De Villiers vs. Kohli: Mother of all ODI comparisons

[Top_Cat]

Nah see, it’s a misconception amongst cricket fans that because the game has evolved, this impacts on the achievements of past players. Viv’s ODI record by modern standards is still pretty solid which tells you enough by itself given precisely zero players from his time even compete on a statistical level. But, for the time, he was a freak. Whatever the modern players do, still have to judge him in context. This is harder the longer time passes and less information about what it was like to be part of a rapidly evolving format of the game was like. Still, the other bats of the time were trying to evolve their own games to the new format but Viv was literally playing another game.

On the thread, Kohli squeaks it.

 

[andruid]

Saurav Ganguly

 

[smash84]

great comparison, Kohli the better chaser, AB the quicker run machine, probably Kohli because of his performances in crunch matches (not a lot here for either )

 

[srbhkshk]

Well at least statistically ABD is about as far away from his peers as Viv was from his -

Viv average - 47.00 , SR - 90.20 | Top 7 batsman average during Viv's ODI career - 29.38 , SR - 65.96 , so Viv is 60% better than average in terms of average and 36.7% better in terms of SR.

ABD average - 54.06 , SR - 101.07 | Top 7 batsman average since start of ABDs career - 32.80 , SR - 80.43 , so ABD is 64.8% , 25.7% better.

It's probably still advantage Viv given that 10% SR is probably better than 5% average, but it's not an enormous gap at least statistically, and contextually could really go either way.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Viv's SR is absolutely mind-boggling even without considering the rule changes favouring batsmen since that era.

 

[Shri]

Also probably benefited from ODI tactics that were not as evolved as it is now to be fair.

 

[smash84]

Also probably benefited from ODI tactics that were not as evolved as it is now to be fair.

Nobody else benefited from those primitive tactics?

 

[subshakerz]

Well at least statistically ABD is about as far away from his peers as Viv was from his -

Viv average - 47.00 , SR - 90.20 | Top 7 batsman average during Viv's ODI career - 29.38 , SR - 65.96 , so Viv is 60% better than average in terms of average and 36.7% better in terms of SR.

ABD average - 54.06 , SR - 101.07 | Top 7 batsman average since start of ABDs career - 32.80 , SR - 80.43 , so ABD is 64.8% , 25.7% better.

It's probably still advantage Viv given that 10% SR is probably better than 5% average, but it's not an enormous gap at least statistically, and contextually could really go either way.

I think this article successfully shows that Viv and Tendulkar were statistically on another level when it comes to ODI, even moreso than Kohli and AB...

Is Kohli up there with Tendulkar and Richards as an ODI batsman? - ESPNcricinfo

 

[Spark]

Dean Jones always takes me surprise by just how good he was whenever these sorts of analyses pop up.

 

[ankitj]

I think this article successfully shows that Viv and Tendulkar were statistically on another level when it comes to ODI, even moreso than Kohli and AB...

Is Kohli up there with Tendulkar and Richards as an ODI batsman? - ESPNcricinfo

Quite clearly, Richards is still the finest ODI batsman to have drawn breath.

Above analysis fails to properly assess value of players like Dhoni and Bevan though.

 

[oblongballs]

For me it is ABD and I think quite comfortably too. The reason is, if I was picking an ODI team and I could only pick one of these two, I'd want to pick the one with a better 360 game and more explosiveness. That is the south african.

 

[Top_Cat]

Dean Jones always takes me surprise by just how good he was whenever these sorts of analyses pop up.

Not if you saw him bat. Set the standard for blokes hustling for the second run, was more of a weapon than his hitting, really. He should always be in the conversation amongst the best ever.

 

[vcs]

Pretty good Test record also. Why did he only play 52 Tests with an average of nearly 47?

 

[Top_Cat]

Despite my raging at it at the time, perception was that it was time to move on to the next generation (Martyn, Langer, etc.) because he’d developed a habit of being on the verge of being dropped only to save his arse in the dead rubber. Was a tough call, especially since he’d just come back from a SL tour where he’d smashed them and MWaugh scored 4 blobs on the trot but at least he wasn’t treated as poorly as, say, Tom Moody.

 

[Red]

Just having a look thru Deano's record and it's weird to think he more or less replaced G.Chappell in the test team at the time, in 84.

 

[oblongballs]

Deano was one of those pioneering types, his running and hitting was ahead of its time. For fans alive at the time he gets rated but historically he is a bit over shadowed, and rightfully so, by a number of great batsmen at the time.