Areas where Kohli is better than Tendulkar as a player.

[BeautifulGame]

This is absurd when you call few centuries meaningless. I am sorry but no century is meanigless. If some of kohli's centuries are meaningless than Tendulkar might have had many such in his 200 game career.

 

I do not like the comparison to the Great Tendulkar but to call Kohli's century meaningless shows that OP's post has clearly done the caused the harm to fanatics which he wanted to do by having this thread. 

 

 

Ofcourse that hundred was meaningless .It was scored after the draw ensured and the wicket was flat as a road .

Sachin have had plenty of meaningless draws just like most other greats .There is nothing wrong in that .

The difference is Kohli is yet to prove himself is helpful conditions for bowlers particularly Seam and swing .

What so far happened in this thread was maximise every fault of Sachin and said why Kohli is better .Yet when u actually point out the short comings of Kohli ,u are a Sachin fanatic.Hypocrasy much from a irritated Kohli fanatic ?

As for being a fanatic if there is a draw for that in ICF , I am pretty certain I will be in the Dhoni group .Most in ICF probably know that anyway lol

[narenpande1]

54 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

 

This comparison is hilarious tbh

 

Kohli is already 28 and before this England series he wasn't even our best batsmen in our present test team .

At this age Sachin was being named in Wisden greatest cricketers and Bradman's greatest XI .

 

The whole thing is absurd .

 

It is because Sachin had already played his best test cricket by 2001 ( age 28 or so ). 

 

Post that it was just accumulation with single minded doggedness. And even so there post 2000/2001 he was eclipsed in consistent scoring for many years by the likes of Ponting, Sangakkara and Kallis.

 

Not every body plays their best cricket in a certain age bracket. 

 

Ponting too started peaking as a batsman around Virat's age. 26/27.

 

Bradman was not alive to witness Viru's batting in test cricket. I wonder what he would have to say about someone  who totally revolutionized the role of openers in test cricket and played how Viru did.

 

 It is the same " Bradman's XI " that had Barry Richards who never played test cricket over Sunny

 

And no place for Shane Warne, who would walk into any world XI in any damn era.

 

So much for " Bradman's XI"...

 

It is the same Wisden that never found any of Sachin's innings worthy in its top 100 innings of all time - even after he was beyond his best.

 

Imagine being the most capped player with 200 tests with a cult figure status but not playing a single innings good enough for top 100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by narenpande1

[maniac]

4 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

It is because Sachin had already played his best test cricket by 2001 ( age 28 or so ). 

 

Post that it was just accumulation with single minded doggedness. And even so there post 2000/2001 he was eclipsed in consistent scoring for many years by the likes of Ponting, Sangakkara and Kallis.

 

Not every body plays their best cricket in a certain age bracket. 

 

Ponting too started peaking as a batsman around Virat's age. 26/27.

 

Bradman was not alive to witness Viru's batting in test cricket. I wonder what he would have to say about someone  who totally revolutionized the role of openers in test cricket and played how Viru did.

 

 It is the same " Bradman's XI " that had Barry Richards who never played test cricket over Sunny

 

And no place for Shane Warne, who would walk into any world XI in any damn era.

 

So much for " Bradman's XI"...

 

It is the same Wisden that never found any of Sachin's innings worthy in its top 100 innings of all time - even after he was beyond his best.

 

Imagine being the most capped player with 200 tests with a cult figure status but not playing a single innings got enough for top 100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Azhar Mahmood's innings was listed in there...so he must be a great batsman then? better than Sachin right?

[BeautifulGame]

 

It is because Sachin had already played his best test cricket by 2001 ( age 28 or so ). 

 

Post that it was just accumulation with single minded doggedness. And even so there post 2000/2001 he was eclipsed in consistent scoring for many years by the likes of Ponting, Sangakkara and Kallis.

 

Not every body plays their best cricket in a certain age bracket. 

 

Ponting too started peaking as a batsman around Virat's age. 26/27.

 

Bradman was not alive to witness Viru's batting in test cricket. I wonder what he would have to say about someone  who totally revolutionized the role of openers in test cricket and played how Viru did.

 

 It is the same " Bradman's XI " that had Barry Richards who never played test cricket over Sunny

 

And no place for Shane Warne, who would walk into any world XI in any damn era.

 

So much for " Bradman's XI"...

 

It is the same Wisden that never found any of Sachin's innings worthy in its top 100 innings of all time - even after he was beyond his best.

 

Imagine being the most capped player with 200 tests with a cult figure status but not playing a single innings got enough for top 100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Ganguly' view about Kohli better than Sachin matters but Bradman and Wisden views don't matter :lmao:

[Gambit]

Context is everything and not all great performances can be attributed to being overrated because of sentiments and emotions.

 

10-15 years from now someone might come along and say that Kohli's 235 in Mumbai is overrated because a) a #9 also got a hundred so pitch was flat, b) England's best bowler Broad was missing, c) Anderson is shit away from home so doesn't count, d) Woakes, Rashid and Ball who don't even have 100 wickets among them were collective pile of dung and e) because England are shit in the sub-continent. What will be missed is the context of Virat burying England, who were seriously entertaining thoughts of a lead which could have been very tricky, under an avalanche, guiding his junior partner to a debut hundred and sealing the match and the series by the time he was done.

[narenpande1]

2 minutes ago, maniac said:

Azhar Mahmood's innings was listed in there...so he must be a great batsman then? better than Sachin right?

 

He might have played a freak innings against RSA..lets say it was an aberration.

 

Are you suggesting not a single innings being listed for a 200 cap player is also an aberration ?

[narenpande1]

5 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

So Ganguly' view about Kohli better than Sachin matters but Bradman and Wisden views don't matter :lmao:

If Wisden views matter so much to you  than you must also acknowledge that Sachin despite being the most capped player in history has not played any innings worthy in the top 100.

Edited December 13, 2016 by narenpande1

[Cricketics]

1 minute ago, BeautifulGame said:

Ofcourse that hundred was meaningless .It was scored after the draw ensured and the wicket was flat as a road .

Sachin have had plenty of meaningless draws just like most other greats .There is nothing wrong in that .

The difference is Kohli is yet to prove himself is helpful conditions for bowlers particularly Seam and swing .

What so far happened in this thread was maximise every fault of Sachin and said why Kohli is better .Yet when u actually point out the short comings of Kohli ,u are a Sachin fanatic.Hypocrasy much from a irritated Kohli fanatic ?

As for being a fanatic if there is a draw for that in ICF , I am pretty certain I will be in the Dhoni group .Most in ICF probably know that anyway lol

 

When someone maximizes Tendulkar's fault like they did here, then they need to be dealt and answered in the way they are supposed to and not with anger and calling Kohli's knock meaningless etc.

 

You bringing pitches now and Kohli has scored already in Australia, South Africa too.He failed in England but he will catch up in England. Had he failed in other overseas places, then I would keep throwing the stats from England.  But he is improving with time and that is more I am interested in then looking at stats of how he did bad on his first tours to these countries

 

And again, it is "absurd" to not recognize Kohli's knocks on Australian tour. I couldn't care less of green or whatever pitch it was on. He hit 4 centuries on that tour and if one can't appreciate his that performance, then there is seriously something "absurd" about it. 

[BeautifulGame]

If Wisden views matter so much to you  than you must also acknowledge that Sachin despite being the most capped player in history has not played any innings worthy in the top 100.

Yeah most probably so what ?

[express bowling]

18 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

Ofcourse that hundred was meaningless .It was scored after the draw ensured and the wicket was flat as a road .

Sachin have had plenty of meaningless draws just like most other greats .There is nothing wrong in that .

The difference is Kohli is yet to prove himself is helpful conditions for bowlers particularly Seam and swing .

 

That is not true.... Some of the instances

 

In tests --

 

Kohli's  innings of 119 and 96  in Johannesburg, on a green top with movement. pace and bounce and ..against Steyn, Philander and Morkel

 

His innings of 75 and 44  on a green-top with movement in Perth, in 2012. against Harris, Starc, Hilfenhaus, Siddle, where India was dismissed twice under 175.

 

In T20s -

 

50+ in a  Asia Cup match against  Pakistan, with the ball moving around a lot and neither team being able to score.

Edited December 13, 2016 by express bowling

[narenpande1]

Quote

The Selection Criteria

Test Rating for Batting - A detailed note on the calculations

1.    Batting Base points
The Batting Base points are given for Runs scored. This Index is given a weightage of around 30%. Brian Lara, for his 375, gets the highest Index value.
2.    Pitch Index
This index is determined based on the Runs scored in a match and number of wickets, which have fallen. Normalizing is done to take care of wide variations. Additional normalization is done to reflect the pre-WW1 situation with uncovered pitches.

3.    Bowling Quality Index
The Bowling Quality Index is based on the quality of bowlers who have bowled in the innings. A minimum of 4 and a maximum of 5 bowlers are taken for determining this Index value. Care is taken that the fifth bowler (e-g, Richards) does not lower the Index determination adversely.

4.    Percentage of Score Index
This reflects the % of team runs scored by the batsman. Surprisingly, Bannerman's 166 in the first test ever is still the highest % score in a completed innings.

5.    Point of Entry Index
This index reflects the entry point and distinguishes between 5 for 1, 27 for 2, 35 for 3 etc. For the first innings of the test, the index is absolute. For the other three innings, the Index is linked to a target score, exact for the last innings and national for the other two.

6.    After point of Entry Index
This index reflects the difference between entering at, say, 10 for 2 with a third wicket partnership of 100 and entering at 10 for 2 and the score going down to 20 for ¾.

7.    Wkts falling while at crease Index
This index reflect the number of wickets seen through by the batsman. An opening batsman, carrying his bat through, gets the highest value.

8.    Support Index
This reflects the support received by the batsman while he played his innings.

9.    Shepherding of Tail enders Index
This index is based on the way the batsman has nursed the 8-11 batsmen and built partnerships. The highest value is given for a batsman who has been involved in 4 signigicant partnerships.

10.    Highest score Index
This is the lowest rated parameter and is given to the innings if the same is the highest for the team.

11.    Match Status Index
This is complex index, which reflects the status of the match. The highest value is given to a successful and close fourth innings chase (Lara's 153*) or a great match-winning innings after a follow-on (Laxman's 281).

12.    Result contribution Index. This index is based on the sum of the 11 index values and reflects the value of the players contribution, through the considered innings, to the match result. The match should be a win (x points) or a draw (0.3x points) for this index value to be allocated. Additional weightage is given for away wins.

 

Above is the ratings criteria used by Wisden and ICC.

 

It is objective and quite full proof. We wonder how come Lara's 153 was greater than Laxman's 281 in more dire match circumstances.

 

But it is all covered. Lara outscored Laxman heavily in criteria 4, 7,8 and 9.  Laxman had Dravid at the other end who scored 180 odd

 

[Muloghonto]

14 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

If Wisden views matter so much to you  than you must also acknowledge that Sachin despite being the most capped player in history has not played any innings worthy in the top 100.

As i said to you and you ran away earlier, this whole 'top 100 innings' is not how well you play or how well the opposition plays, its also about how MUCH the opposition plays to accumulate points to be ranked good enough in the first place.

 

Explain to us, why Lara, who gave a chance at 130-odd while chasing in Barbados, against McGrath, Warne, Gillespie & McGill is the best innings of all-time but Tendulkar, who gave a chance at 130-odd while chasing in 4th innings against Wasim, Waqar and Saqlain isn't even in the top 100- just coz Healey failed to hold on to a chance, its the greatest innings and just coz the Pakistani fielder didn't, its not a top 100 innings eh ?

Tells you how BS the 'rating system' is in the first place.

 

Kohli is not comparable to Tendulkar. He has just had one year of dominance and 2 years of averaging 50+ in test cricket. In an era where batsmen score far more runs than in the 90s, when Tendulkar was dominant. 

Its a laughable comparison really.

 

[BeautifulGame]

 

When someone maximizes Tendulkar's fault like they did here, then they need to be dealt and answered in the way they are supposed to and not with anger and calling Kohli's knock meaningless etc.

 

You bringing pitches now and Kohli has scored already in Australia, South Africa too.He failed in England but he will catch up in England. Had he failed in other overseas places, then I would keep throwing the stats from England.  But he is improving with time and that is more I am interested in then looking at stats of how he did bad on his first tours to these countries

 

And again, it is "absurd" to not recognize Kohli's knocks on Australian tour. I couldn't care less of green or whatever pitch it was on. He hit 4 centuries on that tour and if one can't appreciate his that performance, then there is seriously something "absurd" about it. 

It's obvious your bias of Kohli is blinding to what was actually said .

Did I say he struggled in Australia ? No

Did I say he struggled in South Africa ? No

But the point is whenever there is seam and swing he has struggled badly .Only the Brisbane test had those conditions and he failed in that . Actually in similar fashion to England Iirc .

Yes he is improving and he may prove himself in those conditions it until then these comparisons are absurd

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

Above is the ratings criteria used by Wisden and ICC.

 

It is objective and quite full proof. We wonder how come Lara's 153 was greater than Laxman's 281 in more dire match circumstances.

 

But it is all covered. Lara outscored Laxman heavily in criteria 4, 7,8 and 9.  Laxman had Dravid at the other end who scored 180 odd

 

None of it is objective. Objective means the data is readily available and empiric. 'Pitch rating index', 'bowling rating index' are all subjective numbers being tossed around, not objective.

And the very fact that batsmen get rated higher if other batsmen fail, tells us that it is not an objective but subjective rating system. 

You mean to say, my 'best innings ever' isn't my best innings, when i am swatting balls i usually never swat, coz the guy at the other end is also playing well, but an innings where i give 5 chances and opposition fails to hold on to them, is the best innings ever coz batsmen at other end are falling like nine-pins ? What a BS rating system.

 

[BeautifulGame]

That is not true.... Some of the instances

 

In tests --

 

Kohli's  innings of 119 and 96  in Johannesburg, on a green top with movement. pace and bounce and ..against Steyn, Philander and Morkel

 

His innings of 75 and 44  on a green-top with movement in Perth, in 2012. against Harris, Starc, Hilfenhaus, Siddle, where India was dismissed twice under 175.

 

In T20s -

 

50+ in a  Asia Cup match against  Pakistan, with the ball moving around a lot and neither team being able to score.

Wanderers had pace and bounce but most of the movement was seen of by Pujara and Vijay if u remember.It was a great knock against Pace and bounce though that hundred.

At u seriously suggesting pitch was helpful that 96 was scored.It was flat as a road in the second innings .

Yeah that Perth knocks were decent but we are comparing with ATG level and he came in at 6 anyway

I am not even sure what scoring in T20 even has to do honestly.

[narenpande1]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

None of it is objective. Objective means the data is readily available and empiric. 'Pitch rating index', 'bowling rating index' are all subjective numbers being tossed around, not objective.

And the very fact that batsmen get rated higher if other batsmen fail, tells us that it is not an objective but subjective rating system. 

You mean to say, my 'best innings ever' isn't my best innings, when i am swatting balls i usually never swat, coz the guy at the other end is also playing well, but an innings where i give 5 chances and opposition fails to hold on to them, is the best innings ever coz batsmen at other end are falling like nine-pins ? What a BS rating system.

 

 

 

Nothing is subjective, if you bother to read that is.

 

Pitch is rated based on historical runs scored on the pitch with normalization applied to take out aberrations.

Its common sense.  For example bowler friendly places like Perth, Leeds, Barbados, where normalized historical avg runs are lower than say 

Adelaide and Sydney. So scoring the same amount of runs as a batter in Perth would lead to more pts than say Sydney

 

similarly...bowlers are rated based on their vital stats

 

If you are questioning the work of the best cricket statisticians  over 40 years who formulated this ..you must be a genius.

[Cricketics]

6 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

It's obvious your bias of Kohli is blinding to what was actually said .

Did I say he struggled in Australia ? No

 

You mentioned about him not scoring in the only game which had bowler's assistance on that tour. Fact is Kohli had almost 700 runs on that tour, more than any Indian player ever in Australia on a tour and yet you point out the only test where he might have missed out. The places he scored, is not those pitches were road. Scoring anywhere in Australia is tough in their condition to their bowlers. 

 

I think people make an extremely big deal about pitches and whenever some current player score runs anywhere. 

[BeautifulGame]

 

You mentioned about him not scoring in the only game which had bowler's assistance on that tour. Fact is Kohli had almost 700 runs on that tour, more than any Indian player ever in Australia on a tour and yet you point out the only test where he might have missed out. The places he scored, is not those pitches were road. Scoring anywhere in Australia is tough in their condition to their bowlers. 

 

I think people make an extremely big deal about pitches and whenever some current player score runs anywhere. 

So are u saying the pitches in Adelaide Sydney or Melbourne had any seam movement or swing for the bowlers ?

They were road of wickets with the only redeeming feature being bounce and carry.

Australia wickets have been the worst for test cricket for some time .It's not making a big deal if one point out a flat wicket a flat wicket .

Those pitches made Steve Smith and Adam Voges look like Bradman

[narenpande1]

19 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

It's obvious your bias of Kohli is blinding to what was actually said .

Did I say he struggled in Australia ? No

Did I say he struggled in South Africa ? No

But the point is whenever there is seam and swing he has struggled badly .Only the Brisbane test had those conditions and he failed in that . Actually in similar fashion to England Iirc .

Yes he is improving and he may prove himself in those conditions it until then these comparisons are absurd

 

Talk about being intellectually dishonest. 

 

How has Sachin fared against Anderson on most of their encounters, despite the fact that Sachin has toured and played in Eng conditions many a time, including a stint with Yorkshire ? 

 

The answer is Sachin has been OWNED by Anderson in English conditions and even when the ball swung in Mumbai. So please cut Virat some slack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

 

Nothing is subjective, if you bother to read that is.

 

Pitch is rated based on historical runs scored on the pitch with normalization applied to take out aberrations.

Its common sense.  For example bowler friendly places like Perth, Leeds, Barbados, where normalized historical avg runs are lower than say 

Adelaide and Sydney. So scoring the same amount of runs as a batter in Perth would lead to more pts than say Sydney

 

similarly...bowlers are rated based on their vital stats

 

If you are questioning the work of the best cricket statisticians  over 40 years who formulated this ..you must be a genius.

You need to re-learn the definition of the word subjective.

If the numbers are not empirically driven, its subjective. The circumference of the earth isn't subjective. The hottest day of the year isn't subjective. The 'score' on how hard a pitch is/how seaming a pitch is, is subjective. Whether a TV program is better than another, is subjective.

Those numbers are not empirically driven.

 

Oh and i worked for over a decade as process & control systems engineer - if you think one has to be a statistical 'genius' to question the work of a bunch of idiots playing around with cricket stats, its safe to say you don't know the first thing about mathematics or a job involving one.

Just for your info, my job isn't a 'one in a million' kind, its normal job of most Electrical engineers. And that job requires more statistical analysis in four hours than your 'best cricket statisticians' will ever find in cricket.