Kane Williamson

[Zinzan]

We finally seem to have a number 3 who looks set to be NZ's equivalent to a Ponting or Dravid (albeit, not quite at their level) for the next 10-15 years, so can't we please just LEAVE him there? I get the argument around the lack of opening options & all that, but robbing Pete to pay Paul is what NZ cricket have been doing for years in order to try & fabricate an opener. Additionally, I don't feel Taylor would be anywhere near as valuable to the side moving up to 3. I'm fine with him at 4, but think if anything he's far more suited to no.5 than 3.

 

[SteveNZ]

Spinner of the Month. (I'd go for NcCullum solely as a darter)

Is this a Test side? You want Nathan in the Test side?

 

[Blocky]

Is this a Test side? You want Nathan in the Test side?

I don't really see anyone else better in the country than him, he can at least bowl an accurate line and length and could tie up an end for us. Not to mention he adds another gun in the field and someone capable of handy/pesty runs down the order.

Sodhi is an absolute no. Craig, I'd love to see him work out but I think he's Vettori without the relentless accuracy. Josef Walker is probably our best bet for a spin weapon but he's too busy smoking pot and being a dickhead down in the Waikato to make it.

 

[Hurricane]

Josef Walker is probably our best bet for a spin weapon but he's too busy smoking pot and being a dickhead down in the Waikato to make it.

1st time I have heard of us losing a cricketer to pot. But it had to happen.

 

[Blocky]

1st time I have heard of us losing a cricketer to pot. But it had to happen.

Carl Bulfin.

Actually come to think about it.

The Parlane brothers, Mark Bailey, Tama Canning, Grant Robinson - quite a few guys smoked a **** tonne of pot, fell out with the selectors and never got it back.

Only advantage Walker has is that he's been firmly situated as our best youth prospect for a number of seasons, captaining most of the age group sides he's in - he might get a chance when he pulls his head out of his ass.

 

[hendrix]

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

This is bollocks IMO.
What ball do you play a pull shot to?
A half tracker. That's about the safest ball to play a shot to as an opening batsman.

And Latham is a good puller. Just because he got out to it once doesn't mean he should shelve it.

 

[Hurricane]

This is bollocks IMO.
What ball do you play a pull shot to?
A half tracker. That's about the safest ball to play a shot to as an opening batsman.

And Latham is a good puller. Just because he got out to it once doesn't mean he should shelve it.

1000% disagree with you.

You shouldn't pull until you have at least 20 runs. It is a lower percentage shot and you need to get your eye playing in the V initially.

You read Mike Gatting's autobiography and you will change your mind. He got dropped from England and he went back down to County cricket to re-find his form.

He was batting one day against some rank medium pacers and he figured and I quote "I could bat all day against this lot".
When he was on 15 he went for a pull shot and got out and was devastated.
He said it was the turning point in his career - he had a long think to himself and started to only play more expansive shots when he was set, he got amongst the runs and got recalled for England and went from strength to strength.

Do you know why they say "play with a straight bat" Hendrix?

The reason why is that the ball height when it comes through varies a lot despite bouncing in similar places on the pitch. When you play with a straight bat you don't get undone by unexpected bounce. After you have been out there for a while you just know the bounce of the pitch somehow and you can play with a horizontal bat more easily.

 

[Blocky]

I don't mind opening batsmen using the pull shot, so long as it's a leg stump or greater line and they're looking to place rather than power the ball. I figure the three shots an opening batsman must put away early is driving on the up, any back foot drive and the cut shot, they're the highest risk against a moving ball.

 

[Hurricane]

I don't mind opening batsmen using the pull shot, so long as it's a leg stump or greater line and they're looking to place rather than power the ball. I figure the three shots an opening batsman must put away early is driving on the up, any back foot drive and the cut shot, they're the highest risk against a moving ball.

DWTA - what is wrong with standing tall moving on to the backfoot, using a straight bat and guiding it down to fine leg for a zero risk single.

 

[Flem274*]

cut shot is pretty important for punishing any filth though, especially when the ball is new and dangerous.

it's pretty funny you say that though since rudds MO is just want you said plus the straight drive and cover drive along the ground. to get away with such a high risk game, even at test level for a while, goes to show what a freak he is in a way. blokes like sehwag, jayasuriya and gayle in their primes were just using cheat codes to do the amazing things they did.

 

[Blocky]

How many leg side strangles have you seen from batsmen standing tall and looking to work down to fine leg? Granted, it's a lower risk than a full blooded pull shot, but I'm not talking about the Ricky Ponting front foot pull where you murder it.

I don't see the pull shot as a high risk shot if you're looking to control and place the ball - it's a high risk shot when you're looking to take the ball from off stump and pound it through mid wicket - but if you're happy to use your feet, get square to the ball and keep your eye on the ball until impact, then I don't see it as high risk.

 

[Blocky]

cut shot is pretty important for punishing any filth though, especially when the ball is new and dangerous.

it's pretty funny you say that though since rudds MO is just want you said plus the straight drive and cover drive along the ground. to get away with such a high risk game, even at test level for a while, goes to show what a freak he is in a way. blokes like sehwag, jayasuriya and gayle in their primes were just using cheat codes to do the amazing things they did.

Cut shot is fine once you're set, as is the cover drive but they're higher risk shots and tend to create the most dismissals against the new ball. Rutherford has the issue that video analysis has now pointed out where he's weak and he has no game against it. That's the other issue these days for opening batsmen, they're being picked apart in video analysis and advanced analytics to work out where a bowler put it.

Hayden is the guy that I think of as the best example of an attacking opening batsman - but even he shelved certain shots early, but he was murderous through the covers if you over pitched, murderous with his off drive and loved to cream the **** out of the ball if you dropped it short. But his style of batting wouldn't work as well in most NZ conditions or English conditions against world class attacks. Sehwag, Jayasuriya and Gayle profited from where they played their cricket as much as they were talented.

 

[Hurricane]

How many leg side strangles have you seen from batsmen standing tall and looking to work down to fine leg? Granted, it's a lower risk than a full blooded pull shot, but I'm not talking about the Ricky Ponting front foot pull where you murder it.

I don't see the pull shot as a high risk shot if you're looking to control and place the ball - it's a high risk shot when you're looking to take the ball from off stump and pound it through mid wicket - but if you're happy to use your feet, get square to the ball and keep your eye on the ball until impact, then I don't see it as high risk.

I don't think I ever saw Trevor Franklin play a pull shot period. And while he was not a great NZ opener he is someone the Fulton's of today should aspire to, as he had close to zero talent and did an effective job opening through sheer conservative shot selection. He ALWAYS made it through to lunch not out. And then would get out shortly thereafter just as you couldn't stand watching him bat anymore.

I will give you a better example, John Wright did have a pull shot but didn't play it in the first ten overs iirc.

 

[Blocky]

I don't think I ever saw Trevor Franklin play a pull shot period. And while he was not a great NZ opener he is someone the Fulton's of today should aspire to, as he had close to zero talent and did an effective job opening through sheer conservative shot selection. He ALWAYS made it through to lunch not out. And then would get out shortly thereafter just as you couldn't stand watching him bat anymore.

I will give you a better example, John Wright did have a pull shot but didn't play it in the first ten overs iirc.

One of the clearest memories of Wright I have is the ability he had to hook and pull the ball, but I can't recall if he played it early in his innings or not. I prefer the pull shot when the ball is going down leg because you have more options for where you put it and you minimize the risk of feathering a touch down the leg side to the keeper which is more common than you think.

 

[Hurricane]

One of the clearest memories of Wright I have is the ability he had to hook and pull the ball, but I can't recall if he played it early in his innings or not. I prefer the pull shot when the ball is going down leg because you have more options for where you put it and you minimize the risk of feathering a touch down the leg side to the keeper which is more common than you think.

I've never been strangled because I don't play it outside my hip, I turn my body around and get square to the ball rather than staying side on. If I glance it too fine it will hit my body. I guess because I don't get out playing the shot I regard it as risk free.

However, I have been caught twice down the leg side playing front foot glances when I was young, now I just never play the shot.

 

[Dan]

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.

You're still expecting Blocky posts to actually make sense?

He's assuming that Latham and Williamson will average 35 by making exactly 35 (70) every innings and will never ever ever fail because batsmen who average 35 always make 35. Which is fine if you play the game on a spreadsheet, but for a guy who has apparently played at a very high level he seems to have little grasp of how the game actually works. If Latham gets a good nut early -- as I'm sure Blocky has in his opening experiences -- in walks Ross Taylor to be a nervy starter against a swinging ball. Carnage.

Not to mention, if you debut a specialist opener, I'd argue knowing Kane is there at 3 to bail the innings out if you cop one that's way too good for a debutant makes life a hell of a lot easier for them, rather than batting them out of position (Latham at 4 vs. India, compared to Latham at 1 vs. WI anyone?)

His plan seems like an attempt to shoehorn another all-rounder into the side (because what the NZ side needs is totally a fifth or sixth seam bowling option, rather than a batting line-up that isn't reliant upon Watling to bail it out half the time) and does nothing but weaken the batting massively. It's basically what New South Wales has done over the past few years -- force extra bowling options into the side because talent -- and, unsurprisingly, when they tended to pick a proper team this year they won the Shield.

If you're going to pick Anderson and Neesham together, it has to be because they're the fifth and sixth best batsmen in New Zealand, because their bowling becomes a complete non-issue when the other is in the side. Spoiler alert, they aren't the fifth and sixth best batsmen in New Zealand.

Coming up with all of this random crap ends up with a really wanky, bull**** New Zealand side that undoes all of the hard work they've done to create middle order stability, and instead goes back to the days of one brilliant performance when everything clicks being followed by mediocrity and lol-lapses galore.

You cannot honestly tell me, with a straight face, that this batting line-up:

1. Latham
2. Williamson
3. Taylor
4. McCullum *
5. Anderson
6. Neesham
7. Watling +

is more likely to score consistent runs than:

1. Latham
2. Guptill/Brownlie/Raval/Flynn/Bracewell/Literally Anyone Not Named KW Who Has Opened Before
3. Williamson
4. Taylor
5. McCullum
6. Neesham
7. Watling +

The first is an incredible example of 'too much icing, not enough cake'. McCullum, Anderson and Neesham are all inconsistent. If they click at once, look out. But Anderson isn't a Test #5s arsehole at present, McCullum isn't consistently good enough to bat at #4, and Taylor being pushed to #3 accentuates his weaknesses and diminishes his strengths. Not to mention that you're tinkering around with the best thing to happen to New Zealand cricket in the past 10 years, just after he's proven himself as a world class #3. There is no logical reason whatsoever to take that risk.

Honestly though, that isn't surprising from Blocky. Because I assure you, if KW and Latham open and go to lunch at 0/60, playing conservatively because they know if Taylor is exposed in the first session, 80 all out is on the cards, he'll be complaining about how they need to score quicker and just lost NZ the game. He doesn't care about the cake; he just wants the icing.

It's an absolutely terrible idea.

 

[Blocky]

For someone complaining about another persons posts making no sense, the load of waffle you just posted pretty much ignores the theme of discussion of the last three or so pages covers off.

I really can't be arsed covering off the "he thinks 35(70) is exactly what they'll score every time they bat" rhetoric, because it's a blatant straw-man and more about you posturing for the rest of your post, the assumption that versus Williamson, placing anyone in the secondary opener position makes more sense is wrong at best and at worst, one of the dumbest ideas I've seen short of "Let's ask Mark Craig to open the batting".

The reality is, 15/1 is about our par opening score at the moment. The idea that "Williamson will actually bat more freely with less pressure on him if he's 0/0" has more merit than "Williamson simply can't open because it's a different position and a different style of batting required"

It makes me laugh how many people defend Taylor as one of our best players ever, but asking him to bat a position higher makes our batting line up look entirely short. It also makes me laugh that Anderson and Neesham can't possibly be considered for 5 and 6 despite their start in international cricket and the fact that both of them average as much domestically as any of the options you're suggesting should open our batting for us. Also, you somehow think that being 15/1 but still having Williamson, Taylor, McCullum is worse than 0/0 and still having Williamson, Taylor, McCullum.

Ps - talking about "but it's the role they've batted in their entire youth careers" in relationship to why Williamson shouldn't open and why Taylor should play 4. Corey Anderson bats #3 for his club side, #4 throughout his age group representative history.

For a moderator on a forum attempting to "cut out the personal ****" and no doubt sending a tonne of infractions my way if I dare call someones post stupid, you're posting in the type of manner that only really starts a personal argument and adds nothing to a thread. Then you'll blame me for calling you out on it.

But most of all - the "all the hard work they've done to create middle order stability" - what? Keep the same players in the side for the last five years? Before that, have players like Fleming, Astle, McMillan, Cairns doing a similar role but having failing openers mean that we were often 20/2 and reliant on them batting up the order anyway? It basically comes down to "Williamson, Taylor and McCullum all need to be protected in order to be a stable middle order " - only, that logic seems to forget the aggregate of opening batsmen not named Tom Latham in the last three series for NZ.

 

[hendrix]

tbf, 80 all out is on the cards anyway.

 

[Blocky]

tbf, 80 all out is on the cards anyway.

And far more likely when the bowlers have their tail up because they've taken Latham and Whoever out for under 20, bowling to Williamson and a nervy starter in Taylor with energy up in the field and likely aggressive field settings.

It's almost as defeatist as the majority of you were when I dared to suggest that New Zealand were a far stronger side than the West Indies and would have to perform poorly to lose the test series. We performed poorly and still won it.

 

[hendrix]

The reason why is that the ball height when it comes through varies a lot despite bouncing in similar places on the pitch. When you play with a straight bat you don't get undone by unexpected bounce. After you have been out there for a while you just know the bounce of the pitch somehow and you can play with a horizontal bat more easily.

I understand this, and I'm not saying play to to a ball that's not short. But a half tracker even at good pace, quality batsmen will be able to read the bounce pretty early on. I believe Latham is a quality batsman, and I think he should continue to pull - with prudence of course. I'm not saying go nuts.

It's a shot that really annoys fast bowlers too. Nothing like announcing your presence with a solid pull.