Joe Root's away record doesn't get enough criticism

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Joe Root has only 3 hundreds in 27 away tests. An average of 44 when he is in his prime now is not great... once he declines it will get even worse.

It's amazing to me how the cricketing media always gives Kohli so much criticism for Kohli's 2014 Eng tour, which was admittedly bad, but ultimately just 1 series. On the other hand, Root's overall away record is thoroughly underwhelming and is not even close to what Kohli and Smith have achieved.

Imo, this is a clear case of the media's bias when it comes to away records. When Asian batsmen fail overseas they are criticized and their stats scrutinized endlessly. But when English batsmen perform even worse, there is nary a peep heard.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Because Root looks good when he bats.

Because he is an Englishman and English and Aussie media control and shape public opinion (lost count of how many Saffers are under-rated in history..Indians escaped cos we have a big population, strong board and can drive up hype ourselves but still we need their approval)

Because scoring outside Asia is considered a bigger deal than in Asia.

I think after this Ashes, Root will be judged accordingly. For a guy of his stature, he has been poor away from home. It's not even like he is playing on landmines away from home. He isn't cashing in even on simple easy to bat tracks. Scores tons of useless runs case in point Indian tour where he looked comfortable yet never made it count.

The thing that goes for Root is that once he sorts his conversion issue (if he can), he will race on to become an ATG bat. Watching him bat is a pleasure.

Also to be fair, world cricketing media does consider Kohli to be the best overall batsman in the world. They do talk about his English failures but don't use it to undermine him completely. The guy who has been forgotten is Pujara. The stuff he has done in Asia is just incredible yet there is no hype for him cos Asian runs don't matter as much even if it comes on tough tracks.

 

[Gilly]

Why even read the media if you thinks its biased, why even worry who they rate, overrate or underrate. The media are just trying to make money not be fair, unbiased or holding some sort of standard. Do you think Saj is not biased towards Pakistan players.

 

[WengerOut]

I don't get the concept of soft runs completely. For me , an example of soft runs will be Mathews innings in last ODI. Otherwise when the Match is ON , no runs should be devalued.

 

[Ab Fan]

Root's problem is not that he cant score in variety of conditions. He can actually score in all conditions and against all kinds of attack.

But he is mentally too weak to convert his pretty 50s into big ones. He doesn't have the mental fortitude to play long and grab the game by the scruff of the neck abroad in particular.

The pitches in India weren't hard for a batsmen of his callibre to not score runs there particularly after winning toss most of the time. In South Africa, he is yet to face a very strong attack which most teams find in general. Only in that series, he produced good results.

 

[Ab Fan]

Away from home:

Warner 6 hundreds but he is HTB/FTB.

Root 4

Pujara 4

 

[Shafi]

Over hype batsman, No where near to Kohli and Smith

 

[HuzaifaE]

When Asian batsmen fail overseas they are criticized and their stats scrutinized endlessly. But when English batsmen perform even worse, there is nary a peep heard.

Always been that way, always will.

Root is a quality player but the so called fab 4 is almost undeniably a fab 2 so instead of comparing Root with players that are superior to him, his own level should be appreciated for what it is, but it's clear he lacks the killer decisive temperament. He has the tools in his shed to perform everywhere but if he can't put them to use to get big scores, it's a clear bottleneck situation. What Root's skillset does enable him to be however, is a very capable quality batsman across all formats, but it only makes him a jack of all trades, master of none, in a world where he competes with jacks of trades, masters of some.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Extremely overrated, nowhere as good as Williamson let alone Kohli (Smith doesn't even below in the convo). Fab 4 is now just Fab 2.

 

[Aman]

Extremely overrated, nowhere as good as Williamson let alone Kohli (Smith doesn't even below in the convo). Fab 4 is now just Fab 2.

Nah, Kane had a good few years but he's pretty flawed as well. He doesn't get the plaudits, but I don't think he's as good as people say either.

Neither are ATG material and have benefited from a weak, batting friendly era. Both will own as international greats in Tests, nothing more.

 

[James]

Maybe it should not even be categorised as a duo / quartet. What we have is an ATG batsman in the white flannels who may finish second to Bradman in the all-time Test stakes; an ATG in limited overs who may also reach that level in Tests and become a top-five / top-ten player of all time overall; and then two very good modern era batsmen who are world-class relative to their peers but have not yet reached potential ATG status due to inconsistency. Is that fair? No more of this Fab Four, Thrifty Tree, Dynamic Duo business.

 

[Convict]

I really don't get the obsession a lot of people have with this arbitrary concept of a "cricket media". There is no cricket media.
Each country has its own media and in many the cricket media is just a subset of that nations sports media - often with commentators and journos who may not even be "cricket people" making comments.

For instance the Australian media does not discuss Joe Root's away record much because as a whole the Australian media doesn't care about Joe Root. Likewise the Australian media doesn't discuss Kohli's record in England because unsurprisingly Australians generally don't care about how Kohli plays in England - most Australians actually think Kohli plays pretty well away from home because he scored runs here.

In fact Australian opinions are pretty much heavily biased towards how players played against Australia (and in Australia) - hence why the older generation of South Africans (Donald/Pollock etc) aren't as highly rated as they are elsewhere while someone like Laxman is probably overrated a bit by Australians.

 

[Gilly]

I dont even know why you have to criticise any player, Joe Root play for England and does a good job, Williamson plays for NZ and does a good job, Smith plays for Australia and does a good job and so on.

Why is there an obsession to say one is better than the other, cant you just appreciate them for the job they do for their team. It proves nothing at all except some supporters think they are proving themselves as some sort of cricket guru who can tell which player is better than another but its just massaging their own ego's.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

I really don't get the obsession a lot of people have with this arbitrary concept of a "cricket media". There is no cricket media.
Each country has its own media and in many the cricket media is just a subset of that nations sports media - often with commentators and journos who may not even be "cricket people" making comments.

For instance the Australian media does not discuss Joe Root's away record much because as a whole the Australian media doesn't care about Joe Root. Likewise the Australian media doesn't discuss Kohli's record in England because unsurprisingly Australians generally don't care about how Kohli plays in England - most Australians actually think Kohli plays pretty well away from home because he scored runs here.

In fact Australian opinions are pretty much heavily biased towards how players played against Australia (and in Australia) - hence why the older generation of South Africans (Donald/Pollock etc) aren't as highly rated as they are elsewhere while someone like Laxman is probably overrated a bit by Australians.

This, absolutely this.

I don't care that much about Sachin because I was more annoyed by Alec Stewart and Mark Taylor than anyone else and Ambrose this or that but Fannie Devilliers almost seemed to be a super destructive bowler when he played against us.

Sehwag would always be a better player to me as compared to the likes of Sachin and Dravid even though they have had one good series against us and beat Pakistan in Pakistan but Sehwag was just brutal while Laxman is not even rated because all I remember is his stumps cartwheeling.

Our desire to get appreciation for our players from other set of fans who don't rate them is just strange.

 

[Hasan123]

Usually when a player has a poor away record it's due to having problems with those conditions. With Root his problem has been with his temperament and loose stroke player. He hasn't any issue with the conditions.

PP is pouncing on every Root failure, so people on this forum can't say he's ovverated. Once he gets a couple of centuries in as series, he will get the confidence. I think he will still have a good peak. I think Root is 26, usually a batsmen best years are between 28-33.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Root has played 60 tests. Even the excuse of age does not make sense. He's a soft player, reminds me of Mohammad Yousuf, magnificent batsman but never scored useful runs.

 

[Square Drive]

He's overrated.

I will still take Kane over Root.

 

[Buffet]

Joe Root has only 3 hundreds in 27 away tests. An average of 44 when he is in his prime now is not great... once he declines it will get even worse.

It's amazing to me how the cricketing media always gives Kohli so much criticism for Kohli's 2014 Eng tour, which was admittedly bad, but ultimately just 1 series. On the other hand, Root's overall away record is thoroughly underwhelming and is not even close to what Kohli and Smith have achieved.

Imo, this is a clear case of the media's bias when it comes to away records. When Asian batsmen fail overseas they are criticized and their stats scrutinized endlessly. But when English batsmen perform even worse, there is nary a peep heard.

44 away average is not too bad to be honest. Problem is Root not really scoring big runs.

Also, English media will off course zero in on performance in Eng. It's natural.

 

[Last Monetarist]

To use a tennis analogy, Williamson and Root will end up being akin to Djokovic and Murray to Kohli's Federer and Smith's Nadal. Now watch the flies come swarming in anger.

 

[Savage]

Because Root looks good when he bats.

Because he is an Englishman and English and Aussie media control and shape public opinion (lost count of how many Saffers are under-rated in history..Indians escaped cos we have a big population, strong board and can drive up hype ourselves but still we need their approval)

Because scoring outside Asia is considered a bigger deal than in Asia.

I think after this Ashes, Root will be judged accordingly. For a guy of his stature, he has been poor away from home. It's not even like he is playing on landmines away from home. He isn't cashing in even on simple easy to bat tracks. Scores tons of useless runs case in point Indian tour where he looked comfortable yet never made it count.

The thing that goes for Root is that once he sorts his conversion issue (if he can), he will race on to become an ATG bat. Watching him bat is a pleasure.

Also to be fair, world cricketing media does consider Kohli to be the best overall batsman in the world. They do talk about his English failures but don't use it to undermine him completely. The guy who has been forgotten is Pujara. The stuff he has done in Asia is just incredible yet there is no hype for him cos Asian runs don't matter as much even if it comes on tough tracks.

Good post.

To add to this,Root Away performance has been on par with pujara.And anyone who has watched both batsmen closely would rate Pujara home performance higher than Root.however,Root home performance is still better than kohli and kane home performance.Root has had lots of success at home like pujara but he's also had lots of failures unlike pujara.To give some idea about this,England have lost 9 matches at HOME in last three and a half years.

Let's check their away performance

Root in india VS pujara in England:-

Root averages 53
pujara averages 22

Root's performance was better than pujara but certainly not by much as stats shows.You can even argue that pujara had more impact in England than Root in india.Pujara faced more deliveries than A rahane(who many considers him as hero of that match) in lord's test(our only MAJOR AWAY win in last 7-8 years).
Pujara faced 200 crucial deliveries as compared to 162 by Rahane.

In SA,AUS and NZ:-

Root averages 33.6
pujara averages 33.6

Root wasn't even 2nd best England batsmen in any of those countries.Atleast pujara was highest run scorer in SA 2013 series against best bowling attack in the world(Steyn,philander,morkel,kallis and tahir) despite being run out once.

OVERALL AWAY

Root averages 44.26
pujara averages 38.52

Pujara is yet to play in UAE(good pitches) and Bangladesh pitches where you'd expect him to do well.

It still surprises me that most people rate Root not only better but also a league above pujara.

 

[Savage]

In SA,AUS and NZ:-

Root averages 33.6
pujara averages 33.6

Root wasn't even 2nd best England batsmen in any of those countries.Atleast pujara was highest run scorer in SA 2013 series against best bowling attack in the world(Steyn,philander,morkel,kallis and tahir) despite being run out once.

You would also expect an english batsmen to do better in those conditions(sa,nz and aus) as compared to sub coninent batsmen.

 

[Convict]

You would also expect an english batsmen to do better in those conditions(sa,nz and aus) as compared to sub coninent batsmen.

Why?

 

[giri26]

Root is a peculiar case. He is a good player but falters most often away from home after reaching 50. He did that a lot in India and we have seen the same in Australia. He also has the worst conversion rates among the 4.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Good post.

To add to this,Root Away performance has been on par with pujara.And anyone who has watched both batsmen closely would rate Pujara home performance higher than Root.however,Root home performance is still better than kohli and kane home performance.Root has had lots of success at home like pujara but he's also had lots of failures unlike pujara.To give some idea about this,England have lost 9 matches at HOME in last three and a half years.

Let's check their away performance

Root in india VS pujara in England:-

Root averages 53
pujara averages 22

Root's performance was better than pujara but certainly not by much as stats shows.You can even argue that pujara had more impact in England than Root in india.Pujara faced more deliveries than A rahane(who many considers him as hero of that match) in lord's test(our only MAJOR AWAY win in last 7-8 years).
Pujara faced 200 crucial deliveries as compared to 162 by Rahane.

In SA,AUS and NZ:-

Root averages 33.6
pujara averages 33.6

Root wasn't even 2nd best England batsmen in any of those countries.Atleast pujara was highest run scorer in SA 2013 series against best bowling attack in the world(Steyn,philander,morkel,kallis and tahir) despite being run out once.

OVERALL AWAY

Root averages 44.26
pujara averages 38.52

Pujara is yet to play in UAE(good pitches) and Bangladesh pitches where you'd expect him to do well.

It still surprises me that most people rate Root not only better but also a league above pujara.

I get where you are coming from but I feel Root has been better away from home compared to Pujara outside Asia.

Pujara didn't average a lot against Aus flat tracks so I wouldn't dismiss Root's 50 average in India. Pujara had some impact in first 2 games in England(still scored very few runs) and after that went missing. I would say if India had got all out in Rajkot, the win would be due to Root's first innings knock which was very impactful in starting the series with a win.

Moreover, Root didn't struggle away like Pujara did outside Asia.

Root is fairly rated above Pujara. Just that the gap isn't as big as it's made out but only because Root hasn't fulfilled his potential. He doesn't look uncomfortable anywhere but the same can't be said about Pujara.

Even in recent county series, Ashwin and Yasir averaged more than Pujara (apples to oranges I know cos they come down the order) but still....both averaged 40+ while Pujara averaged in 20s or early 30s I think. Maybe Pujara was just out of form but the trends don't look good.

This overseas cycle, Pujara has a good chance to correct his records. Start batting with intent and make his stay count.

 

[MenInG]

Well here's one style of criticism.....

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Captain Fantastic! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ashes?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ashes</a> <a href="https://t.co/rV3n55P7Y5">pic.twitter.com/rV3n55P7Y5</a></p>— KP (@KP24) <a href="https://twitter.com/KP24/status/942599063836307458?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">18 December 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Savage]

Pujara didn't average a lot against Aus flat tracks so I wouldn't dismiss Root's 50 average in India. Pujara had some impact in first 2 games in England(still scored very few runs) and after that went missing. I would say if India had got all out in Rajkot, the win would be due to Root's first innings knock which was very impactful in starting the series with a win.

Moreover, Root didn't struggle away like Pujara did outside Asia.

Root is fairly rated above Pujara. Just that the gap isn't as big as it's made out but only because Root hasn't fulfilled his potential. He doesn't look uncomfortable anywhere but the same can't be said about Pujara.

Even in recent county series, Ashwin and Yasir averaged more than Pujara (apples to oranges I know cos they come down the order) but still....both averaged 40+ while Pujara averaged in 20s or early 30s I think. Maybe Pujara was just out of form but the trends don't look good.

This overseas cycle, Pujara has a good chance to correct his records. Start batting with intent and make his stay count.

Root Rajkot century could've been more meaningful similarly Pujara century would've been more meaningful if our bowlers were good enough to defend 458 in johannesberg.Root made good looking century in that test but at the end of the day his teammates Cook,Ben stokes and M ali scored more runs than Root in that test.

IMO,"comfortability" or "stylish batsmen" or even "all round batsmen"(in terms of ability) should be completely irrelevant when you're judging players on present performance because it would be unfair to some of the lesser talented players.Even rahane looks in control for 90% of innings(doesn't when he tries to attack) but that doesn't make him any better than mediocre LOI batsmen.

I'd rather have quality batsmen who scores 53 runs Than a quality batsmen who scores 52 good looking runs and then throws his wicket away.
I have said this in one of the thread(probably my first comment in pp) that root is arguably most complete batsmen(potentially) in the world.
Mainly because I didn't found any major weakness in his batting.I also said that he might end up as best test batsmen of this generation(along with smith) at the end of his career.

If pujara fails again in away tours 2018-2019 and likes of Vijay and Rahane outperforms him (like last time) then i would rate both Vijay and Rahane(along with root) above Pujara in test.

 

[Savage]

I get where you are coming from but I feel Root has been better away from home compared to Pujara outside Asia.

yes but not by much.Difference between them might just be 1 great away knock.

They've both have played majority of matches at home and all their memorable/impactful performance have been at home.(Root century in india,SA and Pujara in SL and SA were also good)

IMO people shouldn't rate Root above pujara unless they feel root has been as good or better than pujara at home.Root and pujara have been brilliant at home but I rate pujara home performance better than root's(i might try to explain this better later)

 

[Savage]

Why?

I only meant Root stats are more dissapointing because conditions(Atleast in NZ and SA) are more familiar to english's batsmen as compared to Sub continent batsmen.
Similarly Pujara is expected to do well in UAE,SL and BAN pitches.

 

[shaz619]

He has time to improve

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

yes but not by much.Difference between them might just be 1 great away knock.

They've both have played majority of matches at home and all their memorable/impactful performance have been at home.(Root century in india,SA and Pujara in SL and SA were also good)

IMO people shouldn't rate Root above pujara unless they feel root has been as good or better than pujara at home.Root and pujara have been brilliant at home but I rate pujara home performance better than root's(i might try to explain this better later)

No need. Its a fact. Pujara's home performance is better than any batsman. Scored runs in toughest of conditions in all situations against all bowlers.

 

[rudra]

He is a very fine player and have a lot of time to turn around his career.

 

[Convict]

I only meant Root stats are more dissapointing because conditions(Atleast in NZ and SA) are more familiar to english's batsmen as compared to Sub continent batsmen.
Similarly Pujara is expected to do well in UAE,SL and BAN pitches.

India are similar to SL, BAN and UAE due to geography.

England isn't all that similar to South Africa and pretty different to Australia.

 

[Savage]

India are similar to SL, BAN and UAE due to geography.

England isn't all that similar to South Africa and pretty different to Australia.

Yes! But still it's more difficult for Subcontinent batsmen to score runs there(NZ and SA) as they are not used to swing/seam movement