10k runs for Kohli !!!

[putrevus]

16 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

you are making things of your own.... I just maintain that Kohli would have far lesser stats  in those much tougher batting conditions.

That's all .Naturally that would affect his no: of 100s too.Nor do I question Kohli's greatness. Nor do I question your choice of order w.r.t these batsmen . The only matter that I question are the reasons for your conclusions which i can't agree with.

I don't think his stats would be that different in any era may be couple of points here and there but he would still average higher than any other player past or present.Unlike others in this era Kohli is different as his game is built different.

 

 

[beetle]

Mumbai Police

 

✔@MumbaiPolice

 · Oct 24, 2018

 

No over-speeding challan here, just accolades & best wishes for more @imVkohli ! Many congratulations on your amazing feat!

prakash shenoy@prakashkgshenoy

 

Good to see some good copy writers in Mum Police, nice. Very creative. Keep it up!

8:17 PM - Oct 24, 2018

•  
  3
•  
  See prakash shenoy's other Tweets

 

 

Ouch !!!Bumrah !!!!

[rtmohanlal]

46 minutes ago, putrevus said:

I don't think his stats would be that different in any era may be couple of points here and there but he would still average higher than any other player past or present.Unlike others in this era Kohli is different as his game is built different.

 

 

this is where the huge difference in opinion with you comes. Every era  has some sets of basic rules and  playing conditions etc etc  upon which players  develop their games and go onto perform. In Viv'S  time  3-3.5-4  was the econ: norm.It implies as to how bowler friendly those periods were.  Naturally it can be  assumed that quite often during the course of an inns,  a front line batsman would   receive those unplayable wicket taking deliveries which he needed to resist. In  the rest of the inns he needed to keep on scoring runs too.So that means , great defense and a related method  was required to counter those   Viv's method was based on that.

 

In Kohli's  times, the conditions are extremely different. Even 400+ totals are scored a lot. 200+ individual inns are getting scored.

This means the chances of a batsman getting those nasty wkt taking deliveries  thru the course of  an inns has reduced hugely in general. Kohli's run scoring method is based  on these rules &  conditions.

 

So it is not that difficult to understand that both these playing rules and conditions are entirely different to one another. That being the case , you are saying with such 100% surety that Kohli  whose  technique and methods are adapted for current days  would have overtaken the  best batsman of that  time period.How does that make any sense?

 

To me it make sense only in that both are best of their respective generations and hence are ATGS. After that, it is all general perception that determines the ratings.it is as per that I rate Viv,Sachin & Kohli in that order.

[rkt.india]

4 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

 but i oppose your claim because   a batsman needs  great defence technique and  his own related  method  to with stand the quality deliveries that frequently comes at him as was the case with  Viv's times. That means mere survival itself was a big task those days as the general econ: norm of 3-3.5-4  shows .Then only one can  even dare to play  strokes along the ground. So the basic criteria itself was so different back then when compared to that of now a days.That being the case it is  senseless to compare number of 100s of both these players.

 

Kapil scored  because he was such a naturally talented batsman.

 

So the basic matter is  it is your personnel choice to consider who ever as the better batsman, but your reasons for the same cannot be accepted as such

and Kohli has bad technique?

[Adi BB]

I think he's the odi GOAT!

10k runs @ 58 is madness . Though I want kohli the test batsman to score big and average close to 60 in the next couple of years ,I like kohli the test batsman nowadays 

[rtmohanlal]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

and Kohli has bad technique?

no ..kohli has a good technique. But as I said 'his technique and related method'  of today doesn't guarantee he would have 100 % surely  exceeded  Viv whose 'technique and related method ' enabled him to far exceed other batsmen of his era.Viv had a method  of going too far across  which nullified LBW chances to the utmost and playing cross batted shots to even genuine quicks with the aid of his lightning reflexes.And this method most suited that era. There is no guarantee that this method would have brought him  that much success in these third umpire , DRS, days.That is why if  I  say Viv would have definitely exceeded all the others of this generation,then that would be too much. Then  it all comes to general perceiving  in ordering these greats. 

 

Kohli method is the best  for high scoring  batting friendly wickets . He avoids in the air shots as much as possible before he gets settled. Then he has great match temperament.That enables him to  continue on and on in easy pitches. But in by gone eras the basic itself was far different.Every now and then a dangerous  delivery would be received.If you don't have the technique to survive that , that would be the end of the inns. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by rtmohanlal

[rtmohanlal]

Stats of great players should be  evaluated based on the contexts they played in. For instance take Gavaskar. If some body takes Rohit Sharma's and Gavaskar's  record  and then  evaluate them based on pure stats only , then no wonder Rohit would be the convincingly better  one  by several levels. But then the matter of context comes. Sunil started off  when   one dayers were taken only as  'as  casual as it would have been'. And the first few overs needed to be played out  with that much difficulty  as has always been in the first  few overs of a test match.  In the first decade of 70-80, 3-3.5 was the general bowling econ: norm. Players too were not at all  serious w.r.t longevity  and all as is the case with now a days. Based on that I wouldn't blame at all some body,  if he placed Sunil even  in almost the same level as Rohit as an one day batsman.

[rkt.india]

27 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

Stats of great players should be  evaluated based on the contexts they played in. For instance take Gavaskar. If some body takes Rohit Sharma's and Gavaskar's  record  and then  evaluate them based on pure stats only , then no wonder Rohit would be the convincingly better  one  by several levels. But then the matter of context comes. Sunil started off  when   one dayers were taken only as  'as  casual as it would have been'. And the first few overs needed to be played out  with that much difficulty  as has always been in the first  few overs of a test match.  In the first decade of 70-80, 3-3.5 was the general bowling econ: norm. Players too were not at all  serious w.r.t longevity  and all as is the case with now a days. Based on that I wouldn't blame at all some body,  if he placed Sunil even  in almost the same level as Rohit as an one day batsman.

so you mean to say gavaskar is better ODI batsman than Rohit?

[putrevus]

Wow I heard everything, Gavaskar is on same level as Rohit as a one day player. Nostalgia is fine but there should be a limit to it.

[rkt.india]

10 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Wow I heard everything, Gavaskar is on same level as Rohit as a one day player. Nostalgia is fine but there should be a limit to it.

It is more like Lostalgia, not nostalgia.

[rtmohanlal]

6 hours ago, putrevus said:

Wow I heard everything, Gavaskar is on same level as Rohit as a one day player. Nostalgia is fine but there should be a limit to it.

 

7 hours ago, rkt.india said:

so you mean to say gavaskar is better ODI batsman than Rohit?

Did i  say that ???? i am just saying that if some body comes with a bit more in depth  analysis and is able to clarify  that  Gavaskar's stats based on his' playing days norms   &  general data  match in comparison with that of Rohit's and there by claims thay are more or less equal, then I won't be surprised at all. 

That is what I am claiming. For instance take the basic general bowling  econ: itself.

In Gavaskar's time it was 3.25-3.75. In Rohit's case   it is 5-5.5-6 . So 3.5/5 = 0.7

Gavaskar's average/Rohit's avg: = 35.16/46.88 = 0.75

 

So basically Gavaskar  could match in avg:  against those set of bowlers with  3.5 econ: in general  with Rohit and his corresponding bowling  econ:. In depth analysis is another matter.I am only saying that I wouldn't be surprised on such a conclusion with genuine in depth analysis of relative data .