Rohit Sharma V/S ABDV the awesome.

[sensible-indian]

Even SRT wasn't so ahead of his pack cos Bevan had a better ODI average during SRT's peak (but with inferior SR). In average plus SR combo, SRT was ahead of his pack. But in case of both Viv and ABD, they are ahead of their pack both in average and SR.

[HippoSucks]

Forget overall achievements in ODI bro. Right now in the last 5 years, who is better in ODIs in your view? ABD (who bats at No 4 or No 5) or Sanga (who bats at No 3)?

Definitely de Villiers over the past few years. But you're missing the point. No one is saying that de Villiers can't be the best batsman of this generation just because he bats sometimes at #5. For most of the matches he does bat as a middle-order batsman at #4 (http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/Players/PlayerPositions_ODI.asp?PlayerID=3241). However the point is that he bats at #5 many times in high pressure situations such as knockouts of ICC tournaments which suggests that he has some issue with handing pressure.

[sensible-indian]

Definitely de Villiers over the past few years. But you're missing the point. No one is saying that de Villiers can't be the best batsman of this generation just because he bats sometimes at #5. For most of the matches he does bat as a middle-order batsman at #4 (http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/Players/PlayerPositions_ODI.asp?PlayerID=3241). However the point is that he bats at #5 many times in high pressure situations such as knockouts of ICC tournaments which suggests that he has some issue with handing pressure.

I didn't intend to make any point with that question bro. If you had said Sanga, I would have said we disagree on a fundamental level and said let's move on.

However the point is that he bats at #5 many times in high pressure situations such as knockouts of ICC tournaments which suggests that he has some issue with handing pressure.

Could be. He could have issues with pressure. I don't consider him a great clutch player. Faf is more clutch. I never argued for the fact that ABD is the best in pressure situations too. But overall, he has been the best of this generation and is so far ahead of others that he is on track to be one of the greatest ODI bats (which was my first point from where the whole debate started). We need to wait for his career to get over to get an accurate view. :two_thumbs_up: He needs more sample set.

[HippoSucks]

Dhoni was India's best ODI bat all these years (along with Kohli). Even if Kohli wasn't there, he would be the best batsman who was playing in middle to lower middle order. Yes, ABD isn't as good a finisher as Dhoni or Bevan. That will count against him a bit but overall he has been so good. Someone who is SO FAR ahead of the competition (like Viv was in the 70s and 80s and SRT was in the 90s)...DESERVES to be rated high. 1. And he doesn't bottle it like Amla. 2. He isn't all stats. His aura while playing can be seen. 3. He never looks troubled at any time. 4. Unreal ability to construct innings plus slog Just cos he isn't as good a finisher as Dhoni or Bevan shouldn't hold him back from being one of the greatest ODI bats (in a club where Viv, SRT, Bevan and Dhoni are part of). And like Viv, SRT....ABD is also far far ahead of his competition both in SR and average. He has the SAME NUMBER of runs as Amla while batting lower down the order. That's just shows who he is.

You can't take statistics of 5 years to show how far ahead he is from his contemporaries. Otherwise Ponting's peak would mean that he was a better batsman than others of his generation, which isn't true. But anyway the point isn't that he is not the best batsman of this generation just because he isn't a good finisher. Just that if he bats at #5, then his role is assumed to be that of a finisher. And he isn't very good at that. He can bat at #3/4 and be a terrible finisher and still be one of the best ODI batsman of all time.

[sensible-indian]

You can't take statistics of 5 years to show how far ahead he is from his contemporaries. Otherwise Ponting's peak would mean that he was a better batsman than others of his generation' date= which isn't true. But anyway the point isn't that he is not the best batsman of this generation just because he isn't a good finisher. Just that if he bats at #5, then his role is assumed to be that of a finisher. And he isn't very good at that. He can bat at #3/4 and be a terrible finisher and still be one of the best ODI batsman of all time.

Of course ABD needs more sample set. But he is on track. Peak performance is not everything but that plays a very important role. How you do in your peak matters a lot. Ponting has the greatest peak for a Test batsman in modern era (and he is RATED a lot for his peak) but he isn't the better than SRT in an overall way when every factor is considered. Same way ABD at his peak has been so far ahead of the pack just like SRT and Viv but he needs more sample set.

[SLICKR392]

People are having a serious argument over Rohit vs ABDV? :WTF:

[sensible-indian]

People are having a serious argument over Rohit vs ABDV? :WTF:

No not Rohit vs ABDV. :haha:

[HippoSucks]

Of course ABD needs more sample set. But he is on track. Peak performance is not everything but that plays a very important role. How you do in your peak matters a lot. Ponting has the greatest peak for a Test batsman in modern era (and he is RATED a lot for his peak) but he isn't the better than SRT in an overall way when every factor is considered. Same way ABD at his peak has been so far ahead of the pack just like SRT and Viv but he needs more sample set.

Fair enough. But I feel if the difference between de Villiers and his contemporaries' peaks isn't large enough for now. For example, de Villiers' performance in ODIs over the last 5 years has been marginally better than Kohli's (during his peak from 2012-2014). I think the difference between a player's performance during their peak can only be extrapolated to deduce that he is far better than others in his generation only if there is a significant difference (between the player's performance in his peak with the performance of other players). For example if someone like Steve Smith keeps averages 80 in tests for 1-2 more years, then you can extrapolate that he is ahead of the other players even with a rather small sample set. Now if you're comparing him with players from past eras, then the difference needs to be even larger IMO. Because the ATGs of the past (especially those from the 90s and before) averaged significantly more than the players in that era. Personally I think that if the difference in batting conditions change, so does the difference between a batsman and other players of their generation. For example, let's say Sachin averages 50 in the 1990s, and most other batsman averaged in the 40s (hypothetically). And today, de VIlliers averages 60 while other world class batsman average in the 50s (because of the more favorable batting conditions). Just because the difference between both of these ATGs and thee other batsman is the same (around 10), you can't deduce that they are equal in quality. Because if the averages of batsman increased significantly, so should the difference of averages between an ATG and another player of that respective generation. So what I feel, and this could very well be wrong, is that the difference between a Sachin-like (quality wise) batsman and the rest of the batsman should be more than the difference between Sachin (or any other batsman of the past) and the rest of the batsman in that era. So just because de Villiers is ahead of the other batsman in a similar fashion like Sachin and others were, it doesn't make him equal to those ATGs. Now if a batsman comes by who averages a good 15-20 more than most other world class batsman, then I think it is safe to compare them to the great batsman of the past who averages 5-10 more than other world class batsman in that era.

[maniac]

No one denies ABDV is one of the best young bats in the world,but like some people compared him to Viv Richards and SRT and that is definitely a joke. As I said in a different thread,he doesn't have a career defining innings nor series that pushes him in to the league of an all time great,Right now he is nothing but a very good player with bloated stats. Chanderpaul has some great stats in the last few years too but no one seems to care either,Sangakkara's stats might put him in an ATG player category but he is still a notch below SRT,Lara,Ponting and even Kallis. Infact Sanga or Chanders stake a greater claim than AB as they play for much weaker teams. Let us keep the Choker or ICC tourney debate aside for the moment but S.A is not even dominant in bilateral ODI's and T20's despite having a gun team. Even his teammate Amla has some great statistics,so what makes AB that much more rated? Is it his innovative strokes like a reverse sweep of a fast bowler,ramp shots etc.? I wont bring him down to a level of Dilshan or even much worse an Ashraful or a Maurillier who could pull of those shots but what about K.P,who has great stats and can play those kind of shots?Do we seriously rate ABDV over K.P who doesn't seem to make a lot of ATG lists despite having 3 career defining Ashes under his belt. The problem here is not rating ABDV or putting down his incredible gift and talent,but over hyping him as a once in a generation player or calling him a new gen Viv Richards like a not so sensible comment from sensible indian Fan seems to suggest.

[sensible-indian]

Fair enough. But I feel if the difference between de Villiers and his contemporaries' peaks isn't large enough for now. For example, de Villiers' performance in ODIs over the last 5 years has been marginally better than Kohli's (during his peak from 2012-2014). I think the difference between a player's performance during their peak can only be extrapolated to deduce that he is far better than others in his generation only if there is a significant difference (between the player's performance in his peak with the performance of other players). For example if someone like Steve Smith keeps averages 80 in tests for 1-2 more years, then you can extrapolate that he is ahead of the other players even with a rather small sample set. Now if you're comparing him with players from past eras, then the difference needs to be even larger IMO. Because the ATGs of the past (especially those from the 90s and before) averaged significantly more than the players in that era. Personally I think that if the difference in batting conditions change, so does the difference between a batsman and other players of their generation. For example, let's say Sachin averages 50 in the 1990s, and most other batsman averaged in the 40s (hypothetically). And today, de VIlliers averages 60 while other world class batsman average in the 50s (because of the more favorable batting conditions). Just because the difference between both of these ATGs and thee other batsman is the same (around 10), you can't deduce that they are equal in quality. Because if the averages of batsman increased significantly, so should the difference of averages between an ATG and another player of that respective generation. So what I feel, and this could very well be wrong, is that the difference between a Sachin-like (quality wise) batsman and the rest of the batsman should be more than the difference between Sachin (or any other batsman of the past) and the rest of the batsman in that era. So just because de Villiers is ahead of the other batsman in a similar fashion like Sachin and others were, it doesn't make him equal to those ATGs. Now if a batsman comes by who averages a good 15-20 more than most other world class batsman, then I think it is safe to compare them to the great batsman of the past who averages 5-10 more than other world class batsman in that era.

World of difference between 2 year (Kohli) and 5 year peak. Though Kohli at one point looked invincible, he had been owned in England away ODIs, Australia tri series and had below par WC (except against Pakistan) while ABD faced no such issues.

For example, let's say Sachin averages 50 in the 1990s, and most other batsman averaged in the 40s (hypothetically). And today, de VIlliers averages 60 while other world class batsman average in the 50s (because of the more favorable batting conditions). Just because the difference between both of these ATGs and thee other batsman is the same (around 10), you can't deduce that they are equal in quality. Because if the averages of batsman increased significantly, so should the difference of averages between an ATG and another player of that respective generation. So just because de Villiers is ahead of the other batsman in a similar fashion like Sachin and others were, it doesn't make him equal to those ATGs. Now if a batsman comes by who averages a good 15-20 more than most other world class batsman, then I think it is safe to compare them to the great batsman of the past who averages 5-10 more than other world class batsman in that era.

Sorry to say bro but these are all assumptions. Any real way to validate these assumptions? What if there is a phenomena that if you ease up the playing conditions, breaking away from the pack is MORE HARDER. For example, in the whole history of cricket, in flatter tracks, FTBS average 50s...but you never see ATGs averaging 70s or 80s or 100s in those tracks (I am talking over a big sample set and not just a series or two)). The difference between ATG and FTB comes in TOUGHER tracks where the disparity is shown. So going by a REAL LIVE example, ABD is able to distinguish himself at time where every decent hack can average 50 in ODI. Plus look at his records in every country in ODIs and its clear he has been good in all tracks. So if you go by my theory which has more real life backing, ABD is more greater than Sachin or Viv cos he stood out in this era. Not that I believe in this theory. Fact is....keep it simple. Viv stood out from the crowd. SRT stood out from the crowd. ABD stood out from the crowd. All three weren't defined by stats cos at their best they had aura.

[sensible-indian]

No one denies ABDV is one of the best young bats in the world,but like some people compared him to Viv Richards and SRT and that is definitely a joke. As I said in a different thread,he doesn't have a career defining innings nor series that pushes him in to the league of an all time great,Right now he is nothing but a very good player with bloated stats. Chanderpaul has some great stats in the last few years too but no one seems to care either,Sangakkara's stats might put him in an ATG player category but he is still a notch below SRT,Lara,Ponting and even Kallis. Infact Sanga or Chanders stake a greater claim than AB as they play for much weaker teams. Let us keep the Choker or ICC tourney debate aside for the moment but S.A is not even dominant in bilateral ODI's and T20's despite having a gun team. Even his teammate Amla has some great statistics,so what makes AB that much more rated? Is it his innovative strokes like a reverse sweep of a fast bowler,ramp shots etc.? I wont bring him down to a level of Dilshan or even much worse an Ashraful or a Maurillier who could pull of those shots but what about K.P,who has great stats and can play those kind of shots?Do we seriously rate ABDV over K.P who doesn't seem to make a lot of ATG lists despite having 3 career defining Ashes under his belt. The problem here is not rating ABDV or putting down his incredible gift and talent,but over hyping him as a once in a generation player or calling him a new gen Viv Richards like a not so sensible comment from sensible indian Fan seems to suggest.

Well its a difference of opinion mate. Whether my comment is sensible or not...the whole world (including neutrals) accept ABDs supremacy and think he is a special player who trancends eras.

[sensible-indian]

No one denies ABDV is one of the best young bats in the world,but like some people compared him to Viv Richards and SRT and that is definitely a joke. As I said in a different thread,he doesn't have a career defining innings nor series that pushes him in to the league of an all time great,Right now he is nothing but a very good player with bloated stats. Chanderpaul has some great stats in the last few years too but no one seems to care either,Sangakkara's stats might put him in an ATG player category but he is still a notch below SRT,Lara,Ponting and even Kallis. Infact Sanga or Chanders stake a greater claim than AB as they play for much weaker teams. Let us keep the Choker or ICC tourney debate aside for the moment but S.A is not even dominant in bilateral ODI's and T20's despite having a gun team. Even his teammate Amla has some great statistics,so what makes AB that much more rated? Is it his innovative strokes like a reverse sweep of a fast bowler,ramp shots etc.? I wont bring him down to a level of Dilshan or even much worse an Ashraful or a Maurillier who could pull of those shots but what about K.P,who has great stats and can play those kind of shots?Do we seriously rate ABDV over K.P who doesn't seem to make a lot of ATG lists despite having 3 career defining Ashes under his belt. The problem here is not rating ABDV or putting down his incredible gift and talent,but over hyping him as a once in a generation player or calling him a new gen Viv Richards like a not so sensible comment from sensible indian Fan seems to suggest.

Because Amla is a bottler in ICC events. ABD is not. You can check the stats. Plus ABD has aura which Amla does not. ABD could have had the jaw dropping career defining knock if SA was allowed to play the full 50 overs against NZ in WC. Would have scored a 100 (very likely considering how he was playing that match plus his general form) and taken SA to 350 which would have been out of NZ reach. ABD doesn't have many career defining knocks cos we play very less tournaments these days. Its all bilaterals, bilaterals and bilaterals mixed with a few knockouts in ICC event (for which you have to depend on your team - like SA messed up against NZ and denied ABD another knockout chance in finals). ABD has different gears to his game and can shift gears at a level of ease I have seen NO BATSMAN do it. And I am not alone. I have seen many other fans (Indians and non Indians included) who say the same. Chanders at No 4 in tests averages 35. He hides down the order in tests even when there is no credible batsman above. That's why he isn't rated an ATG. Sanga is an ATG in tests but not in the league of SRT/Viv/Lara/Ponting in tests. No one rates him like that based on stats. If ABD falters now, of course, he will be rated accordingly. That goes without saying. As of now, he is on track to be one of the greatest in ODIs.

[Cricketics]

At current form Rohit is one of the best bats. ABDV in last 3 years, ABDV has not just been one of the best bad, but been compared with fellow South African cricketer - Amla and with Virat Kohli. Now he has gone past ahead of both and become the best player. You have to become neutral for a second and realize how CLASS he is. He is the BEST in the game right now. Yes, above Kohli, Rohti or whoever you bring in. Things will change eventually, but this is currently not the time to compare anyone with ABDV. He is miles ahead of all of them, just like Kohli was 2 years ago and how Tendulkar was in 1998. This is ABDV time.

[HippoSucks]

World of difference between 2 year (Kohli) and 5 year peak. Though Kohli at one point looked invincible, he had been owned in England away ODIs, Australia tri series and had below par WC (except against Pakistan) while ABD faced no such issues. Sorry to say bro but these are all assumptions. Any real way to validate these assumptions? What if there is a phenomena that if you ease up the playing conditions, breaking away from the pack is MORE HARDER. For example, in the whole history of cricket, in flatter tracks, FTBS average 50s...but you never see ATGs averaging 70s or 80s or 100s in those tracks. The difference between ATG and FTB comes in TOUGHER tracks where the difference is shown. So going by a REAL LIVE example, ABD is able to distinguish himself at time where every decent hack can average 50 in ODI. Plus look at his records in every country in ODIs and its clear he has been good in all tracks. So if you go by my theory which has more real life backing, ABD is more greater than Sachin or Viv cos he stood out in this era. Not that I believe in this theory. Fact is....keep it simple. Viv stood out from the crowd. SRT stood out from the crowd. ABD stood out from the crowd. All three weren't defined by stats cos at their best they had aura.

de Villiers didn't have a good series in Sri Lanka (in 2013) and wasn't very impressive in the Champions Trophy either. But in the past wasn't the quality of FTBs much more than it is now? You had batsman like Sehwag who mainly succeeded at home but are still much better than many hacks who average in 40s at home now. So if in the past ATGs couldn't do significantly better than FTBs on flat pitches, if the quality of those FTBs goes down, doesn't it make outperforming those batsman on flat pitches easier? Although it makes sense that obviously it is easier to distinguish between those two types of batsman in more testing conditions. And then logically the converse is also true - that it is supposed to be more difficult to outplay the FTBs in easier conditions. So if de Villiers is managing to do that even in these easier conditions, it is an even more difficult achievement. However in the other post I was talking about the gap between best of their generation batsman and the other world class players in that era. But I'm assuming that follows the same trend. Anyway obviously from the past 5 years de Villiers has been doing much better than others. No point in comparing how apart from the crowd Sachin and Viv Richards were with de Villiers.

[Number]

ABDV is young ? He is 31. Probably at his peak. Nohit Virat are yet to reach that stage. But most of Indian batsmen are early bloomers.

[Debutant]

How was Kohli dragged into this comparison of ABDV and Rohit Sharma :ohmy:

[div]

Never seen a batsman like ABDV,hopefully he will continue his good form for another 5-6 years. :two_thumbs_up:

[vvvslaxman]

How was Kohli dragged into this comparison of ABDV and Rohit Sharma :ohmy:

There is nothing to oompare Rohit with AbDv lol So probably it took a different direction.

[CG]

Dunno why Abdv amla always mess it up in Pressure LOI Games.

[urbestfriend]

Great Rohit Sharma has 3 IPLs ..How many ABDV the awesome has?? :cantstop: Rohit Shamra >>> ABDV case closed.