Smith, Root, Williamson, Kohli

[katana]

be nice to see kohli and smith do well in their match tomorrow. after root and williamson dominating for their teams.

 

[FreoRicci]

Updated after Williamson and Kohli’s centuries in the last 24 hours.
Root has played the most tests currently on 123, followed by Kohli on 107.
Smith has 95 caps with Williamson 93

 

[swingdog]

Root has been the form player for the past 12 months.

 

[big_e]

Kohli retires.

Comparative figures currently stand:

Career Runs
Root 12,972
Smith 10,271
Williamson 9,276
Kohli 9,230

Career Average
Smith 56.74
Williamson 54.88
Root 50.87
Kohli 46.85

Most Hundreds
Smith 36
Root 36
Williamson 33
Kohli 30


Virat was great to watch but probably underachieved in tests, if we're being honest.

 

[Scotland]

Kohli scored 600+ runs and/or averaged 50+ every year from 2012 to 2019.

2017 1215 @ 76
2018 1059 @ 76
2019 1322 @ 55

Elite.

From 2020 onward he scored 671 @ 56 in 2023 but otherwise didn't hit either mark in any year. A bit like Gilly he is retiring with a record that doesn't show how good he really was.

Joe Root on the other hand woke up in 2021 and chose violence.

 

[big_e]

Kohli scored 600+ runs and/or averaged 50+ every year from 2012 to 2019.

2017 1215 @ 76
2018 1059 @ 76
2019 1322 @ 55

Elite.

From 2020 onward he scored 671 @ 56 in 2023 but otherwise didn't hit either mark in any year. A bit like Gilly he is retiring with a record that doesn't show how good he really was.

Joe Root on the other hand woke up in 2021 and chose violence.

Just in case anyone has forgotten what happened in between those years....

 

[PhatBoy]

Kohli retires.

Comparative figures currently stand:

Career Runs
Root 12,972
Smith 10,271
Williamson 9,276
Kohli 9,230

Career Average
Smith 56.74
Williamson 54.88
Root 50.87
Kohli 46.85

Most Hundreds
Smith 36
Root 36
Williamson 33
Kohli 30


Virat was great to watch but probably underachieved in tests, if we're being honest.

Yeah he did. Magnificent at his best and capable of some of the best cricket of the last 20 years and has done himself a disservice with how mediocre he’s been for the last 3-4 years.

Kind of think that his strength sort of became his weakness in a strange way. He was so mentally strong for a long time: his way worked for him and he just forged on unabated for a decade really. Then when it started to fail, he refused to try and change it. Didn’t try and shelve the stroke making, didn’t try and become a grafter for a while, or didn’t go the other way and reinvent himself down the order as a true dasher. It was just his way or failure and unfortunately for him it was the latter

 

[big_e]

Absolutely miles in front as a white ball batter, though. Definitely makes the All Time XI in both ODI and T20Is.

 

[PhatBoy]

Absolutely miles in front as a white ball batter, though. Definitely makes the All Time XI in both ODI and T20Is.

There’s yet another one of those every-so-often an ultra geek statistician is bored articles on Cricinfo at the moment debating who the greatest ODI batsman of all time is based on this incredible concoction of metrics and weightings and it’s between Tendulkar, Richards, Kohli and Ponting from memory, with - as it was the last time he tried to do it five years ago - Tendulkar coming out on top.

I can’t really cop that, I’d pick Kohli above him any day, good as Tendulkar was. Bias I may be, I’d probably take Viv first given his incredible numbers at a time when one day cricket was not supposed to be played at the hyper speed he played it at, but I’d take Kohli over Tendulkar easily. I think Ponting was a very underrated one day batsman but he didn’t have the run chasing presence of Kohli

 

[revo333]

There’s yet another one of those every-so-often an ultra geek statistician is bored articles on Cricinfo at the moment debating who the greatest ODI batsman of all time is based on this incredible concoction of metrics and weightings and it’s between Tendulkar, Richards, Kohli and Ponting from memory, with - as it was the last time he tried to do it five years ago - Tendulkar coming out on top.

Without giving those kind of stats to much attention , there were long periods in the 90's where Tendulkar would have been considered the best white ball batsman.

His 96 World Cup is as good as 50 over cricket batting I have ever seen.

The only other batsman that has giving me those tingles was peak AB De Villiers

 

[revo333]

Virat was great to watch but probably underachieved in tests, if we're being honest.

Probably? 46 test average is very nice but it's the kind of average that get's you forgotten by the next generation.

He didn't have the temperament like Steve Waugh or Tendulkar to adjust his game for all conditions and to keep the opposition from guessing.

 

[Gough]

I was a fan. In his pomp he was spectacular, he's lacked the longevity of his peers though.

 

[JackOutback]

There’s yet another one of those every-so-often an ultra geek statistician is bored articles on Cricinfo at the moment debating who the greatest ODI batsman of all time is based on this incredible concoction of metrics and weightings and it’s between Tendulkar, Richards, Kohli and Ponting from memory, with - as it was the last time he tried to do it five years ago - Tendulkar coming out on top.

I can’t really cop that, I’d pick Kohli above him any day, good as Tendulkar was. Bias I may be, I’d probably take Viv first given his incredible numbers at a time when one day cricket was not supposed to be played at the hyper speed he played it at, but I’d take Kohli over Tendulkar easily. I think Ponting was a very underrated one day batsman but he didn’t have the run chasing presence of Kohli

Can't argue with that top four, though I wonder where Gilchrist fits in. The average doesn't look like much, but almost 10,000 runs, add the fast starts he gave Australia and the fact he kept wickets as well and it's a pretty outstanding record.

I was a fan. In his pomp he was spectacular, he's lacked the longevity of his peers though.

I liked him as well. Beautiful to watch at times and I, for one, enjoyed that he had the arrogance to match the Aussies.

 

[PhatBoy]

Can't argue with that top four, though I wonder where Gilchrist fits in. The average doesn't look like much, but almost 10,000 runs, add the fast starts he gave Australia and the fact he kept wickets as well and it's a pretty outstanding record.


I liked him as well. Beautiful to watch at times and I, for one, enjoyed that he had the arrogance to match the Aussies.

Gilchrist was mentioned in the article and to me even allowing for how much the game has changed, and the fact that he didn’t win a trophy (a factor in the metrics presented - or at least their performances at tournaments anyway), AB De Villiers who averaged 53 at a strike rate of 102, with 25 hundreds and 53 50s from 218 innings - that has to get him close as well.

Cricket is a funny game in that it only takes sometimes one player to win a big game for a side and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but generally it takes a team to do the reverse and it’s hard to blame SA’s failings on him.


He averages 65 in World Cups, with 4 centuries, and in the biggest match he’s played at one, he smashed 65* off 45 balls against Southee, Boult, Henry, Vettori and Elliott and helped them score 167 in 17 overs while Miller went berserk at the other end.

The game before that was a knock out match and he didn’t bat (they won)

In 2011 in a group match against India he made 52 off 39 against India at home to help them chase down 300 having come in well below the required rate (they were going at 4.8 when he arrived at 2-127, he left when they were 4-223 after 40 overs).

He had his chance to win them a quarter final against NZ that same tournament…. Until Faf Du Plessis called him through for a single when he was on 35 off 40 at 4-121 chasing 222. He was run out and you can guess what happened next.

So despite not having a big World Cup winning innings like a Richards or Ponting or Gilchrist etc it’s not been on him and he’s had plenty of moments in between times. Even an ultimately inconsequential 77 off 58 against Pakistan in 2015 (the result didn’t really matter) where the rest of the team fell apart and he was the second last man out and put on 98 with the bottom 4 highlighted again how good he was.

Smacked 92 off 70 to get SA to 0-160 off 20 overs against Australia in 2007 before Watson somehow pinged the stumps down from fine leg. You can guess what happened next.

His only outright failure in a World Cup cutthroat match was 15 against the Aussies later that tournament.

 

[Lunchtime]

I see Kohli has announced his retirement from Test cricket.

He hasn't been at his best in Test cricket from 2020 onwards: 69 Innings for 2028 runs at an average of 30.72, with nine 50s and 3 100s.

But overall, a really good Test career. I always got the feeling he loved going into battle against the opposition and thrived by firing his team India up - to make them play better. I certainly enjoyed watching him play. He retires from Test cricket on his terms. Well played mate

 

[swingdog]

I see Kohli has announced his retirement from Test cricket.

He hasn't been at his best in Test cricket from 2020 onwards: 69 Innings for 2028 runs at an average of 30.72, with nine 50s and 3 100s.

But overall, a really good Test career. I always got the feeling he loved going into battle against the opposition and thrived by firing his team India up - to make them play better. I certainly enjoyed watching him play. He retires from Test cricket on his terms. Well played mate

He's definitely reflective of the new India, taking on Ganguly's mantle, but also a champion in and for test cricket. Deserves kudos for that in addition to his record.

 

[cricketnut14]

definitely an all time great of the game.

just falls short of the big 3 in the test arena gavaskar, dravid and tendulkar who all averaged 50+ and scored more test runs.
was right up there until the last couple of years.
great captaincy record and 30 test centuries and 9,000 runs is a great achievement.

arguably the best in short ball formats.


this officially marks the end of the current big 4.
no kohli in test or T20 and no smith in ODI's.

india will now be looking for a new number 4 for the first time in 35 years.

 

[PhatBoy]

definitely an all time great of the game.

just falls short of the big 3 in the test arena gavaskar, dravid and tendulkar who all averaged 50+ and scored more test runs.
was right up there until the last couple of years.
great captaincy record and 30 test centuries and 9,000 runs is a great achievement.

arguably the best in short ball formats.


this officially marks the end of the current big 4.
no kohli in test or T20 and no smith in ODI's.

india will now be looking for a new number 4 for the first time in 35 years.

That’s a very interesting point you make. And it follows on from the issues they’re having at 3 as well which was a position they’ve not had to worry about really across 25 years of Dravid and Pujara mostly occupying those spots, either.

It seems from the outside looking in like there’s a prevailing attitude of ‘oh well we are India, we have the IPL and all these superstar players, and the Ranji Trophy. We will just pump out some more high 40s/low 50s averaging players to fill those spots.’

But they don’t grow on trees and India has never had to fill those spots since the IPL properly took over.

The only ‘new generation’ players who have come in and really made a genuine batting spot their own - and one of them has only done it over a dozen or so tests and the other is a keeper-batsman - in that time are Jaiswal and Pant. The rest have been remnants from the infancy of the IPL when it was still growing like Sharma, Kohli, Pujara, Rahane, Dhawan when he was there, Gill hasn’t nailed down a spot over a number of years now. Rahul is a good player at times but he’s a player of good innings rather than a good player as such.

The two that I mentioned are freakishly gifted and I wonder if they’ve succeeded in spite of the IPL not because of it.

I’ll be very curious to see what they come up with to replace the guys they’ve said goodbye to.

 

[BGman]

Root 12,972

Am thinking his figures have taken off since advent of Bazball.

Lunchtime said:
He hasn't been at his best in Test cricket from 2020 onwards: 69 Innings for 2028 runs at an average of 30.72, with nine 50s and 3 100s.

Those are positively mediocre stats for someone of his callibre. You played too long Virat.

 

[BGman]

Am thinking his figures have taken off since advent of Bazball.

Lunchtime said:
He hasn't been at his best in Test cricket from 2020 onwards: 69 Innings for 2028 runs at an average of 30.72, with nine 50s and 3 100s.

Those are positively mediocre stats for someone of his callibre. You played too long Virat.

Will Williamson outlast the others and top their stats, having played only 105 games and is the junior at 34. Then again the lack of games NZ plays compared to the Big 3 may stymie that. For mine he has the best technique and arguably the best temperament of the quartet.

 

[Rabish Binney]

There’s yet another one of those every-so-often an ultra geek statistician is bored articles on Cricinfo at the moment debating who the greatest ODI batsman of all time is based on this incredible concoction of metrics and weightings and it’s between Tendulkar, Richards, Kohli and Ponting from memory, with - as it was the last time he tried to do it five years ago - Tendulkar coming out on top.

I can’t really cop that, I’d pick Kohli above him any day, good as Tendulkar was. Bias I may be, I’d probably take Viv first given his incredible numbers at a time when one day cricket was not supposed to be played at the hyper speed he played it at, but I’d take Kohli over Tendulkar easily. I think Ponting was a very underrated one day batsman but he didn’t have the run chasing presence of Kohli

No bias at all Phat...

Viv was the best.

And don't forget just how good a fielder he was.....only have to look at the 1975 World Cup Final for confirmation....

 

[swingdog]

Viv was basically the model for the modern batter. You can pretty much divide batting into pre and post Viv.

 

[PhatBoy]

Actually on the above subject, not sure if anyone has seen this because it has been hidden away a little bit in the Cricinfo page because of the WTC news, Rabada, and Kohli etc.

But The Cricket Monthly has been doing its countdown of the greatest T20 players of all time. Not T20I players, just t20 players. There’s been no real surprises so far, when they got down to the top 9 or something.

I assumed, again with a fair tinge of bias but also with a fairly high degree of realism, that the #1 was a fait accompli: how would anyone other than Chris Gayle be at the top, with the possible exception of Sunil Narine given that he has turned himself into a bowling all-rounder?

Most runs in the format (14,500) 1000 clear of the next highest who is Alex Hales, who has played 30 more games.

The only other players above 13000 are Malik who has played 94 extra games, Pollard who has played more than 200 extra games, Kohli and Warner. The latter two if they played long enough could conceivably catch Gayle if they averaged about 40, at around the same amount of matches. Both have a lower strike rate.

The player best placed to catch his total is Babar Azam because he’s played so much at such an age that he has time; he’s scored 11220 from 318 matches. But his strike rate is 20 lower.

And this is the big one. In the relatively short history of the format, Gayle has hit 22 centuries.

The only other player with more than 9 is Babar.

And no one is really even placed to pressure him at the moment; maybe Abishek Sharma who has 6 and is about to turn 25.

Remember too that Gayle’s ‘I couldn’t give a shit’ off-spin yielded him 83 wickets, a little under an over per match, at 7.5 an over.

He’s ranked at 6.

Aside from Narine, who the hell is above him?

I can’t put Kohli over him. As a T20I player, yes. As a T20 player, no.

ABDV I could see maybe an argument for but he averages less, and it’s cushioned by getting a not out better than every 5 times he bats. His strike rate is only a little higher too (5).

It’s an outrage

 

[PhatBoy]

Viv was basically the model for the modern batter. You can pretty much divide batting into pre and post Viv.

Watched a video of Kimber on YouTube last night where he was promoting his stupid book - he’s painful in many ways and misses some basic knowledge (his assertion early that Gooch he ‘thinks averaged under 40’ was a pretty basic tell of someone who isn’t quite as across everything as he thinks he is) - but it was interesting as he did more or less correctly point out when talking about Victor Trumper that there was basically a 60 year gap between Trumper and Richards where no batsman scored so consistently quickly as either of them and he’s basically right. Bradman was relentless and did score pretty fast but he wasn’t a ‘destroyer’ of attacks as such, few if any of the English greats did it. Headley didn’t. Sobers could but probably not with the ferocity of Richards. None of the subcontinental batsmen of the era did.

 

[swingdog]

Watched a video of Kimber on YouTube last night where he was promoting his stupid book - he’s painful in many ways and misses some basic knowledge (his assertion early that Gooch he ‘thinks averaged under 40’ was a pretty basic tell of someone who isn’t quite as across everything as he thinks he is) - but it was interesting as he did more or less correctly point out when talking about Victor Trumper that there was basically a 60 year gap between Trumper and Richards where no batsman scored so consistently quickly as either of them and he’s basically right. Bradman was relentless and did score pretty fast but he wasn’t a ‘destroyer’ of attacks as such, few if any of the English greats did it. Headley didn’t. Sobers could but probably not with the ferocity of Richards. None of the subcontinental batsmen of the era did.

Bradman more a fast grinder of opposition attacks.

Agree with your assessment of Kimber.