Areas where Kohli is better than Tendulkar as a player.

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, MCcricket said:

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 .

There are plenty of batting efforts where the batsmen performed exceptionally well and the team still lost or drew the match. So batting performance cannot win tests. 

[sandeep]

13 minutes ago, mishra said:

Kohli is better fielder then Tendulkar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH2I6DdK21c

Edited December 11, 2016 by sandeep

[mishra]

27 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 ??

Crap Analysis, Tendulkar never gave chance. He will nick one which will go a few wide of other batmen. Fielders never ever dropped sachins catch even if they had to break a finger in process.

 

We are struggling against parttimers like Rashid and Ali bhai, says a lot about our batting prowess.

I am yet to see a game where opposition had assumed if Kohli is out cheap, they win the game, hence come wih a plan and executes it to get Kohli out or energy level among fielders upped as well by 20-30% when Kohali walks in

[sandeep]

Can Kohli do this?

 

 

 

[mishra]

3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH2I6DdK21c

That comment is not based on ine catch. Nowadays most fielders try to outdo johnty rhodes. Sachins time had very few of that sort

[MCcricket]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

There are plenty of batting efforts where the batsmen performed exceptionally well and the team still lost or drew the match. So batting performance cannot win tests. 

Firstly you R saying Bradman is not a match winner is ludicrous secondly, can a match be won when batters don't score.It is simple logic cricket is a game with three departments, bowling, fielding, batting any single person cannot win any game leave alone a test match not even t20 or 5 over game lol.

Can one Bowler bowl all overs, or a batter bat against both ends n field for 11 players.Isnt it stupid not to assume most people understand match winning performance doesn't discount that, lol. 

Match winning innings or performance is that one pivotal effort by a bowler or a batter which significantly impacts the game against the odds, due to conditions or match state, so if it's a bowler then it's stupid to assume other bowlers will not play their small part or the batters would not have batted.

Same way when the batter is said to have played a match winning knock it would be foolhardy to believe other batters did not score runs or their bowlers did not get wkts , it is a comparative analysis .

When you see a game n for example you have Kallis take two outstanding catches, then batted with the tail to get a 100 n taken 2 wkts , yes that would be match winning knock.

Gilchrist taking 3 catches n 2 stumping n then scoring a quick 150 with the sail when their side was far behind ,then off course it's a match winning knock.Same way Mgrath bowls 20 overs in a day and takes 5 wkts for 60 runs on a batting track n he is called a match winner doesn't exclude the fact that other bowlers will have to take some wkts and his batters will have to score runs, it's ludicrous we R even talking about this basic thing, lol

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, MCcricket said:

Firstly you R saying Bradman is not a match winner is ludicrous secondly, can a match be won when batters don't score.It is simple logic cricket is a game with three departments, bowling, fielding, batting any single person cannot win any game leave alone a test match not even t20 or 5 over game lol.

Can one Bowler bowl all overs, or a batter bat against both ends n field for 11 players.Isnt it stupid not to assume most people understand match winning performance doesn't discount that, lol. 

Match winning innings or performance is that one pivotal effort by a bowler or a batter which significantly impacts the game against the odds, due to conditions or match state, so if it's a bowler then it's stupid to assume other bowlers will not play their small part or the batters would not have batted.

Same way when the batter is said to have played a match winning knock it would be foolhardy to believe other batters did not score runs or their bowlers did not get wkts , it is a comparative analysis .

When you see a game n for example you have Kallis take two outstanding catches, then batted with the tail to get a 100 n taken 2 wkts , yes that would be match winning knock.

Gilchrist taking 3 catches n 2 stumping n then scoring a quick 150 with the sail when their side was far behind ,then off course it's a match winning knock.Same way Mgrath bowls 20 overs in a day and takes 5 wkts for 60 runs on a batting track n he is called a match winner doesn't exclude the fact that other bowlers will have to take some wkts and his batters will have to score runs, it's ludicrous we R even talking about this basic thing, lol

How can a team win if batsmen don't score - simple. 

Lets say all batsmen score 0, the bowling side that concedes less extras win.

The fact that it is a team game and a single person cannot win a match, doesnt change the fact that in tests, batsmen are there to ensure you don't lose, bowlers are there to ensure you win.

Its simple mechanics of the game, i am not sure i can explain it any better.

 

[MCcricket]

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

How can a team win if batsmen don't score - simple. 

Lets say all batsmen score 0, the bowling side that concedes less extras win.

The fact that it is a team game and a single person cannot win a match, doesnt change the fact that in tests, batsmen are there to ensure you don't lose, bowlers are there to ensure you win.

Its simple mechanics of the game, i am not sure i can explain it any better.

 

Your views are very Myopic, alot of wkts fall in test matches because of score board pressure n a captains tactics, a team batting first scoring 500 changes the game as far as team batting second as pressure makes it hard and unforced errors are caused.

Same way on a batting paradise  bowler gets the openers out cheaply it impacts the game.

It would only take a child to assume one thing is exclusive to other.

When a bowler has to bow! At a side which is chasing 350 in last innings he becomes a beast , and the same bowler bowls defending a total of 80 things R different.

Same way when a batter scores 65% of his team score by himself and his team wins the game based on that where both team bowlers have performed similarly wouldnt u say that batter was the difference?

[Vijy]

2 hours ago, sandeep said:

Can Kohli do this?

 

 

 

SRT never took his bowling seriously enough. A pity.

[Deleted_User_1]

kohli - arsenic

 

sachin - H

[Gambit]

Over the years, I have seen several people say that xyz is better than Tendulkar. The list features Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman and now Kohli amongst Indians and Lara, Waugh, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakarra amongst international batsmen.

 

My question to posters (including OP) who compare these guys to Tendulkar is that, if you think they are better than him then why even start the debate saying xyz is better than Tendulkar? Why not compare them to who you really think is the best i.e. Lara, Dravid, Ponting etc?

[Laaloo]

1 minute ago, Gambit said:

Over the years, I have seen several people say that xyz is better than Tendulkar. The list features Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman and now Kohli amongst Indians and Lara, Waugh, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakarra amongst international batsmen.

 

My question to posters (including OP) who compare these guys to Tendulkar is that, if you think they are better than him then why even start the debate saying xyz is better than Tendulkar? Why not compare them to who you really think is the best i.e. Lara, Dravid, Ponting etc?

Because that goes against their agenda. They like to rile up 'passionate' fans for obvious reasons.

[narenpande1]

7 minutes ago, Gambit said:

Over the years, I have seen several people say that xyz is better than Tendulkar. The list features Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman and now Kohli amongst Indians and Lara, Waugh, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakarra amongst international batsmen.

 

My question to posters (including OP) who compare these guys to Tendulkar is that, if you think they are better than him then why even start the debate saying xyz is better than Tendulkar? Why not compare them to who you really think is the best i.e. Lara, Dravid, Ponting etc?

I never made comparisons with others nor brought him up before..nor do I believe in this " goddy" fanboy  bullshit. So its a pointless point.

 

The reason why others tend to bring up Tendulkar is perhaps because his fanboys think his 

records which are more a function of sheer longevity and determination than anything else make him

a "  GOAT ".  There are his peers who debuted after him have scored as much or more than him

with a better average, the likes of Kallis and Sangakkara.  But it is not sheer longevity that  counts.

 

Kohli is more reassuring and his passions drive the team. He is able to motivate others through his own performance and lead from the front.

 

Rarely seen consistently in former Indian captains. 

Edited December 11, 2016 by narenpande1

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, MCcricket said:

Your views are very Myopic, alot of wkts fall in test matches because of score board pressure n a captains tactics, a team batting first scoring 500 changes the game as far as team batting second as pressure makes it hard and unforced errors are caused.

Same way on a batting paradise  bowler gets the openers out cheaply it impacts the game.

It would only take a child to assume one thing is exclusive to other.

When a bowler has to bow! At a side which is chasing 350 in last innings he becomes a beast , and the same bowler bowls defending a total of 80 things R different.

Same way when a batter scores 65% of his team score by himself and his team wins the game based on that where both team bowlers have performed similarly wouldnt u say that batter was the difference?

Wickets falling due to scoreboard pressure is a very recent phenomenon. Because as i said, test batting is all about 'don't get out', most batsmen in the pre-20/20 generation didnt give a toss about scoreboard pressure- they didnt get nervous or antsy if they went 1 hour without a boundary. So its a recent phenomenon that still has to be seen how it plays out.

 

I am simply stating the basic mechanics of the game. A batsman can score as much as he wants but if the bowlers don't take wickets, they won't win. 

So batsmen don't win tests, bowlers do. Same way, batsmen can save a test- they can drop anchor and score 100 off of 400 balls and draw it. Bowlers on the other hand, cant defend 50 runs with 6 sessions left. 

 

[Gambit]

9 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

I never made comparisons with others nor brought him up before..nor do I believe in this " goddy" fanboy  bullshit. So its a pointless point.

 

The reason why others tend to bring up Tendulkar is perhaps because his fanboys think his 

records which are more a function of sheer longevity and determination than anything else make him

a "  GOAT ".  There are his peers who debuted after him have scored as much or more than him

with a better average, the likes of Kallis and Sangakkara.  But it is not sheer longevity that  counts.

 

Kohli is more reassuring and his passions drive the team. He is able to motivate others through his own performance and lead from the front.

 

Rarely seen consistently in former Indian captains. 

So among the ones you have seen, who are the top 3 batsmen?

[randomGuy]

Kallis > sachin

Kohli > sachin

McGrath>sachin

Murali>sachin......

There's a lot of cricketers of all eras who own sachin as a cricketer.

India lost the match (against BD) where he scored his 100th hundred due to him taking a lot of balls as he neared his 100. That's kind of symbolic of the significance of the 100s' record.

 

[Gambit]

While obviously India under Tendulkar was a dud team, he has the highest batting average for any Indian captain barring Kohli (higher than Gavaskar and Dravid).

[Vijy]

Let's just sit back and enjoy both.

[narenpande1]

17 minutes ago, Gambit said:

So among the ones you have seen, who are the top 3 batsmen?

Since Tendulkar's debut. I have 3 at No.1 and 3 at No.2. Tendulkar was not ahead of the pack..as is made out to be.

 

1) Tendulkar ( all round, everywhere, although he scored in Aus, only when Mcgrath was not around, when Mcgrath played, his avg was sub 35 in those matches ) 

 

1) Sangakkara ( Sangakkara, never failed anywhere, don't know a single bowler who dominated him, was a WK- captain too for a while, left with a bang, 12500 test runs @ 57 +, could have gone on for 2 more years ) 

 

1) Lara: Will go on and on once set..a little more inconsistent than Tendulkar and Sangu, but a genius in a different league

 

2) Kallis ( Some Weakness against the swinging ball, good in Aus, not great, but masterful against Indian spinners in India, like no other batsman, a bowler too )

 

2) Ponting: A bit overrated i feel, terrible in Indian conditions, but has done well in Lanka, so not BAD player of spinners necessarily.

The best player on pitches with pace and bounce. 

 

2) Dravid: All round player, no weakness whatsoever, on any pitch or condition. Except failure to dominate..or drive the pace of the innings.

 

Clearly, Tendulkar had company. He has more volume in his numbers which were a function of longevity.

 

But for all his breathtaking stroke making talent and technical mastery,  never in my following him since 1991 have I seen him give a feeling of " total control"  that he would not get out when set. Dravid gave that feeling for a while.

 

Kohli gives a feeling of Dravid's solidity with Tendulkar's stroke making ability. 

 

He has too much fire to WIN for India at ALL COSTS, it shows in his attitude.

 

Kohli will break the records of all the 6 men above, except Lara's 400 maybe

Edited December 11, 2016 by narenpande1

[Vijy]

9 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

Since Tendulkar's debut. I have 3 at No.1 and 3 at No.2. Tendulkar was not ahead of the pack..as is made out to be.

 

1) Tendulkar ( all round, everywhere, although he scored in Aus, only when Mcgrath was not around, when Mcgrath played, his avg was sub 35 in those matches ) 

 

1) Sangakkara ( Sangakkara, never failed anywhere, don't know a single bowler who dominated him, was a WK- captain too for a while, left with a bang, 12500 test runs @ 57 +, could have gone on for 2 more years ) 

 

1) Lara: Will go on and on once set..a little more inconsistent than Tendulkar and Sangu, but a genius in a different league

 

2) Kallis ( Some Weakness against the swinging ball, good in Aus, not great, but masterful against Indian spinners in India, like no other batsman, a bowler too )

 

2) Ponting: A bit overrated i feel, terrible in Indian conditions, but has done well in Lanka, so not BAD player of spinners necessarily.

The best player on pitches with pace and bounce. 

 

2) Dravid: All round player, no weakness whatsoever, on any pitch or condition. Except failure to dominate..or drive the pace of the innings.

 

Clearly, Tendulkar had company. He has more volume in his numbers which were a function of longevity.

 

But for all his breathtaking stroke making talent and technical mastery,  never in my following him since 1991 have I seen him give a feeling of " total control"  that he would not get out when set. Dravid gave that feeling for a while.

 

Kohli gives a feeling of Dravid's solidity with Tendulkar's stroke making ability. 

 

He has too much fire to WIN for India at ALL COSTS, it shows in his attitude.

 

Kohli will break the records of all the 6 men above, except Lara's 400 maybe

(1) To be fair to Tendy, some of the decisions he received in Oz against McGrath and co were absolute howlers. Secondly, if you take 1993-2011 (which counts as a very long career by anyone's standards), he averaged around 59. In fact, even after 187 tests, he was averaging 56+.

 

(2) Dravid is one of my favs but to say that he had no weaknesses is an error. Was slightly suspect against high quality spin and didn't handle fast and bouncy pitches all that well - look at Oz and SA records away

Edited December 11, 2016 by Vijy