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

[Favbutt]

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.

You forgot the most versatile quickie of that era, Malcolm Marshall.
Would have loved to have seen him bowl against VK in a test. But alas that is not going to happen therefore I am off to have my breakfast!

 

[Ab Fan]

In tests it may not be close to 50 while in odis he would still be the best bat of his era unless it is Viv's era.

 

[Savak]

One thing i definately agree with, the bowlers of the 70's, 80's and 90's would all be averaging in the late 20's to early 30's in today's era.

 

[IcedEarth]

In his prime as well from 2010-2012.

Yeah, when two balls were introduced. With red ball and white kits, Malinga would have been a god-awful proposition to face.

 

[IcedEarth]

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

I cannot remember Tendulkar easy dealing with Wasim and Waqar at their primes in test matches.

 

[Haz95]

Like I slightly touched on in my previous comment, you can make a judgement based on how Kohli performs vs similar attacks and/or in similar conditions to the 90s.

Take Steve Smith for an example in the 2015 WC vs Pak, he was countering a rampaging Wahab with ease (who only in that specific game was bowling raw pace like a 80/90s bowler) playing him with brilliant footwork as opposed to Watto, take AB de Villiers who was smashing around a peak Mitchell Johnson in that test series which Johno won for Aus in SA, with Virat am afraid there isn't much in tests to speaf of, only reasons suggesting otherwise but in Limited Overs I'm sure he could've replicated it for reasons previously stated.

Batsmen like Guptill, Sharma, Warner and co would not survive. We've seen what happens to them when the ball moves even an inch.

 

[Billy1999]

No he wouldn't be good

Every fast bowler bowled over 145 had swing and were masters,Alan Donald,Waqar,Wasim,Ambrose,even Darren gough

Probably would have an average of 43-44 in tests
And an average of 40 in ODIS same SRs

 

[Tusker]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] has properly owned all the usual suspects who drool over old era players for no logical reason ... as I had said in an earlier thread - when it comes to discussions about Old Era players logic and facts are sure shot casualties. They are as welcome as Cops to a frat party.

Surprised that [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] hasn't participated yet

I cannot remember Tendulkar easy dealing with Wasim and Waqar at their primes in test matches.

A freaking 16 yr old Tendulkar with Zero experience and batting for the first time in Pakistan did ok against Imran/Waz/Waq/Qadir .... that should answer your questions.

 

[Junaids]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] has properly owned all the usual suspects who drool over old era players for no logical reason ... as I had said in an earlier thread - when it comes to discussions about Old Era players logic and facts are sure shot casualties. They are as welcome as Cops to a frat party.

Surprised that [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] hasn't participated yet




A freaking 16 yr old Tendulkar with Zero experience and batting for the first time in Pakistan did ok against Imran/Waz/Waq/Qadir .... that should answer your questions.

His batting has given us all the answers.

He is the prototype modern batsman. Brilliant against a Kookaburra ball more than 20 overs old in Tests, or in ODIs which use grassless pitches and white balls with a machine-sewn seam.

Which means that when he is guaranteed no lateral deviation, he is brilliant.

But he can't handle the Dukes ball at all, because he can't adapt his technique to cope with movement.

He would have been fine against Thommo, Donald, Roberts and the accurate seamers who couldn't move it, like Garner, Ambrose and McGrath.

But the two who would have made him their bunny were Hadlee and Lillee. He would have had no way of keeping them out.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I have watched 80s, 90s cricket. Grew up in the 80s. There were so many trundlers, pathetic bowlers not to mention pathetic batsmen survived in that era. Kohli is miles ahead of most of the batsmen of that era. The way they played bouncers was horrible. Even the 130k bouncers. These days even Dinesh Karthik smokes 145k bounce from Tait for six. Let us just admit it. Game has evolved. Mindset has changed. Only difference probably was pitches more than bowling. For every great bowler in a team there were like 3 other crap bowlers. Apart from West Indies no team had complete attack those days

 

[ExplicitAI]

I could see him taking Waqar to the cleaners and playing out Wasim initially then end his figures for about 10 overs conceding 40-50 runs.

 

[Tusker]

His batting has given us all the answers.

He is the prototype modern batsman. Brilliant against a Kookaburra ball more than 20 overs old in Tests, or in ODIs which use grassless pitches and white balls with a machine-sewn seam.

Which means that when he is guaranteed no lateral deviation, he is brilliant.

But he can't handle the Dukes ball at all, because he can't adapt his technique to cope with movement.

He would have been fine against Thommo, Donald, Roberts and the accurate seamers who couldn't move it, like Garner, Ambrose and McGrath.

But the two who would have made him their bunny were Hadlee and Lillee. He would have had no way of keeping them out.

Au contraire .... and Iam not going to waste time explaining. Its futile. I know what Iam going to get back in response from you ... a whole bunch of name dropping. Instead Iam going to refer to [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]s posts in this thread. But do point me to links where Lillee and Hadlee are seen moving the ball.

PS: I suggest you try to get your hands on a SG Test ball (White or Red). It might make you change your opinion. But then again we are up against the might of nostalgia and extreme bias. ohh well.

 

[Haz95]

Au contraire .... and Iam not going to waste time explaining. Its futile. I know what Iam going to get back in response from you ... a whole bunch of name dropping. Instead Iam going to refer to [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]s posts in this thread. But do point me to links where Lillee and Hadlee are seen moving the ball.

PS: I suggest you try to get your hands on a SG Test ball (White or Red). It might make you change your opinion. But then again we are up against the might of nostalgia and extreme bias. ohh well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE4xszxYDTA

Hadlee shaping away beautifully, setting up Botham wonderfully too. People like you and Mamoon hate the 80s and earlier just as much as people like Junaids overrate it.

From what we've seen from Virat in tests vs Anderson, it's safe to say that based on this evidence, NO he will not survive.

 

[jnaveen1980]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE4xszxYDTA

Hadlee shaping away beautifully, setting up Botham wonderfully too. People like you and Mamoon hate the 80s and earlier just as much as people like Junaids overrate it.

From what we've seen from Virat in tests vs Anderson, it's safe to say that based on this evidence, NO he will not survive.

Bhuvaneswar scored 3 fifties in a row in the same series where Kohli failed. So Bhuvi would have thrived in the 80s? lol You cannot use one failed series and extrapolate it. So many average batsmen survived in that era and made runs.

 

[Haz95]

Bhuvaneswar scored 3 fifties in a row in the same series where Kohli failed. So Bhuvi would have thrived in the 80s? lol You cannot use one failed series and extrapolate it. So many average batsmen survived in that era and made runs.

Yes and Sohail Khan smashed a 60 vs Australia in Australia. What exactly are you trying to prove by bringing in tail ender performances vs semi drained attacks in middle overs?

If anything, many average batsmen are thriving in this era. Do you really think Martin Guptill who cannot last a minute when the ball deviates will be dominating like he does in current ODIs?

 

[Mamoon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE4xszxYDTA

Hadlee shaping away beautifully, setting up Botham wonderfully too. People like you and Mamoon hate the 80s and earlier just as much as people like Junaids overrate it.

From what we've seen from Virat in tests vs Anderson, it's safe to say that based on this evidence, NO he will not survive.

You don't get the point. It is not about hating the 80's. I am not sure how you managed to deduce that from my posts, when I have repeatedly stated that it is futile to make cross-era comparisons, and the best we can do is to agree that the truly great players will be great in every era. There have been top class players in every era, but they way the modern players are downplayed because of so and so flimsy reasons is quite ridiculous.

Let's address the swing bowling of Hadlee. The main criticisms against modern day cricket is that the balls do not swing much because of "white balls on machine-sewn seam", and the pitches are grassless, the boundaries are short and the bats have big edges.

So, if Kohli would have been an inferior batsman without all of these factors assisting his batting, how can we assume that someone like Hadlee would still have been a top class swing bowler in this era, with all the rules favoring the batsmen?

If Kohli is overrated because he couldn't have done all of this in the 1980's, then Hadlee is overrated as well because he wouldn't have been able to do it in the 2010 era.

As I have stated multiple times, I have no issues with people putting modern batsmen on a lower pedestal as long as they do the same for the previous era bowlers, who had plenty of things going in their favor unlike modern bowlers. However, that doesn't happen: we sing praises of the likes of Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim etc.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes and Sohail Khan smashed a 60 vs Australia in Australia. What exactly are you trying to prove by bringing in tail ender performances vs semi drained attacks in middle overs?

If anything, many average batsmen are thriving in this era. Do you really think Martin Guptill who cannot last a minute when the ball deviates will be dominating like he does in current ODIs?

Martin Guptill would have been an inferior batsman in the 80s and 90s, just like the great pacers of the 80s and 90s would have been inferior bowlers today. It works both ways.

 

[Tusker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE4xszxYDTA

Hadlee shaping away beautifully, setting up Botham wonderfully too. People like you and Mamoon hate the 80s and earlier just as much as people like Junaids overrate it.

From what we've seen from Virat in tests vs Anderson, it's safe to say that based on this evidence, NO he will not survive.

The thing is there are plenty of bowlers who can swing it like Hadlee and at much higher pace thats far more lethal than anything you see in that clip. Good eamples are Steyn, Starc and Anderson.

I don't hate any era ... rather prefer to call a spade a spade. So in that clip Hadlee is bowling at max 125Ks ... if you think that will trouble anyone today then I got nothing to say except that our understanding of cricket is quite different.

there would be a whole bunch of bowlers that would be doing that if swing bowling at 120Ks would buy wkts by the truckloads. It doesn't cut it anymore. There is a very good reason why bowlers prefer pace today.

 

[Mamoon]

Hadlee was a trundler who was absolutely lethal on pitches that resembled Wimbledon courts, and used handmade balls. These luxuries are not available today, but we will still use him as an example to prove how much Kohli would have struggled in the 80's, in spite of the fact that Kohli would have demolished the same Hadlee in this era.

 

[Haz95]

You don't get the point. It is not about hating the 80's. I am not sure how you managed to deduce that from my posts, when I have repeatedly stated that it is futile to make cross-era comparisons, and the best we can do is to agree that the truly great players will be great in every era. There have been top class players in every era, but they way the modern players are downplayed because of so and so flimsy reasons is quite ridiculous.

Let's address the swing bowling of Hadlee. The main criticisms against modern day cricket is that the balls do not swing much because of "white balls on machine-sewn seam", and the pitches are grassless, the boundaries are short and the bats have big edges.

So, if Kohli would have been an inferior batsman without all of these factors assisting his batting, how can we assume that someone like Hadlee would still have been a top class swing bowler in this era, with all the rules favoring the batsmen?

If Kohli is overrated because he couldn't have done all of this in the 1980's, then Hadlee is overrated as well because he wouldn't have been able to do it in the 2010 era.

As I have stated multiple times, I have no issues with people putting modern batsmen on a lower pedestal as long as they do the same for the previous era bowlers, who had plenty of things going in their favor unlike modern bowlers. However, that doesn't happen: we sing praises of the likes of Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, McGrath, Ambrose, Wasim etc.

100% agree with the bolded.

I disagree however with your point that bowlers from then would struggle now. Look at when a pitch is slightly friendly, bowlers become unstoppable. i.e. Southees 7/33 in bowler friendly conditions in 2015 WC. It shows that a if the pitch is even slightly friendly a bowler has to do very little and let todays technique less hacks self implode. When compared to the 80s, pitches were like that but there was still an even contest, bowlers still had to work hard to get their wickets due to batsmen having techniques which survived in those times. And the same bowlers would do the same on flatter wickets....The 80s overall was one of the most balanced eras ever. Good bowlers were successful and ditto with batsmen. Virat has shown ability in the T20 last year vs Pakistan against a rampaging Amir, that was enough for me to agree that he's a top Limited overs batsman. However he's not done the same in tests. (even Dhoni has done well in bowler friendly conditions in LOIs but is overall meh in tests).

When it comes to tests, I think very little has changed. Good bowlers are still good and good batsmen are still good, the only negative is poor spin playing ability (which too is improving now).

 

[Haz95]

The thing is there are plenty of bowlers who can swing it like Hadlee and at much higher pace thats far more lethal than anything you see in that clip. Good eamples are Steyn, Starc and Anderson.

I don't hate any era ... rather prefer to call a spade a spade. So in that clip Hadlee is bowling at max 125Ks ... if you think that will trouble anyone today then I got nothing to say except that our understanding of cricket is quite different.

there would be a whole bunch of bowlers that would be doing that if swing bowling at 120Ks would buy wkts by the truckloads. It doesn't cut it anymore. There is a very good reason why bowlers prefer pace today.

He looks to be bowling about 130ish to me tbh. When Steyn moves the ball, he moves it at a slower speed, rarely does he crank it at 145 and move away. An Anderson is pretty damn overrated, bowlers like Hazelwood are far superior...

 

[AMSS]

Virat, the second greatest to wield the cricket bat, would have humiliated the quasi-amateurs into retirement.

 

[Mamoon]

100% agree with the bolded.

I disagree however with your point that bowlers from then would struggle now. Look at when a pitch is slightly friendly, bowlers become unstoppable. i.e. Southees 7/33 in bowler friendly conditions in 2015 WC. It shows that a if the pitch is even slightly friendly a bowler has to do very little and let todays technique less hacks self implode. When compared to the 80s, pitches were like that but there was still an even contest, bowlers still had to work hard to get their wickets due to batsmen having techniques which survived in those times. And the same bowlers would do the same on flatter wickets....The 80s overall was one of the most balanced eras ever. Good bowlers were successful and ditto with batsmen. Virat has shown ability in the T20 last year vs Pakistan against a rampaging Amir, that was enough for me to agree that he's a top Limited overs batsman. However he's not done the same in tests. (even Dhoni has done well in bowler friendly conditions in LOIs but is overall meh in tests).

When it comes to tests, I think very little has changed. Good bowlers are still good and good batsmen are still good, the only negative is poor spin playing ability (which too is improving now).

Yes but you had flat wickets in the 80s and 90s as well, and the modern batsmen would have cashed on it. Contrary to popular belief, majority of the so-called legendary batsmen cashed in on flat pitches as well, and bowlers have always made hay on grassy pitches.

Someone like Warner exemplifies what a flat track bully is. He is rubbish against swing, seam and spin, but he can bash any bowling attack 9/10 on flat wickets. Now if you take Warner to the 80s and 90s, I don't think he will be reduced to a tail-ender: he will bash bowlers on flat pitches and he will continue to fail in difficult conditions. I don't see why he would not have taken the likes of Wasim, Ambrose, Hadlee etc. to the cleaners on dead wickets. Same goes for other flat track bullies like Guptill etc.

A lot of mediocre batsmen were successful in those eras on flat pitches and against the bowlers who are now considered to be one of the finest of all time.

Nonetheless, every batsmen has a weakness. Lara is regularly championed as one of the best players of spin, but he was not good enough to handle the Indian turners, and neither was Ponting. Kohli failed in England in 2014, but he will get more opportunities to rectify his record there, and even if he doesn't, his tremendous record in Australia, SA as well as an Asia is enough to put him on his way to legendary status.

There are no reasons to consider Kohli an inferior batsmen to Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar etc., especially when you consider what he has achieved at the age of 28.

 

[Tusker]

100% agree with the bolded.

I disagree however with your point that bowlers from then would struggle now. Look at when a pitch is slightly friendly, bowlers become unstoppable. i.e. Southees 7/33 in bowler friendly conditions in 2015 WC. It shows that a if the pitch is even slightly friendly a bowler has to do very little and let todays technique less hacks self implode. When compared to the 80s, pitches were like that but there was still an even contest, bowlers still had to work hard to get their wickets due to batsmen having techniques which survived in those times.

And the same bowlers would do the same on flatter wickets....The 80s overall was one of the most balanced eras ever. Good bowlers were successful and ditto with batsmen.

The 80s was a draw infested bore fest. If winning wasnt the priority and defense everything then yes todays players would adapt to that style of play as well. Just that there would be colateral damage in Test Cricket being dead.

Virat has shown ability in the T20 last year vs Pakistan against a rampaging Amir, that was enough for me to agree that he's a top Limited overs batsman. However he's not done the same in tests. (even Dhoni has done well in bowler friendly conditions in LOIs but is overall meh in tests).

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/648665.html

thats against Steyn :

 

[jnaveen1980]

David Gower never had any foot work yet he did okay. Viv Richards had no copy book technique either. He purely trusted his reflexes, hand/eye coordination. Gavaskar, Boycott were some of the very few who had great technique. Alan Border, Miandad all of them survived. KOhli is no less than any of them. He is a step above. Mike Gatting lol That clown could not play spin to save his life. Made over 4000 runs in the 80s.

 

[Junaids]

David Gower never had any foot work yet he did okay. Viv Richards had no copy book technique either. He purely trusted his reflexes, hand/eye coordination. Gavaskar, Boycott were some of the very few who had great technique. Alan Border, Miandad all of them survived. KOhli is no less than any of them. He is a step above. Mike Gatting lol That clown could not play spin to save his life. Made over 4000 runs in the 80s.

Pardon?

Mike Gatting was superb against spin. He netted with Emburey and Edmonds every day, and from 1980 to 1990 they were the world's best two spinners.

 

[Savak]

Dale Steyn would no doubt average 15 with the ball had he played in the 70's-90's era if he is averaging close to 22-23 in the current era.

 

[big_gamer007]

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

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

Actually unfortunately Tendulkar and wasim/Waqar never played in prime in test matches.. For 10 years there was no test cricket between the two countries so we never got to see them face each other in their primes.. It would have been a fascinating battle

 

[Savak]

Actually unfortunately Tendulkar and wasim/Waqar never played in prime in test matches.. For 10 years there was no test cricket between the two countries so we never got to see them face each other in their primes.. It would have been a fascinating battle

Tendulkar faced Wasim, Waqar in 1989, 90, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 in various Tests and ODI matches and Tendulkar most of the times came out on top. Akhtar had a better record against Tendulkar compared to the W's when Tendulkar was in his prime as well.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Pardon?

Mike Gatting was superb against spin. He netted with Emburey and Edmonds every day, and from 1980 to 1990 they were the world's best two spinners.

Yea really lol We saw him against Anil Kumble. he was like a deer caught in headlights not to mention his paethetic batting againt Warne. Emburey/Edmonds haha seriously . Lolly pop bowlers. Only English spinner you could respect was underwood. He played mostly in the 70s. He was good on sticky pitches. That's about it.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Martin Guptill would have been an inferior batsman in the 80s and 90s, just like the great pacers of the 80s and 90s would have been inferior bowlers today. It works both ways.

By that logic, Steyn is better than Marshall, Akram, Lillee, etc.

 

[Savak]

By that logic, Steyn is better than Marshall, Akram, Lillee, etc.

It can be argued he is in test matches. To average 22-23 for such a long time playing in this era is incredible. Steyn has performed everywhere.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Dale Steyn would no doubt average 15 with the ball had he played in the 70's-90's era if he is averaging close to 22-23 in the current era.

Yup. That reverse argument we conveniently ignore. If batting is easy and bowling is tough in this era then the current crop bowlers who have good average are the best ever. One of the biggest difference is attitude. If players had shown attitude, they could have played as well. Srikkanth with is awful technique was the highest run getter in the 1985 benson hedges series. Pitches were highly conducive to seam bowling. Srikkanth also made 86 in 89 balls at the MCG followed by 116 in 116 balls at the SCG. When the wicket was true bowlers were ineffective even in that era. Who can forget Gavaskar's 94 ball test 100 against Marshall, Holding, Davis, Roberts at Delhi.

Just check the following score card. Check the run rate of each innings. Batsmen were mentally defensive apart from few players like Viv, Kapil, at times Greenidge. Windies had nly mandatory overs left to win the test. Just 25 overs. They freaking did it.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63335.html

 

[big_gamer007]

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

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

Tendulkar faced Wasim, Waqar in 1989, 90, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 in various Tests and ODI matches and Tendulkar most of the times came out on top. Akhtar had a better record against Tendulkar compared to the W's when Tendulkar was in his prime as well.

Lol wth are you talking about? India vs Pakistan test series happened in 1989 where sahin and Waqar debuted so neither of them were at their peak..

Then the next test series happened in 1998-99 when Waqar and wasim weren't at their peak.. So no they never faced each other in their peak at test matches.. ODI's and test matches are different remember.. Unless you mean they faced each other in county matches during 90's and Sachin handled them well over there i think you are mistaken..

 

[jnaveen1980]

Lol wth are you talking about? India vs Pakistan test series happened in 1989 where sahin and Waqar debuted so neither of them were at their peak..

Then the next test series happened in 1998-99 when Waqar and wasim weren't at their peak.. So no they never faced each other in their peak at test matches.. ODI's and test matches are different remember.. Unless you mean they faced each other in county matches during 90's and Sachin handled them well over there i think you are mistaken..

Few encouners in Sharjah. One match i remember is after Tendulkar earned opening slot. He was forced to open the innings in NZ. Very next tour where the duel between him and Akram was fascinating. Akram was swinging big and bowling quick. Tendulkar flicked him for a six. Akram came back with a bouncer. He was only like 22 i think.

 

[Savak]

Lol wth are you talking about? India vs Pakistan test series happened in 1989 where sahin and Waqar debuted so neither of them were at their peak..

Then the next test series happened in 1998-99 when Waqar and wasim weren't at their peak.. So no they never faced each other in their peak at test matches.. ODI's and test matches are different remember.. Unless you mean they faced each other in county matches during 90's and Sachin handled them well over there i think you are mistaken..

But Tendulkar faced Wasim and Waqar many times in ODI matches during that time period and Tendulkar came out on top vast majority of times. Out of the 3 times Tendulkar got out to Wasim, 2 times Tendulkar got out caught in the covers playing an attacking shot and the only one time Wasim bowled Tendulkar is when he misread a slower ball from Wasim.

Otherwise he easily dealt with Wasim. It was mastery to see him easily deal with Wasim's reverse swing in 1999 in the test series when Wasim was masterfully hiding the ball and Tendulkar was the only one to read him with ease while everyone else was struggling.

 

[Savak]

When Akhtar played from 1999 to 2007, Tendulkar was in his prime and at the age where batsmen start hitting their best years but even he had a better record against Tendulkar compared to the W's.

 

[jnaveen1980]

India was rarely bothered by Akram or Waqar. One guy who somehow despite looking mediocre had some success was Aquib Javed.

 

[big_gamer007]

But Tendulkar faced Wasim and Waqar many times in ODI matches during that time period and Tendulkar came out on top vast majority of times. Out of the 3 times Tendulkar got out to Wasim, 2 times Tendulkar got out caught in the covers playing an attacking shot and the only one time Wasim bowled Tendulkar is when he misread a slower ball from Wasim.

Otherwise he easily dealt with Wasim. It was mastery to see him easily deal with Wasim's reverse swing in 1999 in the test series when Wasim was masterfully hiding the ball and Tendulkar was the only one to read him with ease while everyone else was struggling.

Few encouners in Sharjah. One match i remember is after Tendulkar earned opening slot. He was forced to open the innings in NZ. Very next tour where the duel between him and Akram was fascinating. Akram was swinging big and bowling quick. Tendulkar flicked him for a six. Akram came back with a bouncer. He was only like 22 i think.

Oh ODI's yes they faced each other and Tendulkar I would also say played them pretty well IIRC..

I was talking about test matches mate, the duel in test matches in their primes would have been mouth watering to watch but alas something we never were able to see.. Same way like we wouldn't ever see Kohli/Pujara vs Pakistani bowlers of today or YK vs Ashwin/Jaddu

 

[Haz95]

Yes but you had flat wickets in the 80s and 90s as well, and the modern batsmen would have cashed on it. Contrary to popular belief, majority of the so-called legendary batsmen cashed in on flat pitches as well, and bowlers have always made hay on grassy pitches.

Someone like Warner exemplifies what a flat track bully is. He is rubbish against swing, seam and spin, but he can bash any bowling attack 9/10 on flat wickets. Now if you take Warner to the 80s and 90s, I don't think he will be reduced to a tail-ender: he will bash bowlers on flat pitches and he will continue to fail in difficult conditions. I don't see why he would not have taken the likes of Wasim, Ambrose, Hadlee etc. to the cleaners on dead wickets. Same goes for other flat track bullies like Guptill etc.

A lot of mediocre batsmen were successful in those eras on flat pitches and against the bowlers who are now considered to be one of the finest of all time.

Nonetheless, every batsmen has a weakness. Lara is regularly championed as one of the best players of spin, but he was not good enough to handle the Indian turners, and neither was Ponting. Kohli failed in England in 2014, but he will get more opportunities to rectify his record there, and even if he doesn't, his tremendous record in Australia, SA as well as an Asia is enough to put him on his way to legendary status.

There are no reasons to consider Kohli an inferior batsmen to Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar etc., especially when you consider what he has achieved at the age of 28.

Warner is a good player of pace, I can see him handling the express 80s bowlers on flat wickets however when the ball deviates even a bit, he's an utter failure. I'm sorry but for me that's not enough to be considered a good batsman otherwise players like Guptill and Sharma will also have cases to be ATG. However they are both failures in test cricket, which shows that they'd probably not play well in ODIs of 80s since they were very similar to test cricket. Bowlers had very similar line and lengths in ODIs then too. Wasim and co were special purely due to being able to move the ball around on pancake wickets, something Starc, Rabada, Steyn and Hazelwood from what I've so far seen can do. Even on those wickets, I can see someone like Warner failing if he were up against genuine bowlers.

If someone has special talent, they will be successful in any era. However players like Guptill, Sharma, Sharjeel etc I just cannot see doing well due to being such FTBs. I'm not saying its bad because it's required in an era like this, I'm simply stating what I see and how it is. Batsmen like Smith,Root, Kohli, Williamson, AB, Amla, Azhar, de Kock, Buttler etc I can see doing well in all eras tbh.

I haven't considered Kohli inferior however I have yet to see him survive in testing conditions away from home. [MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION] do not show that SA game where Cheteshwar Pujara was scoring 150s lol. Kohli has been medicore overseas, his 100 in NZ came after the game was done and dusted and on a pitch where Neesham was scoring run a ball 100s for fun. If anything he's been as good as Younis Khan, if not worse. What he needs to be considered a brilliant overseas batsman in TESTING conditions is a similar knock to Rahanes Lords knock. That will put him in elite territory for me...I see him being an ATG regardless tho.

IMO If Steven Smith continues this peak for another 3/4 years, I can see him laying claims of being in the top 5 greatest batsmens ever, capable of being one of the first names on an All Time XI.

 

[Haz95]

If current batsmen played in 80s, the ATG bowlers would have more or less the same average, a significantly higher strike rate and economy rate.

 

[Tusker]

If current batsmen played in 80s, the ATG bowlers would have more or less the same average, a significantly higher strike rate and economy rate.

so you agree that current batsmen are better than the batsmen from the 80s ?

 

[Haz95]

so you agree that current batsmen are better than the batsmen from the 80s ?

I think current batsmen display more intent and also think many of the current 'batsmen' would not cope in the 80s. Batsman are not better now, nor were they better before...some of the current 'batsmen' are simply being made to look better than they are due to reasons uttered a gajillion times on PP by various people.

 

[Tusker]

I think current batsmen display more intent and also think many of the current 'batsmen' would not cope in the 80s. Batsman are not better now, nor were they better before...some of the current 'batsmen' are simply being made to look better than they are due to reasons uttered a gajillion times on PP by various people.

That is in direct contradiction to your earlier post where you said that the 80s bowlers would have a significantly higher s/r and e/r while their avg remained same.

 

[Savak]

The Current batsmen will definately be tested if they allow 6 bouncers in the over. Averages will go down for sure.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Tendulkar faced Wasim, Waqar in 1989, 90, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999 in various Tests and ODI matches and Tendulkar most of the times came out on top. Akhtar had a better record against Tendulkar compared to the W's when Tendulkar was in his prime as well.

No, he did not.

In the 90s, he averaged 30 in tests vs Pakistan and 38.79 in ODIs. I have not even excluded matches in which Wasim, Waqar, and Saqlain did not play.

 

[Speedster777]

Let alone 80s and 90s, even a peak Asif would have made mockery out of Kohli.

 

[Haz95]

That is in direct contradiction to your earlier post where you said that the 80s bowlers would have a significantly higher s/r and e/r while their avg remained same.

Oops I meant bowlers would have a lower strike rate****

 

[The_Odd_One]

Most of the people are on the extreme sides of spectrum here. Not all batsman in the 80s or 90s were better than all batsmen of this era and the same is true for bowlers.

Let's pick 90s for example. Several teams had beyond mediocre players. The world cup winning team of SL had the likes of Mahanama, Gurusinha, etc. NZ had players like Bryan Young, Deepak Patel, etc. Almost every team had 4-5 world class players and the rest were average or mediocre. Cricket has become more competitive and most teams carry at most a couple of passengers (e.g. Asad Shafiq in Pakistani ODI team, Farhan Behardin in SA, etc.).

Take an example of Misbah ul Haq vs Salim Malik. Misbah averages 10 points higher than Malik in both tests and ODIs. However, anyone who has watched Malik bat will know that he was a far far superior batsman. His average in 30s does not reflect how good a batsman he really was. The same is true for others like Aravinda De Silva, Mark Waugh, Carl Hooper, Alec Stewart, etc. So, averages alone do not tell you a complete story.

When it comes to bowling, name one bowler who was as devastating as Ambrose or Donald? It is not nostalgia but a matter of fact that bowling standards were pretty high. This is no coincidence that after the 90s, there has been only one undisputed ATG fast bowler, Dale Steyn. It has nothing to do with batting friendly pitches. Also, a lot of people pretend that pitches have been flat in this era only which is not entirely true. Pitches in Asia were mostly roads even in the 80s and 90s. Faisalabad was considered a graveyard for bowlers. Top bowlers of this era like James Anderson, Stuart Broad, etc. would not have been even among the top 10 test bowlers of that time. This is how vast a gap is between the quality of fast bowlers then and now.

Virat Kohli would have been an ODI ATG in any era but no way he could have averaged this high. The same is true for all modern batsmen. Tendulkar averaged 43 in the 90s and this was the time when he was on another planet and a far skilled and superior batsman to Virat Kohli. Is current Kohli really 10+ points better than Tendulkar of the 90s?

 

[Hitman]

Virat Kohli would be a champion in any other era: Ian Chappell

Former Australia captain Ian Chappell heaped praise on Team India captain Virat Kohli, saying that Kohli's success in all three formats pleases him.

"He is a very good player. It doesn't matter where I place him because a champion in one era would be a champion in any other era," Ian Chappell told TOI.

"What pleases me most is that he has been successful in all three formats by playing traditional cricket shots, like Viv Richards used to do," Ian Chappell added.

When asked about Cheteshwar Pujara, Ian Chappell said that even though he has been a champion batsman in the ongoing India-Australia Test series, he has found a problem with his batting.

"He is good player. The only problem is he doesn't think enough about scoring runs. At times it looks to me that he is batting in the nets - just happy to play out deliveries. He shouldn't get bogged down as much as he does," Ian Chappell said.

Ian Chappell also praised the Indian cricket's current structure and explained why and how India have manged to overtake Australia and beat them at their own game.

"India had a couple of advantages. First, they have got a window for IPL. So your guys are still playing a lot of firstclass cricket. India are not in a position where they are playing a Test series like this and if their batsmen are not making runs, they don't have to pick a replacement from a T20 competition.

A window for IPL also means India are not playing Test cricket during that period, nor do their players go around playing other T20 competitions because they are so well paid in the IPL. The other factor is that India have a huge population, so the talent pool is much larger than Australia's," Ian Chappell added.

Ian Chappell feels that the Australia's batting is in decline and listed out reasons which he feels have contributed to the problem.

"A lot of factors have combined to lead us where we are today. Technical issues, lack of systematic coaching, focus on shorter formats and the adverse effects of IPL and BBL have all played a part," Ian Chappell said.

When asked to elaborate on the real problem, Ian Chappell said, "I think the problem is the talent is not maturing. Greg (Chappell) says that there is a lot of young talent around. Unfortunately, after they are getting into the system, they are going off the rails. So I think the system is partly responsible. The club and inter-state cricket also have got issues and are not developing the talents properly."

Link: https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cr...ustralia-cheteshwar-pujara-1424580-2019-01-06

 

[Mp812]

Cannot compare two different eras.
In upto 1996 , before Jayasuriya changed scoring rate ,the mentality of batters worldwide was different to see of new ball even in ODIs....score maybe 30 to 40 runs in 10 overs was considered great start. Only Srikant was bit of maverick before 1996 who tried stuff like hit over top or score of every ball.
If kohli was born in that era he would been moulded in same fashion batting style of that era and not his current style. Besides fitness levels of those days and current era is also another factor.
The bowlers of that time had a different mindset also and many other factors like ground size, bat size were in play.

 

[Ab Fan]

Kohli would have been brilliant in any era against any attack. You just look at his work ethics, his passion towards the game and his talent and he would be one of the best batsmen in any single era you say it.

I personally believe Koyla and de Villiers are two players from the 2010s era that will thrive brilliantly in any era, irrespective of the bowling attack.

 

[Ab Fan]

Kohli*

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

His batting has given us all the answers.

He is the prototype modern batsman. Brilliant against a Kookaburra ball more than 20 overs old in Tests, or in ODIs which use grassless pitches and white balls with a machine-sewn seam.

Which means that when he is guaranteed no lateral deviation, he is brilliant.

But he can't handle the Dukes ball at all, because he can't adapt his technique to cope with movement.

He would have been fine against Thommo, Donald, Roberts and the accurate seamers who couldn't move it, like Garner, Ambrose and McGrath.

But the two who would have made him their bunny were Hadlee and Lillee. He would have had no way of keeping them out.

590 runs at 60 avg in last tour to eng.
What are your views now?

 

[Birdman]

Problem with youtube generation is, they watch clips of brilliance and think that was the case "always." Bowlers of the 80's and 90's were not somekind of freaks and were bowling 145 KM all the time. It was same like today, there were few really fast bowlers and plenty of medium pace bowlers.
The reason current day bowlers don't look so threatening is the batsmen have better protection and also have access to video footage where they can study the bowlers and play accordingly. The modern day bats are also better and batsmen are batting at higher run rate. We don't see that many draws like in the 80's and 90's.

 

[kingusama92]

With his work ethic, he'd dominate in any era. No doubt about it.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Neutral umpires and TV referrals have somewhat ensured players are not hard done by. By the same token you cannot pad your way to century against spinners like players used to do even in the 90s. Hardwork makes sure you succeed in any era. Those who slack off fail in any era.

 

[KingKhanWC]

With his work ethic, he'd dominate in any era. No doubt about it.

Pitches weren't as flat, bowlers were much better and no helmets. Viv Richards would dominate in any era because the man had no fear. How can you be sure Kohli would feel comfortable without a helmet? I've batted at club level with and without a helmet, you're a different player entirely.

 

[giri26]

Cannot compare two different eras.
In upto 1996 , before Jayasuriya changed scoring rate ,the mentality of batters worldwide was different to see of new ball even in ODIs....score maybe 30 to 40 runs in 10 overs was considered great start. Only Srikant was bit of maverick before 1996 who tried stuff like hit over top or score of every ball.
If kohli was born in that era he would been moulded in same fashion batting style of that era and not his current style. Besides fitness levels of those days and current era is also another factor.
The bowlers of that time had a different mindset also and many other factors like ground size, bat size were in play.

That's a common misconception. The hitting out in the first 15 overs was first started by New Zealand in the 1992 world cup with Mark Greatbatch. Even though Srikkanth was doing it for India, Greatbatch was sent to open in 1992 WC for a specific reason by the Kiwis which was as huge success. Before Kalu and Jaya took over the world in Melbourne 1995/96 Benson & Hedges tri-series, there was a small matter of Sachin Tendulkar who was destroying attacks everywhere. Sachin Started to open in New Zealand in 1994 and scored a 49 ball 82 in his very first ODI as an opener.

Agree that SL were the first ones to try two batters at the top of the order who went after the bowling but Kalu and Jaya did not play together at the top until the Melbourne game against Australia on 9 Jan 1996 where Kalu scored 77 helping SL to win. This was the reason for SL continuing with the experiment which went on for few years and thereby destroying a great talent that was Kaluwitharana. A batsman who should have achieved a lot more was reduced to a pinch hitter at the top and eventually affected his overall game and he ended up with a mediocre career with the bat.

 

[kingusama92]

Pitches weren't as flat, bowlers were much better and no helmets. Viv Richards would dominate in any era because the man had no fear. How can you be sure Kohli would feel comfortable without a helmet? I've batted at club level with and without a helmet, you're a different player entirely.

Doesn't matter.

He's proven to have a great work ethic. Kohli would adjust.

Batsmen of the good ol' times weren't superhuman nor was Viv Richards the only batsman to do well in his era. A great cricketer will thrive in any era whether it's Viv, Sachin, Virat, Imran.

When Viv himself is saying Kohli would be great in any era that should say it all.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Doesn't matter.

He's proven to have a great work ethic. Kohli would adjust.

Batsmen of the good ol' times weren't superhuman nor was Viv Richards the only batsman to do well in his era. A great cricketer will thrive in any era whether it's Viv, Sachin, Virat, Imran.

When Viv himself is saying Kohli would be great in any era that should say it all.

Viv has his opinion, we have ours.

So are you saying Bradman could average 100 in this era? Its an interesting point if a player from one era can be just as good in another. I dont believe this is the case.

 

[Rahul1]

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

Someone tell him how good Malinga was in his ptime.

 

[giri26]

He will do well in all eras and again these are just assumptions made on the talent and ability of a player. There is no way to prove such things.

 

[giri26]

Viv has his opinion, we have ours.

So are you saying Bradman could average 100 in this era? Its an interesting point if a player from one era can be just as good in another. I dont believe this is the case.

I think Bradman would have been just fine in this era as well. His average will surely not even be close to 100 in this era. Not because his ability would have diminished but to have an average of such magnitude in this era is not possible. The reason being multiple pitches, formats, teams etc. Bradman did not have to go through that during his playing time, in spite of that it was a phenomenal achievement which no one else in his era could accomplish. Steven Smith's average of 61 in 64 Tests is the best it would get in this era. That is phenomenal as well.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I think Bradman would have been just fine in this era as well. His average will surely not even be close to 100 in this era. Not because his ability would have diminished but to have an average of such magnitude in this era is not possible. The reason being multiple pitches, formats, teams etc. Bradman did not have to go through that during his playing time, in spite of that it was a phenomenal achievement which no one else in his era could accomplish. Steven Smith's average of 61 in 64 Tests is the best it would get in this era. That is phenomenal as well.

In your opinion what would his average be in this era?

Bradman played 5 matches against weak Indian, SA and Windies teams and most of his runs were against England. How would he have faired against India in India on rank turners? Or playing the likes of Akram and Younis bowling 90mph reverse swing? The pace of the bowlers in his time was no where near 90 mph.

 

[giri26]

In your opinion what would his average be in this era?

Bradman played 5 matches against weak Indian, SA and Windies teams and most of his runs were against England. How would he have faired against India in India on rank turners? Or playing the likes of Akram and Younis bowling 90mph reverse swing? The pace of the bowlers in his time was no where near 90 mph.

It is hard to say as what ever we do it is just an assumption. No matter which era you play your technique and skills is what that determines your success. Bradman had plenty of that when he played. He may have not played many quick bowlers but again those days they played on uncovered wickets which poses a completely different challenge and you can question if teams of this era might be able to cope up with such wickets. I feel Bradman will still average in the 50's even in this era. The most challenging series he ever played was the bodyline series where all the batters in his side struggled. Bradman still managed to average 56 in that series.

 

[KingKhanWC]

It is hard to say as what ever we do it is just an assumption. No matter which era you play your technique and skills is what that determines your success. Bradman had plenty of that when he played. He may have not played many quick bowlers but again those days they played on uncovered wickets which poses a completely different challenge and you can question if teams of this era might be able to cope up with such wickets. I feel Bradman will still average in the 50's even in this era. The most challenging series he ever played was the bodyline series where all the batters in his side struggled. Bradman still managed to average 56 in that series.

I think this is the key.

Let's take a look at Bradman. Sure this isn't him batting in a match but from this video you can see his technique isn't what batsmen are taught today. Check out the pull shot, he's on the front foot. There is also an interesting cut shot where the bat is at an odd angle. Im not criticising his technique or saying he's wrong, no doubt an ATG but for the subject it's interesting to see technqiues have evovled. Could Kohli play on uncovered pitches with no helmet? We will never know but imo it's not as simple as if you were great in one era you will be in any era.

 

[PakLFC]

He would have done well. Would probably have a 45 average or something like that.

 

[giri26]

I think this is the key.

Let's take a look at Bradman. Sure this isn't him batting in a match but from this video you can see his technique isn't what batsmen are taught today. Check out the pull shot, he's on the front foot. There is also an interesting cut shot where the bat is at an odd angle. Im not criticising his technique or saying he's wrong, no doubt an ATG but for the subject it's interesting to see technqiues have evovled. Could Kohli play on uncovered pitches with no helmet? We will never know but imo it's not as simple as if you were great in one era you will be in any era.

It is surely not simple. But again each player has their own technique. There are players with textbook techniques but they are few and far in between. I always believe it is hard to compare players across eras as there is no way to prove, one would be better than the other. The circumstances, the pitches, the rules, bowlers, pitches, cricketing gear, everything is different. The same applies to players ability to play across eras especially players from that far back.

 

[KingKhanWC]

It is surely not simple. But again each player has their own technique. There are players with textbook techniques but they are few and far in between. I always believe it is hard to compare players across eras as there is no way to prove, one would be better than the other. The circumstances, the pitches, the rules, bowlers, pitches, cricketing gear, everything is different. The same applies to players ability to play across eras especially players from that far back.

I totally agree. There is no way anyone can say Kohli would be just as good in the past or even 50 years in the future. Not one poster who has said this has made a sensible detailed argument, just their own opinion.

 

[kingusama92]

Viv has his opinion, we have ours.

So are you saying Bradman could average 100 in this era? Its an interesting point if a player from one era can be just as good in another. I dont believe this is the case.

Viv's opinion should hold more weight in a discussion on eras.

Bradman is a unique case as his stats come from a period when cricket was developing as a sport. It's common sense no one would average 100 in the modern era. It's impossible. My opinion was generally limited to the eras related to this thread's topic (70s and beyond).

But he is a fascinating figure that will welcome polarizing takes.

 

[rhony]

He plays all the shots well and can play off the back and front foot. He has a decent technique and the resolve. He has patience. Any batsman with these attributes will succeed irrespective of the era.

 

[rhony]

It is surely not simple. But again each player has their own technique. There are players with textbook techniques but they are few and far in between. I always believe it is hard to compare players across eras as there is no way to prove, one would be better than the other. The circumstances, the pitches, the rules, bowlers, pitches, cricketing gear, everything is different. The same applies to players ability to play across eras especially players from that far back.

Hence the question about adaptability. He has scored runs across different types of pitches, against different bowlers and has been consistent for a few years now. Test Cricket as a game has not changed much. It is still a bowler trying to get a batsman out making use of the conditions and field placements using a variety of tricks. A batsman who's versatile, skillful, mentally strong will succeed always in any era.

 

[Robert]

David Gower never had any foot work yet he did okay. Viv Richards had no copy book technique either. He purely trusted his reflexes, hand/eye coordination. Gavaskar, Boycott were some of the very few who had great technique. Alan Border, Miandad all of them survived. KOhli is no less than any of them. He is a step above. Mike Gatting lol That clown could not play spin to save his life. Made over 4000 runs in the 80s.

Gatting was one of the best players of spin of the eighties. Piled the runs on in India and got two centuries against Qadir in 1987.

Gower had footwork against the spinners though against pace he was more of a deflector with that swivelling pull.

As fir the OP I believe that a champion in one era would be a champion in any era so think Kohli would have scored well against the eighties pace aces but at a reduced average.

 

[Balthazar]

Not just Kohli, any modern day greats would have adapted to 90s play style and equally succeeded. AB, Williamson, Root, Smith, Pujara..

 

[Birdman]

Pitches weren't as flat, bowlers were much better and no helmets. Viv Richards would dominate in any era because the man had no fear. How can you be sure Kohli would feel comfortable without a helmet? I've batted at club level with and without a helmet, you're a different player entirely.

Seriously, what does wearing helmets have to do with batting? It's now considered part of the gear, like shoe or a glove. Viv or Gavaskar wore no helmets because they were not used to it, so wearing or not wearing helmets does not make a player great or weak.
For example, I am involved in Sofball in the US, about 6 years ago face mask started making appearance and kids, especially Pitchers, first and third base were encouraged to wear them. The Kids who started playing the game without the mask did not like to wear them because they were not used to it. But the younger age group kids who started playing the game with masks used them with no problem.
Old time coaches started saying that D1 colleges will not recruit a pitcher who is wearing masks because it showed signs of fear. In the end it did not make a lick of difference, there are some great pitchers who are going to P5, D1 colleges who are wearing masks and there are sucky pitchers who don't wear masks.

 

[Torborg]

Not just Kohli, any modern day greats would have adapted to 90s play style and equally succeeded. AB, Williamson, Root, Smith, Pujara..

Adapted and succeeded, albeit with a test batting average minus 10 runs in my opinion.

This is a relatively weak era for test cricket, especially with bowling.

 

[Balthazar]

Adapted and succeeded, albeit with a test batting average minus 10 runs in my opinion.

This is a relatively weak era for test cricket, especially with bowling.

Don't think so. With the advent of T20s, now players have to deal with 3 formats, and not to mention the leagues outside international Cricket. That's a lot of work load. Don't think the previous players would've fared any better.

 

[Hawkeye]

Much better than Tendulkar.

Easily.

 

[Bewal Express]

He would have been fine in all eras. His average would have been lower because of the bouncer rule but he wouldnt have been too far off the likes of Richards etc.