What do you think of Virat Kohli?

[harsh.ag]

****** because players develop their techniques in response to the kind of pitches/bowlers they usually play on/against and see around the world.

 

[G.I.Joe]

One question - Would Kohli have been as good as he is now if he played in 80's, using the cricket kit of that time (lighter bats) and superior bowling attacks ?

Kohli has perhaps the most amazing shot placement skillz of the current generation, so I guess he'd do fine if you handed him Ranji's bat right now. I don't think we even need to resort to the "he'd develop his skills to suit his era if he grew up back then" in his case.

Gayle on the other hand....

 

[Pratters]

****** because players develop their techniques in response to the kind of pitches/bowlers they usually play on/against and see around the world.

This is wrong theory. Dravid wouldn't become Gayle just because he keeps playing T20 cricket.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This is wrong theory. Dravid wouldn't become Gayle just because he keeps playing T20 cricket.

wut

That's not what he meant

 

[Pratters]

Err, players may develop techniques like he mentioned. However, they may not develop into as great players. I don't see how it's not intriguing to compare Gavaskar and SRT on sticky wickets. We always compare players across eras and have had Sticky XIs etc. Don't see why all of you are up in arms. Can it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Dravid won't ever develop into a Gayle, but that's not concerned with era differences. Rahane plays in the same era as Gayle and he won't be him either. That's just a function of the type of batsmen they are. It's like saying that Lance Gibbs won't become a Bruce Reid if he played in the 80s. Obviously he wouldn't because they're different types of bowlers.

Such comparisons require like-for-like players, but the problem with that is that it automatically loses the mystery because similar players would invariably adapt similarly.

 

[Pratters]

Tendulkar and Gavaskar are not Gayle and Dravid. However it's interesting as a cricket fan to see who would do how versus an Aussie attack of the 90s or Windies attack of the 70s or on various types of conditions and with different types of equipment etc. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Tendulkar and Gavaskar are not Gayle and Dravid. However it's interesting as a cricket fan to see who would do how versus an Aussie attack of the 90s or Windies attack of the 70s or on various types of conditions and with different types of equipment etc. It's not that hard to understand.

That's exactly the point. The hypothetical only makes sense with similar players, and the very fact that they are similar players makes it uninteresting because players of similar calibre and style would invariably tend to adapt similarly. The hypothetical becomes interesting only if that assertion is supported or refuted by way of citing specific instances or reasoning to the contrary. Merely saying that it's interesting without demonstrating what's interesting about it makes it a dull hypothetical.

 

[Pratters]

There are not just similar and dissimilar players. All players have various facets. Who would do better versus Windies attacks or the 70s say.. Kirsten, Hayden, Langer or Sehwag is an intriguing question.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Your hair looks pretty luxurious.

 

[Kirkut]

Recently I came across an interview with Wasim Akram and Viv Richards during PSL where they discussed about their playing days and how bats today have become so advanced. It's a common trend among 80's cricketers to diss modern day batsmen, you'd rarely hear from them on what modern batsmen have done better than their past counterparts. Which is why I asked whether Kohli would have had the same aura in the past as he has today. But then as most have said here already, let past be past, enjoy the present moment.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Recently I came across an interview with Wasim Akram and Viv Richards during PSL where they discussed about their playing days and how bats today have become so advanced. It's a common trend among 80's cricketers to diss modern day batsmen, you'd rarely hear from them on what modern batsmen have done better than their past counterparts. Which is why I asked whether Kohli would have had the same aura in the past as he has today. But then as most have said here already, let past be past, enjoy the present moment.

It's a common trend among human beings to elevate themselves above others through whatever means available, whether consciously or not

 

[vcs]

They aren't dissing anyone.. it's just a fact that technology has advanced a lot and helps modern day batsmen. It means that they are on average better at attacking, and poorer at defense and survival, than '80s batsmen. Whether that makes them better or worse overall is a matter of opinion.

 

[G.I.Joe]

They aren't dissing anyone.. it's just a fact that technology has advanced a lot and helps modern day batsmen. It means that they are on average better at attacking, and poorer at defense and survival, than '80s batsmen. Whether that makes them better or worse overall is a matter of opinion.

On average, yes. But chances are there exist some batsmen who are better at attacking for reasons other than technology. It reflects poorly on the 80s crowd that they lack the grace to acknowledge those players.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, good point Joe. Was at a talk show yesterday. Kallis made the point that he couldn't play like many modern day players do. When they started off, 200 was a par score, he said. It's not just the bats which make the modern players. The shots and batting in general has evolved a lot in 15-20 years.

 

[vcs]

On average, yes. But chances are there exist some batsmen who are better at attacking for reasons other than technology. It reflects poorly on the 80s crowd that they lack the grace to acknowledge those players.

Yeah, if they are talking in the context of specific greats of this era like De Villiers/Kohli etc. and bringing up technology to discredit them, that is unfair. If they are pointing out its influence to explain general trends in batting, that's pretty fair.

 

[Kirkut]

Dear lord, what is this guy made of ?

 

[Daemon]

"I felt that I could hit every ball of the first over for a six. But I stopped myself because I don't want to disrespect the sport"

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

"I felt that I could hit every ball of the first over for a six. But I stopped myself because I don't want to disrespect the sport"

What do you think of, Virat Kohli?

 

[vcs]

Just unbelievable form right now. I want him to save his runs for India, dammit!