Virat Kohli v Joe Root | Who's the Better Test Player?

[SUMO]

both at par I would say looking over last 2 years
at the moment kohli marginally ahead 
its sachin vs lara like 

[express bowling]

Indian and  English batsmen in tests in the last 4 years --

 

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
V Kohli (INDIA)	2012-2016	39	65	4	3406	235	55.83	5987	56.88	13	9	2	392	7
JE Root (ENG)	2012-2016	52	96	11	4500	254	52.94	8186	54.97	11	26	3	497	15
AM Rahane (INDIA)	2013-2016	32	55	7	2272	188	47.33	4286	53.00	8	9	4	264	19
CA Pujara (INDIA)	2012-2016	34	57	4	2505	204	47.26	5121	48.91	7	10	2	315	6
M Vijay (INDIA)	2013-2016	34	59	1	2542	167	43.82	5558	45.73	7	12	4	309	26
JM Bairstow (ENG)	2013-2016	32	56	6	2188	167*	43.76	3966	55.16	3	12	3	237	15
AN Cook (ENG)	2012-2016	53	99	5	3895	263	41.43	8569	45.45	7	24	3	448	1
MS Dhoni (INDIA)	2012-2014	18	30	3	1092	224	40.44	1861	58.67	1	6	2	140	10
GS Ballance (ENG)	2014-2016	21	38	2	1413	156	39.25	3005	47.02	4	7	3	183	8
S Dhawan (INDIA)	2013-2016	23	39	1	1464	187	38.52	2442	59.95	4	3	4	192	5
RG Sharma (INDIA)	2013-2016	21	36	4	1184	177	37.00	2181	54.28	2	7	4	115	25
IJL Trott (ENG)	2012-2015	15	29	0	1052	143	36.27	2220	47.38	2	6	5	137	0
IR Bell (ENG)	2012-2015	36	66	6	2145	167	35.75	4729	45.35	6	12	4	276	16
BA Stokes (ENG)	2013-2016	31	55	1	1873	258	34.68	2894	64.72	4	8	8	245	33
MM Ali (ENG)	2014-2016	36	60	7	1737	155*	32.77	3439	50.50	4	9	6	223	15
R Ashwin (INDIA)	2012-2016	32	44	6	1182	124	31.10	2290	51.61	3	6	2	122	6

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=1000;qualval1=runs;spanmax2=11+Dec+2016;spanmin2=11+Dec+2012;spanval2=span;team=1;team=6;template=results;type=batting

 

 

In the last 3 years -- 

 

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
JE Root (ENG)	2013-2016	39	71	8	3607	254	57.25	5990	60.21	9	22	2	403	12
V Kohli (INDIA)	2013-2016	32	56	3	2959	235	55.83	5053	58.55	11	7	2	341	5
AM Rahane (INDIA)	2013-2016	31	53	7	2264	188	49.21	4262	53.12	8	9	4	263	19
JM Bairstow (ENG)	2013-2016	25	43	5	1840	167*	48.42	3188	57.71	3	10	3	196	13
AN Cook (ENG)	2013-2016	40	74	5	3115	263	45.14	6560	47.48	5	20	2	361	1
CA Pujara (INDIA)	2013-2016	27	47	2	1930	153	42.88	4175	46.22	5	8	2	241	5
M Vijay (INDIA)	2013-2016	28	50	1	2043	150	41.69	4555	44.85	5	11	4	240	20
GS Ballance (ENG)	2014-2016	21	38	2	1413	156	39.25	3005	47.02	4	7	3	183	8
BA Stokes (ENG)	2013-2016	30	53	1	1844	258	35.46	2792	66.04	4	8	8	240	33
S Dhawan (INDIA)	2013-2016	20	36	1	1221	173	34.88	2206	55.34	3	3	4	148	3
MM Ali (ENG)	2014-2016	36	60	7	1737	155*	32.77	3439	50.50	4	9	6	223	15
IR Bell (ENG)	2013-2015	23	41	2	1125	167	28.84	2300	48.91	2	8	4	140	10

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=1000;qualval1=runs;spanmax1=11+Dec+2016;spanmin1=11+Dec+2012;spanval1=span;team=1;team=6;template=results;type=batting

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by express bowling

[putrevus]

Root is getting starts more than anyone, he is just not converting them to 100s.

Edited December 11, 2016 by putrevus

[CricketBuffOne]

14 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

So what ? First rule of test batting is don't get out. 
Test cricket has a simple division of goals : The goal of a batsman is NOT to lose the test, which means don't get out. For the exact same average, i will always take the dogged batsman over the flashy one in tests. 

The goal of a bowler is to win the match by taking as many wickets as possible. As such, for the exact same average, i will always prefer the bowler who takes wickets at a superior strike rate.

But obviously, for a TEAM, you need both types of batsmen & bowlers - ones who will not get out AND the ones who will up the scoring rate, as well as bowlers who will blow through a batting lineup AND the ones who will build pressure at the other end.

 

 

17 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Thats how u win ur opponents

 

 

Best line from the video- "if u dream to bat like virat, then wakeup n apologize to urself"

Ankit, well said and thanks for this wonderful share! I believe this line from Butcher will end up as one of the most famous quotes in times to come and will be used extensively to pay tribute to Kohli. 

[CricketBuffOne]

17 hours ago, Vijy said:

Yes, Rahane had the advantage of scoring some useful runs for declaration and then going back not-out. But, he also saved some matches of course - like that one in Oz with BK.

Good point, Vijy. Who's BK?

[CricketBuffOne]

15 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

So what ? First rule of test batting is don't get out. 
Test cricket has a simple division of goals : The goal of a batsman is NOT to lose the test, which means don't get out. For the exact same average, i will always take the dogged batsman over the flashy one in tests. 

The goal of a bowler is to win the match by taking as many wickets as possible. As such, for the exact same average, i will always prefer the bowler who takes wickets at a superior strike rate.

But obviously, for a TEAM, you need both types of batsmen & bowlers - ones who will not get out AND the ones who will up the scoring rate, as well as bowlers who will blow through a batting lineup AND the ones who will build pressure at the other end.

 

Muloghonto, glad to hear from you! Its been a long time...hope you are doing fine.

I think your last line sums up the importance of having all kinds of players in order to make a well balanced team.
Agree to your point regarding preference for bowlers with better strike rates. Will take the same logic to pick a batsmen who is more flamboyant compared to another. Guys like Gilly, Sehwag, Warner, AB, etc are a perfect example of this type. I feel the increasing scoring rates in Test cricket are a direct result of having more aggressive batsmen now a days/ because of an overall change in mindset. Batsmen aforementioned above have/had the ability to set up games for their sides by playing quick fire knocks. Remember Sehwag playing quite a few knocks at the top of the order to win games for India which were otherwise destined for a draw. 

[CricketBuffOne]

13 hours ago, MCcricket said:

Root is fantastic and best among his contemporaries, have not seen many batters from outside have such a good game against our spinners on our tracks, saying that Virat is also the Capt and the assurance that he gives when he comes into bat no other batter gives at this stage.

Scary thing is Virat is still peaking in test and Root has a dodgy back, my guess is by the time Virat retires he will be counted among the few greatest to have played the game, along with Don, Tendulkar, Lara n Richards but even better stats, might not break Tendulkar most runs record owing to career span but will break most other

Root is indeed an incredible player. The way he batted today, given his side were 3 down and facing an uphill task of wiping out a huge deficit and facing the likes of Ashwin & Jadeja in not very easy conditions speaks volumes about his talent and approach. He certainly is right up there with the best in the world currently. 

Feel you are spot on about Virat's future.

[express bowling]

@ CricketBuffOne

 

With the ongoing series being  between India and England  and the rivalry between Kohli and Root being  stoked by the experts on both sides....your  topic has become very relevant     :)

 

Seems like Kohli is edging out Root and all other batters of both countries based on test  batting averages of the last 4 years  as well as impact factor., while Root has been statistically better in tests  in the last 3 years.  This year has gone to Kohli.

[CricketBuffOne]

13 hours ago, sandeep said:

Always a mistake to extrapolate performances of an athlete in his prime.  Careers usually see a bunch of peaks and valleys before they are complete.

Good point, sandeep, but given Virat's skill, discipline, focus, motivation and hunger to become the best...we might not be erring here. 
In his 8 year old int. career he has scored nearly 13.5K runs which includes 41 centuries and 68 half-centuries. If we treat this as a sample size, then its good enough to make a long term prediction...after all, 8 years is a long time to maintain consistency; many careers do not last this long. 

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, CricketBuffOne said:

Good point, sandeep, but given Virat's skill, discipline, focus, motivation and hunger to become the best...we might not be erring here. 
In his 8 year old int. career he has scored nearly 13.5K runs which includes 41 centuries and 68 half-centuries. If we treat this as a sample size, then its good enough to make a long term prediction...after all, 8 years is a long time to maintain consistency; many careers do not last this long. 

Except that players are human beings, not machines that follow algorithmic projections.  Men get older, reflexes fade a bit.  Over the course of a cricket-filled calendar, year after year, injuries happen.  Virat is not immune to any of this.  Now, I hope that VK keeps going like this forever, but that doesn't really mean he will.  

 

I don't want to get the tendy argument rolling again, but if you had looked at Tendy's numbers in the late 90s, 10 years into his career and 7 odd into his prime - he had demonstrated machine like consistency - scored a century practically every series.  He should have ended with 5k more runs than he did if you had extrapolated his numbers back then.  

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

Except that players are human beings, not machines that follow algorithmic projections.  Men get older, reflexes fade a bit.  Over the course of a cricket-filled calendar, year after year, injuries happen.  Virat is not immune to any of this.  Now, I hope that VK keeps going like this forever, but that doesn't really mean he will.  

 

I don't want to get the tendy argument rolling again, but if you had looked at Tendy's numbers in the late 90s, 10 years into his career and 7 odd into his prime - he had demonstrated machine like consistency - scored a century practically every series.  He should have ended with 5k more runs than he did if you had extrapolated his numbers back then.  

27 to 33 are usually the peak years for a batsman...when he combines maturity with physical ability.  ( rule of thumb )

 

That is 7 years.

 

Virat has completed one of those years....so 6 more years are left barring any unusual injury....and we have seen what a year it has been.

 

Extrapolating these 7 peak years based on his previous 4 years at test level, would also give  wrong numbers.  They often produce astounding numbers for talented batsmen.

 

When his decline starts, whether at 34 or 35 or 36....it is then that the stats would go down.  It could even be marginal decline for the next 2 or 3 years after his peak period.

 

 

 

 

[sandeep]

7 minutes ago, express bowling said:

27 to 33 are usually the peak years for a batsman...when he combines maturity with physical ability.  ( rule of thumb )

 

That is 7 years.

 

Virat has completed one of those years....so 6 more years are left barring any unusual injury....and we have seen what a year it has been.

 

Extrapolating these 7 peak years based on his previous 4 years at test level, would also give  wrong numbers.  They often produce astounding numbers for talented batsmen.

 

When his decline starts, whether at 34 or 35 or 36....it is then that the stats would go down.  It could even be marginal decline for the next 2 or 3 years after his peak period.

 

I don't disagree with most of what you said - but its not just age that factors in - its also the number of "miles on the car" i.e. the usage factor - The years and years of practice and playing games takes its toll as well - Virat has been playing top level cricket for 8 years now - even though he's not a bowler, the "miles" factor applies to him as well.  Of course, his top notch fitness regime has and will enable him to mitigate the impact.  But it can't be nullified.  

 

Regardless, the point I'm making is that predicting a batsman's future production is not too different from reading tea leaves - bunch of mumo jumbo hiding behind jargon that can't really be taken too seriously.

[putrevus]

You do not have to be leading run scorer or play 150 tests to be counted as all time great . Don Bradman played just 52 tests and still is considered the best ever. Viv Richards just played 180 ODIs and is considered by many as best ODI player.

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

I don't disagree with most of what you said - but its not just age that factors in - its also the number of "miles on the car" i.e. the usage factor - The years and years of practice and playing games takes its toll as well - Virat has been playing top level cricket for 8 years now - even though he's not a bowler, the "miles" factor applies to him as well.  Of course, his top notch fitness regime has and will enable him to mitigate the impact.  But it can't be nullified.  

 

Regardless, the point I'm making is that predicting a batsman's future production is not too different from reading tea leaves - bunch of mumo jumbo hiding behind jargon that can't really be taken too seriously.

I am totally against  trying to predict stuff....it is usually wrong in most fields.  :)

 

Kohli staying sufficiently fit and retaining his reflexes for 6  more years would be more par for the course rather than a prediction, barring any major injury.

[CricketBuffOne]

9 hours ago, Vijy said:

Disagree. If you look at Tendu from 1993-2011 (a long, long stretch), he was technically competent all-round, more than Dravid. Latter didn't handle spin as well as former (lower home avg) and also didn't possess good records in SA and Oz (except one tour of latter). SRT may now be perceived as "selfish" by some, but in terms of technical ability, he was peerless.. only Sunny rivalled him, and I think Sunny rated him higher in terms of technique than him.

Well, firstly let me make it clear I have high regard for both of them. They are technically very competent players; one of the best the world has ever seen. However, I believe due to his tremendous ability to focus and temperament to bat for long hrs, Dravid's wicket was a little more difficult to get. Another reason could be the difference in batting approach of both the players, while Sachin loved to play shots and that way offered an opportunity to the bowlers to bag his wicket, Dravid preferred to play the waiting game, thus leaving the onus on the bowler to come up with a perfect delivery to take his wicket.

That Dravid batted for 44,152 minutes (the most in Test cricket) in his 164 match career compared to Sachin's 41,304 minutes in 200 matches might just drive home the point that I am trying to make. Consider that he batted at No. 3 (which is the fulcrum of the batting order) for most part of his career and you will start appreciating those numbers even more. 
 
Still not convinced, know what Glen McGrath, one of the best fast bowlers of all time, has to say about Dravid.

McGrath picks his top five batsmen

[CricketBuffOne]

59 minutes ago, express bowling said:

@ CricketBuffOne

 

With the ongoing series being  between India and England  and the rivalry between Kohli and Root being  stoked by the experts on both sides....your  topic has become very relevant     :)

 

Seems like Kohli is edging out Root and all other batters of both countries based on test  batting averages of the last 4 years  as well as impact factor., while Root has been statistically better in tests  in the last 3 years.  This year has gone to Kohli.

Ya, it has. Wish it translated into more views as well. 

I feel he wasn't there in Tests until this series, but he has certainly overtaken him in this series. This is when Root himself has scored 397 runs @49.62 and is the second highest run scorer in the series. While Root still is the impact player for his team just like Kohli, but in a comparison between the two, he is behind for sure, purely because across the formats Kohli has done better.

[CricketBuffOne]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

Except that players are human beings, not machines that follow algorithmic projections.  Men get older, reflexes fade a bit.  Over the course of a cricket-filled calendar, year after year, injuries happen.  Virat is not immune to any of this.  Now, I hope that VK keeps going like this forever, but that doesn't really mean he will.  

 

I don't want to get the tendy argument rolling again, but if you had looked at Tendy's numbers in the late 90s, 10 years into his career and 7 odd into his prime - he had demonstrated machine like consistency - scored a century practically every series.  He should have ended with 5k more runs than he did if you had extrapolated his numbers back then.  

Fair point. All I am saying is the way he is going right now he will end up as one of the greats of the game and break many records. Of course his body will not perform at these levels forever, but given his commitment, determination, self-belief and skills, he will still score plenty of runs.   

[CricketBuffOne]

47 minutes ago, putrevus said:

You do not have to be leading run scorer or play 150 tests to be counted as all time great . Don Bradman played just 52 tests and still is considered the best ever. Viv Richards just played 180 ODIs and is considered by many as best ODI player.

You nailed it brother. 

[sandeep]

48 minutes ago, CricketBuffOne said:

Well, firstly let me make it clear I have high regard for both of them. They are technically very competent players; one of the best the world has ever seen. However, I believe due to his tremendous ability to focus and temperament to bat for long hrs, Dravid's wicket was a little more difficult to get. Another reason could be the difference in batting approach of both the players, while Sachin loved to play shots and that way offered an opportunity to the bowlers to bag his wicket, Dravid preferred to play the waiting game, thus leaving the onus on the bowler to come up with a perfect delivery to take his wicket.

That Dravid batted for 44,152 minutes (the most in Test cricket) in his 164 match career compared to Sachin's 41,304 minutes in 200 matches might just drive home the point that I am trying to make. Consider that he batted at No. 3 (which is the fulcrum of the batting order) for most part of his career and you will start appreciating those numbers even more. 
 
Still not convinced, know what Glen McGrath, one of the best fast bowlers of all time, has to say about Dravid.

McGrath picks his top five batsmen

But in test cricket, you don't count the "minutes" you bat, its the runs you score that get counted.  Not to denigrate Dravid, who I respect and admire a lot, but there were times when Dravid's waiting game totally killed the momentum of the innings and cost the team too.  Of course, overall he was a priceless asset to the team, but let's not feed this fallacy that he was superior to Tendy in batting technique - just not true. 

[CricketBuffOne]

20 minutes ago, sandeep said:

But in test cricket, you don't count the "minutes" you bat, its the runs you score that get counted.  Not to denigrate Dravid, who I respect and admire a lot, but there were times when Dravid's waiting game totally killed the momentum of the innings and cost the team too.  Of course, overall he was a priceless asset to the team, but let's not feed this fallacy that he was superior to Tendy in batting technique - just not true. 

Agree his batting lacked momentum and cost the team on many occasions, but that's not the point we are discussing here. Just like millions of people Sachin is my favorite too...and if I had to opt between the two, any day I would prefer to watch him bat compared to Dravid. 

We are discussing technique here and in that context the "minutes batted" does become relevant as without a sound technique one can not last for so long on a cricket pitch against top quality bowlers. You may want to read what McGrath has to say about Dravid. I am sure compared to us an expert can do justice with this topic.

McGrath picks his top five batsmen

Edited December 11, 2016 by CricketBuffOne