I rate England Test skipper Joe Root highly as a batsman, but I’ve always found it a bit silly that he often gets included in the same sentence as Virat Kohli, Steve Smith and Kane Williamson.
Is that a ridiculous hot take, or do the statistics support that viewpoint?
Well, you’ve been warned: here come the numbers.
Given we’re currently in the middle of an Ashes series, we’ll start with Test records.
Kohli, Smith and Williamson all average well over 50, at 53.7, 63.0 and 53.4, respectively. Meanwhile, Root remains below the arbitrary – but nonetheless relevant – 50 mark with an average of 48.9.
It’s telling that he’s at least four runs behind the rest of them. For those that say it’s just a mere boundary, consider how different an average of 45 to 49 reads. Four runs is significant, no question.
Also, I must point out that Steve Smith’s Test record is just insane. But I digress.
Root has also played the most Tests (82) and innings (151) of the four, yet he’s only scored 16 centuries to Kohli’s 25, Smith’s 25, and Williamson’s 20. Again, that’s a noteworthy discrepancy.
Perhaps the most damning statistic is Root’s conversion rate of 50s to 100s – he’s scored 16 tons and 42 half-centuries. That’s poor for a batsman of his quality. In comparison, Kohli has scored 25 centuries and 20 half-centuries, Smith has scored 25 and 24, and Williamson has scored 20 and 30.
The Test numbers don’t lie: Root simply isn’t in the Holy Trinity’s class.
(Nigel French/PA Wire)
However, when you factor in limited-overs performances, you do start to get a sense of why Root might just sneak into the conversation.
In ODIs, Root averages 51.36 at a strike rate of 87.37 with 16 hundreds, compared with Kohli’s average of 59.4 at a strike rate of 93 with 41 hundreds, Smith’s average of 41.41 at a strike rate of 86.31 with eight hundreds, and Williamson’s average of 47.9 at a strike rate of 81.82 with 13 hundreds.
In International T20s – in which, somewhat surprising, none of the quartet have managed to score a hundred – Root averages 35.7 at a strike rate of 126 with five half-centuries compared with Kohli’s average of 49.14 at a strike rate of 135.96 with 20 half-centuries, Smith’s average of 21.55 at a strike rate of 122.44 with two half-centuries, and Williamson’s average of 31.35 at a strike rate of 121.76 with nine half-centuries.
Based on those figures, a couple of things stand out.
The first is that while Smith has a significant lead in the Test arena, he’s well behind the other three in the shorter formats of the game.
Kohli is undoubtedly the most consistent, with eye-popping numbers that actually force you to fact-check them a couple of times, such is the unbelievable nature of his record. He’s the No.1 batsman in the world based on those stats.
Despite Williamson finally being widely regarded as world-class and receiving the kudos he deserves, he’s still somewhat underrated when you realise he’s right there statistically with the other modern-day greats.
Lastly, and most relevant to this discussion, Root is an excellent performer no matter the format, which somewhat justifies his inclusion in the discussion of the best batsmen in the world.
However, the majority of cricketers want to perform at the highest level, and as the name aptly suggests, Test cricket is the ultimate test. It takes technique, temperament, talent, fitness and mental toughness to do well in five-day cricket.
For many pundits, performing in limited-overs cricket means little if you don’t also have a great Test record. It is the absolute pinnacle, and if you’re averaging over 50 in Test cricket, you’re a great batsman.
Root averages 49. It might just be a single run, but combined with that poor conversion rate, it ensures he’ll still be regarded a touch below those other greats.
At 28 years of age, he’s not even in his prime yet, so he has plenty of time to get that average up over 50 and improve that conversion rate.
Yet until he does, he’ll be considered very good, but not great.
The Middleman
Roar Rookie
Well it's like saying Kohli bats mostly on minefields in the subcontinent. However I would say to him, 'Sorry maite it's still home conditions'. The same applies to other 3 as well, I suppose?
Ram
Guest
It's like saying Kohli bats on minefields to eke out some tough runs. However i would say to him - 'Sorry maite It is still home conditions'. Applies to other 3 as well.
Mayank
Guest
On comparison, Kohli's stats are just phenomenal. I strongly believe, Root will end up with Test Match average of well over 50 and with highest runs for England! He might at some stage have to give away the captaincy though.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Why is England the toughest place to bat? Is there any evidence to back that up?
Will
Guest
Root plays half his matches in the toughest place in the world to bar in the longer format and only averages 4 less which is quite amazing. The only separating factor is conversion rate.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
Great talking points Ryan. Looking at ICC World Rankings Test- 1 Kohli, 2. Williamson 3. Smith 6. Root ODI- 1 Kohli, 6. Williamson 8. Root 28. Smith T20- 12. Williamson 18. Kohli 19. Root Not in the Top 100 Smith...... For me I've got Kohli 1 due to his outstanding ability in all three formats. Smith 2 Wiliamson 3 Root 4 But it's a great discussion. And some really fascinating numbers in there.
Griffo
Guest
Just think how good Root would be if they had played together!
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Actually I call myself Huxley, but let's not delve into my foibles.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I’m genuinely bemused here! (not trying to be difficult!). I said: “ . . . while Smith has a significant lead in the Test arena, he’s well behind the other three in the shorter formats of the game.” And then stated that many people consider Test cricket the pinnacle and ultimate judge of a cricketer?
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Does that mean you call yourself Ryan?!
The Bush
Roar Guru
In the weight you’ve placed on the statistics, for me it feels like you’ve been very dismissive of Smith’s more modest limited overs record, as compared to Roots test record.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Sorry mate I always call Ryans Ronan, and Ronans Ryan, and when I meet a Rhian or a Rowan or a Rohan, I get so muddled I just faint.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Bushy, how can it be selective, if I included stats for all four players from all three formats?!
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Ronan, I can handle being confused for you by other people, but by you as well?!
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Cheers Paul - thanks for the clarification. It's true that many factors play into the performance of a batsmen over a period of time. Quality of opposition/bowlers, the wickets played on, match circumstances/position of the game, teammates, off-field issues, etc, etc. One could argue the pressure of captaining India (and their rabid fan base) should be factored in for Kohli. Likewise, Williamson plays with little to no media pressure, unlike the markets of the other 3. In the end, the hypotheticals and conjecture may all cancel each other out? Who knows!
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Interesting article Ronan, it's interesting what an impact that one article by Martin Crowe 5 years ago has had on the way these four cricketers have since been analysed: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/774705.html In Tests Smith is miles ahead, Kohli and Williamson neck and neck, and Root way behind that pair.
Dockerman
Guest
Harvey - not quite correct. Tendulkar played 39 tests against Australia (19.5%). Correct, he averaged 55, but he also played against all nations average over 100 against Bangladesh (7 tests), and 60 against Sri Lanka (25 tests). Clearly a great player, with terrific averages against the powerhouse Australian’s and West Indies (earlier in his career).
Paul
Roar Guru
Ryan, I didn't expand on my point about the captaincy and Root. You only have to look at that England side to see it's been in decline for at least 2 or 3 years, which has made Root almost a one man band and this I'm sure has had an impact on his batting. Throw the captaincy on top of that and he's simply not able to cope with that pressure, IMO. Much the same could be said about Steve Smith, though in fairness, he had a way better team than Root's had. Even still, the pressure obviously got to him as well, when you look at how he didn't perform in South Africa as well as the stupidity of the sandpaper incident. I'm not suggesting Root should be offered any leniency, I'm merely saying that, at one time, he was easily as good as the other 3, when he had a lot of factors going his way. Many of these "advantages" Root had, have disappeared and probably his real ability is coming through. I often wonder whether Kohli would be as good as he is without the superstar team he has had around him? It's only conjecture, but I'm confident his averages would be a few points lower if he was in Root's position in Test cricket, for example.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I must admit Ryan, this seems just a little selective if we're talking about "all cricket". Root averages 51.36 in ODIs, 10 runs better than Smith and 35, about 14 more than Smith, in T20s. So in those formats he's a far, far superior batsman. And if you really want to take an all cricket approach, you'd argue that Smith's 21 in T20s is far, far worse than Roots 48 in tests. In T20s, as best I can work out, Smith struggles to make the top 100 for averages, whilst the other three are all in the top 20. In ODIs those three are in the top 15 in history, while Smith is down at 52... So if we're talking about all kinds of cricket, then Root is definitely in the "Big 4", as Smith really doesn't have a limited overs record to match the other three. If we're talking about Test cricket, then Big 4 doesn't even make sense anyway, because it's really Smith, daylight, then Kohli, Williamson, Pujara (average of 51 or is he excluded because he's a few years older than this group?) and debatably Root, who only just fell below the all important 50 marker.
The Bush
Roar Guru
A look at his career scores seems to show that early on his average climbed to a high of 57 at the start of the 2015 summer, at which point he'd only played 24 tests. By the end of the 2015 Ashes it has dropped to about 54-55 and was then fluctuated in the low 50s till the end of the 2017-18 Ashes (at which point he still averaged 53). It has been on a downward spiral in the last 18 months since then. It's certainly arguable that without Cook he's struggling, perhaps it's added even more pressure onto his captaincy and that has caused him to struggle?