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

[Muloghonto]

22 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

54 to 60 is 6 point difference

Cherry-picking wont get you anywhere. I've already posted what Virat's overall numbers are compared to ABDV as well as since he entered his peak. They are within 2-3 points of each other, with ABDV actually out-striking him. 

 

Also, 6 points difference is a lesser difference when its 54 to 60 ( 10% of top number) than when its 40 and 46 ( 13% difference). 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Muloghonto

[express bowling]

44 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

54 to 60 is 6 point difference

Huge difference given the high number of matches both have played.

[Muloghonto]

20 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Huge difference given the high number of matches both have played.

not as big when average + strike rate are factored in. Infact stats show that ABDV is much more in Kohli's league than anyone from Tendy's era being in his.

 

[express bowling]

15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

not as big when average + strike rate are factored in. Infact stats show that ABDV is much more in Kohli's league than anyone from Tendy's era being in his.

 

 

Bevan was definitely in the same league ...  and Ponting and Hayden close.

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Bevan was definitely in the same league ...  and Ponting and Hayden close.

Again. Top order batsman.

 

Hayden is not from the same 'era', becoming a regular 12 years after Tendy's debut and well past his top phase. 

Ponting- he is decisively below Tendulkar in both average and strike rate. ABDV is superior to Kohli in strike rate. 
Ponting is 6% worse than Tendulkar in average and 6% in strike rate. ABDV is 10% worse in average and 9% BETTER in strike rate. 

 

 

And these comparisons are happening while Kohli is still at his peak- he hasn't gone through his decline phase yet- which EVERY PLAYER will go through. 

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Again. Top order batsman.

 

Hayden is not from the same 'era', becoming a regular 12 years after Tendy's debut and well past his top phase. 

Ponting- he is decisively below Tendulkar in both average and strike rate. ABDV is superior to Kohli in strike rate. 
Ponting is 6% worse than Tendulkar in average and 6% in strike rate. ABDV is 10% worse in average and 9% BETTER in strike rate. 

 

 

And these comparisons are happening while Kohli is still at his peak- he hasn't gone through his decline phase yet- which EVERY PLAYER will go through. 

 

Ponting had to play more ODIs on tougher tracks.

 

ABDV has not declined yet.  Wonderful reflexes, timing and awareness still present.

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Ponting had to play more ODIs on tougher tracks.

Nonsense. he neither played more ODIs, nor on tracks that are 'roads of Australia'. I can point out YOUR own posts where you've argued that Aussie tracks have been the flattest and highest average innings scores for the last 20 years. No need to change tune now to support your favorites

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

ABDV has not declined yet.  Wonderful reflexes, timing and awareness still present.

But he hardly ever plays anymore, so chances of his average going down is far lesser than that of Kohli, who's decline is coming.

[express bowling]

33 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Nonsense. he neither played more ODIs, nor on tracks that are 'roads of Australia'. I can point out YOUR own posts where you've argued that Aussie tracks have been the flattest and highest average innings scores for the last 20 years. No need to change tune now to support your favorites

 

And YOU have always argued that tracks in Australia and other non-Asian countries were far jucier in that era.

 

What I said was ... pitches were not as tough in that era as you made them out to be.  There were many flat tracks.  And I stick by that.

 

But ODIs in Australia were generally lower scoring in the 1990s and 2000s than in India.  That is comparitively tougher tracks than India.

 

And that is my point here.

 

Quote

But he hardly ever plays anymore, so chances of his average going down is far lesser than that of Kohli, who's decline is coming.

 

And that shows that ABDV's stats are mostly peak ability stats without any decline phase.  If he had continued till 38, his stats would have deteriorated.

 

Moreover,  if we consider only top order stats  ( the basis on which you are excluding Bevan ) (  Kohli has played more than 90% of his games in the top order while ABDV has played in the lower-middle order too )  ...  Kohli averages 61  with a SR of 93 ... ABDV averages  49 with a SR of 99 ... their difference increases further.

Edited November 6, 2018 by express bowling

[rtmohanlal]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 

Bevan was definitely in the same league ...  and Ponting and Hayden close.

Hayden close to Sachin???  don't under stand some of the logics.... every body knows that  for each and every match a player is playing in , there is no guarantee that he will perform  .That being the case longevity is a very important factor. Sachin in a phase has 11000+ runs in 249 inns @ 49 avg:  & 89 str: rate. Hayden has  only 6133 @ 43.8 & 79 .How is it even close for a comparison???

[express bowling]

12 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

Hayden close to Sachin???  don't under stand some of the logics.... every body knows that  for each and every match a player is playing in , there is no guarantee that he will perform  .That being the case longevity is a very important factor. Sachin in a phase has 11000+ runs in 249 inns @ 49 avg:  & 89 str: rate. Hayden has  only 6133 @ 43.8 & 79 .How is it even close for a comparison???

 

Only entire careers are comparable.  Hayden averaged 44 with a SR of almost 80 ... from 161 ODIs.  Big enough number of matches to be comparable.

 

Moreover he was a hugely impactful batsman.

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

20 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

And YOU have always argued that tracks in Australia and other non-Asian countries were far jucier in that era.

 

No, i have argued that tracks EVERYWHERE were in general, jucier in the 90s & early 2000s, than they are in the post 2004/5 era. 
This is statistical reality for the distribution of 300+ scores as well as average scores. 

20 minutes ago, express bowling said:

What I said was ... pitches were not as tough in that era as you made them out to be.  There were many flat tracks.  And I stick by that.

You can stick by the occasional flat track argument. Anything more, shows your argument to be completely devoid of the simple statistical reality of averages and mean distributions. 

20 minutes ago, express bowling said:

But ODIs in Australia were generally lower scoring in the 1990s and 2000s than in India.  That is comparitively tougher tracks than India.

And that is my point here.

 

Not to my recollection. In general, Aussie tracks yeilded more wickets but also higher scores than the asian tracks of the 90s. 

20 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

And that shows that ABDV's stats are mostly peak ability stats without any decline phase.  If he had continued till 38, his stats would have deteriorated.

Maybe, but the same argument holds for Bevan too. Last played an ODI at age 34 and kicked off the team just after a dozen bad matches ( the year previous, he averaged 65+). Doesn't stop you from bringing him up. 

 

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Only entire careers are comparable.  Hayden averaged 44 with a SR of almost 80 ... from 161 ODIs.  Big enough number of matches to be comparable.

 

Moreover he was a hugely impactful batsman.

 

161 ODIs are not comparable to 460+. Especially since 161 ODIs is around 5-6 years of playing a full schedule, while 460 is 15 years or so of playing a full schedule. 
Plenty of players exist in many sports who have shined for a 4-5 year period.  Hayden literally was only good between 2002 and 2007, in a span where he played 126 of his 161 ODIs. Thats 6 years for nearly 80% of career matches played. Ie, a purple patch, nothing more. 

[rtmohanlal]

28 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Only entire careers are comparable.  Hayden averaged 44 with a SR of almost 80 ... from 161 ODIs.  Big enough number of matches to be comparable.

 

Moreover he was a hugely impactful batsman.

 

Here is the difference in basic logic. For a general rule, it is  very difficult to main longevity. So not arguing here. Each to his own 

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

 

No, i have argued that tracks EVERYWHERE were in general, jucier in the 90s & early 2000s, than they are in the post 2004/5 era. 
This is statistical reality for the distribution of 300+ scores as well as average scores. 

You can stick by the occasional flat track argument. Anything more, shows your argument to be completely devoid of the simple statistical reality of averages and mean distributions. 

 

Not to my recollection. In general, Aussie tracks yeilded more wickets but also higher scores than the asian tracks of the 90s. 

In ODIs in the 1990s and 2000s decade ...

 

4.9 runs per over were scored by Australia in Australia.  Average runs per batsman 33.8.   Average runs per innings  223. 

 

5.3 runs per over were scored by India in India.  Average runs per batsman  37.2.  Average runs per innings  240.

 

Quote

Maybe, but the same argument holds for Bevan too. Last played an ODI at age 34 and kicked off the team just after a dozen bad matches ( the year previous, he averaged 65+). Doesn't stop you from bringing him up. 

 

 

It was your logic which I elaborated upon. I am in favour of comparing entire careers.   

Edited November 6, 2018 by express bowling

[express bowling]

42 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

161 ODIs are not comparable to 460+. Especially since 161 ODIs is around 5-6 years of playing a full schedule, while 460 is 15 years or so of playing a full schedule. 
Plenty of players exist in many sports who have shined for a 4-5 year period.  Hayden literally was only good between 2002 and 2007, in a span where he played 126 of his 161 ODIs. Thats 6 years for nearly 80% of career matches played. Ie, a purple patch, nothing more. 

 

Hayden played ODIs over a 15 year span and played 161 ODIs.  That is not a short time-span or insignificant number of games.

 

According to your logic Roberts and Garner,  who have played only 47,  58  tests respectively over only 9 and 10   years ... won't be good enough  and you would consider Anderson in a much higher league.

 

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

Hayden played ODIs over a 15 year span and played 161 ODIs.  That is not a short time-span or insignificant number of games.

stop trying to twist facts. Hayden debuted in 93, played 13 ODIs in 93 and 94, then didnt play again for six years, again playing in 2000.

THis is his career spread: As we can see, he played 80% of his matches in a six year period. Qualifies a a purple patch. 

 

year 1993		5	5	1	102	50*	25.50	220	46.36	0	1	0	10	0
year 1994		8	7	0	184	67	26.28	313	58.78	0	1	1	20	0
year 2000		6	6	1	191	64*	38.20	230	83.04	0	3	2	27	3
year 2001		8	7	0	311	111	44.42	351	88.60	1	2	2	27	5
year 2002		21	20	4	878	146	54.87	1069	82.13	1	6	0	87	17
year 2003		32	31	5	1037	88	39.88	1316	78.79	0	5	1	104	13
year 2004		23	23	0	946	126	41.13	1259	75.13	2	6	2	87	6
year 2005		16	16	1	482	114	32.13	684	70.46	1	2	0	57	6
year 2006		2	2	0	103	54	51.50	143	72.02	0	1	0	14	0
year 2007		32	30	3	1601	181*	59.29	1795	89.19	5	6	1	168	35
year 2008		8	8	0	298	82	37.25	387	77.00	0	3	0	35	2

8 hours ago, express bowling said:

According to your logic Roberts and Garner,  who have played only 47,  58  tests respectively over only 9 and 10   years ... won't be good enough  and you would consider Anderson in a much higher league.

 

Red herring argument. Bowlers and batsmen do not have the same length of careers. Roberts and Garner also do not have 80% of their matches squeezed in a tiny chunk of their careers either, nor are their performances exceptional only during this purple patch.

 

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, express bowling said:

In ODIs in the 1990s and 2000s decade ...

 

4.9 runs per over were scored by Australia in Australia.  Average runs per batsman 33.8.   Average runs per innings  223. 

 

5.3 runs per over were scored by India in India.  Average runs per batsman  37.2.  Average runs per innings  240.

Again, irrelevant stats. Runs scored by India in India or Australia in Australia does not demonstrate anything, except how dominant a home team is. To demonstrate the scoring conditions, the stats scored in India and Australia for ALL TEAMS is relevant. 

8 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

It was your logic which I elaborated upon. I am in favour of comparing entire careers.   

Okay, but we are NOT comparing entire careers in this thread - if so, the we should all STFU and wait for Kohli to end his career before talking...

[express bowling]

24 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Again, irrelevant stats. Runs scored by India in India or Australia in Australia does not demonstrate anything, except how dominant a home team is. To demonstrate the scoring conditions, the stats scored in India and Australia for ALL TEAMS is relevant. 

 

I said that Ponting had to bat in tougher conditions in a high percentage of ODI matches compared to Tendulkar  (  as batting in Australia was comparitively tougher than batting in India in that era in ODIs  ).  

 

For checking this out, Australians batting in Australia  and Indians batting in India in that era are the relevant stats. 

 

Quote

Okay, but we are NOT comparing entire careers in this thread - if so, the we should all STFU and wait for Kohli to end his career before talking...

 

I agree with that.  No point in statistically comparing these 2 at this point of Kohli's career.  It may change for the better or for the worse for Kohli by the time he ends his career.

 

I just chipped in to the argument about whether Kohli is statistically ahead of his peers till now.

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

I said that Ponting had to bat in tougher conditions in a high percentage of ODI matches compared to Tendulkar  (  as batting in Australia was comparitively tougher than batting in India in that era in ODIs  ).  

 

For checking this out, Australians batting in Australia  and Indians batting in India in that era are the relevant stats. 

No. they are not. All teams batting in the given conditions is the relevant stats. If batting is easier/tougher, than its applicable to every team batting in those conditions. otherwise your stats just show how dominant a home team is.

5 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

I agree with that.  No point in statistically comparing these 2 at this point of Kohli's career.  It may change for the better or for the worse for Kohli by the time he ends his career.

 

I just chipped in to the argument about whether Kohli is statistically ahead of his peers till now.

cool.

[Nikhil_cric]

4 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

I said that Ponting had to bat in tougher conditions in a high percentage of ODI matches compared to Tendulkar  (  as batting in Australia was comparitively tougher than batting in India in that era in ODIs  ).  

 

For checking this out, Australians batting in Australia  and Indians batting in India in that era are the relevant stats. 

 

 

I agree with that.  No point in statistically comparing these 2 at this point of Kohli's career.  It may change for the better or for the worse for Kohli by the time he ends his career.

 

I just chipped in to the argument about whether Kohli is statistically ahead of his peers till now.

Im not sure about ponting having harder batting conditions in Australia though. Australian odi wickets were pretty flat from the 2000's onwards and were just good batting wickets if you could adjust to the bounce. In India, batting was not always easy either as you would get pitches and conditions with enough spin and reverse swing to counter.