Great article on Virat Kohli

[Satakarni_bali]

1 minute ago, Kool_SRG said:

Vadileyi saami entuku vachindi gaani 

[uttermost]

4 minutes ago, Satakarni_bali said:

But kohli is all statistics, orthodox batting, 

Why so much hatred towards Sachin by DBians 

tennislvr just wants to prove his point. that's all.

the point I think is, Kohli is a consummate sportsman. which everyone agrees with. but he still wants to prove something. Something more than, that Kohli is a super batsman.

[uttermost]

47 minutes ago, Satakarni_bali said:

kottukokandi vayya, idi chadivukondi

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20740938/tendulkar-kohli-odi-chases-better

@Kool_SRG

mee sontha sollu enduku, vaadu neat ga explain chesindu just CHASING Records.

opika lekapote just read below.

Moral : The difference between Kohli and Tendulkar is the support at the other end. It is this support that explains the improved results. If the two are compared as individual run chasers, then Tendulkar was actually better than Kohli is.

 

@uttermost

 

by the way brilliant article you posted. thanks. look at this too.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20655528/kartikeya-date-virat-kohli-there-sachin-tendulkar-viv-richards-odi-batsman

Overall, 42% of all ODI games in the 2010s have seen at least one hundred. By contrast, only 24% of ODIs in the 1980s featured at least one hundred. In the 1990s this figure increased marginally to 28%. In the 2000s, 33% of all ODI games featured at least one century. Run-scoring has become significantly easier in the middle overs, thanks to changes in ODI playing conditions, such as the use of two new balls and restrictions on field settings between overs 15 and 40, that have been tailormade to enable quicker scoring in this part of the innings. Improvement in cricket bats has also been a factor. All this explains, at least in part, the increase in century-making by middle-order ODI players.

The numbers suggest that Tendulkar and Richards were superior to their contemporaries in a way that Kohli, de Villiers and Amla are not. Richards' average and strike rate compare favourably to those of the present era. He was, without serious dispute, the supreme limited-overs batsman of his era.

[uttermost]

Amla definitely comes off as the biggest surprise. quietly racking up centuries in tougher SA pitches.

[uttermost]

In the present decade, in which Kohli has made 29 of his 30 hundreds in 173 innings, Amla has 24 hundreds in 132 innings, and de Villiers has 20 in 124. David Warner has 13 hundreds in 87 innings, Quinton de Kock 12 in 85, Shikhar Dhawan 11 in 89, Joe Root 10 in 87, Ross Taylor 14 in 109, and Rohit Sharma 13 in 119. It is early in his career, but Babar Azam has racked up five hundreds in his first 31 ODI innings. Every major team seems to have at least one player who could potentially post numbers like Kohli has.

 

The same could not be said of teams in Tendulkar's era, especially once Tendulkar began to open the batting. Kohli has a strong claim to being first among equals, but the numbers do not support the idea that he is a class apart from his ODI contemporaries in the way that Richards and Tendulkar were from theirs. Today's ODI batting numbers look impressive, but they need to be considered in context. When many players achieve similar numbers, the best numbers in this set are not exceptional.

 

 

[Batman_fan]

5 minutes ago, uttermost said:

by the way brilliant article you posted. thanks. look at this too.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20655528/kartikeya-date-virat-kohli-there-sachin-tendulkar-viv-richards-odi-batsman

Overall, 42% of all ODI games in the 2010s have seen at least one hundred. By contrast, only 24% of ODIs in the 1980s featured at least one hundred. In the 1990s this figure increased marginally to 28%. In the 2000s, 33% of all ODI games featured at least one century. Run-scoring has become significantly easier in the middle overs, thanks to changes in ODI playing conditions, such as the use of two new balls and restrictions on field settings between overs 15 and 40, that have been tailormade to enable quicker scoring in this part of the innings. Improvement in cricket bats has also been a factor. All this explains, at least in part, the increase in century-making by middle-order ODI players.

The numbers suggest that Tendulkar and Richards were superior to their contemporaries in a way that Kohli, de Villiers and Amla are not. Richards' average and strike rate compare favourably to those of the present era. He was, without serious dispute, the supreme limited-overs batsman of his era.

Wow. Karthikeya does a great analysis. I think I saw another article that provided an equation to measure the greatness of any player. Can't find it now.

Basically this guy calculated average/strike rate/outs for batsman only for the balls/runs against top 10-20 ( i think bowlers of 800+ rating) ranking bowlers of batman's era. 

[Kool_SRG]

9 minutes ago, uttermost said:

Amla definitely comes off as the biggest surprise. quietly racking up centuries in tougher SA pitches.

In ODIs He is Fastest batsman to reach 2,000 (40 inns), 3,000 (59 inns), 4,000 (81 inns), 5,000 (101inns), 6,000 (123 inns) 7,000 (150 inns) and soon for 8000..

[uttermost]

2 minutes ago, Batman_fan said:

Wow. Karthikeya does a great analysis. I think I saw another article that provided an equation to measure the greatness of any player. Can't find it now.

Basically this guy calculated average/strike rate/outs for batsman only for the balls/runs against top 10-20 ( i think bowlers of 800+ rating) ranking bowlers of batman's era. 

I think I posted this article last time too, but our tennis boy insists that VK has achieved something no Indian batsman has.

that's why I chose to stick to stat less rhetoric this time.

[uttermost]

4 minutes ago, Kool_SRG said:

In ODIs He is Fastest batsman to reach 2,000 (40 inns), 3,000 (59 inns), 4,000 (81 inns), 5,000 (101inns), 6,000 (123 inns) 7,000 (150 inns) and soon for 8000..

He seems to do without much fanfare. he's just one of the brilliant players on tour today.

[Kool_SRG]

1 minute ago, uttermost said:

He seems to do without much fanfare. he's just one of the brilliant players on tour today.

    he is a silent killer goes unnoticed... Only thing is he may not last long he is already 34 now.

 

[uttermost]

3 minutes ago, Kool_SRG said:

    he is a silent killer goes unnoticed... Only thing is he may not last long he is already 34 now.

 

Amla will still retire as a modern day great. So will devilliers. and kohli and warner etc.

[tennisluvr]

25 minutes ago, uttermost said:

I think I posted this article last time too, but our tennis boy insists that VK has achieved something no Indian batsman has.

that's why I chose to stick to stat less rhetoric this time.

I am interested in reading that analysis too. 

[tennisluvr]

32 minutes ago, Batman_fan said:

Wow. Karthikeya does a great analysis. I think I saw another article that provided an equation to measure the greatness of any player. Can't find it now.

Basically this guy calculated average/strike rate/outs for batsman only for the balls/runs against top 10-20 ( i think bowlers of 800+ rating) ranking bowlers of batman's era. 

What you forgot to mention conveniently is that Sachin has scored most of those as an opener. 

Please bring up statistics of the position Sachin has batted when he scored most of these centuries vs the ones scored by a middle order batsman like Virat Kohli. 

[uttermost]

5 minutes ago, tennisluvr said:

I am interested in reading that analysis too. 

meaning? you haven't read it even after posting it twice?

[Kool_SRG]

2 minutes ago, tennisluvr said:

What you forgot to mention conveniently is that Sachin has scored most of those as an opener. 

Please bring up statistics of the position Sachin has batted when he scored most of these centuries vs the ones scored by a middle order batsman like Virat Kohli. 

LOL virat kohli plays at  No#3 which is top order bro he played earlier at 4 but for 30-40 innings may be...Also under 10 innings at 1-2.