Areas where Kohli is better than Tendulkar as a player.

[narenpande1]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Spoken like someone who doesnt understand the formula or method of calculating the rankings.

But tell us more about whats going on inside the heads of people you don't know and what their 'inner secrets and true motivations' are.

 

And you spoke like a true ignorant..you berate the ratings because he was not in the top 3 for more than 50 % of his career. The greatest of the greatest not in the top 3 for 50 % of his career. Must happen only in the blind world of Sachin fan boys

 

I understand the ratings formula much better than you ever will.

 

Ratings at the top is a measure of dominance in your era.... Thats how they measure dominance in tennis. Almost always players who have been No1 for maximum weeks, win the most grand slams in  their era.

 

But who am I talking to. A one eyed fan boy.

Edited December 11, 2016 by narenpande1

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, narenpande1 said:

 

And you spoke like a true ignorant..you berate the ratings because he was not in the top 3 for more than 50 % of his career.

 

I understand the ratings formula much better than you ever will.

 

Ratings at the top is a measure of dominance in your era.... Thats how they measure dominance in tennis. Almost always players who have been No1 for maximum weeks, win the most grand slams in  their era.

 

But who am I talking to. A one eyed fan boy.

1. Nobody is a top 3 player for 50% of his career. Except maybe Don Bradman

2. You don't understand the rating formula or else you wouldn't bring in the absurd question. 

3. Ratings at the top is directly reflected by four factors: a) your performance b) how many matches you played c) how many matches the opposition bowler/batsmen have played d) their performance. 

4. Tennis is a far simpler sport to rate, coz its an individual sport and ranking points are easy to allocate in direct, knockout competitions.

There are no bilateral in tennis to muddle the formula.

5. You are talking to someone who's seen cricket for longer than you have been alive, bacchey. But hey, continue to argue that a batsman who is averaging 50+ for a calendar year for only the second time in an inflated batting average era is better than a batsman who's averaged 50+ for TWELVE years, half of which came in an era when only 3 other batsman apart from himself averaged 50+ (Steve Waugh, Andy Flower & Dravid).

 

[narenpande1]

15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Nobody is a top 3 player for 50% of his career. Except maybe Don Bradman

2. You don't understand the rating formula or else you wouldn't bring in the absurd question. 

3. Ratings at the top is directly reflected by four factors: a) your performance b) how many matches you played c) how many matches the opposition bowler/batsmen have played d) their performance. 

4. Tennis is a far simpler sport to rate, coz its an individual sport and ranking points are easy to allocate in direct, knockout competitions.

There are no bilateral in tennis to muddle the formula.

5. You are talking to someone who's seen cricket for longer than you have been alive, bacchey. But hey, continue to argue that a batsman who is averaging 50+ for a calendar year for only the second time in an inflated batting average era is better than a batsman who's averaged 50+ for TWELVE years, half of which came in an era when only 3 other batsman apart from himself averaged 50+ (Steve Waugh, Andy Flower & Dravid).

 

 

The rating is not manufactured in anybody's chacha's office. These are standard ratings, fair and all encompassing and a weighted average of 

12 point criteria. Since you don't know the ingredients let me educate you a bit old man.

 

1) Batting Base points

2. Pitch Index

3. Bowling Quality Index

4. Percentage of Score Index

5. Point of Entry Index

6. After point of Entry Index

7. Wkts falling while at crease Index.
8. Support Index

9. Shepherding of Tail enders Index

10. Highest score Index

11. Match Status Index

12. Result contribution Index. 

Overall ratings is Weighted avg of the above  12 indices.

 

Please let me know where your greatest of the greatest  hero got robbed that he was not in the top 5 for over 60 % of his playing career.

Edited December 11, 2016 by narenpande1

[renjith]

This comparison with sachin is a never ending procees. I guess it started with inzamam ul haq way back in 1992. So many other names came up in the last 24 years. Lara was the one who came close. few years back it was cook. now nobody is talking about cook. latest is kohli and will certainly be not the last.

Edited December 11, 2016 by renjith

[narenpande1]

3 minutes ago, renjith said:

This comparison with sachin is a never ending procees. I guess it started with inzamam ul haq way back in 1992. So many other names came up in the last 24 years. few years back it was cook. now nobody is talking about cook. latest is kohli and will certainly be not the last.

 

Inzamam is barely in the top 10 of his time

 

Tendulkar is the greatest Test batsmen since Bradman - but only marginally ahead of his peers.

 

Kohli is the heir apparent.

 

End of thread.

Edited December 11, 2016 by narenpande1

[Vijy]

16 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

Inzamam is barely in the top 10 of his time

 

Tendulkar is the greatest Test batsmen since Bradman - but only marginally ahead of his peers.

 

Kohli is the heir apparent.

 

End of thread.

these X vs Y threads never end in batting unless X (or Y) = Bradman.

[velu]

6 hours ago, renjith said:

Sachin

Test: 51 century - 20 wins, 20 draw, 11 loss (in those matches were he got centuries)
Win %:  39.22

Top Innings

136 V PAKISTAN, CHENNAI, 1999 (akram, waqar, saqlain)
114 V AUSTRALIA, PERTH, 1992 (mcdermott, huges, reiffel, whitney)
146 V SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN, 2011 (steyn, morkel)
155* V AUSTRALIA, CHENNAI, 1998 (kasprowicz, reiffel, warne)
103* V ENGLAND, CHENNAI, 2008 (harmison, anderson, flintoff, swan, panesar)
169 V SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN, 1997 (donald, pollock, klusner, mcmillan)
193 V ENGLAND, LEEDS, 2002 (hoggard, caddick, flintoff, giles)
119 V ENGLAND, MANCHESTER, 1990 (devon malcon, fraser, chris lewis)
116 V AUSTRALIA, MELBOURNE, 1999 (mcgrath, lee, fleming, warne)
241* V AUSTRALIA, SIDNEY, 2004 (lee, gillespie, macgil)

 

Kohli

Test: 15 century, 5 wins, 5 draw, 4 loss, 1 tbd (in those matches were he got centuries)
Win %: 33.33 (1 tbd, if we win this test match, this will become 40)

Top Innings

119 V SOUTH AFRICA, NEW WANDERERS, 2013 (steyn, philander, morkel, kallis)
116 V AUSTRALIA, ADELAIDE, 2012 (harris, siddle, hilfenhaus, lyon)
115 V AUSTRALIA, ADELAIDE, 2014 (johnson, harris, siddle, marsh, lyon)
141 V AUSTRALIA, ADELAIDE, 2014 (johnson, harris, siddle, marsh, lyon)
169 V AUSTRALIA, MELBOURNE, 2014 (johnson, harris, hazlewood, watson, lyon)
147 V AUSTRALIA, SIDNEY, 2015 (starc, harris, hazlewood, watson, lyon)
105* V NEW ZEALAND, BASIN RESERVE, 2014 (boult, southee, wagner, anderson)
103 V ENGLAND, NAGPUR, 2012 (anderson, bresnan, panesar, swan)
107 V AUSTRALIA, CHENNAI 2013 (starc, pattinson, siddle, lyon)
167 V ENGLAND, VISAKHAPATANAM, 2016 (anderson, board, stokes, rashid, moen ali)
200* V ENGLAND, MUMBAI, 2016 (anderson, woakes, stokes, rashid, moen ali)

 

Kohli is only into his 5th year as a test player. So if we compare the first 5 years of both players careers, both are heads on. sachin played around 5 world class innings during that period and kohli also has similar or more number of top class innings (sachin played less number of test during his first 5 years).

 

The main factors that separates sachin from kohli imo are:

sachin has atleast 25 more world class test centuries than kohli. for example the 111 against sa at wanderers in 1992, 122 against england at edgebaston in 1996 are better than the best innings kohli has so far played but still can't find a place in the best 10 innings sachin played. there is no reason why kohli can't match that after he plays same number of matches as sachin. but until he does that its only an extrapolation.

the quality of attacks sachin faced were far better than the current ones.

the pitches were more bowler friendly than these days (just compare todays australian pitches with the ones in 90s)

the amount of pressure sachin had in the first 10 years of his career is not comparable to just kohli but to any sports person ever played in my opinion.

 

 

ODIs ?

[express bowling]

deleted

Edited December 11, 2016 by express bowling

[putrevus]

This notion that Sachin played better bowling attacks is just plain silly, Sachin after his first series against Pakistan where he did not do much played them again in 1998 and other than his Chennai hundred he did not do anything significant against them in India again even without Waqar and Wasim.

Against Aussies he scored one hundred in 1999 with Mcgrath and Warne .It is not his fault that they were not playing but he was playing against Brad Williams in one series.South Africa attack with Donald was good but Steyn with Vernon is deadly too which both of them played well.

Against  Srilanka with Murali in full flow Sachin never played there he missed 2001 series and in 2008 series he did not do anything.England was the weakest in 1990s period, Aussies were beating them for fun during that period. West indies he toured once when Ambrose and Walsh were playing together and scored zero hundreds.

So which great bowling attack did Sachin play and dominate for whole series.

[express bowling]

25 minutes ago, putrevus said:

This notion that Sachin played better bowling attacks is just plain silly, Sachin after his first series against Pakistan where he did not do much played them again in 1998 and other than his Chennai hundred he did not do anything significant against them in India again even without Waqar and Wasim.

Against Aussies he scored one hundred in 1999 with Mcgrath and Warne .It is not his fault that they were not playing but he was playing against Brad Williams in one series.South Africa attack with Donald was good but Steyn with Vernon is deadly too which both of them played well.

Against  Srilanka with Murali in full flow Sachin never played there he missed 2001 series and in 2008 series he did not do anything.England was the weakest in 1990s period, Aussies were beating them for fun during that period. West indies he toured once when Ambrose and Walsh were playing together and scored zero hundreds.

So which great bowling attack did Sachin play and dominate for whole series.

 

Current day bowling attacks are under-estimated too.

 

We played Steyn, Morkel, Philander in the SA tour of 2013-14,  Boult, Southee, Wagner  in NZ tour of 2014,  Broad, Anderson, Woakes  in England 2014, Johnson, Harris, Hazlewood, Lyon in Australian our 2014-15.

 

And  Kohli, Rahane and Vijay did really well on most of those tours.

[renjith]

1 hour ago, velu said:

 

ODIs ?

ODI rules were completely different for both players its hard to compare. 20 over power plays and free hit are completely in favour of batsmen these days. These stats are collected from various websites and dated april 2016.

 

Anyways a comparison shows sachin is better in knock outs and kohli is better while over all chasing (not just knock outs)

 

Knock outs:

Sachin
51 innings, 2431 runs, avg 52.84, sr 85.65, 7 centuries, 14 half centuries, india won 27 matches out of those. his average in those 27 matches is 76.6 at sr 92.49

Kohli
12 innings, 244 runs, avg 24.40, sr 74.39, 1 half century, india won 9 matches out of those. his average in those 9 matches is 29.14 at sr 81.6

 

Chasing:

AVERAGE WHEN INDIA BATTED SECOND
Tendulkar    42.33
Kohli    61.22

AVERAGE WHEN INDIA WON BATTING 2nd
Tendulkar    55.45
Kohli    83.97

NO. of 100s WHEN INDIA BATTED SECOND
Tendulkar    17
Kohli    15

NO. of 100s WHEN INDIA WON CHASING
Tendulkar    14
Kohli    13

50+ SCORES IN CHASES
Tendulkar    69
Kohli    37

50+ SCORES IN WINNING CHASES
Tendulkar    45
Kohli    27

 

 

[Vijy]

3 hours ago, putrevus said:

This notion that Sachin played better bowling attacks is just plain silly, Sachin after his first series against Pakistan where he did not do much played them again in 1998 and other than his Chennai hundred he did not do anything significant against them in India again even without Waqar and Wasim.

Against Aussies he scored one hundred in 1999 with Mcgrath and Warne .It is not his fault that they were not playing but he was playing against Brad Williams in one series.South Africa attack with Donald was good but Steyn with Vernon is deadly too which both of them played well.

Against  Srilanka with Murali in full flow Sachin never played there he missed 2001 series and in 2008 series he did not do anything.England was the weakest in 1990s period, Aussies were beating them for fun during that period. West indies he toured once when Ambrose and Walsh were playing together and scored zero hundreds.

So which great bowling attack did Sachin play and dominate for whole series.

Don't think it's so much about "big" names, and more about the pitches, the bats, etc. I for one believe that the pitches have, by and large (not always of course) gotten a bit flatter - case in point is Oz.

 

That 1999 tour you mentioned had several egregious umpiring howlers that you probably don't remember. SRT avg over 50 that series, and could have easily ended with an avg of 65-70 sans those howlers.

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, putrevus said:

This notion that Sachin played better bowling attacks is just plain silly, Sachin after his first series against Pakistan where he did not do much played them again in 1998 and other than his Chennai hundred he did not do anything significant against them in India again even without Waqar and Wasim.

Against Aussies he scored one hundred in 1999 with Mcgrath and Warne .It is not his fault that they were not playing but he was playing against Brad Williams in one series.South Africa attack with Donald was good but Steyn with Vernon is deadly too which both of them played well.

Against  Srilanka with Murali in full flow Sachin never played there he missed 2001 series and in 2008 series he did not do anything.England was the weakest in 1990s period, Aussies were beating them for fun during that period. West indies he toured once when Ambrose and Walsh were playing together and scored zero hundreds.

So which great bowling attack did Sachin play and dominate for whole series.

Umm, you forgot to mention that when Sachin played versus Ambrose-Walsh, he averaged 55+, he also averaged 49-50 in the disastrous tour of Australia in 99 when everyone except Tendy got owned by their bowling- which included McGrath & Warne. 

He also dominated McGrath & Warne in the 2002 series- albeit, VVS stole the show that series. 

In general, Sachin played against vastly superior attacks on vastly harder pitches than Kohli. The attack of England was similar to what they have today - the only difference between Anderson & Broad vs Angus Fraser/Andy Caddick/Darren Gough is longetivity- they took almost exactly same # of wickets, at similar average & strike rate. South Africa attack in the 90s was superior too - Donald-DeVilliers-Pollock-Ntini were superior to Steyn-Morkel-Philander, pretty much because except for Steyn, Pollock, Ntini & Devilliers were superior to Morkel-Philander-Abbott. 

New Zealand had a similar attack as now in pace but better overall because Vettori was their best spinner ever. Tendulkar also played against an ATG attack in Pakistan, Sri Lanka too had a much, much better attack because of Vaas-Murali.

 

The fact that pitches were also far harder to bat on, is proven by the fact that throughout the 90s, only 5 batsmen averaged 50+ : Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara, Steve Waugh & Andy Flower. In the 2000s-present, we have thrice as many batsmen averaging 50+ and the overall team score also has ballooned significantly.

 

But most importantly, this thread reeks of a young kid who has barely watched any cricket, since comparing ONE year of Kohl's dominance to 19 years of Tendulkar's dominance is laughable. Kohli may be the heir apparent to Tendulkar, but he is so, so far behind the master, its not even funny. For example, Tendulkar is a lock in any hypothetical all-time XI. Kohli as it stands, is not even guaranteed a spot in the all-India XI, let alone the world.

 

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Umm, you forgot to mention that when Sachin played versus Ambrose-Walsh, he averaged 55+, he also averaged 49-50 in the disastrous tour of Australia in 99 when everyone except Tendy got owned by their bowling- which included McGrath & Warne. 

He also dominated McGrath & Warne in the 2002 series- albeit, VVS stole the show that series. 

In general, Sachin played against vastly superior attacks on vastly harder pitches than Kohli. The attack of England was similar to what they have today - the only difference between Anderson & Broad vs Angus Fraser/Andy Caddick/Darren Gough is longetivity- they took almost exactly same # of wickets, at similar average & strike rate. South Africa attack in the 90s was superior too - Donald-DeVilliers-Pollock-Ntini were superior to Steyn-Morkel-Philander, pretty much because except for Steyn, Pollock, Ntini & Devilliers were superior to Morkel-Philander-Abbott. 

New Zealand had a similar attack as now in pace but better overall because Vettori was their best spinner ever. Tendulkar also played against an ATG attack in Pakistan, Sri Lanka too had a much, much better attack because of Vaas-Murali.

 

The fact that pitches were also far harder to bat on, is proven by the fact that throughout the 90s, only 5 batsmen averaged 50+ : Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara, Steve Waugh & Andy Flower. In the 2000s-present, we have thrice as many batsmen averaging 50+ and the overall team score also has ballooned significantly.

 

But most importantly, this thread reeks of a young kid who has barely watched any cricket, since comparing ONE year of Kohl's dominance to 19 years of Tendulkar's dominance is laughable. Kohli may be the heir apparent to Tendulkar, but he is so, so far behind the master, its not even funny. For example, Tendulkar is a lock in any hypothetical all-time XI. Kohli as it stands, is not even guaranteed a spot in the all-India XI, let alone the world.

 

I thought (taking 1990-1999) that the five were: Gooch, SRT, Prince Lara, Tugga... and Ganguly.

Regarding your post, I do firmly believe in what you said about the pitches - its rare to find ones like that Jamaica pitch which most probably remember well.

 

Moving on, I think that the Aus attacks (even when they didn't have McG) were better than the current ones (on account of Warne/McGill); SA may actually have a slightly better one now (but SRT in SA '11 was truly memorable), ditto NZ. Eng has indeed been about the same (Gough/Caddick vs Andi/Broad). SL was better too, albeit not by much. Pak for me has declined, and VK hasn't yet played against them.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Vijy

[sandeep]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

But most importantly, this thread reeks of a young kid who has barely watched any cricket, since comparing ONE year of Kohl's dominance to 19 years of Tendulkar's dominance is laughable. Kohli may be the heir apparent to Tendulkar, but he is so, so far behind the master, its not even funny. For example, Tendulkar is a lock in any hypothetical all-time XI. Kohli as it stands, is not even guaranteed a spot in the all-India XI, let alone the world.

 

Harshly put, but a valid point made in there.

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Vijy said:

I thought (taking 1990-1999) that the five were: Gooch, SRT, Prince Lara, Tugga... and Ganguly.

Ganguly didnt average 50+ in the 90s. He ended the 1990s just a shade under 50. Gooch did average 50+ for the 90s. I forgot about him. So make it 6 batsmen. I was also wrong about Flower- he averaged 44 in the 90s.

But bear in mind, only  Lara, Tendulkar and Steve Waugh were the only ones to play through most/all of the 90s and average 50+. The rest of them did it for a few years only. But either way, the overall point is still valid.

 

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Harshly put, but a valid point made in there.

Certainly hammered his point home, a la Sehwag. I'm mostly inclined to agree. People focus too much on SRT's last 2.5 crappy years, and that horrible quest for the 100th 100. They forget his pomp, which (with some ups and downs) lasted from 1993-2011. Even after 180 Tests, he was averaging 56+... Kohli has a long, long road ahead of him. Bowlers will target him more, injuries can occur, and the inexorable march of old age will arrive at some point.

[Vijy]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Ganguly didnt average 50+ in the 90s. He ended the 1990s just a shade under 50. Gooch did average 50+ for the 90s. I forgot about him. So make it 6 batsmen. I was also wrong about Flower- he averaged 44 in the 90s.

But bear in mind, only  Lara, Tendulkar and Steve Waugh were the only ones to play through most/all of the 90s and average 50+. The rest of them did it for a few years only. But either way, the overall point is still valid.

 

Yes, but it's so close to 50, one can just place it. And yes, your overall point is fully valid. I was just trying to sneak Gang's name in there :P

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Yes, but it's so close to 50, one can just place it. And yes, your overall point is fully valid. I was just trying to sneak Gang's name in there :P

Yeah. The modified list should be then Gooch, Steve Waugh, Tendulkar, Lara, Ganguly(almost) & Dravid.

 

[sandeep]

^  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.  

 

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by sandeep
mentions