The Kane Williamson Average Watch thread

[OverratedSanity]

Keepers and tailenders are generally more competent with the bat these days as well.

Yup.

There's a tendency to underrate the present, but I still don't think people quite appreciate fully what Steyn has accomplished, for example, against India, in the 2010-11 season. It was one of the great batting lineups of all time and virtually all of them were in a golden run of form at the same time. And in that stretch, Steyn tore us apart 3-4 times in a manner I haven't seen any other pace bowler do. Years from now, those performances will be talked about way more when nerds analyze his career.

 

[Zinzan]

Yup.

There's a tendency to underrate the present, but I still don't think people quite appreciate fully what Steyn has accomplished, for example,.

I think you're overplaying that point when it comes to Steyn, considering almost everyone on CW seems to hold him among the top 5 or so pace bowlers of all-time, regardless of the fact he's still playing.

But OS - I'm interested in the order in which you rank Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee & Steyn, because you make a case above as to why the two more modern bowlers Steyn & McGrath had tougher English & Australian batters to bowl at than Hadllee & Marshall, yet I seem to recall you voting Marshall as the best pace bowling of all-time in a poll, but I could be muddling you up with someone else.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Getting back to KDub - who cares about his test match 'slump'? He has obviously read the thread and is now focused on his ODI average and hitting 50 asap.

He needs 273 without being dismissed in the Chappell Hadlee or 323 for one dismissal. No probs.

 

[Zinzan]

Getting back to KDub - who cares about his test match 'slump'? He has obviously read the thread and is now focused on his ODI average and hitting 50 asap.

He needs 273 without being dismissed in the Chappell Hadlee or 323 for one dismissal. No probs.

Only you're forgetting he's back south of 50 in tests too.... remembering this thread was questioning him achieving both & i'm pretty sure at the same time.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

It said:

"The point of this thread is to serve as a platform for me to state my prediction that Williamson will average over 50 in both Tests and ODIs at some point within the next two years."

I didn't read that as at the same time. Anyway - he can get a big score against Bangladesh and get back up there in tests.

 

[Zinzan]

It said:

"The point of this thread is to serve as a platform for me to state my prediction that Williamson will average over 50 in both Tests and ODIs at some point within the next two years."

I didn't read that as at the same time. Anyway - he can get a big score against Bangladesh and get back up there in tests.

Fair enough, I was too lazy to recheck the OP . In that case, let's hope for a 273* in game 1.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think you're overplaying that point when it comes to Steyn, considering almost everyone on CW seems to hold him among the top 5 or so pace bowlers of all-time, regardless of the fact he's still playing.

But OS - I'm interested in the order in which you rank Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee & Steyn, because you make a case above as to why the two more modern bowlers Steyn & McGrath had tougher English & Australian batters to bowl at than Hadllee & Marshall, yet I seem to recall you voting Marshall as the best pace bowling of all-time in a poll, but I could be muddling you up with someone else.

Don't really have a set-in-stone ranking but I'd probably go

Marshall
McGrath
Steyn
Hadlee
Imran

As my top 5.

 

[Blocky]

Don't really have a set-in-stone ranking but I'd probably go

Marshall
McGrath
Steyn
Hadlee
Imran

As my top 5.

Not enough Wasim Akram for my tastes.

Based on the guys I've seen and what they've been able to do with the ball

1. Ambrose.
2. Akram.
3. Steyn.
4. Hadlee.
5. Marshall.

But to be honest, you're splitting hairs trying to separate those 5 from the likes of McGrath, Holding, Imran, Garner, etc.

 

[Zinzan]

Don't really have a set-in-stone ranking but I'd probably go

Marshall
McGrath
Steyn
Hadlee
Imran

As my top 5.

Yeah, thought Marshall was your no.1

Incidentally, I do agree the '85 Australian side in particular & the mid 80s English sides in general were relatively weak batting lineups, however Hadlee still had to contend with the following English & Aust batsmen in his career;

Gooch, Boycott, Gower, Smith, the Chappells, Walters, Steve Waugh, Taylor & from that '85 series, Border & Boon.

Marshall much the same.

 

[Zinzan]

For me;

1.Marshall
2.Hadlee
3.Ambrose
4.Steyn
5.Akram/Lillee

 

[vic_orthdox]

For me;

1.Marshall
2.Hadlee
3.Ambrose
4.Steyn
5.Akram/Lillee

Marshall obviously a genius, but when you're biggest caveat is that McGrath didn't have to bowl against the best batting line-up of his time...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Lol what are you on about...He'd clearly not understood why I'd ask for clarification. Hopefully that explains it and he can let it go.

And it was clear to the rest of us that Athlai was never looking to compare Williamson to Crowe, just comparing him to all batsmen by posting that table with runs by a certain age. It was you who took it to be a comparison to Crowe - he didn't even quote you.

 

[Zinzan]

And it was clear to the rest of us that Athlai was never looking to compare Williamson to Crowe, just comparing him to all batsmen by posting that table with runs by a certain age. It was you who took it to be a comparison to Crowe - he didn't even quote you.

We'd moved on, but since you continue to raise it, he didn't answer to my question as what he was comparing after replying to my post when I asked, which led to the speculation..

Besides, just because you're a mod that doesn't mean you get to use 'the rest of us' as if you speak on behalf of everyone here. It wasn't clear at all what he meant by 'compare', he just posted some stats completely irrelevant to my post.

 

[Zinzan]

Marshall obviously a genius, but when you're biggest caveat is that McGrath didn't have to bowl against the best batting line-up of his time...

Was that 'the rest of us' or just you who decided that was my biggest caveat as to why I don't rate McGrath quite as highly as those other 6 ATGs?

I never said it was was the biggest reason, I just mentioned it as one factor slightly flattering his average. I don't think anyone with a knowledge of cricket would dispute that having to bowl to Langer, Hayden, Ponting, the Waughs, Martyn & Gilchrist to name a few would have likely been a little tougher for him than the others batting lineups in his era. I didn't realize that would be such an outrageous nor controversial suggestion

 

[vic_orthdox]

My point has nothing to do with being a mod. I probably shouldn't have said "the rest of us", fair.

Your post mentions Crowe.
Athlai doesn't even quote you, posts a list of batsmen ordered by runs scored by the age of 26. This list has 50 names, 49 of which aren't Crowe. This post is relevant to the thread, talking about Williamson, average, comparing runs and averages of other guns at the same age.
You ask why he is comparing Williamson's average to Crowe.

Don't dodge Athers. You posted some stats without explaining yourself, & when questioned, you failed to respond, forcing me to make the assumption you were comparing those two.

Below is my post, followed by your response. I don't know how your response was relevant in any way whatsoever to what I had written. You just posted a stat mentioning 'this is how I compare', when I hadn't compared the two to start with. That's why I asked the question.. Nothing weird & nothing uncharacteristic at all. You then replied with a non-answer about not proving to things to me or something, so I asked again, saw you left 5 mins later, so assumed your leaving meant you were comparing those two.

This sort of stuff of building an argument that a poster is making against you, without them ever actually doing it, makes threads that you've been posting in quite difficult to read.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Was that 'the rest of us' or just you who decided that was my biggest caveat as to why I don't rate McGrath quite as highly as those other 6 ATGs?

I never said it was was the biggest reason, I just mentioned it as one factor slightly flattering his average. I don't think anyone with a knowledge of cricket would dispute that having to bowl to Langer, Hayden, Ponting, the Waughs, Martyn & Gilchrist to name a few would have likely been a little tougher for him than the others batting lineups in his era. I didn't realize that would be such an outrageous nor controversial suggestion

I never said that it was controversial to say that, I think it's just something that gets held harder against the Australian teams of the 1990s/2000s than the West Indies of the 1980s.

Steyn is up there with Marshall and Hadlee obviously, and many would say McGrath is too.

The fact McGrath never had to bowl to the best batting side of his era (for reasons out of his control) flatters his statistics somewhat IMO.

 

[Zinzan]

My point has nothing to do with being a mod. I probably shouldn't have said "the rest of us", fair.

Your post mentions Crowe.
Athlai doesn't even quote you, posts a list of batsmen ordered by runs scored by the age of 26. This list has 50 names, 49 of which aren't Crowe. This post is relevant to the thread, talking about Williamson, average, comparing runs and averages of other guns at the same age.
You ask why he is comparing Williamson's average to Crowe.





This sort of stuff of building an argument that a poster is making against you, without them ever actually doing it, makes threads that you've been posting in quite difficult to read.

No, you still seem to be misunderstanding why I asked for clarification, since it was clearly in response to my post whether mine was quoted or not. I was curious since my post had been relatively benign on the matter, simply stating that I'd be happy if KW ended up averaging in the high 40s and that he tends to get overrated by some Kiwis since he's our first truly WC batsman since Crowe. So I see his reply & wondered wtf does that reply even mean....

Anyway, surely it's time to put this one to bed, it's been bashed about more than Ricky Ponting's baggy green.

 

[Zinzan]

I never said that it was controversial to say that, I think it's just something that gets held harder against the Australian teams of the 1990s/2000s than the West Indies of the 1980s.

That's true & fair, only Marshall was Marshall. and even if his average of 20.94 was 2-3 runs higher based on a hypothetical situation in which he bowled to Greenidge, Lloyd & Richards etc. I still think most of us would have him as no.1 purely based on the way he bowled.

 

[honestbharani]

I have seen cricket since about 1987 (but really only saw cricket with any knowledge of the sport from about 1989) and I never really saw Marshall bowl. The best fast bowlers I have seen in order would be:

Ambrose
Steyn
McGrath
Wasim

 

[Rootfan]

People also forget the LBW effect when talking about current batsmen and stats. Because of DRS among other things umpires are much more ready to give lbws they never would have dreamed of giving all those years back. A batsman averaging 50 over 200 innings (assuming no not outs) would suddenly average about 45-46 if we were to add 20 more lbws to those stats(a reasonably conservative 1/10 innings.