It was all too coincidental.
As Joe Root hit the 100th run of his innings last Sunday, it also happened to be his 10,000th run in his Test cricket career, becoming the 14th batter to achieve this feat.
However, that is not the only place where the stars aligned.
Root was 31 years and 157 days of age on that day, the exact same age (to the day) as when the only other Englishman to reach that total, Sir Alastair Cook, hit the monumental figure.
That got me thinking, will Root overtake Cook now that he has lost the potentially overwhelming weight of captaincy?
Before we look at Root’s chances, we must first analyse Cook’s tally.
In a 12-year international career, which ended in 2018, England’s greatest opener notched up 12,145 runs. In the process he also got an English record of 32 centuries.
That is impressive, to say the least. Of the retired batters to have scored over 10,000 runs, Cook had the shortest career.
The hypothetical question could be asked that if he had more longevity, could the answer to my question be different?
We can talk hypotheticals, but the reality is unless Root’s career is as short as Cook’s, Joe Root will surpass Alastair Cook and become the highest scoring Englishman to have ever played Test cricket.
There are multiple reasons why I believe this is the case.
One, and the most obvious, is that Root needs approximately 2400 runs. At his current rate (which is over 1000 runs a year) he should reach that number in less than three years.
I think he can do it in a shorter time than that.
Root has lost the looming presence of being the captain, and in just his second innings after resigning that role, he scored 115 not out.
Free of the pressure and responsibility that leading your team brings, Root could surpass Cook’s total in less than two years.
(Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
The truth is Root is brilliant, as Cook was.
After some staggering spells by the English bowlers, particularly from debutant Matthew Potts, Root dug the batters out of a deep hole, and if he had gone cheaply, England would have almost certainly lost the Test.
The team was well and truly on his shoulders, and despite New Zealand’s best efforts, he scored the necessary runs.
And with the help of Ben Foakes, who managed to stay in at the other end, England won the Test match.
This is the sign of a team where one thing has changed but another has stayed the same.
Ben Stokes has inherited the captaincy from Joe Root but Root is still the man expected to drag England through the thick of batting collapses, as captain or not.
I might’ve just gone a bit off topic towards the end of this article, but it was all to reinforce my point that Root is outstanding, he will overtake Cook’s 12,000 runs and – whisper it quietly – become England’s greatest ever batsman.
Nick
Roar Guru
I'm late to the party here, but if people get knocked off the greatness ladder by virtue of a poor record against one country, then Shane Warne is not a great spinner because he was poor against India...and for a spinner, India is the benchmark of one's quality, and their most important opponent. Or we accept that great doesn't mean perfect or faultless.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
In Hutton’s favour – head and shoulders above the other batsmen on both teams in 50-51 and 53; topped all averages 1938; topped English batting 46-47; third in ‘48. Only one poor Ashes series – 54-55, when he was pushing 39 and won anyway as captain. In an era with some other decent English batsmen- Compton, Hammond, May, Paynter, Washbrook, Edrich. And strong Australian bowling. Don’t think his scoring rate was much worse than most in his era. Also, Hutton averaged 57 vs Australia, Root only 37, and you could add 3-4 runs to Hutton playing in an era when scoring lower thanks to pitches, smaller bats and bigger grounds.
matth
Roar Guru
Yeah you take the good with the bad on that. I can live with a bit of title editing if it means there is a site that will actually publish some of my stuff.
matth
Roar Guru
Well said, I would also add that Sutcliffe could be the way he was because he had the faster scoring Hobbs and then later had Hammond to come in, to push the scoring rate.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
The overall, raw, undissected, unadulterated averages has no meaning. Root's, like most batsmen's, is driven inaccurately upwards by innings such as his 180 not out at Lords in 2013, his ton at Trent Bridge in 2015, his ton last year in the match India were bowled out for 78, his 89 in Brisbane last Australian summer and even his 254. He could have the greatest Ashes series ever by any player next year, but this would not change the fact that in his first six Ashes series, he has only played one solitary match defining innings in Ashes cricket, i.e. Cardiff in 2015. He will never come close to matching Pietersen for impact, let alone outdoing him.
Hutton's ghost
Roar Rookie
Root could eventually be regarded as England’s greatest if he can continue his current form, increase his average to the mid/high fifties and score heavily next time in Australia. Until then he’s just very very good.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I do place Cook higher because he was at least as skilful and actually played for the team rather than himself.
Joshua Makepeace
Roar Rookie
I agree, I think they scour your article to find something to put in the article title which will make it sound more controversial and outlandish. I think they have good intentions, trying to get you have more views.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Ok B, not sure about great, but a fine record nonetheless. His not out % not much worse than Hutton or Hammond, whom I do consider great. Don’t mind some openers scoring slowly, it really does make it easier for the middle order if you take the shine off the ball. Boycott had pretty good overall records against and in Australia, Windies and Sth Africa. But was only saying there’s no reason to put Cook ahead of him, especially taking account of the fact that Cook in a higher scoring era thanks to bats, boundaries and pitches.
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
I'm in two minds about the three Yorkshiremen. While each was a great accumulator and technician, he also had a career strike-rate well below 40 runs per 100 balls. So they couldn't hurt an opposition the way most modern batsmen do. By comparison, Hobbs' strike rate was above 50 and still with an average to match. Having said that, they were products of their respective eras. Sutcliffe's featured uncovered pitches, timeless Tests and few top pacemen. Hutton faced some of Australia's finest bowlers, with at times very little support, and lost some of his best years to WWII.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Yes indeed, editors completely transforming titles is a sore point with me and a lot of others.
Joshua Makepeace
Roar Rookie
I'd like to say that in my draft that I submitted to The Roar I wrote might become England's greatest batsman, I don't actually believe he will. The title originally had nothing to do with being the best batter England have produced.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
And I'll tell you another story about Boycott: Sydney test of Jan 1980, England 123, Australia 145, before England 240 Australia 4 for 219. Botham recounts in his autobiography how when the covers were peeled off the day before the test, Boycott turned white as a ghost, and tried to get out of the test by claiming to have a sore neck. Botham was most unimpressed. Chappell wrote in a book 'Unders and Overs' in 1981 that he more or less believed that Boycott dodged high class bowling, particularly pace bowling, not because he was physically scared, but rather because he was protecting his reputation as a prolific run scorer.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Boycott skilfully dodged the West Indies in 1976 ( not to mention Lillian Thommo out here in 74-75) by delaying his comeback until 1977 when Lillee didn't tour and Thommo was ineffective on English pitches.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
P-ss off. 14% of his innings. Steve Waugh's 20% is high enough for a number 5/6 and Jacques Kallis's is even higher. Please try again.
Homer Gain
Guest
Very one-eyed. Boycott also played much of his career on uncovered pitches and against strong attacks. And I'd love you to prove your assertion that his average is inflated by not out scores. For my money he was the best English bastmen of the years between 1963-83.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I would go so far as to say that in the 40 odd years I have been watching cricket, starting at aged 9, KP is only fractionally behind Viv for intimidating bowlers. I don't consider Aussie batsmen in this because I have not watched from the perspective of them batting against my own country's bowlers, but having said that, I can't think of too many either.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
And it wasn't just one Australian bowler who has/had the wood over Root. I also agree about Pietersen, destructive and fast-scoring with no bowler safe.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Dave J, please reassure me you do not consider Boycott to be a great batsman??? Before you say "But he averages 47" let me reassure you that he had a horrendous amount of not outs for an opener, many of these when filling his boots in 3rd an 4th innings were tests were already doomed to fizzled out draws. England won barely 50% of the tests he scored tons in. Boycott also relied on a super slow scoring rate to facilitate that high percentage of not outs that in turn facilitated that high average. Start with the average? I ignore the overall average and look at performances against the top teams, performances against the bottom teams and, in the case of Australian and English players, their performances in Ashes cricket. I agree we need to be careful not to overrate Cook. He was a bit like Damian Martyn in the sense that his 'great' performances were condensed into a very small time frame, in Cook's case a period of two and a half years from late 2010 until just before the 2013 Ashes (at home). Martyn's was two purple patches from mid 2001 - early 2002, and then early 2004 to mid 2005. Both were very fine players overall.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Without question Root is a great batsman? Only if your main, or even sole, criteria is sheer volume of runs and if you are seduced by the supposedly magical 50+ average. I do question Root's claim to greatness, on account of his mediocre Ashes record - one match defining innings in 30 Ashes tests, and that is not only his most important opponent, but also a significant percentage of his tests. He had a great 2021, but once again bombed in the Ashes. He played a great knock at home last week, but his away record is little better than Warner's. Also a large number of his pre 2021 test tons were in very low to zero intensity situations.