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

58 minutes ago, speedheat said:

SRT in his prime would have smacked some of these modern greats like bolt, hazlewood, broad,Anderson, amir etc.

With his eyes closes, 

Quality of bowling has gone down drastically, kohli would have had no chance against the likes of Pollock, Donald, Walsh, akhtar, wasim, waquar, McGrath, ambrose ,Shane bond, Lee, hadlee etc. :bebored: :drama:

He did smack down Anderson and Broad in ODIs?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

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.   

All pitches were not minefield. But at least in India pitches were slower and if not slower then old ball made it bit difficult to score? That challenge has been eliminated by 2 new balls. 

 

However one can say that new ball would swing more, but we hardly see much assistance for pacer either.

 

One can say that what was 250 in 1990s is equivalent to 300 now due to better hitters. But what could be reason for sub-200 scores being reduced by 60% during 2010s? 

 

Sure batsmen couldn't hit big to propel 250 scores to 300 on similar pitches. But scoring 200 is what doesn't require better hitting.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

All pitches were not minefield. But at least in India pitches were slower and if not slower then old ball made it bit difficult to score? That challenge has been eliminated by 2 new balls. 

 

However one can say that new ball would swing more, but we hardly see much assistance for pacer either.

 

One can say that what was 250 in 1990s is equivalent to 300 now due to better hitters. But what could be reason for sub-200 scores being reduced by 60% during 2010s? 

 

Sure batsmen couldn't hit big to propel 250 scores to 300 on similar pitches. But scoring 200 is what doesn't require better hitting.

that requires better batting. batting on a whole is better in this decade than it was in the 90s. Most teams have good wicket keeper bats and lower order players who can bat too. You will hardly find bowlers who are mug with the bat these days. IN the 90s, there was only one such team that was SA who had a deep batting line.

 

Regarding Indian 2003 WC, only pitch that was slow in our matches was against Netherlands.  All other pitches we played on were very good batting pitches.

Edited by rkt.india
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

that requires better batting. batting on a whole is better in this decade than it was in the 90s. Most teams have good wicket keeper bats and batsman who can bat too. You will hardly find bowlers who are mug with the bat these days. IN the 90s, there was only one such team that was SA who had a deep batting line.

 

Regarding Indian 2003 WC, only pitch that was slow in our matches was against Netherlands.  All other pitches we played on were very good batting pitches.

I was talking about Indian pitches while referring to slow tracks. Even if a pitch doesn't slow down much, old ball can make it difficult to score runs. That's why so many part timers were successful back then.

 

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

I was talking about Indian pitches while referring to slow tracks. Even if a pitch doesn't slow down much, old ball can make it difficult to score runs. That's why so many part timers were successful back then.

 

 

yes that is true. Reverse swing has also disappeared due to that.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, speedheat said:

SRT in his prime would have smacked some of these modern greats like bolt, hazlewood, broad,Anderson, amir etc.

With his eyes closes, 

Quality of bowling has gone down drastically, kohli would have had no chance against the likes of Pollock, Donald, Walsh, akhtar, wasim, waquar, McGrath, ambrose ,Shane bond, Lee, hadlee etc. :bebored: :drama:

 

can you list few bowlers who got smoked by sachin in his prime ? :p:

 

( other than warne )

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

yes that is true. Reverse swing has also disappeared due to that.

 

2 hours ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

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. 

 

Type of batting was partly due to his won arrogance and partly due to conditions. No doubt he was more attacking by nature, but that wasn't enough. Lack of pace especially on Indian pitches during middle and late overs meant, batsmen have to take extra risk to score runs even if pitch is as good as what players are using now. Sachin's SR was higher than most of his peers and it would be good even now.

 

It's easier to put price to wicket when you know that you can hit through line and get value of runs. Then you can choose to bat like Rohit and rely on making up for slow starts later or play like Kohli - genius level. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

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. 

 

Did you look at some of those scorecards from the 90s? lol. Look at all those partners that batted with Sachin and look at their strike rates. More often than not, they were pathetic and then you had Dravid in the middle order :facepalm: There's a reason why he took a lot of risk. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, rkt.india said:

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.   

Are baba read my post carefully, I said minefield compared to today's pitches, just like how 90s pitches were minefields compared to 2003 WC and so on and so forth.

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...