Twitter concludes Kohli's 10k ODI runs are still the second best after Sachin's 10k runs !!!

[rkt.india]

32 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Sachin had such a huge advantage for majority of his career by being an opener, Kohli at no3 does not get same chances as India has very good openers and still Kohli has beaten Sachin record more than 50 innings.There is no contest as who is better Kohli wins it by a mile and it is not even close as far odis are concerned.

 

Sachin was never this great in SENA countries and the consistency shown by Kohli is unmatched in history of odis.

 

This notion that Kohli needs to over take total number of runs scored  is also ridiculous. I really hope Kohli does not play 460 plus games, what is point in playing games for yourself and not for the team.

SRT batted in middle order for about 70 matches, so, cant say he had an advantage.

[velu]

48 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Tendulakr vs Dhoni vs KOhli . Each had their own strength

 

Opener vs Finisher vs Chaser

 

dhonis 10k vs sachin 10k will be even  more debatable  

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

SRT batted in middle order for about 70 matches, so, cant say he had an advantage.

No that is not true  Tendulkar batting at no 4 61 times and no 5 36 times in 460 plus matches. Kohli battted 37 times at no 4 and 4 times at no 5. So still Tendulkar had advantage as he was an opener.

 

I find hilarious that people are discounting his matches till he was made an opener in 1994 which is seven year after he made his debut. What about Kohli when he started as an opener and his growing pains. Accounting all this also Tendulkar is nowhere close. 

[rkt.india]

19 minutes ago, putrevus said:

No that is not true  Tendulkar batting at no 4 61 times and no 5 36 times in 460 plus matches. Kohli battted 37 times at no 4 and 4 times at no 5. So still Tendulkar had advantage as he was an opener.

 

I find hilarious that people are discounting his matches till he was made an opener in 1994 which is seven year after he made his debut. What about Kohli when he started as an opener and his growing pains. Accounting all this also Tendulkar is nowhere close. 

you are comparing 97 times in MO to 41 in.  SRT also batted 6 initially.   

[putrevus]

12 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

you are comparing 97 times in MO to 41 in.  SRT also batted 6 initially.   

Ratio of 97 in 452 and 41 in 205 is same . They both batted at 6 and 7 same number of  times. 

Edited October 26, 2018 by putrevus

[Laaloo]

49 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Tendulkar rose to fame becuase India did not have a good team and he was only shining light for period of time especiallly in late 1990s.Tendulkar got lucky too that tag that he somehow carried the team all by himself kept on going even past 2000 when he played with arguabaly one of the best batting line ups both in tests and odis.

 

Tendulkar was more talented but that talent was also his downfall as he got carried away in an effort to impose himself and got out.Kohli while batting is more methodical in approach and eliminates all risks.

 

I find it hilarious to think anyone has any issues with Kohli.This guy is so dedicated to his game and his team.Kohli oozes about team where as Tendulkar for most part of his career was about Tendulkar.

Oh come on so Kohli plays for the team and Sachin never played for the team. It would be interesting to see their strike rate before the 32nd over and see who plays for the team and who didn't. There not a Stark difference between kohli and Sachins strike rate before the 32nd over. I'm taking 32nd over because of the second new ball, and it's ridiculous how easy it is to score runs now as compared to before. Even Rohit Sharma is scoring runs after getting set. You know why? Cause of the second new ball. I don't really argue with haters. But arguing with you since you're a genuine poster. 

[rkt.india]

15 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Ratio of 97 in 452 and 41 in 205 is same . They both batted at 6 and 7 same number of  times. 

you need to check how many times SRT batted in middle in his first 259 innings. He batted very less in middle order once he tarted opening in 1994.  For 4-5 years approx 70 games, he batted in below 3.

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, Laaloo said:

Oh come on so Kohli plays for the team and Sachin never played for the team. It would be interesting to see their strike rate before the 32nd over and see who plays for the team and who didn't. There not a Stark difference between kohli and Sachins strike rate before the 32nd over. I'm taking 32nd over because of the second new ball, and it's ridiculous how easy it is to score runs now as compared to before. Even Rohit Sharma is scoring runs after getting set. You know why? Cause of the second new ball. I don't really argue with haters. But arguing with you since you're a genuine poster. 

I don't mean to demean or downgrade Sachin anyway.But when people start making nonsenical arguments such as bowling is easy and runs are being offered on platter so Kohli is scoring , it irritates me.The guy has scored 1000 runs  in just 11 matches that too majority of them playing away from home and people are still trying to give some nonsenical reasons belittling that achievement.

This was Sachin's typical odi innings :blazing start then consolidation in middle then crawling in 90s.Once he reached 100 he reset himself and scored at faster rate. Do you agree.

What do you mean by second new ball. They are playing with two new balls.Were they not using two news balls  in Australia in 1990s.

Don't easily discredit Rohit like that, he is a bonafide superstar in odis.He is not scoring three double hundreds and 20 centuries without talent.Yes he has severe flaws in his technique but white ball always has helped players with lesser techniques.

 

Bottom line is Kohli reached 10000 beating the record by 50 plus innings that too not batting as an opener.That too me is not a product of easy pitches and bad bowling but his talent and his mehtods.

[vvvslaxman]

Technically Sachin is better. Temperamentally Kohli is better.  Both run well. Both find gaps well. Sachin has a tad better range of shots. Kohli is more powerful.  Both have great top gears. Still lower top gear for both compared to imperious Rohit sharma :)

[Laaloo]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

I don't mean to demean or downgrade Sachin anyway.But when people start making nonsenical arguments such as bowling is easy and runs are being offered on platter so Kohli is scoring , it irritates me.The guy has scored 1000 runs  in just 11 matches that too majority of them playing away from home and people are still trying to give some nonsenical reasons belittling that achievement.

This was Sachin's typical odi innings :blazing start then consolidation in middle then crawling in 90s.Once he reached 100 he reset himself and scored at faster rate. Do you agree.

What do you mean by second new ball. They are playing with two new balls.Were they not using two news balls  in Australia in 1990s.

Don't easily discredit Rohit like that, he is a bonafide superstar in odis.He is not scoring three double hundreds and 20 centuries without talent.Yes he has severe flaws in his technique but white ball always has helped players with lesser techniques.

 

Bottom line is Kohli reached 10000 beating the record by 50 plus innings that too not batting as an opener.That too me is not a product of easy pitches and bad bowling but his talent and his mehtods.

Well I'm not one of those that discredit Kohli. I can discredit Rohit because when I see a player struggle every freaking ball in the first 5 overs, it makes me sceptical of his ATG credentials. And why shouldnt I bring the two new balls into the discussion? It has made scoring redicuolousy easy because we don't see reverse swing anymore. I don't see that huge difference in scoring between kohli and Sachin before the 30th over to say one played for himself and the other one played for the team. Whats to say Sachin wouldnt have scored faster 100s if there were two new balls. Look at his 175 chasing albeit the attack was okay and pitch was flat. Look at his 200. He scored that at the age of 36?Look at Sachins innings against Asif I think at Ahmedabad 2005 where ball was seaming all over the place. Tell me if Rohit would have even survived one over. Kohli you can make a guess that he would have survived but Rohit? No way. 

[vvvslaxman]

50 plus with highest strike rates by Indians. Dravid 2nd :)

 

 

[Nonbeliever]

8 centuries were scored in 1992 world cup and 36 in 2015.  Still people argue that batting has not become easier.

 

Those were days when we would rarely see a century in a month of odi cricket and today you can see 1-2 centuries every game.  

 

Today peopel like faKhar zaman averages 59.  Babar azam close to 52.

Do u think player like jayasuria averaged 32 in todays time.

Adam Gilchrist averaged 36.  

 

[Laaloo]

3 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

50 plus with highest strike rates by Indians. Dravid 2nd :)

 

 

You can't take this list seriously. Where the hell is Sir Aggy?

Edited October 26, 2018 by Laaloo

[Nonbeliever]

10 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

Well I'm not one of those that discredit Kohli. I can discredit Rohit because when I see a player struggle every freaking ball in the first 5 overs, it makes me sceptical of his ATG credentials. And why shouldnt I bring the two new balls into the discussion? It has made scoring redicuolousy easy because we don't see reverse swing anymore. I don't see that huge difference in scoring between kohli and Sachin before the 30th over to say one played for himself and the other one played for the team. Whats to say Sachin wouldnt have scored faster 100s if there were two new balls. Look at his 175 chasing albeit the attack was okay and pitch was flat. Look at his 200. He scored that at the age of 36?Look at Sachins innings against Asif I think at Ahmedabad 2005 where ball was seaming all over the place. Tell me if Rohit would have even survived one over. Kohli you can make a guess that he would have survived but Rohit? No way. 

Rohit a player who can't even make a place in one of the worst indian test batting order ever, score 200s for Fun in odis.

[Jimmy Cliff]

39 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

Oh come on so Kohli plays for the team and Sachin never played for the team. It would be interesting to see their strike rate before the 32nd over and see who plays for the team and who didn't. There not a Stark difference between kohli and Sachins strike rate before the 32nd over. I'm taking 32nd over because of the second new ball, and it's ridiculous how easy it is to score runs now as compared to before. Even Rohit Sharma is scoring runs after getting set. You know why? Cause of the second new ball. I don't really argue with haters. But arguing with you since you're a genuine poster. 

Most analyses confirm that Tendulkar's SR when adjusted for his era is higher whereas Kohli's average is better. 

[Laaloo]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Most analyses confirm that Tendulkar's SR when adjusted for his era is higher whereas Kohli's average is better. 

Thank you. Now I can finally say which player plays for the team and which player plays to boost his average 

[Laaloo]

Bangladesh chased 288 against Zimbabwe in 42 overs. They could have won even earlier if Rahim batted faster. I wonder if they would have won this match 10 years back.

[Nonbeliever]

6 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

Bangladesh chased 288 against Zimbabwe in 42 overs. They could have won even earlier if Rahim batted faster. I wonder if they would have won this match 10 years back.

And 3 100s in a single game

[Nikola]

In today's world, bilateral series are meaningless. No team gives it much importance other than India. If you are counting about ICC events in Odis then Kohli will have to first perform better than Rohit & Dhawan. If it's just about bilaterals where teams like Aus rest its all key players and most teams don't even care then yes in that Kohli is a prolific run scorer.

[zen]

At this point: