Is Kane Williamson an ATG Test Batsman?

[shortpitched713]

It’s pretty impressive NZ have even produced such a good batsman with their population and resources. Probably won’t see another NZ bat of this quality so got to enjoy him while he’s still playing.

This is a terrible argument. Small nations (Netherlands, Uruguay, Portugal, etc.) are incredibly good at football over many decades, and same applies for cricket. Yes, they'll have their downyears sure, but it's not the population that stops a country from being good.

It's when it drops out of interest for the youth to pick up, and it starts dropping in it's place in the overall consciousness/culture of a place that you should really worry. New Zealand isn't going that way, as far as I'm aware.

 

[ashley bach]

Yes, he is not an ATG. Sorry Kiwi fans.

Below names can’t be considered ATG in Tests:-

Kane Williamson
Younis Khan
Virender Sehwag
Ravichandran Ashwin
Michael Clarke

@RossTaylorsBox

Your twin brother is not a kiwi?

 

[honestbharani]

@RossTaylorsBox

Your twin brother is not a kiwi?

TBF he only listed Big Daddy Kane there as a not-ATG. Maybe Ross Taylor did make the list of ATGs.

 

[Coronis]

This is a terrible argument. Small nations (Netherlands, Uruguay, Portugal, etc.) are incredibly good at football over many decades, and same applies for cricket. Yes, they'll have their downyears sure, but it's not the population that stops a country from being good.

It's when it drops out of interest for the youth to pick up, and it starts dropping in it's place in the overall consciousness/culture of a place that you should really worry. New Zealand isn't going that way, as far as I'm aware.

It does of course, make it more unlikely though. Its unsurprising that India especially has come to the forefront in recent years, not just because of the population, but the rabid fanbase. I’m sure a much higher percentage of Indian kids would dream to be a cricket star than many of the other countries.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I dont think that is necessarily inconsistent though? 6th best bat he has seen and 25th best bowler can still make someone the very best as an allruonder, no?

Kallis wouldn't be the 25th best bowler though no?

And a quality slip fielder

 

[Thala_0710]

And a quality slip fielder

That's true, though he only mentioned the 13k runs and 300 wkts while making his argument

 

[kyear2]

That's true, though he only mentioned the 13k runs and 300 wkts while making his argument

That's not the case, the full quote speaks to the 200 catches as well.

I'll see if I can find it.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

It’s pretty impressive NZ have even produced such a good batsman with their population and resources. Probably won’t see another NZ bat of this quality so got to enjoy him while he’s still playing.

Really?

 

[RMBolton]

This is a terrible argument. Small nations (Netherlands, Uruguay, Portugal, etc.) are incredibly good at football over many decades, and same applies for cricket. Yes, they'll have their downyears sure, but it's not the population that stops a country from being good.

It's when it drops out of interest for the youth to pick up, and it starts dropping in it's place in the overall consciousness/culture of a place that you should really worry. New Zealand isn't going that way, as far as I'm aware.

Even if you apply a lenient definition (like, say, 5000 runs at 40+), the numbers are telling.

87 batsmen have scored 5000+ runs averaging 40+. New Zealand has not only produced the fewest (4), New Zealand is the only one of the first 8 Test nations which has produced less than 5. South Africa is next at 6, but they have excuses for that. There is then a contrast with the West Indies: with a similar population, they've produced 11 of these batsmen, nearly triple the number NZ has produced.

 

[Coronis]

Even if you apply a lenient definition (like, say, 5000 runs at 40+), the numbers are telling.

87 batsmen have scored 5000+ runs averaging 40+. New Zealand has not only produced the fewest (4), New Zealand is the only one of the first 8 Test nations which has produced less than 5. South Africa is next at 6, but they have excuses for that. There is then a contrast with the West Indies: with a similar population, they've produced 11 of these batsmen, nearly triple the number NZ has produced.

So you’re actually arguing the opposite then?