Thala_0710
International Captain
Also, I have nothing against KW as such. I have multiple bats ahead of KW that I don't rate as ATGs either, guys like Abd for example, whom I love.
If he hasn't played much and his away record is mixed properly, but his home record is so good then it's completely fine to not subtract points off his resume for the probability of him failing if he played a lot in SEIA. Sehwag and Mahela were constantly proven fails in conditions that favoured pace and it was very obvious why. Kane is not a constantly proven failiure and his possible failiure overseas would just be a guess, I'd rather judge him by his actual career and in the last 10-11 years he has had immense dominance at home and a mixed record overseas.He's a very good batsman. No one is saying he isn't. Has he been done a bit unfairly with the scheduling? Maybe, but there's an equal chance that if they were more tours scheduled to these countries, we talk about him much lower because there's much more proof. Again he's a very good batsman, but if you're going to label someone as an ATG, these excuses don't work imo.
As for technique, I don't think you can say it's not a similar issue to Sehwag or Mahela. Sehwag's issue was just more visible to our amateur eye, Mahela's issues were finer and again, had he not played as much in SENA, ppl might have made the same excuse for him. Going by technique, Babar shouldn't be struggling as much either as he is. But he does, Williamson has and that's all that matters really.
Do you rate him in the same tier as Kohli or a tier below him?Also, I have nothing against KW as such. I have multiple bats ahead of KW that I don't rate as ATGs either, guys like Abd for example, whom I love.
Similar tier, but he ranks below Kohli for meDo you rate him in the same tier as Kohli or a tier below him?
I completely disagree. He has enough of a sample size for me, and I can't remove matches that he played in SEIA at the ages of 19-23, we don't afford that luxury to ATGs. He has failed in the chances he has gotten so far. He had a chance to rectify it in India, gets injured, Young plays in his place and puts in a better series performance than I've seen from Kane in these nations.Kane is not a constantly proven failiure and his possible failiure overseas would just be a guess, I'd rather judge him by his actual career and in the last 10-11 years he has had immense dominance at home and a mixed record overseas.
I have no problems with someone rating him below the elites because of his lack of resume overseas, but to pretend saying he shouldn't be judged on 2 games in South Africa and 3 in India is excuses, is deliberately removing context. His record in England and Sri Lanka is underwhelming despite many opportunities in his prime, critique him for that but also acknowledge he has made runs in Australia, Pakistan, UAE and West Indies too. He is just not a worse Batsman than guys like De Villiers whom I regard as an ATG.
We do that all the time!! Just look at Sobers for eg. More in-depth will go later.I completely disagree. He has enough of a sample size for me, and I can't remove matches that he played in SEIA at the ages of 19-23, we don't afford that luxury to ATGs. He has failed in the chances he has gotten so far. He had a chance to rectify it in India, gets injured, Young plays in his place and puts in a better series performance than I've seen from Kane in these nations.
Yes he has great performances at home, WI and the UAE, decent/good in Aus, but that's about it really. That's not enough for me.
New Zealand aren't, or atleast weren't, blessed with super strong batting units that allow their young Cricketers to debut in mid twenties, he was generally a less than 32 averaging Batsman when he had his early India and South Africa tours, to pretend performance from that era is meaningful to decide if he was an overall HTB is pointless. 2 matches (South Africa) and 3 matches (India) isn't enough sample size for me, and for most people, At the very least you need 5 or more.I completely disagree. He has enough of a sample size for me, and I can't remove matches that he played in SEIA at the ages of 19-23, we don't afford that luxury to ATGs. He has failed in the chances he has gotten so far. He had a chance to rectify it in India, gets injured, Young plays in his place and puts in a better series performance than I've seen from Kane in these nations.
Yes he has great performances at home, WI and the UAE, decent/good in Aus, but that's about it really. That's not enough for me.
Performing away against the best teams of your era isn't an arbitrary criteria. It's arguably THE criteria.
Mahela and Sehwag are elite players of spin yes, they performed at an elite level against spin, especially in those conditions as well. 54 and 57 are not their avgs vs spin, they are overall avgs.Plus, you didn't answer my question, if Sehwag and Mahela are elite ATG players of spin due to their scoring at home (and Sri Lanka for Sehwag) against spin at home while averaging 54 and 57 at their spin heavy home, surely Williamson who averages 72 (67 overall) at his pace heavy home, must be one of the greatest players of pace to ever walk Earth surely.
What do they average against spin outside of Asia?Mahela and Sehwag are elite players of spin yes, they performed at an elite level against spin everywhere, in those conditions as well. 54 and 57 are not their avgs vs spin, they are overall avgs.
In Ind and SL: (from 2002)
Jayawardene vs spin avgs 72.7
Sehwag vs spin avgs 61.2 at a SR of 92+.
Williamson on the other hand avgs less than 34 against pace in SEA
(Jayawardene avgs 62 vs spin in Ind, Sehwag 65 vs spin in SL, if you want to bring the home away argument)
Jayawardene: 100What do they average against spin outside of Asia?
Nah, I don't care about head to heads unless it's to show a bowler or bat dominating the other, Williamson's credentials in pace heavy conditions massively exceed Mahela and Sehwag's credentials in spin heavy conditions, he dominates consistently and casually on green mambas, fast tracks with steep bounce or tracks with uneven bounce. The fact that Kane averages 72 in pace heavy New Zealand since turning 24, for more than a decade, and yet his play of pace is being not given the same treatment as the spin play of Jayawerdene and Sehwag says a lot, especially since Mahela doesn't even have away credentials against pace, just some runs on roads. Especially, considering that the anti Williamson motely crew has spent the entire thread equating Kane to Mahela and Sehwag, have fun with your little hate circlejerk because clearly no one outside the same four users is taking these arguments seriously.Mahela and Sehwag are elite players of spin yes, they performed at an elite level against spin, especially in those conditions as well. 54 and 57 are not their avgs vs spin, they are overall avgs.
In Ind and SL: (from 2002)
Jayawardene vs spin avgs 72.7
Sehwag vs spin avgs 61.2 at a SR of 92+.
Williamson on the other hand avgs less than 34 against pace in SEA
(Jayawardene avgs 62 vs spin in Ind, Sehwag 65 vs spin in SL, if you want to bring the home away argument)
Just looking at win/loss records is crazy. The Windies is a tough country to bat. Australia, the world's best team, really really struggled with the bat there this year despite winning 3-0. England hasn't won there for about 20 years.Last 10 years teams record:-
View attachment 49353
The top ranked teams are Australia, India, England, New Zealand and South Africa. Then there is a clear gap followed by Sri Lanka, Pakistan and then again followed by West Indies and Bangladesh. England get a bit leeway in W/L ratio because they play a lot of games vs top teams and will likely affect the W/L but not by much. Very minimal.
Of the major countries,
Joe Root has superb record vs India, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa away.
Virat Kohli has superb record vs Australia, South Africa and Sri Lanka away.
Kane Williamson record is superb in UAE only.
There is a clear gap in terms of performance away from home for Williamson when compared with not only Smith and Root but also Kohli. His home performance is excellent ( except failing vs Aus) but that can only cover up for Kohli’s relatively lesser performance at home.
Smith and Root are your only true ATGs.
Kohli and Williamson are at same level and neither are ATG level. Kohli is better away while Williamson is better at home and I could care least of their away stats after including the likes of Windies, Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. That’s a very lowly standard.
I don't know if you're trolling or not but this is just plain stupidity. When you're discussing how good someone is a player of spin, it doesn't matter how well you're doing against spin specifically?? So you're basically saying if one's averaging is reducing in Asia due to getting out to pace, he is a worse player of spin. Like that's obviously stupid. If you want to say that Williamson is better in home conditions overall than those two then yeah it makes sense. Not vs spin or pace specifically.Nah, I don't care about head to heads unless it's to show a bowler or bat dominating the other, Williamson's credentials in pace heavy conditions massively exceed Mahela and Sehwag's credentials in spin heavy conditions
He doesn't. He's great at home, ofc he is. Sometimes they do produce tough pitches at home like you said, and he has done well. But he hasn't dominated consistently on them, especially away. That's an enormous exaggeration.He dominates consistently on green mambas, fast tracks with steep bounce or tracks with uneven bounce.
I don't think Williamson is their equal. He's better than them. But he is in the same mould of player as them, and no it's not hate. Just because someone is putting up proper arguments against someone, doesn't make them a hater. You're better than this luffy, come on.Williamson motely crew has spent the entire thread equating Kane to Mahela and Sehwag, have fun with your little hate circlejerk because clearly no one outside the same four users is taking these arguments seriously.
You wanna know THE actual criteria for determining greatness? Winning games for your country. Joe Root's gleaming SENAI away-record hasn't done a thing to prevent England from losing 5 separate test series in Bangladesh, UAE, Pakistan and the West Indies over the past decade. KW's stats padding has had a massive influence on NZ's success at the same venues during the same period.I completely disagree. He has enough of a sample size for me, and I can't remove matches that he played in SEIA at the ages of 19-23, we don't afford that luxury to ATGs. He has failed in the chances he has gotten so far. He had a chance to rectify it in India, gets injured, Young plays in his place and puts in a better series performance than I've seen from Kane in these nations.
Yes he has great performances at home, WI and the UAE, decent/good in Aus, but that's about it really. That's not enough for me.
Performing away against the best teams of your era isn't an arbitrary criteria. It's arguably THE criteria.
okYou wanna know THE actual criteria for determining greatness? Winning games for your country. Joe Root's gleaming SENAI away-record hasn't done a thing to prevent England from losing 5 separate test series in Bangladesh, UAE, Pakistan and the West Indies over the past decade. KW's stats padding has had a massive influence on NZ's success at the same venues during the same period.
Also, dismissing consistently outstanding performances vs very strong SA and English bowling attacks because 'Oh home runs don't count'? FFS, mate, New Zealand bowling conditions are tailor made for guys like Steyn, Anderson, Rabada, Broad, Morkel etc etc.
Seriously, after watching a couple of years when NZ mopped the floor with India in India, Bangladesh clean swept Pakistan, who then turned around and pantsed England, and where WI won their first test in Australia in a generation, and still trying to argue that certain performances against certain opponents or in certain countries just aren't important... like just how can you hold that as an opinion?
With respect to your specific point to the effect of 'well sure KW had bad luck with the schedule, but things might've been even worse if he had played them more in his prime': Williamson was debuted far younger than most international cricketers (including all of his Fab 4 contemporaries) and he played an outsized proportion (about 40%) of his SEAI away matches at an age when blokes like Kohli, Smith and Root were still learning their trade in domestic cricket. Joe Root sucked balls away from home during his first year and a half playing for England (averaging 28). Steve Smith was so bad when he started out that he got dropped for 2 and a half years before he even had the chance to play a SENAI away test. The assumption that because KW averaged 24 in his first 11 SENAI tests away and 42 in his next 15 tests, is a pretty strong basis for assuming that his away record would be a lot better if he'd not been debuted so young and had the same opportunity to play biennial 4/5 match test series.
So, in summary, I just wasted the last 40 minutes coming up with an incredibly roundabout way of saying 'I agree with TH and capt_Luffy'.
calm downYou wanna know THE actual criteria for determining greatness? Winning games for your country. Joe Root's gleaming SENAI away-record hasn't done a thing to prevent England from losing 5 separate test series in Bangladesh, UAE, Pakistan and the West Indies over the past decade. KW's stats padding has had a massive influence on NZ's success at the same venues during the same period.
Also, dismissing consistently outstanding performances vs very strong SA and English bowling attacks because 'Oh home runs don't count'? FFS, mate, New Zealand bowling conditions are tailor made for guys like Steyn, Anderson, Rabada, Broad, Morkel etc etc.
Seriously, after watching a couple of years when NZ mopped the floor with India in India, Bangladesh clean swept Pakistan, who then turned around and pantsed England, and where WI won their first test in Australia in a generation, and still trying to argue that certain performances against certain opponents or in certain countries just aren't important... like just how can you hold that as an opinion?
With respect to your specific point to the effect of 'well sure KW had bad luck with the schedule, but things might've been even worse if he had played them more in his prime': Williamson was debuted far younger than most international cricketers (including all of his Fab 4 contemporaries) and he played an outsized proportion (about 40%) of his SEAI away matches at an age when blokes like Kohli, Smith and Root were still learning their trade in domestic cricket. Joe Root sucked balls away from home during his first year and a half playing for England (averaging 28). Steve Smith was so bad when he started out that he got dropped for 2 and a half years before he even had the chance to play a SENAI away test. The assumption that because KW averaged 24 in his first 11 SENAI tests away and 42 in his next 15 tests, is a pretty strong basis for assuming that his away record would be a lot better if he'd not been debuted so young and had the same opportunity to play biennial 4/5 match test series.
So, in summary, I just wasted the last 40 minutes coming up with an incredibly roundabout way of saying 'I agree with TH and capt_Luffy'.