit_sharma03

[Trichromatic]

2 minutes ago, UnknownGenius said:

BS stop with ifs and buts

 

Kohli is better than tendulkar who was the most selfish cricketer ever. Wake up. Smell the coffee. Stop living in the past

  

 

How?

[Trichromatic]

7 minutes ago, UnknownGenius said:

Batsmanship 

Captaincy

Winning

Unselfishness

Putting team first

Fielding

How is he better batsman and better fielder?

 

Batting is debatable. Fielding isn't even close with number of drops we have seen.

 

Thought you were serious. But then you mentioned fielding. Clearly haven't been watching cricket for long time.

 

 

[putrevus]

On 12/3/2017 at 1:14 PM, Muloghonto said:

Virat isn't fit to tie Sachin's shoelaces. Made runs against way lesser bowlers and is yet to demonstrate the decades-old consistency the little master did. 

 

In terms of tests, he is distinctly the 4th best India has produced, behind Sachin, Sunny and Dravid, in that order.

 

Are you kidding me, show me one innings like this one from Sachin away from India. Sachin was great but Kohli is already better ODI batsman than Sachin ever was and also Kohli is far better player who can absorb pressure than Sachin.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, putrevus said:

Are you kidding me, show me one innings like this one from Sachin away from India. Sachin was great but Kohli is already better ODI batsman than Sachin ever was and also Kohli is far better player who can absorb pressure than Sachin.

 

 

Nonsense.

Utter, total, nonsense.

There are plenty of Tendulkar overseas first innings 'only dominator on a burning bridge of a sinking ship' act. Too many to list. 

And against better bowlers too.

 

As for ODIs, i dont think you've seen the golden age of ODIs, the mid-late 90s till early/mid 2000s, when it was a CONTEST OF BAT AnD BALL. On Most pitches, 260 was a defendable score for an average bowling side. 300 means you practically auto-win. 
IN THIS CLIMATE, Tendy pretty much averaged 48+ (as opener) in nearly 350 matches. With a strike rate of high 80s.

 

In an era where most 'GREAT' batsmen ( Lara exempted) were averaged mid 30s to low 40s and a strike rate of 70+ in ODIs. 

 

Again, Kohli is not fit to tie Tendulkar's laces. He will probably himself say so if someone ever asked him what he feels about being compared to a phenomenon of a batsman who was a life-long phenomenon of consistency.

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Malinga, Ajmal, Lee, Johnson, Starc, Rabadda, Steyn, Boult, southee, Morkel, Swann

 

How are these lesser bowlers 

A. Because except for Steyn, none of the fast ones were capable of tying Walsh's shoelaces, day in, day out, nevermind the likes of Donald, Waqar,Wasim, McGrath, Ambrose, etc. All of whom Tendy faced. 
And Tendy pretty much faced two of the greatest spinners ever, who are not comparable in performance to anyone since them: Warne and Murali. And utterly destroyed them. 

Quote

Decade old consistency- he has been consistent ever since........u dnt get so many 100s like that if ur not consistent 

 

Sure. I have no problems saying Kohli in ODIs is not miles below Tendy the ODI player, though he is definitely below. We have to factor in how much runs have inflated in this era vs perivious. Till mid 2000s, which is like 75% of Tendy's career, ODI runs didnt go routinely past 300 like they do today. 

 

Besides, consistency in cricket, atleast test cricket, is not just 100s. Its 100s plus the 50s. a score of high 70s is a valuable one in scorelines below 270-250, for eg. Kohli is less consitent in Tests, by a fair margin, in an era where it is easier to score runs, facing less quantity of great bowlers than Tendy. Simple.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Muloghonto

[rtmohanlal]

7 hours ago, zep1706 said:

I will always consider Sachin to be the better batsman of the two even if VK goes on to overtake him, which he very well might. But in terms on temperament Kohli is in a league of his own, and well ahead of Tendulkar. If Tendulkar had Kohli's temperament he would have scored 65-70 test hundreds, 20,000 runs at an average of over 60, he was that talented. 

SRT indeed had great temperament  as well, it might be that  Kohli is slightly ahead in this factor, that's all. When analysing SRT w.r.t this factor, we need to take into account the unusual amount of pressure he had to withstand thru out his career.And when comparing these 2 batsmen ,  i take this factor too into account.

[Number]

Always felt that even if Kohli averages 60 SRT in pure batsmanship will always be ahead. But after his innings in SA against Rabada Philander I felt Kohli is entering Sachin's league. 

However right now Kohli is in his prime. I will reserve my judgement for 2-3 years and then conclude.

But no doubt he is the best of post Sachin Lara era.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Number said:

Always felt that even if Kohli averages 60 SRT in pure batsmanship will always be ahead. But after his innings in SA against Rabada Philander I felt Kohli is entering Sachin's league. 

However right now Kohli is in his prime. I will reserve my judgement for 2-3 years and then conclude.

But no doubt he is the best of post Sachin Lara era.

meh. i think ABDV was the best of post Sachin-Lara era.

[MCcricket]

Kohli to me is the best batsmen I dias has ever had in any format for sheer impactful innings, Sachin rarely managed that in tests, and even in Odi his ability to win games for India is unmatched.

Eras bowlers blah ,blah all rubbish, cricket has become more competitive, fielding standards have gone up several notches, the bowling Ave has gone up because of t20 impact where batters are more adventurous now and people trying to win games then draw as earlier, Steyn, Harris, Johnson, Shami, Anderson, Rabada as good as any Sachin has faced, Sachin was never able to dominate McGrath and he was Cronjes bunny for the loosers to argue about.

[Cricketics]

Kohli better temperament even with whatever argument we have whether bowlers today aren’t as great, and at the same time i will point out that Tendulkar is miles ahead of all the players in terms of being the most complete batsman of this/last era. Fact and lets move on this. Nothing to compare, but have their strengths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stan AF]

The Gulf in bowling class between the present era and the previous ones is huge....Its almost astronomical...

 

Walsh Ambrose Bishop ..

Pollock Donald, Steyn & Kallis

Mcgrath Lee Warne Gillespie ...

Akram Waqar Shoaib Saqlain

Murali Vaas

 

These are top 10 bowlers who would average in the top 20s. Let alone even the second rung of bowlers from the teams had names like Mitchell Johnson, Damien Fleming, Makhaya Ntini, Lasith Malinga,Morne Morkel, Michael Kasprowicz, Mcdermott, Lance Klusener, Daniel Vettori, Umar Gul....

 

I don't think any batsman ever had to consistently face the best of the bowling world as Tendulkar did and still score more against them. His runs are more than worth its weight in Gold.

 

 

[Chandan]

7 hours ago, putrevus said:

Are you kidding me, show me one innings like this one from Sachin away from India. Sachin was great but Kohli is already better ODI batsman than Sachin ever was and also Kohli is far better player who can absorb pressure than Sachin.

 

 

Away from home when Sachin batted from one side and batsmen kept scoring and falling from other side: Sydney 2008 1st inning. Saching scored 154 not out after coming at 183/2.

 

https://goo.gl/g2Fk4w

[Trichromatic]

1 hour ago, MCcricket said:

Kohli to me is the best batsmen I dias has ever had in any format for sheer impactful innings, Sachin rarely managed that in tests, and even in Odi his ability to win games for India is unmatched.

 

Like which impactful test innings are you talking about?

 

Please list 10 such innings which SRT didn't have.

 

You do realize Kohli has 0 100s in won matches in SENA countries.

[Trichromatic]

1 hour ago, MCcricket said:

 

Eras bowlers blah ,blah all rubbish, cricket has become more competitive, fielding standards have gone up several notches, 

Please post evidence of Fielding standards going up several notches in test cricket.

 

Are you referring to worst slip Fielding unit as top notch?

 

Drop of 50% is top notch then I guess they were dropping 90% catches in 1990s and 2000s.

 

 

[Ankit_sharma03]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

A. Because except for Steyn, none of the fast ones were capable of tying Walsh's shoelaces, day in, day out, nevermind the likes of Donald, Waqar,Wasim, McGrath, Ambrose, etc. All of whom Tendy faced. 

Even those bowlers hav had many bad days

Specially wasim waqar when tampering is easily caught, also they both hav e said tendulkar never faced them at peek

 

So u mean rabaada, starc are any less

Malinga is gr8 in LOI and he destroyed him 

Johnson, morkel , boult , southee figures wud have been far higher had they played in previous generation

Quote

And Tendy pretty much faced two of the greatest spinners ever, who are not comparable in performance to anyone since them: Warne and Murali. And utterly destroyed them. 

So how do u guarntee kohli wud have been a failure against them

Kohli made runs against ajmal who troubled tendulkar big time 

 

Quote

Besides, consistency in cricket, atleast test cricket, is not just 100s. Its 100s plus the 50s. a score of high 70s is a valuable one in scorelines below 270-250, for eg. Kohli is less consitent in Tests, by a fair margin, in an era where it is easier to score runs, facing less quantity of great bowlers than Tendy. Simple.

 

 

he avg 50+ , how is that less consistent

Look at his avg overseas

 

He avg 59 in India, its not east to score in india as well now considering the pitches we are giving

Nz- 72

Aus- 62

SA- 55

 

Wait for the end of england tour now

 

Ru kidding me he is not consistent , look at his age n no of 100s

Edited August 3, 2018 by Ankit_sharma03

[Trichromatic]

Arguments which SRT fans can present:

1. SRT averaged 58 1990s when averaging even 50 was difficult, while we have so many in modern era averaging 50.

2. From 1993 - 2011 SA series SRT scored 13600+ runs at avg of 59.4.  Today we have Smith scoring at avg of 60 for 5k runs and he is second coming of Bradman.

3. SRT averaged 57 till SA series and had 55+ avg most of the time. Kohli is yet to cross 55.

4. When was the last time Kohli was ever ranked no 1 in test ranking. Let him be no 1 for a day first.

5. SRT contributed in 75% of matches won overseas with multiple 100s in SENA. Those who claim winner and impactful inning for Kohli, he is yet to score a match winning 100 in SENA. His best was 50 in SA. So that claim doesn't hold.

6. Consistency - Kohli has already flopped in 6-7 series probably so far, SRT didn't fail in series so often. So this argument is also invalid.

7. If anyone goes through bowing standards, 1990s was easily toughest with good bowlers + conditions + lax attitude about reverse swing. 

 

Arguments for Kohli:

1. Although 2000s was flat and easy for bats, cricket has changed since 2012 or 2013 as teams are trying more for home advantage. Bowlers may not be ATGs, but slightly lesser bowlers in helpful conditions are as difficult as ATGs and last 5 years or so has been closer to 1990s than any other decade. So bowling wise there isn't much to differentiate.

 

2. Kohli isn't any less than SRT in terms of impactful innnings as even SRT didn't manage to win tests overseas in first 50-60 tests.

 

3. Kohli is combination of Sehwag (with big scores), Dravid (big series), and SRT (ability to score everywhere. He basically has combined versions of all and thus presents his name as one of the best.

[SK_IH]

12 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Arguments for Kohli:

1. Although 2000s was flat and easy for bats, cricket has changed since 2012 or 2013 as teams are trying more for home advantage. Bowlers may not be ATGs, but slightly lesser bowlers in helpful conditions are as difficult as ATGs and last 5 years or so has been closer to 1990s than any other decade. So bowling wise there isn't much to differentiate.

 

2. Kohli isn't any less than SRT in terms of impactful innnings as even SRT didn't manage to win tests overseas in first 50-60 tests.

 

3. Kohli is combination of Sehwag (with big scores), Dravid (big series), and SRT (ability to score everywhere. He basically has combined versions of all and thus presents his name as one of the best.

i remember till last year or early this year , you used to say kohli doesnt score on helpful tracks, now he is a combination of trimurti