The Kane Williamson Average Watch thread

[Zinzan]

He just said something to the effect of 'we tend to ignore anything other than a player's primary skill, although they're important'. How is that a 'good point'? He offered no justification for that bias, he just acknowledged that it exists on CW.



Equating Fleming to Kallis in this discussion doesn't fly with me, either. Kallis' record and performances with the bat are significantly closer to Hadlee's with the ball than the comparison of Crowe/Fleming you're trying to push. Fleming was just a good batsman, Crowe was genuinely world-class. He was also reasonable in the other areas of the game, so whatever relatively small differences favour Fleming, they aren't enough to make up the disparity in their batting abilities. On the other hand, Kallis is sufficiently close enough to Hadlee in their respective primary skills that along with his test standard bowling and world class slip fielding, he's a more valuable cricketer for mine.

I'm not calling you out because you think Hadlee is a better cricketer than Kallis. I'm probably in the minority thinking that judging by the response to my initial comment. I just took issue with you using that specific Fleming/Crowe comparison as the reason to dismiss Kallis' advantages in areas other than his primary skill.

The Fleming/Crowe comparison probably wasn't the best one having just mentioned Kallis' name, you're right. But it was to illustrate harsh.ag's point that secondary skill-sets such as being a fine slipper & captain doesn't necessarily give a player much in the way of 'extra points' when folks are comparing 'cricketers', since we tend to judge a players primary skill-set first and foremost.

Their secondary skills are usually smuggled in to the argument if a comparison is really close, hence why I didn't discount Hadlee's batting record of averaging just under 30s earlier.

I also don't think harsh.ag's point is limited to the CW world either, it seems quite generic in cricketing circles, which why I mentioned Kallis as an example of someone who universally doesn't seem to get much credit for his 'test standard' bowling. There's a good argument against this, but I'm agreeing with harsh.ag that this seems to be the 'common consensus' when judging/assessing cricketers... certainly in my experience.

Finally Re: Kallis vs. Hadlee, they're fairly much opposite all-rounders, so I've never really committed either way in terms of a comparison, my gut-feel tells me Hadlee was more of a match-winner, but that could well be my NZ bias. Either way, I don't place that much credence on Hadlee's batting nor Kallis' bowling.

 

[harsh.ag]

Feel free to refer to me as Harsh.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Shut up harsh.ag

 

[harsh.ag]

Shut up harsh.ag

Your location finally scored a century. Calling you UnderratedSanity from now on.

 

[Days of Grace]

Well, let's look at it this way:

Hadlee averaged 22.29 with the ball and 27.16 with the bat in an era when 32 runs were scored per wicket on average (I have divided test cricket scoring into 4 eras. 1877-1890, 1892-1914, 1920-2003, 2003-present day).

Now, Hadlee was 0.70 under the mean era average with the ball but 0.85 under the mean with the bat.

The post-2003 runs per wicket is 35. That means that Kane would have to average 50 with the bat (35/0.7) and 41.18 with the ball (35/0.85) to have equivalent career stats to Hadlee.

That's not taking into account that Hadlee had 2 centuries with the bat and numerous important innings batting in the lower order. Kane would have to take a couple of 5-fers and average more than 2 wickets per test to compare.

That's just one way to look at it. There are many intangibles to be argued over.

 

[Teja.]

Well, let's look at it this way:

Hadlee averaged 22.29 with the ball and 27.16 with the bat in an era when 32 runs were scored per wicket on average (I have divided test cricket scoring into 4 eras. 1877-1890, 1892-1914, 1920-2003, 2003-present day).

Now, Hadlee was 0.70 under the mean era average with the ball but 0.85 under the mean with the bat.

The post-2003 runs per wicket is 35. That means that Kane would have to average 50 with the bat (35/0.7) and 41.18 with the ball (35/0.85) to have equivalent career stats to Hadlee.

That's not taking into account that Hadlee had 2 centuries with the bat and numerous important innings batting in the lower order. Kane would have to take a couple of 5-fers and average more than 2 wickets per test to compare.

That's just one way to look at it. There are many intangibles to be argued over.

The reason why Hadlee was better has as much to do with his wickets per match as much as it has to do with his bowling average though. A bowler who averages 22 and takes 5 wickets per match is far rarer than a batsman who averages 55, let alone 50, IMO. A direct batting/bowling average comparison isn't right because for top order batsmen, their batting average is also a somewhat fair reflection of how many runs they contribute per match approximately wheras wpm doesn't have as strong a co-relation with bowling average.

Basically, Sehwag averages 50 with the bat and 47 with the ball and that is as an opener, I'm sure there's a decent 50-60 match period where he had a 40-ish bowling average with a 53-ish batting average, That still isn't even in the same ball park as what an opening pacer averaging 22 with the ball taking five wickets a game and being handy with the bat IMO. In fact, I'd take a specialist bowler who can put up similar number with the ball (AKA Steyn) while just being able to hold a bat over a 50 average batsman who's a decent 5th option like KW.

The only cricketers who offer more to the team than Hadlee, IMO, are Bradman, Sobers & Imran. Gilchrist and Miller are in the argument. If KW has an absolutely outrageous career and averages 55+ over two full decades, captains successfully and becomes a semi-legit batting all-rounder, he'll become someone like Walter Hammond. Firstly, I think this is unlikely. Second, I still would consider Hadlee a better cricketer.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah it's why Steyn's case for being the best ever is getting stronger and stronger. The fact that he has over 5 wickets per match is bordering on absurd because he's actually always had competition for wickets throughout his career.

 

[Spark]

Not to start up the age old argument but it could also be said that it helps him by providing consistent pressure from the other end.

(okay yes i have started the age old argument again)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah but name one other pace bowler who took 5+ wickets/match who had as much competition for wickers as Steyn. You can't.

 

[harsh.ag]

Marshall had 4.6, and he had greater competition. To be able to do that, both Malcolm and Steyn had to have very low strike rates, Steyn has even bettered Malcolm on that count.

 

[Zinzan]

The reason why Hadlee was better has as much to do with his wickets per match as much as it has to do with his bowling average though. A bowler who averages 22 and takes 5 wickets per match is far rarer than a batsman who averages 55, let alone 50, IMO. A direct batting/bowling average comparison isn't right because for top order batsmen, their batting average is also a somewhat fair reflection of how many runs they contribute per match approximately wheras wpm doesn't have as strong a co-relation with bowling average.

Basically, Sehwag averages 50 with the bat and 47 with the ball and that is as an opener, I'm sure there's a decent 50-60 match period where he had a 40-ish bowling average with a 53-ish batting average, That still isn't even in the same ball park as what an opening pacer averaging 22 with the ball taking five wickets a game and being handy with the bat IMO. In fact, I'd take a specialist bowler who can put up similar number with the ball (AKA Steyn) while just being able to hold a bat over a 50 average batsman who's a decent 5th option like KW.

The only cricketers who offer more to the team than Hadlee, IMO, are Bradman, Sobers & Imran. Gilchrist and Miller are in the argument. If KW has an absolutely outrageous career and averages 55+ over two full decades, captains successfully and becomes a semi-legit batting all-rounder, he'll become someone like Walter Hammond. Firstly, I think this is unlikely. Second, I still would consider Hadlee a better cricketer.

Yup the major flaw in DOG's argument is he was basing it on averages only... wickets and wickets/per match are a huge factor.

Based on that rationale, Hansie Cronje was a great allrounder because he averaged over 36 with the bat and less than 30 with the ball, but the big picture is he only took 43 test wickets in 68 test matches.

 

[Zinzan]

Not to start up the age old argument but it could also be said that it helps him by providing consistent pressure from the other end.

(okay yes i have started the age old argument again)

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.

 

[Flem274*]

Good lord therr was some pretentious posting on the other page. Back pats all round for grey power.

 

[Zinzan]

Good lord therr was some pretentious posting on the other page. Back pats all round for grey power.

Nah, fair cop, take it on the chin. That was some pretty ludicrous posting. Try having that same KW vs. Hadlee hypothetical convo with NZ fans outside this forum and you'll find the ridicule will be much the same.

 

[Days of Grace]

Yup the major flaw in DOG's argument is he was basing it on averages only... wickets and wickets/per match are a huge factor.

Based on that rationale, Hansie Cronje was a great allrounder because he averaged over 36 with the bat and less than 30 with the ball, but the big picture is he only took 43 test wickets in 68 test matches.

Well, I did say that Williamson would have to take at least 2 wickets a match with a couple of 5 wicket hauls, which looks very unlikely at this stage.

A good point was made on Hadlee averaging 5 wickets a match. In that case, drag his average down to about 20. So Williamson to have equivalent career stats would have to average about 55-56 (and average around 65 for a 10 year period to equate to Hadlee's peak).

That's a very big ask. The batting stats are possible, the bowling not so much.

 

[Bahnz]

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that you me and Bahnz may be a bit older than Flem - if so we probably cherish Hadlee's exploits a bit more than his generation. I think I liked all of Bahnz's posts too.

I'm actually probably closer to Flem's age, and I never saw Hadlee play (or at least I don't remember seeing him play).

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.

Kane's bowling success was pretty dependent on the turn that he achieved as a result of the elbow-work that he put onto the ball. Now that he has to actually bowl he looks reeeaaaally part time and no more accurate than he was before. I suppose that might improve, but with his prime focus being his batting I tend to think that it won't.

Also, anyone else think that it's probably not entirely a coincidence that since Kane's chucking citation, his batting average has jumped up from around 45 (during the Nov-2012 to Jun-2014 period) up to 90?

 

[cnerd123]

Last few pages have been good!

Hadlee is an ATG, but I always felt a contributing factor to that was how he carried the side he was playing in. He was so much better than all his team-mates it was ridiculous, and the gulf in skill served to highlight how great a player he was. And he won lots of matches on his own, which leads to a sort of 'Hadlee vs The World' narrative that helps build him up as New Zealand's answer to Superman.

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

I feel Kallis is similarly afflicted. He's a legend, but he played in a side full of other legends (as someone mentioned, he bowled 'in the slipstream of ATGs'). Therefore we might not view his accomplishments as being that spectacular. He rarely won games on his own, but to a certain extent that's because he never really had to. And when you play alongside men such as Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Gary Kirsten, Graeme Smith, ABDV, Amla and Steyn, it's a lot harder to stand out as an ATG.

To me, part of why I hold Hadlee in such high regard is because of the conditions in which he achieved so much. It's not easy being the player who carries the entire nation. Would everyone still feel the same way as they do now if Hadlee had instead played for South Africa, and Kallis had played for NZ?

 

[cnerd123]

Not to start up the age old argument but it could also be said that it helps him by providing consistent pressure from the other end.

(okay yes i have started the age old argument again)

Yeah but name one other pace bowler who took 5+ wickets/match who had as much competition for wickers as Steyn. You can't.

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.

 

[Flem274*]

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

 

[Bahnz]

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

All the guys you list there a batsmen though. Hadlee was the reason why we won games, as opposed to just drawing them.