[Howsie]

After New Zealand failed to select Kane Williamson for the third One Day International against Australia it got me thinking, does anyone really agree with this "saying"? After discussing whether or not New Zealand should select him for a good two/three pages in the tour thread the general consensus was yes, if he's putting up the numbers select him. During that whole discussion I don't think I read a single "He might be too young" comment.

Now, to be fair. If you know the history of Ken Rutherford and Martin Crowe's respective careers who might see why New Zealand are a little apprehensive in picking someone that young (Williamson like Rutherford and Crowe were when they were selected is still only 19). But if you were a national selector, would you have any issues picking teenagers if they were putting up the results?

Your answer would probably depend on whether the said player was a batsmen or bowler and from which country he comes from (playing in a stronger domestic competition would probably make the decision easier).

[War]

In New Zealand's case it fairly obvious he should be picked regardless of his age. Since although he is young, he seems like he alreadly is the best batsman outside the main XI, available to be picked. He certainly should replace Broom.

If Williamson though was playing for AUS for SA. With the strenght of their domestic competition, he probably would be held back though, given there is always a batsman age 25-30 more ready for international cricket. But NZ dont & never have had the luxury of a strong domestic competition with alot of options.

[Robelinda]

Chuck em in, if they are performing above the level of other players in their FC competition then they deserve a go at the highest level.

[irottev]

We've selected a bunch og young playrs recently like Southee, Guptill, etc. Don't see why we should stop now. Australia isn't the ideal situation to debut him but at last it's at home.

[McLOVIN]

Originally Posted by Howsie

But if you were a national selector, would you have any issues picking teenagers if they were putting up the results?

Its more of a long term thing for them. as a selector they have to think differently here.

Just look at Bdesh... you really dont want teenagers. It could ruin their whole career.

[Howsie]

Originally Posted by MacLovin

Its more of a long term thing for them. as a selector they have to think differently here.

Just look at Bdesh... you really dont want teenagers. It could ruin their whole career.

I'm more so talking about players that are teenagers but have actually performed in domestic cricket. Bangladesh have for a long time picked players on talent at a young age but haven't really done anything at the level below.

[Robelinda]

Kane has the stats, what are they waiting for?

[King Cricket]

Originally Posted by Howsie

But if you were a national selector, would you have any issues picking teenagers if they were putting up the results?

Nope. Why should your young age serve as a barrier to your induction into the national team if you are performing consistently at the domestic level? The burning example here is Sachin Tendulkar, who made his debut when he was just 16, after setting the stage on fire in the Indian domestic competitions.

[Gazza]

Definitely, no better place to blood a kid than in the international arena. Only India and Pakistan have had the balls to do it, and its worked for them.

Look at Vettori. That Steve Nixon guy called for his selection even though he was just 18, and now he's their best player.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Gazza

. Only India and Pakistan have had the balls to do it, and its worked for them.
.

Bangladesh have done it a lot more and its failed for them.

[Gazza]

Hence why I didn't mention them

But tbh, they didn't really have too much of a choice. NZ is an established test nation.

[Dare]

West Indies have always done this. Jerome Taylor was 18 and played one List A match for Jamaica when he was called to the test team. Edwards was 21 and was spotted in the nets by Lara and he played only one match for Barbados before making his test debut and taking a 5fer. Adrian Barath also the case, Dwayne Bravo the same.

[ZoraxDoom]

I don't agree. Young players, while they may be talented enough, will generally lack the experience needed when in a pressure situation. If the match is tight, or if they're out of form or struggling to score fluently/take wickets.

Having said that, if said young player shows a lot of maturity and/or has plenty of experience at a decent level, no harm in picking them and giving them a lot of responsibility.

[shravi]

1 more season, I think. It wasn't long ago that he experienced quite a dip in his FC average (to around 35 if I recall correctly) so he's going to have to prove his consistency for another season yet for mine.

That being said, with the World Cup in less than a year, it makes matters very tough for New Zealand. Maybe just ODIs for now.

[StinkyBoHoon]

generally yes, I believe that saying. but there is a few other factors to consider.

the balance of the team has to be taken into account, loading a team with young players is not a good move, it gives them a collectively naive approach, at northern districts he has a lot of experienced guys around him, perhaps the NZ selectors feel the balance of the squad is still a little on the young side, and to put another young guy in the picture would create selection problems.

his mentality has to be assessed as well, i think it's fair to say that the NZ domestic comp is not as high stakes as some of the other domestic comps. However, I don't know how he's done when he's played in A teams and bigger U19 ties, so this may not be an excuse.

I would probably give him a go, but in place of Broom or someone relatively inexperienced, it's also worth noting NZ are doing a batting refit, and most of the players are very young or pretty new on the scene, certainly wouldn't want to move Styris or Ingram out, you need a few older heads in the dressing room.