Virat Kohli vs Sachin Tendulkar

[OverratedSanity]

Kohli fans btfo by pfk

 

[capt_Luffy]

In 1990s, Top 10 century scorers except Sachin Scored a century in every 13.9 matches.
Sachin was 50% better than them.

In 2010s, Top 10 except Kohli, scored a century in every 7.2 matches.
Kohli was 38% better than them.

If Sachin was born in the same year as Kohli, he would have already scored at least 80 ODI centuries against Kohli's 50.

2 Reasons
1. Sachin scores more centuries per match
2. 5 extra years in career.

I am not going to even comment on the logistics of that; just a genuine question; Do you really believe Sachin would had debuted at 17 in the 2010s?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I am not going to even comment on the logistics of that; just a genuine question; Do you really believe Sachin would had debuted at 17 in the 2010s?

No.. He would be in his 20s in 2010s.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I am not going to even comment on the logistics of that; just a genuine question; Do you really believe Sachin would had debuted at 17 in the 2010s?

He would have been debuted earlier.

in the 1980s and early 90s it was very rare a teenager gets the chance to play in international level, even Sachin's debut was delayed by a couple of months to protect him from West Indian pacers.
At the age of 18, he was world's biggest cricket star.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I said batting strike rate of 90 is enough for Virat's given role. We all have seen him scoring runs much much faster; but as it stands, the role of Virat Kohli in India team was to take his time and build the innings. More often than not the non striker is tasked with scoring fast. Virat had to just keep the singles on, which everyone knows he excelled at. Obviously Sehwag whose role was to give a quick start or Dhoni whose role was to finish swiftly will have higher strike rates..... Sachin got the advantage of first powerplay while opening and before Sehwag arrived he also gave India the headstart and ABD batted much lower down the order; their strike rates reflect that sincerely.
And also, Kohli's strike rate is not over 90 just due to his era; but because he knows how to take quick runs.... Are we still acting like VK and ABD played in drastically different eras?

AB and Kohli comparison needs fair amount of era adjustment... Because AB started few years before Kohli and Kohli still active 5 years after AB retirement.

You can not make excuses for the lower SR, if his SR was the result of careful batting, then he should have averaged more.

 

[capt_Luffy]

AB and Kohli comparison needs fair amount of era adjustment... Because AB started few years before Kohli and Kohli still active 5 years after AB retirement.

You can not make excuses for the lower SR, if his SR was the result of careful batting, then he should have averaged more.

More than 58?? Who do you think Kohli is!? Bradman??? His strike rate is 93, not 39..... You're trying to make it sound like he makes run of the speed of Gavaskar. Also, ABD debuted 3 years before Kohli; if anything, you could charge him points for longevity. As for the Sachin debuting in his teen years point; he wouldn't. He debuted back then because he was an anomaly, but more so because Indian batting was suffering HARD. In 2010s, he would had debuted in his early 20s....

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

More than 58?? Who do you think Kohli is!? Bradman??? His strike rate is 93, not 39..... You're trying to make it sound like he makes run of the speed of Gavaskar. Also, ABD debuted 3 years before Kohli; if anything, you could charge him points for longevity. As for the Sachin debuting in his teen years point; he wouldn't. He debuted back then because he was an anomaly, but more so because Indian batting was suffering HARD. In 2010s, he would had debuted in his early 20s....

If Sachin, Viv, AB, Zaheer.. Etc can avg 58 ( era adjusted ) with far better strike rate, Kohli should avg at least 70 to compensate his Lara/ Ponting league SR to Statistically Equal Sachin, Viv or AB. ( AB was not Bradman, yet he averaged more than Kohli throughout the period they played together.. Obviously the Strike rate was leagues ahead too)

It was tougher to get selection for a 16 year old in late 80s and early 90s than in 2000s, thats why 2000s saw more teenage international players compared to previous decades.

And FYI, as evident from 1990-1992 stats, Sachin would have been among at least top 3 batsmen of any team of that period.

In tests, He averaged 36 against an ATG attack in their soil, in his first series.
Next calendar year ( 1990) Sachin averaged more than 40 and established himself as a star.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

2010s Economy Rate

Malinga 5.46
Starc 5.02
Boult 5.05
Shami 5.5
Rabada 5
Cummins 5.14

1990s

Steve Waugh 4.57
Ameer Sohail 4.55
Mark Waugh 4.75
Sachin 4.92
DeSilva 4.88
Ganguly 4.96

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

If Sachin, Viv, AB, Zaheer.. Etc can avg 58 ( era adjusted ) with far better strike rate, Kohli should avg at least 70 to compensate his Lara/ Ponting league SR to Statistically Equal Sachin, Viv or AB. ( AB was not Bradman, yet he averaged more than Kohli throughout the period they played together.. Obviously the Strike rate was leagues ahead too)

It was tougher to get selection for a 16 year old in late 80s and early 90s than in 2000s, thats why 2000s saw more teenage international players compared to previous decades.

And FYI, as evident from 1990-1992 stats, Sachin would have been among at least top 3 batsmen of any team of that period.

In tests, He averaged 36 against an ATG attack in their soil, in his first series.
Next calendar year ( 1990) Sachin averaged more than 40 and established himself as a star.

Your era adjustments are very excessive. I’m not saying that an average of 44 in 90s is the same as 44 today, but it’s not equivalent to 65 either. And in ODIs, Sachin took time to find his form and the right position. In 2010s, he would have not been selected in the team in his teens atleast.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

And Kohli’s home away record is superior to Sachin’s in ODIs. Sachin averages sub 40 in Aus and SA. Kohli’s least average in a country is 49 in Sri Lanka

 

[Bolo.]

Without using actual stats, it feels like there are 4 eras of scoring rates, cutting off around the WCs.

1 low pre 1996
2 medium 96-2007
3 high 2007-2015
4 very high 2015- current

Viv is 100% low
Sachin is mainly medium, but with chunks of high and low
AB is mainly high, with bits of very high and medium
Virat is a split of high and very high.

WCs obviously aren't strict cutoff points, but feels fairly close.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Your era adjustments are very excessive. I’m not saying that an average of 44 in 90s is the same as 44 today, but it’s not equivalent to 65 either. And in ODIs, Sachin took time to find his form and the right position. In 2010s, he would have not been selected in the team in his teens atleast.

Sachin would have easily replaced Kaif / Laxman / Ganguly in early-mid 00s.

In 1990, Sachin averaged 24 at 99 SR.. Which is as good as 2004-2005 Sehwag, who averaged 30 at 101 SR.

44 then is not 65 today,
Sachin was good until 1994, 1994 onwards he became super great.

If we compare, Kohli's 2010s with Sachin's 1994-03

Kohli was better by 22% in avg, 4% in SR and 61% (century per innings ) in century scoring compared to next top 9 run scorers of 2010s.

Sachin was better by 17% in avg, 17% SR and 130% in century scoring compared to next top 9 run scorers of 1994-03

So, if the avg of top 9 batsmen is
50 avg, 80 SR and 33 centuries in 300 matches

Kohli stats will look like,
61 avg at 83 strike rate with 53 centuries

Sachin's will be
59 avg at 94 Strike rate with 76 centuries

Add that extra 5 years, his century count will be 85 or more

 

[Victor Ian]

If you believe Rohit Sharma was a better ODI player than Tendulkar, then sure, go ahead and talk about Kohli's superior stats. If you don't, then this kind of highlights that the modern average and 100s rate is overblown. Tendulkar today would average about the same as Kohli's but with a 120 or more strike rate and would have 80odd centuries.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

If you believe Rohit Sharma was a better ODI player than Tendulkar, then sure, go ahead and talk about Kohli's superior stats. If you don't, then this kind of highlights that the modern average and 100s rate is overblown. Tendulkar today would average about the same as Kohli's but with a 120 or more strike rate and would have 80odd centuries.

There is a significant gap between Rohit and Kohli. Gap in averages, conversion rate, home/away record etc

 

[Victor Ian]

But stats say Rohit is better than Tendulkar. This should make you think

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

But stats say Rohit is better than Tendulkar. This should make you think

I am not denying the fact that there should be era adjustment. And I am not saying Kohli is a massively better player than Tendulkar. It is very close. But with Kohli’s knockout performances, I go to him(did better than Tendulkar in both finals).

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sachin would have easily replaced Kaif / Laxman / Ganguly in early-mid 00s.

In 1990, Sachin averaged 24 at 99 SR.. Which is as good as 2004-2005 Sehwag, who averaged 30 at 101 SR.

44 then is not 65 today,
Sachin was good until 1994, 1994 onwards he became super great.

If we compare, Kohli's 2010s with Sachin's 1994-03

Kohli was better by 22% in avg, 4% in SR and 61% (century per innings ) in century scoring compared to next top 9 run scorers of 2010s.

Sachin was better by 17% in avg, 17% SR and 130% in century scoring compared to next top 9 run scorers of 1994-03

So, if the avg of top 9 batsmen is
50 avg, 80 SR and 33 centuries in 300 matches

Kohli stats will look like,
61 avg at 83 strike rate with 53 centuries

Sachin's will be
59 avg at 94 Strike rate with 76 centuries

Add that extra 5 years, his century count will be 85 or more

As I said, even in mid- 2000s; Sachin not debuting as a teenager is more likely than not..... Also, I think just by looking at only the top 10 batsmen over a period of 10 years; which were also Sachin's best, is not really a proper metric. Sachin would had scored faster than Virat, like Rohit; that's not the issue here; the issue is Virat's role has been to take his time and build the innings. He doesn't gets the powerplay freedom of Rohit.

 

[capt_Luffy]

But stats say Rohit is better than Tendulkar. This should make you think

Rohit is among India's top 5 ODI batsmen...... Ofcourse I am not calling him better than Sachin, as I am not saying Kohli is better than Sachin by a lot. Now, I am not saying an era adjustment is not needed; scoring runs in ODIs are now easier than ever before, but that even after era adjustment, Kohli's average stands tall.

 

[Victor Ian]

As I said, even in mid- 2000s; Sachin not debuting as a teenager is more likely than not..... Also, I think just by looking at only the top 10 batsmen over a period of 10 years; which were also Sachin's best, is not really a proper metric. Sachin would had scored faster than Virat, like Rohit; that's not the issue here; the issue is Virat's role has been to take his time and build the innings. He doesn't gets the powerplay freedom of Rohit.

Virats role has been to slow down the run rate to ensure he gets a hundred. Can't fault him.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Virats role has been to slow down the run rate to ensure he gets a hundred. Can't fault him.

That just happened in the SA game, where it was justified due to the nature of the pitch. The Bang, he literally amped up the RR to get to his hundred.