That looks pretty convincing statistically , but then it’s not really possible to compare players across different eras statistically alone - there are so many factors that are different.
As an example , in Virat and Rohit’s era teams (and not just India) are scoring 300+ more regularly in ODI cricket , and you will thesedays see teams disappointed even after scoring 310-315 knowing they should have easily got 340/350. And teams are chasing such 300 plus targets with ease.
Back in Viv Richards era , a total of 260-270 in an ODI match was seen as a big total and game was almost in the bag if you scored that batting first.
Better wickets , more batsmen friendly game and rules, lower quality of bowling, all translates into higher totals, batsmen scoring more 100s at a faster strike rate.
It’s hypothetical , yes but try to imagine a Viv Richards or even Ricky Ponting making his ODI debut in 2015 in this era of T20/big heavy bats , and you can easily see their batting average and number of centuries being considerably higher than what they ended up with.
And don’t forget 80s/90s, there were great fast bowlers in a number of teams , with pitches , rules and conditions having less favour to batsmen as they do currently - I’ve not yet seen Virat Kohli face the kind of chin music that Marshall, Alan Donald or Wasim Akram could give the batsmen of their eras.
Note that I’m questioning Virat’s ability to cope with such top class bowling , but has he been tested against such top class and hostile fast bowling ?
Not I’ve said bowling , not bowler - Dale Steyn past his best bowling a horrible spell doesn’t count.
Mike Atherton may be seen as a mediocre batsman , but he had to face one of the most hostile spells of fast bowling from Alan Donald many years ago and he earned a lot of respect just for survival.
Kohli top scored in the most bowling friendly series of all time in South Africa in 2018. It is the only series in history where every single wicket in every single innings fell.
The pitches were complete minefields and he did against an attack of Steyn, Philander, Rabada and Morkel, which is a top class attack by any measure.
De Villiers was the second best batsman in that series.
I would argue that there are no question marks on Kohli’s batsmanship. He is clearly in the same class as Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting and Viv Richards. How people rank them and in what order is up to them, but there should be no debate over whether Kohli belongs in that league or does not.
Furthermore, if people want to discredit modern ODI batsmen because the rules and the conditions are in their favor: flat pitches, two new balls, short boundaries, big bats, free-hits etc., then they should apply the same logic to the bowlers as well, but they are always uncomfortable in doing so because it contradicts their beliefs.
If Kohli, Rohit, Dhawan, Warner, Finch, Roy, Bairstow, De Kock have benefited from favorable rules and conditions then the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Imran, Marshall, Donald etc. also benefited from favorable rules and conditions.
They had the luxury of bowling on bowling-friendlier pitches, face batsmen with smaller bats, the boundaries were longer, there were no free-hits and the tail-enders were complete bunnies and could barely hold a bat.
Nowadays, even a number 10 and 11 has enough batting skill to score 20-25 on a good day and hit a few boundaries.
Moreover, they were using only one ball and there was very little scrutiny and high-quality cameras so those bowlers got away with a lot of tampering.
They also didn’t have to bowl free-hits after bowling no-balls.
I can imagine someone like Bairstow getting clean bowled by Waqar in ODIs in the late 80s and early 90s with those banana yorkers but I can also imagine Bairstow smashing Waqar all over the park in 2021.
So this cross-era comparison works both ways, unless you think that those bowlers were so skilled and talented that they would have easily adjusted to these flat pitches, big boundaries, big bats, two new balls, free-hits and greater scrutiny on ball-tampering.
Moreover, if you want rate the 80’s and 90’s batsmen higher than today’s batsmen because they had to cope with harder conditions, then you should also rate today’s bowlers higher than the 80’s and 90’s bowlers because they are coping with harder conditions.
So I have no problem with someone arguing that Viv Richards is a much better batsman than Kohli if they also agree that Starc is a much better bowler than Wasim and Cummins is a much better bowler than Marshall.
If Viv Richards played in an era of no free-hits, tough pitches, small bats, big boundaries and one ball, then the likes of Starc and Cummins are playing in an era of free-hits, flat pitches, big bats, small boundaries and two new balls.
So why don’t contemporary bowlers get extra credit and recognition? Why is it blasphemous to apply the reverse-logic?
The issue is that some people are adamant that the quality of batting and bowling have both somehow magically declined even though they have been advancements in sports science, diet plans, fitness, awareness, data analysis etc.
The eventually leads to the conclusion that a lot of the reputation and myths associate with 80’s and 90’s players is largely down to nostalgia. People always have a bias towards the era in which they grew up with.
I grew up in the 90’s and that is when I fell in love with cricket, but if look at it objectively, there is no evidence that the quality of cricket has declined.
The only sensible conclusion is that great players in every generation deserve equal respect and recognition, because they are all products of their respective eras.
It is a myth that the players of 80’s and 90’s would demolish today’s players. If we could somehow develop the technology to pit teams from different eras against each other, a lot of myths and legends will be destroyed and certain results will not hold up to people’s expectations.
For example, Clive’s West Indies is widely regarded as the greatest side of all time, but they will probably get whitewashed in brutal fashion if they were to play Kohli’s India in India.
