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

[putrevus]

15 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

so  10076/16353 .....61.62 % only.   And as per  your stance Kohli would go onto maintain this avg: of 59.62 automatically  even after scoring 16353 runs.

 

it is not about 4 or 5 or 6 ...not outs inflate averages. Any way each to their own

Bradman is regarded as greatest batsman, he just scored 6996 runs. There are lot of other batsmen who have scored more than Kohli in odis but they are not better than Kohli.

 

10000 is big enough sample to judge.Anything he does from now onwards is adding cherry on top.

[Jimmy Cliff]

46 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Everything is not all about stats, there is something called eye test. Those who have seen Sachin full pomp and are seeing full pomp will understand, Sachin was especially from 1996 -99 was a different beast but even that Sachin in my view is not better than the Kohli we are seeing now.

 

There is a certainity about Kohli which was not there about Sachin. 

There is certainty because he is up against comparatively weaker attacks/teams. Put him in the modest Indian side of the mid-90s and let him play against AUS/RSA/WI/PAK/SL of that time and watch that certainty disappear. 

[rtmohanlal]

5 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Bradman is regarded as greatest batsman, he just scored 6996 runs. There are lot of other batsmen who have scored more than Kohli in odis but they are not better than Kohli.

 

10000 is big enough sample to judge.Anything he does from now onwards is adding cherry on top.

Bradman's case is different. His avg: of 99.94 was so far ahead(infact almost double)  of that of any of  his contemporaries.

Kohli's avg:  is not that far ahead from several  of his fellow contemporary top batsmen. Infact ABDV is so close to  Kohli in mere stats. Amla, Root, Dhoni, Bairstow too are not far behind. Means Kohli's stats are able to place him at, no:1 ahead of his contemporary generation.  But across generations  it is not the case

[vvvslaxman]

You can slice and dice it any way you want. You cannot conclusively say Kohli would have failed in any era based on arbitrary parameters. Much faster bowlers, more mystery spinners are in play these days. Every goddamn batsman had some weaknesses. Through pure work ethics, they overcame. When it comes to that there is very little that separate Kohli and Sachin.  One thing you can say is Tendulkar inspired generations of cricketers sure Kohli was one of them. Kohli will sure inspire generations of cricketers. Dhoni will inspire generations of cricketers ( @velu :) )

[vvvslaxman]

2 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

Bradman's case is different. His avg: of 99.94 was so far ahead(infact almost double)  of that of any of  his contemporaries.

Kohli's avg:  is not that far ahead from several  of his fellow contemporary top batsmen. Infact ABDV is so close to  Kohli in mere stats. Amla, Root, Dhoni, Bairstow too are not far behind. Means Kohli's stats are able to place him at, no:1 ahead of his contemporary generation.  But across generations  it is not the case

To be fair apart from Lara there was absolutely no competition for him in that era. Inzamam was an FTB. Mark waugh clearly underachieved a lot although one has to say he had some weaknesses against pacers. Ganguly was pretty good in the beginning. Jayasuriya had his moments alongwith Aravinda the mad max. Definitely Aravinda was almost as good as Sachin. 

[nevada]

Sachin batted against the red ball in day time ODIs for quite a bit. Isn't batting against the white ball which doesn't swing at all much easier than batting against the red ball? 

[vvvslaxman]

1 hour ago, nevada said:

Sachin batted against the red ball in day time ODIs for quite a bit. Isn't batting against the white ball which doesn't swing at all much easier than batting against the red ball? 

White ball or red ball bowlers were always restricted. They cannot err in line or length by a big margin. 

[SK_IH]

To each his own, Virat over Sachin for me

[Vilander]

16 hours ago, Number said:

much inferior today.

Facts say otherwise. Check posts above

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, nevada said:

Sachin batted against the red ball in day time ODIs for quite a bit. Isn't batting against the white ball which doesn't swing at all much easier than batting against the red ball? 

"White Balls are believed to swing more than the red ball.

Actually this has been the controversy for years since the 1999 World Cup when the cricket ball manufacturing company ‘Dukes’ introduced white cricket ball in the game. Players usually claim that the Red Ball and the White Ball both behave differently. However, this is denied by the manufacturing companies themselves especially Kookaburra. The company apparently finds no logical reason to back the players with their claim that the white ball spins more. Kookaburra stated that the manufacturing process for both the balls are same so the apparent difference in the behavior of the two cricket balls depend on the bowler, pitch condition and on ‘Optical Illusion’. Manufacturing heads of the company explained that since the white color of the ball is susceptible to getting dirty from the dust so in a one-day match it usually becomes discolored and therefore becomes less trackable to the batsman’s eyes making it difficult for him to take the shot. This is not true though.

In an experiment conducted by MCC, where they fired a mixture of balls from a single machine found that indeed the white balls deviate from their trajectory. In another experiment conducted by BBC in New Zealand it is found that the white ones swung more than the red balls at around 70 mph. Experts have found the cause for this to be the difference in the manufacturing procedure. (This is bit complex from here) Dukes white ball manufacturing process is not same as that for the conventional red ball. As in case of the conventional red ball, the leather is dyed red, greased and polished with a shellac topcoat. This final polish disappears very quickly during play and it is the grease in the leather that produces the shine when polished by the bowler. The finish applied to the white ball is slightly different. The leather is sprayed with a polyurethane white paint-like fluid and then heat-treated so that it bonds to the leather like a hard skin. As a final treatment, one coat of clear polyurethane-based topcoat is applied to further protect the white surface so that it does not get dirty easily. This extra coating ends up affecting the ball’s aerodynamics by making the surface smoother. Kookaburra here, to some extent is correct with its statements as indeed unlike Dukes, their manufacturing process for both the red and white ball is same. However, both types of Kookaburra balls behave different than the traditional red balls as unlike the latter they have a smooth quarter-seam region. Traditional red balls have rough ridges. The ridges along the quarter seam are very important and this will make it easier to produce reverse swing with this ball. Again, the increased roughness along the quarter seam means that reverse swing can be obtained at lower bowling speeds and the amount of reverse swing at the higher bowling speeds is increased. Important are the six rows of stitching that make up the primary seam. They are certainly not identical on balls made by different manufacturers. Different manufacturers produce balls with different primary seam and surface roughness, especially in the quarter-seam region that contributes to the behavior of the ball.

In a nutshell, a ball’s manufacturing technique, especially its surface roughness and stitching are the cause of affecting their swing."

[putrevus]

17 hours 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.

Didn't they chase 280 plus against India when Sachin made his 100th 100.

[Laaloo]

38 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Didn't they chase 280 plus against India when Sachin made his 100th 100.

Yes that was in 2012. It took them 297 balls to do and that too on a freak innings by Rahim at the end. Not even ridiculous chase as the one yesterday. 

[putrevus]

15 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

Yes that was in 2012. It took them 297 balls to do and that too on a freak innings by Rahim at the end. Not even ridiculous chase as the one yesterday. 

They are improving as an odi side and Zimboks honestly are very poor team.

[Laaloo]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

They are improving as an odi side and Zimboks honestly are very poor team.

Agreed. I will agree that invent of T20 has had a huge effect on batting in the past 10 years. But the affect of two new balls and the batting powerplay has changed the entire game in favor of the batsman. You change that rule again and teams will struggle to chase 300+ again. Remember 2011 world cup? Even though england almost chased down 333, it was zaheers reverse swing that got us back in the game. Remember 2011 Mohali SF, and how wahab Riaz destroyed our middle order with reverse swing. Remember 2011 QF, and we were 160-5 and pitch was dusty and run scoring was difficult. Can you tell me any Odis similar to these matches in the last 5 years?