The Kane Williamson Average Watch thread

[cnerd123]

Nah the hadlee was nz argument is wrong *****. In the 80s we were usually fielding a very competent side. Wright, jones, crowe, reid, smith etc

Hmm yea I thought about Crowe but the others are all pretty good too. Not really ATGs like the SA players, but good enough.

Maybe that doesn't help Hadlee, but it does effect Kallis to some effect. It's like how people tend to forget guys like Andy Roberts or Sylvester Clarke because of how good WI's pace bowling was during their time. Kallis tends to get overlooked because he played in teams with other ATGs.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Oooh I want to add that Steyn also benefits from the 'strike bowler' tag. His job is to take wickets while a guy like Morkel has the job of roughing up the batsman at the other end. He also often gets the job of wiping out the tail. He benefits from his role within the team.

So it's not even like he is 'competing' for wickets. He is the designated wicket-taker. Fair enough that he has to be bloody good to get that role to begin with, and that he is awesome at it...but a guy like Morkel is a gem of a bowler in his own right, and will end his career with numbers that don't do him justice due to the role he plays in the side.

Sure. Agree with all that. But is he the only strike bowler in history? Obviously not. Yet no one else takes the sheer number of wickets he does.

 

[cnerd123]

Sure. Agree with all that. But is he the only strike bowler in history? Obviously not. Yet no one else takes the sheer number of wickets he does.

There may not be other comparable 'strike bowlers', but there are comparable (or even superior) bowlers who didn't have that role - Hadlee is a good example.

Wickets are a good measure, but should only be a part of the equation.

 

[hendrix]

If Hadlee was Australian, would we be talking about him with the same reverence and awe?

Yes.

Just look at his stats.

He was and always has been in the picture for best bowler of all time.

 

[cnerd123]

Yes.

Just look at his stats.

He was and always has been in the picture for best bowler of all time.

But when we do that for Kallis it apparently doesn't tell the whole story? The man averaged 55 with the bat and 33 with the ball. Gary Sobers' averages were 57 and 34. He is within 1 run of the greatest cricketer of all time, yet Hadlee is a superior cricketer and all you have to do to justify that is 'look at his stats' ?

 

[hendrix]

But when we do that for Kallis it apparently doesn't tell the whole story? The man averaged 55 with the bat and 33 with the ball. Gary Sobers' averages were 57 and 34. He is within 1 run of the greatest cricketer of all time, yet Hadlee is a superior cricketer and all you have to do to justify that is 'look at his stats' ?

It's just to do with team composition really. You pick 4 bowlers. Those 4 have to be exceptional because they have to be able to take 20 wickets. The batsmen and the allrounders have less associated value.

Anyway, Kallis is well within the discussion for greatest all rounder of all time.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There may not be other comparable 'strike bowlers', but there are comparable (or even superior) bowlers who didn't have that role - Hadlee is a good example.

Wickets are a good measure, but should only be a part of the equation.

Obviously it isn't the only thing to consider. But you do get my point. He just picks up wickets at a ridiculous rate per match. It's almost unmatched when you consider he's still over 5 wickets per match despite Philander having come into the team and going crazy for a while.

 

[Zinzan]

Anyway, I don't entirely disagree with Flem and DOG's overall contention that if Kane averages 50+, scores 10,000+ runs and takes - say - 200+ wickets at 40, then yeah he would be in the conversation for greatest NZ cricketer ever. I think he probably will achieve those batting milestones. But he won't get near the bowling half of it.

Yeah, that's the main point though. The major contention wasn't to say if he achieved all those things (and I'm going with what DOG suggested), that we couldn't at least start a KW vs. Hadlee conversation. It was to say the chances of him scoring 10,000 test runs at an average above 55 & taking 200+ wickets @ 40 (averaging 2+ wickets per game) along with a couple of 5-fers are exceedingly unlikely.

 

[Hurricane]

@bahnz I am not happy with you Agreeing with flem's logic.
Flem's logic is bemusing at best. There is no material difference between the odds of Kane Williamson taking 200 wickets and kW taking 500 wickets. Both concepts are astronomically remote not just unlikely. He didn't even get a bowl in the last game.
Flem's hypothesising about kw is the equivalent of saying if mark Craig overtakes vettori's wickets he will be our greatest spinner. No doubt this is true but it ain't gunna happen so why even conjecture it.

 

[Zinzan]

@bahnz I am not happy with you Agreeing with flem's logic.
Flem's logic is bemusing at best. There is no material difference between the odds of Kane Williamson taking 200 wickets and kW taking 500 wickets. Both concepts are astronomically remote not just unlikely. He didn't even get a bowl in the last game.
Flem's hypothesising about kw is the equivalent of saying if mark Craig overtakes vettori's wickets he will be our greatest spinner. No doubt this is true but it ain't gunna happen so why even conjecture it.

Yeah, I was also surprised with that post. Bahnz's posts are generally pretty grounded in logic, yet that particular one came across as being a touch obligatory given that even if KW achieved all that DOG suggested (which was actually an even tougher ask to what Flem initially suggested ).. that being score over 10,000 runs at an average of 55 and 200 wickets @ 40 (averaging 2+ wickets a test with a couple of 5-fers), his overall numbers would still be very inferior to that of Kallis.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bahnz, just a couple of pages back strongly disagree with the argument that Kallis was definitely better than Hadlee?

So I'm not sure how it follows that Kallis isn't 'definitely' better than Hadlee in his eyes, yet he'd be happy to have the KW vs Hadlee conversation if KW ended up with a Kallis-like batting record, but a much inferior bowling record to Kallis.

 

[cnerd123]

Obviously it isn't the only thing to consider. But you do get my point. He just picks up wickets at a ridiculous rate per match. It's almost unmatched when you consider he's still over 5 wickets per match despite Philander having come into the team and going crazy for a while.

TBH at this point I'm just arguing with you out of boredom

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, I was also surprised with that post. Bahnz's posts are generally pretty grounded in logic, yet that particular one came across as being a touch obligatory given that even if KW achieved all that DOG suggested (which was actually an even tougher ask to what Flem initially suggested ).. that being score over 10,000 runs at an average of 55 and 200 wickets @ 40 (averaging 2+ wickets a test with a couple of 5-fers), his overall numbers would still be very inferior to that of Kallis.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bahnz, just a couple of pages back strongly disagree with the argument that Kallis was definitely better than Hadlee?

So I'm not sure how it follows that Kallis isn't 'definitely' better than Hadlee in his eyes, yet he'd be happy to have the KW vs Hadlee conversation if KW ended up with a Kallis-like batting record, but a much inferior bowling record to Kallis.

How doesn't that follow? As you say, I disagree that Kallis is 'definitely' better than Hadlee. I don't disagree however that they're similarly great players, and that there's a legitimate debate to be had over who is the superior cricketer (a debate that is impossible to answer definitively given they played very different roles in very different kinds of teams). My preference is for Hadlee, but I always value great fast bowlers over great batsmen, so that may ju st be my bias. Similarly if Kane were able to achieve an average of 55 and take 200+ wickets at 40 he'd be in a similar category too (an average of 40 would be especially impressive given that he'll play half his career in NZ in conditions that offer his bowling nothing).

As for why I even brought it up, I thought it worthwhile addressing the source of Flem's erroneous assumption about Kane's potential. A year ago it did seem possible that Kane could achieve those kinds of numbers with the ball. Now it almost certainly isn't, and I think Flem is a bit guilty of living in the past in that respect.

 

[Zinzan]

How doesn't that follow? As you say, I disagree that Kallis is 'definitely' better than Hadlee. I don't disagree however that they're similarly great players, and that there's a legitimate debate to be had over who is the superior cricketer (a debate that is impossible to answer definitively given they played very different roles in very different kinds of teams). My preference is for Hadlee, but I always value great fast bowlers over great batsmen, so that may ju st be my bias. Similarly if Kane were able to achieve an average of 55 and take 200+ wickets at 40 he'd be in a similar category too (an average of 40 would be especially impressive given that he'll play half his career in NZ in conditions that offer his bowling nothing).

As for why I even brought it up, I thought it worthwhile addressing the source of Flem's erroneous assumption about Kane's potential. A year ago it did seem possible that Kane could achieve those kinds of numbers with the ball. Now it almost certainly isn't, and I think Flem is a bit guilty of living in the past in that respect.

C'mon mate, isn't it obvious why it doesn't follow logically?

I was very careful to point out that you didn't in fact say Hadlee was 'better' than Kallis (even if like me your gut tells you he may well edge it), only that there's no way Kallis was 'definitely' better than Hadlee (and I agree with that).

So how does it follow that you consider Hadlee/Kallis an extremely close battle (let's be charitable here and say you can't separate them), yet you would be prepared to entertain a serious KW v Hadlee conversation if KW did manage to match Kallis' amazing batting (pretty sure Kallis ended with a 55+ ave), yet ended up only about 60% the bowler Kallis was (if this unlikely 200 wickets @ 40 ever happened).

It just doesn't follow.

 

[harsh.ag]

J'accuse!

 

[Hurricane]

This opens a can of worms around the question whether the likes of Hadlee or Murali's average would have been better, around the same or worse had they had better bowlers at the other end. Obviously it would have impacted their very high wickets/per match numbers, but what about their average? One could argue either way on that.

I would like to have a go at answering this question once and for all. I kid about the once and for all as I am just one analyst on the site, however I have a hypothesis anyway about this issue that although it needs a bit more testing I believe it to be correct.

Essentially the lone wolf bowler has a higher wickets per match. But also has a higher average and SR than a bowler that gets to hunt in a pack.

Here is the analysis which I have cut and pasted from a stats mad thread we had on this topic 3 years ago. It was me and Migara vs Ikki iirc.

Hadlee
% of innings SR Wickets Wickets per inning
<100 balls 23% 38 58 2.64
100-150 balls 27% 41 124 3.0
150-200 balls 29% 55 137 3.1
200-250 balls 15% 64 75 3.4
250+ 5% 60 37 4.6

Overall SR = 50.8

Marshall
% of innings SR Wickets Wickets/inning
<100 balls 35% 34 114 2.1
100-150 balls 41% 51 150 2.4
150-200 balls 20% 52 98 3.3
200-250 balls 3% 76 14 2.8

Overall SR = 46.7

No two bowlers have equal abilities. Most believe Marshall to be better than Hadlee, for the purposes of this analysis I have labelled them as bowlers of similar ability.

The less deliveries either bowler bowled in an inning the better his SR (and average) was.
76% of Marshall's innings were ones where he bowled less than 150 deliveries. The average SR for innings less than 150 deliveries was 43.

Only 50% of Hadlee's innings saw him bowl less than 150 deliveries. Hadlee's average SR was 40.

Hadlee had the better SR in large part because he took more wickets on these occassions based on not having to share with anyone else.

This on the face of it would suggest that Paddles' SR benefited by being a lone wolf but wait I am not finished yet:

24% of Marshall's innings were greater than 150 balls. His average SR in these instances was 55

50% of Hadlee's innings were greater than 150 balls. His average SR in these instances was 57.1

Because a higher percentage of Hadlee's innings (50%vs24%) were greater than 150 balls his overall SR gets dragged and this "dragging up" is more powerful than the SR benefits he gains for innings less than 150 balls.

A couple of small comments.

1) Why did Hadlee have more innings with greater than 150 balls. Because he had no one to pick up the slack on days when he didn't perform. He was a lone wolf. While the Windies always skittled people because if it wasn't Marshall it was Garner etc.
2) Why are SRs higher when you bowl more deliveries. Shouldn't your SR remain constant. No. When you are involved in an inning where you have bowled a lot it means that the opposition may have scored 450 for 5 declared and simply not have gotten out as much. Either way in those innings the batsmen lasted longer and sold their wickets more dearly. This point may be obvious so apologies if sucking eggs territory.

Conclusion Hadlee would have had a lower average and SR but less career wickets had he had more support in the bowling.

Note I have linked SR and average in this analysis as they both have the same dynamics.

 

[Bahnz]

Because, as *I* said, Kane would spend half his career playing in conditions that are toxic for spin bowling. Daniel Vettori, the greatest spin bowler in NZ history, could barely keep his average below 35. In the past few years, guys like Ashwin, Panesar and Herath have come to NZ and been turbo-****ed. Furthermore, Kane is almost certainly going to play a lot fewer tests than Kallis' 166, so he's probably not going to have the opportunity to rack 290 test wickets. But 210-220 from 130-odd tests would still be quite an achievement. Which, of course he'll never accomplish.

 

[cnerd123]

Because, as *I* said, Kane would spend half his career playing in conditions that are toxic for spin bowling. Daniel Vettori, the greatest spin bowler in NZ history, could barely keep his average below 35. In the past few years, guys like Ashwin, Panesar and Herath have come to NZ and been turbo-****ed. Furthermore, Kane is almost certainly going to play a lot fewer tests than Kallis' 166, so he's probably not going to have the opportunity to rack 290 test wickets. But 210-220 from 130-odd tests would still be quite an achievement. Which, of course he'll never accomplish.

So this hypothetical KW would be greater than Kallis?

KW > Hadlee > Kallis
?

 

[Zinzan]

I would like to have a go at answering this question once and for all. I kid about the once and for all as I am just one analyst on the site, however I have a hypothesis anyway about this issue that although it needs a bit more testing I believe it to be correct.

Essentially the lone wolf bowler has a higher wickets per match. But also has a higher average and SR than a bowler that gets to hunt in a pack.

Here is the analysis which I have cut and pasted from a stats mad thread we had on this topic 3 years ago. It was me and Migara vs Ikki iirc.




No two bowlers have equal abilities. Most believe Marshall to be better than Hadlee, for the purposes of this analysis I have labelled them as bowlers of similar ability.

The less deliveries either bowler bowled in an inning the better his SR (and average) was.
76% of Marshall's innings were ones where he bowled less than 150 deliveries. The average SR for innings less than 150 deliveries was 43.

Only 50% of Hadlee's innings saw him bowl less than 150 deliveries. Hadlee's average SR was 40.

Hadlee had the better SR in large part because he took more wickets on these occassions based on not having to share with anyone else.

This on the face of it would suggest that Paddles' SR benefited by being a lone wolf but wait I am not finished yet:

24% of Marshall's innings were greater than 150 balls. His average SR in these instances was 55

50% of Hadlee's innings were greater than 150 balls. His average SR in these instances was 57.1

Because a higher percentage of Hadlee's innings (50%vs24%) were greater than 150 balls his overall SR gets dragged and this "dragging up" is more powerful than the SR benefits he gains for innings less than 150 balls.

A couple of small comments.

1) Why did Hadlee have more innings with greater than 150 balls. Because he had no one to pick up the slack on days when he didn't perform. He was a lone wolf. While the Windies always skittled people because if it wasn't Marshall it was Garner etc.
2) Why are SRs higher when you bowl more deliveries. Shouldn't your SR remain constant. No. When you are involved in an inning where you have bowled a lot it means that the opposition may have scored 450 for 5 declared and simply not have gotten out as much. Either way in those innings the batsmen lasted longer and sold their wickets more dearly. This point may be obvious so apologies if sucking eggs territory.

Conclusion Hadlee would have had a lower average and SR but less career wickets had he had more support in the bowling.

Note I have linked SR and average in this analysis as they both have the same dynamics.

That's not a bad analysis at all & logically most of those assumptions make sense, but of course there's still naturally a lot of 'ifs' and 'buts'. I'm not sure but let me think if there's any other way of dissecting that data to make a stronger case.

 

[Zinzan]

So this hypothetical KW would be greater than Kallis?

KW > Hadlee > Kallis
?

No no & no... not with those numbers he wouldn't

 

[Bahnz]

So this hypothetical KW would be greater than Kallis?

KW > Hadlee > Kallis
?

Another point - if Kane averages the same as Kallis, he'll have a pretty serious claim to being a better batsman than him. Kallis spent a large chunk of his career batting behind Smith and Amla, meaning he frequently got to come in and bat with the new ball blunted and the opposition bowlers tired. Even if Latham and mk.2 Guptill go on to average mid-30's (probably optimistic in Guptill's case), Kane's going to have a significantly tougher job though out his career. Hence we I tend to think that he'll probably finish his career with a high 40's/50ish average.