“There was a moment where we…”: Kane Williamson opens up on Fab Four comparison

Kane Williamson Reflects on Cricket’s ‘Fab Four’ and a Decade of Comparisons

For years, cricket fans have debated which member of the celebrated “Fab Four” stands above the rest. Virat Kohli, Steve Smith, Joe Root and Kane Williamson have each built remarkable careers, inspiring comparisons across formats and generations. But Williamson says the label was never something he spent much time thinking about while he was playing.

Speaking on the Stick to Cricket podcast, the former New Zealand captain looked back on the phrase with fresh perspective. Rather than treating the four batters as rivals in a contest for statistical supremacy, he described their parallel careers as a distinctive feature of modern cricket—and said he enjoyed watching how each player found his own way to succeed.

How the ‘Fab Four’ Label Began

The term “Fab Four” was popularised in 2014 by former New Zealand captain Martin Crowe. In an article that year, Crowe grouped Williamson, Kohli, Smith and Root together as the leading young Test batters of their era. The phrase quickly caught on, becoming shorthand for a generation of players expected to shape international cricket for years.

That forecast proved well founded. Across different teams and playing conditions, the four developed into central figures for New Zealand, India, Australia and England. Their careers have unfolded side by side, giving supporters a natural basis for comparison. Runs, centuries, averages, captaincy records and performances in major series have all featured in the ongoing debate over who is the best of the group.

Yet the label also simplifies four distinct cricketing identities. Each batter has faced different opposition, conditions and responsibilities, while bringing a different temperament and technique to the game. Williamson’s comments offer a reminder that the appeal of the Fab Four may lie not only in the numbers, but in the contrasting styles that made their era compelling.

Williamson Says He Never Focused on the Comparisons

Williamson admitted that he heard the Fab Four discussion regularly, but did not make it a personal measure of success. The comparisons were often presented to the players by commentators and fans, he explained, rather than forming part of his own thinking about the game.

“I never thought anything about it,” Williamson said. He added that, now that he has stepped away from his international career, the idea of four players sharing such parallel journeys seems “quite unique.”

His response stands apart from the constant statistical analysis that surrounds elite sport. For supporters, a prediction about which member of the group will finish with the strongest record can be a popular talking point. For Williamson, however, the more meaningful perspective came from looking back at the careers they built and the relationships they formed along the way.

He also cautioned against reducing the conversation to numbers. The four represented different countries and achieved success through approaches suited to their own strengths. That distinction matters when assessing long careers: a player’s record is shaped not just by skill, but by role, conditions, team demands and the challenges encountered over time.

From Youth Cricket to the International Stage

Williamson’s connection with some of his fellow Fab Four members goes back well before the label existed. He recalled playing alongside Joe Root at Yorkshire and meeting Virat Kohli through Under-19 cricket. He also crossed paths with Steve Smith during the early stages of their careers.

Those early encounters gave the players a perspective that fans rarely see. While the public followed their progress through scorecards and headlines, the batters themselves watched one another develop into established international stars. Williamson said he had spent more time with Root and Kohli over the years, while his interactions with Smith were more limited.

Even so, he spoke warmly about all three. Rather than describing them as direct rivals, he said he admired how each went about the game. That appreciation reflects a broader truth about elite cricket: competition on the field can exist alongside respect for the skill, discipline and adaptability required to perform at the highest level.

Four Different Styles, One Defining Era

The Fab Four have often been grouped together because they emerged around the same period and became dependable run-scorers for their countries. But their batting personalities are far from identical. Kohli is widely associated with intensity and assertive stroke play; Smith is known for an unconventional technique and exceptional concentration; Root blends fluent timing with a broad range of scoring options; and Williamson has earned recognition for composure, balance and precision.

These differences help explain why the debate has lasted so long. There is no single measure that settles the question for every fan. One supporter may prioritise consistency, another may value match-winning innings, and another may focus on performance across formats or in difficult overseas conditions. As a result, any prediction about an undisputed “best” depends on the criteria being used.

Williamson’s perspective shifts the focus from ranking to appreciation. The four players did not need to be identical—or to share the same career path—to belong in the same conversation. Their contrasting methods gave cricket followers several different models of excellence to watch and learn from.

Why the Fab Four Debate Still Matters

Even as careers change and players move into new stages, the Fab Four remains a useful way to discuss a remarkable period in international cricket. The label captures more than a collection of individual records: it reflects the simultaneous rise of four influential batters who repeatedly carried the expectations of their nations.

Williamson’s remarks also provide a more personal angle on a debate usually driven by statistics. He remembers not only competing against the others, but sharing dressing rooms, playing youth cricket and observing their growth. His comments suggest that admiration and rivalry do not have to be opposites.

For fans, the next comparison may be another prediction about records, milestones or how the four will ultimately be remembered. Williamson, however, appears less interested in declaring a winner. His lasting impression is of four different characters who followed parallel paths, represented their countries in their own ways and made a generation of cricket richer through their individual approaches.