-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Kane Williamson
- Thread starter Howsie
- Start date
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
Its the same issue as a cover drive, don't go for cover drives early in your knock either. Still it was fun debating with you and it is getting on for bed time now. I look forward to crossing swords with you tomorrow on some other issue.
Btw with regards to your last sentence - if you can play a pull to a bowler then you own him, fast bowlers hate it because it means you are too slow for the batsman.
Flem274*
123/5
Taylor batting at number three would be a poor idea for similar reasons batting Michael Carke at three wouldn't work.
Class players, but every batsman has strengths and weaknesses and the idea of a batting order is putting your players in positions where they will score the most runs, not playing musical chairs to cover holes where someone wasn't good enough.
If you want to play musical chairs with the best batsmen in the team to cover holes we've been winning games with anyway so ND batting allrounder #345 can make the team and average 35, you may as well take the idea to its logical extreme and just list the best batsmen in order from best to worst. Taylor, KW, McCullum, Watling, Neesham, Anderson. Australia could send out Clarke and Warner to open with Steve Smith at three, Haddin at four and Twatto at five. That might just be what's needed to lose the Ashes, despite all of those players being very very good or better in their best suited positions.
Class players, but every batsman has strengths and weaknesses and the idea of a batting order is putting your players in positions where they will score the most runs, not playing musical chairs to cover holes where someone wasn't good enough.
If you want to play musical chairs with the best batsmen in the team to cover holes we've been winning games with anyway so ND batting allrounder #345 can make the team and average 35, you may as well take the idea to its logical extreme and just list the best batsmen in order from best to worst. Taylor, KW, McCullum, Watling, Neesham, Anderson. Australia could send out Clarke and Warner to open with Steve Smith at three, Haddin at four and Twatto at five. That might just be what's needed to lose the Ashes, despite all of those players being very very good or better in their best suited positions.
straw man
Hall of Fame Member
Intuitively I hate the idea of Williamson moving up to opener. I know some of this is superstition - the feeling that we can put together all the logic in the world on why it should work but we later find that things we thought did matter didn't, and other things that shouldn't matter did. And then some of it is just a shameful conservatism - that we've finally assembled a small stable corner of our house of cards and don't ANYBODY touch it or you will **** it up.
More practically, I do agree with Blocky that Williamson's output *should* not be much worse if he moved to opener but I don't have the same confidence with the others. My views are no doubt coloured by the recent memory of Taylor's suspect batting in the West Indies (and likewise Williamson's near invulnerable batting) but Taylor did not look like someone that should be facing up to the new ball regularly. More distant memories remind me he's scored a lot of his runs coming in at 20/2, but we'd still have to accept a reduction in his output imo. I'm not enthusiastic about McCullum at four either, even though until recently I supported him as opener - I think his eye/reflexes are starting to decline just a little and that's evident in difficult conditions (including against the newer ball) and his repeated overseas failures.
Despite my reservations I think we would have to consider pushing Williamson up to opener but only if absolutely necessary i.e:
- pull factor - we still have an opening spot that just cannot be filled
- push factor - there's a glut of genuine quality middle order batsmen. It's far too early to say we have this yet. Anderson is injured half the time and has played seven tests. Neesham has excelled but has only played three tests. By rights I still think both would be more comfortable at 6 and 7 at present, or just contesting the 6 spot when both fit. We don't know how long McCullum will keep playing tests so that's a potential vacancy. After that we're back to reserves like Brownlie and Ronchi and I can't even think of another young domestic middle order batsman that might contest this spot in the future.
- I still wouldn't want to make the move if Williamson is just about to, or has just recently, taken over the captaincy. That's too much.
However until that time I'd prefer we put faith in Latham and pick someone like Brownlie or M Bracewell to try to do the job. If they fail and Anderson + Neesham demand selection then reconsider the above.
Being a good team man I'm sure if Williamson thought this was best for the team he would take the gung-ho 'yeah I can do that' approach, like McCullum has in the past. But it would remind me a little of Vettori taking on every job under the sun during his captaincy and I don't believe that turned out well either for him or the team.
More practically, I do agree with Blocky that Williamson's output *should* not be much worse if he moved to opener but I don't have the same confidence with the others. My views are no doubt coloured by the recent memory of Taylor's suspect batting in the West Indies (and likewise Williamson's near invulnerable batting) but Taylor did not look like someone that should be facing up to the new ball regularly. More distant memories remind me he's scored a lot of his runs coming in at 20/2, but we'd still have to accept a reduction in his output imo. I'm not enthusiastic about McCullum at four either, even though until recently I supported him as opener - I think his eye/reflexes are starting to decline just a little and that's evident in difficult conditions (including against the newer ball) and his repeated overseas failures.
Despite my reservations I think we would have to consider pushing Williamson up to opener but only if absolutely necessary i.e:
- pull factor - we still have an opening spot that just cannot be filled
- push factor - there's a glut of genuine quality middle order batsmen. It's far too early to say we have this yet. Anderson is injured half the time and has played seven tests. Neesham has excelled but has only played three tests. By rights I still think both would be more comfortable at 6 and 7 at present, or just contesting the 6 spot when both fit. We don't know how long McCullum will keep playing tests so that's a potential vacancy. After that we're back to reserves like Brownlie and Ronchi and I can't even think of another young domestic middle order batsman that might contest this spot in the future.
- I still wouldn't want to make the move if Williamson is just about to, or has just recently, taken over the captaincy. That's too much.
However until that time I'd prefer we put faith in Latham and pick someone like Brownlie or M Bracewell to try to do the job. If they fail and Anderson + Neesham demand selection then reconsider the above.
Being a good team man I'm sure if Williamson thought this was best for the team he would take the gung-ho 'yeah I can do that' approach, like McCullum has in the past. But it would remind me a little of Vettori taking on every job under the sun during his captaincy and I don't believe that turned out well either for him or the team.
they're all performing above average in their current positions so you'd have to think about it long and hard to change that, KW averages 43 at #3, taylor 51 at #4 and mccullum 43 at #5 (actually 43.48 which just so happens to be what KW averages at the #3 spot atm). they're all averaging higher than their career averages in their current positions. however if this was to happen and KW opened i'd think about pushing mccullum to #3 instead of taylor, he's got more experience in the position than taylor does (14 innings compared to 2) and he averages a respectable 39 at #3 (again higher than his career average), plus he opened the innings quite a few times.
Last edited:
Flem274*
123/5
I'm taking a trip down memory lane right now.
One of my favourite KW posts.
Another of my favourite KW posts.
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
I am pretty sure I was careful early doors not to jump to conclusions.
Good work Flem. I was at his first class debut, wondering who this 17 year old was who looked 12.
ND tried to ruin him early, pack of soft pricks. He was dismissed twice in a day from memory, trapped lbw by Andre. First was earlier in the day (if memory serves me correctly) then with minutes to go in the day, a wicket fell and rather than a more senior head/nightwatchman, they tossed in teenage Kane. It was so dark, cars were driving past the Outer Oval with their lights on - ideal time for a night..watch...MAN. But no men existed in the ND set-up, so they deferred to a kid. 2nd ball (again, from memory) he was dead lbw and Andre quite rightly abused the non-striker for allowing the kid to be thrown in with literal darkness. Think it was Joe Yovich who copped the spray (undeservedly, top bloke and he didn't shirk it/make the decision) then Andre continued it with James Marshall (?) on the boundary, who I think was captain.
Someone tell me how my memory looks via a scorecard, I'm too scared I got it dead wrong.
ND tried to ruin him early, pack of soft pricks. He was dismissed twice in a day from memory, trapped lbw by Andre. First was earlier in the day (if memory serves me correctly) then with minutes to go in the day, a wicket fell and rather than a more senior head/nightwatchman, they tossed in teenage Kane. It was so dark, cars were driving past the Outer Oval with their lights on - ideal time for a night..watch...MAN. But no men existed in the ND set-up, so they deferred to a kid. 2nd ball (again, from memory) he was dead lbw and Andre quite rightly abused the non-striker for allowing the kid to be thrown in with literal darkness. Think it was Joe Yovich who copped the spray (undeservedly, top bloke and he didn't shirk it/make the decision) then Andre continued it with James Marshall (?) on the boundary, who I think was captain.
Someone tell me how my memory looks via a scorecard, I'm too scared I got it dead wrong.
Viscount Tom
International Debutant
Not playing for Yorkshire this season, afaik. he will now proceed to decline from heartbreak.
We've got Finch instead of Kane, I mean couldn't NZ just give him the ODIs against the Saffers and Zimbabwe off and let us keep Kane.
We've got Finch instead of Kane, I mean couldn't NZ just give him the ODIs against the Saffers and Zimbabwe off and let us keep Kane.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
haha
Haha wow, I did miss a few. Must've been Bucko Martin that got the abuse - can't imagine him standing for it. James Marshall was the one that got a massive spray up over the viewing area as Dre walked off. Dunno whether Kane should've been sent out but he was a sitting duck in the dark - that was the year Andre averaged 9 with the ball.that's such a great story even if your memory gets a few details wrong.
Southee destroyed Auckland and played for NZ 3 months later. Greg Morgan destroyed ND with the bat on his debut, and now tends to gardens.
Poor old Yorkshire. Finch is Rebel Wilson to Kane's Sofia Vergara.
Immenso
International Vice-Captain
Great story Steve.
I do remember the article / match report from either Herald or Fairfax about Kane's debut. I remember the mention of Andre Adams handing out the verbals. But the suggestion was that it was a big bad pro abusing a schoolboy debutant.
Not abusing his teammates for hiding behind his baggy school shorts. Awesome
I do remember the article / match report from either Herald or Fairfax about Kane's debut. I remember the mention of Andre Adams handing out the verbals. But the suggestion was that it was a big bad pro abusing a schoolboy debutant.
Not abusing his teammates for hiding behind his baggy school shorts. Awesome
Sporty1079
Cricket Spectator
He has become the backbone of NZ cricket team. I really like him.
Andre could be an angry, angry man but he wouldn't pick battles with kids. He'd go after the guys he felt should be braver. And sometimes he'd shove a Howick Pak opening batsman on dismissal because his curly hair was like a red rag to a bull, then decided to move Bevan Griggs' grill into his face.
It should be said too that the young guys loved being around Andre in the Auckland set-up. He'd back them to the hilt and was a great team-mate - unlike another international player who came from another province and **** on the environment with bullying and moodiness.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Remember the mass avatar change after he hit a 50? Good times.
ohnoitsyou
International Regular
He's not in form. He's just simply that good.