Kohli: best odi player ever?

[Beutbrute]

What you initially said:
Kohli: best odi player ever?
Cannot think of a single argument as to why he isn't.

I think this thread has put forward plenty of arguments as to why he isn't necessarily the best odi player ever:
Can't compare players from other eras
Doesn't have the best record of batsmen currently playing
Hard to compare bowlers to batsmen

Kohli is a very good player for sure, but the indisputable best odi player ever? No

 

[PhatBoy]

What you initially said:
Kohli: best odi player ever?
Cannot think of a single argument as to why he isn't.

I think this thread has put forward plenty of arguments as to why he isn't necessarily the best odi player ever:
Can't compare players from other eras
Doesn't have the best record of batsmen currently playing
Hard to compare bowlers to batsmen

Kohli is a very good player for sure, but the indisputable best odi player ever? No

I wouldn't have made a thread out of it if I wasn't prepared to entertain other possibilities. Which I've done.

 

[DT_fanatic]

Should make a thread on how he's indisputably the best batsman ever in ODI chases. Unparalleled statistics in that context.

 

[Stopher]

FTR he's a gun fielder too.

 

[roscreasl98]

FTR he's a gun fielder too.

M.Waugh wasn't bad. Probably add quite a few % points on for his outstanding fielding, and underrated bowling also.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Here's an attempt to compare players 1970-2010 by balancing their averages/strike rates as against the overall averages/strike rates in their respective eras.

It doesn't reach as far as Kohli/De Villiers.

Richards' sheer dominance compared with everyone else in that period is obvious.
In short, he did 2.2 times as well as the average, compared with the next best (Dhoni) at 1.8 times the average.

It would be interesting to see the outcomes, eventually - or even now - for VK/ABDV.

And there's still the elephant/s in the room - Richards' more than handy bowling, and (literally) match-winning fielding.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/537629.html

 

[STFU Donnie]

30-plus isn't decent. It's acceptable, nothing more.

Putting finch and Amla in the same sentence is an insult.

How about:

Finch with an average of 35 and 7 centuries from 77 matches, isn't fit to wipe the boots of Amla who averages 51 and has 23 centuries from 140 matches.

They both have a strike rate of 89 BTW.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Garry Sobers is the best ever ODI player.

Just going off a sample size of 1 game, though. Made a duck in it too.

 

[Damon_3388]

Here's an attempt to compare players 1970-2010 by balancing their averages/strike rates as against the overall averages/strike rates in their respective eras.

Would you say that strike rate should be a factor when considering greatness or as an "expression of dominance" in ODIs? What's the cut-off point?

Understandably he played in a different era to the current one, but does someone like Michael Bevan get "docked" for having a strike rate of "just" 74.16 (the equivalent to a team scoring 222 over 50 overs), even though his role in the side and situations he batted in might have affected how "freely" he could bat?

Something to consider:

All-time ODI batsmen, ordered by average
(qualifying criteria - 35+ average, 80+ strike rate, 3000 balls faced, 100 innings batted, 1 century)

1. A.B. de Villiers (South Africa)
2. Virat Kohli (India)
3. Hasim Amla (South Africa)
4. M.S. Dohni (India)
5. Mike Hussey (Australia)
6. Viv Richards (West Indies)
7. Sachin Tendulkar (India)
8. Ross Taylor (New Zealand)
9. Martin Guptill (New Zealand)
10. Ricky Ponting (Australia)

32 players overall qualify, including 6 Australians, but just 5 debuted before 1996, most likely due to the strike rate criteria. Is a cut-off of an 80 strike-rate (equivalent to a 240 team score over 50 overs) too harsh on older players?

Lowering the strike-rate criteria to 75 brings another 14 players into qualification (8 of whom debuted pre-1996), including Michael Clarke and Matthew Hayden coming into the top 10, and Ramnaresh Sarwan, Kumar Sangakkara and Mohammed Yousuf into the top 15. Is that a fairer assessment of batsmanship?

Removing the strike rate criteria altogether brings the list up to 70, with Michael Bevan, Gordon Greenidge and Dean Jones coming into the top 10, and Jacque Kallis into the top 15.

 

[Kram]

M.Waugh wasn't bad. Probably add quite a few % points on for his outstanding fielding, and underrated bowling also.

Triple threat player

 

[FredLeDeux]

Would you say that strike rate should be a factor when considering greatness or as an "expression of dominance" in ODIs? What's the cut-off point?

Understandably he played in a different era to the current one, but does someone like Michael Bevan get "docked" for having a strike rate of "just" 74.16 (the equivalent to a team scoring 222 over 50 overs), even though his role in the side and situations he batted in might have affected how "freely" he could bat?

Something to consider:

All-time ODI batsmen, ordered by average
(qualifying criteria - 35+ average, 80+ strike rate, 3000 balls faced, 100 innings batted, 1 century)

1. A.B. de Villiers (South Africa)
2. Virat Kohli (India)
3. Hasim Amla (South Africa)
4. M.S. Dohni (India)
5. Mike Hussey (Australia)
6. Viv Richards (West Indies)
7. Sachin Tendulkar (India)
8. Ross Taylor (New Zealand)
9. Martin Guptill (New Zealand)
10. Ricky Ponting (Australia)

32 players overall qualify, including 6 Australians, but just 5 debuted before 1996, most likely due to the strike rate criteria. Is a cut-off of an 80 strike-rate (equivalent to a 240 team score over 50 overs) too harsh on older players?

Lowering the strike-rate criteria to 75 brings another 14 players into qualification (8 of whom debuted pre-1996), including Michael Clarke and Matthew Hayden coming into the top 10, and Ramnaresh Sarwan, Kumar Sangakkara and Mohammed Yousuf into the top 15. Is that a fairer assessment of batsmanship?

Removing the strike rate criteria altogether brings the list up to 70, with Michael Bevan, Gordon Greenidge and Dean Jones coming into the top 10, and Jacque Kallis into the top 15.

I'll just say 3 things.

1. In comparing players from different eras, playing under different conditions and with different approaches, the only sensible method is to judge them by how dominant they were as compared with their contemporaries.

2. The aim of ODI batting is 2-fold, namely to "get there firstest with the mostest", so you have to balance both runs scored per innings (note, not batting average - in ODIs, the theoretical "could have scored" for not out doesn't apply, because it "couldn't have") and strike rate.

3. In my opinion, if Richards was playing now, with, inter alia, bigger bat, better pitches, faster outfields, shorter boundaries and the changed boundaries Law (not to mention his bowling/fielding), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

[Hellgood]

Another thing to consider in Kohli's favour is that he has been a massive part of the Indian batting line-up in all formats barely skipping a beat, despite replacing the likes of Tendulkar, Laxman, Dravid and Sehwag over a relatively short period of time. In a cricket-obsessed country like India, that's some serious ******* pressure! Lob in the captaincy on top of that and you start to see what the guy is made of. And I've not even mentioned the number of tons he's scored in successful chases.

His Test and T20 records aren't bad either!

It's been almost seamless how he has morphed into an iconic/transcendent figure.

Pretty impressive speaker and leader.