Kane Williamson

[Blocky]

To be honest, any other international side in the world would have made that move considering we seem to have a few middle order batsmen who are definitely worth trying at the moment - you've got Anderson and Neesham who have both performed in their limited starts in test cricket and could well be worth trying as our 5 and 6. Not to mention one of them could play 7 and you move Watling up to 6.

This idea that Taylor should be allowed to camp out at 4 without any change or consideration for where the team needs him to play is beyond me. I'd rather see us use Williamson and Latham as openers and give ourselves a chance to be 50/0 rather than 15/1

 

[straw man]

Said this a while back, but theres no reason KW shouldn't reach 30 test hundreds.

yeah. the lofty heights of 17 don't really cut it when he already has 7 as a 24yo.

Given that he's unlikely to ever be a T20 superstar, and that he has a sound defensive technique that should stand the test of time, I see no reason why Williamson shouldn't play to 36/37 (barring a Crowe-esque injury). That gives him another 13 or so years. NZ usually plays around 8-9 tests a year, so that gives him a maximum of of around 110 tests between now and retirement. Assuming he'll have a few absences along the way, that'll probably be reduced to around 100. Given that he's hit 5 centuries in his last 19 tests, and looks to be improving with almost every series, I see no reason why he shouldn't hit 30 hundreds comfortably.

Well you guys are optimistic! As am I and I admire Williamson too but thirty hundreds is A LOT. Only ten players have that in test history:
Records | Test matches | Batting records | Most hundreds in a career | ESPN Cricinfo

He might be on that trajectory now but we can't expect him to constantly churn out runs, always at the top of his game (and averaging 50), for the next decade without a few things getting in the way. Alastair Cook was on course to reach Tendulkar's record at one point but is now providing a good example of what Captaincy and form can do, which is something Williamson will need to grapple with. Then there's injury, long form slumps, age, and even if he beats those, there's desire - it's an unusual person that keeps wanting to grind out those hundreds well after they've proven to themselves and everyone else that they have what it takes. I think that can be seen in the Records list actually - the large number of players that retire with 20-24 hundreds compared to the few that want to and are able to continue. Then there is the issue with number of tests played by NZ as blocky mentioned.

Would love it if he did of course, but the things I want to see are more short term - a hundred away against Pakistan, a hundred to two away in seam bowler's conditions in England, Australia and SA, smoothly taking over the captaincy and performing as both that and batsman, and then maybe I'll start to look at Crowe (or Taylor's) record.

 

[Meridio]

There's absolutely no reason to move Williamson up to opening. No matter how **** your openers are, batting at number 3 is still different, and seeing as KW has batted there virtually his entire life he's used to that mindset - why change?

Plus, Williamson's batting has been a huge strength in the last 18 months, and one of the main reasons for our success in that period. He's firmly established himself in the 3 position, and is growing with every series, becoming more consistent and putting up big scores. Why risk compromising one of our biggest strengths in the hope that it covers up a weakness?

 

[hendrix]

It's not as if he's shirking responsibility batting and batting at 5 like Clarke and Bell (and even then, their run output in those positions is a case to leave them there anyway). He's batting at 3, it's already a bloody difficult position.

 

[Blocky]

The reality is, his team has a position that has been a problem area for a number of years which ends up in him being at the crease within the first five overs anyway. The idea that "He's a natural three, let him play there" doesn't hold merit for me, considering the problem we have at the moment is that Rutherford and Fulton weren't able to last longer than 10 overs in any innings meaning we were always going to be one or two down for not many, meaning we're off to a bad start.

When other countries have had this issue, they generally resort to putting their #3 up due to the position not being that dissimilar. Rahul Dravid, Hashim Amla, Justin Langer, Stephen Fleming - all guys who have recently made that switch in order to create a more robust top order.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

The reality is, his team has a position that has been a problem area for a number of years which ends up in him being at the crease within the first five overs anyway. The idea that "He's a natural three, let him play there" doesn't hold merit for me, considering the problem we have at the moment is that Rutherford and Fulton weren't able to last longer than 10 overs in any innings meaning we were always going to be one or two down for not many, meaning we're off to a bad start.

When other countries have had this issue, they generally resort to putting their #3 up due to the position not being that dissimilar. Rahul Dravid, Hashim Amla, Justin Langer, Stephen Fleming - all guys who have recently made that switch in order to create a more robust top order.

what?

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I struggle to believe that Latham aside, we do not have a single opener in the country who can see out the first 10-20 overs of a test match.

 

[Blocky]

what?

Dravid - 17 matches as an opening batsman, averaged over 40.
Amla - Filled in for two matches as an opening batsman when Smith wasn't available.

You might struggle to believe that all you want, but the reality is, the last stable partnership we had at the top was Horne and Richardson a decade ago and even then Fleming and Richardson were the better combination. We're simply not producing enough test class opening batsmen to be able to take the luxury of asking one of our guys in the Top order with a background of performance ( Williamson, Ryder, Taylor, McCullum) to step up and solve our problem position for us.

 

[hendrix]

what?

Dravid did it in one series (against England).

He was highly successful while the rest of his team failed. One thinks that were he batting at 3, he still would have been highly successful while the rest of his team failed.

 

[hendrix]

Amla - Filled in for two matches as an opening batsman when Smith wasn't available.

But he's not going to open now, is he? The long term solution is to...find a long term solution.

 

[Blocky]

But he's not going to open now, is he? The long term solution is to...find a long term solution.

South Africa haven't had much of an issue producing quality opening batsmen though - we'd kill for an Alviro Petersen, let alone a Graeme Smith, Peter Kirsten, etc.

Williamson could be a long term opening solution, it's not asking him to go from #5 to #2. It's asking him to move one spot up to nail down a position, asking Taylor do to the same, then we can look at 4,5,6 and get our youth into those positions. At the moment we're asking our youth to come in to our biggest fail-point positions. That's just stupidity.

 

[Flem274*]

Opening and batting number three are very different mentally. There is more of a case for KW -> number 5 than KW -> opener since KW against spinners and pacers with the old ball should equal even more runs than he scores now.

Not to mention Taylor at three would be a mess. He has a fine reputation for resurrecting the innings from disaster but that's in spite of, not because of coming in early against the moving ball. Taylor is a nervy starter for his first 10 balls (yeah all batsmen can look bad in their first 10 balls but Taylor has made looking crap for 10 balls then transforming into a batsman and scoring a ton into an art form) but he's much better coming in against spin or seamers with the old ball than he is against lateral movement, which is to be expected from a guy who started his FC career at number five and moved up to four for the first time in test cricket after Fleming retired.

Compromising a strength to cover a weakness isn't something I buy into. Fleming moved up but he sucked at it one century against England aside, Langer only moved up because he couldn't get into the team otherwise and Dravid and Amla were shuffled back down pretty fast despite a steady stream of so-so openers following them.

I'm much happier persisting with blokes who've done it all their lives in FC cricket or guys who couldn't get into the team otherwise. We get more runs from KW and Taylor batting where they are than we would if we fiddled.

 

[Dan]

AWTA.

And let's face it, a batting line-up that features Baz at 4, Corey J at 5 and Neesh at 6 looks pretty damn short to me.

 

[Athlai]

The idea of Taylor not at 4 just angers me.

 

[Flem274*]

Incidentally, players ideally coming in against what they're best at is part of why I'm so happy Brownlie wants to open. His true place has been in the top order against fast bowling all along - he just had to get used to more movement than he was used to. Then he can get himself in before the spinner comes on because while he's not flash against it I think it gets exaggerated a bit. He handled Nathan Lyon, Ray Price and errr...Robbie P pretty well. Put him fresh at the crease against Graeme Swann, Saeed Ajmal or Rangana Herath though and you're wasting your time.

Brownlie with a bit of practice behind him might be our boy. No one who can score runs against a rampaging South Africa or Australia on helpful pitches is a no hoper.

 

[Meridio]

South Africa haven't had much of an issue producing quality opening batsmen though - we'd kill for an Alviro Petersen, let alone a Graeme Smith, Peter Kirsten, etc.

Williamson could be a long term opening solution, it's not asking him to go from #5 to #2. It's asking him to move one spot up to nail down a position, asking Taylor do to the same, then we can look at 4,5,6 and get our youth into those positions. At the moment we're asking our youth to come in to our biggest fail-point positions. That's just stupidity.

Well, Williamson came into what was one of our biggest fail positions and is now succeeding. Latham's also come in and has made a decent fist of it so far.

It just makes no sense to tinker with our biggest batting strength - Williamson/Taylor/McCullum in their current positions - to solve a problem elsewhere in the order.

 

[hendrix]

Incidentally, players ideally coming in against what they're best at is part of why I'm so happy Brownlie wants to open..

Honestly, we're just as likely to see a reverse Watling with Brownlie though.

Sometimes when individuals are the sole scorers in losing series it casts them in a bit of an amazing light. Daniel Vettori has played better innings than Brownlie - and while he's a good batsman, he wouldn't be our redemption at the top of the order.

That said, I think M Bracewell needs at least another season in domestic cricket, so I'd be willing to give Brownlie a shot. Think Flynn is a better option though.

 

[Flem274*]

Of course Dan has played good knocks, but comparing Brownlie and Vettori is a bit strange considering they're nothing alike.

Brownlie's two biggest issues opening would be he loves the cut shot a bit too much and he doesn't always get forward as much as he should early on. He would have to be more circumspect and self aware to open successfully, but his backfoot play is immense and he just understands batting to pace and bounce. He's really, really good at it.

Dan is even more cheeky with his cut shot than Brownlie and his technique is all kinds of bizarre in general. I think Vettori could have succeeded for a bit at the top through sheer force of will but Brownlie is a much more orthodox choice.

 

[Blocky]

Well, Williamson came into what was one of our biggest fail positions and is now succeeding. Latham's also come in and has made a decent fist of it so far.

It just makes no sense to tinker with our biggest batting strength - Williamson/Taylor/McCullum in their current positions - to solve a problem elsewhere in the order.

Williamson got a few tests at 6 before he was asked to go up the order. Even look at how England are using Joe Root. He's been an opener through his entire career yet they're not using him as an opener because they want to bed him into the test side first. The reality is, we're constantly selecting our youngest or most inexperienced players to come into a role where we have no background of success.

Having been a batsman who transformed himself from a middle order slogger to top order blocker, it's mentality - nothing more, nothing less. The whole "3 is just a different sport all together" is wrong. Because of how many openers have converted to three and vice versa. The reality is, we have a need to fill one of our opener spots, we have a few middle order batsmen starting to pile up as next cab off the rank, not even including Jesse Ryder. Williamson has been practically opening the batting to great effect recently, having been out in most games before the start of the fifth over. If he can't adjust his mentality to "Oh, I'm walking out with another player now" instead of "I'm walking past another player" which is about the only difference between the batting positions then you guys rate him even lower than I do.

 

[hendrix]

Williamson got a few tests at 6 before he was asked to go up the order. Even look at how England are using Joe Root. He's been an opener through his entire career yet they're not using him as an opener because they want to bed him into the test side first. .

They tried him at 6, then as an opener. When he failed as an opener, they moved him back to the middle order.

We don't want to be following England's example here.