Areas where Kohli is better than Tendulkar as a player.

[narenpande1]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

 

I don't read between the lines, because that is a stupid thing to do- you don't know these people personally, so 'reading between the lines' of people you don't know, is just personal assumptions. One day when you get older, you will realize it too.

I don't think captaincy added any more pressure on Tendulkar- the entire nation's hopes were on him from the first day, you cant add more to that pressure.

Also, whats 'failure' as a captaincy by Tendulkar's standard is a greater scoring record than most batsmen have in the first place.

Whether Tendulkar played slowly or not, is irrelevant- whether a batsman plays slowly or not, is fundamentally determined by how well the bowlers are bowling. Sometimes bowlers bowl a good spell and batsmen crawl even when they are 100+ and sometimes bowlers bowl crap and batsmen go rollicking from the very start. 

You assume too much and fill in the gaps too much by what you think, than what are facts.

 

 

 

You indulge in plausible deniability like Pakistanis. Something that is there for all to see, but cannot be proven in black and white in all instance with your intellectual dishonesty

 

If you have followed any amount of Indian cricket , you would have heard his innumerable interviews where SRT talks about his numbers.

 

If you have not heard this MANY MANY times , please don't bother replying as you don't deserve more discussion time with  your knowledge base

[Muloghonto]

Just now, narenpande1 said:

 

 

You indulge in plausible deniability like Pakistanis. Something that is there for all to see, but cannot be proven in black and white in all instance with your intellectual dishonesty

 

If you have followed any amount of Indian cricket , you would have heard his innumerable interviews where SRT talks about his numbers.

 

If you have not heard this MANY MANY times , please don't bother replying as you don't deserve more discussion time with  your knowledge base

There is nothing to see, because as i said, you don't know these people personally. Even for people you know personally, proving intent is a hell of a tough job- for people you don't know, its just laughably ego-centric for you to think you know whats in their head despite them not saying anything about it. You don't know if Tendulkar was obsessed about his numbers or not. Nobody does except people close to him. But you can go ahead and assume.

 

 

And i have followed indian cricket for longer than you've been alive, sonny. Which is why i asked for an interview of Tendulkar where he talks about his numbers- because videos of his MoM ceremonies or post match interviews are dime-a-dozen on youtube.

 

A person who thinks Tendulkar 'talked about his numbers' is questioning my knowledge base. LOL! 

 

[sandeep]

@narenpande1, I'll give you the declaration fiasco - it was obvious that Tendy wanted the double ton, but also wanted to stay not out, and did not sacrifice his wicket for quick runs.  But you are making this one-off incident into some kind of pattern of selfishness, that claim does not hold water.  And your rants on bashing Tendy are not quite fact based.  So chill bro.  And enjoy this video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu0G1nuSvkU

[MCcricket]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

he curtailed his dashing stroke play after the arrival of Sehwag. Because back in the 90s, India did not have batting, particularly overseas, to play a tough & steady game. So he was the mindset of 'score as much before getting out coz no other batsman is gonna hang around with him'. 

With the emergence of Sehwag, he could safely relinquish stroke play to Sehwag and do what all test batsmen are supposed to do- not give away their wicket.

 

You've said it that was the difference in Tendulkar n Virat , see when Virat became captain a mediocre team became a good one n he is abke to inspire his team to higher level whereas Tendulkar as player n Capt did not.

Virat takes the positive approach n though he plays his stroke his innings are mostly chance less , Tendulkar was dominated by Mgrath, Fannie, Hansie , Donald at different times n Virat just had one bad tour against Anderson n he has changed that too.

Tendulkar also had a very good team for a long part of his career with Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Ganguly n Zak n Sri , Kumble, Bhajji, with the same team I can promise you Virat would have won more games as a player n captain

[narenpande1]

7 minutes ago, sandeep said:

@narenpande1, I'll give you the declaration fiasco - it was obvious that Tendy wanted the double ton, but also wanted to stay not out, and did not sacrifice his wicket for quick runs.  But you are making this one-off incident into some kind of pattern of selfishness, that claim does not hold water.  And your rants on bashing Tendy are not quite fact based.  So chill bro.  And enjoy this video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu0G1nuSvkU

 

 

Even Kapil has called him Selfish and self consumed about personal milestones.. Many in the Aussie and Eng press too have ..but lets say theirs is propoganda.

 

Why would Kapil come out and say this ? ( i know it is a bit rich coming from him ,being that he too played on selfishly to break Hadlee's record and had a terrible drag , the last 3 years or so of his career.

Edited December 11, 2016 by narenpande1

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, MCcricket said:

You've said it that was the difference in Tendulkar n Virat , see when Virat became captain a mediocre team became a good one n he is abke to inspire his team to higher level whereas Tendulkar as player n Capt did not.

Virat takes the positive approach n though he plays his stroke his innings are mostly chance less , Tendulkar was dominated by Mgrath, Fannie, Hansie , Donald at different times n Virat just had one bad tour against Anderson n he has changed that too.

Tendulkar also had a very good team for a long part of his career with Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Ganguly n Zak n Sri , Kumble, Bhajji, with the same team I can promise you Virat would have won more games as a player n captain

Thats coz Virat doesnt carry nearly the same pressure on his shoulders as Tendulkar did. Also, Tendulkar's game matured early. Virat's did later. Virat's game maturing coincided with his captaincy, so his superior numbers as a captain. If you took away the captaincy from Virat tomorrow, he will still be a better batsman than he was 3 years ago.

I don't think Tendulkar was dominated by any of those bowlers- bear in mind, except for Dale Steyn, Virat hasn't played against bowlers of the same calibre as Donald, McGrath, Fanie, etc. 

 

The fact that you think Virat can win games with his bat, in test cricket, is hilarious. Batsmen don't win test matches.

 

[sandeep]

3 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

 

Even Kapil has called him Selfish and self consumed about personal milestones.. Many in the Aussie and Eng press too have ..but lets say theirs is propoganda.

 

Why would Kapil come out and say this ? ( i know it is a bit rich coming from him ,being that he too played on selfishly to break Hadlee's record and had a terrible drag , the last 3 years or so of his career.

Dude, when your argument is based on "so and so has called him xyz" you should know you are on shaky ground.  Kapil was retaliating to Tendy's comments about Kapil being a disinterested and poor coach - which is very true.  And lets not get into the "chacha chaudhry" tangent.  As a matter of fact, let's end this pointless argument.  This thread and discussion needs to end.  You've had enough of a rant.  Such rants and discussions are only dragging the quality of discussion on this forum down.  Next thing you know, the other usual suspects are going to start posting tripe about how Dhoni is useless, or Virat sucks - just stop with this crap.  Let's enjoy the quality cricket and focus on that.  Enough there to keep us going.  

[MCcricket]

Off course batters can win games n so can bowlers on a low scoring track a knock of 100 or less could be a match winning one or on a sporting wkt an innings of quick 150 plus can be one same as on a batting track a bowler getting 5 Fer in quick time, any performance which Impacts the result is a match winning one

[Muloghonto]

Just now, MCcricket said:

Off course batters can win games n so can bowlers on a low scoring track a knock of 100 or less could be a match winning one or on a sporting wkt an innings of quick 150 plus can be one same as on a batting track a bowler getting 5 Fer in quick time, any performance which Impacts the result is a match winning one

No. batters don't win games in tests. Bowlers do. Batsmen can score as much runs as they want, it doesnt guarantee a win. Every single times the bowlers take 20 wickets for less than the opposition conceded, the team automatically wins. 

In tests, batsmen save matches, bowlers win them.

In ODIs, its the other way round. 

[narenpande1]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

Dude, when your argument is based on "so and so has called him xyz" you should know you are on shaky ground.  Kapil was retaliating to Tendy's comments about Kapil being a disinterested and poor coach - which is very true.  And lets not get into the "chacha chaudhry" tangent.  As a matter of fact, let's end this pointless argument.  This thread and discussion needs to end.  You've had enough of a rant.  Such rants and discussions are only dragging the quality of discussion on this forum down.  Next thing you know, the other usual suspects are going to start posting tripe about how Dhoni is useless, or Virat sucks - just stop with this crap.  Let's enjoy the quality cricket and focus on that.  Enough there to keep us going.  

 

The purpose of this thread was to highlight the positives of Virat over SRT, which is a legitimate discussion. 

 

When former cricketers from England too talk about Kohli having exceeded SRT on so many counts ( even despite Kohli not having a good series in England) ...it can only be a bad discussion here, if his fanboys are here to defend anything and everything about him at the cost of 

demeaning others and calling fact based rebuttals as rants.

 

BTW, SRT was too self-consumed to lead as captain, he also did not have the fire in him to motivate the rest of the team. He was a very poor and disinterested captain, when Kapil was the coach. Kapil could not have played for India or made decisions for India.

 

That was SRT's job, and he failed there miserably.

 

 

[MCcricket]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

No. batters don't win games in tests. Bowlers do. Batsmen can score as much runs as they want, it doesnt guarantee a win. Every single times the bowlers take 20 wickets for less than the opposition conceded, the team automatically wins. 

In tests, batsmen save matches, bowlers win them.

In ODIs, its the other way round. 

Lol , Cricket is a team game you need a keeper, fielders, 4 or more bowlers n batters to play this game, even without a keeper you cannot play so a keeper wins you games lol, you talk like a student who has been taught to rote from the book .

A match winning knock doesn't mean other players will not contribute at all but it is the ratio of contribution, on a bowler friendly track say there is a scenario both team have made about 250 on first innings and then the wkt become a minefield n the side batting last has to chase 200 one batter comes in n score 140 by himself in second inning after scoring a 90 in first innings off course he is a match winner lol, coz he was the difference between his team winning n Lossing, compare, ratio, performance , it's logic ,lol.

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

The purpose of this thread was to highlight the positives of Virat over SRT, which is a legitimate discussion. 

 

When former cricketers from England too talk about Kohli having exceeded SRT on so many counts ( even despite Kohli not having a good series in England) ...it can only be a bad discussion here, if his fanboys are here to defend anything and everything about him at the cost of 

demeaning others and calling fact based rebuttals as rants.

 

BTW, SRT was too self-consumed to lead as captain, he also did not have the fire in him to motivate the rest of the team. He was a very poor and disinterested captain, when Kapil was the coach. Kapil could not have played for India or made decisions for India.

 

That was SRT's job, and he failed there miserably.

 

 

Its not easy for geniuses to motivate lesser mortals. 

The same reason why Wayne Gretzky, the 'Bradman of Ice Hockey' was a terrible coach. Or why Maradona was a crappy coach.

Why ? Because what these guys can intrinsically do, is out of reach of the mere mortals.

Their 'ideas' are so natural to them, not to others and they can't relate coz they are geniuses. 

 

Also, in Tendulkar's time, the professional attitude was missing in most of the team. 

If Sachin was a 'disinterested captain', he wouldn't have been called a fundamental part of the think tank by captains such as Ganguly, Dravid,Kumble, etc. and he wouldn't be rushing in from mid-off every other ball and offering ideas to the bowler.

Thats not 'disinterested' by any stretch of imagination.

You are just too young to make a rational judgement re: Tendulkar and simply think 'my era is the best era' like most youngsters do.

I cant think of anything significant Kohli has 'exceeded' Tendulkar in, except maybe Captaincy and even then the jury is out, since Kohli is a new captain.

 

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, MCcricket said:

Lol , Cricket is a team game you need a keeper, fielders, 4 or more bowlers n batters to play this game, even without a keeper you cannot play so a keeper wins you games lol, you talk like a student who has been taught to rote from the book .

A match winning knock doesn't mean other players will not contribute at all but it is the ratio of contribution, on a bowler friendly track say there is a scenario both team have made about 250 on first innings and then the wkt become a minefield n the side batting last has to chase 200 one batter comes in n score 140 by himself in second inning after scoring a 90 in first innings off course he is a match winner lol, coz he was the difference between his team winning n Lossing, compare, ratio, performance , it's logic ,lol.

I just don't think you grasp the fact that Pakistan won 90% of the games in the 90s due to their bowling despite their batsmen dropping the ball and 90% of the time India lost, its because their bowlers couldn't bowl the opposition out. If a batsman makes 140 in the 4th innings and the team wins, the match was won because his team dismissed the opposition for less runs than they conceded. Not because the batsman scored more.

 

Ofcourse it is a team game. 

The job of the batsman is to make sure the test match is NOT lost. 

The job of the bowler is to ensure that the test match IS won.

And the fielders/wicketkeepers all fall in the latter category. 

 

FYI, Sachin was nowhere as athletic as Virat the fielder but i'd put Sachin in any catching position over Virat any day of the week.

 

[narenpande1]

Was interesting listening to the roundtable between Rob Keys, Bob Willis and Mark Butcher...

 

" With Tendulkar, he always gave you that chance, Kohli just completely shuts you out ruthlessly " 

 

What is it that these experts and non-fanboys are seeing that fanboys refuse to see ??

[MCcricket]

17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I just don't think you grasp the fact that Pakistan won 90% of the games in the 90s due to their bowling despite their batsmen dropping the ball and 90% of the time India lost, its because their bowlers couldn't bowl the opposition out. If a batsman makes 140 in the 4th innings and the team wins, the match was won because his team dismissed the opposition for less runs than they conceded. Not because the batsman scored more.

 

Ofcourse it is a team game. 

The job of the batsman is to make sure the test match is NOT lost. 

The job of the bowler is to ensure that the test match IS won.

And the fielders/wicketkeepers all fall in the latter category. 

 

FYI, Sachin was nowhere as athletic as Virat the fielder but i'd put Sachin in any catching position over Virat any day of the week.

 

You fail to realize we were a poor team, when teams are equally matched or 40-60 n then the victory loss or draw comes from a unmatched remarkable being bowling effort or batting effort depending on conditions then it is a match winning innings.

Pakistan was a better side then India during those times es as their bowling was among the top three and batting was not too much below India so on the whole the were a better side also temperamentally stronger then us then.

Indian bowling was poor or pathetic for most part except for the spin quartet and among seamers we only had one plYer to talk about.

If we believe whT you say then even Don Bradman was not a match winner n so it explains how silly your theory is, any effort as a bowler, batter, allrounder which Impacts the results to a greater extent is a match winning one.So yes other bowlers will take wkts n batters will score  runs in that game but the one performance that impacts the result most is a match winning one.

Like Ashwin did win us a game in this series by his bowling and batting.

VVS and Dravids match winning innings in Kolkata against the Aussies, how complicated is that to understand

[sandeep]

13 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

Was interesting listening to the roundtable between Rob Keys, Bob Willis and Mark Butcher...

 

" With Tendulkar, he always gave you that chance, Kohli just completely shuts you out ruthlessly " 

 

What is it that these experts and non-fanboys are seeing that fanboys refuse to see ??

Rob Key was referring to the Tendulkar of the 2000s, not that of the 1990s.  He was probably in diapers then.  And again, he is talking about perception, not facts.  Regardless, like a broken record, I'll repeat, nothing wrong in having favorites - but you do not need to, and should not bash Tendy to big-up Kohli.  

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, MCcricket said:

You fail to realize we were a poor team, when teams are equally matched or 40-60 n then the victory loss or draw comes from a unmatched remarkable being bowling effort or batting effort depending on conditions then it is a match winning innings.

Pakistan was a better side then India during those times es as their bowling was among the top three and batting was not too much below India so on the whole the were a better side also temperamentally stronger then us then.

Indian bowling was poor or pathetic for most part except for the spin quartet and among seamers we only had one plYer to talk about.

If we believe whT you say then even Don Bradman was not a match winner n so it explains how silly your theory is, any effort as a bowler, batter, allrounder which Impacts the results to a greater extent is a match winning one.So yes other bowlers will take wkts n batters will score  runs in that game but the one performance that impacts the result most is a match winning one.

Like Ashwin did win us a game in this series by his bowling and batting.

VVS and Dravids match winning innings in Kolkata against the Aussies, how complicated is that to understand

If Harbhajan and Tendulkar don't take those key wickets in the 4th innings in that famous Calcutta test - VVS and Dravid innings are not match-winning.  Thats the point.  Tendy played bunch of innings that could have been anointed match-winning, but for the lack of supporting acts.  

[mishra]

Kohli is better fielder then Tendulkar

[MCcricket]

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

If Harbhajan and Tendulkar don't take those key wickets in the 4th innings in that famous Calcutta test - VVS and Dravid innings are not match-winning.  Thats the point.  Tendy played bunch of innings that could have been anointed match-winning, but for the lack of supporting acts.  

But then that happens to everyone even Kohli would have won us the game in Adelaide if the other batters would just give him company? 

A match winning effort doesn't mean other batters will not score at all or bowlers will not take wkts , but against odds, when a batter or bowler performs , n this performance impCts the game most, it's simple, you need 11 players in cricket so it is illogical to think the match winner will take 11 wkts and then come to bat and score all the runs n also take all catches .

[Muloghonto]

14 minutes ago, MCcricket said:

You fail to realize we were a poor team, when teams are equally matched or 40-60 n then the victory loss or draw comes from a unmatched remarkable being bowling effort or batting effort depending on conditions then it is a match winning innings.

Pakistan was a better side then India during those times es as their bowling was among the top three and batting was not too much below India so on the whole the were a better side also temperamentally stronger then us then.

Indian bowling was poor or pathetic for most part except for the spin quartet and among seamers we only had one plYer to talk about.

If we believe whT you say then even Don Bradman was not a match winner n so it explains how silly your theory is, any effort as a bowler, batter, allrounder which Impacts the results to a greater extent is a match winning one.So yes other bowlers will take wkts n batters will score  runs in that game but the one performance that impacts the result most is a match winning one.

Like Ashwin did win us a game in this series by his bowling and batting.

VVS and Dravids match winning innings in Kolkata against the Aussies, how complicated is that to understand

No, Bradman is not a mahtchwinner. No batsman is. For the simple fact that no matter what the batsman does, the match is won by bowlers taking 20 wickets for less runs conceded than the opposition. 

VVS & Dravid didnt win us the Kolkata test. They made sure we wouldn't lose Kolkata and Harbhajan won the match for us. Its just that simple.

 

Its a fallacy to think batsmen win tests when the mechanics of the game makes it abundantly clear that bowlers win tests and batsmen win limited overs matches.