Jump to content
Trichromatic

Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli - who is better ODI batsman?

Who is better ODI batsman?  

153 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is better ODI batsman?



Recommended Posts

5 years back no one would have imagined that SRT can be compared any other batsman in ODIs so soon. For years this discussion has been avoided saying that Kohli has long way to go.

 

But now Kohli is already halfway through in terms of number of runs and smashing all records left and right. He has got 32 centuries and it seems that he will easily surpass SRT's ODI 100s record. 

 

SRT

Matches: 463

Runs: 18426

Avg: 44.83

SR: 86.23

100s: 49

50s: 96

HS: 200 v SA

 

Kohli

Matches: 202

Runs: 9030

Avg: 55.74

Avg: 91.73

100s: 32

50s: 45

HS: 183 v Pak

 

First let's see their overall ICC ODI ratings

Recently Kohli achieved highest ever ODI batsman ranking for Indian batsman surpassing SRT's 887. Right now Kohli is ranked 1 batsman with 889 points.

 

image.png

 

 

So let's start with simple question - who's better batsman in ODIs - SRT or Kohli?

Link to comment

SRT was the highest scorer in 2 WCs (2003 and 1996) and the 2nd highest run scorer in CWC 2011. VK is a dud when it counts. Moreover with his clownass fishing outside off stump technique he wouldn't have played in our team in half the matches in the 80s and 90s. In tough conditions and against quality quicks there are at least 10 other Indian batsmen above VK. The brat should thank his stars that he escaped Mcgrath, Ambrose, Pollock, Wasim, Donald etc. Put peak SRT in today's era and he would be averaging 70 striking at 120. Put 1996/2003 SRT on the 2015 WC pattas and he would get 1000 runs in a single edition. Seriously  guys, you missed something special if you didn't see SRT in his prime years. SRT, Federer, Bolt, Jordan, Woods, Kasparov, Maradona, Phelps etc belong to the same category while Kohli is in the Rooney/Del Potro/Nakamura/Mcllroy league....very good but never close to the platinum standard.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

SRT was the highest scorer in 2 WCs (2003 and 1996) and the 2nd highest run scorer in CWC 2011. VK is a dud when it counts. Moreover with his clownass fishing outside off stump technique he wouldn't have played in our team in half the matches in the 80s and 90s. In tough conditions and against quality quicks there are at least 10 other Indian batsmen above VK. The brat should thank his stars that he escaped Mcgrath, Ambrose, Pollock, Wasim, Donald etc. Put peak SRT in today's era and he would be averaging 70 striking at 120. Put 1996/2003 SRT on the 2015 WC pattas and he would get 1000 runs in a single edition. Seriously  guys, you missed something special if you didn't see SRT in his prime years. SRT, Federer, Bolt, Jordan, Woods, Kasparov, Maradona, Phelps etc belong to the same category while Kohli is in the Rooney/Del Potro/Nakamura/Mcllroy league....very good but never close to the platinum standard.

That's an overstatement. Someone being better on difficult conditions doesn't mean he will score higher than others in easier conditions. 

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

what has Kohli done in knockouts?

Mixing up formats. In t20I he is already legendary.

He has so far bottled up in big matches in ODIs. It's not only about not scoring the way he bat or got out in those matches clearly indicate pressure getting hold of him. WC match against AUS and CT final 2017, both matches He was struggling for no reason other than pressure of big match. He has a long career to rectify it though.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Gollum said:

SRT was the highest scorer in 2 WCs (2003 and 1996) and the 2nd highest run scorer in CWC 2011. VK is a dud when it counts. Moreover with his clownass fishing outside off stump technique he wouldn't have played in our team in half the matches in the 80s and 90s. In tough conditions and against quality quicks there are at least 10 other Indian batsmen above VK. The brat should thank his stars that he escaped Mcgrath, Ambrose, Pollock, Wasim, Donald etc. Put peak SRT in today's era and he would be averaging 70 striking at 120. Put 1996/2003 SRT on the 2015 WC pattas and he would get 1000 runs in a single edition. Seriously  guys, you missed something special if you didn't see SRT in his prime years. SRT, Federer, Bolt, Jordan, Woods, Kasparov, Maradona, Phelps etc belong to the same category while Kohli is in the Rooney/Del Potro/Nakamura/Mcllroy league....very good but never close to the platinum standard.

2003 pitches were mostly pattas. Only games we got some challenge were against Aus due to their superior bowling and against NZ when Shane Bond was on fire chasing 150 odd runs.

Link to comment

Let's get the facts straight, V Kohli is the greatest ODI bat this world has seen till date, leave aside his stats which are far superior his contribution towards winning the game for his team is unmatched.

Tendulkar still ahead as a test batter, but that too Kohli shall overtake if things progress accordingly, I believe among his contemporaries there is no doubt as they see him as a greatest ODi bat too.

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

2003 pitches were mostly pattas. Only games we got some challenge were against Aus due to their superior bowling and against NZ when Shane Bond was on fire chasing 150 odd runs.

They were pattas compared to 90s yardstick. Compared to modern day pitches they were minefields. How many 300/400 scores were scored in that WC? Even that Aus team was 120/7 in 2 of their matches and that Aussie batting lineup was something, their batters couldn't play the Lankans in the SF because of the tough tough conditions !!!! Check the scorecards of that tournament, I think you are confusing it with the 2007 edition (though not pattas, but flatter than 2003 yet much tougher than 2015).

 

I can't think of a single team right now that can muster 300 against the top 6 teams (Kenya shouldn't be included because they only qualified because of boycott) of that WC. May be a combined world XI of today can get 300 once in 10 matches in those conditions, and I am being generous. Batting standards are at their lowest in the last 50 years of cricket. These lads can play crazy shots and explode but one good spell of opening bowling by Mcgrath/Bond/Wasim/Ambrose will get modern ODI teams 30/6 kind of starts after which even their hitting won't save them get decent scores. If I talk about the GOAT WI team and that pace quartet present day India or SA won't get 300 even once in 100 attempts if we put them back in that era. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Gollum said:

They were pattas compared to 90s yardstick. Compared to modern day pitches they were minefields. How many 300/400 scores were scored in that WC? Even that Aus team was 120/7 in 2 of their matches and that Aussie batting lineup was something, their batters couldn't play the Lankans in the SF because of the tough tough conditions !!!! Check the scorecards of that tournament, I think you are confusing it with the 2007 edition (though not pattas, but flatter than 2003 yet much tougher than 2015).

 

I can't think of a single team right now that can muster 300 against the top 6 teams (Kenya shouldn't be included because they only qualified because of boycott) of that WC. May be a combined world XI of today can get 300 once in 10 matches in those conditions, and I am being generous. Batting standards are at their lowest in the last 50 years of cricket. These lads can play crazy shots and explode but one good spell of opening bowling by Mcgrath/Bond/Wasim/Ambrose will get modern ODI teams 30/6 kind of starts after which even their hitting won't save them get decent scores. If I talk about the GOAT WI team and that pace quartet present day India or SA won't get 300 even once in 100 attempts if we put them back in that era. 

yeah minefields. How old you were then. I watched all Indian matches live. NOne of the pitches were minefield by any standards. ICC tourneys are mostly played on pattas. You very unlikely see minefields in ICC tourneys. How does Aussie bneing 120/7 affects Indian team. Indian team did not play on that pitch. That pitch was a slow pitch and India did not play a game there.  Indian mostly played on good batting tracks. even in Durban, conditions were bowling friendly only under lights.

 

regarding 300 and 400, cricket was different back then.  there was no t20 and 300s were not scored with regularity. 

 

I dont think you were even old enough to watch that WC. I watched all Indian games and was old enough to relate to today's cricket.   

Link to comment

Kohli plays for the team. Tendulkar played for himself. Kohli is hands and feet better than Tendulkar in every way. Tendulkar had the tendacy to bore the crowd with his off field non existent antics. Kohli shows much more personality. In my opinion Kohli has revolutionized cricket in India. Where as Tendulkar has kept it at bay with zero impact. Kohli is a true icon of India. The true hero we need!

Link to comment

I always felt Kohli put a much bigger price on his wicket whereas Tendulkar took way too many risks. Even though during the last decade of his career, there was a lot more calculated stroke play around him because there was always Sehwag, Saurav, Yuvraj and later Dhoni to up the tempo. But on the whole, Tendulkar took way too many risks in some crucial moments of some of the heartbreaking losses in our cricket history. As I am typing this the stumped out dismissal in the crucial Semi finals vs SRL WC1996, Calcutta comes to my mind. I somehow feel Dhoni or Kohli wouldn't have tried to play a stroke like that in that situation. Sachin came off as a little bit of a daredevil in the 1992-1998 era. Whereas Kohli seemed to deliver the team into winning positions with far lesser risk.

Link to comment

continuing from the above post of mine,

 

If you watch Tendulkar's desert storm century, you will observe that he played way too many risky shots, whereas the best 100s of Kohli have hardly any daredevilry involved and even the sixes are a part of calculated risks in zones where the outfielder isn't present. I remember Gavaskar once explaining the same point on TV that Kohli is hitting sixes in zones where there is no outfielder whereas Rohit is hitting them over the outfielders and incase of a mistimed shot is getting himself out.

 

For me, Sachin is a technically perfect Rohit Sharma kind of cricketer in the first decade of his career where a lot of times it was all or nothing. 

 

Whereas Kohli ever since 2011WC is the risk free accumulator that Sachin transformed into in the latter part of his career. 

 

Edited by Temujin Khaghan
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...