Virat Kohli, the greatest ODI bat ever?

[h_hurricane]

Kohli is obviously the best of this era, but this era is just bonkers easy for batting. All these would be ATG stats before 2015.

18 tons in 60 matches . This guy is something else. As many have already mentioned here, no amount of era adjustment will compare him unfavorably with any one from the past.

 

[stephen]

This era is making a mockery of statistics. Kohli is great, but he's not 86 average great.

 

[h_hurricane]

This era is making a mockery of statistics. Kohli is great, but he's not 86 average great.

That is fair, but if some one era adjusts it and compares it with an ODI great of the past, Kohli would still be doing good.

 

[vcs]

This era is making a mockery of statistics. Kohli is great, but he's not 86 average great.

Well, the point is if the others are worth 55-60 average, then he is worth his 86 average.

 

[stephen]

Well, the point is if the others are worth 55-60 average, then he is worth his 86 average.

But that's it, I don't trust those stats at all. Batting is the easiest it's ever been right now. Everything favours the batsmen.

The other top bats would have averaged 40 in a different era, not 60. Kohli would have averaged 55, not 86.

 

[OverratedSanity]

But that's it, I don't trust those stats at all. Batting is the easiest it's ever been right now. Everything favours the batsmen.

The other top bats would have averaged 40 in a different era, not 60. Kohli would have averaged 55, not 86.

Why would Kohli's average drop more than the others'?

 

[stephen]

Why would Kohli's average drop more than the others'?

2/3 of 60 = 40
2/3 of 86 = 57

I was rounding.

 

[h_hurricane]

2/3 of 60 = 40
2/3 of 86 = 57

I was rounding.

This adjustment will take Bumrah's bowling avg to 14 and Rashid Khan's to 10.

 

[Borges]

This adjustment will take Bumrah's bowling avg to 14 and Rashid Khan's to 10.

So Bumrah is a moderate upgrade over palookas like Garner and McGrath who bowled in an earlier era;
and Rashid Khan is the mother of all moderate upgrades over hacks like Murali and Warne.
Truth. I like it.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Would Kohli still be a truly world class ODI bat had he played in a different era? In all likelihood, yes
Would he have been able to sustain an average around 86 for an extended period of time? Doubt it

This era of ODI cricket is absurdly batsman friendly, to say otherwise is simply false. That isn't an attempt to discredit Kohli, more just general criticism of the way ODI cricket has evolved

 

[stephen]

This adjustment will take Bumrah's bowling avg to 14 and Rashid Khan's to 10.

I don't think it's been uniform anyway. I think this era's stats inflation has disproportionately benefited the better batsmen.

The reason being that the hardest part of batting is playing yourself in. Scoring your first 20 runs is harder than any 20 after that. Making that period easier disproportionately helps the guys who are better batsmen because once they are in there far more likely to go large than batsmen who aren't as good (think unforced errors in tennis).

So what we have is that the best 3 batsmen of the best 6 teams have way over inflated averages while the ordinary batsmen might improve by 10% and the bowlers by nothing at all. And the better you are the more it inflates your average.

It won't hurt the best bowlers too much since they won't exclusively be bowling to the best batsmen. So Bumrah in another era might adjust down to 18 during this purple patch and Rashid down to 12 (or maybe not at all, the bloke averages 14 ffs).

Everyone knows Kohli appetite for huge scores once he's in (in both tests and ODIs), so it makes sense that if he's able to play himself in more often he can better take advantage of that.

And maybe that was true of Bradman.

I'm not trying to diminish Kohli here, I'm lamenting that the batting stats of the last few years cannot be trusted at all, given batting is so much easier than it used to be.

In 2000 there was one ODI batsman averaging over 60 (min 300 runs) and 5 averaging over 50.

In 2003 there were 3 and 8

2006 - 0 and 3

2009 - 2 and 11

2012 - 7 and 8.

2015 - 4 and 19

2018 - 10 and 18

Going from 0-2 batsmen averaging >60 in the 00s to 4-7 batsmen in the 10s is massive. Going from 3-11 batsmen averaging 50+ in the 00s to 8-18 in the 10s is equally ridiculous.

The 00s wasn't even bad for batting either, it was considered the best decade for batting in ODIs until that point. The fact that the ease of batting has dramatically increased since then is just crazy.

 

[Spark]

The 2015 WC was a bit of a turning point, even if all indicators were already pointing towards something like it happening. Sanga's 4 hundreds, AB averaging 100 striking at 140, Maxwell striking at 180, 20+ players averaging more than 50.

Boggles the mind how Starc took his wickets at 10 a piece.

Has there been a more dominant single tournament performance than 2015 WC Starc? It barely makes sense, what he was able to do compared to everyone else.

 

[vcs]

Kohli is not just a boring stat phenomenon who racks up big numbers while dominating minnows and meaningless matches like crazy. Even when he was "only" averaging 50 and not 60, he was being compared to the greats because of his Hobart knock and various other amazing things that he was doing with the frequency that very few others have.

 

[h_hurricane]

I don't think it's been uniform anyway. I think this era's stats inflation has disproportionately benefited the better batsmen.

The reason being that the hardest part of batting is playing yourself in. Scoring your first 20 runs is harder than any 20 after that. Making that period easier disproportionately helps the guys who are better batsmen because once they are in there far more likely to go large than batsmen who aren't as good (think unforced errors in tennis).

So what we have is that the best 3 batsmen of the best 6 teams have way over inflated averages while the ordinary batsmen might improve by 10% and the bowlers by nothing at all. And the better you are the more it inflates your average.

It won't hurt the best bowlers too much since they won't exclusively be bowling to the best batsmen. So Bumrah in another era might adjust down to 18 during this purple patch and Rashid down to 12 (or maybe not at all, the bloke averages 14 ffs).

Everyone knows Kohli appetite for huge scores once he's in (in both tests and ODIs), so it makes sense that if he's able to play himself in more often he can better take advantage of that.

And maybe that was true of Bradman.

I'm not trying to diminish Kohli here, I'm lamenting that the batting stats of the last few years cannot be trusted at all, given batting is so much easier than it used to be.

In 2000 there was one ODI batsman averaging over 60 (min 300 runs) and 5 averaging over 50.

In 2003 there were 3 and 8

2006 - 0 and 3

2009 - 2 and 11

2012 - 7 and 8.

2015 - 4 and 19

2018 - 10 and 18

Going from 0-2 batsmen averaging >60 in the 00s to 4-7 batsmen in the 10s is massive. Going from 3-11 batsmen averaging 50+ in the 00s to 8-18 in the 10s is equally ridiculous.

The 00s wasn't even bad for batting either, it was considered the best decade for batting in ODIs until that point. The fact that the ease of batting has dramatically increased since then is just crazy.

I think it is fair to say that cricket is not a linear co-relation game. Great players who stand head and shoulders above the rest in an era would have done the same in another era as well. IVA Richards and V Kohli stand out as the GOAT in ODIs, a cut above the rest. SRT and ABD follow them.

 

[stephen]

I think it is fair to say that cricket is not a linear co-relation game. Great players who stand head and shoulders above the rest in an era would have done the same in another era as well. IVA Richards and V Kohli stand out as the GOAT in ODIs, a cut above the rest. SRT and ABD follow them.

See I'm not sure if I rate Kohli ahead of ABDV yet. They're about even with ABDV being a few noses in front at this stage. If Kohli keeps his form up though there's no way he won't overtake de Villiers though. He's already ahead of Sachin in my mind.

 

[Spark]

I see no justification whatsoever for putting ABdV above Kohli. I'd genuinely like to see that argument being put forward in detail.

 

[Flem274*]

Modern batsmen suck because conditions are loaded in favour of batting but we don't adjust the bowling averages of starc, boult, bumrah etc down and declare them atgs/future atgs because we want the 80s/90s/00s to be the bestest

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

18 tons in 60 matches . This guy is something else. As many have already mentioned here, no amount of era adjustment will compare him unfavorably with any one from the past.

Rohit
14 tons in 62 matches

Warner
10 in 41

Top 3 batsmen in odi history playing in the same era. Whoa.

 

[harsh.ag]

Modern batsmen suck because conditions are loaded in favour of batting but we don't adjust the bowling averages of starc, boult, bumrah etc down and declare them atgs/future atgs because we want the 80s/90s/00s to be the bestest

Gets Boult in the same conversation as Starc and Bumrah. Good sneaking there.

 

[mr_mister]

Yeah if Kohlis not better than Viv, Rashid Khan and Starc are the GOAT odi bowlers.

Sorry guys garner was okay but helped by a bowler friendly era