OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Williamson actually knows what a test hundred is though.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Kane Williamson vs Joe Root 2, the ODI boogaloo
- Thread starter 91Jmay
- Start date
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah but Root knows what a test 250 is, so.........
Mr Miyagi
Banned
Yeah but Kane would declare an innings with himself on 399* if it was good for the team
Back to the OP, the best I've seen Kane bat in ODI games is on English roads. 2015 was a masterclass and he still liked it there last year at the Champs Trophy. And Joe Root has been magnificent for England for a while now.
While Root has the recent form, I think there is more determinative cricket ahead of them than behind them. So it really is a case of who will do better next year? Flip a coin for me.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
lol ok
Yep. You are now on my ignore list. Replying like a 12 year old to me.
Tests. Averages more, faster strike rate.
ODIs. The same.
T20I. The same.
FC. The same.
List A. The same.
T20. The same.
Williamson is a great player, but Root is just too strong for him. Similar to how Kohli trumps Root in all three formats (although there's a bigger gap between Kohli and Root than between Root and Williamson)
Don't need to reply as I won't see it.
Last edited:
Hicheal Michael
U19 Captain
Hard to split imo. Nz has had opening problems this whole century, let alone during Kane's career.
Mr Miyagi
Banned
I think John is looking at it from what they have achieved already. Whereas some people are looking to the talent and qualities to imagine who has the better peak and/or career. And with Guptill, KW has far less excuses than more NZ number 3's have enjoyed.
I think next year is going to have a huge bearing on who is rated what after their respective World Cups. Like I say, Kane has loved England roads in the past (averages over 62 there at SR 96, and that includes 2013 when the English pitches became roads in 2015 - and KW went beserk -he averages 80 there at a sr of 100 for 2017 and 2015). http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...5;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting
It gets even better vs England alone; http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...5;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting
Root's done well in England too from 2015 on, nearly 63 at at a tick under 95 SR. With far more games of course.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...5;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting
Kane had the same issues in t20 that Joe Root has faced this year, but Kane turned around and won the orange cap at the IPL when Joe went uncontracted. But I think Joe should have been contracted.
I'd feel more confident giving a position on this after the World Cup next year when both have gone into the tournament with a weight of expectation, and playing in the same environment (hopefully) against the same teams.
But I also think we're past the point of needing to acknowledge pitches in England from 2015 in odi as typically roads (this effects batsmen and bowlers both). But Joe does have the great recent form, and he can only play on the pitches he's given.
Both are great players. I'll defer my conclusion till after the World Cup. But given how far out in front Kohli genuinely and deservingly is, this is really a second best race at best.
Last edited:
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
How many people you got on that ignore list now John? Seriously mate....you need to just chill a little and get a thicker skin if you wanna hang around here and it not do your head in.Yep. You are now on my ignore list. Replying like a 12 year old to me.
Tests. Averages more, faster strike rate.
ODIs. The same.
T20I. The same.
FC. The same.
List A. The same.
T20. The same.
Williamson is a great player, but Root is just too strong for him. Similar to how Kohli trumps Root in all three formats (although there's a bigger gap between Kohli and Root than between Root and Williamson)
Don't need to reply as I won't see it.
Williamson V's Root in tests is very very debatable........there is plenty of discussion to be had on the topic so to say it is a no contest is really really ignorant.
Roots conversion rate in tests is a big problem, until he sorts it (and ftr I'm sure he will) he will always have a question mark over that average of his. So forget his average and strike rate compared to KW....look at their respective hundred tally's. KW kills him in that regard and hundreds win test matches........pretty 50's don't.
And I'd wager a lot of money that Root would realise this and say the same thing himself.
I care about the players overall long term contribution in all formats. It's a team game. If Williamson scored 55 every single innings I'd rate him higher than Root in tests. Williamson is a good player, and a nice guy. He's more likeable than Root. I don't bring any bias into this. Kohli is an ass, but he's an all-time great with the bat there's no denying it.
In terms of statistical breakdown in tests (home/away etc) there just isn't enough there for me to ignore the obvious (the higher batting average of Root) and that means Root just shades it for me in tests. In the other formats he's more dominant. Root has also opened the batting in six tests that knocked his average down slightly. In that sense I don't think there's a debate to be had in terms of who's been better. I didn't even need to weigh it up, or check the stats. Right from the get go I considered Root superior in all formats and that's why I consider it to be no contest, despite Williamson being a very good player. I feel like I'm being reasonable to be honest.
Last edited:
Adders
Cricketer Of The Year
WTF has their personalities got to do with anything? I don't care if Kohli is a dick and Williamson is set to win a nobel peace prize......that's just totally irrelevant.
I refer you to me previous point..........hundreds win test matches. That trumps averages and strike rate in this format.
If you build a team then you'd prefer a top 7 that always made 50. Over a team of players that made inconsistent scores, but averaged 50. You'd always get 350 from the top 7 in the first case and always be in a position to win the game. The problem with claiming higher contributions help more in wins is it often ignores the fact that 50 runs is always a good innings and that if you are making more big scores and averaging less (in this case for example), then it means you fail with the bat (Williamson) more often than a player that makes fewer hundreds and averages more (Root). It also means he is failing more often vs Root than he is excelling vs Root. Whichever angle you look at it Root is a more consistent batter that averages more, I consider that to be more important for winning in the long run.
Last edited:
Mr Miyagi
Banned
Ducks don't get draws nor wins. I really think this deserves its own thread for all batsmen.
Mr Miyagi
Banned
Hold the phone John, start a new thread. Personally I opine that this is the most interesting thread idea I've seen this weekend.
Lets apply it to all test players and not in a Joe Root vs KW ODI thread.
Last edited:
It doesn't to you. Other people have posted that they don't like x, y or z so find it a difficult judgement call to make on certain things. The most clear one was Kohli in an ATG 25 year thread (I'm 99% sure it was that thread), people were ruling him out because they don't like his personality. That gave away that certain posters could be swayed by the personality and attitude of players (and who they played for), rather than just judging on individual performance. Perhaps you should start taking in posts before commenting aggressively with "WTF"
As for your comment about hundreds. Nope. Strong team totals and team batting efforts make a strong total. If you want to get good scores as a team on a consistent basis then you need consistency throughout the batting line up, not to be erratic. The more erratic you are with the bat the more likely to collapse and lose games. Test matches are also won in reality with the ball, you must take 20 wickets to win. You just need to get enough runs on the board to defend. To say hundreds win test matches isn't an opinion of substance, it's wrong. There are too many things at play to make such a strange specific statement of "hundreds win matches". Mr "WTF".
Last edited:
Mr Miyagi
Banned
There's a few captains who declared and saw the runs chased down who know this isn't quite true.
John, please start a new thread on this topic. I want to read the opposition view to you in full on this.
You're literally tackling a cricket supposed "truism". It is thread-worthy. Popular opinion will be against you, but statistically, I think you're onto something. If people can treat the thread with respect, it will be very interesting.
Last edited:
Mr Miyagi
Banned
Yeah, it is a really interesting point. What is an urban legend, and what is statistically more true. All runs over the 1 required for the win are technically wasted (we suspect that they have a psychological effect, though - but to what degree?).
This is a very interesting topic and one I started to think about during the Ashes when Root's conversion problem became headlines.
I just don't want to be the leader of this topic, I'm on 26 infraction points and I know what happens when supposed truisms get challenged around here by me, even where successfully so
Last edited:
The declaration thing I didn't bring into it, as that's often a difficult win to weigh up and must be done on a game by game basis. Often it's due to the situation in the series. Also in past eras, especially a long time ago with uncovered wickets, things were very different as to when and why to declare. Now, it's almost always to push for a win with time running out in the game. I also think that ideally tests would all be timeless games of two innings, but we know that isn't viable.
I like my team to get ahead in the first innings as quick as possible (so there is plenty of time left for 20 wickets assuming no declaration or injured/ill players) and heap pressure on the opposition. Root's vastly superior first (team) innings average is also ideal for that. I don't understand why inconsistency is sometimes considered a good thing for any player in cricket (and consistency a bad thing). You want a consistent return and consistent performance from batsmen, fielders (catching and ground fielding) and bowlers. Consistency is king for individuals and teams. The more consistent players you have playing at a good level on a regular basis the more often you are going to win.
Last edited:
Mr Miyagi
Banned
I think this deserves its own thread. I hope you start it. I really want to see the debate on this.
I disagree with you on first innings average, but that's really besides the point (I'm a subscriber to 3rd/4th innings average myself in trying to save games and getting real wins).
But that's a much less interesting debate than consistent 50's, or 100, 0, 0, 0, 0, 200*, 0, in what leads to more wins or less losses.
You've segue'd into something that serves its own thread. Like I say, I'd start it myself, but I'm loaded on infraction points. And I think you're on to a really good debate and possible point, but I warn you, you're against popular opinion and cricket dogma.
Last edited: