Kane Williamson

[Blocky]

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.

He scored them in knocks where he might as well have opened anyway, is the point.

 

[hendrix]

He scored them in knocks where he might as well have opened anyway, is the point.

Opening vs SL in SL isn't typical of opening elsewhere.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

So is coming in at the 10th over the same as opening?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Slightly relevant, although not really that informative in my opinion.

Blogs: Kartikeya Date: How do openers affect No. 3 batsmen? | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Blocky]

So is coming in at the 10th over the same as opening?

Not particularly different in my view - you're 1 for 20, the ball is still moving around and most opening bowlers will bowl 6-8 over spells first up.

Seems we'd rather go back to our tried and failed method of selecting domestic players and putting them in the hardest position rather than selecting well established test players and asking them to do it. It's why I have respect for McCullum over other guys in the side. He's done whatever the team needed him to do until his back could no longer handle opening and keeping.

 

[Blocky]

Let me put it into a clear cold hard way.

What would be better for NZ moving forward.

The revolving door opening combination with Williamson averaging 40+ at 3.
A solid opening combination where Latham and Williamson may only average 35 each, but do it as openers.

I give Williamson a chance to average mid 40s as an opener based on what he's done in the last two seasons, but I'd still happily take a Latham and Williamson combination if both of them managed around 30-35 each as an average over a long period of time as it would solve one of the major gaps we've never plugged in years, you then open up your middle order to test the newcomers, rather than ask them to adopt the hardest role and sink or swim.

 

[hendrix]

Cold hard better for NZ would be McCullum going back to opening and us forgiving Ryder and giving him back his number 5 slot.

I can't see either happening so I say let the search for an opener continue.

 

[Flem274*]

Cold hard better would be making better openers instead of playing quick fix and musical chairs.

 

[SteveNZ]

As I said, you have to dedicate 2 years to get Kane anywhere near the mental application required to be a 40-average Test opener. It flies completely against 20-odd years of his batting mentality.

So when offered that scenario, and the fact he might average 35 in your words, I'd rather he averaged 45+ at #3 from tomorrow onward. Remembering that not only do we not have a bonafide opener (if you count Latham as a prospect), we don't have a #3 either. You'd reduce McCullum and Ross' output at 3, I've got no doubt.

Blocky, you're allowed your opinion and good on you for voicing it. But I'm certain if you asked someone like Fleming who's filled both roles, they'd say opening and batting #3 are not the near identical twins that you're making them out to be - especially if you asked someone like Hornet who was predominantly an opener.

 

[Blocky]

Cold hard better for NZ would be McCullum going back to opening and us forgiving Ryder and giving him back his number 5 slot.

I can't see either happening so I say let the search for an opener continue.

Ok Flem274* - let me know how that works out after another 15 years of trying the same old ****.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

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.

Is that how Hamish Marshall ended up with an average of 38.5?

 

[Flem274*]

Nah, that high average is how we know James Marshall wasn't batting in his place.

 

[Flem274*]

Ok Flem274* - let me know how that works out after another 15 years of trying the same old ****.

Probably better than elevating every middle order player we have to open.

I don't mind if they want to do it, but this is a team that came up with Kyle Mills at three because of his good technique.

 

[SteveNZ]

Is that how Hamish Marshall ended up with an average of 38.5?

That number is only relevant if you choose not to ignore his hundreds...and the times James wasn't in the side, therefore making his presence unaccounted for and thus possibly part of an intricate twin job share.

 

[Blocky]

As I said, you have to dedicate 2 years to get Kane anywhere near the mental application required to be a 40-average Test opener. It flies completely against 20-odd years of his batting mentality.

So when offered that scenario, and the fact he might average 35 in your words, I'd rather he averaged 45+ at #3 from tomorrow onward. Remembering that not only do we not have a bonafide opener (if you count Latham as a prospect), we don't have a #3 either. You'd reduce McCullum and Ross' output at 3, I've got no doubt.

Blocky, you're allowed your opinion and good on you for voicing it. But I'm certain if you asked someone like Fleming who's filled both roles, they'd say opening and batting #3 are not the near identical twins that you're making them out to be - especially if you asked someone like Hornet who was predominantly an opener.

Fleming was less suited to opening the batting than Williamson is though. Williamson has a tight and compact technique and doesn't tend to drive early unless it's a true half volley.

Also, using Matt Horne as an example makes me laugh considering he very rarely opened the batting in the domestic scene and was initially brought into the NZ side as a #3 batsman, it was solely due to the log jam of middle order players we had at the time that he got shifted upwards. He was another guy who suffered from the "Let's get our youngest and most inexperienced players to open for us" - as was Matt Sinclair, Lou Vincent, Roger Twose - et all. He just happened to be one of the least sucky versions of a guy who got promoted into that position early on in his test career.

The mentality is no different, considering Williamson turns up each test probably expecting to be in at the crease within the first five overs and probably simulates his net sessions with opening bowlers using a brand new cherry to get used to it. There are reasons someone like Taylor would never cut it as an opener and also reasons why he steadfastly refuses to move away from #4 because he doesn't have the right temperament and is also vulnerable against the moving ball early in his innings. Williamson doesn't have these issues, his issue is as problematic after 65 balls as it is after 6 balls and is something he's working on day by day. Ross as a #3 behind guys who more often than not see off the opening spell would be OK.

The reality is, we're now expecting probably Michael Bracewell to come into the side and be successful, if he isn't successful and perish the thought Latham begins to slip - we're back to "Who next" - maybe Brownlie gets a go, Rutherford comes in. Maybe we get one of the next cabs off the rank who is a middle order player (Munro) to have a go - meanwhile we continue to "protect" Williamson at three, where as in reality he's turning up pretty much ready to open the innings anyway due to consistent constant failures in the top order.

And that's a better thing moving forward for NZ? Ok - so say McCullum retires in the next two years. The reality is #3, #4, #6 and #7 are sewn up for the next six to eight years, with #5 seemingly going to Anderson or Neesham if they can continue their recent form with the bat. So we've got #1 and #2 and competition for #5 - that's your way into the NZ side.

Where as across the world? Joe Root - established opening batsman all through age group with a performance there against us in tests, now bats middle order for England to blood him in.

 

[Flem274*]

If you really must move an established middle order player up to open then I have no idea why you wouldn't move the oldest, most capped batsman in the side with prior experience and a double hundred in the position up to do the job instead of the 23 year old with 30 tests to his name who has only kicked on to be a consistent test batsman in the past 18 months.

 

[SteveNZ]

Fleming was less suited to opening the batting than Williamson is though. Williamson has a tight and compact technique and doesn't tend to drive early unless it's a true half volley.

Also, using Matt Horne as an example makes me laugh considering he very rarely opened the batting in the domestic scene and was initially brought into the NZ side as a #3 batsman, it was solely due to the log jam of middle order players we had at the time that he got shifted upwards. He was another guy who suffered from the "Let's get our youngest and most inexperienced players to open for us" - as was Matt Sinclair, Lou Vincent, Roger Twose - et all. He just happened to be one of the least sucky versions of a guy who got promoted into that position early on in his test career.

The mentality is no different, considering Williamson turns up each test probably expecting to be in at the crease within the first five overs and probably simulates his net sessions with opening bowlers using a brand new cherry to get used to it. There are reasons someone like Taylor would never cut it as an opener and also reasons why he steadfastly refuses to move away from #4 because he doesn't have the right temperament and is also vulnerable against the moving ball early in his innings. Williamson doesn't have these issues, his issue is as problematic after 65 balls as it is after 6 balls and is something he's working on day by day. Ross as a #3 behind guys who more often than not see off the opening spell would be OK.

The reality is, we're now expecting probably Michael Bracewell to come into the side and be successful, if he isn't successful and perish the thought Latham begins to slip - we're back to "Who next" - maybe Brownlie gets a go, Rutherford comes in. Maybe we get one of the next cabs off the rank who is a middle order player (Munro) to have a go - meanwhile we continue to "protect" Williamson at three, where as in reality he's turning up pretty much ready to open the innings anyway due to consistent constant failures in the top order.

And that's a better thing moving forward for NZ? Ok - so say McCullum retires in the next two years. The reality is #3, #4, #6 and #7 are sewn up for the next six to eight years, with #5 seemingly going to Anderson or Neesham if they can continue their recent form with the bat. So we've got #1 and #2 and competition for #5 - that's your way into the NZ side.

Where as across the world? Joe Root - established opening batsman all through age group with a performance there against us in tests, now bats middle order for England to blood him in.

Can't agree with on a few counts, I'm sure we've all seen Kane nick out driving - especially off the back foot (which yes, he has largely put away of late).

I'm not really interested in how Hornet got there, I used the example of a person who predominantly opened at Test level but also batted at No.3 at times.

I'm telling you, the transition from #3 to opener is not the small leap you make it out to be. I'm not sure you'd believe that if Justin Langer told you let alone me, so I'll let it lie.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I lol every time Blocky mentions Matt Horne.

 

[Blocky]

If you really must move an established middle order player up to open then I have no idea why you wouldn't move the oldest, most capped batsman in the side with prior experience and a double hundred in the position up to do the job instead of the 23 year old with 30 tests to his name who has only kicked on to be a consistent test batsman in the past 18 months.

I'd have McCullum there in a heart beat, but they seem dead set about him staying at #5 while he's captain. I also think Williamson is better suited to opening the batting than McCullum is.

 

[Blocky]

Can't agree with on a few counts, I'm sure we've all seen Kane nick out driving - especially off the back foot (which yes, he has largely put away of late).

I'm not really interested in how Hornet got there, I used the example of a person who predominantly opened at Test level but also batted at No.3 at times.

I'm telling you, the transition from #3 to opener is not the small leap you make it out to be. I'm not sure you'd believe that if Justin Langer told you let alone me, so I'll let it lie.

I can remember far more dismissals of Williamson early in his innings where he was defending against pace bowlers and coming inside out at the ball on his bat plane, not being quick enough to get the bat in line. He's since corrected that and although he's not coming from the outside in to the ball like Kallis, Tendulkar and co do - he's much more straighter in defense than he's ever been which I attribute to his run of form.

Horne "predominately opened" only at test cricket and then domestic cricket, because the side needed an opening batsman and all of their options (Astle, McMillan, Fleming, Cairns, Parore, Sinclair) were better suited to the middle order. You used him as an example talking about mentality difference between #3 and opening, yet within his first full year of test cricket he had to make this movement and did OK. Horne is no where near the talent that Williamson has.

I'd buy into your "It's different" story if Williamson hadn't scored the bulk of his runs in the last year following Rutherford and Fulton getting out cheaply. Even against England when Fulton and Rutherford got away to good starts, Williamson tended to fail. When Fulton and Rutherford got out cheaply, Williamson scored runs.