Is Williamson a 'flat-track bully' too?

By Ronan O'Connell / Expert

A superb bowling display has placed Australia in a wonderful position from which to win this first Test against New Zealand. Yet the Kiwis are not as down and out as the scoreboard suggests, with a fragile Australian tail within sight.

As regularly as Australia’s top six have faltered over the past few years, their lower order has hauled them out of the dirt.

So strong was their tail that down at 10 they often boasted Ryan Harris, a dynamic striker of the ball who averaged 22 with the bat in his Test career.

Gone also is regular number eight Mitchell Johnson, who played some magnificent innings for Australia, as well as Mitchell Starc and James Pattinson, who combined have made 1031 runs at 28 in Tests.

Australia now have a number eight who averages 14 with the bat in Peter Siddle. Given that the two men in front of him – Peter Nevill and Mitchell Marsh – are yet to prove themselves with the blade in Tests, the Kiwis will know this morning they are just one wicket away from accessing this Australian side’s greatest weakness.

Given the pressure associated with chasing a score in the fourth innings away from home, Australia will not feel any level of comfort unless they can earn a solid first innings lead of at least 50 to 60 runs.

That target is still about 100 runs away. On a pitch which tests the patience and technique of batsmen, against a Kiwi attack well suited to such conditions, Australia have plenty of work left to complete before earning a truly commanding position in the Test.

History suggests this Wellington pitch can change quite dramatically in behaviour as the match wears on, morphing from one which aids the bowlers into a batting nirvana. Even across the course of day one the deck appeared to become less difficult.

The Test now seems to hinge on this morning’s session when the pitch should be at its softest and carrying some moisture. If Adam Voges and Usman Khawaja are able to withstand the opening salvo from the Kiwis then batting should get much easier and their middle-to-lower order may be able to enjoy batting and build an impregnable lead.

Conversely, an early wicket would leave Australia in danger of being rolled for not much more than New Zealand’s meagre total of 183. The Kiwis exploited the new ball yesterday but were unable to capitalise on their two early wickets in the same way as the Australian seamers kept hounding the New Zealand top seven.

Amid the carnage of yesterday’s first hour, after which the Kiwis were five wickets down, superstar Kane Williamson continued his recent run of failing on tracks which offer something to the bowlers.

Australian guns Steve Smith and David Warner are constantly labelled flat track bullies, and compared unfavourably to the more classical Williamson. Yet the Kiwi is developing his own habit of cashing in on docile decks and faltering on more difficult surfaces.

The last three Tests in which Williamson has faced a decent pace attack on a pitch offering them some assistance he has made scores of 0, 6, 22, 9 and 16 for a total of 53 runs at an average of 11.

Nine months ago in England, the Kiwi first drop plundered the Poms on a flat deck at Lord’s but then, confronted with a trickier pitch at Leeds, he made 0 and 6.

In Australia, Williamson flayed the home attack on batsman-friendly surfaces at Brisbane and Perth, before failing in both innings once conditions became more difficult at Adelaide, making 22 and 9.

Yesterday he again was tripped up on a pitch when the bowling wasn’t gun-barrel straight, dismissed for 16 playing an unnecessary drive at a Peter Siddle off cutter.

Does this sequence of failures when circumstances are a bit challenging prove Williamson is a flat track bully? No, it doesn’t. There’s not a sane cricket fan in the world who doesn’t rate him as a truly elite batsman.

What it does show is how significantly perception affects the way we view player performance. The perception of Williamson, due to his neat technique and unflappable temperament, is that he’s tailor made for grafting runs under duress. When he fails to do so, no-one takes great notice.

Meanwhile, the perception of Smith and Warner is that they are flashy, idiosyncratic batsmen, a style which surely can only prosper when the going is easy. As a result, many people are waiting for that pair to stumble when the ball is moving so they can affirm their perceptions.

The reality is that almost all modern batsmen are far more vulnerable the moment the ball starts to so much as wobble off the pitch. It’s a by-product of the heinously-flat surfaces served up over and over in all three formats of the game these days.

Unfortunately, Australia quickly is becoming the worst offender in this regard, regularly producing Test, ODI and T20 pitches which favour the batsmen so much as to tarnish the game.

Cricket followers and fans are swift to lambast batsmen when they can’t counter the moving ball, branding them ‘flat track bullies’ and the like. How, though, can they be expected to master such circumstances, when they so very rarely are exposed to them?

The Crowd Says:

2016-02-14T00:56:04+00:00

Sandy

Guest


That was too easy Don.

2016-02-13T13:48:18+00:00

Chook

Guest


The article answered the question in the headline with a resounding "no", maybe you should take another read. It really had nothing to do with Williamson and was all around how a view of technique influences our perception of quality. Not sure what was so unclear about the following: "Does this sequence of failures when circumstances are a bit challenging prove Williamson is a flat track bully? No, it doesn’t. There’s not a sane cricket fan in the world who doesn’t rate him as a truly elite batsman."

2016-02-13T13:30:18+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


Nice to be able to shape your feelings. I feel kinda powerful. Is the "icky" feeling a nice icky or a horrible icky? Glad to be able to "condense" things for you too. Not sure what you mean by that but it sounds like something I'd be proud of.

2016-02-13T13:24:43+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


I hope you're not implying there is anything wrong with doing that.

2016-02-13T12:47:13+00:00

Self absorbed fans

Guest


Don you come across as just a little man who loves to fish for attention, because as the roar lets you take over every thread, they obviously know this and feel sorry for you. Quite sad really and I would imagine transparent to all who contribute to the roar. You honestly ruin the site which has been mentioned by many but never reported,

2016-02-13T12:42:22+00:00

Self absorbed fans

Guest


I woul also like to add a condenscending w....r. Every time i read one of your posts Don I feel like I need a shower. I feel icky!

2016-02-13T12:40:07+00:00

Self absorbed fans

Guest


Don your such a w.....r! No other way to put it really.

2016-02-13T12:31:35+00:00

Bobbo7

Guest


Oh Don you do see everything clearer. Must make it hard interacting with us single-cell organisms on here. I see Australia declaring at 550 with Voges out LBW on a wide and NZ making 920 for the draw.

2016-02-13T12:14:59+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


Not sure? Let me clarify. We're not. We're really good.

2016-02-13T12:03:44+00:00

rasty

Guest


But always better then our Nu sealand counterparts. To be fair It is difficult not to be better than Nu sealand in everything apart from the obvious.

2016-02-13T11:40:39+00:00

WQ

Guest


Not sure but reading through these comments I suspect that the Australian cricket fans on the Roar are worse than their Rugby fans on the Roar? -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.

2016-02-13T10:42:19+00:00

rasty

Guest


I am aware of his numbers with the test side. So not worth persisting with. Definitely pigheaded... vary rarely correct.

2016-02-13T10:30:13+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


Have you seen Shaun's record over the last 2 years. Well worth persisting with. Pigheaded...or just usually right?

2016-02-13T10:17:15+00:00

rasty

Guest


Nah. I would say it is hard to agree with Don and pointless to argue as he is about as pigheaded as they come... however I believe Mitch is worth persisting with. He is good with the ball and has shown is capable with the bat. The only drawback might be suffering the sane problem as his brother, a lack of confidence or belief. I don't feel Aussie should persist with the older brother anymore but Mitch has great potential.

2016-02-13T10:04:00+00:00

rasty

Guest


Can not help yourselves.. It's like clockwork. Aussie batsmen fail must have been a brilliant attack. Aussie batsmen succeed must of been a tarmac or they were gifted decisions by the umpires. Please try a different rhythm you chaffy buggars.

2016-02-13T10:03:22+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


C'mon Nudge. There is a handicap system in place. 42 for NZ is like 60 for an OzMan.

2016-02-13T10:01:11+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


So...that current form is not impressing you? Does a 2 ball duck mean they didn't happen?

2016-02-13T09:58:47+00:00

Nudge

Guest


Warner has 2573 runs at 59.83 against England, RSA, and NZ Smith has 1889 runs at 46.07 against the same opponents, so they might cash in against the weaker attacks, they also cash in against the good attacks. In fact by those records Warner saves his best for the best bowlers, so you can put that one to bed Bobbo. For the record Williamson has 1232 runs at 42.48 against Aus, England, and RSA

2016-02-13T09:58:38+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


What price a Siddle ton tomorrow?

2016-02-13T09:56:48+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


I saw the footage too...but I have the extra advantage of being able to see Vogesy's thought bubble. Just before delivery, Vogesy becomes aware of a twitch in Illingworth's arm and realizes a call is about to come. At that moment, the very broad face of his bat begins its withdrawal process. It's funny how we can see the same thing but some of us (in this case, me) just have clearer perception.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar