Kane Williamson vs Joe Root 2, the ODI boogaloo

[vcs]

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.

Cricket just doesn't work like that, generally wickets tend to fall in bunches. Cashing in on starts is important and 100s win you matches.

Australia's top 7 when they were dominant was probably the closest you are going to get to a batting lineup where everyone averaged close to 50. They didn't do it by consistently racking up half-centuries and failing to go on, all of them were capable of playing huge innings once they got in and generally it only took one or two to fire to take the opposition out of the game.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

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.

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

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.

Did you really need 4 posts to say the same thing?

btw yes, we have talked about this here in the past a few times.

 

[Jack1]

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 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 real debate, but I warn you, you're against popular opinion and cricket dogma (which I suspect was just to stop batsmen throwing their wicket away when they had a score and to keep going).

We can talk here, unless you feel it's essential to create a new thread.

The best way to look at it is this in my view. If all your batsmen were that inconsistent you'd be losing more often than winning. Hitting big runs doesn't guarantee the win, it's possible to bat out a draw still for the opponent. If you make no (few) runs you are almost guaranteed to lose. If you are consistent then you give your team a chance to win games more often, there are 10 other players out there. You can't win a test match on your own.

I understand are a subscriber of saving games, but as test cricket is played over an aggregate of two innings. When the batsman scores the runs isn't that relevant, just that his match aggregate is a stronger one than the opposing man. If Root scores 104 for England and Williamson scores 100 for NZ, then Root has contributed more to the side. If you have a top six of Root's they are making 624 per game, Williamson 600. Root's giving his bowlers 24 runs extra to defend over the game and they are coming at a faster rate (It would take the Roots 11.8 overs less to compile 24 extra runs). I know it seems basic, but I really think it is that basic personally in this particular case. Runs rule the roust in test cricket for batsmen. Root and Williamson can't directly change what the other 10 men do. It's a team sport and can never be proven how what they do effects their team mates. Therefore we are left to compare them on an individual basis towards the team, with numbers and historical form.

Ideally if you did have inconsistency it would be weighted towards the first innings in my view like Root to create scoreboard pressure for the bowlers and fielders. It also means the rest of your batters bat in both innings under less pressure as they come in with more runs on the board. The tail in particular wilts under pressure with the bat, so you want to get runs on the board early (to take pressure off your own tail and heap pressure on the opposing teams top order and tail in the first innings if you win the toss and bat). That's just my view on that however.

If all your players were consistent, not only would you win more but you'd be almost impossible to ever beat. Where Root and Williamson could fit in sides of varying strengths becomes another debate. It also moves away from comparing their individual abilities and contribution towards a properly built team unit. To fully assess this we must ignore their bowling (they wouldn't bowl an over in a proper team, certainly not a stacked one) and just gauge the disparity in their fielding. Root has taken 80 catches in 69 games. Williamson 58 in 65 games. Therefore if anything the Roots also bolstered by adding a ittle extra in the field in tests (and in fact in limited overs cricket too statistically).

In the long term the team with Roots as a top 6 would beat the Williamsons more often (assuming the same keeper and bowlers on both teams) due to the above. Which kind of puts to bed the debate of them head to head as individuals in my view.

 

[Jack1]

Cricket just doesn't work like that, generally wickets tend to fall in bunches. Cashing in on starts is important and 100s win you matches.

Australia's top 7 when they were dominant was probably the closest you are going to get to a batting lineup where everyone averaged close to 50. They didn't do it by consistently racking up half-centuries and failing to go on, all of them were capable of playing huge innings once they got in and generally it only took one or two to fire to take the opposition out of the game.

That's because I imagine (usually the case) the weaker a batsman is the more inconsistent they are (compared to their personal career stats). This is yet to be proven however statistically with a breakdown comparing the consistencies of all batsmen in multiple average ranges and would take too long to breakdown all the numbers. In this post you are implying that inconsistency is a bad thing, which has been my point (wickets falling in bunches, low scores etc). The weaker a batsman is the harder he copes with pressure too.

By gaining an inconsistency of a higher weighting of 100s you are gaining an even greater inconsistency weighted towards low scores as an individual. Especially if your average is lower like Williamson's is vs Root's. That is the problem here.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

We can talk here, unless you feel it's essential to create a new thread.

The best way to look at it is this in my view. If all your batsmen were that inconsistent you'd be losing more often than winning. Hitting big runs doesn't guarantee the win, it's possible to bat out a draw still for the opponent. If you make no (few) runs you are almost guaranteed to lose. If you are consistent then you give your team a chance to win games more often, there are 10 other players out there. You can't win a test match on your own.

I understand are a subscriber of saving games, but as test cricket is played over an aggregate of two innings. When the batsman scores the runs isn't that relevant, just that his match aggregate is a stronger one than the opposing man. If Root scores 104 for England and Williamson scores 100 for NZ, then Root has contributed more to the side. If you have a top six of Root's they are making 624 per game, Williamson 600. Root's giving his bowlers 24 runs extra to defend over the game and they are coming at a faster rate (It would take the Roots 11.8 overs less to compile 24 extra runs). I know it seems basic, but I really think it is that basic personally in this particular case. Runs rule the roust in test cricket for batsmen. Root and Williamson can't directly change what the other 10 men do. It's a team sport and can never be proven how what they do effects their team mates. Therefore we are left to compare them on an individual basis towards the team, with numbers and historical form.

Ideally if you did have inconsistency it would be weighted towards the first innings in my view like Root to create scoreboard pressure for the bowlers and fielders. It also means the rest of your batters bat in both innings under less pressure as they come in with more runs on the board. The tail in particular wilts under pressure with the bat, so you want to get runs on the board early (to take pressure off your own tail and heap pressure on the opposing teams top order and tail in the first innings if you win the toss and bat). That's just my view on that however.

If all your players were consistent, not only would you win more but you'd be almost impossible to ever beat. Where Root and Williamson could fit in sides of varying strengths becomes another debate. It also moves away from comparing their individual abilities and contribution towards a properly built team unit. To fully assess this we must ignore their bowling (they wouldn't bowl an over in a proper team, certainly not a stacked one) and just gauge the disparity in their fielding. Root has taken 80 catches in 69 games. Williamson 58 in 65 games. Therefore if anything the Roots also bolstered by adding a ittle extra in the field in tests (and in fact in limited overs cricket too statistically).

In the long term the team with Roots as a top 6 would beat the Williamsons more often (assuming the same keeper and bowlers on both teams) due to the above. Which kind of puts to bed the debate of them head to head as individuals in my view.

John, there is no way on this earth that Root is a better fielder than Kane Williamson. KW doesn't field in the slips. He fielded in the gully before being made captain, and makes ESPN sportscentre with his catches, he's a deadest freak. YouTube him. I mean this sincerely. He's a deadest gun. NZ are the leading team in the world for least dropped catches despite Santner's butter fingers, and Boult and KW are absolute freaks who regularly, and I mean regularly, do freaky stuff in the field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4cwyCGaqYY

But since being captain, he's more at mid on and mid off, and kinda wasted. But he's still a freak in the field. I can expand the highlight reel to t20 or ODI if you prefer. He has done ridiculously great stuff in the field. He's a freak. Root's not remotely on his fielding level.

Yes, I think this topic deserves its own thread. Consistency vs 100's. It has nothing to do Root vs KW's bowling, fielding, or themselves personally. This is about all batsmen.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The problem with Root's conversion rate has context, it's not as simple as "100s win tests". No one really complains when he scores a 70 in seaming conditions. It's when he does the same on flat tracks like in the India and Australia tours that this flaw of his really hurts the team. Getting 400 instead of 600 is what lost England those series and you usually don't get those massive team totals unless someone gets a really big one.

 

[vcs]

Yeah I didn't really understand much of that, but what I was trying to say is that your hypothetical batting lineup with 6 Roots where everyone averages 50 with a very low S.D is never going to happen in the real world, whereas you can find a few examples of ATG lineups like the one I pointed out.

edit : @John1990

 

[ImpatientLime]

Roots conversion rate in tests is a big problem, until he sorts it (and ftr I'm sure he will) .

just out of interest, why do you think he'll fix it?

he's been playing test cricket for 6 years now.

 

[OverratedSanity]

just out of interest, why do you think he'll fix it?

he's been playing test cricket for 6 years now.

Yeah people have been saying he'll fix it for a good few years now. I thought maybe the captaincy would give him a kick up the backside but it hasn't helped.

 

[Jack1]

John, there is no way on this earth that Root is a better fielder than Kane Williamson. KW doesn't field in the slips. He fielded in the gully before being made captain, and makes ESPN sportscentre with his catches, he's a deadest freak. YouTube him. I mean this sincerely. He's a deadest gun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4cwyCGaqYY

But since being captain, he's more at mid on and mid off, and kinda wasted. But he's still a freak in the field.

Yes, I think this topic deserves its own thread. Consistency vs 100's. It has nothing to do Root vs KW. This is about all batsmen.

I haven't seen enough of him in the slips to comment. He does seem a reasonably good fielder, but I haven't analysed everyone's fielding that strongly as of now.

He's slightly smaller too so covers less ground in all positions, and therefore has less potential for catches in certain positions. In terms of their ability to literally cover ground on the move I wouldn't know who was more agile with more acceleration, nor who could hit a higher top speed. Then there becomes an argument about who is the better slip to a spinner, who's the better silly point fielder, the better short leg fielder and so on. Even fine/long leg comes into the mix (and sweeper fielders) over the course of a team with that many Roots or Williamson in. I would be inclined to slightly favour Root overall in the field over all positions. That's another debate all together and let's not get into a discussion about that though.

Besides, in terms of their batting I favour Root anyway in all three formats for the reasons explained. I do think it's slightly flawed however trying to compare players, batsmen and bowlers without bringing their fielding into it (because it's part of them as a player). I notice this is a huge problem in the selection of ATG teams, completely ignoring the fielding element in a team game. I've brought that up before however.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Yeah people have been saying he'll fix it for a good few years now. I thought maybe the captaincy would give him a kick up the backside but it hasn't helped.

yeah its a very head in the sand approach.

'oh he's so good he'll fix it, it will just click'

cricket doesn't work like that. pietersen was so freakishly talented he should have averaged 50+. but he didn't.

 

[Bijed]

Only 7 votes total, but I did a Shane Watson vs Marcus North thread a while ago and Watson came up on top 5-2. Though I guess it's not the same as with top-class batsmen like Root vs Williamson as I guess even the relatively inconsistent batsmen who average 50+ get starts and hence avoid total collapses as often as your relatively consistent 35-average types, whereas total inconsistency from a lower averaging batsmen, even if they make centuries quite often, means a lot of failures, which is bad for the team beyond just the fewer runs scored.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah I didn't really understand much of that, but what I was trying to say is that your hypothetical batting lineup with 6 Roots where everyone averages 50 with a very low S.D is never going to happen in the real world, whereas you can find a few examples of ATG lineups like the one I pointed out.

edit : @John1990

But what if it did? What is better?

And by the way - your wickets in a bunch is explained by new batsmen being easier to dismiss (which supports bowlers in packs obtaining lower averages together).

 

[Mr Miyagi]

I haven't seen enough of him in the slips to comment. He does seem a reasonably good fielder, but I haven't analysed everyone's fielding that strongly as of now.

He's slightly smaller too so covers less ground in all positions, and therefore has less potential for catches in certain positions. In terms of their ability to literally cover ground on the move I wouldn't know who was more agile with more acceleration, nor who could hit a higher top speed. Then there becomes an argument about who is the better slip to a spinner, who's the better silly point fielder, the better short leg fielder and so on. Even fine/long leg comes into the mix (and sweeper fielders) over the course of a team with that many Roots or Williamson in. I would be inclined to slightly favour Root overall in the field over all positions. That's another debate all together and let's not get into a discussion about that though.

Besides, in terms of their batting I favour Root anyway in all three formats for the reasons explained. I do think it's slightly flawed however trying to compare players, batsmen and bowlers without bringing their fielding into it (because it's part of them as a player). I notice this is a huge problem in the selection of ATG teams, completely ignoring the fielding element in a team game. I've brought that up before however.

John, its not even a debate. KW is a freak fieldsman, does his job and makes highlights reels with freakness. Root does his job.

Ross Taylor would have more catches than KW, but isn't anywhere near KW's freak ability in the field. In fact before eye surgery, I wasn't convinced Ross was doing his job well in the slips. (There's no stats on cricinfo for drops).

I think you're onto a good debate about consistency with the bat for all batsmen in tests (KW and Root in particular don't matter). (But Root's fielding prowess over KW is a total loser imo).

 

[Bijed]

But what if it did? What is better?

And by the way - your wickets in a bunch is explained by new batsmen being easier to dismiss (which supports bowlers in packs obtaining lower averages together).

That's the point, isn't it - Root (in this case) needs to make the extra run (and hopefully more) because it's going to relatively unlikely that then guy who comes in when Root goes makes them instead.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

That's the point, isn't it - Root (in this case) needs to make the extra run (and hopefully more) because it's going to relatively unlikely that then guy who comes in when Root goes makes them instead.

Goes both ways. Root stops a rut more often by being more consistent, but then by leaving the job incomplete leaves the chance for it to happen again. So which is better?

50 everytime, or 100,0,0,0,0,0, 200*?

 

[vcs]

But what if it did? What is better?

And by the way - your wickets in a bunch is explained by new batsmen being easier to dismiss (which supports bowlers in packs obtaining lower averages together).

Would depend on the conditions, if they are roady conditions like Aus and NZ (after the first 2 sessions) tend to dole out these days, 3-4 50s from the top 7 still aren't going to get the job done. In relatively lower scoring conditions, sure, I'd take them above the inconsistent lineup.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Would depend on the conditions, if they are roady conditions like Aus and NZ (after the first 2 sessions) tend to dole out these days, 3-4 50s from the top 7 still aren't going to get the job done. In relatively lower scoring conditions, sure, I'd take them above the inconsistent lineup.

All conditions. Over career. Span it.

This really deserves it own thread outside of a KW vs Root in ODI to get more wider engagement.

 

[ImpatientLime]

will root finish with a test average of 50+?

there's a lot of people who act like there is a lot more to come from him. but what if this era of his career has been his peak? he wouldn't be the first english player whos individual performance fell off a cliff under the strains of captaincy.

in odis he is an absolute gun though. way ahead of kw.

 

[vcs]

Over a career, I would again say that it is a purely hypothetical choice since you aren't going to assemble 6 guys who can get in as consistently as Root does. It's likelier that you can find 6 top-order batsmen, all of who shine in different types of conditions, but if any two of them get in, job done.