Australian skipper Steve Smith and England all-rounder Joe Root are not only the most successful of the current Test batsmen, but the most exciting.
Smith (26) and Root (24) have both been ranked the best in the world. It’s Root’s turn at the moment, with Smith second.
And they have the two highest career Test averages among current players who have batted at least 60 times.
Smith is 14th on the all-time list with his 56.12 average, Root 18th with 54.90.
By any standards, those are mighty achievements.
But Smith has achieved even more by captaining his country, although there’s little doubt Root will captain England in the not too distant future.
There have been 45 Australian captains since Dave Gregory first tossed the Test coin at the MCG against England in 1877 for what has become the nation’s highest sporting honour.
Ian Craig’s the youngest at 22 years and 194 days when he first captained Australia in 1957.
Kim Hughes was 25 years and 57 days when he was first appointed in 1979.
Smith was 25 years and 198 days last year when he captained against India.
And Billy Murdoch’s the fourth youngest at 25 years and 324 days when he first skippered Australia in 1880.
But this is a Smith-Root comparison with the bat exercise.
Smith debuted against Pakistan at Lord’s in July 2010, Root against India at Nagpur in December 2012.
Apart from the 17 months gap, the two are surprisingly close.
Both have batted 64 times with Smith having eight not outs, Root nine.
Smith has scored 3143 runs at an average 56.12, Root 3020 at 54.90..
Smith has scored 11 Test centuries, top score 215, and 12 half-centuries, Root eight and 16, with a top score of 200 not out.
Smith has struck 349 boundaries with 27 sixes, and taken 26 catches – Root 330 boundaries, 12 sixes, and 37 catches,
But the more interesting stats from Australia and England’s points of view are how successful both have been in their respective first digs.
Smith has scored 2296 runs at an average of 71.72, with all 11 of his career Test tons in the first dig and only four of his 12 half-centuries.
Root has scored 1966 first dig runs at 63.41, with seven of his eight Test tons, and eight of his 16 half-centuries.
Both the first dig stats for Smith and Root are well ahead of their career averages at a time when their teams most need them to fire.
Their second dig stats make interesting reading in the overall picture.
Smith’s 847 at 35.29 with no tons and eight half-centuries – Root 1954 runs at 43.91 with one Test ton and eight half-centuries.
I couldn’t stop myself from digging into Don Bradman’s stats as the greatest batsman who has played the game – or who ever will.
Career 6996 runs at 99.94 with 29 tons and only 13 half-centuries, the greatest completion rate in history.
The Don’s first digs total 4697 at 97.85 with 19 centuries and five half-centuries.
The second digs total 2299 at 104.50 with 10 tons and eight half-centuries.
It was worth the dig as no batsman will ever get within the length of the straight of those Sir Donald Bradman feats.
But Steve Smith and Joe Root are giving their supporters plenty to cheer about with more in store.
Bearfax
Guest
De Villiers is certainly impressive over the longer term and certainly Smith, Root, Williamson, Kohli etc may falter over the longer period. We can only know what we know though. At this stage both Root and Smith have superior test averages against the top line sides. And at this stage that is all we can judge on. Both may drop in average. Both may get even better. But that's pure conjecture. What we have at this moment are averages over a reasonable amount of time and those averages are the best around at the moment. That cant be dismissed because of someone older and having played more cricket, especially given De Villiers in 31 whereas Root and Smith are only in their mid 20s.
Don Freo
Guest
Rankings never indicate anything about anything. They are always four months behind reality. Why anyone quotes rankings is beyond me.
13th Man
Guest
The rankings really don't mean much, ABDV is the best batsman in all formats by a long way. Steve Smith is second. Joe Root, Kane Williamson, Virat Kohli, Dave Warner and Hashim Amla aren't far behind. I must say that I was very impressed with Williamson, he could challenge Smith and AB.
13th Man
Guest
the rankings are irrelevant.
Perry Bridge
Guest
You're right in that he has continued to improve and that's I suppose a little surprising to many (of the doubters). And - seriously - remembering the young thing that was batting #8 and #9 in the order and bowling his tweakers - the transition to a top 6 batsman seemed odd enough - I recall lamenting this as he strode to the wicket at 4-58 in the MCG test v England back in 2010 with the Ashes on the line. He's certainly come a long way since then. Passed 50 only five times in first 22 knocks before his break through 100. In the meantime he'd fallen out of favour for a bit - gone back - worked on his game - and returned and from Aug 2013 on - that century, 43 inns, 11 100s and 7 50s. More than useful. And I readily admit I didn't see it coming.
Don Freo
Guest
What is Ian doing in this conversation? I know you were talking about Ian. Why is the question. Dropping a name or two?
Blades
Guest
Because Australia and England get to play far more tests than South Africa.
Mike Huber
Roar Pro
Don . Barry was referring to Ian, not Greg . Barry didn't have much time for Ian.
Don Freo
Guest
Going to school with Barry Richards' son doesn't make Greg Chappell a lesser person. It just means you went to school with Barry Richards' son and you like his dad.
Jamie Radford
Roar Pro
I accept that the bowlers are fitter and better, but bats are made nowadays so that a block can race away for a boundary. The simple fact is that Bradman's test average is 75% better than the next best at 60. Or if you like 40 runs, which is a decent test average in itself. As you can go around in circles all day arguing about conditions, equipment etc, the only thing that we can go on as fact is batting averages, and Bradman's is so far ahead of anyone else it isn't funny. Clearly the best batsman that has played the game.
Hayley
Guest
The difference being Smith being dropped has helped his stats, where New Zealand couldn't afford to drop Williamson. He's had to play through this rough patch at the beginning of his career but those stats will always impact his overall average. The likes of Smith was pulled out of the team because Aus has the depth. New Zealand doesnt.
Fox
Roar Guru
Actually it worked sometimes to create road and other time pitches with nasty cracks the always bring the uncovered pitches up but it did always work against the batsmen and with bowlers that were not even close - not even close - to being as fit as bowlers are today...one must seriously question how well equipped they were to always exploit any wicket that favored the bowlers - unless wickets fell quickly Just remember to that in the modern game to counter that argument - groundsmen can prepare pitches that favor the home sides attack or their batting
Mike Huber
Roar Pro
Outside Australia the Chappell name is tainted . One, for the little brother's incident against the kiwis and two, big brother Ian's nauseating self righteousness regarding players and the game . I went to school with Barry Richard's son and Barry had some choice words about Ian ( unsavoury) . I have never met a nicer more affable bloke than Barry, champion cricketer and person .
Bearfax
Guest
Perry I have listened to critic after critic put Smith down since he first appeared in test cricket five years ago. His technique was flawed, he had a school yard manner on the field, he would be found out by the good bowlers. It went on and on and yet year by year he rose up the rankings to now be identified as the top ranker in the World. Its not eye that makes Smith so effective, it's the same tough never say die attitude Border and Steve Waugh had. There's almost a cool arrogance in his play. He knows what he's capable of and he learns what he needs to learn. That sort of player doesnt go backwards. They just keep climbing until age, reaction time and eye sight start to diminish and that's usually in the mid to late 30s. Smith has proved his critics wrong over and again. Style and technique dont make a test cricketer, though they have to have an innate talent. Its sheer hard work and toughness, that 'never say die', tough it out resilience. That's why Smith is effective.
Bearfax
Guest
Hayley, Wiliamson started his test career at 20, Smith at 21, Root at 21 and Kohli at 22, so they were all young when they first came into test cricket. And all of them struggled during their first dozen or so tests. You're right that its not Williamson's fault that NZ doesnt play against the top teams as often as the teams Smith, Root and Kohli do. But it doesnt change the fact that those three are consistently playing tougher sides. Having said that I was impressed with Williamson's lone stand in NZs first innings and there's no doubt he is a class act. And though I think he's behind the other three at this stage, I suspect he will draw closer as the years proceed, if anything because he's being forced to be NZ's main run getter. That pressure will either make him or break him. I suspect the former.
Fox
Roar Guru
Yes and some of those develop into weaknesses that can be exploited and have been
Fox
Roar Guru
Yes but raw talent which Williamson certainly has - batting average of 552 in high school cricket - tells you this kid was born to bat - and with his technical ability he is pure class of the highest order. What I love about Williamson is he does not try and smash the ball out of the park because his timing is just so superb on the ball and this is with every shot he plays...and for me anyway this is what separates him apart.. He is pure class of the kind of old school class we haven't seen in a while though Joe Root is bit old school as well These is something about the ease with which Williamson scores his boundaries that is beautiful to watch and he is a wonderful player of spin as well And I love the way he doesn't carry on like a pork chop when he gets a century - just calmly takes his helmet off raises his bat in the air and then back to business...Pure class of player...back to business as if to say yep thanks for the acknowledgement but gotta face the next ball if you don't mind..Absolute Class I could be wrong but I think he will be the world's premier batsman very soon
Jamie Radford
Roar Pro
No Don, a furphy would be Freo winning a GF in the next five years. Besides which all I am saying is to present all sides of the argument, not just half of one to prove in invalid point.
Don Freo
Guest
The old "uncovered pitches" furphy. An uncovered pitch mostly meant they were exposed to more sun and baked in the heat. Roads, roads and roads. They play in summer. Rain on an uncovered pitch was not all that common.
Hayley
Guest
If you dig deeper into Williamsons career you will notice that he started playing for NZ at a young age and his figures weren't that great. Yeah, he started with a ton but after that he didn't get them consistently til 2014. For 2 years (just like Smith) Williamson has ben getting consistently high amounts of runs. The difference being he's scored a ton against every nation but Zimbabwe. He's the leading run scorer across all forms this year. Its also not Williamsons fault that he represents a country that isn't in the 'big three' that doesn't get to see the same amount of good opposition because apparently NZ isn't worth that much as an opposition (money wise).