Areas where Kohli is better than Tendulkar as a player.

[Vijy]

3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

^  Apart from his longevity, Tendy's performances were simply colossal in his 1995-2002 prime.  What Kohli has done in the last year or so, is what Tendy did for almost a decade.  And without having any blips like Kohli did in England - Everywhere he went for the first time, he ended up doing well, I think scoring hundreds if I'm not mistaken.  

 

Worth looking up, here we go:

 

• First tour to NZ?  Scored 88 - missed being the youngest bat to score a test 100.  
• First tour to England - 100 at Manchester
• First Aussie tour?  100 at Sydney and that famous 100 at perth.    
• First tour to SA?  100 at Johannesburg.
• First tour to SL? dropped a 100
• First tour to WI?  no hundreds but 3 scores > 85

Name one player other than Tendy who can boast of such a record.  And all of this well before he was even 25 years old!  

 

Contrast this to VK - he started test cricket very poorly and was dropped - needed a few years to sort it out, and only now has become the truly topclass test bat he is.  This is not to knock Kohli.  But to point out that Tendy was just so good in tests right away.  In fact until his injury issues, he had NEVER had a slump in his career.  This is why, inspite of his one flaw - the absense of really massive scores - he still had an obscenely high average.  

 

To clarify, this is not to say he was perfect, and didn't have flaws etc etc.  But to overlook such an amazing record - and call a player of this calibre all kinds of names is just wrong.  

 

 

As they say: Fanboys will be fanboys. Become hip these days to diss Sachin, and there are some valid reasons to diss him (esp at the end of his career), but overlooking the vast majority of his career is just foolishness.

[velu]

4 hours ago, renjith said:

ODI rules were completely different for both players its hard to compare. 20 over power plays and free hit are completely in favour of batsmen these days. These stats are collected from various websites and dated april 2016.

 

Anyways a comparison shows sachin is better in knock outs and kohli is better while over all chasing (not just knock outs)

 

Knock outs:

Sachin
51 innings, 2431 runs, avg 52.84, sr 85.65, 7 centuries, 14 half centuries, india won 27 matches out of those. his average in those 27 matches is 76.6 at sr 92.49

Kohli
12 innings, 244 runs, avg 24.40, sr 74.39, 1 half century, india won 9 matches out of those. his average in those 9 matches is 29.14 at sr 81.6

 

Chasing:

AVERAGE WHEN INDIA BATTED SECOND
Tendulkar    42.33
Kohli    61.22

AVERAGE WHEN INDIA WON BATTING 2nd
Tendulkar    55.45
Kohli    83.97

NO. of 100s WHEN INDIA BATTED SECOND
Tendulkar    17
Kohli    15

NO. of 100s WHEN INDIA WON CHASING
Tendulkar    14
Kohli    13

50+ SCORES IN CHASES
Tendulkar    69
Kohli    37

50+ SCORES IN WINNING CHASES
Tendulkar    45
Kohli    27

 

 

 

looks like kohli is way ahead of sahin 

[sandeep]

@velu

 

check out my post about Tendy's test record away from home as a first-timer - thoughts?  

[moniker]

 

looks like kohli is way ahead of sahin 

ODI rules keep changing every couple of years. It is not so straightforward to compare the stats. Many people agree that Viv was a better ODI batsman than Sachin but his stats don't back that assertion.

[Vijy]

18 minutes ago, moniker said:

ODI rules keep changing every couple of years. It is not so straightforward to compare the stats. Many people agree that Viv was a better ODI batsman than Sachin but his stats don't back that assertion.

Viv was a better batsman than Sachin in ODIs. And his stats do bear that out. Even in you take SRT's record as opener, it's still about the same as Viv (over all positions). Besides, King Viv had a higher SR and played in an era that was even more bowler-friendly in ODIs. More than the records, it was the way King Viv proved to be far ahead of the rest of his contemporaries.

 

Just to clarify: I still regard SRT as the finest ODI opener of all time (as of now). There are others with better records (Amla for one), but his consistency, innovation and excellence over nearly 17 years (1994-2011) stands out. In this period, he played as an opener in 334 matches, and averaged 49 at a SR of nearly 90.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Vijy

[Cricketics]

On 12/10/2016 at 1:17 AM, Sandeep99 said:

With all due respect, it was only during Ganguly's captaincy that Dravid blossomed. India's team in early noughties was obviously much better than the players you mentioned in the 90s.. probably only Kumble in '90s was better than Kumble in '00s

Dravid played some of his best knocks in 1997 before Ganguly was appointed as captain. He played a gem innings of 148 and then 80ish at Jo'burg against Pollock and Donald at top and against pretty handy Mcmillan. He single handedly dominated South Africna pace attack.

 

Extremely important

 

Tendulkar did a lot for Indian cricket but sometimes when we talk about his brilliant performances in late 90s many make it look as if the other Indian players in the team from that era were extremely ordinary, which wasn't the case. It was only the case in that 1998 sharjah cup which Tendulkar won with special two knocks. Other than that, other players have played major role in India's success in 90s and supported Tendulkar like how many players like Pujara and Rahane of today have supported Kohli. 

 

 

 

[velu]

ODI rules keep changing every couple of years. It is not so straightforward to compare the stats. Many people agree that Viv was a better ODI batsman than Sachin but his stats don't back that assertion.

Still kohli is easily far ahead of sachin or anyone else even in few aspects even if we consider the rule changes..

Powerplay overs are more in favor of sachin than kohli

[Vijy]

1 minute ago, velu said:

Still kohli is easily far ahead of sachin or anyone else even in few aspects even if we consider the rule changes..

Powerplay overs are more in favor of sachin than kohli

I'm not sure I agree even with him being "far ahead" of Sachin. Even I buy that argument (which I don't - ahead to some extent, yes), how is he "far ahead" statistically, compared to ABDV?

[sandeep]

8 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Dravid played some of his best knocks in 1997 before Ganguly was appointed as captain. He played a gem innings of 148 and then 80ish at Jo'burg against Pollock and Donald at top and against pretty handy Mcmillan. He single handedly dominated South Africna pace attack.

 

Extremely important

 

Tendulkar did a lot for Indian cricket but sometimes when we talk about his brilliant performances in late 90s many make it look as if the other Indian players in the team from that era were extremely ordinary, which wasn't the case. It was only the case in that 1998 sharjah cup which Tendulkar won with special two knocks. Other than that, other players have played major role in India's success in 90s and supported Tendulkar like how many players like Pujara and Rahane of today have supported Kohli. 

 

No question Dravid was a class bat early on.  But he was no Tendulkar, especially in the early part of his career.  Like I posted above - Tendy had immediate and consistent success on every away tour as a first timer.  Dravid had a very poor 1st tour of Australia.  That doesn't mean he wasn't good - he was very good.  He was.  And he got even better as his career went on.  He won us the Adelaide test in 2003 along with the six-fer by Agarkar (the original "sir" of Indian cricket).

[express bowling]

44 minutes ago, sandeep said:

^  Everywhere he went for the first time, he ended up doing well, I think scoring hundreds if I'm not mistaken.  

 

Worth looking up, here we go:

 

• First tour to NZ?  Scored 88 - missed being the youngest bat to score a test 100.  
• First tour to England - 100 at Manchester
• First Aussie tour?  100 at Sydney and that famous 100 at perth.    
• First tour to SA?  100 at Johannesburg.
• First tour to SL? dropped a 100
• First tour to WI?  no hundreds but 3 scores > 90

 

 

Contrast this to VK - he started test cricket very poorly and was dropped - needed a few years to sort it out, and only now has become the truly topclass test bat he is.  This is not to knock Kohli.  But to point out that Tendy was just so good in tests right away.  In fact until his injury issues, he had NEVER had a slump in his career.  This is why, inspite of his one flaw - the absense of really massive scores - he still had an obscenely high average.  

 

 

 

 

 

Interestingly....Kohli scored centuries and generally did well on his first tours to S.A., NZ, Australia and  Sri Lanka.

 

Not that bad.

[sandeep]

Just now, express bowling said:

 

Interestingly....Kohli scored centuries and generally did well on his first tours to S.A., NZ, Australia and  Sri Lanka.

 

Not that bad.

Not bad at all.  But what about his first tour to Windies and England?  Again, the point of my post above is not to knock Kohli - its to remind and point out to others who have either forgotten or unaware of how colossal Tendy was until his injury issues cropped up post 2002.  He was freakishly consistent and quality - I'm no stats-hound, but I don't know of any other batsman who can match that sort of consistency and quality over that long a period of time.   That's why he's referred to as a batting genius.  And not to forget - he did all this before the age of 25!

 

Flaws were there - He didn't have any doubles until Sydney - very surprising that he somehow just wasn't able to play really long innings for a player of his ability.  That's probably why he was a bit greedy for that double in Pakistan.  He's human, he's allowed to have misjudgements in pursuit of addressing holes in his stellar resume.   And its not like he threw a hissy fit about it - Him and Dravid talked through it and sorted it out like mature adults.  

[Cricketics]

9 minutes ago, sandeep said:

No question Dravid was a class bat early on.  But he was no Tendulkar, especially in the early part of his career.  Like I posted above - Tendy had immediate and consistent success on every away tour as a first timer.  Dravid had a very poor 1st tour of Australia.  That doesn't mean he wasn't good - he was very good.  He was.  And he got even better as his career went on.  He won us the Adelaide test in 2003 along with the six-fer by Agarkar (the original "sir" of Indian cricket).

Never said that he was Tendulkar. If you read my post conpletely, this was mainly written because people were making other Indian players of 90s look like ordinary cricketers where i just wanted to point out that Tendulkar single handedly did not carried Indian cricket in the 90s. He did that only in one or two series and in other series he used to be our best player along with others well supporting him. A similar case to today where Kohli is our best player but he is well supported by players like Pujara, Vijay, Rahane etc .

 

I think it is absolute disrespect to other players of 90s like Laxman, Dravid. Azhar Sidhu, Jadeja etc who did a lot for Indian cricket too in different formats of the game, in late 90s, if we keep mentioning that Tendulkar single handedly carried our hopes in late 90s. 

 

I am myself a big Tendulkar fan and will always be and hence I do no get into these comparisons of Kohli and Tendulkar but I would not want to forget the contributions of many top Indian cricketers who played alongside Tendulkar in late 90s.

 

My $0.02

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, Vijy said:

As they say: Fanboys will be fanboys. Become hip these days to diss Sachin, and there are some valid reasons to diss him (esp at the end of his career), but overlooking the vast majority of his career is just foolishness.

To be fair to the OP....he did not say that Kohli was better than Sachin....but just pointed out the areas which, according to him, Kohli is better at.

 

Now, that is always possible while comparing with even a much lesser player even, let alone Kohli.

 

Like...McGrath is this legendary pacer in the history of cricket. ..but Praveen Kumar, almost a nobody in international cricket, was better at getting conventional swing compared to McGrath.

 

It is not possible to compare a retired legend's overall career with another player who has finished about one third of his career... and that is the case in test matches.

 

In ODI...it is much more possible as Kohli too has played a lot of ODIs and for many years.....and Tendulkar is better in some aspects and Kohli in others.

Edited December 11, 2016 by express bowling

[velu]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

^  Apart from his longevity, Tendy's performances were simply colossal in his 1995-2002 prime.  What Kohli has done in the last year or so, is what Tendy did for almost a decade.  And without having any blips like Kohli did in England - Everywhere he went for the first time, he ended up doing well, I think scoring hundreds if I'm not mistaken.  

 

Worth looking up, here we go:

 

• First tour to NZ?  Scored 88 - missed being the youngest bat to score a test 100.  
• First tour to England - 100 at Manchester
• First Aussie tour?  100 at Sydney and that famous 100 at perth.    
• First tour to SA?  100 at Johannesburg.
• First tour to SL? dropped a 100
• First tour to WI?  no hundreds but 3 scores > 90

 

@narenpande1

@putrevus

@MCcricket

@vvvslaxman

 

Name one player other than Tendy who can boast of such a record.  And all of this well before he was even 25 years old!  

 

Contrast this to VK - he started test cricket very poorly and was dropped - needed a few years to sort it out, and only now has become the truly topclass test bat he is.  This is not to knock Kohli.  But to point out that Tendy was just so good in tests right away.  In fact until his injury issues, he had NEVER had a slump in his career.  This is why, inspite of his one flaw - the absense of really massive scores - he still had an obscenely high average.  

 

To clarify, this is not to say he was perfect, and didn't have flaws etc etc.  But to overlook such an amazing record - and call a player of this calibre all kinds of names is just wrong.  

 

 

 

had a quick look at kohlis stats..

 

kohli scored a ton in his first series itself in australia ,  new zealand , south africa and srilanka 

[velu]

22 minutes ago, Vijy said:

I'm not sure I agree even with him being "far ahead" of Sachin. Even I buy that argument (which I don't - ahead to some extent, yes), how is he "far ahead" statistically, compared to ABDV?

i said in few aspects , and i m comparing sachin and kohli and i m not bringing abdv..

 

compare the average when chasing .. we got good enough samples and kohli is far ahead

number of hundreds when chasing .. with less than half the games played kohli almost stands neck to neck

[Vijy]

8 minutes ago, velu said:

i said in few aspects , and i m comparing sachin and kohli and i m not bringing abdv..

 

compare the average when chasing .. we got good enough samples and kohli is far ahead

number of hundreds when chasing .. with less than half the games played kohli almost stands neck to neck

Why such less importance being attached to first innings knocks? If one puts up a high total, it gives bowlers something to defend. I'd assume that the first innings records, esp when SRT opened, must be similar?

[sandeep]

12 minutes ago, velu said:

 

had a quick look at kohlis stats..

 

kohli scored a ton in his first series itself in australia ,  new zealand , south africa and srilanka 

Yes, and Kohli's very good.  But he still had bad first tours in the windies and the shocker in England.  My point is, is there any other player has as complete an away record on his first tours to all the top countries.   

 

And this point is primarily to reject the spurious claim that tendy is only good because he accumulated runs over an extra-long career.  

[express bowling]

25 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Not bad at all.  But what about his first tour to Windies and England?  Again, the point of my post above is not to knock Kohli - its to remind and point out to others who have either forgotten or unaware of how colossal Tendy was until his injury issues cropped up post 2002.  He was freakishly consistent and quality - I'm no stats-hound, but I don't know of any other batsman who can match that sort of consistency and quality over that long a period of time.   That's why he's referred to as a batting genius.  And not to forget - he did all this before the age of 25!

 

Flaws were there - He didn't have any doubles until Sydney - very surprising that he somehow just wasn't able to play really long innings for a player of his ability.  That's probably why he was a bit greedy for that double in Pakistan.  He's human, he's allowed to have misjudgements in pursuit of addressing holes in his stellar resume.   And its not like he threw a hissy fit about it - Him and Dravid talked through it and sorted it out like mature adults.  

 

I don't think that anyone who has actually seen Tendulkar bat in the '90s has actually forgotten what a collosal  figure he was and what impact he had on Indian and world cricket.

 

Sheer ability to bat against quality bowlers and on tough surfaces... and consistency. ...are 2 areas where he will remain almost unparalleled for a long time.

 

At the same time, his love for stats, especially during the later part of his career, has drawn a lot of criticism from many quarters.

 

Overall....both Tendulkar and Kohli are big favourites of mine for their contribution  to Indian Cricket and entertainment factor...these comparisons invariable end up being interpreted as if the debators are trying to put down one player over another and that is best avoided regarding favourite cricketers.

Edited December 11, 2016 by express bowling

[sandeep]

16 minutes ago, express bowling said:

To be fair to the OP....he did not say that Kohli was better than Sachin....but just pointed out the areas which, according to him, Kohli is better at.

OP then went on to post a lot of non-fact trash aimed at SrT as well...

[Vijy]

Just now, sandeep said:

Yes, and Kohli's very good.  But he still had bad first tours in the windies and the shocker in England.  My point is, is there any other player has as complete an away record on his first tours to all the top countries.   

 

And this point is primarily to reject the spurious claim that tendy is only good because he accumulated runs over an extra-long career.  

Yes, was pretty bad in the Windies back then... come a long way since then. When I first saw in that series, was pretty skeptical. Has reinvented himself to a highly commendable degree.