How would Virat Kohli have fared against the bowlers of the 70s, 80s and 90s?

[Savak]

I think this guy would have been equally as successful against the likes of

Lillee, Thompson, Holding, Roberts, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh, Imran, Wasim, Waqar and might have even made them look ordinary.

 

[czar]

I'm afraid this thread would turn into another one of those " Glorifying Imran's era " threads.

 

[Hasan123]

Would have scored regardless of the era.

 

[mastermind_quad]

Would have scored against them as well. He is very good learner and very good student of cricket.

Batting average might have little less but he would have scored well.

 

[Savak]

Would have scored against them as well. He is very good learner and very good student of cricket.

Batting average might have little less but he would have scored well.

I have reservations against him on seaming, swinging wickets but given his work ethic and passion to be the best he can be i will give him every benefit of the doubt to correct this. I have to say he might have even turned out to be more legendary than many of the players who played in that era.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Clear to the eye that he transcends eras. He would have been magnificent in any era.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

I have reservations against him on seaming, swinging wickets but given his work ethic and passion to be the best he can be i will give him every benefit of the doubt to correct this. I have to say he might have even turned out to be more legendary than many of the players who played in that era.

The thing is, people have a very warped perception of the 70s, and 80s. The pretend for some reason that flat pitches were very rare in that era when nothing could be further from truth. India, Pak, and Aus had some of the flattest pitches in their history during this period. This business of all these greentops is a total myth. There were loads of phattas back then.

So even if we pretend Kohli is a FTB (which he is not), he would still pile on runs in flat tracks of that era.

 

[mastermind_quad]

I have reservations against him on seaming, swinging wickets but given his work ethic and passion to be the best he can be i will give him every benefit of the doubt to correct this. I have to say he might have even turned out to be more legendary than many of the players who played in that era.

I agree.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Fastest 8000 ODI runs for Kohli.

 

[zyrus]

No way! He's to jerky to survive Swinging Yorkers. He's lucky to be playing in an era where ball doesn't do much.

 

[Savak]

No way! He's to jerky to survive Swinging Yorkers. He's lucky to be playing in an era where ball doesn't do much.

He has treated Malinga as a club level bowler.

 

[zyrus]

So even if we pretend Kohli is a FTB (which he is not), he would still pile on runs in flat tracks of that era.

Yes, much like Younis Khan. But it was never going to be ATG then.

 

[zyrus]

He has treated Malinga as a club level bowler.

Malinga is an old chubby baba these days.

 

[Savak]

Malinga is an old chubby baba these days.

In his prime as well from 2010-2012.

 

[Leeon1994]

I doubt he would survive much against Waqar and Wasim.

 

[zyrus]

In his prime as well from 2010-2012.

Never. He was in his early years. Just bowls 1-2 ulta fast bowls these days.

 

[Bhaijaan]

With his talent, attitude and work ethic, King Kohli would be a top batsman in ANY generation.

 

[Savak]

I doubt he would survive much against Waqar and Wasim.

Oh please. Tendulkar easily dealt with a prime Wasim, Waqar. Kohli would have no problems.

 

[Khwaja]

I doubt they would've faired well even against BD on a green top today.

 

[TM Riddle]

I think he would have done just fine.Just look at the amount of cricket this guy plays and being this consistent in every game requires a great deal of patience and a set of skills which only a few posses.Already an ODI ATG in my books.

 

[big_gamer007]

People will glorify the past as usual, but would have been nice to see how Kohli would have fared against ball tampering, large ground sizes, unlimited bouncers, small bats, not enough video to analyse batting/bowling etc.. You got to understand kohli plays in today's era where the game is in favour of batsmen and technology is so readily available that even the slightest kink in his armour can be identified..

Would he have had fared the same without these advantages? No one would can be sure but I think he would have been a top notch class player even then..

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

No way! He's to jerky to survive Swinging Yorkers. He's lucky to be playing in an era where ball doesn't do much.

Lol he is one of the best batsmen against yorkers I have ever seen. The way he manages to get the bat under yorkers and slices them through the offside is utterly unique which I have seen no other batsman do.

He struggles against outswingers. Not yorkers.

 

[big_gamer007]

No way! He's to jerky to survive Swinging Yorkers. He's lucky to be playing in an era where ball doesn't do much.

Lol have you even ever seen him play?

 

[TQ89]

Sports era comparisons cannot be made. A lot of factors come into play not just the 'greentop myth'. Improved Conditioning, fitness regimen and evolution in batting has made comparisons lot harder.

 

[surg]

like sunny vishwanath sachin and azhar

 

[TQ89]

Same thing happens with boxing fans. You will find lots of posters talking about Tyson & Ali in his prime & dream matches or how current HW boxers would fare among heavyweight division of the 70's. It is all pointless

 

[Mamoon]

He would have been an ATG in every era.

 

[Badsha]

Oh please. Tendulkar easily dealt with a prime Wasim, Waqar. Kohli would have no problems.

That part is not true. It was quite 50/50 as far as I remember.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Kohl has a risk free game. He relies on placing the ball in gaps. It will work in any era

 

[Kianig89]

Waqar Younis Curtly Ambrose Malcolm Marshall might have hot his number in this batting era they are way tooamy good batsman like the whole of Indian top order and infact a couple of them sitting outside like Raina Rahane but the fast bowlers of the earlier eras were something else imagine those bowling with 2 new balls or bowling with DRS

 

[Buffet]

He would have done fine in any era.

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

It's less the bowlers and more the pitches

 

[Mamoon]

Waqar Younis Curtly Ambrose Malcolm Marshall might have hot his number in this batting era they are way tooamy good batsman like the whole of Indian top order and infact a couple of them sitting outside like Raina Rahane but the fast bowlers of the earlier eras were something else imagine those bowling with 2 new balls or bowling with DRS

A myth. A lot of batsmen succeeded in that era who were much inferior to the top batsmen of today.

 

[Kianig89]

A myth. A lot of batsmen succeeded in that era who were much inferior to the top batsmen of today.

Yes with deadly bats mickey mouse boundaries bouncer rules power plays modern batsmen are superior

 

[Mamoon]

He is a better ODI batsman than anyone in history barring Sir Viv. All this talk of him playing in an easy era against weaker bowler on flatter pitches is rubbish.

 

[jadaja]

He is best ever batsman chasing and very strong mentally.Very few batsmen are as strong as him mentally.Steve Smith has better test record but make no mistake this guy is best batsmen of this era.

 

[Kianig89]

Yes he is the greatest modern batsman no doubt but greater than old era batsmen debatable

 

[Mamoon]

Yes with deadly bats mickey mouse boundaries bouncer rules power plays modern batsmen are superior

Using your same logic, we should then conclude that the modern bowlers like Starc, Rabada, Anderson, Broad, Boult, Amir, Hasan, Bhuvneshwar, Shami etc. etc. are better than Marshall, Lillee, Imran, Hadlee, Holding, Wasim, Waqar etc. etc., because they are bowling and doing well in an era of "deadly bats mickey mouse boundaries bouncer rules power plays"?

 

[Pollack]

Would have struggled for few matches initially then worked hard, improve and then slay everyone.

 

[Kianig89]

Using your same logic, we should then conclude that the modern bowlers like Starc, Rabada, Anderson, Broad, Boult, Amir, Hasan, Bhuvneshwar, Shami etc. etc. are better than Marshall, Lillee, Imran, Hadlee, Holding, Wasim, Waqar etc. etc., because they are bowling and doing well in an era of "deadly bats mickey mouse boundaries bouncer rules power plays"?

We are not talking about bowlers here

 

[jnaveen1980]

Do you guys know he was practicing against red ball after SL match

 

[Savak]

Do you guys know he was practicing against red ball after SL match

Wouldn't be surprised

 

[zyrus]

Lol he is one of the best batsmen against yorkers I have ever seen. The way he manages to get the bat under yorkers and slices them through the offside is utterly unique which I have seen no other batsman do.

He struggles against outswingers. Not yorkers.

We're talking about Waqar, Wasim, Shoaib grade yorkers, not those dead-track medium grade ones.

 

[Savak]

We're talking about Waqar, Wasim, Shoaib grade yorkers, not those dead-track medium grade ones.

He would have played the helicopter shot against them as well just like Dhoni

 

[zyrus]

Using your same logic, we should then conclude that the modern bowlers like Starc, Rabada, Anderson, Broad, Boult, Amir, Hasan, Bhuvneshwar, Shami etc. etc. are better than Marshall, Lillee, Imran, Hadlee, Holding, Wasim, Waqar etc. etc., because they are bowling and doing well in an era of "deadly bats mickey mouse boundaries bouncer rules power plays"?

No, they're murdered. They don't take wickets anymore. Their focus is only to stop runs these days. Thats not good, its defensive.

 

[zyrus]

He would have played the helicopter shot against them as well just like Dhoni

Dhoni wasn't even playing when they were in their prime.

 

[Mamoon]

We are not talking about bowlers here

You realize how illogical it sounds? Modern batsmen are supposedly inferior to the batsmen of the past because they are playing in easier conditions, but modern bowlers are not superior to the bowlers of the past because they are playing in tougher conditions.

The best ODI batsmen of that era will not average 80 today, and the best batsmen of today would not have averaged 20 in that era. It is all about adapting to the conditions and the top players adapt that is why they are among the top players.

If you take a modern batsman, put him in a time machine and take him to the 70s and 80s, he might not be used to the lighter bats and big boundaries. However, he will adapt. Similarly, if you put a player from the 70s and 80s in a time machine and bring him to 2017, he will not click immediately but he will eventually adapt as well.

Batsmen of that era had advantages that modern batsmen don't. The fielding standards in that era were poor and batsmen got a lot of singles and doubles that they would not have got today. In addition, the introduction of the TV umpire meant that the benefit of doubt for batsmen decreased.

In the past, when the umpires gave run out calls on naked eye, they made massive blunders and batsmen would often be adjudged run out when he was deep in his crease. Similarly, the introduction of the DRS has furthered reduced the benefit of doubt for batsmen. In the past, the batsmen had the luxury of no Hot Spot and Snicko, and let's not even talk about the biased umpiring.

The key term is adaption. If batting in this era is a piece of cake as some people make it sound, you would not have only a handful of elite batsmen. Yes there are good batsmen and very good batsmen, but very few elite batsmen. These elite batsmen - and Kohli is one of them - would be elite in any era because of their ability to adapt to the conditions better than their peers. Similarly, elite batsmen of the 70s and 80s would be elite today if they were exposed to modern conditions and standards of cricket.

Hence, it is futile to make cross-era comparisons. The fact is that an ATG would be an ATG in any era, and that is why he is an ATG and not just a good player.

 

[Mamoon]

No, they're murdered. They don't take wickets anymore. Their focus is only to stop runs these days. Thats not good, its defensive.

That's another myth. The wicket-takers still take wickets. Look at how many wickets Starc, Boult, Rabada etc. have taken in this era. If we use the same logic that we apply to degrade modern batsmen, then these bowlers are superior to the likes of Marshall, Imran, Hadlee, Wasim etc. because they are bowling in much better batting conditions and are murdered.

However, people like to have their cake and eat it too. They don't realize what a massive logical fallacy they are guilty of, which is borne out of the bizarre discomfort people feel in rating some of the modern players as superior to some of the old players. Nostalgia reigns supreme.

 

[Dead Ball]

He is a better ODI batsman than anyone in history barring Sir Viv. All this talk of him playing in an easy era against weaker bowler on flatter pitches is rubbish.

Can you name one bowler in the current CT tourney who you think is ATG ODI level? Or has the potential to do so? I remember two ODI bowlers since 2010 who has been consistently been able to maintain a sub-25 bowling average, namely Tahir and Starc (There were a dozen odd during the 90's/00's Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Saqlain, Shoaib, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Warne, Lee, Murali etc.) . That shows how much the game has shifted to benefit the batsmen in ODI's over the last decade or so.

I do feel Kohli would have been an ATG in any era, but he wouldn't be averaging 55 in ODI's. I would assume something like 44-47 which is still solid. But to say he isn't benifiting by playing in a batting friendly ODI era is inaccurate.

 

[Haz95]

Compared to the usual ODI dross, this tournament has been pretty good in all aspects.

I do think Kohli would've survived, he handled Amir in those T20s when he was moving the ball miles at pace. I kno its t20s but still, in limited overs I do think Kohli would probably be just as dominant...tests is a more debatable topic.

 

[Buffet]

Can you name one bowler in the current CT tourney who you think is ATG ODI level? Or has the potential to do so? I remember two ODI bowlers since 2010 who has been consistently been able to maintain a sub-25 bowling average, namely Tahir and Starc (There were a dozen odd during the 90's/00's Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Saqlain, Shoaib, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Warne, Lee, Murali etc.) . That shows how much the game has shifted to benefit the batsmen in ODI's over the last decade or so.

I do feel Kohli would have been an ATG in any era, but he wouldn't be averaging 55 in ODI's. I would assume something like 44-47 which is still solid. But to say he isn't benifiting by playing in a batting friendly ODI era is inaccurate.

IN ODIs, it's not useful to compare averages without SR. You can do in the same era, but it's pretty much meaningless to compare Average of batsmen across eras in the ODI format.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Many players with lesser ability than kohli managed to score runs in the 70s, 80s and 90s, people have a tendency of overrating the past, there were flat pitches in that era too, it wasn't some unplayable era where only geniuses could survive, and even if it was, kohli would have done fine because he has the ability and attitude to do well in any era of cricket

 

[someone21]

He would have destroyed them. People don't realize that with T20s, all the current batsman are fearless and extremely confident. That's the biggest strength.

Instead of asking how Kohli would have faced them, it should be how these bowlers would have faced today's batsman. These past "great" bowlers would fail miserably against today's great batsman.

 

[ar2020]

He would have destroyed them. People don't realize that with T20s, all the current batsman are fearless and extremely confident. That's the biggest strength.

Instead of asking how Kohli would have faced them, it should be how these bowlers would have faced today's batsman. These past "great" bowlers would fail miserably against today's great batsman.

Ummm no. You fail to realize the reason why they're "fearless" with T20 cricket is because of bigger bats, smaller boundaries and field restrictions.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Kohli would be ATG regardless of eras. He's a strong contender for GOAT ODI batsman

 

[ExpressPacer]

He would have been an ATG regardless of what era he played in. His ability to change and accommodate his game is beyond that of other players to have played the game. He was weak vs the short ball initially and now he bangs every short ball to the boundary. He works on his game more and better than anyone else.

 

[zyrus]

That's another myth. The wicket-takers still take wickets. Look at how many wickets Starc, Boult, Rabada etc. have taken in this era. If we use the same logic that we apply to degrade modern batsmen, then these bowlers are superior to the likes of Marshall, Imran, Hadlee, Wasim etc. because they are bowling in much better batting conditions and are murdered.

However, people like to have their cake and eat it too. They don't realize what a massive logical fallacy they are guilty of, which is borne out of the bizarre discomfort people feel in rating some of the modern players as superior to some of the old players. Nostalgia reigns supreme.

When did the last time any of them scored double hatricks? They are taking wickets but not dominating top batsmen like previous bowler used to.

 

[last_knight]

You learn and make your way. Where VK is today he is because he has learned through his journey and has made his way to top.

Same method would apply if he were there playing in 70s, 80s, 90s or were to play in 2030s.

Vice versa wrt stars from 80s and 90s.

 

[captain crook]

Would have played 10 matches maximum and eventually dropped. Facing up to legendary bowling attacks of 70s, 80s was not an easy task. One feared for one's life during that period.

 

[kingusama92]

The purity of Kohli's technique and his willingness to learn would ensure greatness.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Would have played 10 matches maximum and eventually dropped. Facing up to legendary bowling attacks of 70s, 80s was not an easy task. One feared for one's life during that period.

If 70s bowlers are legendary than Starc, Hazlewood, Boult and Rabada are godly.

 

[Fahdi]

He would have been among the top 5 batsmen in any era. His average and SR would not be the same, his stats would naturally correspond to the era. In the 90s he would probably average 40-45 because that is what the top ODI bats with the exception of Bevan averaged in that period.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

He would have been among the top 5 batsmen in any era. His average and SR would not be the same, his stats would naturally correspond to the era. In the 90s he would probably average 40-45 because that is what the top ODI bats with the exception of Bevan averaged in that period.

Bevan's average is highly inflated by not outs like Dhoni, he was not as good as Tendulkar or Ponting as pure batsman.

 

[Mamoon]

Can you name one bowler in the current CT tourney who you think is ATG ODI level? Or has the potential to do so? I remember two ODI bowlers since 2010 who has been consistently been able to maintain a sub-25 bowling average, namely Tahir and Starc (There were a dozen odd during the 90's/00's Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Saqlain, Shoaib, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Warne, Lee, Murali etc.) . That shows how much the game has shifted to benefit the batsmen in ODI's over the last decade or so.

I do feel Kohli would have been an ATG in any era, but he wouldn't be averaging 55 in ODI's. I would assume something like 44-47 which is still solid. But to say he isn't benifiting by playing in a batting friendly ODI era is inaccurate.

Again, if Kohli is benefiting from a batting-friendly era, the modern bowlers are being handicapped because of the same batting-friendly era. If we can assume that Kohli would have had a lower average in the 90s, then why can't we apply the same rationale to the bowlers of the 90s and assume that the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, McGrath, Pollock, Warne etc. would have had higher bowling averages and higher strike rates in this batting-friendly era?

If we can assume that Kohli would have been average 44 instead of 55, why is it wrong to assume that Wasim would have averaged 30 instead of 23?

 

[Joseph Gomes]

If Starc played in 80s he would average 15 with the ball. Double standard hypocrisy is hilarious

 

[KingKhanWC]

Would have been a great batsmen but would have found it much tougher and ended with a lower average. The game has evolved into making batting much much easier, the reason why averages have gone up. We have balls which don't even swing now lol.


Viv Richards was in different class. I dont think Kohli would have refused to wear a helmet facing the likes of Akram, Younis, Marshall, Ambrose, Donald etc.

 

[Mamoon]

When did the last time any of them scored double hatricks? They are taking wickets but not dominating top batsmen like previous bowler used to.

They are not dominating top batsmen like the previous bowlers because they are bowling in a batting-friendly era. Similarly, the bowlers of the past would have struggled like these bowlers had they bowled today.

I have no problem with people discounting the performances of modern batsmen as long as they apply the same logic to the previous bowlers and discount their performances as well.

It is very simple. If modern batsmen have benefited from the batting-friendly rules, then the modern bowlers have been handicapped by the same rules. Which means that since the previous era bowlers bowled in more bowling-friendly rules, their performances have to be discounted just like we discount the performances of the modern batsmen.

As a result, if Kohli is not as good as Ponting or Tendulkar, then Wasim Akram was not as good as Starc and McGrath was not as good as Hazlewood and Marshall was not as good as Rabada.

 

[Mamoon]

Would have been a great batsmen but would have found it much tougher and ended with a lower average. The game has evolved into making batting much much easier, the reason why averages have gone up. We have balls which don't even swing now lol.


Viv Richards was in different class. I dont think Kohli would have refused to wear a helmet facing the likes of Akram, Younis, Marshall, Ambrose, Donald etc.

Using this logic, the averages of the bowlers of the era of Wasim, Waqar, Marshall, Ambrose, Donald etc. are inflated as well, because at that time, batting was tougher and we had balls that swung.

As a result, we should be prepared to consider these bowlers inferior to the modern bowlers if we are considering Kohli to be an inferior batsmen to the best batsmen of the 80s and 90s.

 

[Mamoon]

If Starc played in 80s he would average 15 with the ball. Double standard hypocrisy is hilarious

Yes, it is comical.

Modern batsmen are overrated because they are playing batting-friendly era, but previous era bowlers are not overrated in spite of playing in a bowling-friendly era. It seems that if you are a modern player, you cannot win. You probably have to score 10,000 runs in an innings or hit 10 sixes in 3 balls to be considered equal/better than the batsmen of the previous era.

 

[Screopho]

Using this logic, the averages of the bowlers of the era of Wasim, Waqar, Marshall, Ambrose, Donald etc. are inflated as well, because at that time, batting was tougher and we had balls that swung.

As a result, we should be prepared to consider these bowlers inferior to the modern bowlers if we are considering Kohli to be an inferior batsmen to the best batsmen of the 80s and 90s.

Spot on. Mamoon I always admire your patience in trying to use logic against some of these posters who are either so biased they can't see past their team or dereft of basic understanding of stats and logic.

 

[Mamoon]

Spot on. Mamoon I always admire your patience in trying to use logic against some of these posters who are either so biased they can't see past their team or dereft of basic understanding of stats and logic.

Thanks. The bias against the modern players is ridiculous.

 

[Last Monetarist]

He'd be among the best batsmen of whichever generation one arbitrarily pits him against. Of course, I'd have him average 5 or 6 notches lower if he played in the 80s and 90s but that's a function of the quality of bowling and pitches. Moot point, but the lad has it both technically and mentally to succeed against the very best.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

All speculation. Mere talk.

Although to Indians and [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]: 2Ws etc are universally respected. I repeat universally.

Engrave it.

Use James Anderson ko to dominate karne do phir karen ge baat hum 80s/90s bowlers ki

 

[Mamoon]

All speculation. Mere talk.

Although to Indians and [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]: 2Ws etc are universally respected. I repeat universally.

Engrave it.

Use James Anderson ko to dominate karne do phir karen ge baat hum 80s/90s bowlers ki

Yes, and Kohli is not respected universally.

Also, Anderson is better than Wasim Akram, because he is bowling in a batting-friendly era with big bats, flat pitches, short boundaries, dancing monkeys and pooting pandas.

 

[Dead Ball]

Again, if Kohli is benefiting from a batting-friendly era, the modern bowlers are being handicapped because of the same batting-friendly era. If we can assume that Kohli would have had a lower average in the 90s, then why can't we apply the same rationale to the bowlers of the 90s and assume that the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, McGrath, Pollock, Warne etc. would have had higher bowling averages and higher strike rates in this batting-friendly era?

If we can assume that Kohli would have been average 44 instead of 55, why is it wrong to assume that Wasim would have averaged 30 instead of 23?

I have no doubt , the bowlers of 90s would have averaged higher in this era. Bigger bats, smaller boundaries, T20 approach and generally more batting friendly pitches have made it unfair for bowlers.

The Starc comparison does not work because he hasn't even played 100 ODIs yet.

A genuine question, do you feel bowlers nowadays are as threatening as they were in 90s - mid 00's? Why do you feel 300 is being scored every second game nowadays while it was a rarity till mid 00's? Which ODI bowlers would you consider as future greats ?

 

[bujhee kom]

Will go down as the best since Richards. He would have thrived.

 

[Mamoon]

I have no doubt , the bowlers of 90s would have averaged higher in this era. Bigger bats, smaller boundaries, T20 approach and generally more batting friendly pitches have made it unfair for bowlers.

The Starc comparison does not work because he hasn't even played 100 ODIs yet.

A genuine question, do you feel bowlers nowadays are as threatening as they were in 90s - mid 00's? Why do you feel 300 is being scored every second game nowadays while it was a rarity till mid 00's? Which ODI bowlers would you consider as future greats ?

Well it is settled then. You do agree that the bowlers of the previous era have inflated averages, which means that the question that there are no ATG bowlers today is moot.

Batting has certainly become relatively easier in this era just like bowling was relatively easier in the previous era. As a result, we have to change the perception of an ATG bowler for today's time. If all the odds are stacked against the modern bowlers, then anyone with an average of let's say 30-32 is an ATG level bowler. So that answers the question that which bowlers are future ATGs or not.

The likes of Starc, Boult, Rabada, Hazlewood etc. are as good if not better than Wasim, Marshall, McGrath, Ambrose etc., so either they are ATG level bowlers as well (may not be ATG now because of the few number of matches, but we are talking ability here) or the said bowlers of the previous eras were not ATGs either.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Kohli would have been an ATG batsman in any era but no way would he average 50+.

How many batsman average 50+ in the 80s and 90s?

Kohli is only 2nd to King Viv in ODIs and probably only Bevan had bigger balls than Kohli in pressure situations.

Top 3 ODI Batsmen

1. Viv
2. Kohli
3. Bevan

 

[jnaveen1980]

One of the interesting thing you see about him is you don't see him sweeping spinners. you don't see him reverse paddle or diliscoop or play any fancy shot. There was another guy who did not employ sweep shot for a very long time. Sachin For first 7 or 8 years of his career.

 

[Xoib]

to gauge how batsman would have done in different eras we look at his test record. Odi cricket has evolved while test cricket has more or less remained constant since the 90's. Kohli has an excellent test record so he would have had an excellent record even then probably would have averaged higher in England due to worse attack they have now and his Australian record would not be as good due to better Austrialian bowlers and less flat pitches but it all cancels out and he would have averaged close to 50 in test cricket and 45 in Odi cricket in the 80's and 90's.