Sachin vs Kohli after 99 Tests

[SRT100]

36 minutes ago, Serpico said:

Sachin got fat at the turn of the century and never slimmed down again. Given his short frame, this had a big impact on his game. Because of this and tennis elbow later on, his shots lost that extra punch he had in 90s

 

Tendulkar with Kohli like fitness would have been awesome

 

Tendulkar despite his frame and carrying extra weight, he did what no player  has ever done at that point int time in 100s of ODIs and that was to score a double century in ODI against a decent SA attack too.

 

Not to mention this was also just prior to his retirement.

 

Kohli with Tendulkar skills set would have been awesome.

[SRT100]

19 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Dev, Yuvi and Kumble were mentally strong too.

I said Yuvraj.

 

I didnt see Dev.

 

Jumbo was particular strong in Australia during monkeygate. He was a very strong captain during that time, stood tall against the Australian public and media, in Australia.

[rkt.india]

6 hours ago, Vijy said:

no, the evidence doesn't prove that. it either shows what you wrote and/or that bowling quality/pitches was higher in 1990s than in 2000s and 2010s. one cannot use batting avg in isolation to infer anything either way; otherwise, someone would think batting quality was very high in 1920s and not before/after this period.

If you look at the bowling in 90s, India, SL, England, Zimbabwe, and NZ all were pretty average bowling attacks. Australia attack too only started becoming good in late 90s. So we can't say bowling attacks were really good in the 90s.

[Jay]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

If you look at the bowling in 90s, India, SL, England, Zimbabwe, and NZ all were pretty average bowling attacks. Australia attack too only started becoming good in late 90s. So we can't say bowling attacks were really good in the 90s.

It wasn't never was. Bowling us thr best post 2010. That's the bitter truth. Nostalgic fans need to shut up and bite the bullet 

[Mariyam]

14 hours ago, Vijy said:

My own reading is that he was ingrained in Bombay school of batsmanship and was also not mentally that strong. He was rather fragile in pressure situations, kind of like Sundar's glass body. Of course, mental toughness is rare to come by in Indian cricketers - that's why we celebrate the exceptions like Gambhir.

One could argue about the not too strong mentally part of your post.

In his debut, a 15-16 year old Sachin played the Pakistanis in Pakistan and they were out injuring our players, the seasoned well set batsmen, with bouncers and directs deliveries to the body. I don't remember what the scorecard was, but India were in a dire situation when Sachin was called to bat. He was hit and he bled through his nose. Yet he insisted on playing on and saved the test match. That takes grit. I would categorize that as mentally tough.

 

Also, for most of Sachin's career, the rest of the batting line up was extremely poor. Every match in that scenario *is* a pressure situation. Sachin knew that its curtains if he's out. He still set the records that he did.

 

 

[vvvslaxman]

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

If you look at the bowling in 90s, India, SL, England, Zimbabwe, and NZ all were pretty average bowling attacks. Australia attack too only started becoming good in late 90s. So we can't say bowling attacks were really good in the 90s.

Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe was pretty good.  Late in the 90s their bowling became better.  Streak, Olonga, Mbangwa combo was good enough to win a Test in Pakistan.

[Stan AF]

 

 

More of an apt comparison

 

[Something]

On 3/3/2022 at 11:58 PM, Jay said:

Different pitches. Flat roads during tendas prime. Kohli played on some extremely difficult pitches.

This is a joke right? 

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, Mariyam said:

One could argue about the not too strong mentally part of your post.

In his debut, a 15-16 year old Sachin played the Pakistanis in Pakistan and they were out injuring our players, the seasoned well set batsmen, with bouncers and directs deliveries to the body. I don't remember what the scorecard was, but India were in a dire situation when Sachin was called to bat. He was hit and he bled through his nose. Yet he insisted on playing on and saved the test match. That takes grit. I would categorize that as mentally tough.

 

Also, for most of Sachin's career, the rest of the batting line up was extremely poor. Every match in that scenario *is* a pressure situation. Sachin knew that its curtains if he's out. He still set the records that he did.

 

 

Yes, I don't think he was mentally "weak" but I do think that his mental strength was not as high as some others like, say, Steve Waugh.

[Vijy]

6 hours ago, SRT100 said:

 

I believe Dhoni had that mental toughness that I believe is very rare amongst Indians.

 

Ganguly and Yuvraj have shown glimpses of when put to the sword, as has Kohli when younger. Kohli when younger and angry, was dangerous, like scary dangerous, no score was out of his limit.

 

Overall though I do agree India lack mental toughness. Even the 2011 WC win, they made a meal out of chasing a less than par score.

 

The fact that India has consistently struggled in ICC tournaments is a testament to our ability to choke in major tournaments.

yes, next biggest chokers after Saffers

[sage]

15 hours ago, rkt.india said:

How many players averaged 50s in 2010s? I think less than even 90s. Batsmen who primarily played in 2010s.

Only three players playing throughout the 90s averaged above 50 with Tendulkar leading way ahead of the pack.

 

 

2010s had FAR more 50+ average batsman. Calling Sachin's runs in the 90s easy by any metric is nonsense. He was phenomenal 

[sage]

Sachin himself managed to average 50+ in three straight decades which is mind-blowing in itself.

[SRT100]

2 hours ago, sage said:

Sachin himself managed to average 50+ in three straight decades which is mind-blowing in itself.

Thats multiple generations of quality bowlers, which makes it more impressive.

[Jay]

59 minutes ago, SRT100 said:

Thats multiple generations of quality bowlers, which makes it more impressive.

But according to pandu Sachin underperformed apparently despite having the best bowlers to support him no? 

Only in late 2000 did we start to have good bowling. 

[Something]

.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Something

[vvvslaxman]

11 hours ago, Vijy said:

Yes, I don't think he was mentally "weak" but I do think that his mental strength was not as high as some others like, say, Steve Waugh.

 

He was famous for batsmanship. End of story.  Toss aside pressure situation and all those things. He did play some pressure knocks in the 1990s. It was all about how a prodigy evolved into a super star and sustained it for 2 more decades. Just look at Kambli, Within few years he disappeared. Many players started well and went off the boil. Jonathan Trott, Mike Hussey to name a few. Right now Kohli/Smith are going through the same. He was such an outstanding batsman who could handle pretty much any kind of bowling in the 90s. Astonishing range of shots.  Ability to see the ball much faster than others. He and Lara were two of a kind back then. Lara infact once said he would want to be consistent like Tendulkar than score big runs and not score for a few more innings.  Tendulkar had such a huge fan following in Australia and NZ even back in 1994. Young kids would flock to see this guy as he himself was a young kid. I have criticism against Tendulkar. But definitely nothing but great respect for his batsmanship in the 90s. Started against Imran/Akram/young Waqar/Qadir then moved on Hadlee,  in the one dayer against Botham, Marshall, Patterson, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Mcgrath then Saqlain, Warne, Murali.  One of the biggest issue was lack of Tests in the 90s. He was at his peak. But not enough Tests. Many thought his career was over in mid 2000s prior to that  disciplined 241 at the SCG.  When you are out of form even on a docile wicket you fail like we see with Kohli. But he showed a lot of resolve in that knock. Definitely have criticism against Sachin for his poor batting against spin bowling on a worn out pitch.   Peter such innings, then against afridi he struggled at Bangalore, then against Paul harris he was pottering around,  Once even Panesar had him stumped. Sachin was such an outstanding player against spin in the 90s. His game somewhat took a hit against spin especially on day 4/5 pitches.    But thankfully  we had one of the greatest player against spin in 2000s in Sehwag.  That is why it wasn't magnified as much as it is magnified for Kohli. Back then Laxman/Sehwag were great against spin. Now Gujara/Khanae/ Kohli all three suck against spin to varying degree in their last days

[putrevus]

After 2016 T20 world cup, I thought Kohli did not have the mental block which Sachin had in big spots.But he proved me completely wrong, the more he played in bigger matches his mental block became bigger and bigger.Kohli started exhibiting pseduo machoism to cover up for his failures with bat.He dragged down his teams also in big spots.His teams started playing not to lose in big spots rather than going for win.

 

Now he is totally a nut case with bat.I don't think he will last long.

[vvvslaxman]

41 minutes ago, putrevus said:

After 2016 T20 world cup, I thought Kohli did not have the mental block which Sachin had in big spots.But he proved me completely wrong, the more he played in bigger matches his mental block became bigger and bigger.Kohli started exhibiting pseduo machoism to cover up for his failures with bat.He dragged down his teams also in big spots.His teams started playing not to lose in big spots rather than going for win.

 

Now he is totally a nut case with bat.I don't think he will last long.

 

Everyone goes through phases in cricket. Great players come back. Tendulkar started his career very early so he was able to make multiple come backs. Kohli started at the appropriate age. Kohli for all his talent was not a prodigy. Infact Kohli was dropped within a few series he was selected. Tendulkar was never dropped. In no time he became the mainstay of the batting. Kohli had to reinvent himself and went through an unbelievable purple patch.  Tendulkar was carrying this 3 pound bat(heaviest in his era). Even now it is one of the  heaviest bat for a batsman and developed injuries like back injury, tennis elbow. He pulled through it and managed to have a mini come back.  Kohli definitely is a mean machine in ODI and an ATG even with bad patch. But in Tests how you come back after a slump will determine your legacy. 

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by vvvslaxman

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Everyone goes through phases in cricket. Great players come back. Tendulkar started his career very early so he was able to make multiple come backs. Kohli started at the appropriate age. Kohli for all his talent was not a prodigy. Infact Kohli was dropped within a few series he was selected. Tendulkar was never dropped. In no time he became the mainstay of the batting. Kohli had to reinvent himself and went through an unbelievable purple patch.  Tendulkar was carrying this 3 pound bat(heaviest in his era). Even now it is one of the  heaviest bat for a batsman. Kohli definitely is a mean machine in ODI and an ATG even with bad patch. But in Tests how you come back after a slump will determine your legacy. 

 

Tendulkar to me was steady eddy .I would not miss Tendulkar as he rarely made anything count especially away from home.At home India does not need either Kohli or Tendulkar to win matches.Even his 241 not in Sydney he was outscored by Parthiv Patel that's how patethic Tendulkar batted in that  innings .Kohli never had the support which Tendulkar had, you can call it as his own fault he kept playing both bozos Pujara and Rahane .

 

Kohli's legacy as a batsman is set, he does not have drag his career on to prove anything, 100 tests is plenty enough.Tendulkar playing 200 tests is most ridiculous thing ever he was done in 2011.Kohli never had the technique which Tendulkar had so I would be surprised if he lasts another two years.Slumps don't last 3 years.

 

 

[vvvslaxman]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Tendulkar to me was steady eddy .I would not miss Tendulkar as he rarely made anything count especially away from home.At home India does not need either Kohli or Tendulkar to win matches.Even his 241 not in Sydney he was outscored by Parthiv Patel that's how patethic Tendulkar batted in that  innings .Kohli never had the support which Tendulkar had, you can call it as his own fault he kept playing both bozos Pujara and Rahane .

 

Kohli's legacy as a batsman is set, he does not have drag his career on to prove anything, 100 tests is plenty enough.Tendulkar playing 200 tests is most ridiculous thing ever he was done in 2011.Kohli never had the technique which Tendulkar had so I would be surprised if he lasts another two years.Slumps don't last 3 years.

 

 

 

 

It is not easy to be a steady eddy. Point is not how they contribute to victory. Also it is totally unfair to say Tendulkar didn't play any part in overseas wins.  You can use any filter you want.  Dravid/Tendulkar/Laxman all three played their part in wins overseas. Dravid probably has the better performances.  Laxman not so much against pakistan. But we had Sehwag in subcontinent.  But in moving conditions, bouncy conditions these 3 were key players with occasional help from Gambhir.  

 

Also you are completely missing the point about innings of 241. Parthiv latching on to tired bowlers after they were  burnt to the ground won't make his innings better tahn Sachin's. Sachin was going through a bad patch repeatedly getting out in the same fashion. So he cut out shots through one side and played predominantly through on side. You really think that is an easier thing to do forgetting muscle memory?