Root v Kohli in England v India 2018

[Fuller Pilch]

The meme here is that Root scores a lot of fifties, but too few hundreds.

To put that into perspective, Root scores a century once in every 5.54 test matches; which is obviously not as good as players in the Lara class. But his rate of scoring centuries is comparable to that of other batsmen who are considered to be quite good; for example, the Lesser AB scored a century once in every 5.78 test matches.

As well as conversion rate, it is especially lack of 100s away from England and Wales. He has 10 test 100s at home, but only 3 away/neutral(1 in the Windies, 1 in India, 1 in South Africa). KDub in contrast has away (including UAE) 100s against test nation except South Africa (and of course Afghanistan and Ireland)

 

[Bolo]

People put too much stock into 100s. Given 2 players who score the same number of runs in the same number of innings there won't be much difference unless you account for the circumstances under which they scored their runs.

In an above average team (which roots has been), it will theoretically be better to have a more even distribution (i.e. fewer hundreds), although there won't be a big difference.

If you struggle with this idea conceptually, take it to the extreme. Would you rather have 8*50 or 1*400? You might lose every match with a 50 in it, because a 50 will seldom guarantee an outcome, but your expected number of positive outcomes is higher.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Why not compare 20 x 50s to 1 x 1000, as your comparison situation has only happened one more time than mine.

 

[cnerd123]

Context matters too. Runs only really matter when the game or series is still live. If the batsman who occasionally scores 100s always does so when the game is live, he's more valuable than the batsman churning out regular 50s. If he only does so when the game is dead, he's less valuable.

Kohl's 100s have mostly been scored when it matters, so I have no trouble rating him above Root.

 

[Bolo]

By all means, use 1000s. It makes the point better than 400s. Compare 300s to 100s or 50s, then 250s, and you will see a similar pattern. The bigger the score the clearer the distinction. The relative values converge to the point where there is little difference, but there is no reason to believe that they will invert- 100 is not likely to be typically more valuable than 2 50s unless playing for a team that is expecting to lose more than it wins.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Isn't he the perfect example? The best batsman in the team stops converting hundreds (used him as captain as the separating point) and England's been going backwards in that time overall, especially as a batting unit.

 

[Starfighter]

I think England's batting problems are a bit deeper than Root not scoring hundreds. Both openers for a start.

 

[Bolo]

Link doesn't work. Look at Roots annual average or RPI. It tracks his number of hundreds. Of course he will contribute more when he's performing better in every measure. What reason to attribute it to only one measure though?

 

[vcs]

Root has no problem converting to 100s in ODIs, maybe it's just a mental thing like that streak of 90s Sachin had in 2007.

 

[Starfighter]

It's definitely a mental thing, and I don't think the captaincy and batting 3, neither of which suit him, are helping.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Average of 52.8 without captaincy, with 27 x 50s and 11 x 100s.
Average of 47.12 with captaincy, with 14 x 50s and 2 x 100s (last 19 Tests).

The hardest part of batting is getting a start, if you could simply choose between two 50s and a ton then you can compare on a game by game basis maybe. Only Bradman scored a 50+ score more than 50% of the time (42/80), the rest of the mortals will score amounts less than 50 the majority of the time that they bat. It's why maximising performance when you get in is the key to being a successful batsman, and those that do end up with the best records.

The counterargument is staring us right in the face - Alistair Cook with only three scores above 50 since the WI series last year, two of them double hundreds. His spot is rightly up for grabs, but also highlights the importance of kicking on - he'd be dropped by now without those scores too. England won the first one he made a double hundred in, and drew the second (they also lost the match against Pakistan where he got 70).

 

[vic_orthdox]

Root has no problem converting to 100s in ODIs, maybe it's just a mental thing like that streak of 90s Sachin had in 2007.

Dragging in a theme from another thread, I think he's pacing his innings so well in ODIs because the game dictates how he bats. I think Buttler is the same, he's spoken before about how he likes chasing in white ball cricket because he knows what he has to achieve, rather than batting into the unknown of setting a target - which is further amplified in Test/red ball cricket.

He's gotten out a lot of times in the past 24 months trying to dictate the game (Tests) when he feels like he's in charge; noted it a few times in India and playing some shots that he wouldn't have done in getting to 50. He's trying hard to imprint his effect on the game and take it over.

His predecessor is the opposite - Cook once in while still play the same four shots, and keep as limited as how he got to 50, throughout his innings, no matter how long it goes for.

 

[Bolo]

His inability to convert starts is definitely a liability. His ability to get them is an asset. Getting both fully right would mean an ATG run of form, which he clearly isn't on. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference which one he gets right (circumstances are more important), but in general being more consistent in a strong team is preferable.

I would back 8 50s (or 4 100s) from Cook to generate better results than his 2 doubles. Its speculative, but his ton against WI likely didn't change the result, while his innings against AUS probably, but not clearly, earned the draw. Good innings in a large number of other matches would likely impact more matches.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Root doesn't have a Test century in over a year. Don't see how the Big/Fab 4 is still a thing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Root doesn't have a Test century in over a year. Don't see how the Big/Fab 4 is still a thing.

Kohli is only one left

Root - not as good anymore
Smith - banned
Williamson - plays 2 Tests a year

 

[srbhkshk]

Root doesn't have a Test century in over a year. Don't see how the Big/Fab 4 is still a thing.

Still the best 4 in the world though, points by TJB notwithstanding.

 

[Slifer]

Kohli is only one left

Root - not as good anymore
Smith - banned
Williamson - plays 2 Tests a year

Smith might be banned but he's still very much in the bunch and actually he's still the daddy of the bunch inspite of Kohl's recent exploits.

 

[vcs]

CricViz Analysis: Joe Root - A Batsman Transformed

Some pretty detailed analysis here.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Geez they do some good stuff.

 

[Starfighter]

They also do some missing the forest for the trees stuff, it's neither here nor there.