Virat Kohli vs Viv Richards on an ODI flat track? - Who would you back? | Clash of the titans

[Suleiman]

Another flat track, another day in the life of modern day great in ODIs, Virat Kohli. Scored another ton vs WI today in the pressurized ODI decider. People think doing well on a flat track is bad, yet have double standards for bowlers who are hyped when they do well on green tops.

While he has been harassed by bowlers with pitches with a little bit of juice in them, save for Asia Cup 2016 where he looked legendary, if he were to go toe to toe against Sir Vivian Richards, on a flat bed, both facing the same bowling attack, who do you think will dominate to a greater degree?

Virat might dominate because of more risk-free shots, or will Viv's ability to get into the minds of bowlers give him the edge?

Battle of the Vs.

 

[thehub]

Virat. But all oldies would go for Viv.

 

[thehub]

Virat will go past sachin in Odis pretty soon if he has not already done so. Btw I hate virat as a player.

 

[On_the_up]

Richards is a true ATG who could demolish attacks consiting of some of the best bowlers to have walked the planet.

Kohli could yet be a FTB of modern times.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Eight finals: highest score 43

/thread

Luckily for Virat he's still young, most players don't get this many opportunities in their career.

 

[Billy1999]

Virat. But all oldies would go for Viv.

Lol,Your a bowler,just afraid,
Geoff boycott "I tell you he's rubbish,pitch it up I tell ya pitch it up he can't play in England,My mum could place a ball better then him"

 

[Billy1999]

Virat will go past sachin in Odis pretty soon if he has not already done so. Btw I hate virat as a player.

We're on the same page,Virat is an immature child don't agree with him even touching Sachin

 

[Buffet]

No one can beat AB as long as it's not a big game and attack is WI. Just see his record.

Talking about Kohli after his ton against WI is meaningless.

 

[Hasan123]

Viv is ahead for now. Better to compare when Kohli has finished playing.

 

[thehub]

Richards is a true ATG who could demolish attacks consiting of some of the best bowlers to have walked the planet.

Kohli could yet be a FTB of modern times.

again as expected overhyping players of the past with nothing to back up.

 

[thehub]

Viv is ahead for now. Better to compare when Kohli has finished playing.

No Kohli has already gone past Viv.

Kohli is competing with Sachin for the top spot. IMHO Viv is number 3 after Sachin.

 

[proud_pakistani]

Considering the havoc Viv used to cause to bowlers like Imran Khan there is no way I can ever rate Kohli better than Viv. Kohli in his own right is amazing but i think if Viv played in this era he would have scored 100s like it was a joke and at a very high strike rate. It's hard to compare eras but this is my opinion.

 

[Buffet]

Considering the havoc Viv used to cause to bowlers like Imran Khan

Viv never faced the best bowling unit of his time and against Pakistan he averaged 30.8.

Viv is the best ODI batsman in my mind, but not due to facing and doing well against gun ODI bowlers. He is ahead because he was so far ahead of his peers.

 

[On_the_up]

again as expected overhyping players of the past with nothing to back up.

Oh my, overhyping a player like Richards?

I am guessing you never actually saw him play.

You think scoring runs against the pop gun attacks that most teams have these days makes a great player?

 

[3rdWheel]

Virat the King Kohli anytime, anywhere and on any track. His innings today proved he's ATG even on bowler friendly wicket. A Superman of cricket

 

[Buffet]

Virat the King Kohli anytime, anywhere and on any track. His innings today proved he's ATG even on bowler friendly wicket. A Superman of cricket

There were PPers making fun of him for not scoring earlier against WI in low score chase and now this. Two sides of the same coin.

 

[3rdWheel]

There were PPers making fun of him for not scoring earlier against WI in low score chase and now this. Two sides of the same coin.

Even the great Don Bradman had a few bad outings

 

[Buffet]

Even the great Don Bradman had a few bad outings

What I meant - No need to criticize Kohli for not scoring against WI and no need to praise him as well for scoring against WI.

 

[Tusker]

Richards is a true ATG who could demolish attacks consiting of some of the best bowlers to have walked the planet.

best bowlers such as ..... ?

 

[The_Odd_One]

Viv. He demolished bowlers with a smaller bat.

 

[thehub]

best bowlers such as ..... ?

All trundlers played around that time.

 

[thehub]

Oh my, overhyping a player like Richards?

I am guessing you never actually saw him play.

You think scoring runs against the pop gun attacks that most teams have these days makes a great player?

Did you watch cricket in 80s? All the express fast bowlers were playing in his team. His domestic average was lower than international. I am sure you did not watch or follow cricket in 80s closely.

 

[Rayyman]

Virat the King Kohli anytime, anywhere and on any track. His innings today proved he's ATG even on bowler friendly wicket. A Superman of cricket

That was a flat track

 

[todfod 11]

Virat. But all oldies would go for Viv.

No Kohli has already gone past Viv.

Kohli is competing with Sachin for the top spot. IMHO Viv is number 3 after Sachin.

You sound like a decent stick cricket level player. cant disagree with you more.

 

[Chrish]

why does the track have to be of certain kind?

 

[Square Drive]

why does the track have to be of certain kind?

Because we're talking about Kohli here.

 

[Chrish]

On a serious note there are hardly any bowling tracks left in ODI and rules also favor batsmen tremendously. So one can only compare players with his contemporaries and not any other batsman is capable of doing stuff consistently what Kohli is doing.

 

[Ab Fan]

Viv. He can demolish attacks the way Kohli cant.

 

[Hasan123]

No Kohli has already gone past Viv.

Kohli is competing with Sachin for the top spot. IMHO Viv is number 3 after Sachin.

Viv was a brilliant odi batsmen. He was batting at a strike rate that was unheard of in those times. He's ahead of Kohli for now.

 

[shaz619]

Virat Kohli, on flat pitches he is the ultimate batsman but if it were a final or the opponent was high calibre I would pick Viv

 

[shaz619]

Viv never faced the best bowling unit of his time and against Pakistan he averaged 30.8.

Viv is the best ODI batsman in my mind, but not due to facing and doing well against gun ODI bowlers. He is ahead because he was so far ahead of his peers.

He averaged 30.8 v Pak then but against bowlers in this era he'd average 80-100 at 150+ S/R

 

[Ozymandiasza]

"best since Viv"

I've heard this many times...

 

[Last Monetarist]

Viv.

 

[ExpressPacer]

While VK is certainly the best after Viv in ODIs, he hasn't done enough to be named in the same sentence as Sir Vivian Richards. What Vivian Richards did at a time when cricket was a bowler dominated game with faster bowlers, greener pitches, bigger grounds, tougher rules, less safety and little modern technology coaching is unbelievably astonishing.

People will call out anyone selecting Viv for glorifying legends of the past to the moon but the thing is, in spite of all the predicaments, Richards' record is STILL better. There's no analogies of what could've been or not. No two ways about it. Viv is easily the greatest batsman to have lived. Just imagine what he could've done in this day and age if he did THAT in the 70's and 80's. The mere thought of it runs shrills down my spine.

Kohli can get a 100,000 more runs but to replace Viv, he needs to dominate the way he did. And be so far ahead of his contemporaries as was Viv. Kohli's contemporaries are almost as good as him, sometimes even better. De Kock, Smith, Root - you never know who might ending up replacing Kohli but for Viv, you always knew he was the best and would be so for eternity because of how far ahead he was of everyone.

 

[shaz619]

While VK is certainly the best after Viv in ODIs, he hasn't done enough to be named in the same sentence as Sir Vivian Richards. What Vivian Richards did at a time when cricket was a bowler dominated game with faster bowlers, greener pitches, bigger grounds, tougher rules, less safety and little modern technology coaching is unbelievably astonishing.

People will call out anyone selecting Viv for glorifying legends of the past to the moon but the thing is, in spite of all the predicaments, Richards' record is STILL better. There's no analogies of what could've been or not. No two ways about it. Viv is easily the greatest batsman to have lived. Just imagine what he could've done in this day and age if he did THAT in the 70's and 80's. The mere thought of it runs shrills down my spine.

Kohli can get a 100,000 more runs but to replace Viv, he needs to dominate the way he did. And be so far ahead of his contemporaries as was Viv. Kohli's contemporaries are almost as good as him, sometimes even better. De Kock, Smith, Root - you never know who might ending up replacing Kohli but for Viv, you always knew he was the best and would be so for eternity because of how far ahead he was of everyone.

Totally agree with this, people think one is a hater if they do not submit to Kohli's greatness above legends like Viv. No doubt Kohli is a world class batsman in this era and then we get an indication of what he'd be like in the era of Viv the moments he is met with a challenge, e.g tricky wicket and high calibre bowling and for me he has not delivered enough when the going gets tough, on top of that he has a high score of 43 in 8 finals ! not many are lucky enough to play in so many crunch games with everything on the line.

But generally the metric you used to judge greatness when we compare one to their contemparies is pretty good as a guideline, and there's not a huge gulf in class between Kohli and the others while Viv really stood out in circumstances which weren't exactly friendly

 

[Sachin136]

While VK is certainly the best after Viv in ODIs, he hasn't done enough to be named in the same sentence as Sir Vivian Richards. What Vivian Richards did at a time when cricket was a bowler dominated game with faster bowlers, greener pitches, bigger grounds, tougher rules, less safety and little modern technology coaching is unbelievably astonishing.

People will call out anyone selecting Viv for glorifying legends of the past to the moon but the thing is, in spite of all the predicaments, Richards' record is STILL better. There's no analogies of what could've been or not. No two ways about it. Viv is easily the greatest batsman to have lived. Just imagine what he could've done in this day and age if he did THAT in the 70's and 80's. The mere thought of it runs shrills down my spine.

Kohli can get a 100,000 more runs but to replace Viv, he needs to dominate the way he did. And be so far ahead of his contemporaries as was Viv. Kohli's contemporaries are almost as good as him, sometimes even better. De Kock, Smith, Root - you never know who might ending up replacing Kohli but for Viv, you always knew he was the best and would be so for eternity because of how far ahead he was of everyone.

Contempraries are irrelevant. Having weaker or stronger players in that era with him is not an indicator of his individual quality. Steyn has excelled in an era where there is no bowler even close to him, but no one highlights that. The only player at Kohli's level in ODIs right now is AB, who is has cemented his place as one of the top 10 ODI batsman of all time. Root, Smith etc are not close to them in ODIs.

 

[Sachin136]

Totally agree with this, people think one is a hater if they do not submit to Kohli's greatness above legends like Viv. No doubt Kohli is a world class batsman in this era and then we get an indication of what he'd be like in the era of Viv the moments he is met with a challenge, e.g tricky wicket and high calibre bowling and for me he has not delivered enough when the going gets tough, on top of that he has a high score of 43 in 8 finals ! not many are lucky enough to play in so many crunch games with everything on the line.

But generally the metric you used to judge greatness when we compare one to their contemparies is pretty good as a guideline, and there's not a huge gulf in class between Kohli and the others while Viv really stood out in circumstances which weren't exactly friendly

Who told you that all of Viv's innings were on tricky wickets against high calibre bowling?

Can you produce a many examples when Kohli failed in those conditions?

 

[shaz619]

Who told you that all of Viv's innings were on tricky wickets against high calibre bowling?

Can you produce a many examples when Kohli failed in those conditions?

Do you fail to grasp the handicap of that era compared to the current one? Can you list his entire innings and differentiate between those whom you deem to be in friendly circumstances

More recently the ball deviated by a small amount and Kohli failed in the CT final. Further, out of 8 finals he has a HS of just 43. That too despite enjoying this pro batsman era.

 

[Sachin136]

Do you fail to grasp the handicap of that era compared to the current one? Can you list his entire innings and differentiate between those whom you deem to be in friendly circumstances

More recently the ball deviated by a small amount and Kohli failed in the CT final. Further, out of 8 finals he has a HS of just 43. That too despite enjoying this pro batsman era.

No, I have a good idea of the differences between the eras. I also know that Kohli has compensated for that more than enough.

Why would I list his innings when you are the one who made the claim?

His performance in finals has nothing to do with what I replied to.

 

[On_the_up]

In Viv's era we had 4 great all rounders, Imran/Botham/Hadlee/Kapil plus Lillie/Thompson/Willis, and Qadir/Bedi amongst the spinners.

In the 1998 series, at the tail end of his career he got a 100 against an attack comprising of Imran/a young WasimAkram/Qadir.

Which bowler(s) has Kohli played against which can be termed as great? Steyn maybe?

He was also voted one of the Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century.

A statistical analysis
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/472547.html

If we take ODIs specifically, Viv had an average of 55+ in ODI tournament finals (18 matches in total). Performance when it mattered most and the highest pressure.
What's Kohli's?

Also looking at the ICC's best ever Test rankings
http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/alltime/test/

Viv (joint 7th), Kohli 33rd


Best ever ODI ranking
http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/alltime/odi/

Viv 1st, Kohli 15th

MOM awards in ODIs
Kohli 24 in 189 matches
Viv 31 in 187 matches

Seriously if Viv was playing today his average would be near 60 in tests against the modern day attacks/pitches/bats.

 

[Sarwar89]

Can Virar Kohli match Sir Don Bradman's test average of 99.94??? Well not in 2.4 million years and Can Virat Kohli play An Innings in world cup final which was similar to Viv Richards 1979 or Gilly 2007 or Punter 2003? No no never. End of story. 2019 world cup will mark the end of Kohli mania.

 

[Sarwar89]

One more thing can Virat Kohli play his entire remaining career without helmet ?? Sir viv did. End of debate. Move on

 

[ExpressPacer]

Contempraries are irrelevant. Having weaker or stronger players in that era with him is not an indicator of his individual quality. Steyn has excelled in an era where there is no bowler even close to him, but no one highlights that. The only player at Kohli's level in ODIs right now is AB, who is has cemented his place as one of the top 10 ODI batsman of all time. Root, Smith etc are not close to them in ODIs.

Are you kidding me? The entire world and posters on Pakpassion sing Steyn's praises. Coming back to what you've said, contemporaries are irrelevant? Who says so? Just because you're saying something does not make it a fact. Actually, judging q player on the basis of his contemporaries and comparison with his peers us exactly what IS relevant.

I mentioned that Kohli is only second to Viv thereby acknowledging that Kohli is superior to AB, Smith, Root, Amla and the rest HOWEVER, they are all within an inches distance of him. In fact, many would argue that Amla and AB are superior. Taking that into consideration, how does Kohli therein even hold the position to challenge Sir Vivian Richards who nobody has even dared to match?

 

[Sachin136]

In Viv's era we had 4 great all rounders, Imran/Botham/Hadlee/Kapil plus Lillie/Thompson/Willis, and Qadir/Bedi amongst the spinners.

In the 1998 series, at the tail end of his career he got a 100 against an attack comprising of Imran/a young WasimAkram/Qadir.

Which bowler(s) has Kohli played against which can be termed as great? Steyn maybe?

He was also voted one of the Wisden's 5 cricketers of the century.

A statistical analysis
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/472547.html

If we take ODIs specifically, Viv had an average of 55+ in ODI tournament finals (18 matches in total). Performance when it mattered most and the highest pressure.
What's Kohli's?

Also looking at the ICC's best ever Test rankings
http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/alltime/test/

Viv (joint 7th), Kohli 33rd


Best ever ODI ranking
http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/alltime/odi/

Viv 1st, Kohli 15th

MOM awards in ODIs
Kohli 24 in 189 matches
Viv 31 in 187 matches

Seriously if Viv was playing today his average would be near 60 in tests against the modern day attacks/pitches/bats.

The best ever rankings, as should be obvious, are meaningless. For instance, Voges is ranked 17 places over Zaheer Abbas in tests.

 

[Sarwar89]

I pity for people who are debating on useless topic, unfortunately not many people are aware of history of cricket therefore they are occupied with Kohli. Watch his Test average after tours of South Africa and England next yesr. This world has produced Sir Len Hutton, Sir Wally Hammond, Barry Richards, Sir Jack Hobbs, DG Bradman, Dr WG Grace... this mr nobody kohli is a flat track bully Kohli is nowhere nearer to them.

 

[Sachin136]

Are you kidding me? The entire world and posters on Pakpassion sing Steyn's praises. Coming back to what you've said, contemporaries are irrelevant? Who says so? Just because you're saying something does not make it a fact. Actually, judging q player on the basis of his contemporaries and comparison with his peers us exactly what IS relevant.

I mentioned that Kohli is only second to Viv thereby acknowledging that Kohli is superior to AB, Smith, Root, Amla and the rest HOWEVER, they are all within an inches distance of him. In fact, many would argue that Amla and AB are superior. Taking that into consideration, how does Kohli therein even hold the position to challenge Sir Vivian Richards who nobody has even dared to match?

If some great bowlers were born 20 years later and were playing alongside Steyn, would it make Steyn any lesser of a bowler? It should be obvious why this is not a good metric.

No, Root, Amla, Smith etc are not within a mile of Kohli in ODIs. But again, that is irrelevent. There could be 20 players as good as Kohli playing right now, but if on an individual level Kohli is better than Viv, then it doesn't matter.

"Taking that into consideration, how does Kohli therein even hold the position to challenge Sir Vivian Richards who nobody has even dared to match?"

According to you.

 

[On_the_up]

The best ever rankings, as should be obvious, are meaningless. For instance, Voges is ranked 17 places over Zaheer Abbas in tests.

Wow you really had to dig hard to find that one right?

So tell me why you think Kohli is the better batsman?

 

[On_the_up]

Re MOM awards:

To average a MOM every 6 matches or so in a team which was full of ATGs (potential match winners everywhere), you have got to be something special surely? right? Best of the best.

 

[Buffet]

Wow you really had to dig hard to find that one right?

It's pretty easy to find such examples.

MoYo peak rating is 28 place higher than Miandad.

Botham peak rating is 63 place higher than Wasim.

 

[Tusker]

Wow you really had to dig hard to find that one right?

So tell me why you think Kohli is the better batsman?

Hard to explain in words easier to understand if you watch him bat ... but then you need to have a open mind.

https://youtu.be/ooGUCQRR6I4?t=8m47s

How can anyone that likes cricket NOT like that kind of batting ?

 

[On_the_up]

I saw that match, and it was an amazing inns.

Believe it or not, I have nothing against Kohli. He is right up there in the current era, especially in ODIs.

I just think due to the bowlers being of a much better standard when Viv was playing, I rate his achievements higher.

 

[ExpressPacer]

If some great bowlers were born 20 years later and were playing alongside Steyn, would it make Steyn any lesser of a bowler? It should be obvious why this is not a good metric.

No, Root, Amla, Smith etc are not within a mile of Kohli in ODIs. But again, that is irrelevent. There could be 20 players as good as Kohli playing right now, but if on an individual level Kohli is better than Viv, then it doesn't matter.

"Taking that into consideration, how does Kohli therein even hold the position to challenge Sir Vivian Richards who nobody has even dared to match?"

According to you.

I'm sorry but I don't feel the need to debate with someone who creats their own criteria for as to what makes a particular player better than the other instead of the accepted one. I don't understand why you Indians have to be so biased.

 

[Sachin136]

Wow you really had to dig hard to find that one right?

So tell me why you think Kohli is the better batsman?

Not really, there are many similar examples. Steve Smith over Viv, Sangakkara, Kallis, Gavaskar, Lara, Sachin etc, Root over Gavaskar, Lara, Sachin etc.

I don't think Kohli is a better batsman than Viv, Sachin or even AB. But some of the reasons people have, or statements like "Kohli can't be mentioned in the same sentence as Viv" are blatantly wrong.

 

[Justcrazy]

I would answer this question after Virat can face the Australian Fast bowlers for 5 overs without Helmet .

 

[Sachin136]

I'm sorry but I don't feel the need to debate with someone who creats their own criteria for as to what makes a particular player better than the other instead of the accepted one. I don't understand why you Indians have to be so biased.

Accepted by who? If you can't argue its merits, then feel free to not reply. But next time, if someone disagrees with you, try to respond with something other than just a remark calling them biased.

 

[troodon]

People always overrate past players.

 

[Chrish]

I don't see either players replicating each other's strongest points

 

[Abdul]

I'm always going to pick Kohli.

 

[Tusker]

I saw that match, and it was an amazing inns.

Believe it or not, I have nothing against Kohli. He is right up there in the current era, especially in ODIs.

I just think due to the bowlers being of a much better standard when Viv was playing, I rate his achievements higher.

Bowlers like who ? More than 50% of the best bowlers of that time were from WI !!

 

[TQ89]

I have a question for guys who have lots of sympathy for 70's bowlers/batsmen supposedly because that according to a lot of rose-tinted glassed people was the toughest era of cricket. Why should virat kohli or any other modern batsmen for that matter be judged negatively because they play in today' conditions about their achievements be downgraded.

Lets say I agree with this assessment that all present were batsmen are flat track bullies & score on pitches where bowlers are merely cannon fodder. By this presumption, the current bowlers should all be considered ATG's since they take wickets in batsmen dominated world .

How would richard hadlee, lillee , WI bowlers and pak bowlers fare today where batsmen are aggressive, have proper safety gear, are very fit & have huge bats. I mean all you wisden enthusiasts proclaim that batting was tough in the 80's because there was seam, bounce & bowler dominated era? Judging by that logic, since today's cricket is devoid of such bowler-friendly pitches, should we start elevating current bowler to ATG level and denounce the past bowlers because they would be at disadvantage in the modern world but were good in the 80's?

P.S- I don't really care about what you think about any modern batsman or bowler, just be fair if you wanna make comparisons & apply the same criteria to everyone. This old "Bash the batsmen and spare the bowlers" is not relevant anymore. It is plain bias & discrimination. Anyone who calls this an argument or logic ought to have his head examined

 

[On_the_up]

Bowlers like who ? More than 50% of the best bowlers of that time were from WI !!

I have already stated the answer to that question in another post.

What are you arguments for Kohli being better?

All Kohli supporters are trying to pick arguments in Vivs case rather than providing any for Kohli himself.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Accepted by who? If you can't argue its merits, then feel free to not reply. But next time, if someone disagrees with you, try to respond with something other than just a remark calling them biased.

Mate, you're just giving vague statements and opinions, what do I say to that?

 

[thehub]

I have already stated the answer to that question in another post.

What are you arguments for Kohli being better?

All Kohli supporters are trying to pick arguments in Vivs case rather than providing any for Kohli himself.

Current odi bowlers are better than better odi bowlers that you are referring to in 80s. Hardly any variations those days. No express quick in 80s playing outside of wi. Don't tell me imran and lillie were express quick.

 

[On_the_up]

Current odi bowlers are better than better odi bowlers that you are referring to in 80s. Hardly any variations those days. No express quick in 80s playing outside of wi. Don't tell me imran and lillie were express quick.

You should quit while you are still behind.

 

[thehub]

You should quit while you are still behind.

Lol. You don't have any proper response.

 

[On_the_up]

Lol. You don't have any proper response.

I have given many reasons. It's the Kohli fan boys who can't come up with any for their man.

Don't take my word for it, ask any former cricketers who have seen the 'King' play and you will get the same response.

Viv performed when it mattered most i.e finals (10 scores of 50+ in 17 inns). Kohli at best is a 'nearly' man.

 

[Tusker]

I have already stated the answer to that question in another post.

What are you arguments for Kohli being better?

All Kohli supporters are trying to pick arguments in Vivs case rather than providing any for Kohli himself.

where you hiding in a cave all these yrs when Kohli was piling on runs for fun? I mean Kohli has become synonymous with chasing. 18 hundreds batting second out of which 16 are in Wins ( avg = 98 and S/R = 97 !!! ) . In comparison Viv has a grand total of 3 ODI 100s batting 2nd Link: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...y=runs;result=1;template=results;type=batting

There are only 10 batsmen EVER who have made 5000+ runs batting second in ODIs Virat Kohli is one among them ( at no. 7 already ) even though he has played the least number of matches of the 10 ... the staggering fact is he is the only one that avgs above 50 ( infact 66 ) and at a S/R above 90 !! Link: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;qualval1=runs;template=results;type=batting

In other words while batting 2nd he is only about 1600 runs behind Vivs ENTIREcareer tally of ODI runs and he will surely cross that number 6721 in lot less inngs ( Viv took 167 inngs ) .

Unless Kohli's form and fitness take a U-Turn he will end up as the Greatest ODI player bar none ( and this comes from a Big Tendulkar fan)

 

[thehub]

where you hiding in a cave all these yrs when Kohli was piling on runs for fun? I mean Kohli has become synonymous with chasing. 18 hundreds batting second out of which 16 are in Wins ( avg = 98 and S/R = 97 !!! ) . In comparison Viv has a grand total of 3 ODI 100s batting 2nd Link: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...y=runs;result=1;template=results;type=batting

There are only 10 batsmen EVER who have made 5000+ runs batting second in ODIs Virat Kohli is one among them ( at no. 7 already ) even though he has played the least number of matches of the 10 ... the staggering fact is he is the only one that avgs above 50 ( infact 66 ) and at a S/R above 90 !! Link: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;qualval1=runs;template=results;type=batting

In other words while batting 2nd he is only about 1600 runs behind Vivs ENTIREcareer tally of ODI runs and he will surely cross that number 6721 in lot less inngs ( Viv took 167 inngs ) .

Unless Kohli's form and fitness take a U-Turn he will end up as the Greatest ODI player bar none ( and this comes from a Big Tendulkar fan)

He would say Viv played against better bowlers with no stats to back up. He would talk about bowler friendly era as if bowlers were express quick and played on bouncy Waca wicket throughout his career.

Hyping the past players is something very common in this forum. It's not just this poster.

 

[Tusker]

He would say Viv played against better bowlers with no stats to back up. He would talk about bowler friendly era as if bowlers were express quick and played on bouncy Waca wicket throughout his career.

Hyping the past players is something very common in this forum. It's not just this poster.

yup ... going to interesting how he is going to argue that someone who has made 6 times as many hundreds as Viv while batting second did so only on flat tracks and trundlers.

BTW Richards has a grand total of ZERO inngs where he was reqd to chase a 300+ total

 

[On_the_up]

yup ... going to interesting how he is going to argue that someone who has made 6 times as many hundreds as Viv while batting second did so only on flat tracks and trundlers.

BTW Richards has a grand total of ZERO inngs where he was reqd to chase a 300+ total

You partly answered your own question. Why do you think Viv never had to chase a total of 300+?

The WI team had such good bowlers and team totals were generally lower anyway that Viv didn't have time to get a hundred in the 2nd inns. He remained unbeaten in 20 out of 87 inns, similar ratio to Kohli.

Kohli has impressive stats granted, but when push come to shove the glaring one is:

Finals

Viv 18 matches 17 inns 836 runs 1 hundred and 9 fifties.
Kohli 8 matches 8 inns 154 top score 43 (He even had 2 goes at it in the last final!)

If being a nearly man make you happy then fine, I am pleased for you. Heck even Afridi has played a match winning hand in a final. India should be eternally grateful to Ghambir and Dhoni who stood up for their country when the pressure was extreme, when Sachin and Kohli were also rans.

Taking the team analogy, who would you rather be S Africa who do very well most of the time, are top of the rankings year after year, but choke in the big events time after time, or a team which performs at the biggest stage.

 

[CadPakFan]

Depends if were using oversized bats and small boundaries.

 

[Tusker]

You partly answered your own question. Why do you think Viv never had to chase a total of 300+?

The WI team had such good bowlers and team totals were generally lower anyway that Viv didn't have time to get a hundred in the 2nd inns. He remained unbeaten in 20 out of 87 inns, similar ratio to Kohli.

Knew you would say that .... so what stopped Viv from scoring 100s in the 1st inngs ? Do you realize that Kohli's 2nd inngs record is far superior than Viv's 1st inngs record ( 8 hundreds and 24 fifties ) ?

And one more thing Viv played in a ERA when there were plenty of 55 and 60 over ODIs which gave him more batting time.

Kohli has impressive stats granted, but when push come to shove the glaring one is:

Finals

Viv 18 matches 17 inns 836 runs 1 hundred and 9 fifties.
Kohli 8 matches 8 inns 154 top score 43 (He even had 2 goes at it in the last final!)

If being a nearly man make you happy then fine, I am pleased for you. Heck even Afridi has played a match winning hand in a final. India should be eternally grateful to Ghambir and Dhoni who stood up for their country when the pressure was extreme, when Sachin and Kohli were also rans.

Taking the team analogy, who would you rather be S Africa who do very well most of the time, are top of the rankings year after year, but choke in the big events time after time, or a team which performs at the biggest stage.

Going by this flawed argument I suppose you don't rate BC Lara as a great player at all then ? And BTW the 43 in the last CT final in a low scoring match somehow doesn't count as important nor do you think there is any pressure in S/F and Q/F and ofcourse T20s just dont count lol BTW between him and Tendulkar they managed to take the sting out of quite a bit of SL bowlers in that final ... while nobody denies that Gambhir and Dhoni played the defining innings but anyone who watched that match will tell you that Kohli's contribution cannot be ignored. And if there was one man that gave MSD and Gambhir a chance to play in the final it was Tendulkar. Without him there would be no India in the final.

 

[thehub]

Knew you would say that .... so what stopped Viv from scoring 100s in the 1st inngs ? Do you realize that Kohli's 2nd inngs record is far superior than Viv's 1st inngs record ( 8 hundreds and 24 fifties ) ?

And one more thing Viv played in a ERA when there were plenty of 55 and 60 over ODIs which gave him more batting time.





Going by this flawed argument I suppose you don't rate BC Lara as a great player at all then ? And BTW the 43 in the last CT final in a low scoring match somehow doesn't count as important nor do you think there is any pressure in S/F and Q/F and ofcourse T20s just dont count lol BTW between him and Tendulkar they managed to take the sting out of quite a bit of SL bowlers in that final ... while nobody denies that Gambhir and Dhoni played the defining innings but anyone who watched that match will tell you that Kohli's contribution cannot be ignored. And if there was one man that gave MSD and Gambhir a chance to play in the final it was Tendulkar. Without him there would be no India in the final.

what a stupid argument to put down sachin's contribution to 2011 world cup. If sachin had only scored in finals and failed in all league games, same folks would have told us that "what was he doing during league games, he played a fluke innings in finals,etc.,"

Sachin was one of the top scorers in 3 WC. 96, 2003 and 2011. there were players who struggled to be in the top 3 even for one WC in their life time.

if scoring runs in WC league games is easy, then they should ask their hero Inzi. after playing two blinders in his first WC appearance, struggled to put bat on ball rest of his career in world cup.

 

[Chrish]

Depends if were using oversized bats and small boundaries.

You mean to say other current players besides Kohli not using bigger bats ?

 

[thehub]

I have given many reasons. It's the Kohli fan boys who can't come up with any for their man.

Don't take my word for it, ask any former cricketers who have seen the 'King' play and you will get the same response.

Viv performed when it mattered most i.e finals (10 scores of 50+ in 17 inns). Kohli at best is a 'nearly' man.

then what stopped Viv to score like Kohli while chasing or batting first in non finals? just because one is better in one category is good enough to call him better. how about Kohli's chasing skills, scores runs at higher strike rate without playing cross batted slog? ask current cricket analyst, they would say how good kohli is. you only take cricket analysts of the past or what?

I have seen the game of both players myself. Viv had so much of tech weakness. better version of shewag with skills of hitting the ball on both sides. I have seen Viv struggled on swinging wicket and also against spinners.

 

[Chrish]

WC performances should be examined closely. Gilchrist for example failed in entire tourney then smashed the 100 in the final against Lanka.. Is it suffice to wash off the failure in rest of the matches?

Not at all.. He still failed in WC as far as I am concerned.

 

[Buffet]

WC performances should be examined closely. Gilchrist for example failed in entire tourney then smashed the 100 in the final against Lanka.. Is it suffice to wash off the failure in rest of the matches?

Not at all.. He still failed in WC as far as I am concerned.

I just look at all knockout matches and also over all WC performance. Talking about just finals is meaningless because you don't play too many WC finals.

Sample size should be big enough to conclude anything and just WC finals is pretty low sample size for even guys like Ponting who got to play more finals than an average cricketer. But Ponting and others got to play enough WC matches with rest of the players from other countries.

 

[thehub]

WC performances should be examined closely. Gilchrist for example failed in entire tourney then smashed the 100 in the final against Lanka.. Is it suffice to wash off the failure in rest of the matches?

Not at all.. He still failed in WC as far as I am concerned.

I agree. Dhoni failed whole tournament and played one blinder in finals. Giving him all credit is not fair for Yuvi, sachin,gambit.

 

[On_the_up]

But when the sample size is large enough, stats start to tell a story.

You expect the odd big score from a legend if they have played 8 finals. Of course he still has time to correct that stat.

I repeat, I don't dislike Kohli, I think he is one of the best around at the moment.

If we come back to the actual question in the title, on a flat track, Viv is likely to be more destructive.

Let's just agree to disagree on the matter.

 

[Tusker]

But when the sample size is large enough, stats start to tell a story.

You expect the odd big score from a legend if they have played 8 finals. Of course he still has time to correct that stat.

I repeat, I don't dislike Kohli, I think he is one of the best around at the moment.

If we come back to the actual question in the title, on a flat track, Viv is likely to be more destructive.

Let's just agree to disagree on the matter.

Based on this Gambhir > BC Lara because both their careers are over .