Williamson: myth or not?

[PhatBoy]

After a lengthy debate during the one day thread my interest was piqued as to just what claims Williamson has on being a player who produces when his team needs it, in tests at least anyway.

So I did a bit of innings by innings research to see how he performs when his side is in trouble.

I set the following criteria:

His scores in innings where NZ were 2-30 or less, 3-70 or less, 4-100 or less, 5-150 or less.
I also included innings where both openers fell for 15 or less (because as a number 3, often Williamson himself was the sole reason his side didn't fall into the above categories).
Lastly I included innings where they followed on.

In 64 knocks with 5 not outs, he managed 2061 at almost exactly 35.
Underwhelming perhaps but I don't have any other data against which to compare it. how do other good players go in similar circumstances? I might try doing Smith tonight.

In those numbers, he has 9 scores of 50-99, and another 6 centuries.

However it is worth noting that a data-changing knock has been excluded.
Against Sri Lanka in 2015, he scored 242 not out with his side at 3-79 still trailing Sri Lanka by 40-odd in the second innings.

Factor that score in and his average jumps to 40.

Factor in the 166 he scored at Perth last summer coming in at 1-6 chasing 560 on the first innings and it goes up further to 43.

So in summary, I think a player who can boast those sorts of numbers in innings in which his side is clearly struggling, I think it is unfair to call him out as being a downhill skier who never delivers when his side is in strife.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

He'd be our best bat and I'd take him ahead of Smith, twice on Sunday. Williamson has it a LOT harder than Smith does.

 

[Sando22]

Bloke is a star and those numbers back it up based on what little help he gets from those around him.
Stands out like a sore thumb at the moment in that side too because we often see his best versus his teams worst in the same innings.

 

[PhatBoy]

What was most noticeable in going through all that was how regularly his team is in strife.
For a side that has been reasonably well performed over the last 3 years they are in trouble a lot.

Also, his numbers went up dramatically from his third year of test cricket onwards.
At a guess his average in those situations during his first 2 years would have been around 20.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

This board though.

 

[Blue1980]

So not scoring runs in a one dayer no one gives a s**t about is now proof of Williamson being a flat track bully?

 

[the universal]

He's an indisputable superstar of the game but I think his 2016 has been under par - probably a bit unsurprising there's been a dip after his stellar 2014/2015 years.

 

[Belnakor]

He'd be our best bat and I'd take him ahead of Smith, twice on Sunday. Williamson has it a LOT harder than Smith does.

your out of your mind

 

[LukeParkerno1]

your out of your mind

Willliamson comes in at 1 for stuff all most times, Smith at least bats 4, sometimes 5 (earlier in his career).

If I wanted a bat to save a test match it wouldn't be Smith.

 

[Underarm]

Willliamson comes in at 1 for stuff all most times, Smith at least bats 4, sometimes 5 (earlier in his career).

If I wanted a bat to save a test match it wouldn't be Smith.

Ah yes. The "my guy bats at three so he must be better" argument.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Ah yes. The "my guy bats at three so he must be better" argument.

He also bats on more genuinely fair pitches, for the majority Smith gets to bat on a solid road in Australia. There is always a bit in the pitches in NZ, especially in the first 2-3 days. I just rate Williamson higher.

 

[PhatBoy]

Ah yes. The "my guy bats at three so he must be better" argument.

It isn't the number next to.their.name, it is the fact that usually - almost every innings in fact, Williamson is virtually opening. Latham is mediocre, Guptill is awful in tests.

Smith at least has a bit of help being cushioned from the new ball.

Having said that I would still pick smith but I don't think the gap is massive

 

[Super Hans]

He'd be our best bat and I'd take him ahead of Smith, twice on Sunday. Williamson has it a LOT harder than Smith does.

While I'd also take Kane over Smith, hasn't everyone just spend all year saying how crap our batting line up is? Smith hasn't had it easy at all. Neither have.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

While I'd also take Kane over Smith, hasn't everyone just spend all year saying how crap our batting line up is? Smith hasn't had it easy at all. Neither have.

I'd hate to imagine how many runs Williamson would have made against the West Indian attack on our pitches..

 

[Super Hans]

So one series. Cool. I don't particularly like Smith but * me, he's had one world class batsman with him for the best part of three years (Warner) and had smashed out runs for fun.

We have flatter pitches here compared to NZ, but you're making it sound like Smith is playing in a great team while Williamson's mob suck. The teams have roughly been on par the last few years.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Every pitch in Australia has been relatively flat which has helped our batsmen with their techniques.

Not saying Smith isn't good but there is only one bat I'd take over Williamson- and that's Joe Root

 

[boncer34]

Every pitch in Australia has been relatively flat which has helped our batsmen with their techniques.

Not saying Smith isn't good but there is only one bat I'd take over Williamson- and that's Joe Root

You're an absolutely muppet.

Seriously stop posting if all you're going to offer up is crap like this.

 

[PhatBoy]

OK I just worked out Smith's figures using identical criteria.

He has scored 1541 in these scenarios at 37.5, an average of 2.5 more than Williamson. he has 4 centuries and 4 half centuries.

BUT.

Where Williamson's narrow "misses" in terms of innings' that almost but didn't quite qualify actually improved his record markedly, Smith's close calls that didn't quite make it would have dropped his figures significantly.

Collapses like Perth, Port Elizabeth, one in England, and a couple of others saw him routinely recording small scores.

Ie. in Perth Marsh and Warner put on a big opening stand, then the team fell apart, Smith got a duck or something, but it didn't fall into the criteria. at Port Elizabeth something similar happened.

When you factor in everything about these batsmen, I'd say williamson's 'figures under pressure' at least stack up to smith's, and adding in where they play, who they DON'T have to play (ie. southee and bolt are the only world class bowlers williamson gets to avoid, smith has had Harris, Johnson, starc and hazlewood), who they've had alongside them (williamson has had Taylor averaging 40+, no one else that I can think of, smith has had warner, Rogers, Clarke, marsh, Voges and khawaja) I can't see any solitary argument anyone could make to suggest that williamson falls down under pressure where Smith succeeds.

 

[iluvparis]

What I am hearing is if he fails today he is a big fat phony

 

[Kram]

s**t captain.

 

[Ti22]

Have to admit Kane is a gun, but is no match for Kohli when it comes to ODIs.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[boncer34]

OK I just worked out Smith's figures using identical criteria.

He has scored 1541 in these scenarios at 37.5, an average of 2.5 more than Williamson. he has 4 centuries and 4 half centuries.

BUT.

Where Williamson's narrow "misses" in terms of innings' that almost but didn't quite qualify actually improved his record markedly, Smith's close calls that didn't quite make it would have dropped his figures significantly.

Collapses like Perth, Port Elizabeth, one in England, and a couple of others saw him routinely recording small scores.

Ie. in Perth Marsh and Warner put on a big opening stand, then the team fell apart, Smith got a duck or something, but it didn't fall into the criteria. at Port Elizabeth something similar happened.

When you factor in everything about these batsmen, I'd say williamson's 'figures under pressure' at least stack up to smith's, and adding in where they play, who they DON'T have to play (ie. southee and bolt are the only world class bowlers williamson gets to avoid, smith has had Harris, Johnson, starc and hazlewood), who they've had alongside them (williamson has had Taylor averaging 40+, no one else that I can think of, smith has had warner, Rogers, Clarke, marsh, Voges and khawaja) I can't see any solitary argument anyone could make to suggest that williamson falls down under pressure where Smith succeeds.

Jesus you're making a lot of criteria adjustments on the fly to make sure you get Williamson above Smith.

This is your posts shortened

"Williamson is better then Smith except oh uh my original thesis doesn't prove that hmmm but if you add a few things and leave a few out so my argument looks nothing like my original premise Williamson is better."


Great thread

 

[PhatBoy]

Jesus you're making a lot of criteria adjustments on the fly to make sure you get Williamson above Smith.

This is your posts shortened

"Williamson is better then Smith except oh uh my original thesis doesn't prove that hmmm but if you add a few things and leave a few out so my argument looks nothing like my original premise Williamson is better."


Great thread

I've made none.

I quoted the actual criteria and Smith comes out marginally ahead. at any rate, I couldn't give two flying f***s who is ahead, I was merely looking at the notion that Williamson is way behind his elite contemporaries when it comes to batting in tough scenarios.

The simple fact is that under the criteria Smith has a marginally better record.

If I adjusted the criteria to include collapses where clearly a side is in trouble but not necessarily under the initial criteria, Williamson moves ahead.

And as I clearly explained, one major outlier where his side was in its knees - 3 down and trailing by 40 or 50, he made 240 not out - an innings undoubtedly played under tough circumstances that narrowly missed out on qualifying.

As stated, almost all of smith's performances in situations that NEARLY qualified, we're failures.

That's not opinion, that's numbers.

 

[Belnakor]

He also bats on more genuinely fair pitches, for the majority Smith gets to bat on a solid road in Australia. There is always a bit in the pitches in NZ, especially in the first 2-3 days. I just rate Williamson higher.

funny how Smith averages 133 in NZ hey

 

[SterlingArcher]

Jesus you're making a lot of criteria adjustments on the fly to make sure you get Williamson above Smith.

This is your posts shortened

"Williamson is better then Smith except oh uh my original thesis doesn't prove that hmmm but if you add a few things and leave a few out so my argument looks nothing like my original premise Williamson is better."


Great thread

Great reading comprehension

The ONLY conclusion OP has drawn is that you can't call Williamson a flat track bully. He's not using this as "Williamson > Smith" or anything else, merely has found that the stats under some (yes subjective) criteria to determine "under pressure" are similar enough to say it is unfair to call Williamson a flat track bully.

Keep on jumping at shadows though