Areas where Kohli is better than Tendulkar as a player.

[vvvslaxman]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

^  Apart from his longevity, Tendy's performances were simply colossal in his 1995-2002 prime.  What Kohli has done in the last year or so, is what Tendy did for almost a decade.  And without having any blips like Kohli did in England - Everywhere he went for the first time, he ended up doing well, I think scoring hundreds if I'm not mistaken.  

 

Worth looking up, here we go:

 

• First tour to NZ?  Scored 88 - missed being the youngest bat to score a test 100.  
• First tour to England - 100 at Manchester
• First Aussie tour?  100 at Sydney and that famous 100 at perth.    
• First tour to SA?  100 at Johannesburg.
• First tour to SL? dropped a 100
• First tour to WI?  no hundreds but 3 scores > 90

 

@narenpande1

@putrevus

@MCcricket

@vvvslaxman

 

Name one player other than Tendy who can boast of such a record.  And all of this well before he was even 25 years old!  

 

Contrast this to VK - he started test cricket very poorly and was dropped - needed a few years to sort it out, and only now has become the truly topclass test bat he is.  This is not to knock Kohli.  But to point out that Tendy was just so good in tests right away.  In fact until his injury issues, he had NEVER had a slump in his career.  This is why, inspite of his one flaw - the absense of really massive scores - he still had an obscenely high average.  

 

To clarify, this is not to say he was perfect, and didn't have flaws etc etc.  But to overlook such an amazing record - and call a player of this calibre all kinds of names is just wrong.  

 

 

When we are talking about batsmanship, dominating world class bowlers range of shots, consistency, adaptability he was as good as anybody ever played.In some areas was often eclipsed by his own peers.  If i have to coin a phrase i think Kohli is more "win hungry". Viru i another guy Gauti who led KKR admirably.

[Laaloo]

Another day another long ass thread for the Great one

 

Amazing Sachin 

[Silva]

I think with kohli he has the game to play at a high scoring rate without taking to many risks which gives him the ability to change the momentum of the game better than any other player I have ever seen. More of complement to kohli than an insult to tendulkar.

[kosingh]

At what point in his career did we start to compare Tendulkar to former greats like Gavaskar?

 

[sandeep]

23 minutes ago, kosingh said:

At what point in his career did we start to compare Tendulkar to former greats like Gavaskar?

 

Tendulkar was peerless at the start of his career.   He was a child prodigy to start with, so no comparisons.  And then once he started scoring hundreds everywhere, there were some comparisons to Lara, but he quickly eclipsed him with his consistency.   He's always been the guy that others have been compared to.  

[goose]

Think it's a bit unfair to compare Kohli and Tendulkar in ODIs. Given the context, the opponent, his contemporaries, Tendulkar is ahead.

[vvvslaxman]

53 minutes ago, kosingh said:

At what point in his career did we start to compare Tendulkar to former greats like Gavaskar?

 

Very early in his career . Tendulkar was a prodigy. Sunny started his career like a dream scoring 774 runs in 4 of his first tests. But he was 21 already. Sachin's progress was measured. He also had to adapt his game to one dayers. Infact Azharuddin's career started off much like Sunil's career. One of the major disappointment is India did not play enough tests when Tendulkar was at his absolute peak. His one day exploits put him in a different league as Sunil was not a ODI expert.  4 sixes against Qadir, Helped India tie a ODI at Perth with his bowling, Man of the match against Pakistan in 1992 world cup, Later after he was promoted as opener in the ODI he never looked back. 82 in 49 balls in his first ODI as opener. Then in the very first match that India crossed 300 in the one dayer he made a 100 alongwith Sidhu. 500 plus runs in 1996 world cup.  Then desert storm. He can thank one dayers for his astonishing rise as a cult figure. 

 

[putrevus]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Umm, you forgot to mention that when Sachin played versus Ambrose-Walsh, he averaged 55+, he also averaged 49-50 in the disastrous tour of Australia in 99 when everyone except Tendy got owned by their bowling- which included McGrath & Warne. 

He also dominated McGrath & Warne in the 2002 series- albeit, VVS stole the show that series. 

In general, Sachin played against vastly superior attacks on vastly harder pitches than Kohli. The attack of England was similar to what they have today - the only difference between Anderson & Broad vs Angus Fraser/Andy Caddick/Darren Gough is longetivity- they took almost exactly same # of wickets, at similar average & strike rate. South Africa attack in the 90s was superior too - Donald-DeVilliers-Pollock-Ntini were superior to Steyn-Morkel-Philander, pretty much because except for Steyn, Pollock, Ntini & Devilliers were superior to Morkel-Philander-Abbott. 

New Zealand had a similar attack as now in pace but better overall because Vettori was their best spinner ever. Tendulkar also played against an ATG attack in Pakistan, Sri Lanka too had a much, much better attack because of Vaas-Murali.

 

The fact that pitches were also far harder to bat on, is proven by the fact that throughout the 90s, only 5 batsmen averaged 50+ : Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara, Steve Waugh & Andy Flower. In the 2000s-present, we have thrice as many batsmen averaging 50+ and the overall team score also has ballooned significantly.

 

But most importantly, this thread reeks of a young kid who has barely watched any cricket, since comparing ONE year of Kohl's dominance to 19 years of Tendulkar's dominance is laughable. Kohli may be the heir apparent to Tendulkar, but he is so, so far behind the master, its not even funny. For example, Tendulkar is a lock in any hypothetical all-time XI. Kohli as it stands, is not even guaranteed a spot in the all-India XI, let alone the world.

 

What will average of 50 plus in series do , Root is averaging 50 in this series but is that going to make any difference in the end result of the series. For batsmen to make impact in series  you need 500 plus runs and also you need big hundreds from your main batsmen. Where has Tendulkar scored any significant scores in the series you are talking , yes he might have averaged 50 but it did not make any difference in the end result.

1997 WI series you talking they had to score 120 to win a test and batting spectacularly flopped lead by their captain Tendulkar.

I rather have a batsman who when in form can score 600 plus runs in series with couple of big hundreds than a batsman who will average 50  in every series which ultimately will not make any difference in end result.

Tell me one series where Tendulkar dominated a great attack  for whole series not just one innings here or there. As I said Tendulkar was steady eddy who always had good stats without making much difference in the end result. Tendulkar had everything but he rarely delivered when his team needed him the most.

 

Tendulkar facing better bowling attacks is same as the myth that Gavaskar pounded WI attacks of 1980s with 13 hundreds. Gavaskar scored 4 hundreds in his debut series where there were no great fast bowlers in WI team. Again in 1978 series when all great fast bowlers were playing in Packer series Gavaskar pounded another 4  hundreds.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by putrevus

[mishra]

2 hours ago, kosingh said:

At what point in his career did we start to compare Tendulkar to former greats like Gavaskar?

 

Bradman started comparing himself to Sachin by 1995. And espn put him in top 10 ATG list by 2000. +-2 years

Edited December 11, 2016 by mishra

[maniac]

What are their 6s per test stat

 

jokes apart 5 years of Sachin as a test player 89-94 and 8 years as odi player 89-97 and compare it to Kohli 2008-2016 in odis and 2011-2016 in tests then I would say Kohli is ahead at that point in terms of stature of what he has accomplished.purely on stats and where they stand among their peers.

 

but to be fair to Sachin   cricket especially test cricket wasn't played by India as much as it is now in that period.I am sure the same case with odi cricket.

 

now in this time frame compare the bowling Sachin faced in tests to the quality of bowling Kohli has faced in the 5 and 8 year time frame that I mentioned...add to that the types of pitches, change in odi rules etc etc...I would say Sachin...this also comes down to what Sachin has gone and achieved since 94 in tests and 97 in odis.

 

as I said if Kohli continues to dominate year after year with Sachin level of consistency in the next 10 years or so, going by where he is right now he will be comfortably far ahead of Sachin.

 

but right now we have to pull all these coulda woulda shoulda because srt has finished his career as a legend of the game and Kohli is still on his way to be one.....:so tough to compare.

[sandeep]

11 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Tell me one series where Tendulkar dominated a great attack  for whole series not just one innings here or there. As I said Tendulkar was steady eddy who always had good stats without making much difference in the end result. Tendulkar had everything but he rarely delivered when his team needed him the most.

Looks like you have made up your mind, facts be damned.  Did you even bother reading my earlier post on this thread? I even tagged you on it.  No sense doing this then 

 

[Cricketics]

32 minutes ago, putrevus said:

What will average of 50 plus in series do , Root is averaging 50 in this series but is that going to make any difference in the end result of the series. For batsmen to make impact in series  you need 500 plus runs and also you need big hundreds from your main batsmen. Where has Tendulkar scored any significant scores in the series you are talking , yes he might have averaged 50 but it did not make any difference in the end result.

1997 WI series you talking they had to score 120 to win a test and batting spectacularly flopped lead by their captain Tendulkar.

I rather have a batsman who when in form can score 600 plus runs in series with couple of big hundreds than a batsman who will average 50  in ever series which ultimately will not make any difference in end result.

Tell me one series where Tendulkar dominated a great attack  for whole series not just one innings here or there. As I said Tendulkar was steady eddy who always had good stats without making much difference in the end result. Tendulkar had everything but he rarely delivered when his team needed him the most.

I know why you feel whatever the way you are feeling about Tendulkar.

You are not wrong and neither completely right about Tendulkar.

 

Tendulkar was a cult figure, a once in a liftime player who had scored plenty of runs by 1998 after having been a prodigy. that "Desert Storm" knock couldn'thave come at a better time and the following knock in the final changed the whole world for Sachin. He was being preached all over the world by Indian fans after that.

Indian Cricket for many was all about Sachin that is where many fanatics and critics also started looking Tendulkar differently. 

 

Tendulkar created three different categories of people

Fans siince that Sharjah series have Symbolized Tendulkar and feel he is the best even when he wasn't at certtain things.

 

Critics who were also Indian Cricket fans and had high hopes from Sachin since that Sharjah tour started expecting too much from Tendulkar. They started being nit picky everytime Tendulkar did not score in a 4th innings or at some crucial stage, often forgetting that many times when he scored runs, it was also a crucial stage in the game. Critics would start comparing Sachin then with some of his contemporaries who could do certain things better than Tendulkar and often forget that his contemprories actually had many flaws in different areas where Tendulkar was a master.

 

The FenceSitters like me who were in awe of all the greats and kept calm and loved players like Dravid equally. I enjoyed them all. Couldn't care less if Tendulkar was failing or performing, we were enjoying what he was doing for the country like the Fans and would be out there discussing about his weaknesses like the Critics but would not make a big deal but just accept that he is not the one to be relied upon in every situation.

 

All in all, Tendulkar gave us all. At times we expected too much of him, and at times he under performed a bit. But the reason why many felt he under performed is why he is one of the greatest as everyone expected the great to Always Shine.

 

One thing I will say is that cricket today in India and many parts of the world won't have been the same had the prodigy which was Tendulkar, not played the game. 

 

My $0.02

[Late Cut]

Kohli makes his teammates perform better for him. Tendulkar could never do that. 

[Vijy]

5 hours ago, sandeep said:

Looks like you have made up your mind, facts be damned.  Did you even bother reading my earlier post on this thread? I even tagged you on it.  No sense doing this then 

 

Best leave this discussion to the rest... no point slamming ones head against a brick wall.

[vvvslaxman]

Delhi boy  vs Mumbai boy debate.    Delhi has produced Viru, Mohinder, Gambhir, Kohli  Mumbai has produced  Manjrekar, Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Vengsarkar. In my opinion over the years i have found Mumbaikars pay little more attention to personal milestones. 

[Vijy]

6 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Delhi boy  vs Mumbai boy debate.    Delhi has produced Viru, Mohinder, Gambhir, Kohli  Mumbai has produced  Manjrekar, Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Vengsarkar. In my opinion over the years i have found Mumbaikars pay little more attention to personal milestones. 

Merchant is a better example than Sanju Manju

Edited December 12, 2016 by Vijy

[vvvslaxman]

2 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Merchant is a better example than Sanju Manju

No question Mumbai has produced the best batsmen for India over the years Merchant, Senior Manju.  Even now one can see Gavaskar's obsession with 100s. Shastri's painfully slow one day knock in Benson & Hedges final just to clinch the Audi car. 

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

No question Mumbai has produced the best batsmen for India over the years Merchant, Senior Manju.  Even now one can see Gavaskar's obsession with 100s. Shastri's painfully slow one day knock in Benson & Hedges final just to clinch the Audi car. 

Yes, and it's true that many chased records. Merchant for example finished with second highest FC avg of all time, just after Bradman - only other to avg 70+

[sandeep]

9 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

No question Mumbai has produced the best batsmen for India over the years Merchant, Senior Manju.  Even now one can see Gavaskar's obsession with 100s. Shastri's painfully slow one day knock in Benson & Hedges final just to clinch the Audi car. 

Stop stereotyping Bombay boys based on previous millenium stuff.

[vvvslaxman]

3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Stop stereotyping Bombay boys based on previous millenium stuff.

Tendulkar is from that period. We are not comparing Rahane with Kohli here. His first 200 last few runs came with a strike rate under 100. And also his 100th 100 led to India's loss.

Edited December 12, 2016 by vvvslaxman