King Kohli vs Sir Viv in ODIs

[FischerTal]

look what i has started 

 

king kohli is just entering his peak. wait for more good times 

[Deleted_User_1]

One fact that does enhance SRT's legacy as a ODI batsman is his performance at the WC. He played in 5 of them and in 3 of those he scored heavily - 1996, 2003 and 2011 with some clutch performances. That is indeed missing from Kohli's resume yet. Hopefully he will come through in 2019. However, I think he needs to be have a monster series in England this year to increase the chances of him succeeding in 2019 WC.

Edited February 18, 2018 by dandaroy

[rkt.india]

5 hours ago, cric_fan said:

Kohli is ahead of his contemporaries in this era & Viv was ahead of the rest in his era.

 

It has to be said that modern cricket rules have been tilted in favour of batsmen..there is no balance. Take for example the Aus v NZ match from the other day...the size of the boundaries is a joke...friggin edges were going for sixes. ICC needs to step in a standardise the size of boundaries.

 

But take nothing away from Kohli..he’s only competition is ABD..who it seems has not much interest left for the game. The one thing Kohli needs to rectify is his stat in major tournament knock outs...time is still on his side... otherwise he may end his career as a bilateral king.

 

 

 

Size of the boundaries has been same, only 2-3 meters of rope has been added. Eden park was always like this.

[express bowling]

3 hours ago, dandaroy said:

One fact that does enhance SRT's legacy as a ODI batsman is his performance at the WC. He played in 5 of them and in 3 of those he scored heavily - 1196, 2003 and 2011 

 

 

He was playing cricket even then  !

[vvvslaxman]

4 hours ago, dandaroy said:

One fact that does enhance SRT's legacy as a ODI batsman is his performance at the WC. He played in 5 of them and in 3 of those he scored heavily - 1196, 2003 and 2011 with some clutch performances. That is indeed missing from Kohli's resume yet. Hopefully he will come through in 2019. However, I think he needs to be have a monster series in England this year to increase the chances of him succeeding in 2019 WC.

Actually scoring in world cup will increase his reputation big time. But with the kind of technique, fitness, percentage game it is only a matter of time before he scores big in the world cup. Tendulkar always upped his game big time in the world cups. Prior to 2003 series India toured NZ. Everyone looked hopelessly out of touch thanks to those dreadful pitches. Not sure what to expect. He just turned up played like a wizard until the final. Even in final if only Ganguly had opted to bat first he would have done better. 

[Vijy]

13 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Missed this earlier. You still aren't getting it. If Guptill was the standout batsman of this era in terms of avg. and SR (lets say averaging near 60 with a SR of 110+) over a good sample of games and had a great record in WC KOs, I'd have no problem rating him above Viv. The fact that he is no where near the best batsmen of his own era in terms of raw stats rules him out. The same applies to the likes of Mahela. Aravinda has the greatest WC Final performance of all time with 3/42 with the ball and a match-winning hundred while chasing against a very good AUS side. But is nowhere near the best batsmen of his own era in terms of overall record so he is ruled out too. To be considered the GOAT, a batsman must standout in his own era over a good sample of games (which Viv did to a greater degree than any of the other great ODI bats) while also delivering at the highest stage when it matters. Of all the great batsmen in ODI history - Viv, Dean Jones, SRT, Lara (when he batted in the top 3), Bevan, ABDV and Kohli, only Viv has done both of these things which is why he is the GOAT . IMO anyway.

Lara's was really a career of two halves. Before SRT got the hang of ODI batting (a while after opening in '94), Lara was arguably the best ODI bat on his era until 1996. since then, he was pretty much a flop. I'd not put him in the list of "great" ODI batsmen mostly because a top batsman is also expected to show longevity; his WC record in '99 and '03 was quite ordinary too. Jones was very underrated, and so is Gilly.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Vijy

[Jimmy Cliff]

2 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Lara's was really a career of two halves. Before SRT got the hang of ODI batting (a while after opening in '94), Lara was arguably the best ODI bat on his era until 1996. since then, he was pretty much a flop. I'd not put him in the list of "great" ODI batsmen mostly because a top batsman is also expected to show longevity; his WC record in '99 and '03 was quite ordinary too. Jones was very underrated, and so is Gilly.

Lara's record went downhill once he started batting in the middle order (that happened around 98' or so). Up until he batted in the top 3, he was easily the best top order batsman of his time. And had an insane record against the likes of Ws/McWarne/Donald & Pollock playing multiple match-winning knocks against them. Unfortunately he ruined his overall record by batting in the middle order in the 2nd half of his career where he didn't have nearly as much impact and ended up with a Gangulyish/Anwaresque overall record. Still he was so good from 93-97 (ranked no.1 in the official rankings for most of this phase) that I can't help but count him among the best top order batsmen of all time. Funnily enough SRT himself was quite mediocre in the middle order in ODIs and has similar stats to Lara in his middle order. The big difference was that SRT rightly went back to the opening slot as soon as he could and ended up with a much better record whereas Lara for some reason stayed there right until the end of his career. In WCs as well he was very good in 92 and 96 where he opened and played at no. 3 respectively but well below par post 98. Still his 100 in the opening game of the 2003 WC was very good and that was pretty much the knock that derailed RSA's campaign.

[Vijy]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Lara's record went downhill once he started batting in the middle order (that happened around 98' or so). Up until he batted in the top 3, he was easily the best top order batsman of his time. And had an insane record against the likes of Ws/McWarne/Donald & Pollock playing multiple match-winning knocks against them. Unfortunately he ruined his overall record by batting in the middle order in the 2nd half of his career where he didn't have nearly as much impact and ended up with a Gangulyish/Anwaresque overall record. Still he was so good from 93-97 (ranked no.1 in the official rankings for most of this phase) that I can't help but count him among the best top order batsmen of all time. Funnily enough SRT himself was quite mediocre in the middle order in ODIs and has similar stats to Lara in his middle order. The big difference was that SRT rightly went back to the opening slot as soon as he could and ended up with a much better record whereas Lara for some reason stayed there right until the end of his career. In WCs as well he was very good in 92 and 96 where he opened and played at no. 3 respectively but well below par post 98. Still his 100 in the opening game of the 2003 WC was very good and that was pretty much the knock that derailed RSA's campaign.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but a 4 yr timespan does not suffice IMO to label someone as an ATG (although they can still be a "great"). Lara still played a fair number of games at No. 3 from Jan '98 and had a decent avg (around 41), but I'd say that he just lost interest and the game underwent fairly rapid evolution after '96 onwards (I think his game was somewhat too classical for the changes that occurred). This trajectory is in contrast to SRT who only kept getting better in ODIs until about the late 2000s, and then subsequently he plateaued and declined.

 

As we've seen, the likes of ABDV, Amla and VK have all had 4+ yr stretches where they put up ridiculously high numbers. I think that the real ATGs fulfill both of the following criteria: (i) they maintain a career avg and SR that is amongst the best of their time for the majority of their career and (ii) do very well in multi-nation tourneys.

[Jimmy Cliff]

8 minutes ago, Vijy said:

I agree with most of what you wrote, but a 4 yr timespan does not suffice IMO to label someone as an ATG (although they can still be a "great"). Lara still played a fair number of games at No. 3 from Jan '98 and had a decent avg (around 41), but I'd say that he just lost interest and the game underwent fairly rapid evolution after '96 onwards (I think his game was somewhat too classical for the changes that occurred). This trajectory is in contrast to SRT who only kept getting better in ODIs until about the late 2000s, and then subsequently he plateaued and declined.

 

As we've seen, the likes of ABDV, Amla and VK have all had 4+ yr stretches where they put up ridiculously high numbers. I think that the real ATGs fulfill both of the following criteria: (i) they maintain a career avg and SR that is amongst the best of their time for the majority of their career and (ii) do very well in multi-nation tourneys.

Well I am sort of cheating anyway by only counting his record in the top order . I'd agree that his overall record is not ATG level even though he was a phenom from 93-97. 

[Gollum]

This WC will reveal a lot about VK, whether he is in Viv class as many here believe.

 

[Straight Drive]

Haven't seen a better batsman than Viv Richards in ODI considering many contexts.

 

In ODI Viv and Kapil striked runs at a strike rate which would well be accepted even few decades after they retired.

[R!TTER]

There's just one king, others were all pretenders, although there was also this one GOD 

[Gollum]

Changed my mind, Kohli is GOAT. Viv was a nobody. 

[Gollum]

Some real comedy in the first five pages. 

[Stradlater]

That's the reason why I don't take these Sachin vs Kohli/Rohit threads seriously. 

Tendulkar has two 80+ scores in world Cup semifinals. Something these chutias can only dream of. 

[Tattieboy]

8 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Changed my mind, Kohli is GOAT. Viv was a nobody. 

Totally agree , Kohli now my greatest greatest ever ever 

[Moochad]

Think Kohli should be moved to 4 from now on. He doesn't inspire confidence comining in early at 3 when a wicket falls in the first 10 overs. 

 

Man I miss Dhawan in todays match

[Vijy]

3 hours ago, Gollum said:

Changed my mind, Kohli is GOAT. Viv was a nobody. 

Yes, how dare you compare Sir Viv with the new "God" of India :) One is mortal, the other is not.

[Vk1]

King Viv averaged 47 at 90 strike rate after 187 matches without too many not outs.

His contemporaries probably averaged 37 or 38 and not at that high strike rate. 

Not to forget his world cup winning contributions 

[Straight Drive]

13 hours ago, Vk1 said:

King Viv averaged 47 at 90 strike rate after 187 matches without too many not outs.

His contemporaries probably averaged 37 or 38 and not at that high strike rate. 

Not to forget his world cup winning contributions 

From what i recall only Kapil could match Viv's strike rate in ODI in that era.