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

[Trichromatic]

8 minutes ago, putrevus said:

 Wasim and Waqar were playing their last match ,so we all know how wonderful they were then. If that was his one of the best knocks as told by many of his fans then we can assess how well he did against great bowlers in their prime.2015 attack was much more potent than that attack.

  

There is reason why his rating never went above 890 in both tests and odis.

How many times batsmen crossed 900 in tests in 90s?

 

How was bowling ratings during same period?

 

7 calendar years where he was ranked 1 test bat. Guess the 2nd best number for an Indian batsman.

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

4 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Wasim and Waqar were playing their last match ,so we all know how wonderful they were then. If that was his one of the best knocks as told by many of his fans then we can assess how well he did against great bowlers in their prime.2015 attack was much more potent than that attack.

 

There is reason why his rating never went above 890 in both tests and odis.

Wasim was quality right till the end. Btw the 2003 attack also featured Akhtar who was at his fastest back then. He alone is better than all the chumps in the 2015 attack put together. Of course folks who believe the Fab 4 were over-rated and Afridi was an ODI legend may disagree.

[Ankit_sharma03]

1998 was considered sachin's best yr in which he avg 65.31

he scored 1894 runs in 34 games with 9-100s

 

If we say this was virat's best year

he scored 1202 in 14 games with 6-100s........avg 133.56

 

Consistency is their to be seen with virat.

 

In 1998 , sachin played 31 games in subcontinent and 3 in zimb

In 2018, kohli has played 9 games in SA n ENG 

 

in 1998,

when sachin played pak

Pak didnt have wasim , waqar

 

Aus didnt have mcgrath, gillespie, lee that year

NZ didnt have bond playing for them then 

 

Now if we say virat played 5 games against WI, Sachin played 12 against - Zimb, Kenya , Bang 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Ankit_sharma03

[vvvslaxman]

10 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

just can't understand some of these logics here. To clarify , I am going a bit deeper here

68-119* in ENG,179-54 vs WI,  47-113 in NZL, 177-74 in ENG, 116-52 in AUS , 41-86 in WI, 214-53* vs AUS,74-36* in Zim ,49-64 in NZL  all comes into mind along with 241*-60* in AUS.  

Even his 35-57 in Pak in his first tour was such a quality performance when you consider his age, the prestige

 

His 119* in ENG earned a respectable 1-0 loss instead of a 2-0 loss. And this is no better reflected  in the reccent 1-4 loss. As a fan, badly wished if IND coud win either of those close matches because 2-3 is so respectable than an 1-4.From that point take his 177-74. ENG had already won first test despite Sachin performing brilliantly in the 3rd inns.In the 3rd test , not only did Sachin lay the foundation   for a respective 0-1 loss  if not for an 1-1 draw , but  in the 3rd inns when every one was falling around him  he dragged the  score to 211.Had Sachin too got out cheaply, IND could have even  lost the test and there by the series 0-2(keep in mind the Sydney 2008 test).

Take that 47-113 in NZL. After the first  test getting washed out, Sachin  along with Azhar gave some thing to defend with a 208 end score.And after conceeding a huge 144 run lead in first inns, Sachin again scored that 113 with NZL left 213 to win.Had it not for  bowlers incompetency IND could have won that test.So what do you expect here from Sachin?? To bowl the team out of trouble too????Infact had IND won this test, it would have at least earned a series draw if not  a  won seires.Was n'tit  a crunch situation   for Sachin to perform???

 

Similarly take his 86 in WI. In that 4rth inns of the 5th test with series at 1-1 he scored that  86.Wasn't this a crunch situation??Even take that 241*.The series in the balance, wasn't it a crunch situation  for him to score 241* in the last test???? And he backed it up with a 60*  in  the 2nd inns so that IND can win.

 

Like wise I can find this crunhness in almost all of the above pointed out pair of knocks.

 

And now come the changing of goal posts. Dragging Sehwag and his asian exploits.Every kid knows that Sehwag was a monster in Asia.But his other short comings  make him inferior to Sachin. Similar is the case with Laxman who was virtually a non existant one day player.To be precise no body is claiming that Sachin was the best in each and every batting factor. It is just that when all things combined he was the  most complete and hence the best  of them all.

 

I watched every match that you posted. NOne of the things you said were true. Just your own fanboy theory. Apart from drawn test none of the other matches were crunch knocks. Writing was on the wall in NZL. Just you know in NZ first day was always the toughest to bat on. As the match goes on it gets easier and easier. 241 &60 seriously you are going to bring that innings? At no point India was in trouble. Those knocks were briilliant individual knocks not the knocks where you build a partnership with someone else. 135 for 8 , 80 to win. Would you want Laxman with tail or Tendulkar with tail. In a heart beat i would take Laxman. IN a typical Tendulkar innings he would go boom boom for few overs and get out. Look at how Kohli scored with last 2 batsmen. Dravid was a master of building partnership. A rookie player like Karthik pulled India from the hole alongwith Dravid.  Tendulkar individual knocks will give you no hope like you see with Laxman. You are merely pulling stat and creating non-existent theories. 

[vvvslaxman]

24 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

1998 was considered sachin's best yr in which he avg 65.31

he scored 1894 runs in 34 games with 9-100s

 

If we say this was virat's best year

he scored 1202 in 14 games with 6-100s........avg 133.56

 

Consistency is their to be seen with virat.

 

In 1998 , sachin played 31 games in subcontinent and 3 in zimb

In 2018, kohli has played 9 games in SA n ENG 

 

in 1998,

when sachin played pak

Pak didnt have wasim , waqar

 

Aus didnt have mcgrath, gillespie, lee that year

NZ didnt have bond playing for them then 

 

Now if we say virat played 5 games against WI, Sachin played 12 against - Zimb, Kenya , Bang 

 

 

Some fanboys just go over board with the stat. There is one thing i will agree with all others. There was only one Tendulkar who inspired generations of cricketers like Sehwag/Kohli. I'll give him that credit. But he had issues like slowing down near land marks. Who can forget his 194 not out. Same way on his way to first ever ODI 200 he suddenly slowed down. Then that infamous 100th 100. Can't blame him. If you are around guys like Manjrekar, Gavaskar that is what happens. This is where i like Delhi's school of batting. Bloody minded. Goes after wins. Sehwag, Gambhir, Mohinder, Kohli. Who can forget Gambhir's 10 hour long vigil in NZ to save the test. Or World  T20 final or WC final. Your construction of innings should depend on team's situation not your own terms. This is where he let us down quiet a few times. Nobody denies he can't bat against the best of the best bowlers.  If you ask me Tendulkar started out well and played as per the need of team. May be Mumbaikars drilled into his mind about the importance of "centuries" later lol

[Ankit_sharma03]

2 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Some fanboys just go over board with the stat. There is one thing i will agree with all others. There was only one Tendulkar who inspired generations of cricketers like Sehwag/Kohli.

No denying that 

2 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

I'll give him that credit. But he had issues like slowing down near land marks. Who can forget his 194 not out. Same way on his way to first ever ODI 200 he suddenly slowed down. Then that infamous 100th 100. Can't blame him. If you are around guys like Manjrekar, Gavaskar that is what happens.

Every player will have some issue, no one is perfect 

Thats why i hate them term god given to him

2 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

This is where i like Delhi's school of batting. Bloody minded. Goes after wins. Sehwag, Gambhir, Mohinder, Kohli. Who can forget Gambhir's 10 hour long vigil in NZ to save the test. Or World  T20 final or WC final. Your construction of innings should depend on team's situation not your own terms. This is where he let us down quiet a few times. Nobody denies he can't bat against the best of the best bowlers.  If you ask me Tendulkar started out well and played as per the need of team. May be Mumbaikars drilled into his mind about the importance of "centuries" later lol

Actually its no easy to have a burden of expectation of 100 everytime and they all are humans at the end of the day

I doubt any sportsman plays to loose , their is always more to it then easily saying a player is being selfish 

[vvvslaxman]

1 minute ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

No denying that 

Every player will have some issue, no one is perfect 

Thats why i hate them term god given to him

Actually its no easy to have a burden of expectation of 100 everytime and they all are humans at the end of the day

I doubt any sportsman plays to loose , their is always more to it then easily saying a player is being selfish 

I have no doubt Sunny definitely played a role in that. Tendulkar was not like this when he started out. 

[mishra]

7 hours ago, velu said:

@mishra

 

When sachin and kohli played together ( ODIs )  ..

kohli averages 51.8 and sachin averages 46.62..

 

 

 

in tests when they played together ..

kohli averages 46 and sachin 30 ..

 

 

 

 

Bhai, its very evident from number of games (46 for Sachin and 85 for kohli) during the overlapping phase that Sachin was as good as gone. Despite that, during wc, Sachin played well due to his sheer determination. And that just goes to show how batting conditions are being manufactured ( mostly by giving phattaa wickets and now 2 new balls)

By the time Periyathala retires from odis, in his last 4 years, you will see how relatively poor his s/r and average became compared to himself.

Now Periyathala , is fitter but may still retire younger when compared to Sachin. 4 year younger. 

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by mishra

[rtmohanlal]

6 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

I watched every match that you posted. NOne of the things you said were true. Just your own fanboy theory. Apart from drawn test none of the other matches were crunch knocks. Writing was on the wall in NZL. Just you know in NZ first day was always the toughest to bat on. As the match goes on it gets easier and easier. 241 &60 seriously you are going to bring that innings? At no point India was in trouble. Those knocks were briilliant individual knocks not the knocks where you build a partnership with someone else. 135 for 8 , 80 to win. Would you want Laxman with tail or Tendulkar with tail. In a heart beat i would take Laxman. IN a typical Tendulkar innings he would go boom boom for few overs and get out. Look at how Kohli scored with last 2 batsmen. Dravid was a master of building partnership. A rookie player like Karthik pulled India from the hole alongwith Dravid.  Tendulkar individual knocks will give you no hope like you see with Laxman. You are merely pulling stat and creating non-existent theories. 

yeah ... now we can change to another goal post ...firstly the criteria  was putting substantial runs in  both the inns, when ample data  was  provided  to prove that wrong then the goal post changed to 'crunch situation' knocks.And when  brief explanation was provided as to why they were crunch knocks, now  coming with yet another criteria. People like you only will tell that  with 144 huge first inns deficit to fill in and then built on a substantial 2nd inns score  with series still in the balance is just an ordinary situation.

 

And now the goal post has changed to '135 for 8 , 80 to win'.Laxman was more accustomed to  playing with tail and putting on substantial runs him being a 6th position batsman. And on 2 or 3 occasions he remained there till the end to finish the chase.Laxman's greatness lies in this fact. To put it simple, what people like you are basically  doing is  high lighting a few factors where other batsmen's  performances are better to those of Sachin  and then  dismissing 'all other majority  factors in which Sachin convincingly outweighed all these other batsmen'  as nothing to be taken seriously.This is called ' utter nonsense' at its very best.

 

 

 

On a side note , found it funny when you yourself put the criteria  as 'both inns performance  in one post ' and

then dismissed Dravid's twin 100 performance' as good for nothing  because of the match ending in a boring draw.Here you are conveniently dismissing the fact that had Dravid not played that huge 190 in the first inns , India would  have obliged a   huge first inns lead to NZL's 366 and the course of the match would have been entirely different.

 

So do one thing... You believe in what ever you want to believe, i shall stick on with my verdicts.

Edited November 3, 2018 by rtmohanlal

[vvvslaxman]

2 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

yeah ... now we can change to another goal post ...firstly the criteria  was putting substantial runs in  both the inns, when ample data  was  provided  to prove that wrong then the goal post changed to 'crunch situation' knocks.And when  brief explanation was provided as to why they were crunch knocks, now  coming with yet another criteria. People like you only will tell that  with 144 huge first inns deficit to fill in and then built on a substantial 2nd inns score  with series still in the balance is just an ordinary situation.

 

And now the goal post has changed to '135 for 8 , 80 to win'.Laxman was more accustomed to  playing with tail and putting on substantial runs him being a 6th position batsman. And on 2 or 3 occasions he remained there till the end to finish the chase.Laxman's greatness lies in this fact. To put it simple, what people like you are basically  doing is  high lighting a few factors where other batsmen's  performances are better to those of Sachin  and then  dismissing 'all other majority  factors in which Sachin convincingly outweighed all these other batsmen'  as nothing to be taken seriously.This is called ' utter nonsense' at its very best.

 

 

 

On a side note , found it funny when you yourself put the criteria  as 'both inns performance  in one post ' and

then dismissed Dravid's twin 100 performance' as good for nothing  because of the match ending in a boring draw.Here you are conveniently dismissing the fact that had Dravid not played that huge 190 in the first inns , India would  have obliged a   huge first inns lead to NZL's 366 and the course of the match would have been entirely different.

 

So do one thing... You believe in what ever you want to believe, i shall stick on with my verdicts.

Since you are not really understanding the point i am trying to make i have to spoonfeed you. That is not changing goal post. Post is at the same place. you are just dancing around.  Since you don't seem to have wathed the matches in real time you just go to cricinfo to bring your argument. Your theories are purely based on scorecard not on real match situation or conditions in real time. This is why your arguments are more fanboyish. It is hard to take you back in time and prove why some of the innigns you mentioned are not really as great as you make it out to be. I agree with your last sentence. Pretty much all of us were are sachin fans. But i am a cricket fan first. I will admit to the inadequacies of each batsman.

[mani sha]

kohli

 

fitter, hungrier , better odi chaser. 

sachin - less fit but more talented . better opener

 

between these two i pick kohli

 

reasons- better player of second innings and chases 

easier to get a rohit or shaw o sehwag or dhawan but harder to find the kohlis pointings and laras as these were excellent middle order bats . and rare ... 

[rtmohanlal]

6 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

Since you are not really understanding the point i am trying to make i have to spoonfeed you. That is not changing goal post. Post is at the same place. you are just dancing around.  Since you don't seem to have wathed the matches in real time you just go to cricinfo to bring your argument. Your theories are purely based on scorecard not on real match situation or conditions in real time. This is why your arguments are more fanboyish. It is hard to take you back in time and prove why some of the innigns you mentioned are not really as great as you make it out to be. I agree with your last sentence. Pretty much all of us were are sachin fans. But i am a cricket fan first. I will admit to the inadequacies of each batsman.

i have followed each and every Sachin inns right from the start  of his career till the very end.And while I filtered out data  and clearly explained my reasons based on the data, what you are doing is  using emotional statements like  'dancing around' ,'fanboyish' etc,etc.

If you are so clear w.r.t 'real match situation' why can't trace out proof based on data???

Edited November 4, 2018 by rtmohanlal

[putrevus]

On 11/3/2018 at 8:48 AM, Trichromatic said:

How many times batsmen crossed 900 in tests in 90s?
 
How was bowling ratings during same period?
 
7 calendar years where he was ranked 1 test bat. Guess the 2nd best number for an Indian batsman.
 
 

When did Sachin end his test career? why do people always keep talking as if Sachin ended  his career in 1990s.

 

Since topic is about odis my second question how many years did  best ever odi batsman end year ranked no1 odis??

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 4, 2018 by putrevus

[SUMO]

Happy birthday to the legend!

[putrevus]

On 11/3/2018 at 8:50 AM, Jimmy Cliff said:

Wasim was quality right till the end. Btw the 2003 attack also featured Akhtar who was at his fastest back then. He alone is better than all the chumps in the 2015 attack put together. Of course folks who believe the Fab 4 were over-rated and Afridi was an ODI legend may disagree.

Do you really want to say Akthar was good in 2003 when he himself admitted he was a nervous wreck. Wasim was quality but remember it was his last match.Afridi was playing in both matches.Irfan was not bad at all with his bounce. Wahab took 5fer against India in 2011 semis.

 

Personall I don't think it was big difference in their attack.

 

2011 India batting had all big names to Australia  vs 2014 where they were lot of new names.Which team did well ? Legends on last legs are useless.

[putrevus]

On 11/2/2018 at 7:33 PM, Muloghonto said:

Quote

Because until his 5th trip, he had a dozen matches in Australia against ANYONE. 

What  does this mean, He played  all matches which India played against Australia , it is not just Australia , where he has just one 100, he has just one 100 in NZ, Eng and SA too. 

Quote

He is head and shoulders above everyone because no one comes close to him in average+ strike rate from his era. He is ahead of his peers than Virat, because ABDV is right there with Virat for average + strike rate. Simple.

 

That is utter nonsense,

Quote

wtf are on you on about ? You wanna check how many batsmen of that era have centuries against SENA countries in their backyard in the first place ? He has 4 centuries in SENA countries vs them and including west indies (who had an ATG attack during Tendulkar's peak). 

WTF is wrong with you if you can't converse decently don't reply to my post.

Quote

Because its easy to score hundreds today than in Tendulkar's era. Thats why. This is statistical fact. And except for South Africa, none of the ODI attacks of Kohli's time are greater than that of Sachin's time as far as opposition goes and even then, the Saffie attack today is just as good/tad better than the 90s attack.

 

What 100s did Sachin score which was against so called great attack, list the scorecard. Kohli has done better against all types of bowling attacks and he could do the same in any era because his game is built to score runs against any attack.

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

8 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Do you really want to say Akthar was good in 2003 when he himself admitted he was a nervous wreck. Wasim was quality but remember it was his last match.Afridi was playing in both matches.Irfan was not bad at all with his bounce. Wahab took 5fer against India in 2011 semis.

 

Personall I don't think it was big difference in their attack.

 

2011 India batting had all big names to Australia  vs 2014 where they were lot of new names.Which team did well ? Legends on last legs are useless.

If I were a batsman, I'd much rather play Irfan/Wahab/Random pacer in 2015 instead of playing peak Akhtar and an aging Wasim in 2003. I don't care if the bowler is nervous if he is as rapid as Akhtar was in 2003. Wasn't that the tournament where he clocked 100 mph? Who knows what he could've done if he hadn't been hit out of the attack in the second over itself. And Wasim was still quality. Whether it was his last game or not, he didn't get stick even in that game when India scored at 6+. And while you keep going on about W's being old, it's not as if SRT was at his peak either. It was his 13th or 14th year on the international circuit having started around the same time as Waqar. And yet he played the best knock in the game by a country mile. Which is why Kaif and Dravid could play at a SR of around 60 and India could still win with 5 overs to spare.

 

Kohli, on the other hand, was in his prime facing a mediocre attack and scored a run of the mill hundred at a relatively pedestrian SR of 85 which wasn't even the best knock by an Indian in that innings. Raina easily out-batted him with his 74 off 56 balls. If you still think there is not much difference between the 2 knocks what can I say .

[rtmohanlal]

3 hours ago, putrevus said:

Do you really want to say Akthar was good in 2003 when he himself admitted he was a nervous wreck. Wasim was quality but remember it was his last match.Afridi was playing in both matches.Irfan was not bad at all with his bounce. Wahab took 5fer against India in 2011 semis.

 

Personall I don't think it was big difference in their attack.

 

2011 India batting had all big names to Australia  vs 2014 where they were lot of new names.Which team did well ? Legends on last legs are useless.

'nervous wreck'  ......you really exceeds yourself  every time with your brilliant logics.

And  Wasim deliberately  decided to bowl  badly to Sachin  despite it being a world cup  match against India just because it was his last match.

Waqar too was yet to recover from the hangover of  the 96 world cup thrashing  at the hands of Jadeja and hence bowled badly .

Edited November 5, 2018 by rtmohanlal

[Muloghonto]

17 hours ago, putrevus said:

What  does this mean, He played  all matches which India played against Australia , it is not just Australia , where he has just one 100, he has just one 100 in NZ, Eng and SA too. 

Again, in his peak ODI period from 95-2004 or so, he played less than a dozen matches in Australia vs Australia. Not scoring a century in 9 matches spread over 10 years hardly means anything. 

 

Quote

That is utter nonsense,

It is a fact. There is NOBODY from Tendulkar's era who matches him in strike rate AND average that is a top order batsman. None, nada, zip. The likes who come close to him in average (and there is still a big gap during their peak periods), like MEW, Ganguly, etc. are 10-15 points below in strike rate. Those who match him in strike rate (eg: Jayasurya) are 10-15 points below in average.

 

In Kohli's case, ABDV is 2-3 points below him in average and 3-4 points above him in strike rate. 
Ie, decisive, empiric evidence that Tendulkar was more dominant in his era than Kohli is in his.

 

Quote

What 100s did Sachin score which was against so called great attack, list the scorecard. Kohli has done better against all types of bowling attacks and he could do the same in any era because his game is built to score runs against any attack.

Virtually every single team during Sachin's era had an attack equal to or better than the ones Kohli faces. Its again, empiric fact.

 

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Again, in his peak ODI period from 95-2004 or so, he played less than a dozen matches in Australia vs Australia. Not scoring a century in 9 matches spread over 10 years hardly means anything. 

 

It is a fact. There is NOBODY from Tendulkar's era who matches him in strike rate AND average that is a top order batsman. None, nada, zip. The likes who come close to him in average (and there is still a big gap during their peak periods), like MEW, Ganguly, etc. are 10-15 points below in strike rate. Those who match him in strike rate (eg: Jayasurya) are 10-15 points below in average.

 

In Kohli's case, ABDV is 2-3 points below him in average and 3-4 points above him in strike rate. 
Ie, decisive, empiric evidence that Tendulkar was more dominant in his era than Kohli is in his.

 

Virtually every single team during Sachin's era had an attack equal to or better than the ones Kohli faces. Its again, empiric fact.

 

54 to 60 is 6 point difference