Viv Richards Vs Virat Kohli

[Gowza]

Who is the better ODI bat?

Obviously Kohli hasn't finished his career but comparing his career to-date to VIv's, who do you rate as the better ODI batsman?

[Tigers_eye]

lol, why are you even asking the question? You must be nuts? With the exception of Bradman and Sobers I don't think anyone is comparable to Viv.

And they didn't play one day games.

[Gowza]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
lol, why are you even asking the question? You must be nuts? With the exception of Bradman and Sobers I don't think anyone is comparable to Viv.

And they didn't play one day games.

Kohli is a very good ODI bat, one of the best of all time, so is Viv, both batted a lot at #3. Viv was great but didn't convert to hundreds as much as he could have.

[Gowza]

Interestingly Viv says Kohli reminds him of himself. The way I see it Viv was more destructive but Kohli scores more centuries.

[zman]

I rate both AB and Amla higher than Kohli. Those two can score in any condition. Kohli scores almost 75% of his centuries in the subcontinent and BCCI forces host nations to prepare custom made drop in pitches that nullify bounce and swing. So 80-90% of his big innings are scored in similar conditions. One of the perks of having the most powerful cricket board is they can pull a few strings for you like that. Not too many batsmen in the world enjoy such advantage. Kohli recently had the chance to set himself apart from the rest in England where the pitches had bounce and swing but he was one of the worst performers there. He's not even close to Viv.

[duke]

Originally Posted by zman
I rate both AB and Amla higher than Kohli. Those two can score in any condition. Kohli scores almost 75% of his centuries in the subcontinent and BCCI forces host nations to prepare custom made drop in pitches that nullify bounce and swing. So 80-90% of his big innings are scored in similar conditions. One of the perks of having the most powerful cricket board is they can pull a few strings for you like that. Not too many batsmen in the world enjoy such advantage. Kohli recently had the chance to set himself apart from the rest in England where the pitches had bounce and swing but he was one of the worst performers there. He's not even close to Viv.

Kohli is a good one day batsman especially while chasing. And your argument that BCCI forces host nations to prepare batsmen friendly pitches is contradictory bcz then they could have forced ECB to prepare batsmen friendly pitches .
These days the following two statements are very popular:-

Kohli scores a century. " Its a batsman friendly wicket."
Kohli doesn't score. " Its a seaming wicket therefore Kohli couldn't score. He is a flat track bully."

Anyways, AB de is better than Kohli in all formats. But amla chokes in pressure situations.

[zman]

Originally Posted by duke
BCCI forces host nations to prepare batsmen friendly pitches is contradictory bcz then they could have forced ECB to prepare batsmen friendly pitches.
These days the following two statements are very popular:-

Kohli scores a century. " Its a batsman friendly wicket."
Kohli doesn't score. " Its a seaming wicket therefore Kohli couldn't score. He is a flat track bully."

It doesn't necessarily have to be forced it could be by mutual agreement also as cricket is becoming a sport ONLY driven by money. India doing well means more money, and India getting knocked out early means format needs to changed to lessen the odds of India getting knocked out early the next time.

My claim about the pitches is not based on what I've read rather what I saw and the opinions of commentators from both sides including India. Just watch the matches played in Eng and NZ and what kind of swing you get. Also the bounce at many of the venues in SA and Aus. When Ind plays you rarely see the swing or the bounce. I think they do it primarily in Aus/SA as they feel their bowling attacks are much more potent, while in Eng/NZ you still saw the swing and bounce, the decision probably stemming from their belief that those sides were inferior to Ind. Commentators from both sides, including Gavaskar, Manjrekar, Harsha, acknowledge the placid nature of the pitches in Aus/SA which otherwise exhibit considerably more amount of swing and/or bounce. If you don't see the difference you're just choosing to ignore the facts.

Amla is an opener and his role is different from that of AB/Kohli but the sheer amount of runs he scores in ALL CONDITIONS and his conversion rate for hundreds is unprecedented and simply mind boggling. And he does it at the same strike rate as Kohli. It's because of him AB can play the way he does.

I think Kohli is not a good but a great batsman, but by pulling strings, BCCI is making it difficult for neutral observers not to put an asterisk next to many of his performances. If they didn't I think India would've suffered more defeats as a team but Kohli probably would've benefited.

[BanCricFan]

There is Viv Richards. Then there is some clear daylight. Then comes Tendulkar followed by ABdV. But, AB is catching up FAST.

[Razi]

Originally Posted by Gowza
Kohli is a very good ODI bat, one of the best of all time, so is Viv, both batted a lot at #3. Viv was great but didn't convert to hundreds as much as he could have.

Originally Posted by Gowza
The way I see it Viv was more destructive but Kohli scores more centuries.

No offense bro, but I've been observing for quite a long time that you have some kind of freak obsession for tons. You just go crazy for tons no matter how, where or against whom it is scored. It seems for you the only parameter for judging a player is how many tons he scored regardless of the level of competition, conditions, opponents or match situations. Cricket is a team sport and what matters most is how much you contribute to the team's success and what impact you can make in the game. At the end of the day a hundred is just a personal milestone and has no value if it doesn't help a team win the game.

There is no doubt Kohli is a great batsman and currently one of the best in the business but to compare him with an ATG like Viv halfway through his career just because he scored more centuries is outright ridiculous!

[BengaliIndia]

We need to stop comparing players from different eras --- each era had unique strength and weaknesses for example

During Viv's time the most fearsome bowlers were mostly from WI so Viv did not have to face them. His performance against the other fearsome pair of Akram and Waqar is below par. Also the quality of fielding has increased many folds since that era---in his support --- we can say that fielding restrictions were not there--- the quality of pitches have become much more batting friendly in the current era. So I think without putting all these factors into play -- just looking at mere records do not prove anything

[zman]

^good point but to be fair batting was far more difficult in the past when 210-220 was the average score compared to 280+ today

[BengaliIndia]

Originally Posted by zman
^good point but to be fair batting was far more difficult in the past when 210-220 was the average score compared to 280+ today

due to field restrictions and pitches being batting friendly... also the attitude and game plan has changed since Jayasuriya and Greatbatch started that in 1992... whack first 10 overs..

[BengaliIndia]

and this whole BCCI and conspiracy theory is going to a ridiculous level-- I don't see Aussies or England Kiwis making these noises .. mostly comes from Pakistani and Bangladeshis---- trying to find an excuse for their own failures

[zman]

^oh really?

With the World Cup just a month away, Australia pacer Ryan Harris has expressed his disappointment and said he felt like a “bowling machine” on the batsman-friendly wickets.

“As a bowler, and we spoke about it during the last Test just how disappointing (it is) not to get a nice wicket, not so much a bowler-friendly green top, but a wicket with a bit of bounce at least where you could bowl a good bouncer,” said the 35-year-old.

Source:
http://us.india.com/sports/india-aus...harris-246672/

Just rewind videos of the matches to hear what even the Indian commentators had to say about the pitches.

[BengaliIndia]

So where exactly is the proof that BCCI has forced Cricket Australia to make friendly pitches? Without any proof all these theories are known commonly as conspiracy theories....

[zman]

It's not necessarily forced as I said it could very well be a mutual understanding or secret handshake between the boards in the interest of having the tests last longer...what I'm contending is if not for pitches that don't deteriorate the slightest bit in 5 days India wouldn't have lasted 3-4 days on normal bouncy/swinging pitches against that Aussie attack! Racking up thousands of runs primarily on lifeless pitches like these and then being compared to batsmen who score on all kinds of pitches and Viv himself...you get my drift!

[Gowza]

Originally Posted by Razi
No offense bro, but I've been observing for quite a long time that you have some kind of freak obsession for tons. You just go crazy for tons no matter how, where or against whom it is scored. It seems for you the only parameter for judging a player is how many tons he scored regardless of the level of competition, conditions, opponents or match situations. Cricket is a team sport and what matters most is how much you contribute to the team's success and what impact you can make in the game. At the end of the day a hundred is just a personal milestone and has no value if it doesn't help a team win the game.

There is no doubt Kohli is a great batsman and currently one of the best in the business but to compare him with an ATG like Viv halfway through his career just because he scored more centuries is outright ridiculous!

Being able to convert your opportunities and take advantage of your good form is an important attribute to have for a batsman and when comparing players at this level everything counts.

It's not just about Kohli scoring more tons, he averages 5 points higher than Viv, he's only 330 odd total runs behind Viv in quite a few less innings and Kohli is one of the best chasers of all time if not THE best.

What kohli has achieved so far makes him an ATG ODI batsman already.

[Jadukor]

We will never know who is the better player until we have some sort of indicator that factors in different parameters across eras. It is ridiculous to look at stats since the conditions, rules, equipment during which these two players played are so different

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by Gowza
....
It's not just about Kohli scoring more tons, he averages 5 points higher than Viv, he's only 330 odd total runs behind Viv in quite a few less innings and Kohli is one of the best chasers of all time if not THE best...

You want me to knock this out of the park in one sentence?

Had Viv had today's bat, FIELD RESTRICTIONS, and BD-ZIM-IND-PAK bowlers to toy with; the record books would have thrown out because there would not be any records for anyone to break. Be it tons, avg, strike rate, personal mile stones 300 in 50 overs etc.

[al Furqaan]

Yeah, have to agree with Mijan bhai...Viv would have made ABDV look like CRAP.

[Gowza]

It's not all about stats, but the stats put them in a similar range, when you're looking at the best ODI #3s these two players are the best. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the differences between these two whether it be era differences, stats, styles of player etc etc.

[BanCricFan]

Originally Posted by BengaliIndia

During Viv's time the most fearsome bowlers were mostly from WI so Viv did not have to face them. His performance against the other fearsome pair of Akram and Waqar is below par.

I find the above almost an act of deception. I am, frankly, disturbed. Not only Viv faced Lillee, Thomson, Hadlee, Imran and Botham in their prime in Test/ODI matches but he also took on his compatriots in the FC matches in England and Australia. How many matches did he play against Wasim and Waqar and at what age?

Viv used to strike it around 90s when rest of the top batters barely touching 70. And, all this without the protection of a helmet. If Viv was playing today and in his prime his SR would be around 150 with all this T20 culture, big bats, helmets, space age equipment, limits on bouncers and fielding restrictions. I wouldn't be surprised if he scored an ODI triple hundred. Lets not demean a true great in blind "patriotism" or love for a particular cricketer.

[BangaliMessi]

There is no comparison between Bradman and Viv and Viv and Sachin and Sachin and Kohli. Unless the numbers are like Bradman, Gretzky, Isinbayeva or Dhyanchand we should not put people across eras against each other.

Having said that, it saddens me to see that anything that an Indian cricketer does or would do will be seen by fans of other teams as an act of BCCI getting their way through or people giving them a leeway to play well in the IPL. I rarely see anybody question the records of the english or aussie greats before the 2000's of getting it easy because of their boards. Is it because we feel better about ourselves if we can call everything a conspiracy.

Beyond cricket a larger point that I see and wanted to make is that Muslims across the world are succumbing to such high degrees of conspiracy theories that sometimes it feels we live in a parallel universe. Anyway this is not the place to talk about all this.

I have never seen a batsman as fearless as Viv to come out and in the annals of cricket history he shall always be a hero. Kohli has a long long way to go.

[zman]

Originally Posted by Gowza
It's not all about stats, but the stats put them in a similar range, when you're looking at the best ODI #3s these two players are the best. The whole point of this thread is to discuss the differences between these two whether it be era differences, stats, styles of player etc etc.

I know you have an affinity for numbers so I'll stick to statistics to justify what I've already said. For ATG's who are currently playing, on a scale of 1 to AB (10) I'd give Amla 8.5 and Kohli 7. For the sake of comparison below are the stats for these three ATG's plus Viv:

Kohli
Outside SC, 64 matches, 6 centuries 45.66 avg
Inside SC, 89 matches, 16 centuries 56.79 avg

Amla
Outside SC, 92 matches, 16 centuries 56.04 avg
Inside SC, 26 matches, 4 centuries, 52.5 avg

AB
Outside SC, 140 matches, 13 centuries 52.62 avg
Inside SC, 42 matches, 7 centuries 53.97 avg

Viv
Outside SC, 140 matches, 8 centuries, 47.66 avg
Inside SC, 47 matches, 3 centuries, 45.1 avg

Players like AB and Amla perform almost the same way and have the same kind of intimidation factor regardless of where they play. Kohli's stats tell us while he's exceptionally good in SC conditions, he's not nearly as good in non SC conditions. His avg drops more than 10 as soon as he steps outside SC. Not to mention many critics believe even this statistic is somewhat inflated as some of the non SC matches are actually played on drop in pitches mimicking SC conditions.

Why this distinction in avg's between SC and non SC is important? when teams visit India they know Kohli is a serious threat--arguably the best player in SC conditions. But when you go outside the SC, he's just another very good batsman, not exceptional like AB or Amla. The intimidation factor subsides considerably.

Now compared to the time when Richards' played bulk of his matches scoring has increased 25-35%. Taking the lower end of that range, 12 runs would have to be added to Richards' avg to adjust for era. Now Kohli played 13 matches or slightly less than 10% of his matches against Ban/Zim where he averages 90+ with 4 centuries, 80% more than his avg of 49 without them. Assuming Richards would play about 10% of the matches against Zim/Ban in which he'd avg about 80% more than his avg without them, another 5 runs would have to be added. So by my conservative estimates Richards' avg today would be 65. If we're not being so conservative it would be more like 67-70.

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by BengaliIndia
We need to stop comparing players from different eras --- each era had unique strength and weaknesses for example

During Viv's time the most fearsome bowlers were mostly from WI so Viv did not have to face them...

The first part I agree but for the second part of the quote

You are not serious are you?

If you read Holdings comment when he was asked about fast bowling.

His reaction was to the line as, if you want to see fast bowling come to our nets. That is how we prepare our batsmen.

He had his cap, chewing gum and stare even at the nets. I vaguely remember they had multiple incidents among themselves in the net sessions.