Rank them as odi batsmen : Viv. Sachin. Kohli

[sayon basak]

It was a new format. The cricketers took some time to adjust whereas Viv being a naturally aggressive batsman flourished.

In any other era he would have been arguably the best one day batsman as well but would not have been that special.

Still you'd have to give him credit for flourishing in a bowler friendly era.

 

[Johan]

like if the argument was they didn't know it in first year or so it would maybe make sense, them not realizing how to play ODI after 7-8 years of the format being around doesn't make sense.

especially since the lads in 2007 T20 WC knew how to play it from day one, there wasn't some learning curve there for a decade.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Viv
Kohli
Sachin

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

People knew what to do, they had people like Viv/Kapil/Abbas to emulate, they just weren't able to do it because it was a bowler dominated era.

Abbas, Viv, Kapil and Sachin.

Before 1996 WC, 2nd highest SR for any opener in the history was Jayasuriya's 78.

Highest was Sachin.. 94 SR.

But then there was a sudden shift in strike rates post 1996 WC. Same batsmen who were scoring slowly started scoring much faster. I dont think Kapil would have been a 150 Strike rate batsmen if played in mid 90s.

 

[Arachnödouche2.0]

It was a new format. The cricketers took some time to adjust whereas Viv being a naturally aggressive batsman flourished.

In any other era he would have been arguably the best one day batsman as well but would not have been that special.

Tend to agree with this. You have to give Richards credit for being so far ahead of the curve but it also was his nature; not like he introduced a drastically different facet of his game when playing ODIs. He was an outlier in his time, the field was all of one man. Which again is great, undoubtedly, but it's easier to make value judgements when a relative state of equilibrium w.r.t. global skills and attitudes has been attained. Also why Bradman is a grey area; for all we know he was batting with a squash ball in his glove which gave him such a ridiculous advantage over his peers.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Like Viv, Sachin was super dominant (among openers) until 1996 WC. ( Viv couldn't score centuries like Sachin. Viv never had to adjust his game according to team needs )

Like Kohli, Sachin was a great accumulator and scored centuries in an insane rate. ( Kohli is a slow scorer compared to Viv, AB or Sachin )

Like Abbas, Sachin combined great century ratio, great avg and great SR ( Abbas lacked longevity )

And Sachin played in 3 different eras. No other batsman successfully performed triple duty of Accumulator, Attacker and Anchor.

Sachin > Viv > AB > Kohli.

If you check Kohli's prime period, it was AB the best batsman in the world with higher avg and far higher SR.

 

[DrWolverine]

Still you'd have to give him credit for flourishing in a bowler friendly era.

100%

 

[Johan]

Tend to agree with this. You have to give Richards credit for being so far ahead of the curve but it also was his nature; not like he introduced a drastically different facet of his game when playing ODIs. He was an outlier in his time, the field was all of one man. Which again is great, undoubtedly, but it's easier to make value judgements when a relative state of equilibrium w.r.t. global skills and attitudes has been attained. Also why Bradman is a grey area; for all we know he was batting with a squash ball in his glove which gave him such a ridiculous advantage over his peers.

I mean, what is to say a global skills and attitude hadn't been developed? Lamb, Boon, Gooch and so forth all learnt how to play one days and had a decade or so to figure it out before Viv and Kapil went ballastic, especially since the world cup was a spectacle already and there is no reason countless adult men over a decade or so could not figure out something as simple as "bat faster, play more lofted shots" which is something that statisically people like Abbas and Amiss had figured out in their first innings. What if Viv is not simply ahead of the curve in a game that is yet to develope but a complete deviation from the norm the same way the likes of Hobbs and Bradman and then Smith in 2010s were? we've seen this concept many times in bowling as well, we don't simply downgrade the skill of every cricketer in that era when that happens so is there a reason for us to downgrade the era instead of awarding the deviation in Viv's case? feel like people are clutching at straws to push Tendulkar further even though there is a clear margin.

 

[DrWolverine]

like if the argument was they didn't know it in first year or so it would maybe make sense, them not realizing how to play ODI after 7-8 years of the format being around doesn't make sense.

In general, there is a difference between how T20s were played a decade ago to T20s played today.

 

[DrWolverine]

I dont think Kapil would have been a 150 Strike rate batsmen if played in mid 90s.

Kapil would have been a very destructive lower order batsman if he played today but I doubt he would be significantly ahead of someone like Andre Russell.

 

[Johan]

In general, there is a difference between how T20s were played a decade ago to T20s played today.

LO pitches are flatter today then they were 20 years ago.

 

[DrWolverine]

Tend to agree with this. You have to give Richards credit for being so far ahead of the curve but it also was his nature; not like he introduced a drastically different facet of his game when playing ODIs.

The other batsmen had to adjust to a new format because they were grew up learning defensive style of batting since that was the norm in Tests.

Richards was always an aggressive batsman and as early as in 1976 he scored 291 off 386 balls so he was able to adjust to ODIs much easier.

 

[DrWolverine]

What if Viv is not simply ahead of the curve in a game that is yet to develope but a complete deviation from the norm the same way the likes of Hobbs and Bradman and then Smith in 2010s were?

No doubt Hobbs is one of the best ever. It is not really his fault but he played the game in 1900s where pitches may have been more difficult but level of competition and variety is definitely not even comparable to the one that batsmen faced many decades later. I feel he hardly faced the level of competition that the likes of Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Sunil Gavaskar or Sachin Tendulkar did in their career.

 

[Johan]

No doubt Hobbs is one of the best ever. It is not really his fault but he played the game in 1900s where pitches may have been more difficult but level of competition and variety is definitely not even comparable to the one that batsmen faced many decades later. I feel he hardly faced the level of competition that the likes of Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Sunil Gavaskar or Sachin Tendulkar did in their career.

I mean yeah, he hardly faced the same number of ATG bowlers but he faced them on nightmare wickets where even decent bowlers would've ATG output, The best Australian player averaged 39 at the time...Hobbs averaged 58...while England was much tougher than Australia since mid 1890s to boot, we don't downgrade everyone because one like Hobbs is just a freak of nature, same way Viv was a freak of nature for 80s ODI.

 

[Johan]

The other batsmen had to adjust to a new format because they were grew up learning defensive style of batting since that was the norm in Tests.

I wonder why all the great ODI players happen to also be stellar test players... it's almost like having a strong base and core is not a negative.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I mean yeah, he hardly faced the same number of ATG bowlers but he faced them on nightmare wickets where even decent bowlers would've ATG output, The best Australian player averaged 39 at the time...Hobbs averaged 58...while England was much tougher than Australia since mid 1890s to boot, we don't downgrade everyone because one like Hobbs is just a freak of nature, same way Viv was a freak of nature for 80s ODI.

Not just Viv.. Abbas, Kapil and Sachin were super fast scorers in slow scoring era.

 

[Coronis]

well, if being Bradman entails being twice as good as everyone else, then No one can be him. but if being Bradman entails being the GOAT in your format beyond the scope of any reasonable contention, Viv surely checks that.

Clearly not, otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for this thread.

 

[Johan]

Clearly not, otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for this thread.

I mean, I can make Bradman vs Hobbs, won't make that a valid thread.

 

[Coronis]

I mean, I can make Bradman vs Hobbs, won't make that a valid thread.

Doubt you’d get a split vote, unlike here

 

[Johan]

Doubt you’d get a split vote, unlike here

The same arguments as presented here could be presented there I'm sure.