Virat Kohli, the greatest ODI bat ever?

[HouHsiaoHsien]

35-40 yrs old declining Sachin scored a 100 in every 6.5 matches.
And Odis got far easier for batting since then.

I don't know how Kohli is going to outclass a prime Sachin in tougher era of 90s.

Sure when you compare his stats with Kohli, who was good, but still in a rookie phase

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

No I’m just giving an example to show how Kohli’s SR has never disadvantaged India, and despite having a lower SR/lower era adjusted SR than other ATG’s, he has accomplished more crazy run chases than them. And sure Sachin’s SR in hindsight could have accorded Ind advantages that Kohli’s SR can’t, but it is ludicrous to believe that the gaps in Sachin and Kohli’s century conversion ratios or their chasing abilities could be bridged through era adjustment. There’s too much of a gap there.

Kohli's SR was never been a disadvantage, but Sachin's SR was an advantage for the team. Sachin's fast scoring compensated for other 70-75 SR batsmen.
Kohli was lucky to be in the company of many match winners, OTOH Sachin was doing double duty of Anchor and Attacker... And its not an easy task.

Sachin is clearly better.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Kohli's SR was never been a disadvantage, but Sachin's SR was an advantage for the team. Sachin's fast scoring compensated for other 70-75 SR batsmen.
Kohli was lucky to be in the company of many match winners, OTOH Sachin was doing double duty of Anchor and Attacker... And its not an easy task.

Sachin is clearly better.

In terms of SR, sure

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Sure when you compare his stats with Kohli, who was good, but still in a rookie phase

What
So far, Kohli scored a 100 in every 5.75 matches ( yet to decline )
A declining 35+ Sachin was scoring 100s in every 6.5 matches in a tougher era.

Kohli slightly better than declining Sachin in a tougher era.
Its obvious, Sachin is better after era adjustment.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

In terms of SR, sure

Avg - same league
Century conversion - Same league
SR - Sachin far better

 

[honestbharani]

I dont believe in any nonsensical earmarking of ODI numbers except for relativistic comparisons within the specific eras given how dynamic the rules have been in the ODI format, esp. from 2000 or so.

Very simply, I think raw numbers are never a great measure to go by esp. in a format that has fluctuated as wildly as ODIs have over the years. Sachin seemed to show a kind of consistency that was never witnessed before and pulled off enough great innings in between to be considered at the Platinum tier along with Richards. Now, so has Virat. What differentiates them ultimately for me is the sheer adaptability Sachin showed over so many different rule changes and how consistently he remained near or at the top of ODI batsmen around the world from about 1994 till 2011. That period is almost as much as Kohli's career, probably longer and there was a period when he was a very good #4-6 in ODIs before that as well.

In summary, I just think Sachin, Virat and Richards were all the best ODI bats of their generation but I just feel Richards and Sachin stood out ahead of the pack a tad more than Virat has. They are all in the same tier for me but still, Richards > Sachin > Virat > AB for these reasons.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Sachin > Viv
Abdv
Kohli
Dhoni > Lara > Ponting > Bevan > Abbas > Jones


If not for longevity, Abbas would have been in the Sachin's excusive club of Premium Avg + SR + Century ratio.

 

[honestbharani]

Sachin > Viv
Abdv
Kohli
Dhoni > Lara > Ponting > Bevan > Abbas > Jones


If not for longevity, Abbas would have been in the Sachin's excusive club of Premium Avg + SR + Century ratio.

Nah.. almost every factor u r using to bump up Sachin V Kohli also bumps up Viv V Sachin. Viv was just unparalleled to an extent no one else ever has been in ODIs.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Nah.. almost every factor u r using to bump up Sachin V Kohli also bumps up Viv V Sachin. Viv was just unparalleled to an extent no one else ever has been in ODIs.

Partly because, he played in the developing era of ODIs.
Sort of like Sachin's 94 SR as an opener before 1996 WC, when everyone else was below 80.
Also Zaheer Abbas was very close to Viv in terms of Avg and SR and far ahead in century conversion.

 

[honestbharani]

Partly because, he played in the developing era of ODIs.
Sort of like Sachin's 94 SR as an opener before 1996 WC, when everyone else was below 80.
Also Zaheer Abbas was very close to Viv in terms of Avg and SR and far ahead in century conversion.

Dude, you are basically defining Sachin's period as the best era of ODI cricket and I think its a case of tail wagging the dog.

If you think ODIs improve over time, then Virat is the best. If you think being much better than next best is a bigger factor, then Viv is the best. Sachin is a definite 2nd in either criteria and there are grounds to argue he is the best ever but not based on the made-up factors you are suggesting.

This reminds me of Australian poster Ikki who used to big up certain factors when they suited Warne in his comparisons Vs Murali but then rubbished same factors when its suited Sobers in his comparisons Vs Miller.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Dude, you are basically defining Sachin's period as the best era of ODI cricket and I think its a case of tail wagging the dog.

If you think ODIs improve over time, then Virat is the best. If you think being much better than next best is a bigger factor, then Viv is the best. Sachin is a definite 2nd in either criteria and there are grounds to argue he is the best ever but not based on the made-up factors you are suggesting.

This reminds me of Australian poster Ikki who used to big up certain factors when they suited Warne in his comparisons Vs Murali but then rubbished same factors when its suited Sobers in his comparisons Vs Miller.

ODIs peaked in 90s.
That said, Sachin proved his worth in Viv era too.. ie, Pre 1996 WC, Sachin was averaging 49 at 94 SR as opener. Sachin remained the same, rest of the batsmen improved their SR after the WC. So the gap narrowed, the same would have happened with Viv, had he played in the 90s.
Another thing to be noted, Sachin had additional liability to maintain the team stability, which forced him to slow down, Viv had no such restrictions.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you think ODIs improve over time

The standard has lowered since the 90s IMO

 

[Line and Length]

The standard has lowered since the 90s IMO

Since T20s

 

[TheJediBrah]

Since T20s

Yeah fair point it was still pretty solid up until about 2005, then the bowling quality especially fell off a cliff

 

[Spark]

ODIs peaked in 90s.
That said, Sachin proved his worth in Viv era too.. ie, Pre 1996 WC, Sachin was averaging 49 at 94 SR as opener. Sachin remained the same, rest of the batsmen improved their SR after the WC. So the gap narrowed, the same would have happened with Viv, had he played in the 90s.
Another thing to be noted, Sachin had additional liability to maintain the team stability, which forced him to slow down, Viv had no such restrictions.

If you just arbitrarily assume he would have been better in hypothetical situations he never actually encountered then naturally he'll come out better but there's no reason anyone else has to take such claims seriously.

 

[Victor Ian]

If not for longevity, Abbas would have been in the Sachin's excusive club of Premium Avg + SR + Century ratio.

After reading a never ending list of excuses from you regarding any slight on Sachin, I like this slip.

 

[ankitj]

Sachin > Viv
Abdv
Kohli
Dhoni > Lara > Ponting > Bevan > Abbas > Jones


If not for longevity, Abbas would have been in the Sachin's excusive club of Premium Avg + SR + Century ratio.

You earn a like from me for not forgetting Abbas and Jones. Viv > Sachin though

 

[ankitj]

Yeah fair point it was still pretty solid up until about 2005, then the bowling quality especially fell off a cliff

Why? Batsmen dominating doesn't mean quality has dropped. The rule changes with two new balls and quality of bats have helped batsmen but that doesn't mean anyone's skill degraded. On the flip side DRS has brought lot more lbws into equation leading to renewed role of spinners. In fact one noticeable improvement has been how batsmen from more recent times approach big chases with minimal fuss¹ compared to batsmen from 90s who virtually froze in big chases. That's a positive development.

¹ I somehow feel this aspect peaked about 10 years ago (not coincidentally coinciding with Kohli's chase master phase) and since then approach to big chases has gone backwards

 

[honestbharani]

I wonder how today's T20 gen batsmen will go with 2 fielders in 15 yard circle, only 2 out of the 30 yard circle for 15 overs and any ball above shoulder high is a no-ball.

There are pros and cons with all sides. The run inflation we are seeing now is a direct result of the T20 impact, than any major rule changes, which have always been tinkered with since the 90s.

 

[Spark]

I wonder how today's T20 gen batsmen will go with 2 fielders in 15 yard circle, only 2 out of the 30 yard circle for 15 overs and any ball above shoulder high is a no-ball.

There are pros and cons with all sides. The run inflation we are seeing now is a direct result of the T20 impact, than any major rule changes, which have always been tinkered with since the 90s.

You've actually left out possibly the biggest factor of all, which is the bats themselves. You used to have to absolutely nail a shot out of a middle to get a six, now mis-hit sixes are such a norm that it's actually bad batting to not try and hit the ball for six because in many cases it's a safer shot than trying to hit it down and flat and risking it going off a slight top edge at catchable height