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

[mishra]

Kohli on his peak, bats at a comparative Strike rate where India will loose most matches against small sides (Not ATG), unless Rohit or Dhawan can somehow seriously impact overall run scored, or KD can somehow spin whole opponent top order back to dressing room.

Check English series, Check against Windies. Thats two back to back series. But some peoples delusion has no bounds once its sold on PR plate

Edited November 7, 2018 by mishra

[express bowling]

33 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

 

Changing line as usual 

 

Sub Topic we were discussing  ...  was it more difficult to bat in ODIs in Australia than it was in India in the 1990s and 2000s. 

 

This is what I showcased.   

 

Don't go round in circles and discuss something different.

 

Quote

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.

 

Average of 42 and SR of 80 over 375 ODIs  ... (  batting 50% of the time in somewhat lower scoring Australia compared to India  )   is not a big statistical gap.

 

Quote

The topic is Ponting vs Tendy according to you - which is a clear-cut win for Tendy by virtually any metrics.

 

Yes ... clear cut win for Tendulkar for sure.  That is my opinion too.

 

But we were discussing whether Ponting is not even close to Tendukar ... and that is not the case.

 

Quote

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).

 

I did not say that Ponting batted in a tougher era.     

 

I said that Ponting batted in slightly tougher conditions 50% of time  (  comparing their respective home batting conditions throughout their careers  )

 

And Ponting debuted in February 1995 ... not 1996.

 

 

 

P.s --  If you bother to reply to this post ... just think clearly about the sub-topic being debated by us ...  read what I have written exactly ... and write regarding that.  Don't go to other issues.

 

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by express bowling

[rkt.india]

17 minutes ago, mishra said:

Kohli on his peak, bats at a comparative Strike rate where India will loose most matches against small sides (Not ATG), unless Rohit or Dhawan can somehow seriously impact overall run scored, or KD can somehow spin whole opponent top order back to dressing room.

Check English series, Check against Windies. Thats two back to back series. But some peoples delusion has no bounds once its sold on PR plate

Kohli has a higher SR than Rohit in last 5 years despite having 10-12 points higher average.

[Muloghonto]

39 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Changing line as usual 

 

Sub Topic we were discussing  ...  was it more difficult to bat in ODIs in Australia than it was in India in the 1990s and 2000s. 

 

This is what I showcased.   

Which is irrelevant to your point re: ponting because ponting didnt play entire 90s and 2000s. So your show-casing does not match. 

39 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Don't go round in circles and discuss something different.

 

 

Average of 42 and SR of 80 over 375 ODIs  ... (  batting 50% of the time in somewhat lower scoring Australia compared to India  )   is not a big statistical gap.

6% gap in both strike rate and average, while playing in easier match situation almost all his life, amongst elites, is a significant gap. 

39 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

 

 

Yes ... clear cut win for Tendulkar for sure.  That is my opinion too.

 

But we were discussing whether Ponting is not even close to Tendukar ... and that is not the case.

No, he is not close. Nobody thought he was close to Tendy in ODIs, the stats dont bear it out either. 

39 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

I did not say that Ponting batted in a tougher era.     

 

I said that Ponting batted in slightly tougher conditions 50% of time  (  comparing their respective home batting conditions throughout their careers  )

 

And Ponting debuted in February 1995 ... not 1996.

 

Disagree. Australian team being much stronger means Ponting batted in easier conditions than most. I'd rather chase 110 on a slightly juicy pitch, than 240 on a normal pitch. Its basic scoreboard pressure or lack there-of. 

39 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

P.s --  If you bother to reply to this post ... just think clearly about the sub-topic being debated by us ...  read what I have written exactly ... and write regarding that.  Don't go to other issues.

 

 

you are the one saying that batting is easier in the 90s/2000s by first showing only home-side batting, then showing entire 2 decades and drawing conclusions to Ponting's harder pitches, when its clear that Ponting didnt play for the first half of 90s and lower scores during that period are disingeneously pigeonholed into your argument.

Learn to use basic statistical inference.....

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

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.  

Nonsense. Viv played and got an average that is world-class today, when it was much harder to average or strike at that stupendous rate, plus with no field restrictions it was also harder to score at a high strike rate. 

Chances of Kohli being a dud in the 80s, especially with his weakness against 4th stump high quality bowling (where even in England this year, he struggled to that particular line and barely held his nerve), than Viv dudding out today. 

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

 

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. 

since 2011, ABDV is sightly ahead of Kohli. 

[Ankit_sharma03]

10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Chances of Kohli being a dud in the 80s, especially with his weakness against 4th stump high quality bowling (where even in England this year, he struggled to that particular line and barely held his nerve), than Viv dudding out today. 

4th stump bowling will trouble any batsman in the world 

its not about weekness , its about getting runs..../he still got runs against Anderson n i hvent seen a better bowler then anderson in england condition add broad+ curran + woakes thats is some attack

 

Every batsman will have some weekness, but its how to get runs despite them

[mishra]

43 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Kohli has a higher SR than Rohit in last 5 years despite having 10-12 points higher average.

And higher average too. But that means dud. Its similar to Sachins hundred against Bangladesh or various Sachins inning in last few years before his retirement.

Bottom line is, We lost most matches in two back to back series where Kohli scored heavily.

Edited November 7, 2018 by mishra

[goose]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

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. 

respectfully, this is the most outrageous thing I've seen around here in a while

[express bowling]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Which is irrelevant to your point re: ponting because ponting didnt play entire 90s and 2000s. So your show-casing does not match. 

6% gap in both strike rate and average, while playing in easier match situation almost all his life, amongst elites, is a significant gap. 

No, he is not close. Nobody thought he was close to Tendy in ODIs, the stats dont bear it out either. 

Disagree. Australian team being much stronger means Ponting batted in easier conditions than most. I'd rather chase 110 on a slightly juicy pitch, than 240 on a normal pitch. Its basic scoreboard pressure or lack ttherre-of. 

 

I have said all I had to say on these .  No point repeating the same things.

 

Quote

you are the one saying that batting is easier in the 90s/2000s

 

No, I did not.

 

I  said that ODI batting in Australia was a bit more difficult than in India during the 1990s and 2000s.   Which I supported by stats.

 

Quote

by first showing only home-side batting, then showing entire 2 decades and drawing conclusions to Ponting's harder pitches, when its clear that Ponting didnt play for the first half of 90s and lower scores during that period are disingeneously pigeonholed into your argument.

 

I had explained these things multiple times before but it is like banging one's head on a wall.

 

 

The common period for Tendulkar and Ponting in ODIs was between  1995 and 2011.

 

In ODIs from 1995 to 2011 in Australia

 

Average runs per batsman     29.35

Average run rate per over         4.82

 

In ODIs from 1995 to 2011 in India

 

Average runs per batsman     33.01

Average run rate per over         5.22

 

 

 

 

There is no more to say on this sub-topic. No point going round in circles.

[putrevus]

9 hours ago, rkt.india said:

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. 

That is a great point.Today due to T20s players have evolved .The bowlers who averaged in low 20s will not average the same now.Viv would be great today, like wise I believe Kohli would be great in 1970s, 80s or 90s.

 

ABDV averaging 61 is great but not surprising as he plays most in middle order even Dhoni average above 50.Still Kohli is averaging so far ahead that it is no comparision.

[putrevus]

10 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

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.  

 

 

You are right Ponting was a beast and not far behind Sachin as an odi batsman.I don't understand how people can say  Sachin batted in inferior lineups than Australians.Indian batting lineup in 2000s was as good as Australian lineups atleast statisically.

[putrevus]

Since advent of Dravid and Ganguly along with Laxman and Sehwag , India had best test batting lineup comparable to any other test team.Likes of Yuvraj and Dhoni along with Ganguly and Sehwag made India odi line up also very strong in 2000s so Sachin having nobody to support him is ridiculous after 2000s. Yes in 1990s India had a very poor batting away from home but at home it was just fine.

[putrevus]

15 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

"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.

I told you I dont want to talk to you and I am done with you.Please don't quote my posts with your half assed nonsense.

 

98 in 2003 was not scored against superior attack period.One more time I repeat in case you don't get it. Sachin is no way better than Kohli as an odi player.Kohli will score better than Sachin against any attack which Sachin faced at any point in his career. Kohli is already better than Sachin ever was even if he does not play a single odi from here onwards.

 

There is nothing which Sachin did is better than Kohli.

Edited November 7, 2018 by putrevus

[Jimmy Cliff]

23 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. 

Err..no. Sachin made his debut a lot earlier than most batsmen, became a world class batsman in his early 20s, became an ATG by the time he was 25, and his decline too started by the time he was 29-30. Any one who has followed his career knows this. Don't make me spoonfeed you everything. And Kohli not being in his prime in 2015 is news to me and probably to Kohli himself!

Edited November 7, 2018 by Jimmy Cliff

[Vilander]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

became a world class batsman in his early 20s, became an ATG by the time he was 25, and his decline too started by the time he was 29

   was he coach by the time he was 36 then..playing coach maybe.

[Muloghonto]

15 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

4th stump bowling will trouble any batsman in the world 

its not about weekness , its about getting runs..../he still got runs against Anderson n i hvent seen a better bowler then anderson in england condition add broad+ curran + woakes thats is some attack

 

Every batsman will have some weekness, but its how to get runs despite them

In English conditions, Caddick & Fraser were just as good- they just didn't last as long, neither did England play 15 tests per year in those days.
Best bowler i've seen in English conditions is the best fast bowler i've ever seen: Malcolm Marshall.

 

[rtmohanlal]

7 hours ago, putrevus said:

I told you I dont want to talk to you and I am done with you.Please don't quote my posts with your half assed nonsense.

 

98 in 2003 was not scored against superior attack period.One more time I repeat in case you don't get it. Sachin is no way better than Kohli as an odi player.Kohli will score better than Sachin against any attack which Sachin faced at any point in his career. Kohli is already better than Sachin ever was even if he does not play a single odi from here onwards.

 

There is nothing which Sachin did is better than Kohli.

yes.....   it is better not to deal with your dumb ass non sense either. '98 in 2003 was not scored against superior attack period', 'Sachin got to play at 17 y 212 d just because of pure luck' ...........these type of sense less   childish  pranks can be uttered by utmost fools only. And I was not  at all eager to respond  to your foolish pranks either ... It was just because of  your attempts to downgrade such a great  batsman that I was tempted to respond..

Your sole intention is only  this .Make others agree with   what all  non senses you are  sprouting  out at any cost.So keep on with your 

once in a while  emotional statements like  'Kohli will score better than Sachin against any attack which Sachin faced at any point in his caree','Kohli is already better than Sachin ever was even if he does not play a single odi from here onwards.' etc etc.

 

Again ,once more ,'Mr: Putrevus is the top most analyst  that can ever be,he can never say any thing wrong'. While I conclude  by saying this I think I have done every thing w.r.t debating with you because this is the only thing that you want ultimately.

Edited November 8, 2018 by rtmohanlal

[Jamadagni]

Argument : Sachin faced superior pace attacks. 

 

*Let's assume he did*

 

Verdict: Sachin averaged in 20s against Aus/SA in Aus/SA. 

 

*CASE CLOSED*

[rkt.india]

8 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Err..no. Sachin made his debut a lot earlier than most batsmen, became a world class batsman in his early 20s, became an ATG by the time he was 25, and his decline too started by the time he was 29-30. Any one who has followed his career knows this. Don't make me spoonfeed you everything. And Kohli not being in his prime in 2015 is news to me and probably to Kohli himself!

IF SRT made his debut earlier then Kohli too made his debut at 19

[Muloghonto]

47 minutes ago, Jamadagni said:

Argument : Sachin faced superior pace attacks. 

 

*Let's assume he did*

 

Verdict: Sachin averaged in 20s against Aus/SA in Aus/SA. 

 

*CASE CLOSED*

largely irrelevant. 

a) too small a sample size for some of those claims ( less than 5% sample space)

b) not many of his era are much higher, either. 

c) facing superior attacks does not override who did what in which country on a random basis, either. I consider facing McWarne + Gillespie even on roadiest of road wickets as a greater test of batsmanship than facing the Bong attack on a raging turner/bouncy/seaming wicket or whatever.