Areas where Kohli is better than Tendulkar as a player.

[Muloghonto]

Just now, narenpande1 said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except for the fact that Anderson is nowhere near the best swing bowler Tendulkar has faced, while he is the best Virat has faced. 

In English conditions, Darren Gough was still the best English bowler since 1990.

 

Oh and Sachin 'getting owned' by Anderson still yielded an average of 38 & 34. Virat got owned for an average almost ONE THIRD of that.

Shows the gulf between an ATG and a wannabe- ATG who isn't in the same ballpark yet.

 

[maniac]

2 hours ago, BeautifulGame said:

Interesting.I always thought that Gavaskar hundred was scored in a meaningless dead rubber .Never knew the context .

I believe it had more to do with avoiding playing in Pakistan where the other semi final was scheduled than playing an easier side England.

 

england where favored over Australia to win the 87 wc 

[narenpande1]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Except for the fact that Anderson is nowhere near the best swing bowler Tendulkar has faced, while he is the best Virat has faced. 

In English conditions, Darren Gough was still the best English bowler since 1990.

 

Oh and Sachin 'getting owned' by Anderson still yielded an average of 38 & 34. Virat got owned for an average almost ONE THIRD of that.

Shows the gulf between an ATG and a wannabe- ATG who isn't in the same ballpark yet.

 

Even Darren Gough would laugh at your claim. 

 

Anderson in red hot form in his conditions can bowl like a dream, bowling corkers after corkers. 

 

Virat has never played any meaningful cricket in England including a county stint.

 

Am sure he would shut up all his detractors once and for all the next trip...

 

 

 

[narenpande1]

10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

 

 

Mr. Electrical Engineer, what part of historical normalized avg  of runs scored on a pitch did you not find " empirical " ?

Edited December 13, 2016 by narenpande1

[Cricketics]

9 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

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

No the pitches didn't make them Bradman, we just bowled and fielded bad and Voges had a extemely good patch on those and Smith has been fairly consistent in last 15 months.

 

On these similar pitches in 2011, we lost 4-0 with all our greats failing, Pitches did not get flat in just 4 years time. All Australian grounds get flat in that way. Even Gabba, Brisbane is pretty flat then which you meant where Kohli did not score on that 2015 tour as that has assistance early but can look flatter than even Adelaide. 

 

 

 

[express bowling]

29 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

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.

In that innings of 119,  there was swing for his  first 25 to 30 runs and seam movement throughout the innings.  Even in the 2nd innings, there was some seam movement.

 

At Perth, he came to bat in the 20th over.....it  was very challenging then.  No.6 has little meaning as wickets fell very quickly in both innings.

 

I cited the T20 innings because it was not a typical T20 match where the batters were trying to hit.  It was more a battle for survival in a low scoring match, with the ball swinging and seaming and sufficient close-in fielders.

 

You seem to have special tough parameters for judging Kohli.  Every great or even good batsman scores much more centuries on flatter pitches than on challenging conditions or tracks...because that is  the natural thing to happen.  Everybody bats better when the conditions are easier and  have only a handful of  good or big knocks under extreme challenging conditions.  That applies to retired ATGs  too. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by express bowling

[Muloghonto]

Just now, narenpande1 said:

Even Darren Gough would laugh at your claim. 

 

Anderson in red hot form in his conditions can bowl like a dream, bowling corkers after corkers. 

 

Virat has never played any meaningful cricket in England including a county stint.

 

Am sure he would shut up all his detractors once and for all the next trip...

 

 

 

So can Caddick, Hoggard,Gough, Fraser, Dominic Cork, etc.

Anderson isn't a better bowler than those- he simply has outlasted them significantly.

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

Mr. Electrical Engineer, what part of historical normalized avg  of runs scored on a pitch did you not find " empirical " ?

What part of 'putting numbers for pitch rating index' do you find empirical ? 

Do you even know the meaning of the word ?

If you do, explain to us, on what basis is the pitch on Perth ranked compared to pitch on Barbados and explain the number differential to it.

 

Last i checked, when you look at a pitch, 'this pitch is rate 9.92' is not an EMPIRICAL number, its a subjective one.

 

[express bowling]

16 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Except for the fact that Anderson is nowhere near the best swing bowler Tendulkar has faced, while he is the best Virat has faced. 

In English conditions, Darren Gough was still the best English bowler since 1990.

 

Oh and Sachin 'getting owned' by Anderson still yielded an average of 38 & 34. Virat got owned for an average almost ONE THIRD of that.

Shows the gulf between an ATG and a wannabe- ATG who isn't in the same ballpark yet.

 

 

In which test in England did Tendulkar bat against Gough....I can't remember...please refresh my memory.

[narenpande1]

10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

What part of 'putting numbers for pitch rating index' do you find empirical ? 

Do you even know the meaning of the word ?

If you do, explain to us, on what basis is the pitch on Perth ranked compared to pitch on Barbados and explain the number differential to it.

 

Last i checked, when you look at a pitch, 'this pitch is rate 9.92' is not an EMPIRICAL number, its a subjective one.

 

 

Not everything can be 100 % objective ..but as long as a standard consistent measurement process is applied like Avg runs scored over last X many years..it is " empirical " enough.

 

Your argument is as dumb as saying that a Multiple Choice Exam is not objective but subjective, because the 4 options in the question are " subjective " because they are set by the exam setting committee 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by narenpande1

[Cricketics]

4 hours ago, narenpande1 said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sachin played gazzilion bowlers and if one bowler dominates him in his own conditions in one series, it does not say mich about Tendulkar but more about Anderson that he was really good at home against a top batsmen.

 

You are seriously assuming that Tendulkar sucked against a quality bowler? You need to go watch Day 3 session 1 of Cape Town test of 2011 tour to South Africa.

 

No, do not settle with Tendulkar's century highlights. Find ball to ball footage. Check out what was thrown at Tendulkar by Steyn and how he handled it. That spell was better than some of the deliveries Tendulkar got out to, to Anderson. 

 

To raise your point, stop talking trash about Tendulkar. 

 

 

[narenpande1]

5 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Sachin played gazzilion bowlers and if one bowler dominates him im his own conditions in one series, it does not say mich anout Tendulkar but more about Anderson that he was reallu good at home against a top batsmen.

 

You are seriously assuming that Tendulkar sucked against a quality bowler? You need to go watch Day 3 session 1 of Cape Town test of 2011 tour to South Africa.

 

No, do not settle with Tendulkar's century highlights. Find ball to ball footage. Check out what was thrown at Tendulkar by Steyn and how he handled it. That spell was better than some of the deliveries Tendulkar got out to, to Anderson. 

 

To raise your point, stop talking trash about Tendulkar. 

 

 

 

Dude..I am with you 100 % . You are always fair and balanced. 

 

My angst is against the brainless fanboy brigade who think their hero is the be all of Indian batting.

 

The way they are going on and on against Kohli's record in England..sounds as if they are the English team/press

 

Sachin fanboys who rush to defend any aspect of cricket where he is genuinely bettered by a fellow Indian 

are a disgrace to Indian cricket.

Edited December 13, 2016 by narenpande1

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

Not everything can be 100 % objective ..but as long as a standard consistent measurement process is applied like Avg runs scored over last X many years..it is " empirical " enough.

 

Your argument is as dumb as saying that a Multiple Choice Exam is not objective but subjective, because the 4 options in the question are " subjective " because they are set by the exam setting committee 

 

 

 

 

 

My dear, empirical is not a subjective definition. Nor is it opinion driven. Empirical means factual. Its either there or not there. Its either empirical or not empirical. There is no such thing as 'not empirical enough' or 'empirical enough'.

 

What you mean, in mathematical terms, is CONSISTENT ENOUGH. 

But so what ?

An argument can be consistent but also factually or empirically incorrect. 

 

Having multiple choice exam doesnt make it an empirical or non-empirical exam. The answer choices are the ones which holds empirical value. 

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, narenpande1 said:

 

Dude..I am with you 100 % . You are always fair and balanced. 

 

My angst is against the brainless fanboy brigade who think their hero is the be all of Indian batting.

 

The way they are going on and on against Kohli's record in England..sounds as if they are the English team/press

 

He is the best Indian batsman ever to take the field. 

And if there is even a hint of consideration that there could be another Indian batsman better than him in tests, that would be Gavaskar.

 

Many of us see it as an INSULT to compare a guy, who dominated world attacks for 19 years, who carried the team like no other Indian batsman (except of course, Gavaskar) for almost a decade, to be compared to, let alone be considered 'inferior' to a up-n-commer, who is just posting his first EVER dominant year in test cricket. 

If this was Kohli's 5th year or 5th consecutive year of dominance, sure i could entertain a comparison. But just the first dominant year ? Seriously ?

Thats a joke and underscores the 'instant gratification/what have you done for me lately' pea-brained mentality that some display here.

 

[narenpande1]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

He is the best Indian batsman ever to take the field. 

And if there is even a hint of consideration that there could be another Indian batsman better than him in tests, that would be Gavaskar.

 

Many of us see it as an INSULT to compare a guy, who dominated world attacks for 19 years, who carried the team like no other Indian batsman (except of course, Gavaskar) for almost a decade, to be compared to, let alone be considered 'inferior' to a up-n-commer, who is just posting his first EVER dominant year in test cricket. 

If this was Kohli's 5th year or 5th consecutive year of dominance, sure i could entertain a comparison. But just the first dominant year ? Seriously ?

Thats a joke and underscores the 'instant gratification/what have you done for me lately' pea-brained mentality that some display here.

 

 

 

This bullshit false argument cannot be proved by the entire army of pea brained Sachin fanatics.

 

If accumulating test runs is called " dominating attacks for 19 years " then it must be one hell of a hyperbole 

[narenpande1]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

My dear, empirical is not a subjective definition. Nor is it opinion driven. Empirical means factual. Its either there or not there. Its either empirical or not empirical. There is no such thing as 'not empirical enough' or 'empirical enough'.

 

What you mean, in mathematical terms, is CONSISTENT ENOUGH. 

But so what ?

An argument can be consistent but also factually or empirically incorrect. 

 

Having multiple choice exam doesnt make it an empirical or non-empirical exam. The answer choices are the ones which holds empirical value. 

 

 

Old man, avg runs scored on a pitch for X years is empirical or " factual " as I have stated and you now agree.

 So how is the pitch quality index not " empirical " ?

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

 

This bullshit false argument cannot be proved by the entire army of pea brained Sachin fanatics.

 

If accumulating test runs is called " dominating attacks for 19 years " then it must be one hell of a hyperbole 

The entire basis of person A being better batsman than person B is accumulating more runs over the same # of dismissals, if other conditions are relatively the same. Except they are not- Tendulkar batted for half his career when scoring runs was harder -this can be EMPIRICALLY proven for the 90s vs post 90s comparison : more bowlers with great stats, more batsmen with worse stats, overall team scores being lower, etc.

Given that Tendulkar scored his runs against all kind of bowlers and at a scoring rate higher than his era, is considered dominating.

 

Now, Tendu-hating kids will point towards 'strike rate comparison', without understanding AT ALL what a dominant test batting display is, against a good attack:

 

A test batsman is supposed to do ALL of the following:

a) survive

b) blunt the attack

c) score aganinst the attack

d) protect the tail.

 

So an IDEAL test innings, in most cases, is where you take your time, being solid as a rock (but also putting away the rank bad balls), get your eye in/wait for the shine to go off and then blast away runs.

This means, when you succeed, you should score at a very healthy rate (say for e.g., 120 in 150-160 balls) but if you don't succeed, your stats look slow (say for e.g., 10 off of 40).  This pattern is reflected IDEALLY for all dominant batsmen of pre-20/20 test cricket : Lara, Tendulkar, Viv, etc. all have these kind of 'poor starts' & 'exceptional finishes'. Viv of course, has a little less slow starts than Tendy/Lara and little closer to run-a-ball centuries than these guys because Viv went out with a bigger intent to dominate and lesser intent to survive (rule #1).

 

So i laugh at you kids who think that scoring 12000+ runs @ an average of almost 60, almost half of them scored in an era where scoring runs was harder, spread over 19 years, isn't  'dominant'.

 

What you mean is, Tendulkar never really dominated in one series. Sure, that is a fair observation and lots of batsmen have 'exploded' for one or more series in their careers, while Tendulkar hasn't .

Though, its a narrow statistical miss for him: he fell 7 runs short of registering a 500+ run series vs Australia and came within 50-60 runs a few more times.

But this fact is also easily explained by the FACT that up until the 2000s, when batting was more challenging, Tendulkar didnt have a legitimate shot at 500+ runs anyways : almost everyone with 500+ runs in pre-2000s batted 9-10 innings and Tendulkar batted more than 6 times only ONCE in the ENTIRE 1989-2002 period : he batted 9 times in Australia in 1991 & ended up impressing everyone,scoring one of the best centuries by an Indian that series (averaged 46, 368 runs).

 

So, the question begets : how is a batsman supposed to dominate exactly, per series, if he can't get enough shots to bat in the first place ?

Bat six times and score 500+ runs have been done maybe 3-4 times in the entire HISTORY of test cricket.

 

As for his post 2002 period: It is a valid critique. I don't have a problem saying that for the 2000s,Tendulkar was one of the top 5 batsmen of the period, not the absolute best, in Test cricket.  It is clear that he declined a bit, especially in the middle section of 2000s, beset with injuries and poor form. But hey, lets see where Kohli ends up after 12-13 years of international cricket. Lets see if he is even around in the first place!

 

However, what makes up for this, in Tendulkar, is that while he didnt string together 3-4 tests of big scores & hundreds, he hardly ever went 3 or 4 tests without scoring one. This is the truly unique part of Tendulkar that nobody has been able to replicate for the entire history of test cricket : to consistently score a century every 3-4 matches for year in, year out for two decades.

 

 

[maniac]

1 hour 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.

The same Wisden rates Sachin as the 2nd greatest test batsman behind Bradman and 2nd greatest ODI batsman behind Richards....You can't pick and chose stats and sources to suit your argument.

[Muloghonto]

16 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

Old man, avg runs scored on a pitch for X years is empirical or " factual " as I have stated and you now agree.

 So how is the pitch quality index not " empirical " ?

. Rating a pitch by a number based on that stat, is not empirical- there is no inherent relation between the rating number and the average runs scored on a pitch. 

Comprende ?

 

Also, average runs scored on a pitch doesnt mean anything for direct comparison to performance. It lacks absolute correlation. Just because English batsmen cant play spin doesnt make a normal spin pitch a 'terror' when the English bat and 'normal' when the Lankans bat, for example in the 90s versus us.

 

[sandeep]

19 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

However, what makes up for this, in Tendulkar, is that while he didnt string together 3-4 tests of big scores & hundreds, he hardly ever went 3 or 4 tests without scoring one. This is the truly unique part of Tendulkar that nobody has been able to replicate for the entire history of test cricket : to consistently score a century every 3-4 matches for year in, year out for two decades.

++++

And did so, right out of the starting gate, away from home, for year after year, not just one or two - as my previous post about scoring 100s in his 1st away tours demonstrated.  This entire thread is nothing new - every couple of years, sachin-haters come out of the woodwork - they take the absolute peak of whichever current batsman is doing really well, and line it up next to Tendy's flaws over the course of his 25 year long career.  Its cherry picking Sachin-hatism.  The biggest fuel for it, is this desire to set themselves apart as a more "discerning" fan - unlike those sachin "fanboys".  Its not an accident that any logic based argument on this subject descends into such "geniuses" resorting to name-calling and throwing out words like worship etc when they can't counter facts.  

 

Praising Sachin is somehow unfashionable, so let's manufacture reasons to bash him down.  When its completely unnecessary in order to praise the comparable batsman VK in this case.  If they stop at saying - hey, VK has shown remarkable will to win, and in a opinion, better than Tendy in that aspect - that would be completely OK.  For example, perfectly valid to say that Lara was better than Tendy at piling up huge score once he got set.  But to say that this one aspect makes Lara a better batsman than Sachin across all categories, would be wrong.  

Edited December 13, 2016 by sandeep