Sachin Tendulkar v Virat Kohli in Tests

[Trichromatic]

11 hours ago, Switchblade said:

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?

Don't bother replying to him. He is still in MI-CSK mode.

[express bowling]

12 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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

 

They would get little or no county cricket experience due to the IPL and would also have the bad habit of dabbing at the ball outside the off stump ( which is a basic requirement of T20s to avoid dot balls ).  This would weaken their off stump game and technique against swing.

 

They would be fitter and better stroke players. They would run faster between the wickets. Their slip catching would go down as T20s reduce abilty to concentrate for long periods. But their fielding in other positions would improve significantly.

 

The pacers would have to work harder on maintaining their ball release and length ...  as a long or important T20 tournament, where they would have to bowl lots of slower balls and change their lengths constantly in order to bowl variations, may mess up their ball release and length.

 

The all-format-cricketers  ( basically the top cricketers and stars  )    would have a tougher time adjusting their games for the 3 different formats and getting rid of the bad habits that creep in.

 

There would be many more changes ... but that is a topic for another day.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

They would get little or no county cricket experience due to the IPL and would also have the bad habit of dabbing at the ball outside the off stump ( which is a basic requirement of T20s to avoid dot balls ).  This would weaken their off stump game and technique against swing.

 

Irrelevant to the fact of what they ACTUALLY WERE: superior test players. Would've/could've are irrelevant to actual comparisons.

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

They would be fitter and better stroke players.

Pfft. SunnyG wasn't very fit by modern standards and when he wanted to, could demolish attacks that would've eaten Kohli for dinner. 

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

They would run faster between the wickets.

Largely irrelevant when attacking cricket is played, as most scoring shots in aggressive cricket are boundaries or comfortable twos. You seem to not know how test cricket was played till the early 2000s.

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Their slip catching would go down as T20s reduce abilty to concentrate for long periods.

Pfft. Nonsense. Indian batsmen are poor slip catchers because they don't practice in the slips or were brought up that way. Simple. Try telling ABDV he is a poor slip catcher due to playing T20s. 

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

But their fielding in other positions would improve significantly.

 

The pacers would have to work harder on maintaining their ball release and length ...  as a long or important T20 tournament, where they would have to bowl lots of slower balls and change their lengths constantly in order to bowl variations, may mess up their ball release and length.

Again, nonsense. Pacers today are simply not good enough. Thats the reality. Bowlers like Holding or Akram could both blow you away with aggression in Tests and contain in ODIs. Same with Ambrose. None of those bowlers i named would struggle one bit with any of what you mention. To this day, the best slower ball i've EVER seen bowled, by a country mile, is that of Courtney Walsh.

9 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

The all-format-cricketers  ( basically the top cricketers and stars  )    would have a tougher time adjusting their games for the 3 different formats and getting rid of the bad habits that creep in.

I just don't see that to be true, sorry. 

 

[Trichromatic]

SRT as same age

 

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
unfiltered	1989-2013	200	329	33	15921	248*	53.78	51	68	14	Profile
filtered	1989-2002	105	169	16	8811	217	57.58	31	35	10

Career summary

Grouping	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
v Australia	1991-2001	15	28	2	1406	177	54.07	6	5	2
v Bangladesh	2000-2000	1	1	0	18	18	18.00	0	0	0
v England	1990-2002	16	24	2	1683	193	76.50	6	8	0
v New Zealand	1990-2002	14	23	5	991	217	55.05	3	4	1
v Pakistan	1989-1999	7	12	0	395	136	32.91	1	2	2
v South Africa	1992-2001	14	26	1	948	169	37.92	3	3	1
v Sri Lanka	1990-1999	13	16	2	1124	148	80.28	6	3	0
v West Indies	1994-2002	16	25	2	1328	179	57.73	3	7	3
v Zimbabwe	1992-2002	9	14	2	918	201*	76.50	3	3	1
in Australia	1991-2000	8	15	1	646	148*	46.14	3	2	1
in Bangladesh	2000-2000	1	1	0	18	18	18.00	0	0	0
in England	1990-2002	10	16	1	1074	193	71.60	4	4	0
in India	1990-2002	45	73	8	4194	217	64.52	15	14	3
in New Zealand	1990-2002	8	13	1	498	113	41.50	1	3	1
in Pakistan	1989-1989	4	6	0	215	59	35.83	0	2	0
in South Africa	1992-2001	9	16	1	636	169	42.40	3	1	1
in Sri Lanka	1993-1999	6	8	2	670	143	111.66	4	2	0
in West Indies	1997-2002	10	14	1	620	117	47.69	1	5	3
in Zimbabwe	1992-2001	4	7	1	240	74	40.00	0	2	1

 

 

SRT had already established himself as ATG by this age.

 

 

[rkt.india]

12 hours 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. 

And apart from Fraser, none of the bowlers were good enough tie the laces of current Broadandu of 2010s. Also 2000s was the one of the most batting friendly decade and since 2011, pitches have again become bowling friendly.  Even in India, we rarely see battathons these days.

[rkt.india]

1 hour 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.

 

 

Did anyone say Kohli is better than SRT? even Kohli himself will not agree. but facts remain facts that English bowling attack was medicore in 90s and 2000s.  they only started to get better in mid 2000s.

Edited August 5, 2018 by rkt.india

[Pollack]

Till now SRT is still ahead. But Kohli has unmatched hunger to excel. Let's see the fate unfold slowly.

[Trichromatic]

2 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Did anyone say Kohli is better than SRT? even Kohli himself will not agree. but facts remain facts that English bowling attack was medicore in 2000s.  they only started to get better in mid 2000s.

Yes, I agree. I don't agree with claims of Mulo and co that English attacks were similar. 

 

But that doesn't make performance of Kohli comparable to SRT's performance as Kohli has failed miserably overall in England. This was first good test for him.

[rkt.india]

17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Again, nonsense. Pacers today are simply not good enough. Thats the reality. Bowlers like Holding or Akram could both blow you away with aggression in Tests and contain in ODIs. Same with Ambrose. None of those bowlers i named would struggle one bit with any of what you mention. To this day, the best slower ball i've EVER seen bowled, by a country mile, is that of Courtney Walsh.

i would say batsmen in 80-90s just were not good enough to handle pace. So, even on flat pitches, pacers used to get easy wickets and tailenders could not hold the bat.  So, many cheap wickets were accumulated for nothing. look at how many teams had good enough batsmen were there in 80s and 90s. Only in 2000s, we had 4-5 good to great batsman played consistently for a long time for us. 

[rkt.india]

5 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Yes, I agree. I don't agree with claims of Mulo and co that English attacks were similar. 

 

But that doesn't make performance of Kohli comparable to SRT's performance as Kohli has failed miserably overall in England. This was first good test for him.

yes. Kohli was poor in 2014.  One test can't make him better than SRT.

[Trichromatic]

2 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

i would say batsmen in 80-90s just were not good enough to handle pace. So, even on flat pitches, pacers used to get easy wickets and tailenders could not hold the bat.  So, many cheap wickets were accumulated for nothing. look at how many teams had good enough batsmen were there in 80s and 90s. Only in 2000s, we had 4-5 good to great batsman played consistently for a long time for us. 

Old is gold theory directly applied there without any context.

 

Give bowling friendly pitches to most of the modern bowlers and they start averaging 25, just like we are seeing with Indian bowlers now.

 

 

[express bowling]

26 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Irrelevant to the fact of what they ACTUALLY WERE: superior test players. Would've/could've are irrelevant to actual comparisons.

Pfft. SunnyG wasn't very fit by modern standards and when he wanted to, could demolish attacks that would've eaten Kohli for dinner. 

Largely irrelevant when attacking cricket is played, as most scoring shots in aggressive cricket are boundaries or comfortable twos. You seem to not know how test cricket was played till the early 2000s.

Pfft. Nonsense. Indian batsmen are poor slip catchers because they don't practice in the slips or were brought up that way. Simple. Try telling ABDV he is a poor slip catcher due to playing T20s. 

Again, nonsense. Pacers today are simply not good enough. Thats the reality. Bowlers like Holding or Akram could both blow you away with aggression in Tests and contain in ODIs. Same with Ambrose. None of those bowlers i named would struggle one bit with any of what you mention. To this day, the best slower ball i've EVER seen bowled, by a country mile, is that of Courtney Walsh.

I just don't see that to be true, sorry. 

 

 

You just love to live in your own fantasy world, removed from the realities of life.

[Trichromatic]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

  

You just love to live in your own fantasy world, removed from the realities of life.

One thing is right about there - players don't practice slip fielding much now or at least not doing it right way.

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

You just love to live in your own fantasy world, removed from the realities of life.

I think the same of you, where you argue 'could've/should've/maybes' against the simple fact that mid 70s-mid 80s and late 80s-early 2000s represents a golden generation of cricket, the likes of which (quality of cricket) has not been since before or after. Or the fact that 90s players *were* better test players and certainly better ODI players on pitches where 250-260 were par scores for average sides.

 

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Old is gold theory directly applied there without any context.

 

Give bowling friendly pitches to most of the modern bowlers and they start averaging 25, just like we are seeing with Indian bowlers now.

 

 

Nobody is saying old is gold. I am saying that in every sport, we see the 'golden gen' phenomenon. Which is true for the 90s compared to the mid 2000s onwards. 

 

Cricket has had 2 golden gens since WWII, basically the early 70s-early 80s ( the old guard of England-WI-AUS, with a very solid India, Pakistan) and the late 80s/early 90s-early-mid 2000s ( where practically every team back then, minus England were a better/equal team to now). 

I can cite you same golden gen phenomenon in ice hockey, basketball,etc as well. It happens in sports, especially team sports, when we have a few generational talents popping up much closer than the long-term mean. 

 

Same can be said of soccer in the 70s vs soccer in the 80s. Golden gen are usually better than prior and post gens. 

Indian bowlers bowled on spinner friendly pitches in the 90s. Not the square turners we see now, but powder-puff pitches that crumbled, because of Anil 'the crumbler' Kumble. 

 

What you suffer from, is the false belief that 'new is better' is a linear progression through sports and ergo tend to favor the current stuff. Which is also a bit of 'out of sight, out of mind' paradigm for most people.

[Straight Drive]

This is worth a debate.

 

Well i never thought we would get a replacement of Sunny or Kapil Dev. However, we got Sachin. Even Rahul Dravid was awesome. Different point though that Kapil Dev's replacement is still not there even after many many decades. The point is atleast we got couple of replacements for Sunny at least.

 

Once that happened, i was wondering whether Sachin's replacement can happen in ODI. Well Virat is the replacement and i am so glad as an Indian fan that we have managed to replace a World ATG with another in shorter format. It is so nice to see ATG player being replaced.

 

Now, right onto the crux of the thread. Is Virat better than Sachin in tests. Well, as much as i was happy to see Sunny being replaced by Sachin and Rahul as years passed, i would be glad when Virat replaces Sachin and Rahul as tests great. It will benefit Indian cricket. At this point of time Virat is not better than Sachin was in tests, however i would say that he has easily patched the void left by retirements of Sachin and Rahul. So kudos to him for making the transition look so good for Indian test cricket. I hope he surpasses Sachin and Rahul in tests as well record wise as well as skill wise. He is nearing the benchmarks set by them. Hoping for the best. 

[rkt.india]

14 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Old is gold theory directly applied there without any context.

 

Give bowling friendly pitches to most of the modern bowlers and they start averaging 25, just like we are seeing with Indian bowlers now.

 

 

yes, there should always be context in mind. it is like old were bad but when we compare different eras, we need to keep lot of things in mind.  If many bowlers in 80s and 90s averaged u25, it might also mean either pitches were more bowling friendly or batsmen were less skilled as they were in 2000s.

[rkt.india]

44 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Pfft. SunnyG wasn't very fit by modern standards and when he wanted to, could demolish attacks that would've eaten Kohli for dinner. 

 

Sunny G could demolish attacks.  Even he would laugh at this claim by you.  

[express bowling]

23 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

i would say batsmen in 80-90s just were not good enough to handle pace. So, even on flat pitches, pacers used to get easy wickets and tailenders could not hold the bat.  So, many cheap wickets were accumulated for nothing. look at how many teams had good enough batsmen were there in 80s and 90s. Only in 2000s, we had 4-5 good to great batsman played consistently for a long time for us. 

 

Having watched cricket from November 1982...  I agree completely, especially regarding batters till 1995.

 

There were some especially courageous exceptions though ... like Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Amarnath etc.from India and Richards, Miandad, Greenidge, Lloyd, Jones and a few others.

 

The amount of fear so many batters displayed against even fast-medium bowling even when wearing helmets and having other protective gear, in the 1985 to 1995 period, was amazing by today's standards.

Edited August 5, 2018 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

16 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

i would say batsmen in 80-90s just were not good enough to handle pace.

Ignorant nonsense. 80s batsmen would eat today's batsmen for dinner when it came to pace. Why ? because back then we had a greater density of really fast bowlers (primarily due to OZ having three pacers in the Brett Lee/Mitchell Johnson zone, aka Lillee, Thompson and Hogg, as well as legions of WI express bowlers like Roberts, Holding, Clarke, Marshall, Daniels,etc, along with Bob Willis also being a genuine fast bowler for Eng). AND they played without protection, meaning they had to judge the ball better and not just 'cop one on the thigh-pad' like they do today. 

16 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

So, even on flat pitches, pacers used to get easy wickets and tailenders could not hold the bat. 

A blind squirrel finds a nut. You've just finally said something- even if its partial, that favors the modern, over-coached game: tailenders today are FAR better batsmen in general than they were in the past, where we really dont have any international cricketer being a club level tail-ender like Courtney Walsh/Chandrasekhar, Tuffnell etc were. 

16 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

So, many cheap wickets were accumulated for nothing.

Balances out with superior top order wickets collected. 

16 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

look at how many teams had good enough batsmen were there in 80s and 90s.

Only in 2000s, we had 4-5 good to great batsman played consistently for a long time for us. 

Yes. For us. 80s was a poor period for Indian batting. Primarily because Gavaskar was in decline and India lost its ' man on the burning ship rescuing the side' aka Vishwanath to retirement. 

India however were a good side till the decline of the spin quartet, something the emergence of Kapil could not offset, combined with greater brittleness in the Indian batting.