Areas where Kohli is better than Tendulkar as a player.

[Muloghonto]

6 hours 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 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.

 

 

We are talking about the 90s here. Do you know how many batsmen scored 500 runs in a series in the 90s or how often ? IIRC, it was only done 4-5 times the whole bloody decade. Think on that for a moment- 6 specialist batsmen per team, no bangladesh, so 9 teams- 45 batting positions, playing 7-8 tests per annum on average, ten years and its been done around half a dozen times in the entire decade.

Plus to boot, those who did it- Lara(multiple times), Steve Waugh, etc. batted 10-12 times per series (yes they had six test series back then occasionally too) and Tendy, IIRC never batted more than 7 times a series in the ENTIRE 90s. That series against Walsh-Ambrose, he got to bat 6 times IIRC.

 

So no, 500 runs+ series isn't a fair criteria at all- its like saying any batsman who hasn't scored a triple ton is crap.

Tendy not only delivered when his team needed him most - he saved us from defeats many, many times or was the only guy worth his salt in losing causes overseas. 

 

This is the classic difference between a Lara or a Tendulkar type : lara would give you 2 series of 700+ runs with 10 series on averaging in the high 20s squished in between, Tendy would go give your team a solid performance every 2-3 tests without fail. 

If never/rarely failing for more than 2-3 tests in a row isn't dominating, consistent performance, i don't know what is.

 

I'd easily have a batsman who gives us 300 runs @ 50 average every series over a guy who goes for 700 runs @ 100+ in one and 100 runs @ 10.00 average in the next two.

In most sport, including cricket, the rarest breed is consistency of excellent performance, not the 'once in a lifetime performance' that looks good in isolation, but doesnt make up for far more 'no-shows'.

 

[narenpande1]

@vvvslaxman has got it BANG ON !

 

nobody is steorotyping. Fair Followers of Indian cricket agree with that.

 

it is a typical middle class Mumbaikar mindset.. where you have struggled so hard to make it.. from then on it becomes

" mee aani maazaa runs, maaza century, maazaa records" 

 

 

 

 

 

[sandeep]

Both narenpande and putrevus have glossed over my post from earlier today - I suspect because the facts listed don't fit their convoluted theories.

[Muloghonto]

19 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

@vvvslaxman has got it BANG ON !

 

nobody is steorotyping. Fair Followers of Indian cricket agree with that.

 

it is a typical middle class Mumbaikar mindset.. where you have struggled so hard to make it.. from then on it becomes

" mee aani maazaa runs, maaza century, maazaa records" 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, given that 99% of the time, the batsman's job is to pile on the runs and not get out , by law of averages, if every single batsman went 'Maaza runs, Maaza century' every single time, it'd by default work out in the team's favour.

Its the same BS argument kids sometimes make in Ice hockey too : " He only cares about scoring goals- not skating back hard to defend his marker man'. Well- if everyone was so good at scoring goals (or runs as Tendulkar in this example) and cared only about scoring goals (or runs, as you allege), the team by default, wouldn't need them to back-check and defend 99% of the time anyways.

 

So therefore, what a silly argument to pick on batsmen for wanting to score runs!

 

[Muloghonto]

35 minutes ago, Vijy said:

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+

Yes, but this is a poor example- as a top order batsman, you can chase many records, you cant exactly 'chase' an average- if you do, you automatically end up being the greatest of the great- coz i can't see how a top order batsman 'chases average' without by default remain not out after piling on runs after runs  in the first place..

 

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, but this is a poor example- as a top order batsman, you can chase many records, you cant exactly 'chase' an average- if you do, you automatically end up being the greatest of the great- coz i can't see how a top order batsman 'chases average' without by default remain not out after piling on runs after runs  in the first place..

 

This was not directed towards SRT. More of a general observation towards players in the middle order, who, when playing with tail, opted for not-outs.

[narenpande1]

11 hours 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.  

 

 

 

 

Dude..what do you think is earth shattering about the above ?? And what do you expect from the tagged posters ? 

 

All that the above goes to show is that Tendulkar was among the rarest of the rare prodigy. We all know that.

 

Regarding your fact about Tendulkar's " prime from 1995-2002 , Ponting has had one from a 7-8 year prime to, as did Lara. 

So how does that make Tendulkar any different ??

 

We also know that Virat has matured a little late in Test matches. He is still peaking !!

 

As far as ODIS are concerned, here is what Dada has had to say. ...Now tell me your lot understands TEndulkar or ODI cricket better than Dada. 

 

Lets settle this for once...

 

 

http://sportzwiki.com/cricket/sourav-ganguly-virat-kohli-better-than-sachin-tendulkar-on-current-form/

 

Quote

Former India captain, Sourav Ganguly, talking to a TV channel Headlines Today after India’s dramatic six wickets win said:”I have been playing one day cricket since 1992 and I know this format very well but, I have never seen anyone play so well as Virat is playing now, not even Sachin Tandulkar. ”

 

 

 

 

 

[New guy]

8 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

 

Dude..what do you think is earth shattering about the above ?? And what do you expect from the tagged posters ? 

 

All that the above goes to show is that Tendulkar was among the rarest of the rare prodigy. We all know that.

 

Regarding your fact about Tendulkar's " prime from 1995-2002 , Ponting has had one from a 7-8 year prime to, as did Lara. 

So how does that make Tendulkar any different ??

 

We also know that Virat has matured a little late in Test matches. He is still peaking !!

 

As far as ODIS are concerned, here is what Dada has had to say. ...Now tell me your lot understands TEndulkar or ODI cricket better than Dada. 

 

Lets settle this for once...

 

 

http://sportzwiki.com/cricket/sourav-ganguly-virat-kohli-better-than-sachin-tendulkar-on-current-form/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meh, Sachin did all that in his prime too, except overall scores were much lesser then in ODIs than today. When scores get bigger you need more runs to win, it is as simple as that

 

Again can you tell me what exactly Virat has done which Sachin has not? Sachin has almost single-handedly beaten Aussies for the first time outside India (in UAE) and beaten them for the first and only time in Australia in an ODI series which Virat is yet to do. Kohli is definitely much better at chasing than Sachin ever was, but for a good period Sachin was equally good in chasing and setting scores before his chasing failed with his form. 

[narenpande1]

@sandeep

 

You spoke about Tendulkar's prime years from 1995 to 2002. Well here are the numbers:

 

6386 runs from 118 innings @ 59.68 with 23 tons

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;spanmax1=31+Dec+2002;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

 

Ponting too had a peak 8 years from 2000 to 2008. Here are the numbers

8605 runs  from 161innings @61.46 with 31  tons

 

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/7133.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2008;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

 

So where goes your theory that show anyone who had such a prime like Tendulkar. 

 

I am not a blind and unbiased cricket fan like a bunch , even though Ponting had  better numbers, I would say Tendulkar was marginally better...only marginally. Not as out of the pack as the unbashed fanboys like him to be.

 

Lara too had a similar patch as did Sangakkara. Your theory and facts dont hold.

 

You should infact celebrate in be happy that the heir apparent Kohli, has the WILL and SKILL to outdo everybody and MORE IMPORTANTLY ensure that India wins as much as possible.

Edited December 12, 2016 by narenpande1

[Vijy]

3 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

@sandeep

 

You spoke about Tendulkar's prime years from 1995 to 2002. Well here are the numbers:

 

6386 runs from 118 innings @ 59.68 with 23 tons

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;spanmax1=31+Dec+2002;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

 

Ponting too had a peak 8 years from 2000 to 2008. Here are the numbers

8605 runs  from 161innings @61.46 with 31  tons

 

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/7133.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2008;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

 

So where goes your theory that show anyone who had such a prime like Tendulkar. 

 

I am not a blind and unbiased cricket fan like a bunch , even though Ponting had  better numbers, I would say Tendulkar was marginally better...only marginally. Not as out of the pack as the unbashed fanboys like him to be.

 

Lara too had a similar patch as did Sangakkara. Your theory and facts dont hold.

 

You should infact celebrate in be happy that the heir apparent Kohli, has the WILL and SKILL to outdo everybody and MORE IMPORTANTLY ensure that India wins as much as possible.

Have you considered the possible fact that the other red-hot streaks occurred in the 2000s where there was a proliferation of runs? There's an article by S Rajesh on this topic in general - would you like me to post it here?

 

Besides, the real streak you should look at is from Jan 1993 to mid 2011 (just after WC) - in these 18.5 years, SRT averaged around 60 (59.4). This was done over 157 Tests, and more importantly, over nearly 2 decades. That is the streak really worth talking about.

[sandeep]

6 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

@sandeep

 

You spoke about Tendulkar's prime years from 1995 to 2002. Well here are the numbers:

 

6386 runs from 118 innings @ 59.68 with 23 tons

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;spanmax1=31+Dec+2002;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

 

Ponting too had a peak 8 years from 2000 to 2008. Here are the numbers

8605 runs  from 161innings @61.46 with 31  tons

 

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/7133.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2008;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

 

So where goes your theory that show anyone who had such a prime like Tendulkar. 

 

I am not a blind and unbiased cricket fan like a bunch , even though Ponting had  better numbers, I would say Tendulkar was marginally better...only marginally. Not as out of the pack as the unbashed fanboys like him to be.

 

Lara too had a similar patch as did Sangakkara. Your theory and facts dont hold.

 

You should infact celebrate in be happy that the heir apparent Kohli, has the WILL and SKILL to outdo everybody and MORE IMPORTANTLY ensure that India wins as much as possible.

Did you read my post?  Tendy dropped 100s on all of his first away tours to top countries.  Name a player who matched that.  Ponting couldn't manage a 100 in India for years, he averaged single digits on his first tour IIRC.  

[narenpande1]

3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Did you read my post?  Tendy dropped 100s on all of his first away tours to top countries.  Name a player who matched that.  Ponting couldn't manage a 100 in India for years, he averaged single digits on his first tour IIRC.  

 

I also read your post where you said that Tendulkar's prime between 1995-2002 was something else. Proven false with facts.

 

Its a known fact that India record was a blot on Pontings legacy. I even mentioned that in this thread explicitly. 

 

So whats your point ? 

Edited December 12, 2016 by narenpande1

[Vijy]

11 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

@sandeep

 

You spoke about Tendulkar's prime years from 1995 to 2002. Well here are the numbers:

 

6386 runs from 118 innings @ 59.68 with 23 tons

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;spanmax1=31+Dec+2002;spanmin1=01+Jan+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

 

Ponting too had a peak 8 years from 2000 to 2008. Here are the numbers

8605 runs  from 161innings @61.46 with 31  tons

 

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/7133.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+2008;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

 

So where goes your theory that show anyone who had such a prime like Tendulkar. 

 

I am not a blind and unbiased cricket fan like a bunch , even though Ponting had  better numbers, I would say Tendulkar was marginally better...only marginally. Not as out of the pack as the unbashed fanboys like him to be.

 

Lara too had a similar patch as did Sangakkara. Your theory and facts dont hold.

 

You should infact celebrate in be happy that the heir apparent Kohli, has the WILL and SKILL to outdo everybody and MORE IMPORTANTLY ensure that India wins as much as possible.

So, just because someone defends SRT, they are a "blind and biased cricket fan"? Gee, thanks. I'm not an SRT fan - prefer Lara to him. What I wrote in my previous post is just the plain objective stats that's all.

[sandeep]

4 minutes ago, Vijy said:

So, just because someone defends SRT, they are a "blind and biased cricket fan"? Gee, thanks. I'm not an SRT fan - prefer Lara to him. What I wrote in my previous post is just the plain objective stats that's all.

Let it go Vijy, he's a classic example of a post-sachin cricket follower - "oooh I'm not a Tendy fan -those are all worshippers" syndrome.

Edited December 12, 2016 by sandeep

[narenpande1]

2 minutes ago, sandeep said:

classic example of a post-sachin cricket follower - "oooh I'm not a Tendy fan -those are all worshippers" syndrome.

 

See you ran away from fact based debate that you were harping on..after being proven wrong.

 

How unsurprising.

 

@vvvslaxman has followed cricket way before you. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by narenpande1

[Vijy]

Just now, sandeep said:

classic example of a post-sachin cricket follower - "oooh I'm not a Tendy fan -those are all worshippers" syndrome.

The world of post-truth as one could say, perhaps. I'm a Lara fan more than SRT, actually a bit insulted to be clubbed as a diehard Tendy fan.

[rkt.india]

On 12/11/2016 at 4:07 AM, Muloghonto said:

Also, looking at 'first and second innings' is too simplistic. 

Pitches in England & New zealand seam a lot less today than in the 80s & 90s, pitches in Australia & West Indies have a lot less pace and bounce than the 80s & 90. South African pitches too have slowed down a bit and have a bit less seam & bounce, but not as precipetously as the other nations mentioned.

This is why, when you look at the batsmen of the 80s & 90s, many of them have better 2nd innings numbers than 1st innings numbers- because pitches would start off blazing quick/bouncy/seaming & then ease up by the third day. 

From the early 2000s, the pitches are the other way round- flatter wickets are easier to bat on first, because there isn't too much seam, bounce & pace, but as the pitch deteriorates, it takes more spin, uneven bounce & you can cut the ball more as a pacer. This is why most batsmen of the late 90s onwards, have far better 1st innings stats than 2nd innings stats. 

Not because batsmen of the 70s-80s were all better pressure players than the ones of the 90s-2000s or vice versa.

 

that is just a perception and an attempt to glorify the past. If pitches had eased out in SA, Steyn, Philander would not have been taking so many wickets there. Yes, pitches at times have been good in ODIs but not in tests. teams likes  Pak and Aus have been getting out below 50 in South Africa. Regarding Australia, if you leave Gabba and WACA, all of the other pitches have always been batting friendly. Yes, they have bounce but that is consistent and good for batting. In WI, pitches at Sabina Park, Brijtown are still good for fast bowling. Remember how Aussie fast bowlers bounced out batsmen out at Brijtown in T20 WC that was played in WI. Pitches in NZ still do as much as they did before in first innings. Check last tour of India to NZ and recent Pak tour to NZ. England, yes, we saw some of the greenest and fastest pitches in England last time we toured there in 2014. In last two tests, we were struggling to score 100 runs per innings there at Old Trafford and Rose Bowl. Those pitches were really pace and bouncy and aided with swing, Anderson and company made it impossible for our batsmen to survive. 

[Vijy]

1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

that is just a perception and an attempt to glorify the past. If pitches had eased out in SA, Steyn, Philander would not have been taking so many wickets there. Yes, pitches at times have been good in ODIs but not in tests. teams likes  Pak and Aus have been getting out below 50 in South Africa. Regarding Australia, if you leave Gabba and WACA, all of the other pitches have always been batting friendly. Yes, they have bounce but that is consistent and good for batting. In WI, pitches at Sabina Park, Brijtown are still good for fast bowling. Remember how Aussie fast bowlers bounced out batsmen out at Brijtown in T20 WC that was played in WI. Pitches in NZ still do as much as they did before in first innings. Check last tour of India to NZ and recent Pak tour to NZ. England, yes, we saw some of the greenest and fastest pitches in England last time we toured there in 2014. In last two tests, we were struggling to score 100 runs per innings there at Old Trafford and Rose Bowl. Those pitches were really pace and bouncy and aided with swing, Anderson and company made it impossible for our batsmen to survive. 

The NZ pitches for Pak were an aberration compared to their recent tracks against most other teams. In general, there has been a flattening of the pitches. This is partly subjective, since one cannot offer a rigorous metric.

 

What can be said is that very few batsmen avg >50 in the 1990s, and many more did so in the 2000s. This is a clear fact - an article from Cricinfo with the stats exists. Of course, you can read and interpret these findings in three different ways (i) Pitches became more batting-friendly (or bats or regulations) (ii) Bowlers declined in quality (iii) Batsmanship has improved.

 

Now, one could argue for (iii) reasonably (and maybe you'd go with this). I'm inclined to think it's more (i) and (ii), with some degree of (iii) thrown in.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

that is just a perception and an attempt to glorify the past. If pitches had eased out in SA, Steyn, Philander would not have been taking so many wickets there. Yes, pitches at times have been good in ODIs but not in tests. teams likes  Pak and Aus have been getting out below 50 in South Africa. Regarding Australia, if you leave Gabba and WACA, all of the other pitches have always been batting friendly. Yes, they have bounce but that is consistent and good for batting. In WI, pitches at Sabina Park, Brijtown are still good for fast bowling. Remember how Aussie fast bowlers bounced out batsmen out at Brijtown in T20 WC that was played in WI. Pitches in NZ still do as much as they did before in first innings. Check last tour of India to NZ and recent Pak tour to NZ. England, yes, we saw some of the greenest and fastest pitches in England last time we toured there in 2014. In last two tests, we were struggling to score 100 runs per innings there at Old Trafford and Rose Bowl. Those pitches were really pace and bouncy and aided with swing, Anderson and company made it impossible for our batsmen to survive. 

There is nothing 'glorifying about the past' about it- it is just how it was. You simply fail to accept the fact that pitches were at their juiciest from mid 70s through to late 90s in these overseas countries : Geoff Boycott would be the first to say that the pitches in England in the 70s were much harder than the ones in the 60s to bat- same has been said by Colin Cowdrey too. It isn't a random 'glorify the past' comment, but era-specific comment.

In South Africa,  Port Elizabeth & Durban were faster & seamier in the 90s than today. In Australia, WACA was way,way faster, Brisbane was much more seamier and MCG was much juicer than before. The only Aussie pitches that have remained relatively the same are Sydney and Adelaide.

In WI, Sabina Park has slowed down massively, so has bridgetown & Antigua- which always had a huge bouncy pitch before the new stadium came around. In Trinidad, the pitches were a lot more uneven bounce than they are now.

Same goes for pitches in England and New Zealand and the reason is obvious : Cricket didnt have as much TV viewersihp in the 80s and teams focussed solely on pitches that gave them an advantage. Since the 90s, there has been a concerted effort to make matches last 5 days, thus ease out the pitches in favour of batsmen, for better TV revenues.

This is reflected by the FACT that since the 90s, batting averages all over the world have gone up and so have bowling averages.

 

[Gambit]

Sangakkara averages 37 from 29 tests in India, England, South Africa and West Indies. I don't think any other ATG among his contemporaries will have a lower average than this when their performances away from home in 4 out of the other top 7 countries are analysed.