On the contrary, KW barely tickled the scorers in the Malaysia WC. His highest was 37 and didn't get a 50. He was ranked at 31 and scored all of 124 runs in the entire tournament. I should know given I had some involvement with rep cricket at that point in time. He was well and truly talked about as a solid player. He was the best player in the bi-lateral series vs India under 19s and vs England U19s in England. I followed him, Corey and Harry Boam very closely. Corey probably was the best of the lot then given his size. He was like a grown man already. Southee picked up 17 wickets, the second highest like Ravindra picking up 14 wickets. Boult was 4th or 5th on the list with 11 wickets. Both Southee and Boult picking up wickets in those conditions was amazing. Similarly, Ravindra picking up 14 or 15 wickets in these conditions was amazing too. As a Kiwi I won't be short selling Ravindra. He could probably be the best ever player for us with the bat and the ball now that most cricket is played outside of NZ where there is always going to be scope for players that can play spin well and bowl spin as well. He may even end up the best ever in the world ala Jacques Kallis.
Steve Smith scored all of 114 runs with a highest of 39 in the 2008 U19s WC. This is the reason I don't necessarily trust runs and wickets at rep cricket. They are not a good barometer. Style of play and competency is more important. To be fair Ravindra debuted at u19s when he was barely 16 and the first game I remember scoring 80s I think with sixes as well. He opened with Glenn Phillips then. A 16 year old that plays against Pakistan (literally under 25s) in his first gig and in Dubai scoring runs taking wickets you knew you had a winner in him. Won't bother comparing a KW with RR, they are different players. Dare may I say Ravindra's skills are way higher than any rep cricketer I have come across in NZ cricket. Whether he can transfer those skills into performances at the highest level is a million dollar question. I hope he does and we will have one of the ATGs from NZ.
If you were speaking of Nationals I think Ravindra was at the top of the list when he was 16 in the first gig along with loads of wickets and top of the bowling list in the second gig in nationals. I wouldn't say he was rescued, he was way ahead of time and one of the brightest. I'd say Ben Sears was one guy that Wellington cricket helped through and never did his figures ever look good but we all know he's the one with the future. Canterbury does it best when pushing their players, they back their players to the hilt. TBH if a player is very good they need no push. It's not like we are brimming with talents left right and center.
Have to disagree here. KW had articles about him being the next Martin Crowe around age 12/13, because he was simply different class, and like you I was entrenched in age group cricket at that point. KW would do things like score 140* out of ND 17's score of 210. I'm sorry but thats simply something Ravindra isn't doing. I'm not saying he can't, not at all. I just think theres for more nuance to the Williamson story and player. People still tend to underrate him IMO, the fact that people are now surprised he's an accomplished T20 player. This guy only thinks about batting, 24/7. I seen it up close first hand. Corey and Kane not in the same stratosphere, Corey was known for being physically developed very early, which made him play with older age groups. Kane's mental ability and maturity is what was far more advanced than his peers, along with his habits off the field. Hell I remember being a net bowler for international sides, and the Black Caps knew who Kane was at 15/16.
Style of play and competency is definitely important, but weight of runs falls in the competent category for me. Also, skills etc. are one thing, the mental application and requirement as you level up is what Kippax is getting at. I'm in KIppax's boat, I seen the Ravindra hype on here for years, but have never seen it backed up fully and truly. Also, not interested in his wickets etc. I feel as though NZ has a tendency to produce players, who if not good enough in a specialist position, work on their other "skills" and become bits and pieces players. Instead of becoming a better batsman, they become a half ass all rounder. That's why Ravindra wicket count isn't really that relevant IMO.
Now obviously, this seems like a cynical bunch of ****, (possibly is TBH LOL), but I have full hope in the kid, I just don't see any reason to downplay Kane's pedigree to try amplify your point about Ravindra. Kane was backed on potential but he also matched that with performance. ATM Ravindra looking more potential that performance.
