Jump to content

Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

94 series. Destroyed Murali.

97 series. Destroyed Murali.

 

09 series and 2010 he more than dominated Murali. 

Please mulo you are better than that.

 

1993 Murali was a rookie while Sachin was a seasoned veteran with 4 years of test cricket behind him, also his peak had started. Checked the stats now, they crossed swords only in 1 test where Sachin made 70 and Murali took a 4fer at <3 ER.

 

1994 Murali was still a rookie yet the pick of the Lankan bowlers. Pardon me I was a toddler then, so didn't watch that series. May be he had a couple of good innings but Murali was nowhere close to his prime. 

 

1997 series: Rubbish pitches in Lanka with 950 type scores. In the home series Sachin hardly troubled the score keepers.

 

Overall this LINK captures the rivalry perfectly. Average of 32.67 at SR 53.6 hardly construes domination...that too when some of the pitches were absolute featherbeds. And in test matches I have only seen SRT trying to survive against Murali as opposed to Warne against whom he was the aggressor. Murali destroyed SRT in 2008 Lanka when the latter was in his 2nd peak (1st one was 1992-2001, then 2007-10). In 2009 Viru destroyed Murali, Sachin did some useless stat boosting in 1 innings and was sub par in others. 2010 Murali played only the 1st test and won the test for his country and also took his 800th wicket...he btw dismissed Sachin yet again in his final test. 

 

Please don't be biased man. You can back your support for Sachin without throwing these exaggerated statements. 

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Not necessarily. Forget the 80s, look at 90s. Anderson is your Angus Fraser. Can swing it ferociously when conditions suit him but zero, zilch, zip, without it. 

Crappier than most RSA attacks of the 90s, simply because Donald-Pollock is a better combo than Steyn-Philander/Morkel with the new ball, with the old ball the likes of RSA spinners and 4th-5th pacers were better than they are through the 2000s. 

Sure. But Kumble on a 90s crumbler alone is a harder task than these three combined. You either did not watch or dont remember the pitches we served in the 90s when Kumble was at his pomp (before his surgery), when he could bowl the flipper like a spitting cobra. 

Yes, this is a better attack. But not a whole lot better than Donald-Pollock-DeVilliers-Kallis,either. 

Pffft. In empiric terms, they'd not make the WI 4th string in the 80s, neither the Pakistan's first line attack in the 80s post Akram's emergence. 

Also a good attack, but RSA attack in the 90s was similar. 

Caddick, Gough, Fraser. The same attack of the 90s effectively. Nuff said. 

Massively inferior to McWarne-Gillespie-Lee/Fleming. 

Same as above. 

Pfft. 

Plenty of batsmen of the earlier eras would murder the English/Aussie/Kiwi attack. 

 

 

I did not say that there attacks are better or worse. No one really has the tools to objectively compare and it just boils down to personal opinion. Just said that they are very good in the conditions I mentioned and would pose tough challenges to batters of any era.

 

It is impossible to compare eras because every era has its own unique challenges and advantages.

 

The biggest challenge that modern test batters face is keeping away and rectifying the bad habits that creep in while playing excessive T20s.   

 

Similarly, the pacers mess up their ball release and rhythm while trying too many slower balls in T20s. 

 

The 90s batters and bowlers would have had different skillsets and problems if they played in the 2010s.

Edited by express bowling
Link to comment

I don't want to fall into the trap of over rating the past and under rating the present, so no sweeping statements from my side. But still the bowlers Sachin faced in the 90s were by and large more potent than the ones Kohli is facing these days. In ODIs again need to look beyond overall stats, Kohli has done zilch in WCs and averages a measly 16 at SR 50 in WC KOs. Sachin was top scorer in 1996, 2003 and 2nd top scorer in 2011. And in 1992 teenager Sachin had 2 MOMs, including one against the eventual winners. 

Link to comment
On 8/3/2018 at 10:58 AM, Stan AF said:

The Gulf in bowling class between the present era and the previous ones is huge....Its almost astronomical...

 

Walsh Ambrose Bishop ..

Pollock Donald, Steyn & Kallis

Mcgrath Lee Warne Gillespie ...

Akram Waqar Shoaib Saqlain

Murali Vaas

 

These are top 10 bowlers who would average in the top 20s. Let alone even the second rung of bowlers from the teams had names like Mitchell Johnson, Damien Fleming, Makhaya Ntini, Lasith Malinga,Morne Morkel, Michael Kasprowicz, Mcdermott, Lance Klusener, Daniel Vettori, Umar Gul....

 

I don't think any batsman ever had to consistently face the best of the bowling world as Tendulkar did and still score more against them. His runs are more than worth its weight in Gold.

 

 

most of those bowlers wont have the same impact today.  Akram has himself admitted it many a times on air.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Kohli gave two chances before he crossed 50. Sachin has plenty of chanceless 100s in England, against similar/better bowling lineups. 

Sachin is far, far better than Kohli in swinging conditions and a few 'i got dropped a zillion times and scored a ton' centuries from Kohli wont change that.

kaun se chanceless 100s bhai? none in 2007 against a mediocre attack, none in 2011 against a superior attack than he faced in 90s and 2000s. England was a mediocre team till mid 2000s. Bowling attack was mediocre as well. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Stan AF said:

Dude, Understand the difference first. The bowlers in 1990s played in almost every tour irrespective off conditions, irrespective of surface and other criterias and what not.

 

I was talking of pacers from both the 80s and 90s ... and no they did not.  As far as I remember, Ambrose never toured India for test matches.  Many top 80s pacers skipped many an Asian tour.

 

Quote

This applies to every top bowler from every country. They were that good because they were that Good. They were single handed matchwinners. End of story.

 

 

By and large, they had more favourable conditions to bowl in. For example Perth, Brisbane and Melbourne in the early 90s. 

 

Quote

 

 

To drive home my point, Understand the fact that Ashwin/jadeja were not picked up in 2014tour and they were dropped. Simply because of the fact they were not effective and they couldn't cause enough damage in overseas tours.

 

Same thing applies to Stuart Broad/James Anderson in Indian wickets (2016 tour). Anderson had a decent tour in India in 2012 but it was Swann/monty who did the most damage to india in 2012. Broad/Anderson were pretty much ineffective in 2013/2017 Ashes tours to Australia. A Nathan Lyon would do effectively good damage in Indian wickets compared to Johnson/starc/Harris or for that matter even Philander or Rabada.

 

Heck Australians are losing repetitively in england meaning they aren't that good to trouble english batsmen. Same thing vice versa applies to australian bowlers in english conditions.

 

Teams by and large have increased the home advantage factor a lot and that has contributed to quite some extent too. Like English seamers get less movement in Australia these days compared to the 80s and 90s.

 

Quote

Among all the bowlers you mentioned here only Steyn would be considered an all time test great. Rest all are good but not all time greats like from the 90s/. They still have some time to go to be called all time greats.

 

Whereas in the 90s you had bowlers who have taken 300+ test wkts at miserly averages. mcgrath(500+), walsh(500=), ambrose(400+), wasim (400) waqar (350+) warne (700) kumble(600) murali(800) pollock (400+), donald (300+) etc..i could go on.. They performed in most countries and won matches in maximum conditions.

 

They were very good bowlers indeed. But you have picked bowlers over a 23 year period.

 

If I pick bowlers over a 23 year period till now, the number would be quite impressive too.

Edited by express bowling
Link to comment
On 8/3/2018 at 8:19 AM, rtmohanlal said:

SRT indeed had great temperament  as well, it might be that  Kohli is slightly ahead in this factor, that's all. When analysing SRT w.r.t this factor, we need to take into account the unusual amount of pressure he had to withstand thru out his career.And when comparing these 2 batsmen ,  i take this factor too into account.

That was the case in the 1990s but in the 2000s Tendulkar had great batsmen around him. It's not like Kohli has any less pressure, the rest of the batsmen are worse than Tendulkar's team, certainly post 2000. Kohli is a special character when it comes to thriving under pressure, I have never seen anyone as good as him. 

Link to comment

If Kohli can win this match, he will leave Sachin in his dust. I am sure many a times this topic has come up, but when Sachin had reached a milestone, he always seemed content irrespective of team's result. But yes those were different times where individual performance had more weightage than the team's cause. But it is whats it is. Kohli is a bigger match winner and a better team player. 

Link to comment

If Kohli can play 3-4 good knocks and may be 1-2 ATG ones on rank turners his status will go even further up in my eyes. It is slightly disappointing to note that he has failed on all rank turners in his career till now. He has the potential to do well on such pitches and knowing the sort of proud, driven individual that he is I fully expect him to correct that anomaly. He will get plenty of chances to do that in the next home cycle when he will be in his batting peak. Once he does that we are seriously talking business.

 

In my eyes Sachin wasn't that illustrious in red ball format...I mean he is still the creme de la creme among test ATGs but surpassing Sachin the test batsman IMO is very much possible for Kohli and Smith unless they have a bad drop-off in the coming years. Unlike most people I rate SRT the ODI batsman (2nd greatest) over SRT the test batsman (not top 5)...so feel that despite his incredible ODI record Kohli may never surpass Sachin there. You have to take into account WC record, score inflation, nature of ODI format, change in rules etc and once you see the holistic picture Sachin's ODI exploits stand out. Viv's ODI resume btw is almost unsurpassable.

 

But since tests>>white ball format Kohli can lay claim to be GOAT Indian batsman by the time he retires. As a lifelong Sachin fan nothing will please me more than watching another Indian batsman set the bar even higher. 

Link to comment
Let's also not forget that Tendulkar played in absolute flat pancake pitches which were easy for batting. Today's batsman face much tougher pitches with games regularly over
 
Not like back then on flat pitches when one team scores 600/6 declared and the other 547 or something
 
Tendy's numbers are over-inflated sue to flat easy wickets
17 year old Sachin was scoring centuries in Perth and Sydney against the likes of Mcdermott etc. And he always played in pancake pitches??

Genius bro...I suggest you take a break for few days. Come back in next April when real cricket starts. All your IPL buddies are in hibernation now anyway.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
3 hours ago, zep1706 said:

That was the case in the 1990s but in the 2000s Tendulkar had great batsmen around him. It's not like Kohli has any less pressure, the rest of the batsmen are worse than Tendulkar's team, certainly post 2000. Kohli is a special character when it comes to thriving under pressure, I have never seen anyone as good as him. 

it was not the pressure of carrying the team alone .... it was the additional pressure of living to people's expectations as some sort of genius batsman, otherwise what can you tell about some mad fans even not bothering for a wkt to fall ASAP so that Sachin can come to the crease ??Let Kohli prove in instances like 2015 WC semi, champions trophy 17 final, today  at 141/5 etc etc. Then we can decide.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

I did not say that there attacks are better or worse. No one really has the tools to objectively compare and it just boils down to personal opinion. Just said that they are very good in the conditions I mentioned and would pose tough challenges to batters of any era.

 

It is impossible to compare eras because every era has its own unique challenges and advantages.

 

The biggest challenge that modern test batters face is keeping away and rectifying the bad habits that creep in while playing excessive T20s.   

 

Similarly, the pacers mess up their ball release and rhythm while trying too many slower balls in T20s. 

 

The 90s batters and bowlers would have had different skillsets and problems if they played in the 2010s.

Yep, in general they'd be superior test players and slightly inferior ODI players as to pure run-containment/run-scoring. 

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

kaun se chanceless 100s bhai? none in 2007 against a mediocre attack, none in 2011 against a superior attack than he faced in 90s and 2000s. England was a mediocre team till mid 2000s. Bowling attack was mediocre as well. 

By 2011, Tendy was done. So you want to compare Virat at his peak with a 38 year old Tendy after 22-23 years of cricket and on the decline. Bravo for making my point.


Most of the 100s Tendy scored in England vs Caddick, Fraser, Malcolm, Gough, etc. were chanceless. 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, UnknownGenius said:

Let's also not forget that Tendulkar played in absolute flat pancake pitches which were easy for batting. Today's batsman face much tougher pitches with games regularly over

 

Not like back then on flat pitches when one team scores 600/6 declared and the other 547 or something

 

Tendy's numbers are over-inflated sue to flat easy wickets

What about his centuries in Australia or South Africa where the pitches were bouncy and we were getting bundled out for 100 and 67? Shaun Pollock,Donald,Mcgrath or Warne were they bowling underarm to him so that he could score centuries?Why is it that others around him were falling like nine pins then?

Edited by Switchblade
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

By 2011, Tendy was done. So you want to compare Virat at his peak with a 38 year old Tendy after 22-23 years of cricket and on the decline. Bravo for making my point.


Most of the 100s Tendy scored in England vs Caddick, Fraser, Malcolm, Gough, etc. were chanceless. 

Gough never played a Test against India though. SRT's hundreds in England were largely against moderate attacks (2 of them in '96 when Cork was the spearhead!). Dravid, Rahane and now Kohli have scored hundreds against much better English attacks in this decade.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Gough never played a Test against India though. SRT's hundreds in England were largely against moderate attacks (2 of them in '96 when Cork was the spearhead!). Dravid, Rahane and now Kohli have scored hundreds against much better English attacks in this decade.

Thats just it- i dont think the English attack now is 'much better'. Its ever so slightly better and far more durable, is what it is. Quality-wise, the Caddick-Cork-Fraser attack was doing not a whole lot different from the Broad-Anderson attack. it just didn't last as long. 

 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Gough never played a Test against India though. SRT's hundreds in England were largely against moderate attacks (2 of them in '96 when Cork was the spearhead!). Dravid, Rahane and now Kohli have scored hundreds against much better English attacks in this decade.

Angus fraser was a very good bowler in the calibre of Anderson. Similarly Cork,Caddick,Mullaly,Hoggard,Flintoff all were almost near in calibre  to Anderson. And they together combined formed formidable attacks.Might be  Dravid, Rahane,Kohli scored against slightly better attacks, but  Sachins' speciality  was that he was at the least good in all countries he played in. No body is saying he was the best among Indian batsmen in all the countries he played in 

Edited by rtmohanlal
Link to comment

Even if you agree that attacks were easier in England, it's not that Kohli has been decent against those attacks.

 

SRT averaged 65+ against them and Kohli still averages 25.

 

People are claiming as if Kohli has been decent or half decent with avg of 35-45.

 

Anyone knows that even an over the hill SRT would have done better than averaging 25 against so called tougher attack.

 

 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Even if you agree that attacks were easier in England, it's not that Kohli has been decent against those attacks.

 

SRT averaged 65+ against them and Kohli still averages 25.

 

People are claiming as if Kohli has been decent or half decent with avg of 35-45.

 

Anyone knows that even an over the hill SRT would have done better than averaging 25 against so called tougher attack.

 

 

when argument is done based on prejudiced blind hatred,partial mentality or just for the sake of arguing,  no wonder  a batsman avg:ing just 28 in a nation will become better when compared to another who averaged 62+ in the same country for the vast majority of his career.

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...