Kane Williamson vs Joe Root 2, the ODI boogaloo

[Mr Miyagi]

will root finish with a test average of 50+?

there's a lot of people who act like there is a lot more to come from him. but what if this era of his career has been his peak? he wouldn't be the first english player whos individual performance fell off a cliff under the strains of captaincy.

in odis he is an absolute gun though. way ahead of kw.

Yeah, but he's just batted in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 England roads. KW averages way more at a better SR than him in England in this time (It is over 80 vs 62 or so).

Just like Indian, Sri Lankan then Australian batsmen got the road asterisk, it is time English ODI batsmen got it too imo.

Because unlike Murali vs Sanga, we know these flat by design pitches ain't doing much for Wood or Plunkett.

It is the test debate for all batsmen that interests me much more. It directly challenges a cricket truism. But consistency is more valuable than a not out century over a larger sample, so what causes more series wins?

 

[ImpatientLime]

Yeah, but he's just batted in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 England roads. KW averages way more at a better SR than him in England in this time (It is over 80 vs 62 or so).

Just like Indian, Sri Lankan then Australian batsmen got the road asterisk, it is time English ODI batsmen got it too imo.

Because unlike Murali vs Sanga, we know these flat by design pitches ain't doing much for Wood or Plunkett.

we just gonna ignore the fact that 6 of his centuries have come away from home and that he averages 59 outside of england?

 

[Hicheal Michael]

I haven't seen enough of him in the slips to comment. He does seem a reasonably good fielder, but I haven't analysed everyone's fielding that strongly as of now.

He's slightly smaller too so covers less ground in all positions, and therefore has less potential for catches in certain positions. In terms of their ability to literally cover ground on the move I wouldn't know who was more agile with more acceleration, nor who could hit a higher top speed. Then there becomes an argument about who is the better slip to a spinner, who's the better silly point fielder, the better short leg fielder and so on. Even fine/long leg comes into the mix (and sweeper fielders) over the course of a team with that many Roots or Williamson in. I would be inclined to slightly favour Root overall in the field over all positions. That's another debate all together and let's not get into a discussion about that though.

Root is barely better than Kohli in the field. Both would seriously struggle to warrant a fielding position of any significance in either the Nz or Aus team.

Williamson is on par with Ponting imo re overall fielding ability.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Root in ODIs - better strike rate and range of shots. I would've said the same in T20s before the IPL, but not so sure now.

KDub in tests though.

Last five years for Williamson 15 100s in 40 tests @ 64
Filtered 2013-2018 40 3953 242* 63.75 15

Last five years for Root 11 100s in 61 tests @ 53
Filtered 2013-2018 61 5315 254 53.15 11

Tellingly in his whole career KDub has 10 hundreds away from NZ (35 tests), while Root only has 3 away from Engl and Wales in 32 tests (one in India, one in South Africa and one in the West Indies).

PS Williamson is Mark Waughesque in the field.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

we just gonna ignore the fact that 6 of his centuries have come away from home and that he averages 59 outside of england?

Not at all. But nor should we ignore what has been going on England for the past 4 years.

Like I said, I have deferred my conclusion till after the WC. When these guys with expectation fight the same teams on hopefully the same pitches.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Root in ODIs - better strike rate and range of shots. I would've said the same in T20s before the IPL, but not so sure now.

KDub in tests though.

Last five years for Williamson 15 100s in 40 tests @ 64
Filtered 2013-2018 40 3953 242* 63.75 15

Last five years for Root 11 100s in 61 tests @ 53
Filtered 2013-2018 61 5315 254 53.15 11

Tellingly in his whole career KDub has 10 hundreds away from NZ (35 tests), while Root only has 3 away from Engl and Wales in 32 tests (one in India, one in South Africa and one in the West Indies).

PS Williamson is Mark Waughesque in the field.

At what point can we say he's better than M Waugh, Symonds, Ponting, Rhodes, and Gibbs? Or is that not feasible for a Kiwi?

I have to put up with Santner's drops, I get told its Guppie, but I get dazzled by Boult and KW constantly. Even in the IPL outside of a NZC shirt. They're freaks in the field. Absolute freaks.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Re tests, there is more surprise when Williamson doesn't score a century in a two test series than when Root doesn't score one in a four/five test series.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Re tests, there is more surprise when Williamson doesn't score a century in a two test series than when Root doesn't score one in a four/five test series.

Yeah, true, but what's better? Consistent 50's, or a not out century followed by ducks. I think John is onto a good debate here for all batsmen. KW really doesn't matter.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

At what point can we say he's better than M Waugh, Symonds, Ponting, Rhodes, and Gibbs? Or is that not feasible for a Kiwi?

I have to put up with Santner's drops, I get told its Guppie, but I get dazzled by Boult and KW constantly. Even in the IPL outside of a NZC shirt

To me Chris Harris is still our best ever fieldsman and Roger Harper is better than all those Aussies and Saffas

 

[Mr Miyagi]

To me Chris Harris is still our best ever fieldsman and Roger Harper is better than all those Aussies and Saffas

Chris Harris isn't near Boult and KW for me for catching I don't think. Harper was a gun, but these guys are raising the bar imo for catching. For run outs, Harper, Punter, maybe even Harris for NZ et al are still probably leading. But for catches, KW and Boult dazzle me by regularly denying physics and stats with their catching. Boult has no business as a fast bowler to be in the debate, but there he is, and KW is just a freak.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Fair points

 

[Jack1]

Re tests, there is more surprise when Williamson doesn't score a century in a two test series than when Root doesn't score one in a four/five test series.

This isn't backed up mathematically at all. You are basically making statements using no backing to it. Williamson takes over 3 tests per century and averages less than Root with the bat. He clearly fails with the bat quite a lot compared to Root. Some of my comments aren't opinions, if I'm using stats to back them up. This comment you have made has nothing to back it up on career evidence. A post like yours above isn't an opinion, since it can be analysed by stats. It's wrong. Williamson is less likely to score a century in a 2 match series than Root is in a 4/5 test series. There isn't a debate to be had, unless you want to argue with factual numbers and factual statistics here.

 

[marc71178]

I for one am glad that Cricket is still played on a 22 yard wicket by 2 teams of players rather then this Cricket by numbers bull**** that John appears to believe in.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

This isn't backed up mathematically at all. You are basically making statements using no backing to it. Williamson takes over 3 tests per century and averages less than Root with the bat. He clearly fails with the bat quite a lot compared to Root. Some of my comments aren't opinions, if I'm using stats to back them up. This comment you have made has nothing to back it up on career evidence. A post like yours above isn't an opinion, since it can be analysed by stats. It's wrong. Williamson is less likely to score a century in a 2 match series than Root is in a 4/5 test series. There isn't a debate to be had, unless you want to argue with factual numbers and factual statistics here.

Yeah, I think there is a lost to be said for consistency vs the big not out hundred debate as to what influences more series wins. But I repeat, I think that KW vs Root specifically is a red herring. The real debate is what matters more, a guy who consistently contributes to more series wins, or a guy who contributes 1 test in 5 with a nice big fat hundred, possibly not out, and has the same average (yes this does happen). Who is giving their team the best chance to win series?"

And yes VCS, of course the variables play a role. But overall, spanning it over a long period, what is more valuable. I know the dogma and the supposed cricket truism, but is the origin for this belief, is it reason, or motivation? Is it just we celebrate three figures of 100 unreasonably more than two figures of 99?

I'm a Kiwi, I of course adore KW's NZC achievements, but I'd like to see this properly debated, even if it not in his favour.

I keep hearing the dogma that centuries win games, but I've seen a Jadeja 50 do more than several tripple hundreds (I understand context matters, but lets career span it - what typically matters more). So I'd really like to see this debated in its own thread. Consistency vs the more inconsistent but greater big score ability, what wins more series?

 

[Jack1]

Williamson just got out first ball. Maybe he's trying to tell us something, he is a nice guy to be fair.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Williamson just got out first ball. Maybe he's trying to tell us something, he is a nice guy to be fair.

Wickets do fall in bunches

Maybe he'll get a hundred in the next game to make up for it :P

 

[trundler]

A 50 is more likely to be inconsequential than a 100. No one can have a success rate of 100, not even Bradman. I'll take the guy who's going to play a crucial role in a win every now and then over the guy who's consistently okay. Obviously there should be a degree of balance between the two or else we'd be picking Jayasuria over Tendulkar. This is more of a general statement and it would be unfair to compare a Jadeja 50 in a crunch situation to a100 on a flat deck. You could make a pointless oppo8 argument like comparing Bradman's 270 to a 50 in a dead rubber. Context is indeed important or otherwise Lara's 400 would be considered a greater innings than Trumper's 85. Extreme examples, I know but generally I abide by my first statement.