Jump to content
velu

Whether Virat Kohli overtook Sachin as the test batsmen ??

In tests , whether Virat Kohli surpassed Sachin as a batsmen ?  

91 members have voted

  1. 1. In tests , whether Virat Kohli surpassed Sachin as a batsmen ?

    • Yes
      20
    • No
      37
    • Not there yet
      34


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

I am not going into any comparison between Tendulkar and Kohli as batsmen

 

BUT

 

1)   Total runs or longevity are not the only parameters for assessing the superiority as batsmen.  Bradman did not score 7000 runs but so many rate him as the best ever.  Sobers and Richards both scored  < 8600 runs in test ... but many knowledgeable people rate them as two of the best batsmen ever after Bradman.

 

2) The biggest factor that decides the superiority as a cricketer is ...  the impact that his performances have had on the opposition, the matches and series he has played and on the performances of his own team.

 

3)  I think different batsmen will come out as the best ever in different areas.  There hasn't been any single batsman in history who has been perfect.

If I am looking for supreme batsmanship or artistry or longevity or quality ... I will choose Tendulkar

If I am looking for a batsman who will finish the opposition on his day with really big knocks ... I will choose Lara

If I am looking for sheer destructiveness ... I will choose Richards

And so on and so forth ...

who claims longevity is the only paramater???? But it certainly is a major parameter . Bradman,  Richards & Lara .... when each of them are compared with Sachin, there are certain prominent factors that make them comparable with Sachin. For eg: take Bradman... his avg: is almost twice and he was so far ahead of his contemporaries. Similarly Viv .... He was striking at 70+ in tests  when every body was doing it in 'lower to upper 40s' ,And in one dayers VIv was so faaar ahead  of his contemporaries.So both combined, Viv was faaaar ahead of any of his contemporaries.And take note,  these players  played in far lesser protective gear era when compared to Sachin.Means Viv & Bradman had other factors working for them to counter Sachin's longevity.I rate both Bradman & Viv greater batsmen than Sachin. Now to Lara... .Him being from same era as that of Sachin, longevity counts because they were from the same playing circumstances.His ability to construct mammoth inns was unparalled. But he was not that good in all countries and against all bowlers like Sachin.And in onedayers he was not that good as Sachin. So all in all he was in the same league as Sachin but slightly inferior.Again keep in mind Lara has  adequate longevity  in both formats  to even start a comparison with Sachin.

 

But with Kohli that is not the case.  Kohli as of now has not even scored 38% of test runs that Sachin could score.First let him score at least some  10000 runs in these much batting friendly era. Then only it is sensible to even start a comparison, i feel. Again Kohli definitely is moving in that direction . He has  got such high potential to reach those heights

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

who claims longevity is the only paramater???? But it certainly is a major parameter . Bradman,  Richards & Lara .... when each of them are compared with Sachin, there are certain prominent factors that make them comparable with Sachin. For eg: take Bradman... his avg: is almost twice and he was so far ahead of his contemporaries. Similarly Viv .... He was striking at 70+ in tests  when every body was doing it in 'lower to upper 40s' ,And in one dayers VIv was so faaar ahead  of his contemporaries.So both combined, Viv was faaaar ahead of any of his contemporaries.And take note,  these players  played in far lesser protective gear era when compared to Sachin.Means Viv & Bradman had other factors working for them to counter Sachin's longevity.I rate both Bradman & Viv greater batsmen than Sachin. Now to Lara... .Him being from same era as that of Sachin, longevity counts because they were from the same playing circumstances.His ability to construct mammoth inns was unparalled. But he was not that good in all countries and against all bowlers like Sachin.And in onedayers he was not that good as Sachin. So all in all he was in the same league as Sachin but slightly inferior.Again keep in mind Lara has  adequate longevity  in both formats  to even start a comparison with Sachin.

 

So, basically, lots of parameters at play like I said.  

 

If I find a completely new batsman, who retires after scoring 8000 runs in tests ... and averages 65 ... and has had tremendous impact during a large part of his career ... could play both pace and spin ... has scored runs all over the world ...  I will consider him to be the best batsman in the post 1960 era, whatever his longevity.

 

 

34 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

But with Kohli that is not the case.  Kohli as of now has not even scored 38% of test runs that Sachin could score.First let him score at least some  10000 runs

 

As I said in my first line ... my post had nothing to do with the Kohli and Tendulkar comparison ... but the parameters being considered for measuring the superiority of batsmen.

 

34 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

in these much batting friendly era.

 

Not necessarily in test matches.  Most batsmen are having a very tough time batting in tests these days.  Juggling 3 formats is not easy.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rtmohanlal said:

But with Kohli that is not the case.  Kohli as of now has not even scored 38% of test runs that Sachin could score.First let him score at least some  10000 runs in these much batting friendly era. Then only it is sensible to even start a comparison, i feel. Again Kohli definitely is moving in that direction . He has  got such high potential to reach those heights

 

bro .. you shld give a break in this thread :phehe:

at this point of time don bradman scored 1k more than kohli , but every batsmen is compared with him ..

same goes with viv richards in ODIs 

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

So, basically, lots of parameters at play like I said.  

 

If I find a completely new batsman, who retires after scoring 8000 runs in tests ... and averages 65 ... and has had tremendous impact during a large part of his career ... could play both pace and spin ... has scored runs all over the world ...  I will consider him to be the best batsman in the post 1960 era, whatever his longevity.

 

 

 

As I said in my first line ... my post had nothing to do with the Kohli and Tendulkar comparison ... but the parameters being considered for measuring the superiority of batsmen.

 

 

Not necessarily in test matches.  Most batsmen are having a very tough time batting in tests these days.  Juggling 3 formats is not easy.

 

 

 

First of all , Sachin  scored 13500+ runs( still larger than 2nd best Ponting in all time list)  at 59.35 avg: in the vast major chunk of his career.And several bowlers  who avg:d <25 like Ambrose,Walsh,Bishop,Donald,Pollock,Steyn,Fanie Devilliers ,Akram,Waqar,Asif,Shane Bond,Mcgrath,Warne(baring his last few tests),Stuart Clark,Murali  bowled  against him during this phase.What not, the 2nd string of  Fleming,M.Johnson,Gilliespie,Mcgill ,Akhtar,Saqlain,Dion Nash, Cairns, Streak, Gough ,Cork ,Caddick,Swann, Ntini, Morkel, Vaas, Herath, Lee, Harmison , Hoggard etc is almost similar in potency to the current bowlers group in general.Another factor is that the amount of pressure from various factors that Sachin faced thru out his career was unreal. Players like Giles,Trescothick,Prior,Trott runs away in midst of tours not being able to cope with intense pressure .I would give an extra 2  for Sachin for this pressure factor alone.

So for me that avg: needs to be about 68 with 8000 runs.THen I will consider such a batsman better to Sachin in tests.

 

How many batsmen avg: superbly in all 3 formats baring a Kohli.??? If there were several of them, then I would say juggling 3 formats

has its effect.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

First of all , Sachin  scored 13500+ runs( still larger than 2nd best Ponting in all time list)  at 59.35 avg: in the vast major chunk of his career.

 

these kind of peak stats should be considered with the peak stats of other batsmen as well..

for ex:- ponting scored 8000 runs at an average of 65 for 90 odd matches from 99 to 2006 ..

 

would rate sachin above poting anyday , but just stating that if we nitpick the data for sachin , we should do the same for other batsmen as well 

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

First of all , Sachin  scored 13500+ runs( still larger than 2nd best Ponting in all time list)  at 59.35 avg: in the vast major chunk of his career.And several bowlers  who avg:d <25 like Ambrose,Walsh,Bishop,Donald,Pollock,Steyn,Fanie Devilliers ,Akram,Waqar,Asif,Shane Bond,Mcgrath,Warne(baring his last few tests),Stuart Clark,Murali  bowled  against him during this phase.What not, the 2nd string of  Fleming,M.Johnson,Gilliespie,Mcgill ,Akhtar,Saqlain,Dion Nash, Cairns, Streak, Gough ,Cork ,Caddick,Swann, Ntini, Morkel, Vaas, Herath, Lee, Harmison , Hoggard etc is almost similar in potency to the current bowlers group in general.Another factor is that the amount of pressure from various factors that Sachin faced thru out his career was unreal. Players like Giles,Trescothick,Prior,Trott runs away in midst of tours not being able to cope with intense pressure .I would give an extra 2  for Sachin for this pressure factor alone.

So for me that avg: needs to be about 68 with 8000 runs.THen I will consider such a batsman better to Sachin in tests.

 

The main test is  ...  whether that new batsman has a greater impact than Sachin as a match winner / saver etc. ... and not the exact average.

 

46 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

How many batsmen avg: superbly in all 3 formats baring a Kohli.??? If there were several of them, then I would say juggling 3 formats

has its effect.

 

Success is not important here.  The fact that most batsmen play T20 leagues for a significant time, messes with their techniques for the longest format.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, velu said:

 

bro .. you shld give a break in this thread :phehe:

at this point of time don bradman scored 1k more than kohli , but every batsmen is compared with him ..

same goes with viv richards in ODIs 

the reasons for these  i  have already stated..... once again,Don and Viv were soooo far  ahead of their contemporaries. Naturally when such batsmen are compared with another great batsman  with much larger longevity from another era, they posses this factor as their strength to overtake  the batsman with much larger longevity.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, velu said:

 

these kind of peak stats should be considered with the peak stats of other batsmen as well..

for ex:- ponting scored 8000 runs at an average of 65 for 90 odd matches from 99 to 2006 ..

 

would rate sachin above poting anyday , but just stating that if we nitpick the data for sachin , we should do the same for other batsmen as well 

i am not picking peak stats  for Sachin... Just stating the obvious factor that Sachin was such an exceptional  talent. Normally a highly talented batsmen  play enough in first class cricket at around 16 to 21 and then gets elevated to higher test level if they are good enough. But with Sachin, he went one step further in that at the age of 16 y 212 d , he straight away went to the higher test level  and then eclipsed all other major fellow batsmen  of the team in performance before he turned 20 years.

     So basically it can be said that Sachin because of being such unbelievably  talented, went straight away to level 2 , polished himself  in that phase and then 'presented his full potential in level3 with 13500 runs',  where as others could polish themselves in level 1 only and  showcase their full potential in level 2 only.And that is why Sachin's 13500 runs in level 3 phase is adequate enough to tower Ponting's full 13289 runs.And hence we cannot associate peak factor with this scenario which is highlighted by the fact that 13500 & 8000 and not any wear near to one another for a comparison.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

The main test is  ...  whether that new batsman has a greater impact than Sachin as a match winner / saver etc. ... and not the exact average.

 

 

Success is not important here.  The fact that most batsmen play T20 leagues for a significant time, messes with their techniques for the longest format.

how do we actually define  impact??????. Any way when a batsman avg:s  40+ in all countries he batted,   i  do not have any doubt in my mind that he was such a so called 'impact' player.And if you are indicating to 'win' by impact , I do not believe in that because cricket is simply a team game where others too need to step up.

For instance take Sachin's 116 & 52 at Melbourne against the bowlers of an  ATG  team.For me this performance was the epitome of impact because of  being against ATG team/bowlers in their own country,already lost the first test, facing a huge 405 deficit,being captain etc etc. But the fellow top order batsmen contributed peanuts  and the match was lost.Similarly his 241* & 60* at Sydney, 68 & 119* at Old Trafford, 47 & 113 at Wellington etc etc too were of such  so called 'impact' because of various factors.

 

any way each to their own...

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

i am not picking peak stats  for Sachin... Just stating the obvious factor that Sachin was such an exceptional  talent. Normally a highly talented batsmen  play enough in first class cricket at around 16 to 21 and then gets elevated to higher test level if they are good enough. But with Sachin, he went one step further in that at the age of 16 y 212 d , he straight away went to the higher test level  and then eclipsed all other major fellow batsmen  of the team in performance before he turned 20 years.

     So basically it can be said that Sachin because of being such unbelievably  talented, went straight away to level 2 , polished himself  in that phase and then 'presented his full potential in level3 with 13500 runs',  where as others could polish themselves in level 1 only and  showcase their full potential in level 2 only.And that is why Sachin's 13500 runs in level 3 phase is adequate enough to tower Ponting's full 13289 runs.And hence we cannot associate peak factor with this scenario which is highlighted by the fact that 13500 & 8000 and not any wear near to one another for a comparison.

 

 

 

you can call him as teen prodigy ..

but this is a absurd reason to rate him higher than others ..

 

no doubt that sachin > ponting .. but if a batsmen start slowly and reach his best and his best is better than sachin's best , i would rate him higher than sachin ..

sachin is more talented than kohli when they started , but sum of the parts of kohli is higher than sum of the parts of sachin  

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

how do we actually define  impact??????. Any way when a batsman avg:s  40+ in all countries he batted,   i  do not have any doubt in my mind that he was such a so called 'impact' player.And if you are indicating to 'win' by impact , I do not believe in that because cricket is simply a team game where others too need to step up.

 For instance take Sachin's 116 & 52 at Melbourne against the bowlers of an  ATG  team.For me this performance was the epitome of impact because of  being against ATG team/bowlers in their own country,already lost the first test, facing a huge 405 deficit,being captain etc etc. But the fellow top order batsmen contributed peanuts  and the match was lost.Similarly his 241* & 60* at Sydney, 68 & 119* at Old Trafford, 47 & 113 at Wellington etc etc too were of such  so called 'impact' because of various factors.

 

any way each to their own...

 

sachin is also an impact player .. 

but some of the players have simialr or more impact than sachin ..

 

like sehwag single handedly demolished all lankan players in lanka .. yet to see such a series from sachin or any other batsmen 

and again not rating  sehwag above sachin

Share this post


Link to post

What bowling friendly series did Sachin score, show me one series where Sachin was leap and bounds better than everyone from both teams.

 

This notion that Sachin faced the greatest line up of bowlers is ridiculous, after debut series, he never played Pakistan till 1998 and by then two Ws era ended.

 

He faced Mcgrath once in Australia and other than one hundred he did not do much either there. He rarely played against Walsh and Ambrose.

 

Other than SA where he faced their bowlers in their peak and till his last series in 2010 he averaged under 40 there in SA. And that average got great boost due  to his 50th hundred scored when match was already decided.

 

Kohli in last two series itself showed how much more impact he has on the team when he is in form.

Edited by putrevus

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, velu said:

 

you can call him as teen prodigy ..

but this is a absurd reason to rate him higher than others ..

 

no doubt that sachin > ponting .. but if a batsmen start slowly and reach his best and his best is better than sachin's best , i would rate him higher than sachin ..

sachin is more talented than kohli when they started , but sum of the parts of kohli is higher than sum of the parts of sachin  

13500 runs  is way way more than  8000 runs, infact  around 69% more to compare one another !!!!!!!!.  Any way it is what I feel to be correct  and  as you said  it seems high time to give it a rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, velu said:

 

sachin is also an impact player .. 

but some of the players have simialr or more impact than sachin ..

 

like sehwag single handedly demolished all lankan players in lanka .. yet to see such a series from sachin or any other batsmen 

and again not rating  sehwag above sachin

yes ... there might be some others  who  would have been destructive in every sense  in  few series  when compared to Sachin ..

But for me  , if I take each and every batting factor in both formats, give marks to each factor , then take the sum of these marks , Sachin would emerge out on top among all batsmen as of now, baring Bradman & Viv .Any way that's my stance and as you said , it is high time to give a break at least for now:winky:

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

13500 runs  is way way more than  8000 runs, infact  around 69% more to compare one another !!!!!!!!.  Any way it is what I feel to be correct  and  as you said  it seems high time to give it a rest. 

 

8k runs are not a small sample size  :p:

 

i like to feast on some hardcore sachin fans who bash other players to prove sachin's greatness  , but you seem to be an exception ..

better you stay away from this thread :bow: 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, velu said:

 

His first double century completely rattled the mighty aussies and we ended white washing them ..

Call it impact :proud:

Yup he was just another subcontinent bully like hirwani who bullied English in 90s.BTW can you remind us his overseas impact in test as a player and captain.:phehe:

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

how do we actually define  impact??????. Any way when a batsman avg:s  40+ in all countries he batted,   i  do not have any doubt in my mind that he was such a so called 'impact' player.And if you are indicating to 'win' by impact , I do not believe in that because cricket is simply a team game where others too need to step up.

For instance take Sachin's 116 & 52 at Melbourne against the bowlers of an  ATG  team.For me this performance was the epitome of impact because of  being against ATG team/bowlers in their own country,already lost the first test, facing a huge 405 deficit,being captain etc etc. But the fellow top order batsmen contributed peanuts  and the match was lost.Similarly his 241* & 60* at Sydney, 68 & 119* at Old Trafford, 47 & 113 at Wellington etc etc too were of such  so called 'impact' because of various factors.

 

any way each to their own...

 

You keep going on about Sachin ... although I keep pointing out that I am just discussing the different parameters that need to be considered for judging the superiority of batsmen.

 

By the way, Sachin was a tremendously impactful  batsman during many many years of his career.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, raki05 said:

Yup he was just another subcontinent bully like hirwani who bullied English in 90s.BTW can you remind us his overseas impact in test as a player and captain.:phehe:

Sachin chamchas has balls to talk about captaincy:phehe::phehe: He got whitewshed at home by saffers LOL

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Number said:

Match winner impact player Kohli single handedly won us the series which Sachin could never do.

What you are saying? single handedly won us the series? His pathetic captaincy has lost us series which we might have won.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Nikola said:

What you are saying? single handedly won us the series? His pathetic captaincy has lost us series which we might have won.

he was being sarcastic  towards  those knee jerking experts and  'mad stray dogs who drags Sachin into  even Kerala flood discussion'  

Share this post


Link to post

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

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×