The Kane Williamson Average Watch thread

[hendrix]

Hadlee has a shout at being greatest bowler of all time. No way will Williamson touch that with his batting.

 

[honestbharani]

But there was no Bradman amongst the bowlers.. If Kane gets into the discussion of second best of all time, won't that be the same?

 

[hendrix]

But there was no Bradman amongst the bowlers.. If Kane gets into the discussion of second best of all time, won't that be the same?

He's not going to be in the discussion of second best of all time. won't score enough runs.

 

[Dan]

He's not going to be in the discussion of second best of all time. won't score enough runs.

If he doesn't have kids, I could see Kane playing 'til he's 40. If he does, I reckon the international retirement will come far earlier and he might relocate to England and play out his days for Yorkshire or something.

Needless speculation, but whatever, that's all this thread really is

 

[honestbharani]

He's not going to be in the discussion of second best of all time. won't score enough runs.

Gambhiring?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Gambhiring?

no NZ just don't play enough tests

 

[OverratedSanity]

no NZ just don't play enough tests

Well Steyn has the same problem. No one says he isn't one of the best ever.

And Kane has age on his side. He's going to play plenty of tests.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

And Jane has age on his side. He's going to play plenty of tests.

I guess a ***change could be on the cards to get a few women's tests in to buff his stats

 

[Hurricane]

Well Steyn has the same problem. No one says he isn't one of the best ever.

And Jane has age on his side. He's going to play plenty of tests.

No wonder Trent likes him.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

KW average at lunch on day three of the Lord's Test: 47.66

 

[Zinzan]

Ay, there are whole threads dedicated to deciding what an ATG batsman is.

If he added high class captaincy and continued the gun fielding to being a genuine fifth bowler and an ATG batsman he would overtake Hadlee.

Garbage (with a capital G) post. You cannot be serious.

 

[Zinzan]

That's hyperbole and you know it.

If you're going to be so dogmatic then there is no point in discussing it. Hadlee is the second best bowling allrounder to play the game behind Imran Khan (who was a slightly lesser bowler and better batsman by just enough to pip Paddles for number one) but he wasn't Jesus. If Kane can do what I listed then the intangibles like captaincy will put him right up there with Hadlee.

As for whether you think he can be that good at bowling, this question isn't about what he will do but what he would need to do to be better than Hadlee. I am in no way predicting KW to be better than Sir Paddles.

I think his bowling has a bit more potential than you do though.

You do realize Hadlee is one of 4-5 names argued for as the 'greatest bowler of all-time', even if you complete ignore his batting?

I'm happy to concede Marshall seems to be the no.1 for most people, (including myself), but I've seen a few non-Kiwis over the years make a case for Hadlee. And few would have Hadlee outside their top 5 bowlers ever. Then if you add the fact that he was good enough to average close to 30 with the bat.... It really becomes a silly argument.

 

[Zinzan]

Hadlee has a shout at being greatest bowler of all time. No way will Williamson touch that with his batting.

Yup, that's the key point.

 

[harsh.ag]

KW would need 2 triple hundreds and an overall average of 55+ to be in the conversation with Paddles imo. When talking about GOATs, we usually tend to look at how good they were at their primary skills first and foremost. So, part time bowling, fielding, and captaincy are not really going to be relevant, even though they are important. Miller would be way higher on the scale than he is otherwise.

Marshall, Hadlee, and Imran are one of the toughest three to split because they were so close with the ball, and all could hold a bat (with Imran being quite a bit better as a batsman and a little behind as a bowler).

 

[Zinzan]

KW would need 2 triple hundreds and an overall average of 55+ to be in the conversation with Paddles imo. When talking about GOATs, we usually tend to look at how good they were at their primary skills first and foremost. So, part time bowling, fielding, and captaincy are not really going to be relevant, even though they are important. Miller would be way higher on the scale than he is otherwise.

Great point, and of course we know that's what counts against Kallis in these discussions (along with his relatively defensive batting).

I mean nobody in their right mind would try to argue Stephen Fleming was a better cricketer than M D Crowe, just because he was a better captain, better slip fieldsman and scored more runs (despite averaging 5 less with the bat) would they?

 

[Zinzan]

Hurricane - Love your work btw, you're liking me more than my gf seems to be atm

 

[Hurricane]

Hurricane - Love your work btw, you're liking me more than my gf seems to be atm

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that you me and Bahnz may be a bit older than Flem - if so we probably cherish Hadlee's exploits a bit more than his generation. I think I liked all of Bahnz's posts too.

 

[Zinzan]

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that you me and Bahnz may be a bit older than Flem - if so we probably cherish Hadlee's exploits a bit more than his generation. I think I liked all of Bahnz's posts too.

Yeah, I was tongue in cheek about the 'liking' since I'm currently in the bad books with the missus

But in terms of ages and different eras;

1) I might be wrong, but I don't believe there's much between Bahnz & Flem in terms of age &;

2) The greater point is none of us needed to be around to know how great the likes of Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs etc were, because as lovers of the game, we're all cricket historians to some extent, so I don't think age is an excuse for someone making that argument.

 

[Hurricane]

Yeah, I was tongue in cheek about the 'liking' since I'm currently in the bad books with the missus

But in terms of ages and different eras;

1) I might be wrong, but I don't believe there's much between Bahnz & Flem in terms of age &;

2) The greater point is none of us needed to be around to know how great the likes of Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs etc were, because as lovers of the game, we're all cricket historians to some extent, so I don't think age is an excuse for someone making that argument.

OK. Flem's comments definitely sounded like someone who hadn't seen much footage of Hadlee.

 

[Mike5181]

KW would need 2 triple hundreds and an overall average of 55+ to be in the conversation with Paddles imo. When talking about GOATs, we usually tend to look at how good they were at their primary skills first and foremost. So, part time bowling, fielding, and captaincy are not really going to be relevant, even though they are important. Miller would be way higher on the scale than he is otherwise.
.

Great point, and of course we know that's what counts against Kallis in these discussions (along with his relatively defensive batting).

He just said something to the effect of 'we tend to ignore anything other than a player's primary skill, although they're important'. How is that a 'good point'? He offered no justification for that bias, he just acknowledged that it exists on CW.

I mean nobody in their right mind would try to argue Stephen Fleming was a better cricketer than M D Crowe, just because he was a better captain, better slip fieldsman and scored more runs (despite averaging 5 less with the bat) would they?

Equating Fleming to Kallis in this discussion doesn't fly with me, either. Kallis' record and performances with the bat are significantly closer to Hadlee's with the ball than the comparison of Crowe/Fleming you're trying to push. Fleming was just a good batsman, Crowe was genuinely world-class. He was also reasonable in the other areas of the game, so whatever relatively small differences favour Fleming, they aren't enough to make up the disparity in their batting abilities. On the other hand, Kallis is sufficiently close enough to Hadlee in their respective primary skills that along with his test standard bowling and world class slip fielding, he's a more valuable cricketer for mine.

I'm not calling you out because you think Hadlee is a better cricketer than Kallis. I'm probably in the minority thinking that judging by the response to my initial comment. I just took issue with you using that specific Fleming/Crowe comparison as the reason to dismiss Kallis' advantages in areas other than his primary skill.