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

[putrevus]

On 11/5/2018 at 10:29 AM, Jimmy Cliff said:

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 .

How was Kohli in prime in 2015, Sachin was 30 in 2003 and that is prime for any batsman. You are making a big deal that 98 was some how scored against a very superior attack which is not true at all. 

[putrevus]

On 11/3/2018 at 7:43 AM, Nikola said:

So when Shubman Gill or Prithvi Shaw will be at their young peak, will kohli will be able to match them?

Kohli was just starting out , he was not in his peak when he played with Sachin.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

How was Kohli in prime in 2015, Sachin was 30 in 2003 and that is prime for any batsman. You are making a big deal that 98 was some how scored against a very superior attack which is not true at all. 

age is not the example of who is at prime or not. Different players develop at different pace, different players have their peaks at different times. Cant just make nonsensical statements as 'if age = x, player = in prime'. Its more or less valid as a generalized rule of thumb, but not in individual examples.

 

By the time Kohli showed up, Tendy was well past his ODI prime and a part time player more interested in playing test cricket. 

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Vilander]

21 hours 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. 

Longevity can not trump every other factor.

[rtmohanlal]

7 hours ago, putrevus said:

How was Kohli in prime in 2015, Sachin was 30 in 2003 and that is prime for any batsman. You are making a big deal that 98 was some how scored against a very superior attack which is not true at all. 

"98 was some how scored against a very superior attack which is not true at all."

Reasons .....  one Mr:Putrevus gave a final verdict that  both the attacks were of the same quality despite the fact that his dumb ass logics   were proven emphatically sense less from every ankle and  thrown into waste basket.

 

Was going thru the  posts continuously.Where ever you put some weird sense less reasons, those were badly exposed thru crystal clear sensible  facts based on data so that you had no answer what so ever. Yet again, once  in a  while  you would  come up with these    plain emotional statements that have no logic what so ever as if to  proclaim that  you can never say  any wrong just like you have done in the above post too.

[express bowling]

13 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

 

Hayden was a top ODI batsman of that era.  Averaging 44 with a SR of almost 80 over 161 ODIs was quite an achievement.

 

He was an impact player and a vital cog of the Great Aussie team.  

 

Players are judged over their enire careers.  It was a top ODI career for Hayden which helped his team win a lot of matches.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

I am comparing pace bowlers with pace bowlers only.  Roberts had a 9 year test career and Garner 10 ... while there were lots top pacers with 17 to 19 year bowling careers like Anderson, Hadlee, Akram, Imran , Walsh.

 

And Roberts had only 6 good seasons in his test career.

 

But he is considered to be among the creme-de-la-creme of pace bowlers.

 

It is the impact that a player has or had on the opposition is what matters and not just dry stats or longevity.

 

Tendulkar is a super duper great because of this impact factor.  He was feared by his opposition for many years.  

[express bowling]

13 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

.

 

The Aussies always found it easier to bat in Australia while the visiting teams struggled with the pace and bounce of the tracks, only exception being South Africa. (  Average runs per batsman 33.8 for Australians vs 28.44 overall  )

 

But since you want overall stats ... here goes.

 

In ODIs in Australia in the 1990s  and 2000s 

 

Average runs per batsman     28.44

Average run rate per innings   4.58

 

In ODIs in India in the 1990s and  2000s 

 

Average runs per batsman     32.57

Average run rate per innings    5.07

[express bowling]

9 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

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. 

 

ODIs in Australia in the 2000s decade

 

Average runs per batsman          30.20

Average run rate per innings         4.94

 

 

ODIs in India in the 2000s decade

 

Average runs per batsman          34.13

Average run rate per innings         5.37

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by express bowling

[Trichromatic]

19 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 ODIs in Australia in the 2000s decade

  

Average runs per batsman          30.20

 Average run rate per innings         4.94

 

 

ODIs in India in the 2000s decade

  

Average runs per batsman          34.13

 Average run rate per innings         5.37

  

Averages of home teams for first 8 years in 2000s

 

Overall figures

Team	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	NR	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
South Africa	2000-2007	95	67	20	3	5	3.350	39.22	5.27	94	438	149
Australia	2000-2007	94	72	18	1	3	4.000	38.57	5.38	93	368	139
India	2000-2007	87	46	38	0	3	1.210	36.76	5.48	86	356	144
Pakistan	2000-2007	53	32	21	0	0	1.523	35.15	5.22	53	353	137

 

 

Overall averages for home teams in 2000s

Overall figures

Team	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	NR	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
South Africa	2000-2009	117	83	26	3	5	3.192	39.57	5.36	116	438	119
India	2000-2009	103	56	43	0	4	1.302	37.75	5.58	101	414	144
Pakistan	2000-2009	71	46	25	0	0	1.840	36.93	5.33	71	353	75
Australia	2000-2009	117	83	28	1	5	2.964	36.35	5.28	116	368	139

 

 

[express bowling]

5 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Averages of home teams for first 8 years in 2000s

 

Overall figures

Team	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	NR	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
South Africa	2000-2007	95	67	20	3	5	3.350	39.22	5.27	94	438	149
Australia	2000-2007	94	72	18	1	3	4.000	38.57	5.38	93	368	139
India	2000-2007	87	46	38	0	3	1.210	36.76	5.48	86	356	144
Pakistan	2000-2007	53	32	21	0	0	1.523	35.15	5.22	53	353	137

 

 

Overall averages for home teams in 2000s

Overall figures

Team	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	NR	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
South Africa	2000-2009	117	83	26	3	5	3.192	39.57	5.36	116	438	119
India	2000-2009	103	56	43	0	4	1.302	37.75	5.58	101	414	144
Pakistan	2000-2009	71	46	25	0	0	1.840	36.93	5.33	71	353	75
Australia	2000-2009	117	83	28	1	5	2.964	36.35	5.28	116	368	139

 

 

 

We were trying to find this out for overall careers of Tendulkar and Ponting. 

 

Check the figures I have posted above. Much more runs in India for those periods.

 

And even in your stats  ...  overall figures in the 2000s decade are still higher for India ... and average run rate per innings and hence team runs per innings higher in India for your selected period.

[Trichromatic]

11 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

We were trying to find this out for overall careers of Tendulkar and Ponting. 

 

Check the figures I have posted above. Much more runs in India for those periods.

 

And even in your stats  ...  overall figures in the 2000s decade are still higher for India ... and average run rate per innings and hence team runs per innings higher in India for your selected period.

Average difference of 0.8 is hardly much. 

 

Those numbers show that for most of that decade (first 8 years) it was easier for Ponting. Only in last 2 years, Indian team went ahead and still overall difference wasn't much.

 

Matches involving Ponting or SRT.

 

First 9 years of 2000s.

 

Team	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	NR	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
Australia	2000-2008	98	72	21	1	4	3.428	37.10	5.35	97	368	139
England	2001-2007	22	8	11	1	2	0.727	36.72	5.19	22	325	86
India	2000-2008	69	36	30	0	3	1.200	36.36	5.50	68	356	144

 

 

Overall figures

Team	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	NR	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
India	2000-2009	79	41	35	0	3	1.171	37.08	5.56	78	414	144
Australia	2000-2009	107	75	26	1	5	2.884	36.26	5.34	106	368	139
South Africa	2001-2009	23	12	10	1	0	1.200	35.17	5.43	23	438	145

 

 

Only thing that can be concluded that 2009 was difficult year, rest of the time 2000s was easier.

 

 

[express bowling]

3 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Average difference of 0.8 is hardly much. 

 

Those numbers show that for most of that decade (first 8 years) it was easier for Ponting. Only in last 2 years, Indian team went ahead and still overall difference wasn't much.

 

Matches involving Ponting or SRT.

 

First 9 years of 2000s.

 

Team	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	NR	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
Australia	2000-2008	98	72	21	1	4	3.428	37.10	5.35	97	368	139
England	2001-2007	22	8	11	1	2	0.727	36.72	5.19	22	325	86
India	2000-2008	69	36	30	0	3	1.200	36.36	5.50	68	356	144

 

 

Overall figures

Team	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	NR	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
India	2000-2009	79	41	35	0	3	1.171	37.08	5.56	78	414	144
Australia	2000-2009	107	75	26	1	5	2.884	36.26	5.34	106	368	139
South Africa	2001-2009	23	12	10	1	0	1.200	35.17	5.43	23	438	145

 

 

Only thing that can be concluded that 2009 was difficult year, rest of the time 2000s was easier.

 

 

We have to consider their entire careers and not pick and choose.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 

The Aussies always found it easier to bat in Australia while the visiting teams struggled with the pace and bounce of the tracks, only exception being South Africa. (  Average runs per batsman 33.8 for Australians vs 28.44 overall  )

 

But since you want overall stats ... here goes.

 

In ODIs in Australia in the 1990s  and 2000s 

 

Average runs per batsman     28.44

Average run rate per innings   4.58

 

In ODIs in India in the 1990s and  2000s 

 

Average runs per batsman     32.57

Average run rate per innings    5.07

sorry 1990s & 2000s is fudging the entire point. In the context of this thread, since Virat's career is not over and his decline is yet to come, the only relevant facts for comparison are Sachin's peaks vs Virat's peak of 2012-present. 

So, what is the figures, for 94-03, which is Tendulkar's peak period ?

and how much did Ponting play in said peak period, for it to even matter as a comparison ?

 

Sachin's peak lasted ten years in ODIs, where he scored a staggering 36 tons in 10 years, a number that matches up very well with Kohli in his 10 years of playing ODIs, despite Kohli playing in a much more batting-easy era of higher scores (a statistical fact, easy to show via both mean and median distribution of scores). 

 

This is Sachin's record during those 10 years:

filtered

1994-2004

258

252

23

11198

186*

48.89

12601

88.86

36

54

11

1218

128

 

The area where Tendulkar is *significantly* ahead of Kohli, are: strike rate ( his real strike rate is only 4-5% lower than Kohli's, in an era where overall scoring % was 10-12% lower than today.

Yes, Kohli is ahead in average, but not in relative times, since he has guys like Sharma and ABDV who are close to him in both strike rate and average during his purple patch period of 2011-present. 

tendulkar is ahead of kohli, in relative terms, simply because there is nobody close to him equally, in average AND strike rate, as Kohli has ABDV and Sharma.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 

Hayden was a top ODI batsman of that era.

No, he was not. He was a top ODI bat for 5-6 years. To me, that is not an era, that is a purple patch. 

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 Averaging 44 with a SR of almost 80 over 161 ODIs was quite an achievement.

Sure, but he achieved it in an era that is easier for runs ( 2000s-onwards) and he did it mostly over 5-6 years of good form. As i said, plenty of examples of good players who do great for a third or half a career's span of matches. Haydos was one of those in ODIs. Does not compare with a guy even remotely who out-does him in a consistently weaker batting lineup (over the overlap periods) in both average and strike rate and does it for 3x longer. 

 

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

He was an impact player and a vital cog of the Great Aussie team.  

Sure. Not denying that. But nowhere near Tendy. 

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

Players are judged over their enire careers.  It was a top ODI career for Hayden which helped his team win a lot of matches.

 

Sure. And over his entire career, he is a midget compared to Tendy. nowhere the same completeness of record, less than 1/3rd the matches, lesser average and strike rate while batting for a better bowling and batting unit in ODIs. Really no contest there. 

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

I am comparing pace bowlers with pace bowlers only.

Sure, but for pace bowlers, 10 year career is still more the normal. For batsmen, a 10 year career is in the shorter end of the stick and you know Hayden did not play international cricket for 15 years like you claimed. He did not even get picked for any international cricket for 4-5 years straight since his debut, how on earth does that even count, only dishonest people know. 

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 Roberts had a 9 year test career and Garner 10 ... while there were lots top pacers with 17 to 19 year bowling careers like Anderson, Hadlee, Akram, Imran , Walsh.

Anderson does not even enter the picture with his LOL-worthy overall and not-in-England average. But besides them, Roberts and Garner qualify, because they have better records over a career span that is still within the average distribution of most pace bowlers - which is around 10 years or so. they also get the benefit for being not-teenage starters who also got forced out of the team at an early age due to better bowlers available at the time. 
Akram would've been pushed out a few years early and Waqar 5-6 years early if they had to face competition from a young Walsh, ambrose or Bishop as well 

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 

And Roberts had only 6 good seasons in his test career.

Within average distribution of bowlers. 5-6 year purple patch is not average distribution of batsmen. 

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 

It is the impact that a player has or had on the opposition is what matters and not just dry stats or longevity.

 

Tendulkar is a super duper great because of this impact factor.  He was feared by his opposition for many years.  

well tendy had more impact than Kohli ever has had for a long while. Between 94-98 he was the sole batting hope for india, a position Kohli never has had the burden of in ODIs. 

 

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Vilander said:

Longevity can not trump every other factor.

3x longetivity at 80% definitely trumps x longetivity at 90%. 

longetivity is a huge factor and for most teams, when it comes to a great player, is a decisive factor. 

[express bowling]

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

sorry 1990s & 2000s is fudging the entire point. In the context of this thread, since Virat's career is not over and his decline is yet to come, the only relevant facts for comparison are Sachin's peaks vs Virat's peak of 2012-present. 

So, what is the figures, for 94-03, which is Tendulkar's peak period ?

and how much did Ponting play in said peak period, for it to even matter as a comparison ?

 

Sachin's peak lasted ten years in ODIs, where he scored a staggering 36 tons in 10 years, a number that matches up very well with Kohli in his 10 years of playing ODIs, despite Kohli playing in a much more batting-easy era of higher scores (a statistical fact, easy to show via both mean and median distribution of scores). 

 

This is Sachin's record during those 10 years:

filtered

1994-2004

258

252

23

11198

186*

48.89

12601

88.86

36

54

11

1218

128

 

The area where Tendulkar is *significantly* ahead of Kohli, are: strike rate ( his real strike rate is only 4-5% lower than Kohli's, in an era where overall scoring % was 10-12% lower than today.

Yes, Kohli is ahead in average, but not in relative times, since he has guys like Sharma and ABDV who are close to him in both strike rate and average during his purple patch period of 2011-present. 

tendulkar is ahead of kohli, in relative terms, simply because there is nobody close to him equally, in average AND strike rate, as Kohli has ABDV and Sharma.

 

 

I am not comparing Tendulkar with Kohli.  As I said before ... it is not possible to do so at the middle of Kohli's career.

 

The discussion we were having earlier was ...  whether in ODIs, Ponting had faced tougher batting conditions in Australia throughout his career compared to Tendulkar throughout his career in India.

 

This is what I showcased.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

I am not comparing Tendulkar with Kohli.  As I said before ... it is not possible to do so at the middle of Kohli's career.

 

The discussion we were having earlier was ...  whether in ODIs, Ponting had faced tougher batting conditions in Australia throughout his career compared to Tendulkar throughout his career in India.

 

This is what I showcased.

 

 

your information is flawed, since throughout Ponting's career is not all of 90s-2000s, either. He played for a much stronger batting AND bowling lineup during his career and still is behind Tendulkar. Neither is Ponting's record as good in all conditions as Tendulkar's. Its no-contest and it never was in their time-frame either.

 

[express bowling]

9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

your information is flawed, since throughout Ponting's career is not all of 90s-2000s, either. He played for a much stronger batting AND bowling lineup during his career and still is behind Tendulkar. Neither is Ponting's record as good in all conditions as Tendulkar's. Its no-contest and it never was in their time-frame either.

 

 

There is a difference between opinion and facts.

 

Tendulkar was definitely a better ODI batsman than Ponting but Ponting was not way behind.

 

You keep on forgetting the topic being discussed.  

 

 

[Muloghonto]

53 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

There is a difference between opinion and facts.

 

 

Except none of what i said ( that pontings record is inferior, he played for a stronger batting and bowling side by a significant margin) are opinions, those are facts borne out by both the superior records of OZ and statistics. 

53 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Tendulkar was definitely a better ODI batsman than Ponting but Ponting was not way behind.

yes, he was. They are both elite batsmen, so it doe not make Ponting a chump, but there is a big gap between the two. That much, is obvious both from stats and watching them dominate.

53 minutes ago, express bowling said:

You keep on forgetting the topic being discussed.  

The topic is Ponting vs Tendy according to you - which is a clear-cut win for Tendy by virtually any metrics. You said Ponting batted in a tougher era, then conviniently put forth stats for ALL of 90s and 2000s, when Ponting didnt even play for most of the 90s itself (debuting in 96).

[rkt.india]

comparing with peers is pointless, TBH.  If someone dominated his peers does not mean he is better than the best batsman of the current generation.  Example, Viv Richards who dominated ODI cricket in 70s and 80s when ODI cricket used to be played with test match field and he dominated his peers then but that does not mean he could dominate his peers in current generation because in his times, ODI cricket was a developing toddler and not many good ODIs players were around. In current generation, there are many good to very good ODI cricketers around and it is very much possible, Viv could be just one of those good to very good ODI cricketers and not necessarily dominate them.  

 

Now we talk about Kohli and his peers, since july 2013, Kohli is averaging 72, ABDV is averaging 61, Rohit around 60.  He is clearly 11 points ahead of his nearest ABDV.  Likes of Babar Azam are no where in the picture with 20 points behind him. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by rkt.india