Kane Williamson

[Flem274*]

....then you guys rate him even lower than I do.

hang on what?

 

[Hurricane]

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.

Have you ever been an opener for a decent period of time (two or more seasons) at any senior level? Or even club level? If you had I don't think you would be saying there isn't much difference between batting 3 and opening. Or if you do have that experience then your posts should be "richer" and more detailed about the difficulties Kane would have adjusting. And what he would have to do to make that transition.

 

[Meridio]

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.

If we have a few middle order batsmen that are next cabs off the rank, then they should be the ones thinking of moving up the order to fix the opening problem. Which obviously is what Brownlie's doing. Not that I have huge hopes there, but good luck to him anyway.

And myself being a batsman who grew up playing in the middle order, but having opened a lot in the last few years - I know that it's a different mentality, and that you can adjust, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is that we are short an opening batsman, but the solution is not to tinker with our established, successful middle order; it's to develop someone else to fill that position.

 

[hendrix]

If we have a few middle order batsmen that are next cabs off the rank, then they should be the ones thinking of moving up the order to fix the opening problem. Which obviously is what Brownlie's doing. Not that I have huge hopes there, but good luck to him anyway.

Yeah exactly. We want to get our best guys on the park? Get the ones who haven't nailed down a spot to make that change.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I was pretty sceptical of Williamson's supposedly enormous potential. For some reason, I couldn't see what people saw in him when they were praising him to the heavens. But by god he's improved out of sight and I have to say I'm a convert. You expect talented youngsters, even the best of them, to be patchy and produce moments of brilliance intermittently. But this bloke has actually become really consistent, which at this age is quite amazing for me.

Hope he gets better. It's a weird time in international cricket where suddenly we have more talented young bowlers than batsmen.

 

[ajdude]

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.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...nlie-test-cricketer-child-game-show-star.html

 

[Blocky]

Have you ever been an opener for a decent period of time (two or more seasons) at any senior level? Or even club level? If you had I don't think you would be saying there isn't much difference between batting 3 and opening. Or if you do have that experience then your posts should be "richer" and more detailed about the difficulties Kane would have adjusting. And what he would have to do to make that transition.

I played Hawke Cup as an opening batsman, three years after "retiring" as a seam bowler at representitive level. There is no difference except mindset. The idea that a good number three doesn't possess the ability to leave the ball well, to play the ball late and to restrict his shot options is bull****, it's something that is as simple as gameplan and mindset. If Williamson did not possess those skills - be it mentally and physically, then he has no business being our #3 when more often than not, he's in before the 10th over.

Williamson doesn't need to do much to transition, largely because for most of his last year he's played behind a very inconsistent opening pair that means he might as well have been opening - that last year has also been his best year in test cricket. So asking a #3 to push himself up one more spot in the order and face say the first ball of the second over, rather than a ball in the fifth over really isn't a stretch.

If we have a few middle order batsmen that are next cabs off the rank, then they should be the ones thinking of moving up the order to fix the opening problem. Which obviously is what Brownlie's doing. Not that I have huge hopes there, but good luck to him anyway.

And myself being a batsman who grew up playing in the middle order, but having opened a lot in the last few years - I know that it's a different mentality, and that you can adjust, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is that we are short an opening batsman, but the solution is not to tinker with our established, successful middle order; it's to I disagresomeone else to fill that position.

I disagree with this approach, largely because this has been the modus operandi for NZ for the past 15 years and with one exception in Richardson, has not produced any real tangible results. Fleming may only have averaged 33 during his time as an opening batsman, but it was about 15 more than anyone else was averaging in that period and he at that point in his career only averaged 35 anyway. Instead of asking guys who weren't good enough (Flynn, Brownlie, etc) to play as a middle order batsman for the Black Caps to be opening batsman, the best and most likely move for success is to create some room in the 5,6,7 positions to blood our younger batsman and get our more established stars to move up and occupy a position that gives the opposition a morale boost every single time they get a cheap wicket.

The three best players in NZ suited to opening batting at test level are Ryder ( Left handed, plays the ball late and can be watchful when he puts his mind to it), Williamson (practically been opening anyway for the last two years and has had his best run of form in his career to date. ) and Latham ( solely due to having domestic performances behind him and a promising start in the Windies)

Seeing as Ryder won't be back in the side any time soon, instead of failed prospects coming back into the fold, the most sound move is to do exactly what Australia did with Langer - he was a decent player, established at test level and there were an abundance of 3,4,5,6 batsmen in the side, there was a problem in opening and he moved there and became part of one of the best opening combinations ever.

For too long our "best" players have left this position alone to the newcomers, it simply isn't working and is probably (along with our spinners) the reason why we never rise higher than 6th in the ranking.

 

[SteveNZ]

There is no difference except mindset.

You say that so flippantly like that isn't the most important facet of any sport, let alone cricket and a top order batsman.

Kane, to the best of my knowledge, was not an opener at any level for any period of time. You like the Richardson analogy, but he needed a good deal of time at domestic and A level to hone his craft and most important - his mental approach.

Yeah sure, we could get Kane to that level, no doubt he has the technical ability to do so. But why would we waste 2-3 years as a work in progress, not gaining the full impact out of him when we have a world-class #3 in him already?

It sounds like you've played with a fair few players of repute, have a word to an opener and a #3 and see how they view the mental difference. I'll guarantee you it's not as hand-in-hand as you want to believe, be it as it may that a 3 can be in second nut of an innings.

 

[Bahnz]

Fleming may only have averaged 33 during his time as an opening batsman, but it was about 15 more than anyone else was averaging in that period and he at that point in his career only averaged 35 anyway.

Not true. During the 2003-2007 period, when Fleming occasionally tried his hand at opening, he averaged close to 44 overall (adjusted for Zimbang). I didn't mind Fleming opening, especially when we had Richardson, but his results were definitely significantly worse than when he batted at number 3.

 

[Blocky]

Because I don't buy it for a second that changing yourself from facing the 10th ball of an innings to facing the 6th ball of an innings is any different.

Richardson would have probably been just as successful at Test level as he was had they selected him a year or two earlier, he got himself the right gameplan and set about a technique of limiting the amount of ways he could get out.

I'm not asking Tim Southee to miraculously learn a front foot defensive that's robost, nor footwork that gets himself outside of the line of off stump more often than not. I'm asking a player who already has the technique and temprament to move himself one spot up.

No different to Jeter going from lead off to second hitter, or Floyd Mayweather Jr going from elusive fast footed fighter to a guy who stands infront of his opponents and uses the philly shell to deflect, or Mahe Dryesdale going from pair rowing to single rowing.

If you believe that going in at 3 is so much different to opening for New Zealand then the only one who is being flippant is you.

As for "The way they view the mental difference" - of course, that's because #3's like the stigma that goes with being the #3 or #4 - that is, that you're the best batsman in the side and someone who can attack the bowling once the shine has been taken off the ball by the openers.

We have plenty of batsmen who could be world class #3s - Taylor, Ryder, McCullum, Williamson - we have 1 who might make it as an opener - Latham. We have a few who might make it as a 5 or 6 - Neesham, Anderson, etc.

Your argument is that "It's polar opposite being the #3" - maybe that's true in the era of Ricky Ponting when he had Hayden and Langer infront of him, but for NZ? It simply hasn't been the case - that's why Fleming moved up. He was practically opening anyway.

 

[NZTailender]

I think it would be worth pursuing, especially in combination with Latham. Ironically, the Fulton-Rudds partnership wasn't the worst.

Edit: forgot to add, in the theoretical shifting of Williamson would everyone else move up, hypothetically speaking, or would we bring in someone new or perhaps try something like Anderson at 3?

 

[Blocky]

Not true. During the 2003-2007 period, when Fleming occasionally tried his hand at opening, he averaged close to 44 overall (adjusted for Zimbang). I didn't mind Fleming opening, especially when we had Richardson, but his results were definitely significantly worse than when he batted at number 3.

Fleming had a career average of about 35 at the time he started opening, his average over that period was inflated by 274* against Sri Lanka and 192 against Pakistan in short order, but outside of that, he was much the same as he was when he opened for NZ.

 

[Blocky]

I'd understand the argument if it was Taylor instead of Williamson - that is not a guy with a resolute technique capable of playing the best bowlers in the opposition side with a swinging new ball. Williamson is a little different and his game is far more organised and much more like a traditional opening batsman than Taylor will ever be.

 

[Bahnz]

Fleming had a career average of about 35 at the time he started opening, his average over that period was inflated by 274* against Sri Lanka and 192 against Pakistan in short order, but outside of that, he was much the same as he was when he opened for NZ.

You can't just cut out a player's best performances in order to make your argument work. Fleming's average of 33 as an opener is also hugely influenced by his 1 century against England. I guess we should cut that out as well. When we do, Fleming's average as an opener slumps to 24.

 

[BackFootPunch]

I'd understand the argument if it was Taylor instead of Williamson - that is not a guy with a resolute technique capable of playing the best bowlers in the opposition side with a swinging new ball. Williamson is a little different and his game is far more organised and much more like a traditional opening batsman than Taylor will ever be.

But you were saying Taylor should move up to 3... And also saying that the reason Williamson could handle opening because batting 3 is largely the same as facing first nut.

So on the one hand you're saying Williamson would be a good opener because he's got the skills that make him a world class 3, and on the other you're saying Taylor couldn't open because he doesn't have a resolute technique - yet you think he should bat 3, which, according to your logic, is pretty much the same as opening.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Blocky]

I think it would be worth pursuing, especially in combination with Latham. Ironically, the Fulton-Rudds partnership wasn't the worst.

Edit: forgot to add, in the theoretical shifting of Williamson would everyone else move up, hypothetically speaking, or would we bring in someone new or perhaps try something like Anderson at 3?

Taylor or McCullum to 3. Anderson at 5, Neesham at 6 in current configuration with guys like Darryl Mitchell hopefully putting pressure on them in a couple of years.

 

[SteveNZ]

Fleming had a career average of about 35 at the time he started opening, his average over that period was inflated by 274* against Sri Lanka and 192 against Pakistan in short order, but outside of that, he was much the same as he was when he opened for NZ.

The insanity of excluding innings in that manner just astounds me. If they were scored by his twin brother in disguise, then I'll grant you it.

 

[Blocky]

You can't just cut out a player's best performances in order to make your argument work. Fleming's average of 33 as an opener is also hugely influenced by his 1 century against England. I guess we should cut that out as well. When we do, Fleming's average as an opener slumps to 24.

Sure, but the problem with your argument is that Fleming's 274* came when he entered the crease before the 10th over and the opening batsman he replaced only made 4. A lot of Fleming's centuries at 3 came in similar circumstances. Imagine instead of trying Roger Twose as an opener we had Fleming do the role and allowed him to bat in a more natural 4 or 5 what we might have got out of him in test cricket.

 

[hendrix]

Taylor or McCullum to 3. Anderson at 5, Neesham at 6 in current configuration with guys like Darryl Mitchell hopefully putting pressure on them in a couple of years.

This would actually be our best side unless we have Ryder available. I'd go McCullum at 3 ahead of Taylor.

Of course, the best solution would be for McCullum to go back to opening.

 

[hendrix]

Sure, but the problem with your argument is that Fleming's 274* came when he entered the crease before the 10th over and the opening batsman he replaced only made 4. A lot of Fleming's centuries at 3 came in similar circumstances. Imagine instead of trying Roger Twose as an opener we had Fleming do the role and allowed him to bat in a more natural 4 or 5 what we might have got out of him in test cricket.

Well the problem with your argument is that it was against a bowling attack that was based around a spinner, not a traditional new-ball oriented attack. Although I do rate Vaas against left handers.