We underplay our ODI greats

[rangeelaraja]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

you never watched Sachin if you think the most destructive AND the most consistent elite batsman in all format of the 90s was steady eddy.  This is the period when we had like 4-5 batsmen average 50+ in tests and 4-5 batsmen exist who scored centuries at 75-80 strike rate. Meaning if they got going they'd wreck u, not go tuk tuk for a big score.
Sachin was the exponent of BOTH - highest average AND highest strike rate for batters of 90s with 50+ average. Yet you call him steady-eddy.

This means you are BORN in the 90s, you didnt watch tendy in the 90s, you probably watched him in the early mid-2000s and saw bunch of tapes of him or highlights from the 90s.

Else a 90s era cricket watcher has to suffer from alzhiemers to think Tendy = steady eddy.

 

 

Forget about averages and strike rate ...because the eras were different and its would not be a fair comparison.

 

Lets just look at number of matches ....Kohli completed victories ...especially chasing...finishing it off.  There is no comparison in ODIS. Kohli is leaps and bounds greater.

Sachin is an emotional choice....but guys who have watched Sachin for 15 years also say Kohli is in a league of his own.  

 

https://www.espn.com/cricket/story/_/id/44018424/virat-kohli-best-50-overs-player-ever-seen-says-ricky-ponting

 

[vvvslaxman]

Everything has a shelf life including credit. 

[Ultimate_Game]

On 2/24/2025 at 2:22 AM, CoverDrive said:

Top of the ODI century lists has Kohli, Sachin and Rohit. When it comes to ODIs others are not even in the discussion. Our tendency is to keep shifting goal posts and underplay their achievements. I am not saying to worship them without questioning or behave like stupid fans. But numbers and achievements over huge period of time is unquestionable. 
 

We bring selective knockout games or failures that are inevitable in such a long career. People will then bring other formats as if it should matter beyond a point. 

All three did not fill up empty stats and have stepped up big in world cups. 
 

Sachin vs Lara was made to be an even comparison and maybe it was true a little bit in tests but it was not even a contest in ODIs on any metric or even impact or winning contribution. 
 

Kohli has more centuries than other Big 3 combined and even Rohit has more than two of them added. 
 

Last resort is to downplay the 100s by nonsense team game blah blah. I can assure you can pick any impact stats like winning contribution etc and they will be better. 
 

With format becoming less important by every season they will remain greats. 
 

There is lot to criticize these guys in the way they hang on and they have definitely have been dropped a lot more from the team at times. But let’s not be stupid and fall prey to jealousy from the opponents. 
 

Even a down bad and out of touch Kohli kicked their sorry asses. 

 

IMO it's the other way round. Indian players are put on a pedestal. All you hear is "King" Kohli and "Hitman" Sharma. When you look at the ads on the TV it's almost as if India has been winning tourneys forever and they simply have to turn on the field to beat all and sundry.

 

And the reason for the same is meaningless stats. What's the point of these stats if they don't help you win trophies or if you don't show up in big games? WI of old and Aus of 2000s was praised coz they beat everyone. WI went unbeaten in first 3 editions of WCs till they were beaten by India in 83. Aussies beat everyone by remaining unbeaten from 99 to 2007 and winning ICC tourneys regularly. Plus both those teams beat everyone in Tests. That's why they're regarded so high.

 

Conversely what have our stars done other than scoring meaningless runs and 100s in bilaterals against under-strength teams? Legacies are defined in big matches and tourneys, not in bilaterals. Someone like Head has had more impact and he's the one who's being "underplayed". Or even likes of Starc, Cummins and Smith who somehow find a way to show up in big matches. In fact they are the ones who don't get anywhere close to the recognition they should.

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, rangeelaraja said:

 

Forget about averages and strike rate ...because the eras were different and its would not be a fair comparison.

 

Lets just look at number of matches ....Kohli completed victories ...especially chasing...finishing it off.  There is no comparison in ODIS. Kohli is leaps and bounds greater.

Sachin is an emotional choice....but guys who have watched Sachin for 15 years also say Kohli is in a league of his own.  

 

https://www.espn.com/cricket/story/_/id/44018424/virat-kohli-best-50-overs-player-ever-seen-says-ricky-ponting

 

I am talking tests. Kohli isn't good enough to replace laxman as a test batter imo, nevermind Sachin. 

[rangeelaraja]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

I am talking tests. Kohli isn't good enough to replace laxman as a test batter imo, nevermind Sachin. 

 

Oh. You were responding to an ODI post from @putrevus and the title of the thread is " We underplay our ODI greats" ....not " We underplay our Test greats"

 

Tests I agree with Sachin being much better.  ODIs Kohli was much much better than Sachin. Any which way one looks at it.

 

Sachin had 2 world cup finals(2003, 2011 ) ....and he dissapointed in both. 

 

 

[putrevus]

On 3/1/2025 at 2:26 PM, Muloghonto said:

you never watched Sachin if you think the most destructive AND the most consistent elite batsman in all format of the 90s was steady eddy.  This is the period when we had like 4-5 batsmen average 50+ in tests and 4-5 batsmen exist who scored centuries at 75-80 strike rate. Meaning if they got going they'd wreck u, not go tuk tuk for a big score.
Sachin was the exponent of BOTH - highest average AND highest strike rate for batters of 90s with 50+ average. Yet you call him steady-eddy.

This means you are BORN in the 90s, you didnt watch tendy in the 90s, you probably watched him in the early mid-2000s and saw bunch of tapes of him or highlights from the 90s.

Else a 90s era cricket watcher has to suffer from alzhiemers to think Tendy = steady eddy.

 

No Sachin was not destructive batsman.He had his own template starting fast then slowing towards milestones.

 

Was Sachin better than guys like Sanga. Ponting  yeah he was better than them in odis.

 

Odis , it is not even comparision with Kohli. Kohli is miles better than Sachin ever was at any point in his career.

 

Kohli still has fastest odi 100 for Indian batsman.Kohli could attack any bowling attack but chose not due to the team he had around him.

 

Viv Richards was destructive batsman. 

 

Tendulkar was nothing more than steady eddy .There is reason why he never reached 900 rating in any format.

 

Tendulkar scored most runs just based on amount of matches he played that is his only acheivement.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2025 by putrevus

[Adamant]

I want Sharma to end his career on a high, score a century in the finals and lift the champions trophy before announcing his retirement while receiving Man of the Match award in the CT finale.

 

He is an ODI great for sure and deserves a grand farewell, with all the negativity surrounding him these days it will be great to see him sporting a smile after winning the CT.

[Ultimate_Game]

1 minute ago, Adamant said:

I want Sharma to end his career on a high, score a century in the finals and lift the champions trophy before announcing his retirement while receiving Man of the Match award in the CT finale.

 

He is an ODI great for sure and deserves a grand farewell, with all the negativity surrounding him these days it will be great to see him sporting a smile after winning the CT.

 

I simply want the India to win CT and for the seniors to bow out 2027 WC is a step too far and we don't want to keep likes of Jaiswal on the bench. The new generation deserves their shot and they have enough experience. Time to move on, on a high.

[Adamant]

37 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

I simply want the India to win CT and for the seniors to bow out 2027 WC is a step too far and we don't want to keep likes of Jaiswal on the bench. The new generation deserves their shot and they have enough experience. Time to move on, on a high.

I am not sure about Kohli, but I don't see Sharma playing after this tournament, even his body language suggests that he is done with cricket.

I also want Kohli to retire from ODI's and start playing domestics to improve his test game, with all his focus on tests he might actually improve.

[Ultimate_Game]

3 minutes ago, Adamant said:

I am not sure about Kohli, but I don't see Sharma playing after this tournament, even his body language suggests that he is done with cricket.

I also want Kohli to retire from ODI's and start playing domestics to improve his test game, with all his focus on tests he might actually improve.

 

Even for Kohli 2027 is a step too far. What better way to leave than winning the trophy. There's enough talent waiting in the wings. Jaiswal, Sai Sudarshan, Parag, Nitish Reddy, Samson etc. coupled with Gill, Iyer, Pant, KL, Axar etc. is plenty of talent. Wemay even get likes of Tilak Varma and Rinku from T20 setup.

 

Go with a young team in 2027. Indian cricket is in good health with lots of depth. Time for youngsters to shine.

[StraightDrive26]

4 hours ago, putrevus said:

No Sachin was not destructive batsman.He had his own template starting fast then slowing towards milestones.

 

Was Sachin better than guys like Sanga. Ponting  yeah he was better than them in odis.

 

Odis , it is not even comparision with Kohli. Kohli is miles better than Sachin ever was at any point in his career.

 

Kohli still has fastest odi 100 for Indian batsman.Kohli could attack any bowling attack but chose not due to the team he had around him.

 

Viv Richards was destructive batsman. 

 

Tendulkar was nothing more than steady eddy .There is reason why he never reached 900 rating in any format.

 

Tendulkar scored most runs just based on amount of matches he played that is his only acheivement.

 

 

What nonsense, Sachin in the 90's struck at least 16-17 points more than the average top six batters SRs in the 90's. Ponting was not even a top Test/ODI batter in the 90's. Sachin's only competition in ODIs was Lara and Anwar who struck 6-7 points lower than Sachin in ODIs. Even in tests Sachin was way ahead than his peers in the 90's. Remember Sachin's first innings as an opener against NZ was a 49 ball 82. That was unheard of in the 90's. This predates Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana. Also anyone who plays 460 games cannot score 18K ODI runs. Number of games does not equate to runs. Comparison across eras is dumb and is implausible. You saying A is better than B is just your personal opinion and not a fact. 

 

When Sachin started ODIs were played with white clothing and red balls, average scoring rate was around 4, batting strike rates were between 60-70, average of ODI batters were under 40 and an economy rate of 5 runs per over was considered expensive. When Navjot Siddhu scored his 4th ODI hundred in 1993/94 (I think that was the year) it was the highest by an Indian in ODIs. Desmond Haynes's 17 hundreds was the world record in ODIs and 220 was a match winning total at most times. 300+ scores were rare and India's first such score came in 1996 in Sharjah.

There were no two new balls and boundaries other than NZ grounds were big and six hitting was difficult. Bowlers could reverse the ball after 35-40 overs and the white ball sometimes was impossible to see in the final overs and had to be changed most often because of that. There were no bouncer rules, there were no free hits, no ball +4 wasn't 5 runs. I can keep adding more and more in terms of how rules have changed. There was no DRS as well.

Now lets look at the current era, any tom dick and harry can average 50+ in ODIs. We have 58-63 meters boundaries where ever top edges go for 6. There are two new balls and reverse swing is almost gone. Scoring rates are 6-7 per over, every team can score 300+ easily. An economy of 6 is considered okay. World record for most hundreds in ODIs was 49 before Virat broke it. There are many batters who had scored 20+ ODI hundreds from various teams.

Now how do you compare batters playing in these two different eras? Can we guarantee, Virat would have averaged 58 if he had debuted in 1989 playing ODIs in white clothing and red ball? Or can you say Sachin would not have averaged 58 in this era and wouldn't have scored at a higher pace?

This is why comparing eras is stupid. The conditions are never the same, Sachin in the era he played was a great. His batting average was at least 10-15 points higher than the top 6 batter average in the 90's and his SR was at least 16-17 higher than the average SR's of top 6 batters of the 90's. That's all you can compare any batter against. You cannot say Dean Jones is inferior to Ponting because he struck only at 72. Dean was product of his generation and while there were some exceptions to that rule like Zaheer Abbas, Viv Richards etc, everyone who played in that era had a SR of 65-72 and it was considered good. Can we say Shubman Gill who averages 58 at a SR of 100 is a better batter than Viv or Zaheer? You cannot as comparisons cannot be made like that. Zaheer Abbas and Viv were great of that generation as they were way ahead of their peers in terms of average and SR. Same with Sachin as even the greats of his time like Anwar and Lara struck 6-7 points lower than Sachin in ODIs and averaged almost 5 points lower.

That is the only comparison we can make. When there has been so many changes to the rules and playing conditions we cannot make a blanket statement and say that a player from 70's is worse than someone playing now. The only thing which matters is what they have done for the game in your country and how it has inspired future generations. People say Bumrah is better than Kapil but again the contributions of the latter cannot be taken lightly. Kapil came into the indian team when spinners were opening the bowling attack for India and Karsan Ghavri was doubling up as a pacer. Kapil inspired an entire generation of fast bowlers. Sachin and Gavaskar inspired an entire generation of batters. The same thing Virat and Bumrah will do and so will Rohit, Shami, Kuldeep etc. No one cares if they are better than Bedi or Sachin etc.

Comparison across eras is absolutely dumb, it can never be qualitative and only bring about favoritism etc. I am a fan of both Sachin and Virat and both of them are great but again if there were no Gavaskar and Sachin, I don't think we would have seen a Virat. Gavaskar showed that we can stand up to the west and produce a great of our own and Sachin went a step further and showed that we can dominate the best. All these players are greats and the current generation has Virat and Rohit as greats and there will be someone who might do better than them which does not make anyone inferior. Remember Dean Jones with a SR of 72 was considered quick when Sachin made his ODI debut. SR of 72 is unheard of in this era.

 

SR of Indian Batters who played with Sachin in the 90's

Azhar SR 74

Manjrekar - 64

Siddhu - 69

A Jadeja - 69.7

V Kambli - 71.9

Ganguly - 73.7

Dravid - 71.2

 

All the above SR's were PAR for the era in the 90's. Now let's look at Sachin:

Sachin overall in the 90's - 86.80

Sachin SR as an opener - 91.43

 

Now please say how Sachin wasn't a dasher of that era and how he was an accumulator. If he was an accumulator what will we call the below legends?
ME Waugh - 77

S Anwar - 83

Inzamam- 72

De Silva - 82

Lara - 79

Bevan - 76

Kirsten - 70

 

Only two batters who scored at least 2000 runs in ODI struck higher than Sachin

Gilly - 87

Jayasuriya - 90

But again Sachin as an opener had a higher SR than both of them.

Edited March 5, 2025 by StraightDrive26

[ungboysj]

3 hours ago, StraightDrive26 said:

What nonsense, Sachin in the 90's struck at least 16-17 points more than the average top six batters SRs in the 90's. Ponting was not even a top Test/ODI batter in the 90's. Sachin's only competition in ODIs was Lara and Anwar who struck 6-7 points lower than Sachin in ODIs. Even in tests Sachin was way ahead than his peers in the 90's. Remember Sachin's first innings as an opener against NZ was a 49 ball 82. That was unheard of in the 90's. This predates Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana. Also anyone who plays 460 games cannot score 18K ODI runs. Number of games does not equate to runs. Comparison across eras is dumb and is implausible. You saying A is better than B is just your personal opinion and not a fact. 

 

When Sachin started ODIs were played with white clothing and red balls, average scoring rate was around 4, batting strike rates were between 60-70, average of ODI batters were under 40 and an economy rate of 5 runs per over was considered expensive. When Navjot Siddhu scored his 4th ODI hundred in 1993/94 (I think that was the year) it was the highest by an Indian in ODIs. Desmond Haynes's 17 hundreds was the world record in ODIs and 220 was a match winning total at most times. 300+ scores were rare and India's first such score came in 1996 in Sharjah.

There were no two new balls and boundaries other than NZ grounds were big and six hitting was difficult. Bowlers could reverse the ball after 35-40 overs and the white ball sometimes was impossible to see in the final overs and had to be changed most often because of that. There were no bouncer rules, there were no free hits, no ball +4 wasn't 5 runs. I can keep adding more and more in terms of how rules have changed. There was no DRS as well.

Now lets look at the current era, any tom dick and harry can average 50+ in ODIs. We have 58-63 meters boundaries where ever top edges go for 6. There are two new balls and reverse swing is almost gone. Scoring rates are 6-7 per over, every team can score 300+ easily. An economy of 6 is considered okay. World record for most hundreds in ODIs was 49 before Virat broke it. There are many batters who had scored 20+ ODI hundreds from various teams.

Now how do you compare batters playing in these two different eras? Can we guarantee, Virat would have averaged 58 if he had debuted in 1989 playing ODIs in white clothing and red ball? Or can you say Sachin would not have averaged 58 in this era and wouldn't have scored at a higher pace?

This is why comparing eras is stupid. The conditions are never the same, Sachin in the era he played was a great. His batting average was at least 10-15 points higher than the top 6 batter average in the 90's and his SR was at least 16-17 higher than the average SR's of top 6 batters of the 90's. That's all you can compare any batter against. You cannot say Dean Jones is inferior to Ponting because he struck only at 72. Dean was product of his generation and while there were some exceptions to that rule like Zaheer Abbas, Viv Richards etc, everyone who played in that era had a SR of 65-72 and it was considered good. Can we say Shubman Gill who averages 58 at a SR of 100 is a better batter than Viv or Zaheer? You cannot as comparisons cannot be made like that. Zaheer Abbas and Viv were great of that generation as they were way ahead of their peers in terms of average and SR. Same with Sachin as even the greats of his time like Anwar and Lara struck 6-7 points lower than Sachin in ODIs and averaged almost 5 points lower.

That is the only comparison we can make. When there has been so many changes to the rules and playing conditions we cannot make a blanket statement and say that a player from 70's is worse than someone playing now. The only thing which matters is what they have done for the game in your country and how it has inspired future generations. People say Bumrah is better than Kapil but again the contributions of the latter cannot be taken lightly. Kapil came into the indian team when spinners were opening the bowling attack for India and Karsan Ghavri was doubling up as a pacer. Kapil inspired an entire generation of fast bowlers. Sachin and Gavaskar inspired an entire generation of batters. The same thing Virat and Bumrah will do and so will Rohit, Shami, Kuldeep etc. No one cares if they are better than Bedi or Sachin etc.

Comparison across eras is absolutely dumb, it can never be qualitative and only bring about favoritism etc. I am a fan of both Sachin and Virat and both of them are great but again if there were no Gavaskar and Sachin, I don't think we would have seen a Virat. Gavaskar showed that we can stand up to the west and produce a great of our own and Sachin went a step further and showed that we can dominate the best. All these players are greats and the current generation has Virat and Rohit as greats and there will be someone who might do better than them which does not make anyone inferior. Remember Dean Jones with a SR of 72 was considered quick when Sachin made his ODI debut. SR of 72 is unheard of in this era.

 

SR of Indian Batters who played with Sachin in the 90's

Azhar SR 74

Manjrekar - 64

Siddhu - 69

A Jadeja - 69.7

V Kambli - 71.9

Ganguly - 73.7

Dravid - 71.2

 

All the above SR's were PAR for the era in the 90's. Now let's look at Sachin:

Sachin overall in the 90's - 86.80

Sachin SR as an opener - 91.43

 

Now please say how Sachin wasn't a dasher of that era and how he was an accumulator. If he was an accumulator what will we call the below legends?
ME Waugh - 77

S Anwar - 83

Inzamam- 72

De Silva - 82

Lara - 79

Bevan - 76

Kirsten - 70

 

Only two batters who scored at least 2000 runs in ODI struck higher than Sachin

Gilly - 87

Jayasuriya - 90

But again Sachin as an opener had a higher SR than both of them.

Major point you missed out is only 4 player outside till over 40 that change really killed it for spinners and it's all a batsman game now

[StraightDrive26]

19 minutes ago, ungboysj said:

Major point you missed out is only 4 player outside till over 40 that change really killed it for spinners and it's all a batsman game now

You are right, the PP rules and number of fielders allowed outside the inner circle has made batting and scoring easier. Two new balls mean that there is no reverse swing as the ball is only 25 overs old at the end of the game. Everything is stacked against the bowlers now, that was not the case in the 90's even on flat pitches. 

[putrevus]

18 hours ago, StraightDrive26 said:

What nonsense, Sachin in the 90's struck at least 16-17 points more than the average top six batters SRs in the 90's. Ponting was not even a top Test/ODI batter in the 90's. Sachin's only competition in ODIs was Lara and Anwar who struck 6-7 points lower than Sachin in ODIs. Even in tests Sachin was way ahead than his peers in the 90's. Remember Sachin's first innings as an opener against NZ was a 49 ball 82. That was unheard of in the 90's. This predates Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana. Also anyone who plays 460 games cannot score 18K ODI runs. Number of games does not equate to runs. Comparison across eras is dumb and is implausible. You saying A is better than B is just your personal opinion and not a fact. 

 

When Sachin started ODIs were played with white clothing and red balls, average scoring rate was around 4, batting strike rates were between 60-70, average of ODI batters were under 40 and an economy rate of 5 runs per over was considered expensive. When Navjot Siddhu scored his 4th ODI hundred in 1993/94 (I think that was the year) it was the highest by an Indian in ODIs. Desmond Haynes's 17 hundreds was the world record in ODIs and 220 was a match winning total at most times. 300+ scores were rare and India's first such score came in 1996 in Sharjah.

There were no two new balls and boundaries other than NZ grounds were big and six hitting was difficult. Bowlers could reverse the ball after 35-40 overs and the white ball sometimes was impossible to see in the final overs and had to be changed most often because of that. There were no bouncer rules, there were no free hits, no ball +4 wasn't 5 runs. I can keep adding more and more in terms of how rules have changed. There was no DRS as well.

Now lets look at the current era, any tom dick and harry can average 50+ in ODIs. We have 58-63 meters boundaries where ever top edges go for 6. There are two new balls and reverse swing is almost gone. Scoring rates are 6-7 per over, every team can score 300+ easily. An economy of 6 is considered okay. World record for most hundreds in ODIs was 49 before Virat broke it. There are many batters who had scored 20+ ODI hundreds from various teams.

Now how do you compare batters playing in these two different eras? Can we guarantee, Virat would have averaged 58 if he had debuted in 1989 playing ODIs in white clothing and red ball? Or can you say Sachin would not have averaged 58 in this era and wouldn't have scored at a higher pace?

This is why comparing eras is stupid. The conditions are never the same, Sachin in the era he played was a great. His batting average was at least 10-15 points higher than the top 6 batter average in the 90's and his SR was at least 16-17 higher than the average SR's of top 6 batters of the 90's. That's all you can compare any batter against. You cannot say Dean Jones is inferior to Ponting because he struck only at 72. Dean was product of his generation and while there were some exceptions to that rule like Zaheer Abbas, Viv Richards etc, everyone who played in that era had a SR of 65-72 and it was considered good. Can we say Shubman Gill who averages 58 at a SR of 100 is a better batter than Viv or Zaheer? You cannot as comparisons cannot be made like that. Zaheer Abbas and Viv were great of that generation as they were way ahead of their peers in terms of average and SR. Same with Sachin as even the greats of his time like Anwar and Lara struck 6-7 points lower than Sachin in ODIs and averaged almost 5 points lower.

That is the only comparison we can make. When there has been so many changes to the rules and playing conditions we cannot make a blanket statement and say that a player from 70's is worse than someone playing now. The only thing which matters is what they have done for the game in your country and how it has inspired future generations. People say Bumrah is better than Kapil but again the contributions of the latter cannot be taken lightly. Kapil came into the indian team when spinners were opening the bowling attack for India and Karsan Ghavri was doubling up as a pacer. Kapil inspired an entire generation of fast bowlers. Sachin and Gavaskar inspired an entire generation of batters. The same thing Virat and Bumrah will do and so will Rohit, Shami, Kuldeep etc. No one cares if they are better than Bedi or Sachin etc.

Comparison across eras is absolutely dumb, it can never be qualitative and only bring about favoritism etc. I am a fan of both Sachin and Virat and both of them are great but again if there were no Gavaskar and Sachin, I don't think we would have seen a Virat. Gavaskar showed that we can stand up to the west and produce a great of our own and Sachin went a step further and showed that we can dominate the best. All these players are greats and the current generation has Virat and Rohit as greats and there will be someone who might do better than them which does not make anyone inferior. Remember Dean Jones with a SR of 72 was considered quick when Sachin made his ODI debut. SR of 72 is unheard of in this era.

 

SR of Indian Batters who played with Sachin in the 90's

Azhar SR 74

Manjrekar - 64

Siddhu - 69

A Jadeja - 69.7

V Kambli - 71.9

Ganguly - 73.7

Dravid - 71.2

 

All the above SR's were PAR for the era in the 90's. Now let's look at Sachin:

Sachin overall in the 90's - 86.80

Sachin SR as an opener - 91.43

 

Now please say how Sachin wasn't a dasher of that era and how he was an accumulator. If he was an accumulator what will we call the below legends?
ME Waugh - 77

S Anwar - 83

Inzamam- 72

De Silva - 82

Lara - 79

Bevan - 76

Kirsten - 70

 

Only two batters who scored at least 2000 runs in ODI struck higher than Sachin

Gilly - 87

Jayasuriya - 90

But again Sachin as an opener had a higher SR than both of them.

Viv Richards has higher SR than Sachin .When prevealing SR was in low 60s and no power plays.

 

So no Sachin was not even close to Virat as odi batsman .Virat would avg same with 90s SR during Sachin era where fielding was not that great.

 

Virat's game is built on minimizing risk and rotating strike.His game was built for odis.

Edited March 5, 2025 by putrevus

[StraightDrive26]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Viv Richards has higher SR than Sachin .When prevealing SR was in low 60s and no power plays.

 

So no Sachin was not even close to Virat as odi batsman .Virat would avg same with 90s SR during Sachin era where fielding was not that great.

 

Virat's game is built on minimizing risk and rotating strike.His game was built for odis.

So if someone has higher SR than someone they are better? No one denies that Viv is a great of the game and probably better than Sachin but you cannot compare based on SR or average and say someone is better. The only thing you can judge them against is their own peers who play under the same conditions and rules. Viv was a great and so is Sachin. Viv played for a ATG team for his whole career while Sachin had to carry a under performing Indian team for a decade. So you are saying Virat with his faulty technique would have averaged 58 in the 90's while Sachin who had textbook technique and could play all the shots in the book would not have averaged 50+ with higher SR in this era? Sachin would have feasted in this era of mediocre bowlers, two new balls, less people outside the inner circle etc. Imagine batters like Viv, Sachin, Lara etc playing in this era, they would have hammered the bowlers around. Last night NZ scored 362 against one of the finest bowlers of this generation who was taken for 70 runs in 10 overs. This is the state of LOI cricket in this era. Any batter who struck at 80 + in 80's and 90's would be striking at 100+ in this era. I am not saying it is easy to bat but it is for sure easier to score in this era.People with major technical flaws struggled to score runs in the 90's but that is not an issue in this era.

[putrevus]

16 hours ago, StraightDrive26 said:

So if someone has higher SR than someone they are better? No one denies that Viv is a great of the game and probably better than Sachin but you cannot compare based on SR or average and say someone is better. The only thing you can judge them against is their own peers who play under the same conditions and rules. Viv was a great and so is Sachin. Viv played for a ATG team for his whole career while Sachin had to carry a under performing Indian team for a decade. So you are saying Virat with his faulty technique would have averaged 58 in the 90's while Sachin who had textbook technique and could play all the shots in the book would not have averaged 50+ with higher SR in this era? Sachin would have feasted in this era of mediocre bowlers, two new balls, less people outside the inner circle etc. Imagine batters like Viv, Sachin, Lara etc playing in this era, they would have hammered the bowlers around. Last night NZ scored 362 against one of the finest bowlers of this generation who was taken for 70 runs in 10 overs. This is the state of LOI cricket in this era. Any batter who struck at 80 + in 80's and 90's would be striking at 100+ in this era. I am not saying it is easy to bat but it is for sure easier to score in this era.People with major technical flaws struggled to score runs in the 90's but that is not an issue in this era.

That was your assertion.I don't see any other reason why you brought whole lot of strike rates of others. 

 

No Sachin did not have carry anybody that is just a fallacy.We know what great things Indian team did in 1990s.Even against Pakistan in 1996 QFs it was Siddu and Jadeja who won that match.

 

India reached two CT finals with Sachin being a passenger.Ganguly and Dravid scored 373 in 1999.If Dravid could score 10000 plus runs, Kohli would have doubled those runs.

 

Virat's technique was just fine before his decline.He was just fine in all aspects in all formats and was lone warrior for the team for more than decade.

 

Virat has fastest 100 for team India.He could have batted higher SR but never had team , if he failed team is done even today.

 

If Kohli played more odis like Sachin in his career like 160 more. He would have had another 25 100s.

 

So no Sachin is not even in the same ball park as Virat in odis. Virat's game  could translate in any era.

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2025 by putrevus

[Ultimate_Game]

1 hour ago, StraightDrive26 said:

Any batter who struck at 80 + in 80's and 90's would be striking at 100+ in this era. I am not saying it is easy to bat but it is for sure easier to score in this era. People with major technical flaws struggled to score runs in the 90's but that is not an issue in this era.

 

That's why I've insane level of respect for Kapil Dev. The guy had a SR of 100+ primarily batting in 80s! And some of his best innings came against WI! Imagine what he would've done in this era. He would be by far the greatest all-rounder in white-ball cricket.

[cricspirit]

Do not want to start a thread. I saw a video of Sachin and posting it.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2025 by cricspirit

[nevada]

On 3/5/2025 at 9:28 AM, ungboysj said:

Major point you missed out is only 4 player outside till over 40 that change really killed it for spinners and it's all a batsman game now

And remember that a lot of ODIs were played with the red ball in Sachin's time. Make Kohli play against the red ball and his run production takes a big dip! 

[StraightDrive26]

23 hours ago, putrevus said:

That was your assertion.I don't see any other reason why you brought whole lot of strike rates of others. 

 

No Sachin did not have carry anybody that is just a fallacy.We know what great things Indian team did in 1990s.Even against Pakistan in 1996 QFs it was Siddu and Jadeja who won that match.

 

India reached two CT finals with Sachin being a passenger.Ganguly and Dravid scored 373 in 1999.If Dravid could score 10000 plus runs, Kohli would have doubled those runs.

 

Virat's technique was just fine before his decline.He was just fine in all aspects in all formats and was lone warrior for the team for more than decade.

 

Virat has fastest 100 for team India.He could have batted higher SR but never had team , if he failed team is done even today.

 

If Kohli played more odis like Sachin in his career like 160 more. He would have had another 25 100s.

 

So no Sachin is not even in the same ball park as Virat in odis. Virat's game  could translate in any era.

 

 

 

I brought the SR of others because that was the norm in those days. Only a handful of batters even struck above 80 in that era. That's why it is relevant. In this era there are multiple batters who average 50+ with a SR of 90+ which is a norm. Virat is not great because of his average, he is great because of the type of innings he plays. There are batters who average over 50 and strike better than Virat like ABD. Nope if Kohli had played in the 90's he wouldn't be scoring 80 hundreds and that assumption is ridiculous. This shows that you are someone who watches 10 minutes highlights of games from the 90's and just look at the stats. I watched cricket through the 90's and have watched all the teams, there is no way Virat was scoring so may hundreds with the kind of fields and bowling attacks of the 90's. The reverse swing, longer boundaries, more fielders outside the 30 yard circle etc. Sachin is the one who could translate his game to any era as he was the closest to technical perfection. Sachin never had such prolonged slump in cricket in his 24 year career. That shows how technically perfect he was. Virat on the other hand has been going through slump for 6 years running and too during his prime years. There is no comparison between Sachin and Virat, the latter might be a better ODI batter in terms of records but the better batsman was always Sachin. Virat is not even close to Sachin in terms of batting. At the age of 51 without much practice Sachin can still play flawless innings with the bat, Virat at the age of 30 struggles to score runs in Tests, that's the gulf between the two. 

 

Also I am not discussing this anymore as it is based on preference and has nothing to do with actual facts. Also this discussion precisely is what the thread is about. Only in Asia we undermine our greats so much, it does not happen in western countries. No one bashes Micheal Clarke and says he was worse than Ponting etc. Their fans never do that. So I am out, you guys can continue the discussions of putting down our greats.

Edited March 6, 2025 by StraightDrive26