Virat Kohli, the greatest ODI bat ever?

[Red]

Viv averaged 47 in ODIs, not 52. His SR was what put him ahead of the pack more than the average imo, as brilliant as it was. For Kohli it's the other way around.

We also always leave out Abbas (I don't know where he usually batted tbf) who averaged 47 at an SR of 85 in the same era as Viv. The only peer who can match his stats, albeit playing only 1/3 of the games.

Averaged 52 batting in the 3 & 4 positions.

 

[trundler]

I agree with Daemon. The only other batsman who really figured out ODIs from that period is Dean Jones.

 

[Red]

Ab is clearly a rung below Kohli.

For what reason? Especially when you say "clearly".

 

[Senile Sentry]

For what reason? Especially when you say "clearly".

For starters.. he averaged 7 points below Kohli. They have at the moment played same no of innings (maybe a few here or there )

 

[trundler]

Kohli's conversion rate is still unparalleled, no matter how you look at it.

 

[Red]

I agree with Daemon. The only other batsman who really figured out ODIs from that period is Dean Jones.

That's entirely not true. There were plenty of great batsmen. There weren't the bats that they have now, and there weren't the smaller grounds. And largely most batsmen still played orthodox style shots.

Guys like Miandad, Abbas, Boon, G.Chappell, Crowe etc were really good batsmen. It's just that the par score then was somewhere between 200-250, rather than closer to 300. To say that Viv was better than others because he'd "figured out" ODIs while the others hadn't pretty much just belittles how good he was. Make no mistake, he was something else.

 

[Red]

For starters.. he averaged 7 points below Kohli. They have at the moment played same no of innings (maybe a few here or there )

Well, AB's SR is almost 10 clear of Kohli, so there's also that.

 

[Daemon]

I agree with Daemon. The only other batsman who really figured out ODIs from that period is Dean Jones.

That's not exactly what I'm saying.

But basically you had generations of players that didn't prioritise the very little and unimportant domestic limited over cricket they played. The priority was always Tests, and so a greater number of players didn't develop the limited overs skillset from a young age. Of course there were exceptions - players who were naturally aggressive even in Tests and players who adapted very quickly.

Over time with the increasing importance of ODIs, you saw a higher proportion of players grow up placing emphasis on these limited overs skills. It then gets harder to be so far ahead of the curve.

This could all be bollocks but I think it has an effect that's worth acknowledging. I'm also not saying it's the primary reason why Viv was ahead of his peers, that would be ridiculous.

 

[vcs]

We'd better enjoy him while he's around. Players as good as him don't come along too often.

 

[trundler]

What I meant to say was that whilst there were plenty of great bats around, they were all still 'conservative'. Richards and to lesser extent Jones had a different, more 'modern' approach. They were ahead of the times if you will. Plus, many teams changed their approach to ODIs from the late 80s to mid 90s without significant technological advancement. Richards and Jones just did it first. Miandad, Greenidge etc batted more or less the same way in ODIs and tests. Richards was backing up and hitting sixes over extra cover in the 70s! His extraordinary ability obviously was a bigger factor in allowing him to do outrageous stuff like that.

Here's a scorecard that backs up my point: Full Scorecard of Australia vs West Indies, Australian Tri Series (CB Series), 3rd Final - Score Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

This tells me Richards would've averaged 60 at 120 today, without any exaggeration.

 

[trundler]

I don't mind bats as much as shorter boundaries, that last power play and that stupid 2 new balls rule.

 

[mr_mister]

Is there an argument along with that statement?

Legitimately, and especially highlighted in Red Hill's 75-91 analysis, how is Kohli even close to be as far ahead of the pack today as Richards' was against his peers. Richard's SR of 90 came in an era where 70 was outstanding... I mean even the great Gordon Greenidge had a SR of 64 IIRC. Kohli's average is brilliant, but his SR is just up with his peers, it's not really outstanding.

Well he scores a hundred every 5-6 games. Viv got one every 16-17. I feel like the different era argument only can elevate a player so far.

 

[mr_mister]

What I meant to say was that whilst there were plenty of great bats around, they were all still 'conservative'. Richards and to lesser extent Jones had a different, more 'modern' approach. They were ahead of the times if you will. Plus, many teams changed their approach to ODIs from the late 80s to mid 90s without significant technological advancement. Richards and Jones just did it first. Miandad, Greenidge etc batted more or less the same way in ODIs and tests. Richards was backing up and hitting sixes over extra cover in the 70s! His extraordinary ability obviously was a bigger factor in allowing him to do outrageous stuff like that.

Here's a scorecard that backs up my point: Full Scorecard of Australia vs West Indies, Australian Tri Series (CB Series), 3rd Final - Score Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

This tells me Richards would've averaged 60 at 120 today, without any exaggeration.

Can't Zaheer Abbas be included in the Jones/Viv class

 

[trundler]

Too short a career so dunno.

 

[mr_mister]

Too short a career so dunno.

Was it really though?

 

[trundler]

I'd say it goes:
Richards



Jones/Abbas*


Miandad/Crowe/Greenidge etc

The rest

*If you think he counts

Still only 3 batsmen.

 

[trundler]

There's really no way around the fact that Kohli is the greatest century maker of the format. It's unreal. Richards finest centuries were probably finer though and his best really stands out.

 

[mr_mister]

Laxmans best century stands out over Bradmans best

So what


41 centuries is insane. And it'd be a very conservative estimate to say hel get on to get only 60. I know we don't like predicting the rest of players careers but Kohli's rate seems to be speeding up not slowing down

 

[morgieb]

I feel like I'd still take Viv, but it's very close.

He's definitely a better ODI batsman than Sachin, though Sachin has arguably had the better career thus far.

 

[trundler]

I mean, I wasn't arguing against Kohli being unrivalled in this measure. My post started out saying just that.