listento_me
U19 Captain
So, both these young, supposedly great batsmen are playing their 50th test together. I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to get us talking about who is better, with an eye over the previous 49 tests.
First, let's look at the numbers:
Joe Root
Age - 25
Runs - 4231
Avg - 53.55
SR - 55.40
100s - 11
50s - 23
HS - 254 v Pakistan, Old Trafford
Virat Kohli
Age - 28
Runs - 3643
Avg - 46.11
SR - 53.69
100s - 13
50s - 12
HS - 211 v New Zealand, Indore
For all you stataholics, the numbers aren't over yet. Let's look at one of the more interesting aspects of batting: how well one does away from home.
Joe Root - 19 matches with 1343 at 44.76, 3 100s and 8 50s. His highest score is 182* against the West Indies.
Virat Kohli - 28 matches with 2186 runs at 44.61, 9 100s and 5 50s. His highest score is 200 against also against the West Indies.
However, when we look at matches that teams featuring these batsmen have won away from home, we start seeing a stark contrast. Root's average jumps up to 86.80, with 2 of his 3 centuries coming in those matches. Most famously that 110 against South Africa (probably his best innings). Not to mention the SR almost increases by 20, showing a real intent to score and get big runs so England have more time with the ball. Kohli is a curious case, as 6 of the 22 away tests that his teams have won, he averages a startlingly low 34.36, with the lone century, admittedly a big one against the Windies. In next best score is 78 against Sri Lanka. The SR barely increases.
Now, let's look at the home tests, after all, they matter too.
Virat Kohli - 22 matches with 1608 runs at 53.60, 5 100s and 7 50s. The highest score is of course that 211 of dominance against the West Indies.
Joe Root - 28 matches with 2601 runs at 59.11, 8 100s and 12 50s. Much like Kohli, his highest score is also at home but this time against the far more formidable Pakistan.
Once again, there is a pronounced difference in Roots run scoring in matches won, an avg of 76.83 and 6 centuries. Kohlis contributions do not seem as important, a by products of other batsmen picking up the slack? Or does Kohli not handle the test match pressure as well?
I've been lucky to view the entirety of both mens careers and Kohli developed from an ODIp layer into a good test batsman, whereas Root was thrust into the test side young and developed on the scene. Kohli at times may have that scratchy, quick grab ODI mentality whereas Root has learned the hard way how to construct winning innings.
So, for money and I've said this for a while, I would take Root the test AND ODI batsman over Kohli any day but Kohli the t20 specialist is better.
Sound off below!
First, let's look at the numbers:
Joe Root
Age - 25
Runs - 4231
Avg - 53.55
SR - 55.40
100s - 11
50s - 23
HS - 254 v Pakistan, Old Trafford
Virat Kohli
Age - 28
Runs - 3643
Avg - 46.11
SR - 53.69
100s - 13
50s - 12
HS - 211 v New Zealand, Indore
For all you stataholics, the numbers aren't over yet. Let's look at one of the more interesting aspects of batting: how well one does away from home.
Joe Root - 19 matches with 1343 at 44.76, 3 100s and 8 50s. His highest score is 182* against the West Indies.
Virat Kohli - 28 matches with 2186 runs at 44.61, 9 100s and 5 50s. His highest score is 200 against also against the West Indies.
However, when we look at matches that teams featuring these batsmen have won away from home, we start seeing a stark contrast. Root's average jumps up to 86.80, with 2 of his 3 centuries coming in those matches. Most famously that 110 against South Africa (probably his best innings). Not to mention the SR almost increases by 20, showing a real intent to score and get big runs so England have more time with the ball. Kohli is a curious case, as 6 of the 22 away tests that his teams have won, he averages a startlingly low 34.36, with the lone century, admittedly a big one against the Windies. In next best score is 78 against Sri Lanka. The SR barely increases.
Now, let's look at the home tests, after all, they matter too.
Virat Kohli - 22 matches with 1608 runs at 53.60, 5 100s and 7 50s. The highest score is of course that 211 of dominance against the West Indies.
Joe Root - 28 matches with 2601 runs at 59.11, 8 100s and 12 50s. Much like Kohli, his highest score is also at home but this time against the far more formidable Pakistan.
Once again, there is a pronounced difference in Roots run scoring in matches won, an avg of 76.83 and 6 centuries. Kohlis contributions do not seem as important, a by products of other batsmen picking up the slack? Or does Kohli not handle the test match pressure as well?
I've been lucky to view the entirety of both mens careers and Kohli developed from an ODIp layer into a good test batsman, whereas Root was thrust into the test side young and developed on the scene. Kohli at times may have that scratchy, quick grab ODI mentality whereas Root has learned the hard way how to construct winning innings.
So, for money and I've said this for a while, I would take Root the test AND ODI batsman over Kohli any day but Kohli the t20 specialist is better.
Sound off below!