King Kohli vs Sir Viv in ODIs

[kirkutfan]

Richards with today's equipment ( bats, helmets etc), today's pitches and today's rules ( limiting number of fielders outside the circle, limiting number of bouncers in an over etc.) may have scored much more heavily in today's era. One could come up with guesses on how Kohli might have fared in the 70s and 80s. Impossible to just to a stat guru comparison and draw conclusions. 

 

Also, our attention spans are totally shot. Today Kohli has just concluded with an excellent odi series v South Africa. Tomorrow if he has a sub par set of games against England, we will forget that we were just talking about him as an ATG, and wondering whether he should be replaced by some guy who set the IPL on fire...

 

Lets enjoy what Kohli has to offer, while at the same time respect what Richards help accomplish. Aside from the world cups, what he did in England after Tony Greig said, "we'll make them (West Indies) grovel" is the stuff of legend. Add to that, the fact that he was a key contributor to a team that was on top for 15 plus years is awesome. I hope Kohli gets to be an integral part of such an Indian team..

[urnotserious]

21 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Comprehension failure on your part. Viv bettered his contemporaries far more significantly compared to Kohli in a non batting friendly era while playing against more ATG bowlers and owned the biggest stage in ODIs by being by far and away the best WC batsman of his time. Which is why he's the GOAT .

 

Kohli in this decade itself (FTB era in ODIs with diabolically weak bowling) lags behind ABDV in terms of average and SR while being a spectacular failure in WC KOs but is now supposed to be better than Viv? LMAO.

 

 

 

Viv was way ahead of his contemporaries? LOL. Seems like reading comprehension is YOUR issue especially when it comes to numbers. Virat at least had an average 8 runs over the man behind him. Viv doesn't. LOL

 

Virat looks like a Superman compared to rest of the people on that list, Viv by comparison looks much more human. 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by urnotserious

[MechEng]

7 minutes ago, kirkutfan said:

Richards with today's equipment ( bats, helmets etc), today's pitches and today's rules ( limiting number of fielders outside the circle, limiting number of bouncers in an over etc.) may have scored much more heavily in today's era. One could come up with guesses on how Kohli might have fared in the 70s and 80s. Impossible to just to a stat guru comparison and draw conclusions. 

 

Also, our attention spans are totally shot. Today Kohli has just concluded with an excellent odi series v South Africa. Tomorrow if he has a sub par set of games against England, we will forget that we were just talking about him as an ATG, and wondering whether he should be replaced by some guy who set the IPL on fire...

 

Lets enjoy what Kohli has to offer, while at the same time respect what Richards help accomplish. Aside from the world cups, what he did in England after Tony Greig said, "we'll make them (West Indies) grovel" is the stuff of legend. Add to that, the fact that he was a key contributor to a team that was on top for 15 plus years is awesome. I hope Kohli gets to be an integral part of such an Indian team..

Please come out of colonial hangover, there was nothing legendary about that series Windies were already a superior team even before the series began.

[kira]

15 hours ago, MechEng said:

Please come out of colonial hangover, there was nothing legendary about that series Windies were already a superior team even before the series began.

Exactly, England has always been a mediocre team barring a few patches here and there, nostalgia just don't get it

Edited February 17, 2018 by beetle

[kirkutfan]

1 hour ago, MechEng said:

Please come out of colonial hangover, there was nothing legendary about that series Windies were already a superior team even before the series began.

 

 Not so fast.  829 runs in 4 tests including that 291 would be good in any era, especially back then. That too in England- no covered pitches either. That bowling attack of guys like Snow, Old, Hendricks, Selvey, Underwood were no slouches  and would compare  favorably with  today's guys- Anderson, Broad,Finn etc. in home conditions.  So far we haven't come close to dominating England at home like that. And Kohli still has unfinished business there. Finally, there is all this noise about considering a player great if he is contributing to winning causes. By that yardstick if it is test wins or world cups- Richards has a lot covered. He was a dominant bat in a team that won a lot. India and Kohli would love to have such a run.

Edited February 16, 2018 by kirkutfan

[Ankit_sharma03]

 

[Vilander]

The bare minimum that we are absolutly sure about now is that Kohli is in the same league as Viv and Sachin as ODI bat, the point is it looks highly likely he might eclipse both of them in their individual areas of brilliance thats the freakish part. He already is a similarly acomplished T20 bat, so he has a far more attacking game and averages 50 in that too so better attacking game than say Viv ever had, he is on course to score what ever number of hundreds Sachin scored, so he got that game in pure ODI format as well. Total freak, 58 average is entering freaking terriroty in ODI.

[vvvslaxman]

11 minutes ago, kirkutfan said:

 

 Not so fast.  829 runs in 4 tests including that 291 would be good in any era, especially back then. That too in England- no covered pitches either. That bowling attack of guys like Snow, Old, Hendricks, Selvey, Underwood were no slouches  and would compare  favorably with  today's guys- Anderson, Broad,Finn etc. in home conditions.  So far we haven't come close to dominating England at home like that. And Kohli still has unfinished business there. Finally, there is all this noise about considering a player great if he is contributing to winning causes. By that yardstick if it is test wins or world cups- Richards has a lot covered. He was a dominant bat in a team that won a lot. India and Kohli would love to have such a run.

Old, Snow, Hendricks are not that great. Underwood was a good sticky wicket bowler.  They are nowhere close to Anderson, Broad. Many batsmen have dominated England in England. Mo Yo 631 runs in 4 tests.

[Vijy]

1 minute ago, vvvslaxman said:

Old, Snow, Hendricks are not that great. Underwood was a good sticky wicket bowler.  They are nowhere close to Anderson, Broad. Many batsmen have dominated England in England. Mo Yo 631 runs in 4 tests.

Old was an underachiever and Hendricks was solid. But neither of them are "greats". Jo(h)n Snow on the other hand may not have an ATG record, but many people rate him as a genuine"great". Viv's 291 had 2 excellent bowlers (Willis and Underwood) but the rest were quite ordinary.

 

As of now, Viv the test batsman is still ahead. VK has unfinished business in Eng and in spinning tracks at home. If and when he masters these two, he can overtake Viv. In ODIs, he's better than Viv and Sachin in bilaterals arguablly, but definitely not yet in WCs.

[vvvslaxman]

15 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Old was an underachiever and Hendricks was solid. But neither of them are "greats". Jo(h)n Snow on the other hand may not have an ATG record, but many people rate him as a genuine"great". Viv's 291 had 2 excellent bowlers (Willis and Underwood) but the rest were quite ordinary.

 

As of now, Viv the test batsman is still ahead. VK has unfinished business in Eng and in spinning tracks at home. If and when he masters these two, he can overtake Viv. In ODIs, he's better than Viv and Sachin in bilaterals arguablly, but definitely not yet in WCs.

In World cups Gilchrist is the ultimate lol He just clicks in the finals.

[MechEng]

4 hours ago, kirkutfan said:

 

 Not so fast.  829 runs in 4 tests including that 291 would be good in any era, especially back then. That too in England- no covered pitches either. That bowling attack of guys like Snow, Old, Hendricks, Selvey, Underwood were no slouches  and would compare  favorably with  today's guys- Anderson, Broad,Finn etc. in home conditions.  So far we haven't come close to dominating England at home like that. And Kohli still has unfinished business there. Finally, there is all this noise about considering a player great if he is contributing to winning causes. By that yardstick if it is test wins or world cups- Richards has a lot covered. He was a dominant bat in a team that won a lot. India and Kohli would love to have such a run.

Yes, but this thread is based on Kohli's ODI performance. He has a long way to go to be compared to Viv in tests.

[kirkutfan]

4 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

Old, Snow, Hendricks are not that great. Underwood was a good sticky wicket bowler.  They are nowhere close to Anderson, Broad. Many batsmen have dominated England in England. Mo Yo 631 runs in 4 tests.

Big difference between 829 and 631.  Richards' aggregate is still in the top 5 all time. The world and India in particular have been lucky to see some great batsmen perform in since Richards did that in 1976. Yet it's a top 5 achievement. One can safely say that he was in front of the batsmen of his time. As far as comparing the two sets of bowlers go, I will just agree to disagree and just say that they were no slouches. Nobody thought hitting 6 sixes in an over was doable amongst that bunch. Beyond the problem of comparing eras, there is the difficulty of comparing careers. Kohli's is still an exciting work in progress. We have no way of knowing whether 2015-18 represents the peak of his powers or just the beginning of many more great things to come. For Richards we are looking at a complete 15 plus year career. That is why for me the more interesting comparison is Smith v Kohli v Root v Williamson v ABD. They play in the same era. They play against each other. They will play in the next couple of world cups.

 

The era stuff in my book is a no-brainer if one accepts that the hurdles of the past were greater. It would be like some kid arguing that he is more successful than his daddy without accounting for the fact that the kiddie got the education, the plane ticket to the US and so on, while the daddy was doing kheti badi (farming) in Bihar. Different rules of the game, different thresholds for success.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2018 by kirkutfan

[Vijy]

9 minutes ago, kirkutfan said:

Big difference between 829 and 631.  Richards' aggregate is still in the top 5 all time. The world and India in particular have been lucky to see some great batsmen perform in since Richards did that in 1976. Yet it's a top 5 achievement. One can safely say that he was in front of the batsmen of his time. As far as comparing the two sets of bowlers go, I will just agree to disagree and just say that they were no slouches. Nobody thought hitting 6 sixes in an over was doable amongst that bunch. Beyond the problem of comparing eras, there is the difficulty of comparing careers. Kohli's is still an exciting work in progress. We have no way of knowing whether 2015-18 represents the peak of his powers or just the beginning of many more great things to come. For Richards we are looking at a complete 15 plus year career. That is why for me the more interesting comparison is Smith v Kohli v Root v Williamson v ABD. They play in the same era. They play against each other. They will play in the next couple of world cups.

 

The era stuff in my book is a no-brainer if one accepts that the hurdles of the past were greater. It would be like some kid arguing that he is more successful than his daddy without accounting for the fact that the kiddie got the education, the plane ticket to the US and so on, while the daddy was doing kheti badi (farming) in Bihar. Different rules of the game, different thresholds for success.

 

 

I'd agree insofar ODIs are concerned (by a long way). However, in Tests, he did not face the outstanding bowling lineup of that era (i.e. the WI) and there are others who did almost equally well (or arguably better) in Tests - Greg "Chappati" Chappell, Sunny G, Javed Miandad, Border, etc. I'd say, however, that Viv's peak (in both Tests and ODIs) was safely higher than his contemporaries, unlike Sunny G and Chappati who were primarily the epitome of consistency.

[kirkutfan]

22 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Yes, but this thread is based on Kohli's ODI performance. He has a long way to go to be compared to Viv in tests.

Fair enough. How should one go about it though? One played 180 odd games in an entire career, another played more than that in the 1st half of his career, i.e. during his peak years. Also, how would you assign weights to the importance of these games. Would a game in a bilateral series in South Africa have the weight as say a World Cup game? I bet a year from now most people don't remember the details of this series. Objectively one would have to focus on world cups. Kohli has got some distance to travel before he can say that he can match what Richards got done in that tournament.  Also arguably without guys like Richards setting benchmarks, Odis themselves don't take off as viable formats. Guys like SRT and Kohli benefit from that. That is why eras are best left alone.

 

 

[vvvslaxman]

30 minutes ago, kirkutfan said:

Big difference between 829 and 631.  Richards' aggregate is still in the top 5 all time. The world and India in particular have been lucky to see some great batsmen perform in since Richards did that in 1976. Yet it's a top 5 achievement. One can safely say that he was in front of the batsmen of his time. As far as comparing the two sets of bowlers go, I will just agree to disagree and just say that they were no slouches. Nobody thought hitting 6 sixes in an over was doable amongst that bunch. Beyond the problem of comparing eras, there is the difficulty of comparing careers. Kohli's is still an exciting work in progress. We have no way of knowing whether 2015-18 represents the peak of his powers or just the beginning of many more great things to come. For Richards we are looking at a complete 15 plus year career. That is why for me the more interesting comparison is Smith v Kohli v Root v Williamson v ABD. They play in the same era. They play against each other. They will play in the next couple of world cups.

 

The era stuff in my book is a no-brainer if one accepts that the hurdles of the past were greater. It would be like some kid arguing that he is more successful than his daddy without accounting for the fact that the kiddie got the education, the plane ticket to the US and so on, while the daddy was doing kheti badi (farming) in Bihar. Different rules of the game, different thresholds for success.

 

 

My point is he is not far above like Kohli like some are implying. No he is not by any stretch of imagination. May be in Tests Kohli has some distance to go to catch up. But in ODIs. he is already on par if not better.  He is better than contemporaries as well. In  Viv's era standing out in an evolving format like ODI is much much easier compared to in an era where the format is fully evolved  Very few people even know how to approach ODI cricket. 

[kirkutfan]

11 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

My point is he is not far above like Kohli like some are implying. No he is not by any stretch of imagination. May be in Tests Kohli has some distance to go to catch up. But in ODIs. he is already on par if not better.  He is better than contemporaries as well. In  Viv's era standing out in an evolving format like ODI is much much easier compared to in an era where the format is fully evolved  Very few people even know how to approach ODI cricket. 

Lets talk about the fully evolved stuff. Is it easier to figure it out when a text book is in front of you and all you have to do is memorize the rules or is it easier to figure it out by thinking through a problem because the textbook for the topic hasn't been written yet? That would be the difference between what Kohli has to work with and what a guy like Richards may have had to work with. Strictly looking at that Kohli's job looks easier. I do recognize a complicating factor though. Kohli has to contend with strategies that are designed after detailed video and computer analyses are done by people whose job is to probe for weakness. That makes Kohli's job tougher. So two potentially offsetting factors, but certainly no slam dunk on who had it more difficult. We have already seen the dialogue on pitches, rules etc. that have progressively evolved in favor of the batsman. Finally, there was the home umpire advantage that visiting players had to contend with. Today there is the benefit of neutral umpires, DRS.. So again, one cannot be too ready to assume that Kohli's job was more difficult than Richard's.

[rkt.india]

58 minutes ago, kirkutfan said:

Fair enough. How should one go about it though? One played 180 odd games in an entire career, another played more than that in the 1st half of his career, i.e. during his peak years. Also, how would you assign weights to the importance of these games. Would a game in a bilateral series in South Africa have the weight as say a World Cup game? I bet a year from now most people don't remember the details of this series. Objectively one would have to focus on world cups. Kohli has got some distance to travel before he can say that he can match what Richards got done in that tournament.  Also arguably without guys like Richards setting benchmarks, Odis themselves don't take off as viable formats. Guys like SRT and Kohli benefit from that. That is why eras are best left alone.

 

 

How hurdles of the past were bigger? An overseas series win against a top side is as good as any and there is no chance people will forget it. People will talk about it for years. It may not as big as a WC, but as important as a WC.

Edited February 17, 2018 by rkt.india

[vvvslaxman]

26 minutes ago, kirkutfan said:

Lets talk about the fully evolved stuff. Is it easier to figure it out when a text book is in front of you and all you have to do is memorize the rules or is it easier to figure it out by thinking through a problem because the textbook for the topic hasn't been written yet? That would be the difference between what Kohli has to work with and what a guy like Richards may have had to work with. Strictly looking at that Kohli's job looks easier. I do recognize a complicating factor though. Kohli has to contend with strategies that are designed after detailed video and computer analyses are done by people whose job is to probe for weakness. That makes Kohli's job tougher. So two potentially offsetting factors, but certainly no slam dunk on who had it more difficult. We have already seen the dialogue on pitches, rules etc. that have progressively evolved in favor of the batsman. Finally, there was the home umpire advantage that visiting players had to contend with. Today there is the benefit of neutral umpires, DRS.. So again, one cannot be too ready to assume that Kohli's job was more difficult than Richard's.

That is a stalemate. Having seen Richards, Tendulkar,  Kohli significant amount i can say Kohli's way of constructing a ODI innings absolutely flawless that can be executed without any risks in any era against any attack. Even Tendulkar relied somewhat on uppish shots. But Kohli relies on ground shots and plays through gap. He is doubly efficient compared to anyone i have ever seen. It is very very hard to do what Kohli does. He doesn't play creative shots, fancy shots, risky shots. He just keeps placing the ball through the gap like a machine. He has multiple gears. He finishes the game more often than not. He  probably will go down as the definition of a ODI batsman. 

Edited February 17, 2018 by vvvslaxman

[MechEng]

1 hour ago, kirkutfan said:

Fair enough. How should one go about it though? One played 180 odd games in an entire career, another played more than that in the 1st half of his career, i.e. during his peak years. Also, how would you assign weights to the importance of these games. Would a game in a bilateral series in South Africa have the weight as say a World Cup game? I bet a year from now most people don't remember the details of this series. Objectively one would have to focus on world cups. Kohli has got some distance to travel before he can say that he can match what Richards got done in that tournament.  Also arguably without guys like Richards setting benchmarks, Odis themselves don't take off as viable formats. Guys like SRT and Kohli benefit from that. That is why eras are best left alone.

 

 

I don't want to undermine Viv's performances in World Cups but back then world cup games were not taken seriously as things were still in their initial stages for limited overs cricket, for West Indian cricket fans of that era beating England in England 5-0 in a test series gave them the ultimate high, nothing better than dominating your colonial masters in the game they invented, world cup games had hardly any pressures. The fact that Gavaskar did not feel guilty at all of his 36* against England in 75 World Cup shows how seriously ODIs were taken. Sachin has never performed in World Cup finals but he did score in crucial games like Sharjah 1998 and 2008 CB series finals, still some knowledgeable cricket fans rate him above Viv in ODIs with justifiable reasons.

 

What my point is that Kohli does not need to perform in big World Cup games to be compared with Viv, if he maintains his freak performance like he is doing it now till he's 35-36, he may be justifiably the greatest ever to have played ODIs.

 

[Deleted_User_1]

Viv is a ATG, and probably the very best of his generation. But during his time, though the quality of test bowling was better than today, but ODI bowling is different art that was not perfected yet. So yes, Kohli faces better quality ODI/T20 bowling now that Viv did in ODIs when he played. Also, Viv never had to face his teammates who were probably the best in the world throughout the late 70s and 80s. Kohli is only half way through his career and is already on his way to being the GOAT in the shorter format. His numbers are just staggering and his record in clutch is proven over and over again. We are not talking about tests here, where has some ways to go and people will probably complain about the quality of test bowling today. But in the shorter format, he is already close to surpassing anyone (or already has) who has played the game including SRT.