Kane Williamson

[Flem274*]

Horne must have been so frustrating. Started really well then faded away. Averagers mid to high thirties in the first half of his career iirc. We'd kill for that to partner Latham right now.

 

[Blocky]

Horne must have been so frustrating. Started really well then faded away. Averagers mid to high thirties in the first half of his career iirc. We'd kill for that to partner Latham right now.

36 was about the highest he ever averaged about 10 tests in, then it was a drop away and he never had a full season better than 31.5 - yet we consider him a "decent opening batsman" by NZ standards.

 

[SteveNZ]

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.

Test cricket is what we're talking about. Guys like Gup, Hornet or that ilk can bat anywhere in domestic cricket and not have to worry about mental application to anywhere near the same level, given their level of ability. So if I was talking to Hornet about the difference between #3 and opening, I wouldn't be interested in how that plays out at domestic level.

As I said, you're the sort of guy that would pull up a deck chair on the moon and argue that the earth is flat, so I'll leave you to your thoughts on this one.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

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.

If Latham becomes awful, you're back to "Who's Next" anyway, Williamson can't be both openers. I would consider shifting him if both Bracewell and Latham are failing and there's no one else knocking on the door. If Latham can maintain a decent record I would rather have Williamson averaging 45+ at 3 than 35 as an opener.

 

[NZTailender]

Honestly, I'm 99% with Blocky on this one. He has the tools & technique, and could possibly do well opening. it's not a definite thing, for mine, i.e. promote him to open and he will succeed, but I do think there's a chance he'd succeed, possibly more than Brownlie or McCullum et al.

1% where I disagree is that if you come in at 1 for 0 or the like, your mindset is going to be 'don't make it 2 for 0' and see out the bowler, slightly different from the opening mindset of looking to score runs either against ordinary bowling or once they've waited out the new ball. Batting at 3 has far more responsibility to it than opening, in my eyes.

 

[Athlai]

There is no doubt in my mind that Kane could easily be the best opener in the country. But his best position is at 3 and this is where we get the most value out of him.

 

[hendrix]

I guess I disagree with you guys. I feel he's already batting out of position and would be a 5 in most teams around the world. But we have heaps of middle order batsmen so he should remain at 3. I'd actually prefer McCullum at 3 but once he retires neither Anderson nor Neesham could bat 3 so it's better to just leave KW there.

 

[Bahnz]

It's all a bit of a moot point anyway. Since Fleming retired, the number 3 spot had been almost as big a hole in the side as the openers. Now that we've finally found a guy of international standard to fill the role, there's no way the selectors are going to risk ****ing that up - certainly not while the team is winning anyway.

 

[Bahnz]

I guess I disagree with you guys. I feel he's already batting out of position and would be a 5 in most teams around the world.

Why is it exactly that you think this? Williamson has batted at 3 at pretty much all representative levels (u19, domestics and now international). He's got a sound defensive technique (certainly sounder than McCullum's) and a good understanding of where his off-stump is. He's got the best backfoot game of any batsman in the country, and plays the ball later than anyone save Jesse. Yeah, he's struggled against quality pace bowling, but so have most other test number 3's in the last couple of years. And I think the issue of whether he'd be batting at number 5 for England or Australia is redundant. He plays for New Zealand, and he's the best number 3 in the country by a considerable margin.

 

[SteveNZ]

There is no doubt in my mind that Kane could easily be the best opener in the country. But his best position is at 3 and this is where we get the most value out of him.

No doubt, no question at all he'd be the best opener. But what will lead him to bat #3 for the rest of his days (pending a drop to 4-5 later in his career, possibly) is the fact that his output will be at its highest at #3. Hesson, or anyone else won't be interested in sawing 10 runs off his average to do a job because no one else is yet capable of doing it.

I'm not debating that he has the tools, is the best man for the job, or anything else.

 

[hendrix]

Why is it exactly that you think this? Williamson has batted at 3 at pretty much all representative levels (u19, domestics and now international). He's got a sound defensive technique (certainly sounder than McCullum's) and a good understanding of where his off-stump is. He's got the best backfoot game of any batsman in the country, and plays the ball later than anyone save Jesse. Yeah, he's struggled against quality pace bowling, but so have most other test number 3's in the last couple of years. And I think the issue of whether he'd be batting at number 5 for England or Australia is redundant. He plays for New Zealand, and he's the best number 3 in the country by a considerable margin.

I suppose Williamson is the best number 3 in the country now, but at the time he moved from 5/6 to 3 I thought Ryder or McCullum would be better options. I think McCullum pre back injury was a superior batsman against pace bowling. He didn't fall over like he does now and he was able to play the ball much later than he can now. He's got a shockingly bad defensive technique now, agreed. Brownlie was also another option.

Williamson has improved mightily in the number 3 position, but he also may have improved rapidly at number 5. Someone like Brownlie may have done a decent job and we'd still be looking at KW with a 40+ average from number 5.

Of course, that's all changed since the discovery of Anderson and Neesham so it's a moot point, except to say that I think that the idea that KW is ideally suited to the top order (and therefore also false) falls down at the first hurdle because he's not actually ideally a top order batsman.

 

[hendrix]

Hesson, or anyone else won't be interested in sawing 10 runs off his average to do a job because no one else is yet capable of doing it.

I don't necessarily agree with this.

At some point in the next few years, this relatively young team is going to reach it's peak. Taylor and Watling will be at the end of their careers. Boult and Southee will be late twenties. Neesham and Anderson will be complementing each other beautifully and we might have a tearaway fast bowler in Milne or an ideal 3rd seamer keeping up the pressure and taking wickets. Latham will be an established test class opener. Who knows, we may even have a spinner.

If the last piece to the puzzle is asking KW to open for 2 seasons while we chase glory, I'm all for it.

 

[Blocky]

If Latham becomes awful, you're back to "Who's Next" anyway, Williamson can't be both openers. I would consider shifting him if both Bracewell and Latham are failing and there's no one else knocking on the door. If Latham can maintain a decent record I would rather have Williamson averaging 45+ at 3 than 35 as an opener.

Much easier to find a replacement opener when you're only looking for one and have someone at the top who can help the new comer. Have a look at Australia for an example of this and how many openers they've chewed through while generally having one position locked up ( initially Watson, another converted opener who did OK for himself, then Warner ) - Richardson did the role for us for a while and made it easier for most openers to come in and not suck at the level Fulton and Rutherford have recently.

As I said, you're the sort of guy that would pull up a deck chair on the moon and argue that the earth is flat, so I'll leave you to your thoughts on this one.

I don't tend to argue opinions without referencing facts - i.e Williamson's batting performance when the openers score 25 or less. I'm stubborn enough to argue once I feel like someone else is ignoring facts, sure. But then so are you.

 

[Bahnz]

I suppose Williamson is the best number 3 in the country now, but at the time he moved from 5/6 to 3 I thought Ryder or McCullum would be better options. I think McCullum pre back injury was a superior batsman against pace bowling. He didn't fall over like he does now and he was able to play the ball much later than he can now. He's got a shockingly bad defensive technique now, agreed. Brownlie was also another option.

Williamson has improved mightily in the number 3 position, but he also may have improved rapidly at number 5. Someone like Brownlie may have done a decent job and we'd still be looking at KW with a 40+ average from number 5.

Of course, that's all changed since the discovery of Anderson and Neesham so it's a moot point, except to say that I think that the idea that KW is ideally suited to the top order (and therefore also false) falls down at the first hurdle because he's not actually ideally a top order batsman.

Well when he was promoted to number 3 in 2012, there really weren't a whole lot of options. Ryder was in exhile, McCullum was already opening, and Brownlie's game had going into a Chernobyl-grade meltdown. I agree that he was pushed up into the number 3 spot sooner than was ideal, but he started to show positive signs just 4 games into the role (with his 100 agains SRL), and has only continued to improve since.

I'm sure he would've improved rapidly at number 5 as well (as Joe Root has done since being relieved of the openers spot), but I don't think that should be taken as evidence that he's ideally suited to batting elsewhere. Yes, he's strong against spin, but his game against pace is underrated, and he has shown significant improvement in this regard in the last 12 months, and he's been the 2nd most important figure in the side in terms of finally getting some wins on the board. Even from a purely individualistic point of view - completely ignoring the team cause - I'm really not sure whether Kane would be doing any better coming in to bat at 40/3 than he does at 10/1. And the fact that he's already averaging 40+ at just 23 years of age - with 60% of his career so far played away from home - to me shows that he's well and truely suited to the role.

 

[Gowza]

there are cases for both points. kane would most likely be the best opener in the country, he may or may not average less than he does at #3. he's only just getting settled into the #3 spot though after being pushed up from #5, it's like musical chairs for the poor bloke. on the plus he does rise to the challenge.

ideally you should pick an opener for the opener spot but if all of your options are exhausted then maybe the guy succeeding at #3 who looks to have all the tools to succeed as opener should be pushed up, my only query on it would be is it to soon? maybe give him some more time in the #3 spot so he gets a bit of prolonged confidence as a top order batsman. if he was to average 35 as opener but 45 at #3 i'd prefer him at #3 though. think of it like this, if he averages mid 40s at #3, even if the openers fail then you still have KW killing it for a ton or setting up the innings for the rest who come behind him, averaging 35 as opener, once he's gone it leaves the others more vulnerable and you don't get the same amount of runs out of him overall which in this case probably means less runs for the team overall because then you've got to move mccullum or taylor up to #3 which will no doubt lessen their input or you have a new comer who probably can't handle it.

if you are to move kane up to opening you better be sure he''ll succeed at it and imo it needs to be at an output close to where he is at #3 otherwise the team is losing out. he can still set up the innings as opener but if he's averaging 35 rather than 45 then he's doing it less often and then others are batting out of position, is it worth it?

if you go the revolving door option, well it's frustrating but you know what you're getting and you've got your best players in their best positions so getting the maximum output from all of them whereas if you move them around 2 of them have to move out of position so you're getting the maximum out of just one of them.

 

[NZTailender]

For Williamson to lose 10 runs as an average if he were to open, it'd all rely on who bats at #3, because really for it to be worth it they'd have to average 40+ themselves (this also assumes they as a number 3 can't open or would average less than if KW did).

 

[Blocky]

For Williamson to lose 10 runs as an average if he were to open, it'd all rely on who bats at #3, because really for it to be worth it they'd have to average 40+ themselves (this also assumes they as a number 3 can't open or would average less than if KW did).

Taylor needs to mature and assume that position - he should be capable of 40+ at 3. Then you've got a whole bevvy of players who can probably deliver at 4, 5, 6 and 7.

 

[Blocky]

In any case, we need to learn how to manage our players better, because ultimately any team that doesn't have Ryder in it isn't NZ's best line up. I think we're at a point where our best line up can compete in any non-sub continental conditions against any other nation, so long as we pick our Top 11 irregardless of the bull**** around where they play and should they play.

I'd take any combination of the following

Ryder
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum
Anderson
Neesham
Watling
Southee
Wagner
Boult
Spinner of the Month. (I'd go for NcCullum solely as a darter)

 

[Flem274*]

In any case, we need to learn how to manage our players better, because ultimately any team that doesn't have Ryder in it isn't NZ's best line up. I think we're at a point where our best line up can compete in any non-sub continental conditions against any other nation, so long as we pick our Top 11 irregardless of the bull**** around where they play and should they play.

I'd take any combination of the following

Ryder
Williamson
Taylor
McCullum
Anderson
Neesham
Watling
Southee
Wagner
Boult
Spinner of the Month. (I'd go for NcCullum solely as a darter)

How to be bowled out for 45 again, step one.

 

[Hurricane]

1% where I disagree is that if you come in at 1 for 0 or the like, your mindset is going to be 'don't make it 2 for 0' and see out the bowler, slightly different from the opening mindset of looking to score runs either against ordinary bowling or once they've waited out the new ball. Batting at 3 has far more responsibility to it than opening, in my eyes.

This is the key point that negates Blocky's argument. Kane walking into bat in the 3rd over of the game or even the 1st over of the game is different than opening. When the score is 0/0 and you are opening you are obliged to leave all the balls outside off stump but also to take toll of any half volleys on leg stump to score some runs for the team. It is tough to get into the right mind set of "I must survive and see off the new ball" vs "I need to tick it over". Good openers know their game inside and out and which shots work in the first ten overs of an innings.

And by the way Latham pull shots don't work early doors.