Unpopular Cricket Opinions

[pillowprocter]

ODI batting averages are hugely inflated due to the size of the bats, pitches and the dimensions of the ground. A 100 no longer seems to have the value it did back in the early to mid 2000's.

So even though Kohli will likely finish with more than 50+ ODI Centuries - the quality of Sachin's will always be greater because of the era, quality of balling and the team that he had compared to the one Kohli has.

I think I saw that early to mid 2000s were one of the best batting eras in cricket, in Test cricket atleast.

 

[Bevab]

I think I saw that early to mid 2000s were one of the best batting eras in cricket, in Test cricket atleast.

It was in test cricket but not so in ODIs.

 

[Neo 7]

Kohli>>>>>Lappu sa Sachin.

Kohli for 101 centuries . Not just 100 , the record has to be broken

 

[pillowprocter]

ODI batting averages are hugely inflated due to the size of the bats, pitches and the dimensions of the ground. A 100 no longer seems to have the value it did back in the early to mid 2000's.

So even though Kohli will likely finish with more than 50+ ODI Centuries - the quality of Sachin's will always be greater because of the era, quality of balling and the team that he had compared to the one Kohli has.

Ok, I had a look. It's not hugely inflated like you say, but the global batting average during Kohli's career is higher than Sachin's. Although, I thought Kohli's might be affected by associate teams playing more ODIs, so I removed their stats and had a look. And yeah, that does improve it. So I guess your theory holds up.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

ODI batting averages are hugely inflated due to the size of the bats, pitches and the dimensions of the ground. A 100 no longer seems to have the value it did back in the early to mid 2000's.

So even though Kohli will likely finish with more than 50+ ODI Centuries - the quality of Sachin's will always be greater because of the era, quality of balling and the team that he had compared to the one Kohli has.

Generally I think it's difficult to compare across eras. ODI perhaps more than any other because of the constant tinkering to the rules and regulations. Just look at how often power plays changed.

The T20 era has had a big influence. Bilateral ODIs have lower importance, which can mean weaker bowling attacks, there's been mindset changes. I'd argue modern players are largely more equipped to play ODI cricket because almost all of them regularly play a lot of T20 cricket. That means they've developed more skill and options to score runs and play a more assertively.

Jason Roy innings per hundred is the same Sachin (although Sachin scored 100s far more often when only counting innings when he opened but he'd also played something like 70 matches before he started opening). Shai Hope scores centuries as an opener more frequently.

One way, you could actually compare is the overall average of matches they played in vs their average. In that instance; Sachin averaged 44.8 vs 29.9, but Kohli averages 57.3 vs 33.3.

 

[MrDependable]

Hosts winning ODI World Cups started with India, and will end with India.

Aged well.

 

[icyman]

Yashaswi Jaiswal- 2027, 2031

Will be supported by Shreyas Iyer, Gill, Dhull, Jurel.

The Indian side needs JUST ONE trophy to start the juggernaut. It can be any trophy -T20, CT. It will come. And the domination will start in the next 4 years for sure!

 

[Bevab]

I know he’s good but I don’t know how Jaiswal is winning two WCs in a row on his own against eleven players from other teams.

 

[SkyBlue]

After 2028 olympics, T20 world cup will be the flagship event of ICC

South Africa will win the next ODI cricket world cup

 

[CerealKiller]

I don't buy the "BCCI bullying and abuse of power is justified because they generate the most ICC revenue" argument.
BCCI generates the revenue by playing other international teams, not by having India A play India B and IPL's value is based on having all world class international players in it (except Pakistan players), otherwise it would just be a franchised Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy. Thus, the revenue it generates from its market has a big contribution by other international teams, and their political shenanigans are completely unjustified.

 

[Till Valhalla]

I don't buy the "BCCI bullying and abuse of power is justified because they generate the most ICC revenue" argument.
BCCI generates the revenue by playing other international teams, not by having India A play India B and IPL's value is based on having all world class international players in it (except Pakistan players), otherwise it would just be a franchised Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy. Thus, the revenue it generates from its market has a big contribution by other international teams, and their political shenanigans are completely unjustified.

The thread is called unpopular cricket opinions not "bull and cry baby opinions".

 

[CerealKiller]

The thread is called unpopular cricket opinions not "bull and cry baby opinions".

Exactly, what are you doing here then?

 

[Till Valhalla]

Exactly, what are you doing here then?

Calling out your crybaby opinion.

 

[Aislabie]

Okay time for an actual unpopular opinion: cricket would be in better health if all cricket became Twenty20 cricket overnight.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that cricket itself would be better - and you would quite likely end up with people banding together to retain vestiges of Test cricket as a niche sport, but the long-term health of the sport would be far better. What other major sports try to maintain three formats, and of those that do how many try to maintain that all three are of equal standing?

 

[CerealKiller]

Calling out your crybaby opinion.

Tu jaa be
Go