Kane Williamson vs Virat Kohli - Who is the best captain of the generation?

[Ab Fan]

Undoubtedly, the two best test captains going around in the world. Both the captains have the luxury of their best ever bowling attack and in terms of performances, they are up there as well. Faf is another good captain but his record is poor as he needs AB to win tests for South Africa. So, not inclduing him.

Kane Williamson has won 20 out of his 33 test matches he has captained while Virat Kohli has won 33 out of his 56 tests as a leader. Their W/L ratio is pretty similar, i.e, 2.5. Both have ensured their team wins most of the games at home while stay competitive away. Kane is a calm and composed nice gentlemanly captain while Virat is brat, aggressive and on-your face captain.

Who do you think is a greater captain between between the two?

 

[guna]

Kohli is one of the worst when it comes to team selection and bowling changes.

 

[Ab Fan]

My personal view- Kane is better in LOIs but in tests, I rate Kohli's captaincy highly. Kane is also great in tests though.

 

[Robert]

Williamson. Kohli showed tactical ineptitude on the last India tour of England. He is the sort of bloke who leads by example like Ponting.

 

[Hitman]

Won't comment who the better captain is, but Kolhi is the one who leads by example with his performance.

 

[Yk313]

Cricket has become a little bit like F1 now in the sense that it’s almost as much to do with the car/mechanics/data analysts etc as to do with the on-field nous of the captain.

This makes it hard to tell where the captain’s territory finishes in terms of originality of tactics and where the strategists’ starts.

Feel like KW’s acumen trumps that of VK in terms of thinking on his feet, getting maximum utility out of more limited players etc.

But VK seems to have greater resources off the field at his disposal probably in terms of advisors/data engineers/backroom staff.

 

[Aman]

Won't comment who the better captain is, but Kolhi is the one who leads by example with his performance.

Yeah, we saw that in the WC SF and CT Final.

Kane does both better than Kohli.

Kohli is the better batsmen, Kane is the better captain and leader. Heck you could argue India were better off under Rahane than they are Kohli.

 

[King_Kohli]

Undoubtedly, the two best test captains going around in the world. Both the captains have the luxury of their best ever bowling attack and in terms of performances, they are up there as well. Faf is another good captain but his record is poor as he needs AB to win tests for South Africa. So, not inclduing him.

Kane Williamson has won 20 out of his 33 test matches he has captained while Virat Kohli has won 33 out of his 56 tests as a leader. Their W/L ratio is pretty similar, i.e, 2.5. Both have ensured their team wins most of the games at home while stay competitive away. Kane is a calm and composed nice gentlemanly captain while Virat is brat, aggressive and on-your face captain.

Who do you think is a greater captain between between the two?

Captaincy stats in Tests:
Matches/Won/Lost:
Kane:34/19/8 - Winning % = ~56%
Virat: 56/33/13 -Winning % = ~59%

Captaincy stats in ODI's:
Matches/Won/Lost:
Kane:78/42/33 - Winning % = 53.84%
Virat: 92/63/26 - Winning % = 68.47%

 

[Aman]

Undoubtedly, the two best test captains going around in the world. Both the captains have the luxury of their best ever bowling attack and in terms of performances, they are up there as well. Faf is another good captain but his record is poor as he needs AB to win tests for South Africa. So, not inclduing him.

Kane Williamson has won 20 out of his 33 test matches he has captained while Virat Kohli has won 33 out of his 56 tests as a leader. Their W/L ratio is pretty similar, i.e, 2.5. Both have ensured their team wins most of the games at home while stay competitive away. Kane is a calm and composed nice gentlemanly captain while Virat is brat, aggressive and on-your face captain.

Who do you think is a greater captain between between the two?

Kane's is far more impressive given the amount of resources he has to work with. If Kane had Kohli's resources, he would have multiple ICC titles and would be world number 1 for years.

He's led a country of 4m to #1 in the world and was oh so close to winning a WC Final.

It's not close when it comes to who is the better captain and leader.

India literally just won a Test against Aus after an all time thrashing without Kohli. Does that happen with Kohli as captain? I don't know, Rahane was pretty spot on with his tactics and stepped up his batting once given the responsibility of captaincy.

 

[Mesozoic]

Even Williamson's left toe nail is a better captain than Kohli.

 

[160KPH]

I honestly believe that India win their matches despite Kohli’s captaincy, not because of it. Just look at what Rahane did with the same tools.

 

[Aman]

I honestly believe that India win their matches despite Kohli’s captaincy, not because of it. Just look at what Rahane did with the same tools.

That's the thing, India would win those matches without Kohli as captain.

Any difference Kohli makes is marginal at best. You could argue it's the other way around too and say India would be more successful under Rohit and Rahane and Kohli is underperforming with the talent and resources he has at his disposal.

Consistently playing in Eng, Aus and SA irrespective of results is a massive boost and valuable experience for your players. Something NZ, Pakistan and SL players don't get.

 

[Hyperion66]

Won't comment who the better captain is, but Kolhi is the one who leads by example with his performance.

I agree completely.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

Kohli is not even the best captain in his own country IMO.

 

[King_Kohli]

Kane does both better than Kohli.

Kohli is the better batsmen, Kane is the better captain and leader.

vsSA
Away:
Kane - Won Zero Matches
Kohli - Won one Test

At home:
Kane - Lost the series
Kohli - Won the series


vs Aus
Away:
Kane - Own Zero Matches & Zero Draws
Kohli - Won 3 Matches & One Draw (Own the series)

in SL
Kane - Own Zero Series
Kohli - Own 2 Series

 

[Aman]

vsSA
Away:
Kane - Won Zero Matches
Kohli - Won one Test

At home:
Kane - Lost the series
Kohli - Won the series


vs Aus
Away:
Kane - Own Zero Matches & Zero Draws
Kohli - Won 3 Matches & One Draw (Own the series)

in SL
Kane - Own Zero Series
Kohli - Own 2 Series

What part of resources don't you get?

Kohli has played double the number of matches than Kane has in any of those conditions.

You can keep pointing to your misleading stats when the rest of the world knows how it is.

We'll see if Kohli still has a job come next year and whether he's kicked from captaincy with any izaat intact or not.

 

[Aman]

Kohli is not even the best captain in his own country IMO.

He's not even the second best captain in his country?

If Dhoni is still around, he might not even be the third best captain in his country.

This thread is laughable especially given how half of India wants him removed as captain. Maybe more after how India fared without him.

I'm offended by this comparison, you may as well be comparing Chris Martin's batting to Tendulkar's.

 

[James Steven]

I must say that Kane's decision of bowling Santer in final overs was a masterstroke because the way Boult and Southee were bowling, they wouldn't have taken the final wicket even in 100 overs. Short ball, half volleys. All the useless lengths against two tailenders.

Coming back to the topic, it has been proven that Kohli panics under pressure whereas Kane is cool and calm in the mould of Dhoni.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

He's not even the second best captain in his country?

If Dhoni is still around, he might not even be the third best captain in his country.

This thread is laughable especially given how half of India wants him removed as captain. Maybe more after how India fared without him.

I'm offended by this comparison, you may as well be comparing Chris Martin's batsmenship to Tendulkar's.

Kohli is a great batsman. And as captain has not done badly at all. But he has his limits.

However, in ODIs Rohit has always given the impression of being a better captain, and in Tests now Rahane.

For overall captaincy competence, look at Kohli's record in IPL. he's captained RCB for 8 (IIRC) seasons, with a wealth of talented players (AB for starters) and has not won a single time! In fact has done horribly many years.

And yeah, as an Indian fan, I think his time as captain should come to a close (but won't given domestic realpolitik)

 

[Aman]

Kohli is a great batsman. However, in ODIs Rohit has always given the impression of being a better captain, and in Tests now Rahane.

For overall captaincy competence, look at Kohli's record in IPL. he's captained RCB for 8 (IIRC) seasons, with a wealth of talented players (AB for starters) and has not won a single time! In fact has done horribly many years.

That's what happens when you don't have a massive advantage over the rest of your opponents. The gap in IPL in quality is a lot smaller, in international cricket it isn't the case.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

Also I definitely don't agree with your Chris Martin SRT comparison, it's not that bad

 

[Ab Fan]

In LOIs, I don't rate Kohli's captaincy. But in tests, he is very good. Johannesburg 2018 is an example which proves how great the leader he is.

 

[Buffet]

Kohli is a very good leader. Pacers were not really doing that well under Dhoni. Kohli changed that.

Kohli is not great at selecting teams. His selection probably cost a few tests.

Kane is good at tactics and using resources. I will say Kane is a better captain.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

I like Kohli from what I see as a person- IMO he has the right ideas about Test cricket, about playing the game, and (I suspect) about issues outside cricket,

The trouble is that Kohli as a batsman is such a superstar, and also innately has such an overpowering personality, that no one is able to deans up to him- board or players. The cricket historian Ramchandra Guha spoke recently about how BCCI was in absolute awe of him.

As a result no one in the board or the team can second guess or question him, no one wants to be the protruding nail that gets hammered down. Kumble as national coach tried it and was gone toot suite, bang!

So they (players) all try to be (IMO) what he thinks they should be; at the same time noticeably they seem to get a sense of freedom when he's not around.

The last guy who seemed to be able to guide him was Dhoni.

There are good and bad things to his style of captaincy; he has noticeably encouraged Indian fast bowling, for example. However, his tactical acumen is many times lacking, his player selection/ backing isn't all that good, and has record in ICC tourneys, well....

Which is why I feel he has to go. But I'll bet a few bucks he won't.

 

[King_Kohli]

Kane's is far more impressive given the amount of resources he has to work with.

Resources:
Both are same in test batting. Except Kohli and Pujara rest all are mediocre batters in OS.
In ODI - India has better resources.

Kane (3rd Rank)
Boult (N0-1 in ODI & 13th in Tests)
Southee (4th Rank)
Wagner (3rd Rank)
Ferguson
Tom Latham (10th Rank)
Ross Tylor (17th Rank & 4th)
Nicholls (12 th Rank)
Matt Henry (9th in ODI)
Collin Munro (8th in T20)
Tim Siefert (8th in T20)
CDG (7th Rank)

Nz Resources are not bad as you trying to project, they are world class players.

 

[skhe8057]

What has Williamson's NZ team achieved thus far.. except beating poor Asian teams at home. Their no1 ranking is due to a favourable schedule.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Kane is the best captain in the world right now. World Cup winner and now the Test mace.

 

[Space Cat]

Personally i feel Kane is the better captain by a decent margin but Kohli will end up being the more successful of the two.

 

[Mamoon]

Kohli is the best Asian Test captain of all time.

Williamson is a good captain but he gets overrated both as a batsman and as captain because of his gentleman image and the neutral profile of the NZ team.

He gets about 100x more leniency than the likes of Kohli, Smith and Root.

 

[Square Drive]

Kane is the best captain in the world right now. World Cup winner and now the Test mace.

I see what you did there

 

[Hasan123]

Williamson is the better captain. But Kohli is a good captain in his own right.

 

[Aman]

Kohli is the best Asian Test captain of all time.

Williamson is a good captain but he gets overrated both as a batsman and as captain because of his gentleman image and the neutral profile of the NZ team.

He gets about 100x more leniency than the likes of Kohli, Smith and Root.

LOL at trying to sneak Root into this discussion

He's a distant to them as a batsmen and captain.

 

[Aman]

Resources:
Both are same in test batting. Except Kohli and Pujara rest all are mediocre batters in OS.
In ODI - India has better resources.

Kane (3rd Rank)
Boult (N0-1 in ODI & 13th in Tests)
Southee (4th Rank)
Wagner (3rd Rank)
Ferguson
Tom Latham (10th Rank)
Ross Tylor (17th Rank & 4th)
Nicholls (12 th Rank)
Matt Henry (9th in ODI)
Collin Munro (8th in T20)
Tim Siefert (8th in T20)
CDG (7th Rank)

Nz Resources are not bad as you trying to project, they are world class players.

Population of 2b compared to 4m.

Money, consistent tours to major countries, multiple Tests, world class facilities, IPL to have your young players play against some of the best players in the world.

That's a major advantage. If Kane had all that in his disposal, he would have multiple ICC trophies, multiple major series wins and a long run at #1 in the world. Look at what he's achieved with NZ - a country of 4m where cricket is not one of the major sports.

 

[Hasan123]

Kane's is far more impressive given the amount of resources he has to work with. If Kane had Kohli's resources, he would have multiple ICC titles and would be world number 1 for years.

He's led a country of 4m to #1 in the world and was oh so close to winning a WC Final.

It's not close when it comes to who is the better captain and leader.

India literally just won a Test against Aus after an all time thrashing without Kohli. Does that happen with Kohli as captain? I don't know, Rahane was pretty spot on with his tactics and stepped up his batting once given the responsibility of captaincy.

"Nearly won the World Cup ". Kohli has won the World Cup.

 

[Aman]

"Nearly won the World Cup ". Kohli has won the World Cup.

Kohli wasn't captain when they won the WC.

They've only disappointed in ICC tournaments under him.

 

[Dingolfy]

Population of 2b compared to 4m.

Money, consistent tours to major countries, multiple Tests, world class facilities, IPL to have your young players play against some of the best players in the world.

That's a major advantage. If Kane had all that in his disposal, he would have multiple ICC trophies, multiple major series wins and a long run at #1 in the world. Look at what he's achieved with NZ - a country of 4m where cricket is not one of the major sports.

Population mean nothing if majority of them are under poverty. An average kiwi kid has better access to resources, infrastructure, playing grounds and good coaching that an average Indian kid. Plus he would be bigger and stronger on average.
I live in Sydney now and I see quality cricket grounds everywhere I go. I can bet you a million dollars that my kids would have better chance of making in sports than any of my relatives’s ones in India thanks to the superior infrastructure and resources.

 

[Hasan123]

Kohli wasn't captain when they won the WC.

They've only disappointed in ICC tournaments under him.

He still has won the WC . Your boy Kane has not. You say trophies matter, Kohli has a lot more than your boy Kane. Also Kohli has a won a test series as captain in Australia . Your boy Kane record in England,South Africa, and India is not very impressive in tests.

I get saying Williamson is a better captain, I agree with that. But Kohli is certainly the better batsmen in all formats.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

He still has won the WC . Your boy Kane has not. You say trophies matter, Kohli has a lot more than your boy Kane. Also Kohli has a won a test series as captain in Australia . Your boy Kane record in England,South Africa, and India is not very impressive in tests.

I get saying Williamson is a better captain, I agree with that. But Kohli is certainly the better batsmen in all formats.

Kane Williamson has won the same number of World Cups as Virat Kohli. That too with a man of the tournament which Kohli does not have.

But yes Kohli is the better batsman. Who said he isn’t?

 

[Hasan123]

Kane Williamson has won the same number of World Cups as Virat Kohli. That too with a man of the tournament which Kohli does not have.

But yes Kohli is the better batsman. Who said he isn’t?

I'm sure Kohli would rather have a winners medal than a man of the tournament, just like every player would rather have that.

I'm sure Aman has said Williamson is better than Kohli. I maybe mistaken, and If he hasn't I have seen other posters say Williamson is better.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

I'm sure Kohli would rather have a winners medal than a man of the tournament, just like every player would rather have that.

I'm sure Aman has said Williamson is better than Kohli. I maybe mistaken, and If he hasn't I have seen other posters say Williamson is better.

Like I said, Williamson has won just as many world cups as Kohli. If the ICC had a spine, they’d acknowledge it publicly and officially, but Williamson is a World Cup winner in pretty much everyone’s book including the Umpires who sat there in Lord’s that fateful day.

 

[Ab Fan]

Like I said, Williamson has won just as many world cups as Kohli. If the ICC had a spine, they’d acknowledge it publicly and officially, but <B>Williamson is a World Cup winner in pretty much everyone’s book</B> including the Umpires who sat there in Lord’s that fateful day.

In the only book that matters, he is not a world cup winner. On other hand, Joseph Edward Root is a World Cup winner.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

In the only book that matters, he is not a world cup winner. On other hand, Joseph Edward Root is a World Cup winner.

I don’t think the ICC book is the one that matters. Fans are the ones who propel the game and who keep the record books alive for decades after the fact through our conversations and reverent memories. We all know what happened that day, and so long as we don’t forget, Kane Williamson is the real champion of that World Cup.

 

[ahmedzee]

If it is between Kane and Kohli, I pick Kane. Kohli is a horrible captain, sorry to say. He is a great batsman though.

However if the OP said, who is the best captain of the generation (Kane vs Dhoni), I would easily pick Dhoni. Generation has to be 20 years, not as short sighted as 5 that is hinted in this thread.

 

[Titan24]

I believe Williamson tactically is arguably the best captain around alongside Morgan who only captains in white ball cricket. His overall reading of the game and making something happen when things are down is pretty impressive.

At the same time Kohli’s ability to lead from front and his overall record as captain cant be ignored.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

In tests, Kohli by a countrymile.
The fast bowling renaissance happened under him and that alone is a bigger achievement than whatever Kane has done in tests.
The series win in Australia was legendary.

Secondly, what has kane achieved away from home in tests?

In LOI Kane is ahead but he hasn't won anything of note in LOI too, it will be sad if Kane retires without any icc trophy (kohli has won 2 as a player).

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I don’t think the ICC book is the one that matters. Fans are the ones who propel the game and who keep the record books alive for decades after the fact through our conversations and reverent memories. We all know what happened that day, and so long as we don’t forget, Kane Williamson is the real champion of that World Cup.

England is easily a better loi team than nz and even if we consider that the match was a tie England rightfully won the cup as their performance was better in group stage.
The only reason nz qualified is bcoz pak vs sl match was washed out. They were lucky

 

[Thunderbolt14]

England is easily a better loi team than nz and even if we consider that the match was a tie England rightfully won the cup as their performance was better in group stage.
The only reason nz qualified is bcoz pak vs sl match was washed out. They were lucky

I’m talking about the overthrow runs. That match shouldn’t have even gone to super over - if the Umpires didn’t make that mistake, Kane would be the winner right now.

Secondly, no guarantee we would have won against SL, I don’t know why so many Pakistanis go on about that as if it’s a confirmed point. Almost everyone was hit by rain, NZ went to the final fair and square, and if all was fair and square they would have won it officially too. Unofficially, they’re the ODI champions right now in addition to holding the Test mace.

 

[Hyperion66]

Kane Williamson is the real champion of that World Cup.

Bhai aab ye thoda zyada ho gaya lol. He did win all the hearts, lungs and kidneys that day just not the world cup.

 

[naseem]

Kane Williamson....he is somewhat a mixture of McCullum and Dhoni......calm as Dhoni and unorthodox aggressive as his former captain....
But the bowling resources he has is great too...
Now Kane has good batters too across formats
also

 

[naseem]

England is easily a better loi team than nz and even if we consider that the match was a tie England rightfully won the cup as their performance was better in group stage.
The only reason nz qualified is bcoz pak vs sl match was washed out. They were lucky

I agree ....NZ was poor and lucky in group stages......could have easily lost to Windies
and Bangladesh...in group stages.....was horrible
against Australia too...

England were far better team

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Bhai aab ye thoda zyada ho gaya lol. He did win all the hearts, lungs and kidneys that day just not the world cup.

Kyun bhaiyya, isn’t the world cup awarded to the team that puts up more runs than the other? It was never a tie to begin with.

I’m just speaking from the fan’s perspective. For all intents and purposes Kane’s captaincy and batting was “good enough” to win his country a world cup, why should he be penalized in a discussion of his captaincy that he didn’t win an ICC trophy?

 

[Ab Fan]

Kyun bhaiyya, isn’t the world cup awarded to the team that puts up more runs than the other? It was never a tie to begin with.

I’m just speaking from the fan’s perspective. For all intents and purposes Kane’s captaincy and batting was “good enough” to win his country a world cup, why should he be penalized in a discussion of his captaincy that he didn’t win an ICC trophy?

There is no need to unnecessarily award the World Cup trophy to KW. You can see with some posts above that fan's perspective is not same. It is mixed, a lot of them believes that England were far better team than NZ.

Anyways, for LOIs, the argument can be for Kane because he led NZ team to the world Cup finals and helped his team deliver an all-round performance in finals even though that team is at best 4th ranked team in ODIs. Irrespective of world Cup loss, it was a tremendous performance and deserves appreciation.

 

[Ab Fan]

There is no need to unnecessarily award the World Cup trophy to KW. You can see with some posts above that fan's perspective is not same. It is mixed, a lot of them believes that England were far better team than NZ.

Anyways, for LOIs, the argument can be for Kane because he led NZ team to the world Cup finals and helped his team deliver an all-round performance in finals even though that team is at best 4th ranked team in ODIs. Irrespective of world Cup <B>loss</B>, it was a tremendous performance and deserves appreciation.

Fixed

 

[ufcfan]

Even on batting parameters Kane is way ahead of Kohli, don't care about past records

 

[Mamoon]

LOL at trying to sneak Root into this discussion

He's a distant to them as a batsmen and captain.

Williamson’s batting record against the good bowling attacks is so average. Root, in spite of being in a slump for years, still has a better record against pretty much every strong bowling attack. That says it all really.

Williamson is a very nice loser, you have to give him that. ICC gave him Stokes’ player of the tournament award in the 2019 World Cup out of charity because of the way he conducted himself on the pitch.

Everyone knew Stokes was by far the best player of the World Cup.

 

[Mamoon]

I don’t think the ICC book is the one that matters. Fans are the ones who propel the game and who keep the record books alive for decades after the fact through our conversations and reverent memories. We all know what happened that day, and so long as we don’t forget, Kane Williamson is the real champion of that World Cup.

Fans don’t get to decide anything. Only the ICC has the authority to determine winners and losers. Fans have no authority.

Even if every single fan in the world decides to recognize NZ as the 2019 World Cup winner, it will not change anything. England won that World Cup and nothing can change that fact. The whining of the fans will not change anything.

 

[Mamoon]

England winning the World Cup final in that fasion was not a bigger farce than Williamson stealing Stokes’ player of the World Cup award because ICC took pity on him and decided to console him.

Stokes produced one of the greatest performances ever by an individual player in a World Cup.

 

[Mesozoic]

Even on batting parameters Kane is way ahead of Kohli, don't care about past records

Lol okay.

Hanuma Vihari is better than Babar Azam , don't care about their records.

 

[Mamoon]

Even on batting parameters Kane is way ahead of Kohli, don't care about past records

Check his record against quality attacks. The gap between Kohli and Williamson as a Test batsman is almost as big as the gap between Kohli and Babar.

Williamson is about two levels below Kohli.

Williamson is one of those players who will never be criticized or scrutinized. He never has to suffer from “microanalysis” like other players. That is why most fans are ignorant about how ordinary his record is against quality bowling attacks.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

England winning the World Cup final in that fasion was not a bigger farce than Williamson stealing Stokes’ player of the World Cup award because ICC took pity on him and decided to console him.

Stokes produced one of the greatest performances ever by an individual player in a World Cup.

I agree, both were farces. The awards should have been the other way around.

 

[Hyperion66]

Kyun bhaiyya, isn’t the world cup awarded to the team that puts up more runs than the other? It was never a tie to begin with.

I’m just speaking from the fan’s perspective. For all intents and purposes Kane’s captaincy and batting was “good enough” to win his country a world cup, why should he be penalized in a discussion of his captaincy that he didn’t win an ICC trophy?

I understand where you are coming from, but end of the day there are no real or fake winners just winners, a win not so fair and square is still a win and England won that match. No amount of Kane winning hearts or gaining sympathies is gonna change that fact.

BTW fans do not have a homogeneous thought process, you do not represent 'The Fan's' perspective just yours alone. Even in this forum there are quite a few who would disagree with your take on this topic. Kane's batting and captaincy was good but if that was 'Enough' he would have lifted the trophy not Joe Root.

 

[Ab Fan]

I understand where you are coming from, but end of the day there are no real or fake winners just winners, a win not so fair and square is still a win and England won that match. No amount of Kane winning hearts or gaining sympathies is gonna change that fact.

BTW fans do not have a homogeneous thought process, you do not represent 'The Fan's' perspective just yours alone. Even in this forum there are quite a few who would disagree with your take on this topic. <B>Kane's batting and captaincy was good but if that was 'Enough' he would have lifted the trophy not Joe Root</B>.

Yes, I am a World Cup winner. I am surprised people are not mentioning my name, only talking about Williamson. Root is a World Cup winner, not Kane.

 

[Mamoon]

And those who are waxing lyrical over Williamson’s captaincy in the World Cup, don’t forget that his team qualified for the semifinals on NRR.

 

[Mamoon]

I agree, both were farces. The awards should have been the other way around.

Umpiring mistakes happen. It is part of the game. It is unfortunate that it happened at such a crucial time but it is what it is.

On the other hand, awarding Williamson the player of the World Cup as a consolation award was not a heat of the moment call. ICC had ample time to think it through but they got carried away with the euphoria of the final.

Anyway, not that Stokes would care so much. He is part of the first England squad to win a World Cup.

 

[Mobashir]

Fans don’t get to decide anything. Only the ICC has the authority to determine winners and losers. Fans have no authority.

Even if every single fan in the world decides to recognize NZ as the 2019 World Cup winner, it will not change anything. England won that World Cup and nothing can change that fact. The whining of the fans will not change anything.

36 *

* mamoon's bias.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

TBF even batting wise Kane did'nt set the world on fire in 2019 world cup
He scored 578 runs but at a meagre strike rate of 74.In 2019 its a crime to play at 74 str rate
The only reason his innings werent criticised is because newzealand's bowling lineup was doing well.

Also the man of the tournament award should have been given to Shakib and not Williamson or Stokes.

 

[Hasan123]

Like I said, Williamson has won just as many world cups as Kohli. If the ICC had a spine, they’d acknowledge it publicly and officially, but Williamson is a World Cup winner in pretty much everyone’s book including the Umpires who sat there in Lord’s that fateful day.

The records show England are the World Cup winners so Kane Williamson has 0 World Cup medals no matter how you try and spin it.

 

[Mamoon]

36 *

* mamoon's bias.

And I accept it, even though I do not agree with ICC’s logic. People can disagree with ICC declaring England the World Cup winner, but that doesn’t mean they can pretend that England aren’t the world champions.

 

[Thunderbolt14]

Interesting that many of you aren’t willing to back Williamson when even the Umpire that day admitted he made a mistake about that overthrow call.

If it were Pakistan or India in such a situation, I feel people would be a lot more passionate about this. Kane’s biggest mistake was being way too nice and letting this ziyadti happen to him and NZ, robbing them of a well deserved win.

But that being said, this thread isn’t about whether he won officially or not. So forget the above. It’s about his captaincy and everyone saw how he marshaled NZ to the final, that too inches from the trophy.

The vibes I’m getting from this thread, might be wrong, is that people are saying he’s an excellent captain but would be an even better captain if he had an ICC trophy. In other words, you’re saying he’s not as good a captain because of an ICC error. If in an alternate universe that incorrect umpire call hadn’t happened, you’d rate Kane’s captaincy better simply because he has a medal to show for it?

That doesn’t make sense. The captaincy calls, fielding changes, bowling changes are exactly the same in both of these alternate universes. Why does one Kane get more credit than the other Kane?

 

[Ab Fan]

Interesting that many of you aren’t willing to back Williamson when even the Umpire that day admitted he made a mistake about that overthrow call.

If it were Pakistan or India in such a situation, I feel people would be a lot more passionate about this. Kane’s biggest mistake was being way too nice and letting this ziyadti happen to him and NZ, robbing them of a well deserved win.

But that being said, this thread isn’t about whether he won officially or not. So forget the above. It’s about his captaincy and everyone saw how he marshaled NZ to the final, that too inches from the trophy.

The vibes I’m getting from this thread, might be wrong, is that people are saying he’s an excellent captain but would be an even better captain if he had an ICC trophy. In other words, you’re saying he’s not as good a captain because of an ICC error. If in an alternate universe that incorrect umpire call hadn’t happened, you’d rate Kane’s captaincy better simply because he has a medal to show for it?

That doesn’t make sense. The captaincy calls, fielding changes, bowling changes are exactly the same in both of these alternate universes. Why does one Kane get more credit than the other Kane?

That's a good post. Winning a trophy is all good but captaincy is what it is. A deflection doesn't change anything. Also, England being a better ODI team than New Zealand overall doesn't tell anything about Kane's captaincy. It tells us only about the team overall strength.

 

[Mamoon]

The World Cup badly exposed the misery of Pakistani fans.

Until the semifinals, they kept calling NZ a lucky team and was bashing them for their cowardly performance against England in the group game.

They kept saying that the only reason NZ qualified for the semifinals undeservingly was because Pakistan vs SL was washed out.

Williamson was called a defensive captain who was more interested in protecting his NRR rather than trying to beat England.

However, after the semifinal and final, the narrative changed and NZ became the unluckiest team in the world and Williamson became the greatest and unluckiest captain in the world.

 

[King_Kohli]

The World Cup badly exposed the misery of Pakistani fans.

Until the semifinals, they kept calling NZ a lucky team and was bashing them for their cowardly performance against England in the group game.

They kept saying that the only reason NZ qualified for the semifinals undeservingly was because Pakistan vs SL was washed out.

Williamson was called a defensive captain who was more interested in protecting his NRR rather than trying to beat England.

However, after the semifinal and final, the narrative changed and NZ became the unluckiest team in the world and Williamson became the greatest and unluckiest captain in the world.

Yon can find this in at least 10 threads

 

[Mobashir]

And I accept it, even though I do not agree with ICC’s logic. People can disagree with ICC declaring England the World Cup winner, but that doesn’t mean they can pretend that England aren’t the world champions.

Most people, including you, are not in phase with their own thinking.
You moaned for 3 days for the star to be put next to the 36 so let other people do the same for the world cup.

For me England won the world cup and Kohli's India made the lower test score in the past 60 years.

 

[Mobashir]

Interesting that many of you aren’t willing to back Williamson when even the Umpire that day admitted he made a mistake about that overthrow call.

If it were Pakistan or India in such a situation, I feel people would be a lot more passionate about this. Kane’s biggest mistake was being way too nice and letting this ziyadti happen to him and NZ, robbing them of a well deserved win.

But that being said, this thread isn’t about whether he won officially or not. So forget the above. It’s about his captaincy and everyone saw how he marshaled NZ to the final, that too inches from the trophy.

The vibes I’m getting from this thread, might be wrong, is that people are saying he’s an excellent captain but would be an even better captain if he had an ICC trophy. In other words, you’re saying he’s not as good a captain because of an ICC error. If in an alternate universe that incorrect umpire call hadn’t happened, you’d rate Kane’s captaincy better simply because he has a medal to show for it?

That doesn’t make sense. The captaincy calls, fielding changes, bowling changes are exactly the same in both of these alternate universes. Why does one Kane get more credit than the other Kane?

It's not about backing or not backing Williamson.
The world cup is over and upmirng misktakes happens, you don't change the result after the match. In any case that match was one of the best shows of cricket, ever. Whoever lost they would have been "unlucky".

 

[KoyoAli]

Stay on topic, do not go post unrelated stuff.

 

[Aman]

Check his record against quality attacks. The gap between Kohli and Williamson as a Test batsman is almost as big as the gap between Kohli and Babar.

Williamson is about two levels below Kohli.

Williamson is one of those players who will never be criticized or scrutinized. He never has to suffer from “microanalysis” like other players. That is why most fans are ignorant about how ordinary his record is against quality bowling attacks.

If Kohli had 2 Tests per series every 3-5 years and batted at 3 those numbers would look pretty similar.

There's a world of difference between batting at 3 and 4 especially in testing conditions against the new ball.

 

[Aman]

Interesting that many of you aren’t willing to back Williamson when even the Umpire that day admitted he made a mistake about that overthrow call.

If it were Pakistan or India in such a situation, I feel people would be a lot more passionate about this. Kane’s biggest mistake was being way too nice and letting this ziyadti happen to him and NZ, robbing them of a well deserved win.

But that being said, this thread isn’t about whether he won officially or not. So forget the above. It’s about his captaincy and everyone saw how he marshaled NZ to the final, that too inches from the trophy.

The vibes I’m getting from this thread, might be wrong, is that people are saying he’s an excellent captain but would be an even better captain if he had an ICC trophy. In other words, you’re saying he’s not as good a captain because of an ICC error. If in an alternate universe that incorrect umpire call hadn’t happened, you’d rate Kane’s captaincy better simply because he has a medal to show for it?

That doesn’t make sense. The captaincy calls, fielding changes, bowling changes are exactly the same in both of these alternate universes. Why does one Kane get more credit than the other Kane?

He made one mistake in the WC Final and that was giving Boult the super over, had Lockie bowled it we'd probably be world champions.

But it is what it is.

 

[Aman]

TBF even batting wise Kane did'nt set the world on fire in 2019 world cup
He scored 578 runs but at a meagre strike rate of 74.In 2019 its a crime to play at 74 str rate
The only reason his innings werent criticised is because newzealand's bowling lineup was doing well.

Also the man of the tournament award should have been given to Shakib and not Williamson or Stokes.

Yeah because we played on the sluggyish pitches, that's why most of our games were 200 run games. Heck, had Kohli batted at that strike rate and survived on a rare decent pitch India got in the tournament, India would have played the Final.

I would never trade Kohli for Kane as captain, I'd take him as a batsmen but if we were make him captain he'd make us weaker. Kind of like India who have won and played better without him.

 

[Aman]

Those saying Kohli forget to mention how half if not a considerable amount more of his own countrymen wants him gone

 

[Aman]

He still has won the WC . Your boy Kane has not. You say trophies matter, Kohli has a lot more than your boy Kane. Also Kohli has a won a test series as captain in Australia . Your boy Kane record in England,South Africa, and India is not very impressive in tests.

I get saying Williamson is a better captain, I agree with that. But Kohli is certainly the better batsmen in all formats.

Never disputed that, I even called him the better batsmen in the first post.

Also, there's a world of difference between India winning a WC and NZ winning a WC. NZ have never won a WC before and nor do we have the resources to go into a WC as strong favorites like India usually do with the resources they have available to them.


In our lifetimes NZ may never win a WC, India could win another 4-5 and that could be all after Kohli retires.