One logic I genuinely don't understand:
In Sachin's era, 10+ players had a 50+ average in
Tests, so they say batting was tougher back then. Yet
in Kohli's era, only 3-4 players have a 50+ average,
and Kohli's 47 average is used to demean him.
In ODIs, 5-6 players have a 50+ average in Kohli's era,
so they say batting is easy. But when we point out
that Sachin averaged 44 in ODIs, suddenly batting
was tougher back then.๐ค๐ค
So basically, a higher average in Sachin's Test era =
"batting was tough," while a lower average in Kohli's
Test era ="he wasn't good enough."๐ญ๐ญ
But a lower average in Sachin's ODl era ="batting was
tough," while higher averages in Kohli's ODI era =
"batting is easy."๐
How does this logic make any sense? ๐๐
From 2004 (30-31 age) till retirement in 2012 (40 age)
Sachin Tendulkar (2) has the same number of 100s in SENA as Kohli (2). Sacin played 41 innings. Kohli played 20. So what does that prove?
@100of35_@GetHelpAryan Lundman Vadapao against Sri lanka
(Between 2007-2015, when SL was actually strong)
ODIs - 965 Runs at 34.5 avg, 86 SR
Tests - 202 Runs 33.7 Avg
T20Is - 36 runs at 12 avg, 87.8 SR
This was the condition of average batsman lundma against srilanka of pre 2015 era ๐คก