Kane Williamson

[Howe_zat]

Making a career judgement call on a players technique after seeing them play in one style of condition is laughable.

Reports from numerous sources around NZ confirm that this kid is a fantastic alround batsman - back foot, front foot, nurdling for ones and twos and hitting fast bowlers out of the ground.

Some clown reckons after seeing him bat that he doesn't have the skills to deal with the fast bowlers can go take a dive. Ever heard of players adapting their play to the conditions and status of the match? They put away the risky shots because the conditions don't allow them to play their natural game.

This kid had the foresight and maturity to reign his game in and play the percentage shots. What hasn't been mentioned are his powers of focus and intelligence. The guy is 20, playing his first test match and has the pressure of being watched by Tendulkar, critiqued by Dravid and sledged by Harbhijan yet still managed a fine hundred and 69 in the second innings when he was given out to a dubious shout.

Also, his ODI hundred - scored under pressure and managed on one leg to score the boundaries when McCullum jnr couldn't.

Tum Tum the Dum Dum.

Is Bhajji's sledging really a threat? It'd strike me as comic relief.

But seriously, spot on, the lad* has showed real nous. High hopes for him indeed.

*I call him a lad, he is older than me

 

[ringo16]

Doubt he will average above 50 before his career ends. My guess is 47-ish.

So hang on... after all this pessimism you still predict him to be NZ's greatest batsman ever?

 

[TumTum]

Some clown reckons after seeing him bat that he doesn't have the skills to deal with the fast bowlers can go take a dive. Ever heard of players adapting their play to the conditions and status of the match? They put away the risky shots because the conditions don't allow them to play their natural game.

What a lame excuse He's 20 ffs, he should be playing all the shots.

Also, his ODI hundred - scored under pressure and managed on one leg to score the boundaries when McCullum jnr couldn't.

Mate I don't doubt his abilities against spin, it's pace that he looks suspect against.

So hang on... after all this pessimism you still predict him to be NZ's greatest batsman ever?

Sure, if you look at it that way.



Hilarious how everybody here starts freaking out just because I started analyzing a player and actually posting what I think is factual. This would have never happened had Kane didn't make the debut 100 and was given out to Zaheer.

But I forgot we were all supposed to be jumping on to the "Oh he's so young and scored runs, meaning he must be a future great" bandwagon

 

[Athlai]

People are criticizing your argument as opposed to lauding the player, because your argument is terrible.

 

[ringo16]

But I forgot we were all supposed to be jumping on to the "Oh he's so young and scored runs, meaning he must be a future great" bandwagon

Mate, if we get a NZ batsman who averages 47 over a long career, then he'll go down as a great in my mind anyway. I know numbers aren't everything, but I'm not too sure what your standards are really, or how much of an effect these supposed weaknesses will have. Nobody is saying he's the next Tendulkar, but you yourself forecast a better statistical career than Martin Crowe. All Kiwi supporters would take that any day.

 

[WindieWeathers]

He's been impressive!!.. pretty much had the same kind of start as Barath, both are the same age too so it will be interesting to see who does better in their careers!! , but like others have said i'm keen to see him against decent pacers, Khan is class and did get Williamson with a gem but he's clearly not 100 percent fit, if Kane has the same impact against the likes of SA and England then NZ will indeed have something special on their hands.

 

[TumTum]

People are criticizing your argument as opposed to lauding the player, because your argument is terrible.

"He's 20 and you can't analyze him" is a pretty stupid criticism.

Mate, if we get a NZ batsman who averages 47 over a long career, then he'll go down as a great in my mind anyway. I know numbers aren't everything, but I'm not too sure what your standards are really, or how much of an effect these supposed weaknesses will have. Nobody is saying he's the next Tendulkar, but you yourself forecast a better statistical career than Martin Crowe. All Kiwi supporters would take that any day, yourself included I'm sure.

Sure again If you look at it that way. As I sad right at the start of this thread, he doesn't have the qualities to become an ATG, or even being one of the best batsmen of his time.

 

[TumTum]

He's been impressive!!.. pretty much had the same kind of start as Barath, both are the same age too so it will be interesting to see who does better in their careers!!

Barath definitely, now this kid is truly impressive.

 

[Blakey]

What a lame excuse He's 20 ffs, he should be playing all the shots.



Mate I don't doubt his abilities against spin, it's pace that he looks suspect against.



Sure, if you look at it that way.



Hilarious how everybody here starts freaking out just because I started analyzing a player and actually posting what I think is factual. This would have never happened had Kane didn't make the debut 100 and was given out to Zaheer.

But I forgot we were all supposed to be jumping on to the "Oh he's so young and scored runs, meaning he must be a future great" bandwagon

Why because he's 20 should he be playing all the shots? Most commentators would say that because he's 20 he shouldn't be playing so maturely - but he does.

In his three test innings so far he's been dismissed once by a 'pace' bowler and twice against spinners. Seeing as he's played so few games, the only other way to judge his ability is to look at his domestic record and the reports of how he's batted against pace bowlers back home. Many of which are much quicker than Khan or Shreesanth and then there is one Mr Bond - hardly a lightweight.

Also it's not so much that people are getting upset about you deriding his abilities, I think most people on here like to analyse a player. It's more the arogance you place in your abilites to spot a players weaknesses which fly in the face of those who've seen him play much more often that yourself.

 

[Blakey]

"He's 20 and you can't analyze him" is a pretty stupid criticism.

Where has that been said? If is has been then I agree with you.

 

[TumTum]

why because he's 20 should he be playing all the shots? Most commentators would say that because he's 20 he shouldn't be playing so maturely - but he does.

well from what i can see, he does attempt to play all the shots, but just can't get the timing or the placement. Btw even somebody like tendulkar who is the most mature player in world cricket was playing his shots at a young age. This is a pretty lame excuse tbh

in his three test innings so far he's been dismissed once by a 'pace' bowler and twice against spinners. Seeing as he's played so few games, the only other way to judge his ability is to look at his domestic record and the reports of how he's batted against pace bowlers back home. Many of which are much quicker than khan or shreesanth and then there is one mr bond - hardly a lightweight.

against india this is pretty common, spinners will come on to bowl the most overs. Mind you he should have been out to zaheer on his debut innings.

Also i appreciate what he has done at fc, but test cricket is a different thing altogether. For example hughes averaged 142 for middlesex with 3 centuries in 4 games, yet he failed dramatically in the ashes. Hughes has played against pace bowlers that were much older than him for most his child-hood, yet has trouble facing the short ball at test level.

also it's not so much that people are getting upset about you deriding his abilities, i think most people on here like to analyse a player. It's more the arogance you place in your abilites to spot a players weaknesses which fly in the face of those who've seen him play much more often that yourself.

well it may seem like arrogance from your perspective, but i also think it has something to do with me being proven correct on many occasions (which you guys take as arrogance).

Maybe i should just start posting "imo" at the end of every sentence i make... Imo

imo

 

[TumTum]

Where has that been said? If is has been then I agree with you.

Not really that it has been said exactly (maybe it has, idk), but it has been mentioned and certainly is the whole basis of everyone's arguments here against me. (Of course there are a few rare posts that do not, like Howsie's recollection of Kane's FC)

 

[vic_orthdox]

Not really that it has been said exactly (maybe it has, idk), but it has been mentioned and certainly is the whole basis of everyone's arguments here against me. (Of course there are a few rare posts that do not, like Howsie's recollection of Kane's FC)

It's the fact that your analysis of his technique is that he mistimes the ball and doesn't hit gaps. That's bloody irrelevant to his technique.

When you factor in the idea that you criticise him for batting maturely, then it's easy to understand people's frustrations.

 

[TumTum]

It's the fact that your analysis of his technique is that he mistimes the ball and doesn't hit gaps. That's bloody irrelevant to his technique.

I know it is irrelevant. These are the type of comments that get me mad, because \you guys forget or misunderstand easily what I have been saying over and over and over again.

I have always said that Kane has a great technique, this timing and gap-finding ability is another thing for which all batsmen must have to be successful. The other being Temperament, for which has 2 categories in "Take the attack to the opposition" and being able to handle pressure.

When you factor in the idea that you criticise him for batting maturely, then it's easy to understand people's frustrations.

So just because he couldn't play many shots doesn't necessarily mean he was batting maturely. It could simply mean that he isn't good enough to play those shots. Of course you guys can disagree, because this is a pretty subjective thing. Anyway we will know who is correct in this argument after we see longer of him and understand his mental game.

imo

 

[Prince EWS]

"He's 20 and you can't analyze him" is a pretty stupid criticism.

It's not so much that you can't analyse him at 20 - you can, but you can only analyse his current game. What I and I'm sure a few others find ridiculous is that you're making very specific long-term predictions based on very small sample sizes, when he's 20 and hasn't even finished developing completely. Batsmen grow and learn different aspects at different rates.. there's no way that Ponting at 20 for example is anywhere close to the batsman he is now.

I find your criticism of his placement to be particularly ridiculous given that's definitely something that comes with practice and experience.

 

[Blakey]

well from what i can see, he does attempt to play all the shots, but just can't get the timing or the placement. Btw even somebody like tendulkar who is the most mature player in world cricket was playing his shots at a young age. This is a pretty lame excuse tbh

against india this is pretty common, spinners will come on to bowl the most overs. Mind you he should have been out to zaheer on his debut innings.

well it may seem like arrogance from your perspective, but i also think it has something to do with me being proven correct on many occasions (which you guys take as arrogance).

Maybe i should just start posting "imo" at the end of every sentence i make... Imo

So your comparing Williamson to Tendulkar? Give me a break - Tendulkar was a freak, while Williamson is very good. Apples and oranges - that argument is redundant.

My perception of you being arrogant has nothing to do with whether or not you are "proven correct on many occasions" - this is the first time I've ever seen you post, so to me you come across as being wrong simply because you are.

Maybe you should try putting an "h" into imo... imo

 

[TumTum]

It's not so much that you can't analyse him at 20 - you can, but you can only analyse his current game. What I and I'm sure a few others find ridiculous is that you're making very specific long-term predictions based on very small sample sizes, when he's 20 and hasn't even finished developing completely. Batsmen grow and learn different aspects at different rates.. there's no way that Ponting at 20 for example is anywhere close to the batsman he is now.

I find your criticism of his placement to be particularly ridiculous given that's definitely something that comes with practice and experience.

Again I don't agree with this.

For one thing Ponting was seen as a great talent at a very young age, much more so than Kane.

Secondly most if not all batsmen do not change very much over their entire career. The results they achieve will of course change, but not their game.

Thirdly for timing and placement, I believe is a natural talent you must develop at your early teens. Can you name a batsmen that has developed and changed greatly this aspect of their game over their career?

 

[Prince EWS]

Again I don't agree with this.

Yeah, well the great thing about forums is that you can disagree. I'm not trying to take that right away from you. However, if you post stuff that a majority of members think is ridiculous, they'll call you out on it and take the piss out of you. People do it to me with the unusually high important I place on domestic performances when selecting international teams - I just cop it on the chin and move on because I know I don't have a popular opinion. Doesn't make me right, or wrong, but I know people will disagree with me and take the piss when I do it. I have accepted this, as should you with your (IMO) ridiculous attempts to judge batsmen's careers 15 years before they finish based on a couple of innings.

Can you name a batsmen that has developed and changed greatly this aspect of their game over their career?

Hussey.

 

[Athlai]

Have you ever seen Williamson play in home conditions? Because I'm pretty sure if you rated 20 year old Ponting's technique solely on games in India or Bangladesh you may find something different to how he actually plays.

 

[TumTum]

So your comparing Williamson to Tendulkar? Give me a break - Tendulkar was a freak, while Williamson is very good. Apples and oranges - that argument is redundant.

True, was just an example.

My perception of you being arrogant has nothing to do with whether or not you are "proven correct on many occasions" - this is the first time I've ever seen you post, so to me you come across as being wrong simply because you are.

Well as you get to understand me over a while, you might be surprised at how many thing I get correct (if not spot on). Check this thread out for example. Just like here I was being shot down by EVERYBODY, but in the end I had the last laugh.

Maybe you should try putting an "h" into imo... imo

imho