‘If Kane Williamson was Indian, he would be the greatest player in the world' : Michael Vaughan

[MenInG]

India is going to tour England for a five-match Test series that starts in August this year. The England cricket team will look to avenge the 1-3 loss that they suffered at the hands of India in the four-match Test series that took place in February-March. However, before the series, India will play the all-important World Test Championship final against New Zealand on June 18 in Southampton.

It will be a battle between two premier batsmen of this era – Virat Kohli and Kane Williamson. Both the batsmen have shown incredible consistency in their performance in all formats of the game.

Even though Kohli enjoys more popularity for his flair and flamboyance, most cricket fans accept the fact that Williamson is one of the best in the game. However, former England skipper Michael Vaughan did not mince any words when comparing the two legends. Vaughan said that if ‘Williamson was Indian, he would be the greatest player in the world.’

“If Kane Williamson was Indian, he would be the greatest player in the world. But he’s not because you’re not allowed to say that Virat Kohli is not the greatest, because you’d get an absolute pelting on social media. So, you all say Virat is the best purely to get few more clicks and likes, few more numbers following here. Kane Williamson, across formats, is equally the best. I think the way he plays, the calm demeanour, his humbleness, the fact that he is silent about what he does,” Vaughan told Spark Sport.

“Kane Williamson has mostly had success. I’m not just saying it because I’m speaking to you guys in New Zealand but I think Kane Williamson is right up there with the great players across the three formats and certainly matches Virat Kohli. It’s just that he doesn’t have the 100 million followers on Instagram and doesn’t earn the $30-40 million or whatever Virat gets every year for his commercial endorsements.”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...bers-michael-vaughan-101620982369450-amp.html

 

[MenInG]

Does have some element of truth in it - social media seems to drive a lot of things in today's world.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Kane is overrated because of his nice guy attitude. Great player nonetheless

 

[marlonbrowndo]

I feel the opposite. Kane is actually adored on social media to the point where it’s cringeworthy

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Kohli is a better LOI batter but Kane I think is going to take one step up now at the Test level. He seems to be improving with age, a bit like Ross Taylor.

 

[Majestic]

Vaughan as usual trying to be too smart here.

Kane belongs to same tier as Amla, Clarke and Yousuf as test batsman.

Kohli, on other hand, belongs to the Ponting tier.

 

[Hasan123]

Kane Williamson nice guy persona allows him to get away with a poor record in South Africa,India, and England. He can rectify this but he is rarely criticised for this. Kohli was criticised for failing on his first tour to England yet Williamson gets away with it.

Williamson is a brilliant batsmen. But Kohli is superior and the majority of the cricketing world agree Kohli is clear.

 

[Mamoon]

Like 99% of cricket fans, Vaughan is unaware of how poor Williamson has been in several major Test venues.

It is amazing how he gets away with so much while Kohli, Smith and Root get no breathing space when it comes to criticism.

His persona and the good guy image of New Zealand cricket have done wonders to his reputation.

 

[MesonK]

Kohli is averaging 29 in tests for last ~2 years. He ain't that extreme level great in tests.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Vaughan is completely right but he missed an important point. If Kane Williamson was English, he would be the greatest player in the world too.

 

[Titan24]

Not really. While Williamson is obviously a top batsman but, his numbers are not at all as unreal as Kohli’: when we talk about career stats across the formats. Yes Kohli’s less than his usual impact in high profile ICC matches and recent form in tests hasnt been great but that cant take away the fact that he is an ATG white ball batsman and one of the best of his era in tests too across most of the conditions.

My question to Vaughan would be; In the all time XI of which format will he surely put Williamson in?
As while for Kohli we can debate about other formats but, he makes the all time XI of ODI any day of the weak and will make that for majority of the ex players and experts. He will make the list of ATG batsmen of all formats combined as well.

That being said Williamson is a fine batsman and I really enjoy watching him bat. Williamson can make the all time XI but, that would be something which can be debated and argued upon unlike Kohli’s dominance in ODIs which is very difficult to debate upon.

 

[Ab Fan]

If an English player would have averaged 54 in tests, he would have been hailed as GOAT by Vaughan. So, perhaps there is that one modification you can make to your statement, Mr Vaughan.

Hoping that some day, an England batsman will average 50+ in test cricket so that you can hype him as greatest player.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Like 99% of cricket fans, Vaughan is unaware of how poor Williamson has been in several major Test venues.

It is amazing how he gets away with so much while Kohli, Smith and Root get no breathing space when it comes to criticism.

His persona and the good guy image of New Zealand cricket have done wonders to his reputation.

Kohli averages 28.6 this year and averaged 19.3 last year. He also hasn't scored a century in any format since 2019.

So I would say he gets away as much or more than any other player. Because guess what? When you're one of the tippy-top batsmen in the world, you can. The same is true for all four.

 

[Officer Barbrady]

Kane took a couple years to get going but he’s been incredible over the past 8 years.

And he’s had success everywhere except Sri Lanka (2 tests only) so he has a legit claim to being best in the world in test cricket.

Also an average of 75 in New Zealand over that period is insane. NZ is far from batting friendly conditions

 

[Savak]

When you have money you can promote your players and make them into kings. A lot of American sporting celebrities are unknown outside the US but just the US fanbase and market alone ends up giving them life changing net worths of $500 million dollar

Lebron James net worth is about to reach $1 billion and he is probably not even that well adulated outside the US

 

[UzmanBeast]

People must be crazy to say that Williamson is better than Kohli.

Kohli is in a tier ahead of even the Fab 4, he is undoubtedly one of cricket's greatest batsmen, perhaps even the greatest batsman in the history of the sport.

None of the current Fab 4 even come close to replicating the consistent performances he puts across all formats. Emphasis on the all.

One can look at Root, Williamson, and Smith in T20s and see how awful their stats are when compared with Kohli.

People need to get their heads sorted, because Kohli is in a league of his own.

He will get past 100 international centuries and break even more records, it will just take one good innings before he starts punishing people like he usually does.

People need to understand their limits, particularly Vaughan. I haven't seen a more intellectually challenged cricketer in a while, he's way too desperate in trying to keep himself relevant.

 

[Mirpur express]

Vaughan as usual trying to be too smart here.

Kane belongs to same tier as Amla, Clarke and Yousuf as test batsman.

Kohli, on other hand, belongs to the Ponting tier.

Kohli test average is 29 in the last 2 years & currently sits in the 3rd tier below the likes of Amal Clark & MoYo

 

[ManFan]

Kohli is better than KW.

But as of late, he’s been absolute ****.

 

[Mamoon]

Kohli averages 28.6 this year and averaged 19.3 last year. He also hasn't scored a century in any format since 2019.

So I would say he gets away as much or more than any other player. Because guess what? When you're one of the tippy-top batsmen in the world, you can. The same is true for all four.

Kohli established himself as an ATG player before his slump, so there is no point of getting away with failures. Even if he retires today, or would have retired before his slump, he would still be regarded as a legendary batsman.

Williamson on the other hand has not done enough yet to be considered an ATG batsman. People criticized Root a lot but in spite of his slump between 2018 and 2020, he still has better numbers than Williamson in almost every major Test nation.

Williamson has been the weakest player in the fab 4 over the course of his career and he has not done enough to merit a comparison with Kohli or Smith.

 

[Robert]

Kane Williamson nice guy persona allows him to get away with a poor record in South Africa,India, and England. He can rectify this but he is rarely criticised for this. Kohli was criticised for failing on his first tour to England yet Williamson gets away with it.

Williamson is a brilliant batsmen. But Kohli is superior and the majority of the cricketing world agree Kohli is clear.

Not what Vorn is saying. He says that Indians hype Kohli into orbit. If Williamson was Indian and Kohli Kiwi, Williamson would get hyped into orbit.

 

[Robert]

If an English player would have averaged 54 in tests, he would have been hailed as GOAT by Vaughan. So, perhaps there is that one modification you can make to your statement, Mr Vaughan.

Hoping that some day, an England batsman will average 50+ in test cricket so that you can hype him as greatest player.

Root should pass that again this summer. Averages 49.24 right now.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Kohli established himself as an ATG player before his slump, so there is no point of getting away with failures. Even if he retires today, or would have retired before his slump, he would still be regarded as a legendary batsman.

Williamson on the other hand has not done enough yet to be considered an ATG batsman. People criticized Root a lot but in spite of his slump between 2018 and 2020, he still has better numbers than Williamson in almost every major Test nation.

Williamson has been the weakest player in the fab 4 over the course of his career and he has not done enough to merit a comparison with Kohli or Smith.

So let me get this straight, Williamson is not good enough eventhough he has been abundantly better than Kohli in the last two years?

And I don't know what planet you're living on but Williamson has done enough to merit a comparison with the other three. That's why its called the Fab 4. He may not be the best among them but he is world-class in every way. And he's miles ahead of the overrated Joe Root who plays more test matches than anyone and more often than not fails to convert a half century into a score that actually matters.

Just because he won't play nearly as many games as the other three because of obvious reasons doesn't mean he won't go down in history as one of the greats. He is one of the greatest batsmen of his generation and he will be remembered as such years from now.

 

[Savak]

Given that Williamson literally carries his sides entire batting line up and conducts himself in an exemplory manner on and off the field, he gets my nod

As far as Kohli is concerned, a 2 year slump is a long time. He has been able to get away with it because India has been winning non stop

 

[gazza619]

If Michael Vaughan was an Indian (or even Pakistani), he would have struggled to get into the B team never mind the national team.

 

[Mamoon]

So let me get this straight, Williamson is not good enough eventhough he has been abundantly better than Kohli in the last two years?

Which means nothing when Kohli has been abundantly better than Williamson for pretty much his entire career except the last two years.

And in the last 2 years, Williamson averaged 14 in Australia and 32 against India at home, i.e. the two best bowling units that he faced.

He did very well against England at home though, but the fact is that he failed badly against two top attacks in his purple patch, and it is a recurrent them in his career.

And I don't know what planet you're living on but Williamson has done enough to merit a comparison with the other three. That's why its called the Fab 4. He may not be the best among them but he is world-class in every way. And he's miles ahead of the overrated Joe Root who plays more test matches than anyone and more often than not fails to convert a half century into a score that actually matters.

I am living on the same planet where Williamson has so far proved to be an overrated, a glorified minnow-basher who has pulled wool over people’s eyes because his batting is stylish, he is a gentleman and he is ruthless against poor bowling attacks at home.

Take a look at his record in the major Test nations:

Australia - Avg 42
England - Avg 30
India - Avg 35
South Africa - Avg 21
Sri Lanka - Avg 26
UAE - 64
West Indies - 51

These are very ordinary numbers and goes against the perception that he is some master batsman.

You cannot be considered an elite batsman when you have failed in almost every major venue excluding UAE.

On the contrary, Joe Root still has more impressive numbers than Williamson in most countries in spite of his slump.

Australia - Avg 38
New Zealand - Avg 39
India - Avg 50
South Africa - Avg 50
Sri Lanka - Avg 65
UAE - Avg 57
West Indies - Avg 53

It is clearly obvious that Root is comfortably a better player of spin and has done much better in South Africa as well.

Also, Root hasn’t had the opportunity to bash minnows like Williamson has.

Root has played 0 Tests against Zimbabwe and only 2 against Bangladesh.

Williamson has played 6 Tests against Bangladesh and 4 against Zimbabwe.

The excuse that Williamson scores important runs and scores when it matters is nonsense.

It is a convenient excuse used to mask the fact that he has been inconsistent and fairly average against the top bowling attacks throughout his career.

He has failed in almost every major country and New Zealand lost most of these games. They needed him to deliver in these matches but he couldn’t.

Moreover, you don’t seem to understand the history and the context of the Fab Four. The term “Fab Four” was coined by the late Martin Crowe in August 2014.

He picked the four best young batsmen in the world in his opinion and it is only natural that he picked his fellow countryman Williamson as well, since he was the best young New Zealand batsman at the time.

The comparison proved to be a hit among cricket fans and they now refer to the quarter as some gospel, even though, ultimately, it is simply the opinion of one former cricket player.

The reality is that purely on performance, this whole Fab Four stuff doesn’t even exist.

Kohli is, by far, the greatest all-format batsman of this generation because he is the second best Test batsman of this generation and by far the greatest LOI batsman of his generation.

How can there be a Fab Four across formats when Kohli is a top 2 Test batsman and has more ODI centuries than the other three combined.

Similarly, Smith is, by far, the greatest Test batsman of this generation.

Kohli and Smith are thus the two best batsmen of this era by default, and Root and Williamson do not even come in the picture. However, people often consider Root to be the weakest player in this quartet, but numbers clearly show that he is superior to Williamson.

Just because he won't play nearly as many games as the other three because of obvious reasons doesn't mean he won't go down in history as one of the greats. He is one of the greatest batsmen of his generation and he will be remembered as such years from now.

Williamson is certainly playing more matches against minnow teams than the other three. I am sure they would also love such an opportunity to fill boots and make their numbers look even better.

Vs Bangladesh & Zimbabwe:

Williamson has 10 Tests
Kohli has 4 Tests
Root has 2 Tests
Smith has 2 Tests

Williamson is obviously one of the greatest batsmen of this generation. It goes without saying.

There are 50+ batsmen playing today and he is better than all of them except 3-4, which makes him one of the best of this generation by default.

However, to be considered as an ATG batsman, he would need to improve his record. You cannot be considered an ATG Test batsman when you average 42 in Australia, 30 in England, 35 in India, 21 in South Africa and 26 in Sri Lanka. I cannot think of a single ATG Test batsman with such pitiful numbers.

Williamson reputation flatters him because so far, he has not produced the level of output that would match up to his reputation.

He has benefited a lot from the fact that he does not play for one of the evil big 3 teams and non-big 3 fans do not criticize him with the same level of scrutiny.

Had he played for India, Australia and England, Pakistani fans would not have allowed him to get away with such poor numbers in the major countries, but the margin of error for New Zealand players is different because they are one of the protagonists.

Well we shouldn’t be surprised though - if Williamson could laughably steal the player of the World Cup award in 2019 from Ben Stokes because ICC took pity on the way New Zealand lost the final, he could also sneak his way into the discussion of ATG batsmen when he is clearly not close to that league.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Which means nothing when Kohli has been abundantly better than Williamson for pretty much his entire career except the last two years.

And in the last 2 years, Williamson averaged 14 in Australia and 32 against India at home, i.e. the two best bowling units that he faced.

He did very well against England at home though, but the fact is that he failed badly against two top attacks in his purple patch, and it is a recurrent them in his career.



I am living on the same planet where Williamson has so far proved to be an overrated, a glorified minnow-basher who has pulled wool over people’s eyes because his batting is stylish, he is a gentleman and he is ruthless against poor bowling attacks at home.

Take a look at his record in the major Test nations:

Australia - Avg 42
England - Avg 30
India - Avg 35
South Africa - Avg 21
Sri Lanka - Avg 26
UAE - 64
West Indies - 51

These are very ordinary numbers and goes against the perception that he is some master batsman.

You cannot be considered an elite batsman when you have failed in almost every major venue excluding UAE.

On the contrary, Joe Root still has more impressive numbers than Williamson in most countries in spite of his slump.

Australia - Avg 38
New Zealand - Avg 39
India - Avg 50
South Africa - Avg 50
Sri Lanka - Avg 65
UAE - Avg 57
West Indies - Avg 53

It is clearly obvious that Root is comfortably a better player of spin and has done much better in South Africa as well.

Also, Root hasn’t had the opportunity to bash minnows like Williamson has.

Root has played 0 Tests against Zimbabwe and only 2 against Bangladesh.

Williamson has played 6 Tests against Bangladesh and 4 against Zimbabwe.

The excuse that Williamson scores important runs and scores when it matters is nonsense.

It is a convenient excuse used to mask the fact that he has been inconsistent and fairly average against the top bowling attacks throughout his career.

He has failed in almost every major country and New Zealand lost most of these games. They needed him to deliver in these matches but he couldn’t.

Moreover, you don’t seem to understand the history and the context of the Fab Four. The term “Fab Four” was coined by the late Martin Crowe in August 2014.

He picked the four best young batsmen in the world in his opinion and it is only natural that he picked his fellow countryman Williamson as well, since he was the best young New Zealand batsman at the time.

The comparison proved to be a hit among cricket fans and they now refer to the quarter as some gospel, even though, ultimately, it is simply the opinion of one former cricket player.

The reality is that purely on performance, this whole Fab Four stuff doesn’t even exist.

Kohli is, by far, the greatest all-format batsman of this generation because he is the second best Test batsman of this generation and by far the greatest LOI batsman of his generation.

How can there be a Fab Four across formats when Kohli is a top 2 Test batsman and has more ODI centuries than the other three combined.

Similarly, Smith is, by far, the greatest Test batsman of this generation.

Kohli and Smith are thus the two best batsmen of this era by default, and Root and Williamson do not even come in the picture. However, people often consider Root to be the weakest player in this quartet, but numbers clearly show that he is superior to Williamson.



Williamson is certainly playing more matches against minnow teams than the other three. I am sure they would also love such an opportunity to fill boots and make their numbers look even better.

Vs Bangladesh & Zimbabwe:

Williamson has 10 Tests
Kohli has 4 Tests
Root has 2 Tests
Smith has 2 Tests

Williamson is obviously one of the greatest batsmen of this generation. It goes without saying.

There are 50+ batsmen playing today and he is better than all of them except 3-4, which makes him one of the best of this generation by default.

However, to be considered as an ATG batsman, he would need to improve his record. You cannot be considered an ATG Test batsman when you average 42 in Australia, 30 in England, 35 in India, 21 in South Africa and 26 in Sri Lanka. I cannot think of a single ATG Test batsman with such pitiful numbers.

Williamson reputation flatters him because so far, he has not produced the level of output that would match up to his reputation.

He has benefited a lot from the fact that he does not play for one of the evil big 3 teams and non-big 3 fans do not criticize him with the same level of scrutiny.

Had he played for India, Australia and England, Pakistani fans would not have allowed him to get away with such poor numbers in the major countries, but the margin of error for New Zealand players is different because they are one of the protagonists.

Well we shouldn’t be surprised though - if Williamson could laughably steal the player of the World Cup award in 2019 from Ben Stokes because ICC took pity on the way New Zealand lost the final, he could also sneak his way into the discussion of ATG batsmen when he is clearly not close to that league.

Well that's your opinion. The rest of the world agrees that there are four batsmen in the world that are the very best.

As far as Root goes, being consistent doesn't necessarily mean you are playing impactful knocks. If anything, Root's career is a case study in this.

Williamson averages 54, which shows that he has a tendency to play big innings that win games. His conversion rate is excellent and he rarely scores meaningless half-centuries. He is also the lynchpin of his side in both Tests and ODIs and literally carries the side more often than not. Teams like India and England can succeed without Kohli and Root, even Australia can succeed in ODIs without Smith. But a team like New Zealand cannot afford to have Williamson out of form for 2 years. And its not his fault that the Big 3 can't be bothered to play against Zimbabwe, or the fact that Smith, Kohli and Root just couldn't get going in Bangladesh.

And the reason he won that award was because he almost single-handedly carried his side to final, a match they could have very easily have won aswell if it were not for pure luck in England's favor that day. A team like England had Root, Roy, Stokes, Bairstow, Morgan, Buttler; all stepping up at different times. For New Zealand it was pretty much just Williamson, with one or two contributions coming from someone else in every game; none of which were nearly consistent enough

I cannot think of a single ATG Test batsman with such pitiful numbers

Really? What about Kohli? He averages 36 in England, 36 in New Zealand, 35 in West Indies and 44 in Sri Lanka. I would think those are also some pretty pitiful numbers for an ATG batsman.

I concede that Williamson's numbers in a lot of countries like: England, India, South Africa are not good. But you also have to take into account the fact that he hasn't toured any of these countries 5-6 years. During this period he has improved leaps and bounds as a batsman.

When all is said and done, Kane Williamson will almost certainly go down in history as an ATG. A player who lead from the front and turned New Zealand into a world-beater side during a time when they were the best they had ever been in their cricketing history. And needless to say none of it could have been possible without Williamson and his own rise as one of the greatest batsmen of his generation during this time.

 

[Majestic]

I would put Kohli in same tier as ABD in Tests and ODIs.

Kohli's test record is far from being considered legendary given his failures in three major countries. AB's record is poor in Bangladesh only.

In ODIs, Kohli is brilliant but he too hasn't won his team a World Cup even though he had the team to win.

1. Smith
2. Kohli/ABD
3. Williamson/Root

 

[street cricketer]

Nothing to see here. Just Vaughan stirring up the hornet's nest as per usual. I know he works as a commentator but he's not really someone who's well versed with the happenings in the current game as opposed to guys like Bishop or Atherton or Fazeer Mohammed. He, like Shane Warne, is employed purely to get those controversial headlines and clicks they say on air amidst the good bits they talk.

I would argue that it's actually the other way around with Kohli. Kohli's record was the most scrutinised among the fab four, particularly by English pundits after his failure in his debut tour to England. I remember the general tone from English commentators would be like "yes he's a great batsman, but can he do it in England when there's swing and the ball nibbles around" and when he was raking up the runs vs England in India, even the compliments used to be back handed like "he's a phenomenal batsman in these conditions", almost as if insinuating that Kohli just dines on easy conditions. It wasn't until Kohli's phenomenal series with the bat in his last tour of England that he finally managed to silence his critics.

Williamson is no doubt a top class test batsman and the third best test batsman in my book, but he does have a distinctly average record outside his home conditions. I have no doubts in saying that if Kohli had Kane's overseas record, he would be scrutinised far more harshly by the foreign pundits (and rightly so) than how Kane is being scrutinised. But then again, I doubt Vaughan even knows about the respective records of Kohli and Kane and like I said before, he revels in controversial hot takes and is probably an able replacement for Boycott now that TMS have done away with Geoffrey and most of the old guard apart from Agnew.

 

[street cricketer]

One thing I like about Vaughan is that he's very outspoken and frank in his views however weird they maybe. He, like Holding, doesn't suck up to the BCCI and India, which I like because when he or Holding comment on something, you know that they really mean that and not saying just to profit off the Indian revenue bandwagon. But he's not really well versed with the happenings in the game like a few other of his peers are, and so even if his views are authentic and not just PR views, they tend to be off the mark for the same reason pointed above.

 

[OMB]

Kohli averages 28.6 this year and averaged 19.3 last year. He also hasn't scored a century in any format since 2019.

So I would say he gets away as much or more than any other player. Because guess what? When you're one of the tippy-top batsmen in the world, you can. The same is true for all four.

Not really - Since 2019, in Tests, Kohli has scored 2 tons in 15 matches (average of 42.85) which is poor compared to Kane's 5 tons in 13 matches at an amazing average of 73.52. This is where Kane Williamson shines over Virat Kohli. It doesn't matter about opposition as average accounts for all situations, home and away and against all opposition.

Kohli scored a career best 254 runs not out on 10th October 2019 against South Africa. Also had another ton next month against Bangladesh. In this period, his career average slumped to 42.85 from overall 52.37 which is definitely poor by VK standards but yes he has scored two centuries.

Since 2019, in LOI's VK has scored 5 tons in 38 matches (average of 55.34). KW = 2 tons in 22 matches at average of 54.94.

In T20's VK has scored HS of 95 in 25 matches (average of 62). KW = HS 95 in 13 matches at average of 31.75.

So is it true that if Kane Williamson were Indian, he would be called as greatest player? Rohit Sharma has scored 4 centuries in 11 matches at an average of 64.37 since 2019 which is far better than what Kohli has achieved yet no one calls him as better Test batsman than Kohli. Too small a period.

 

[Bhaijaan]

We would absolutely love to have Kane Williamson but he's just a great cricketer, like Rahul Dravid and that's the sort of status he would have had as an Indian cricketer.

He's not a generation defining superstar like Kohli or Tendulkar

 

[Ab Fan]

To be a superstar in India, you have to be great in LOs. If India didn't had Kohli, Rohit would have been our generation defining superstar.

However, as it is now, Rohit is not considered a part of Fab four across the world and is also behind Babar Azam. Technically, behind David Warner too.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Not really - Since 2019, in Tests, Kohli has scored 2 tons in 15 matches (average of 42.85) which is poor compared to Kane's 5 tons in 13 matches at an amazing average of 73.52. This is where Kane Williamson shines over Virat Kohli. It doesn't matter about opposition as average accounts for all situations, home and away and against all opposition.

Kohli scored a career best 254 runs not out on 10th October 2019 against South Africa. Also had another ton next month against Bangladesh. In this period, his career average slumped to 42.85 from overall 52.37 which is definitely poor by VK standards but yes he has scored two centuries.

Since 2019, in LOI's VK has scored 5 tons in 38 matches (average of 55.34). KW = 2 tons in 22 matches at average of 54.94.

In T20's VK has scored HS of 95 in 25 matches (average of 62). KW = HS 95 in 13 matches at average of 31.75.

So is it true that if Kane Williamson were Indian, he would be called as greatest player? Rohit Sharma has scored 4 centuries in 11 matches at an average of 64.37 since 2019 which is far better than what Kohli has achieved yet no one calls him as better Test batsman than Kohli. Too small a period.

You completely missed my point. I said the last time he scored a century or was any good was back in 2019.

Go look up his numbers in 2020 and 2021. You will find zero centuries.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

To be a superstar in India, you have to be great in LOs. If India didn't had Kohli, Rohit would have been our generation defining superstar.

However, as it is now, Rohit is not considered a part of Fab four across the world and is also behind Babar Azam. Technically, behind David Warner too.

Rohit took far too long to establish himself in the test team. And even now he is too much of a home track bully to be taken seriously.

 

[Hasan123]

Not what Vorn is saying. He says that Indians hype Kohli into orbit. If Williamson was Indian and Kohli Kiwi, Williamson would get hyped into orbit.

Fans hype their own player. Imagine my shock. Kohli deserves the praise anyway. If he had Williamson numbers, I would say it would be "hype"

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Williamson is pretty much a poor man's Rahul Dravid and even Dravid didn't enjoy the stardom that Kohli does.

 

[Robert]

Williamson is pretty much a poor man's Rahul Dravid and even Dravid didn't enjoy the stardom that Kohli does.

Overshadowed in the media / fandom by Tendulkar, when I would argue that Dravid was the better batsman of the two.

 

[MenInG]

Former England captain Michael Vaughan is surely the 'King' when it comes to controversy as he yet again spoke about the Indian cricketer that got netizens riled up. The cricketer had said that had the New Zealand skipper Kane Williamson been Indian, he would have been the greatest player in the world as according to him he is as good as the Indian skipper Virat Kohli, across formats.

"If Kane Williamson was Indian, he would be the greatest player in the world. But he’s not because you’re not allowed to say that Virat Kohli is not the greatest, because you’d get an absolute pelting on social media. So, you all say Virat is the best purely to get a few more clicks and likes, few more numbers following here. Kane Williamson, across formats, is equally the best. I think the way he plays, the calm demeanor, his humbleness, the fact that he is silent about what he does," Vaughan said.

However, this statement did not sit down well with many, and Pakistan's veteran cricketer Salman Butt, criticised the former England skipper for 'stirring up' unnecessary debates.

Butt was critical of Vaughan, and compared the Englishman's numbers with Virat Kohli. After Sachin Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting, Kohli is third on the list of most centuries at the highest level.

Even as Butt lauded Vaughan for his captaincy, he reckoned that the Englishman's batting wasn't at par with the Indian.

Butt on his YouTube channel said, "Kohli belongs to a county that has a huge population. On top of that, his performance is better too. Virat has 70 international tons at the moment, no other batsman from this era has that many.

"And he has, for a long period, dominated the batting rankings because his performances have been outstanding. So, I don’t understand what and where is the need to draw comparisons," Butt said.

"And who has compared the two? Michael Vaughan. He was a brilliant captain for England, but the beauty at which he used to bat, his output wasn't on par. He was a good Test batsman but Vaughan never scored a single century in ODIs.

"Now, as an opener, if you haven't scored a century, it's not worth discussion. It’s just that he has a knack for saying things that stir up a debate. Besides, people have a lot of time to stretch a topic," he added.

While Vaughan did not score a century in the ODI format, he has 18 tons to his name from 82 Test matches. Overall, he notched over 7,600 runs for England in a career that spanned for eight years from 1999 to 2007.

As for Butt, he played 33 Tests, 78 ODIs, and 24 T20Is for Pakistan before the spot-fixing scandal at the Lord’s turned his career.

https://www.dnaindia.com/cricket/re...ichael-vaughan-to-not-stir-up-debates-2890554

==

Vaughan's reply
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">No idea what the headline is ... but I seen what Salman has said about me ... that’s fine and he is allowed his opinion but I wished he had such a clear thought of mind back in 2010 when he was Match fixing !!! <a href="https://t.co/EkDWuH7Vi4">https://t.co/EkDWuH7Vi4</a></p>— Michael Vaughan (@MichaelVaughan) <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelVaughan/status/1393859000853204992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 16, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Tabishbeigh]

What Kohli has achieved will be remembered for ages. Williamson , while a really good batsman, kohli is in his league of his own. It’s not like Sachin and Lara debate. Kohli is a monster when it comes to any form of cricket. Even though Smith averages more than kohli he still isn’t good enough.

 

[Shoaibbtt]

Vaughn just roasted Butt like it was he was a summer BBQ

 

[Mamoon]

Vaughn just roasted Butt like it was he was a summer BBQ

Vaughan’s response couldn’t be more obvious and predictable, so I won’t call it roasting.

Every time Salman Butt criticizes someone, he is going to be reminded of the spot-fixing scandal. It is inevitable.

 

[krikit]

Overshadowed in the media / fandom by Tendulkar, when I would argue that Dravid was the better batsman of the two.

Tendulkar was at least a level above Dravid. Only Lara can claim to be on the same level as him from the previous generation and Smith in the current one.

 

[MenInG]

Former England captain Michael Vaughan is surely the 'King' when it comes to controversy as he yet again spoke about the Indian cricketer that got netizens riled up. The cricketer had said that had the New Zealand skipper Kane Williamson been Indian, he would have been the greatest player in the world as according to him he is as good as the Indian skipper Virat Kohli, across formats.

"If Kane Williamson was Indian, he would be the greatest player in the world. But he’s not because you’re not allowed to say that Virat Kohli is not the greatest, because you’d get an absolute pelting on social media. So, you all say Virat is the best purely to get a few more clicks and likes, few more numbers following here. Kane Williamson, across formats, is equally the best. I think the way he plays, the calm demeanor, his humbleness, the fact that he is silent about what he does," Vaughan said.

However, this statement did not sit down well with many, and Pakistan's veteran cricketer Salman Butt, criticised the former England skipper for 'stirring up' unnecessary debates.

Butt was critical of Vaughan, and compared the Englishman's numbers with Virat Kohli. After Sachin Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting, Kohli is third on the list of most centuries at the highest level.

Even as Butt lauded Vaughan for his captaincy, he reckoned that the Englishman's batting wasn't at par with the Indian.

Butt on his YouTube channel said, "Kohli belongs to a county that has a huge population. On top of that, his performance is better too. Virat has 70 international tons at the moment, no other batsman from this era has that many.

"And he has, for a long period, dominated the batting rankings because his performances have been outstanding. So, I don’t understand what and where is the need to draw comparisons," Butt said.

"And who has compared the two? Michael Vaughan. He was a brilliant captain for England, but the beauty at which he used to bat, his output wasn't on par. He was a good Test batsman but Vaughan never scored a single century in ODIs.

"Now, as an opener, if you haven't scored a century, it's not worth discussion. It’s just that he has a knack for saying things that stir up a debate. Besides, people have a lot of time to stretch a topic," he added.

While Vaughan did not score a century in the ODI format, he has 18 tons to his name from 82 Test matches. Overall, he notched over 7,600 runs for England in a career that spanned for eight years from 1999 to 2007.

As for Butt, he played 33 Tests, 78 ODIs, and 24 T20Is for Pakistan before the spot-fixing scandal at the Lord’s turned his career.

https://www.dnaindia.com/cricket/re...ichael-vaughan-to-not-stir-up-debates-2890554

==

Vaughan's reply
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">No idea what the headline is ... but I seen what Salman has said about me ... that’s fine and he is allowed his opinion but I wished he had such a clear thought of mind back in 2010 when he was Match fixing !!! <a href="https://t.co/EkDWuH7Vi4">https://t.co/EkDWuH7Vi4</a></p>— Michael Vaughan (@MichaelVaughan) <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelVaughan/status/1393859000853204992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 16, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Think it's best Butt for obvious reasons should limit his comments to Pakistani affairs as the rest of the cricketing world has a very dim view of him.

 

[Thanos]

Poor from both Butt and Vaughan. If Butt doesn't agree with Vaughan's comment, he should've compare VK and Kane only.
No need to bring Vaughan's batting records.

And looking at Vaughan's tweet for Butt, it's clearly visible that Vaughan has no appetite to reactions against his own stupid comments. Vaughan simply says controversial things and loses the plot easily when he gets reaction from others.

 

[Smbhayi]

Also an average of 75 in New Zealand over that period is insane. NZ is far from batting friendly conditions

Batying easier on 2nd day onwards on NZ, and most of the time they bat 2nd..

 

[Savak]

Vaughan’s response couldn’t be more obvious and predictable, so I won’t call it roasting.

Every time Salman Butt criticizes someone, he is going to be reminded of the spot-fixing scandal. It is inevitable.

Lol it was a cheap shot by Vaughan. He had nothing else to say hence he couldn't resist at taking the most obvious dig

 

[Shoaibbtt]

Vaughan’s response couldn’t be more obvious and predictable, so I won’t call it roasting.

Every time Salman Butt criticizes someone, he is going to be reminded of the spot-fixing scandal. It is inevitable.

I have no respect for Salman so he deserved it.

 

[Nasty Naz]

Williamson is an incredible player but Kohli is simply better. They're close in Tests but it's not close at all in LOI.

Just sayin but in Tests, Williamson has played Australia/England 20 times in his career. Kohli has played them 43 times and has a better vs Australia & England than Williamson. The reason that is important is because Kohli is consistently facing best of the best and doing so much more often. Kohli has dominated NZ as well whereas Williamson has struggled.

Kohli clear weakness seems to be vs duke balls as he has struggled in England & WI but his average in England is still much better than Williamson who is sitting at 30.87. Average in the 20's in SA & Sri Lanka as well.

Williamson will go down as one of the best Test players ever and I think Kohli will rank slightly better than him but ODI's wise, Kohli may go down as the best ODI batsmen ever.

Williamson captaincy is excellent though and its commendable just how strong he has made the NZ team over the years.

 

[Majestic]

Batting averages v/s top 7 opponents(including WI) :-

Smith 62
Kohli 51
Root 50
Williamson 50

Smith is simply miles ahead in tests. No batsman even averages 55+ in last 40-50 years if we include only top 7 opponents.

 

[Savak]

I think Vaughan is upset that Williamson doesn't get the hype, respect, adulation that he deserves. That probably has to do with the fact that Cricket is not big in NZ and hence the NZ sporting public, media and sponsors are not interested in him beyond a certain point

 

[someone21]

Vaughan could be right. Williamson is basically your Sachin of NZ. He symbolises the team and has carried them. He is the inspiration for future talents of NZ.

Kohli doesnt fit that, as he is playing in the Indian era of many rockstars. The stats alone does not determine impact. Although, all could change if Kohli leads India to WC win...

 

[Savak]

Vaughan could be right. Williamson is basically your Sachin of NZ. He symbolises the team and has carried them. He is the inspiration for future talents of NZ.

Kohli doesnt fit that, as he is playing in the Indian era of many rockstars. The stats alone does not determine impact. Although, all could change if Kohli leads India to WC win...

Ricky Pontings avg and batting suffered when he had to deal with the pressure of being the main batsman Inzi in the team.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Vaughan could be right. Williamson is basically your Sachin of NZ. He symbolises the team and has carried them. He is the inspiration for future talents of NZ.

Kohli doesnt fit that, as he is playing in the Indian era of many rockstars. The stats alone does not determine impact. Although, all could change if Kohli leads India to WC win...

Not at all.

Sachin was literally toying with bowling in mid to late 1990s including some never to be forgotten hammerings laid out to some of the greatest ever of all time. That's what made him the demo god like figure. If he had a Babar Azam like no impact career nobody in India would have bothered that much. You are right stats aren't everything and that's exactly where Kane Williamson fails among the greats. He will end up as a Kallis, Sangakkara type figure. A lot of stats padding but nothing stand out.

Basically your Russel Westbrook figure in Cricket.

 

[someone21]

Not at all.

Sachin was literally toying with bowling in mid to late 1990s including some never to be forgotten hammerings laid out to some of the greatest ever of all time. That's what made him the demo god like figure. If he had a Babar Azam like no impact career nobody in India would have bothered that much. You are right stats aren't everything and that's exactly where Kane Williamson fails among the greats. He will end up as a Kallis, Sangakkara type figure. A lot of stats padding but nothing stand out.

Basically your Russel Westbrook figure in Cricket.

No, the greatness of Sachin is amplified by his team pathetic records. India was an average team where Sachin carried them. That was the impact, where every Indian wanted to the next Sachin.

Similarly, without Williamson, NZ today would be weak, he is carried them both as a captain and batsman. Thats the impact, and that is where Kohli differs. Kohli plays in a dominant Indian rockstars era...

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

So apparently we all missed this...

Salman Butt responded to Michael Vaughan's comment calling it irrelevant and saying that Kohli has 70 international centuries whereas Vaughan has zero in ODIs.

Vaughan responded by saying: "This is very true Salman but you forgot to mention that I haven’t been a match fixer corrupting our great game either like some ... !!!!!!!!"

Mic drop moment from Vaughan and that's all she wrote on Butt having any kind of serious broadcasting career.

 

[Savak]

So apparently we all missed this...

Salman Butt responded to Michael Vaughan's comment calling it irrelevant and saying that Kohli has 70 international centuries whereas Vaughan has zero in ODIs.

Vaughan responded by saying: "This is very true Salman but you forgot to mention that I haven’t been a match fixer corrupting our great game either like some ... !!!!!!!!"

Mic drop moment from Vaughan and that's all she wrote on Butt having any kind of serious broadcasting career.

Lol there is nothing extraordinary about Vaughan's response to Butt. He obviously had no answer to Butts factual comment that Vaughan had zero ODI hundreds so he had no choice but to bring in Butts unrelated spot fixing ban.

 

[mastimasti]

Vaughan is completely right but he missed an important point. If Kane Williamson was English, he would be the greatest player in the world too.

I don't think so. Root has been tremendous in ODI tournaments and was an absolute gem in 2019 but rarely gets mentioned as one of the very best ODI batsmen of recent times. Heck England playing ODI cricket without him seem a very vulnerable side.

Kohli is averaging 29 in tests for last ~2 years. He ain't that extreme level great in tests.

Very good point.

My two pence, Kohli is the best of the lot but he isn't untouchable.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Lol there is nothing extraordinary about Vaughan's response to Butt. He obviously had no answer to Butts factual comment that Vaughan had zero ODI hundreds so he had no choice but to bring in Butts unrelated spot fixing ban.

What did Vaughan's ODI centuries have to do with a comparison between Kohli and Willliamson? The way I see it, Vaughan treated Butt like the joke and embarrassment that he is and responded to his unrelated comment with an equally unrelated but factual comment.

Anyway I thought it was absolutely hilarious. I support any and all attempts for Salman Butt to be put in his place. I genuinely believe that he should never be forgiven for what he did and I hope that the embarrassment and shame he brought on this country follows him for the rest of his life.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

I don't think so. Root has been tremendous in ODI tournaments and was an absolute gem in 2019 but rarely gets mentioned as one of the very best ODI batsmen of recent times. Heck England playing ODI cricket without him seem a very vulnerable side.



Very good point.

My two pence, Kohli is the best of the lot but he isn't untouchable.

That's because Root is not as good as Williamson. Root is a great batsman but I don't see him being that successful without the tremendous firepower of Roy, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes and Buttler batting around him. Guys who rarely let the scoring rate fall and allow Root to play the anchor role.

Compare that to Williamson, particularly his exploits in the 2019 World Cup and what you see is essentially one guy carrying the entire batting. Sure New Zealand do have Taylor and Latham. Even Guptill steps up now and again. But none of them really stepped-up when it mattered most at the World Cup. And though Taylor is pretty much the next best thing after Williamson in that batting-order, you would have to think that his days are numbered at 37 years of age.

 

[Sherlock]

He doesn't have to be Indian to be considered the greatest, except even as an Indian he wouldn't be the greatest.

Also, Vaughan is an absolute clown.

 

[Gilly]

What if Kohli was a England player, he would be just a run of the mill player and no hype at all.

 

[Savak]

What if Kohli was a England player, he would be just a run of the mill player and no hype at all.

True that. I think Australia is the only Western country where cricketers have rock star type status.

 

[Gilly]

True that. I think Australia is the only Western country where cricketers have rock star type status.

Thats in the cricket world, in general Australian cricket players are a long way behind AFL players when it comes to stardom.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

He is not wrong. Even someone like Gill who has only played a handful of games is considered a great player. The truth is that other than Rohit and Kohli, none of the other batsmen in the last few years in India have lived up to their potential.

 

[Savak]

Thats in the cricket world, in general Australian cricket players are a long way behind AFL players when it comes to stardom.

I see the Australian players living in million dollar mansions, having sponsorship deals, endorsements, they also get around $1-2 million per year by Cricket Australia.

 

[Gilly]

I see the Australian players living in million dollar mansions, having sponsorship deals, endorsements, they also get around $1-2 million per year by Cricket Australia.

Australia's 11 highest paid cricketers would not be paid as much as 11 AFL players from anyone of the 18 clubs.

 

[Robert]

What if Kohli was a England player, he would be just a run of the mill player and no hype at all.

He wouldn’t average as many. It’s hard to bat in England.

Also, his rockstar attitude would earn him the emnity of the tabloids. We don’t like people who are too successful. The British do not love a winner. Steve Davis the snooker player only became popular when he started losing....

 

[Robert]

That's because Root is not as good as Williamson. Root is a great batsman but I don't see him being that successful without the tremendous firepower of Roy, Bairstow, Morgan, Stokes and Buttler batting around him. Guys who rarely let the scoring rate fall and allow Root to play the anchor role.

Compare that to Williamson, particularly his exploits in the 2019 World Cup and what you see is essentially one guy carrying the entire batting. Sure New Zealand do have Taylor and Latham. Even Guptill steps up now and again. But none of them really stepped-up when it mattered most at the World Cup. And though Taylor is pretty much the next best thing after Williamson in that batting-order, you would have to think that his days are numbered at 37 years of age.

Reserving that - do you think Roy, Bairstow etc. would be so successful without Root to anchor the innings?

 

[MenInG]

Michael Vaughan has a habit of passing glaring remarks. Recently, he made a claim that had New Zealand skipper Kane Williamson been an Indian, he would have been termed as the greatest current player but gets overshadowed by Virat Kohli, due to his immense popularity on social media platforms and elsewhere.

Vaughan also predicted Williamson to have a more fruitful tour of the United Kingdom for the Black Caps when compared to Kohli during India's forthcoming tour of England and Wales. Thus, his comments went viral in no time and he was hilariously trolled or criticised by many, including Pakistan's tainted batsman Salman Butt.

Butt slammed Vaughan and termed his comments 'irrelevant'. To this, Vaughan brought up Butt's infamous involvement in the spot-fixing scandal, which took place during Butt-led Pakistan's 2010 tour of England.

Now, Butt once again took to his official Youtube channel to hit back at Vaughan's 'below-the-belt' remark. He said, "I don't want to get into details. I just want to say that he's picked the topic in the wrong context. There is no justification for a reaction like this. This is very below-average, below-the-belt. If he wants to live in the past and wants to talk about it, he surely can. Constipation is an illness. Things get stuck and they don’t come out that easily. Some people have mental constipation. Their minds are in the past. That doesn’t matter.

We spoke about two great players and there was no need to take it into a different direction. But he has opted to. The year he has mentioned, he can go on. It's the past and it's gone. But that doesn't change the actual fact, which we spoke about. Had he provided some statistical presentation, some logic, some experienced-based observation, it would have been better. We too could have learnt something," Butt opined.

"Had he spoken about cricket and proved us wrong or proved himself right, it would have been fun. But that didn’t happen. To go below the belt is an option everyone has. It just defines what you pick to do, it defines you. Now that he has done, it, he can keep on doing it as much as he can. It doesn't affect anyone, but he has just defined himself," he signed off.

Hence, what started as a comparison between Williamson and Kohli -- two of the finest batters of the modern era -- has turned into an ugly war of words between England's former captain Vaughan and tainted cricketer Butt.

Meanwhile, both Williamson and Kohli will represent their respective Test sides in the England Tests and lock horns with each other in the World Test Championship final, on June 18.

https://www.timesnownews.com/sports...el-vaughan-for-his-match-fixing-remark/757879

 

[King_Kohli]

Indian fans underestimating Dravid is common.

Most Runs for India Yearwise (In All Formats)

2001-Sachin
2002-Dravid
2003-Dravid
2004-Dravid
2005-Dravid
2006-Dravid
2007-Ganguly
2008-Sehwag
2009-Gambhir
2010-Sehwag
2011-Virat
2012-Virat
2013-Virat
2014-Virat
2015-Rahane
2016-Virat
2017-Virat
2018-Virat
2019-Virat

 

[OMB]

Indian fans underestimating Dravid is common.

Most Runs for India Yearwise (In All Formats)

2001-Sachin
2002-Dravid
2003-Dravid
2004-Dravid
2005-Dravid
2006-Dravid
2007-Ganguly
2008-Sehwag
2009-Gambhir
2010-Sehwag
2011-Virat
2012-Virat
2013-Virat
2014-Virat
2015-Rahane
2016-Virat
2017-Virat
2018-Virat
2019-Virat

yes his contribution was unfortunately considered second to Sachin, then Virat has taken over. In between the dependable wall thrived for a short while. I used to love Dravid, even do now due to the excellent service he is giving to the youth in Indian cricket.

 

[Robert]

I rate Dravid hugely. Second best Indian batter after Gavaskar IMO.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Reserving that - do you think Roy, Bairstow etc. would be so successful without Root to anchor the innings?

Yes. As great as Root is, unfortunately he is the most replaceable guy out of Bairstow, Roy, Morgan, Buttler, Stokes and him.

This is not an insult directed at Root, nor do I believe he should be replaced. He plays an important role in the batting line-up. But I just feel that the other five are one of a kind players who are not as easy to replace.

 

[globalcitizen]

the number of matches played by Kohli after his last century is 7 tests. For a great player it's still not standard but it's natural to have a dip in form. But some posts just reek of desperation by saying last 2 years due to being jealous of others success lol

 

[liam26]

Australia's 11 highest paid cricketers would not be paid as much as 11 AFL players from anyone of the 18 clubs.

AFL players get paid more than what Maxwell gets in IPL ?

 

[Robert]

Yes. As great as Root is, unfortunately he is the most replaceable guy out of Bairstow, Roy, Morgan, Buttler, Stokes and him.

This is not an insult directed at Root, nor do I believe he should be replaced. He plays an important role in the batting line-up. But I just feel that the other five are one of a kind players who are not as easy to replace.

I would argue that a man who averages fifty over a long career with run rate in the nineties - faster than Pietersen - is irreplaceable. England have never had his like. How many times has he stabilised the innings when the top two fail? He was a massive factor in the WC win.

 

[Last Monetarist]

AFL players get paid more than what Maxwell gets in IPL ?

Back of the envelope calculation: Maxwell was sold for USD 1.9 million this year in the IPL, CA will typically take 10% of the auction fee as facilitation payments, and approximately 45% goes on taxes. So he'll be left with roughly USD 850k of that fee.

I read that average AFL salaries are AUD 260k, with top players earning around AUD 1 million.

Nonetheless, Glenn Maxwell is an exception to the rule. Most Australian cricketers would earn less than the average AFL salary.

 

[krikit]

Indian fans underestimating Dravid is common.

Most Runs for India Yearwise (In All Formats)

2001-Sachin
2002-Dravid
2003-Dravid
2004-Dravid
2005-Dravid
2006-Dravid
2007-Ganguly
2008-Sehwag
2009-Gambhir
2010-Sehwag
2011-Virat
2012-Virat
2013-Virat
2014-Virat
2015-Rahane
2016-Virat
2017-Virat
2018-Virat
2019-Virat

I can understand people like Robert who haven't got much knowledge about Indian cricket to have such ignorant opinions but for 'Indian fans' who are given ready servings of Sachin's achievements, it is baffling to see such takes still floating around. Maybe it is the regionalism that has taken over, or such people only started watching cricket after the 2011 India tour of England.

 

[OMB]

I can understand people like Robert who haven't got much knowledge about Indian cricket to have such ignorant opinions but for 'Indian fans' who are given ready servings of Sachin's achievements, it is baffling to see such takes still floating around. Maybe it is the regionalism that has taken over, or such people only started watching cricket after the 2011 India tour of England.

What exactly is your objection here?

 

[Thanos]

Back of the envelope calculation: Maxwell was sold for USD 1.9 million this year in the IPL, CA will typically take 10% of the auction fee as facilitation payments, and approximately 45% goes on taxes. So he'll be left with roughly USD 850k of that fee.

I read that average AFL salaries are AUD 260k, with top players earning around AUD 1 million.

Nonetheless, Glenn Maxwell is an exception to the rule. Most Australian cricketers would earn less than the average AFL salary.

I guess 10% which CA or any board gets is paid by BCCI from IPL revenue model and not from player's IPL salary. Correct me if I am wrong.

Also do Australians pay taxes for money earned overseas? Asking because I am not aware about tax policies of Aus.