Test innings between 13.5 and 60 overs - Sep2024 onwards

[sussexpob]

In spite of tremendously less workload Virat though India's top 6 batsman has struggled even as a specialist batsman when compared to Sachin.

Kohli has 540 Indian games to Tendulkar's 663... add in IPL matches, and Kohli has played actually more meaningful high-pressure, top level cricket matches than Sachin did. In (just checking your post).... 12 less years than Sachin.



"tremendously less workload".....

[meninblue]

In spite of tremendously less workload Virat though India's top 6 batsman has struggled even as a specialist batsman when compared to Sachin.

Kohli has 540 Indian games to Tendulkar's 663... add in IPL matches, and Kohli has played actually more meaningful high-pressure, top level cricket matches than Sachin did. In (just checking your post).... 12 less years than Sachin.



"tremendously less workload".....

Tests:
Sachin - 200 matches and 706 overs
Virat - 120 matches and 30 overs

Sachin played 80 tests more and has bowled 676 overs more than Virat.

ODI:
Sachin - 463 matches and 1342 overs
Virat - 295 matches and 110 overs

Sachin played 128 ODI's more and 1232 overs more than Virat

T20:
Sachin - 96
Virat - 399

Virat has played 303 T20 more

For Virat to play 80 tests, he will need to play atleast 7 more years and not miss any tests, which he clearly misses due to rest, personal reasons etc. Injury chances and recovery time also increases as he gets older. He is lucky not the be dropped after being in horrible form in 4 out of 5 years. No way he is going to bowl 676 overs. At the most another 30.

For Virat to play 128 ODI's, this is not going to happen. Also I am sure he won't bowl 1232 overs, at the most another 30 overs. After the loss in last ODI WC, the seniors like Rohit, Virat, Jaddu have been criticized. Also, he needs to play 10 more years without missing any ODI to get anywhere near that.

Yes, Virat will play another 5 seasons of IPL atleast. Add 90 more IPL matches and Virat will have played almost 400 T20i more.

Add Sachin's bowling in Tests and ODI's and the extra tests and ODI's that he will have played by the time Virat calls his ODI career. There is no way he is going to have a similar workload even comparing Virat's superb fitness as of now. Still, let's wait for Virat and we will find out whether he manages to even get close to Sachin workload or surpass it.

Sachin and Virat have both played pressure matches but Sachin will end up outnumbering Virat by a long margin in Test and ODI pressure matches. Virat is also an Indian great batsman but surely he is not goign to get anywhere near Sachin's workload. Sachin faced Ambrose, Walsh, Glenn McGrath, Wasim, Waqar, Mustaq, Saqlain and Shoaib, Alan Donald, Steyn, Murali and Warne for most part of his career, Jimmy and few other notable renowned bowlers I may have missed. Surely Virat too has also faced quality bowlers.

I will post this someday on Virat Kohli thread as the thread is deviating from the general ability of teams to survive two sessions to player to player comparisons.

[sussexpob]

Sachin and Virat have both played pressure matches but Sachin will end up outnumbering Virat by a long margin in Test and ODI pressure matches. Virat is also an Indian great batsman but surely he is not goign to get anywhere near Sachin's workload. Sachin faced Ambrose, Walsh, Glenn McGrath, Wasim, Waqar, Mustaq, Saqlain and Shoaib, Alan Donald, Steyn, Murali and Warne for most part of his career, Jimmy and few other notable renowned bowlers I may have missed. Surely Virat too has also faced quality bowlers.

Dare I say, the narrative here is not consistent.

You say modern day players aren't as good as India's legends, but in India the modern day players score more. What therefore is the reason for this? What would you say personally? Because at the same time, I suppose that Jadeja's bowling figures in India are just crazy good..... you say Kumble is better despite averaging significantly higher. Are we saying pitches got easier to bowl on? Because if so, the Kumble argument works, but your point about batting becomes rather precarious. And if the counter is true and it got harder to bowl, Jadeja's numbers becoming staggering, as do people like Bumrah's.

Its the same with the above. Why in the 90s do we look at ball dominating bat, and credit world class bowlers? And then the same happens in the 2020s, and its just batsman being incapable? The scoring is the same. All in all, I fall back on the bias point. You have a fixed idea of when cricket to you was played better, and that clouds out any objectivity. Plenty of batsman were rubbish in the 90s. Look at Mike Atherton.... yeah he wanted to block all day, but put against Glenn McGrath's nagging accuracy, he got out for nowt over and over. There is no mythical era of water-tight batting technique. Go back and watch players like Gerry Liebenburg playing for a top ranked side in the 1990s and tell me technique was better.

As I say, its observation bias. You are looking for the effect of T20 in cricket, and finding it.

[sussexpob]

I will post this someday on Virat Kohli thread as the thread is deviating from the general ability of teams to survive two sessions to player to player comparisons.

The amount of matches of top level, high-pressure cricket is comparable, even given Kohli's career.

India has changed as country. I'd hazard a guess that in the 90s, not many people in India had TVs and followed what was going on... google confirms this. 10% TV penetration in the 90s to nearly 70% now. In many ways thats totally different.. Sachin was the great celebrity of Indian sport, as was Kohli.... but Kohli played in an era of IPL, of higher viewing figures, of vastly more people being able to follow what was going on. I don't want to downgrade Sachin, he was one of the greatest players ever, and did it to a level of pressure that arguably no one else had to endure. But that level of pressure is far more for Kohli, maybe even multiples.

The amount of cricket is not really the point is it? Sachin playing 400 ODIs with 10 million people watching vs Kohli playing 300 IPL games with 150 million people watching.... which do you think is more pressure? Which puts the greater strain on a player to keep grinding quality out?

Kohli's career has declined early..... yeah. I am really not surprised. The level of his three format play, captaining India for years in an era they were expected to dominate, being the IPLs prize player, the most famous cricket celebrity in the sports history, and playing 100s of matches constantly..... Sorry, but you have to be a robot to keep doing that for 15 years and not decline.

And in a way, the Sachin example is not really relevant.... arguing about the player with the most significant matches ever is hardly the average. Most players decline way before 40, most peak to around 32.... so all in all, Kohli playing to a level and frequency almost unpreceded in the history of the sport.... decline 1-2 years early.

Its to be expected. Kohli is like a relatively new supercar with 923234234 miles on the clock. Don't matter if you only bought it recently, if its being used all the time.... it will breakdown.

[meninblue]

Sachin and Virat have both played pressure matches but Sachin will end up outnumbering Virat by a long margin in Test and ODI pressure matches. Virat is also an Indian great batsman but surely he is not goign to get anywhere near Sachin's workload. Sachin faced Ambrose, Walsh, Glenn McGrath, Wasim, Waqar, Mustaq, Saqlain and Shoaib, Alan Donald, Steyn, Murali and Warne for most part of his career, Jimmy and few other notable renowned bowlers I may have missed. Surely Virat too has also faced quality bowlers.

Dare I say, the narrative here is not consistent.

You say modern day players aren't as good as India's legends, but in India the modern day players score more. What therefore is the reason for this? What would you say personally? Because at the same time, I suppose that Jadeja's bowling figures in India are just crazy good..... you say Kumble is better despite averaging significantly higher. Are we saying pitches got easier to bowl on? Because if so, the Kumble argument works, but your point about batting becomes rather precarious. And if the counter is true and it got harder to bowl, Jadeja's numbers becoming staggering, as do people like Bumrah's.

Its the same with the above. Why in the 90s do we look at ball dominating bat, and credit world class bowlers? And then the same happens in the 2020s, and its just batsman being incapable? The scoring is the same. All in all, I fall back on the bias point. You have a fixed idea of when cricket to you was played better, and that clouds out any objectivity. Plenty of batsman were rubbish in the 90s. Look at Mike Atherton.... yeah he wanted to block all day, but put against Glenn McGrath's nagging accuracy, he got out for nowt over and over. There is no mythical era of water-tight batting technique. Go back and watch players like Gerry Liebenburg playing for a top ranked side in the 1990s and tell me technique was better.

As I say, its observation bias. You are looking for the effect of T20 in cricket, and finding it.

Sussex, Which modern day India test player is scoring more apart from Yashasvi who has been playing for one and half year in test? Nobody apart from him.

I haven't said modern day Indian players are not great in tests. I have in recent post already mentioned that Virat Kohli is an Indian great, although not in same level to Sachin in tests. India has not produced enough quality batsmen in a bunch.
After Fab4 in same playing 11, we saw Chet who was a top class test batsman, followed by Virat. It's like we have 4 Indian greats batting together, then from 4, the count dropped to 2 (Chet and Virat).


Come 2024, Chet is no more playing since an year. Virat was in severe bad patch in 4 out of last 5 years.Yashasvi has had a great test year. Out of the two batsmen (one who established as Indian great (Virat) and Yashavi, Virat is in a long bad run. So performance-wise we are having on test batsman who is scoring excellently in test cricket (Yashasvi). This is the decline I am talking about.

There is no bias. Show me what is wrong in the first two paras of this post. Also, I see the batsmen playing a high risk cricket which is a major reason why there is higher count of 2 session innings and 3 and 4 day tests. Because i see T20 shots and approach is being used. Virat Kohli and Ravi Shastri were the ones who started that Chet should play attacking cricket. But it was Chet who had total opposite approach to that of Virat and Ravi Shastri was the one who played 1000 plus balls in both series against Austalia in Australia, which was the most important factor in our historic win. T20 approach is another major reason for the decline. IPL is always there if players cannot make to test team. Take example of Shreyas Iyer and Ishan Kishan. BCCI had to warn them and drop both from international squad. BCCI then implemented a change. Finally Ishan Kishan and Shreyas Iyer played Ranji trophy. I think many non-Indian fans are aware of this.

Now lets have a look at two Indian batsmen . Shubman was hyped and projected as next big thing. He had a pehnomenal FC career. Yashasvi was relatively low profile in media.

I hope Yashasvi who has shown tremedous performance manages to perform consistently over long period of time. Surely I am not expecting him to take burden of Sachin. But if he can replace Rahul performance wise, it will be great. But that still means we have one.

Shubman - few months back in one post i posted that fitness of Shubman is a big worry for me. He does not has the fitness of Sachin and Virat. So hopefully he improves fitness as well as perfromance with bat a lot if he has to be the next big thing in Indian cricket.

The way they have treated Sarfaraz Khan is pathetic. After scoring a fighting 150 in England debut series, he was discarded for tried and failed KL Rahul for Australia test. I am not saying Sarfaraz will be another like Fab 4 and Virat, but he should have been played continously. He has played quality knocks for Mumbai, much more than Rohit. Yes he has a belly, but if that is the reason Rohit has a bigger one. He has apetite for big innings. Think tank should have played him and allowed him to show if he can have that success at international team. Ravi Shastri criticized Rishabh's shape but does have guts t speak against Rohit. Sunil Gavaskar fins flaw in Yashasvi and Shubman but he does not has courage to highlight awful performance of Virat Kohli over 4 years. Everyone seems to have got instructions to keep mouth shut against seniors. They only speak against youngsters. Neither the selectors are developing youngsters instead abcking non performing seniors for the sake of sponsors.

The other is team selection. India has got rid of quota selection long back, the Mumbai, Karnataka and Delhi lobby from West, South and North zone are still strong. Yes, Mumbai has won pehnomenal number of Ranji trophies, then Delhi and Karnataka but team selection should not be rigid on these performances. KL Rahul was backed by Karnataka lobby and Rahul Dravid under his tenure as head coach. We wasted a spot for KL Rahul and continue wasting one to groom another young player apart from Shubman and Yashasvi. The moment they discard Rohit, another Mumbaite Sarfaraz will get in (deservedly in this case). So apart from the other reasons I mentioned why there is decline in count and quality of top class perfromers within same timeline is declining, the selection and bias is another reason.

[meninblue]

I will post this someday on Virat Kohli thread as the thread is deviating from the general ability of teams to survive two sessions to player to player comparisons.

The amount of matches of top level, high-pressure cricket is comparable, even given Kohli's career.

India has changed as country. I'd hazard a guess that in the 90s, not many people in India had TVs and followed what was going on... google confirms this. 10% TV penetration in the 90s to nearly 70% now. In many ways thats totally different.. Sachin was the great celebrity of Indian sport, as was Kohli.... but Kohli played in an era of IPL, of higher viewing figures, of vastly more people being able to follow what was going on. I don't want to downgrade Sachin, he was one of the greatest players ever, and did it to a level of pressure that arguably no one else had to endure. But that level of pressure is far more for Kohli, maybe even multiples.

The amount of cricket is not really the point is it? Sachin playing 400 ODIs with 10 million people watching vs Kohli playing 300 IPL games with 150 million people watching.... which do you think is more pressure? Which puts the greater strain on a player to keep grinding quality out?

Kohli's career has declined early..... yeah. I am really not surprised. The level of his three format play, captaining India for years in an era they were expected to dominate, being the IPLs prize player, the most famous cricket celebrity in the sports history, and playing 100s of matches constantly..... Sorry, but you have to be a robot to keep doing that for 15 years and not decline.

And in a way, the Sachin example is not really relevant.... arguing about the player with the most significant matches ever is hardly the average. Most players decline way before 40, most peak to around 32.... so all in all, Kohli playing to a level and frequency almost unpreceded in the history of the sport.... decline 1-2 years early.

Its to be expected. Kohli is like a relatively new supercar with 923234234 miles on the clock. Don't matter if you only bought it recently, if its being used all the time.... it will breakdown.

Sachin has had the most pressure in Indian cricket. If you feel Virat had most pressure than Sachin then I can only say agree to disagree on this.

I am not expecting Virat to do what Sachin did. Sachin was a prodigy and his career so well planned right from age 5 and with his own efforts he deserved a debut at age of 16. Who in his right mind choses a 16 year kid to face Wasim, Waqar and Qadir in a high stake India - Pakistan game. Such was his class and he managed to matain it for most part of 24 years. Only an Indian cricketer who debuts at 16 or earlier has any chance of being another Sachin. Quote me on this in future if this fails.

Virat is also a great. But you cant expect him to be another Sachin. Even if Yashasvi manages to be another great, Yashasvi will not be able to be another Sachin even if he adpats to ODI as well You cannot debut at 23 and be a Sachin. Simply no way. That is what will always set Sachin apart. Longevity and performance over most part of 24 year career and under the pressure that he was since age 16. Nobody will be under similar pressure as hardly anyone will debut at 16 and the rare one who may will not be able to perform well for so long which will bring added pressure. And suppose if he manages all that will he be able to match Sachin's performance of 24 years. I am not expecting another Sachin, it's silly and unpractical.

Sachin will stay the rare gem but that does not means Rahul, Sehwag, VVS, Chet and Virat did not perfrom extremely well.

[meninblue]

Sussex, on a lighter note better keep your phone off. Indian think tank and selectors will start calling you to find out the batsman who is performing excellently in tests apart from Yashasvi.

[meninblue]

35.4 overs innings

3rd Test, Hamilton, December 14 - 18, 2024
Eng 143 in 35.4 overs

[meninblue]

One more in a short span of time

3rd Test, Hamilton, December 14 - 17, 2024,
Eng 234 in 47.2 overs

[meninblue]

This is getting out of control. Might need to add few more innings; so many of them in recent times.

[andy]

Gonna become more and more regular you would think?!