Classy Williamson, cathartic Taylor, off-key Boult

Kane Williamson (428 runs at 85.60)

Australia had no answers to Williamson's class in Brisbane and Perth, where he enhanced his already outstanding reputation with centuries in each first innings. He was the one member of the New Zealand side who was on form right from the start of the campaign, but unfortunately for their hopes of a drawn series, he had little impact in the day-night Test in Adelaide. That was Williamson's one failing in the series; at neither the Gabba nor the WACA did Australia dismiss him for less than 50, his soft hands, straight bat and composed nature more than a match for their attack. His average rose from 45.70 before the tour to 48.36 by the end, and only David Warner scored more runs in the three Tests than his 428 at 85.60.

One innings gets him this score, but it was one epic, career-defining innings. Taylor's 290 at the WACA was not only the highest score by a New Zealander in a Test away from home, it also broke one of Test cricket's oldest standing records. For 111 years, Tip Foster's 287 at the SCG in 1903 was the highest score by a visiting batsman in a Test in Australia. Not anymore. Taylor's innings was an achievement of great personal significance given his struggles of the past couple of years, and it ended any hope Australia had of winning the Perth Test. It was just a shame for New Zealand's sake that it was a one-off, that he didn't reach fifty in any of his other five innings of the series.

Boult, Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood jointly topped the series wicket list with 13 each, but that could not disguise the fact that this was a disappointing tour for Boult. His wickets came at 37.61 apiece and it was only in Adelaide with the pink ball that he really hit his stride, taking more than half of his series tally. His 5 for 60 in the second innings there was good enough to keep New Zealand in the game as he found the right level of swing to trouble Australia's batsmen. But it cannot be forgotten how poor he was in the first Test in Brisbane, where he was down on pace and had almost no influence. This could have been a very different series had Boult started it at his best, as Williamson did.

It is hard to judge a player on one Test but Santner showed some very encouraging signs during his Test debut in Adelaide. For the most part, he was composed with the bat, top scoring in the second innings with 45 and behind only Tom Latham in the first innings with 31. A wicket in each innings - not to mention the should-have-been dismissal of Nathan Lyon, wrongly reprieved by the third umpire - completed a solid all-round performance for Santner, who can expect plenty more Test opportunities in the future.

Latham did half the job of a Test opener during this series, by taking the shine off the new ball. The other half, building a big score to set up the team's innings, eluded him. In all six innings, Latham reached double-figures but never did he score more than 50. Only once did he fall within the first hour of New Zealand's innings, on the final day in Perth. But to be truly competitive in this series, New Zealand needed more from their batting order than just an in-form Williamson and a one-off monster from Taylor. Latham teased but no more than that.

In Hobart four years ago, Bracewell snagged nine wickets in the Test to deliver New Zealand a historic victory in Australia, but this time he could only manage seven wickets in three Tests at 52.57. That was not quite a fair reflection on his bowling, though. He did keep things tight and was New Zealand's best bowler in the first innings at Adelaide Oval, when he collected 3 for 18 from 12.1 overs.

More was expected of McCullum in this series, both with the bat and as captain. He made only one score of note, 80 in the second innings at the Gabba, and his decisions in the field did not always give his men the best chance. There were erratic fielding changes that meant his bowlers struggled for rhythm, and odd bowling choices, especially in his use of Mark Craig. After the controversial DRS non-dismissal of Lyon in Adelaide, for example, McCullum seemed to lose focus and allowed the pressure to ease on Australia. Bowling Craig at Mitchell Starc, who had a broken foot and could therefore only stand and deliver, was strange, and cost 20 runs in one over.

Disappointing. Scored 83 runs in five innings and made some costly errors behind the stumps. Watling missed a chance to stump David Warner in Brisbane, put down Usman Khawaja and dropped Steven Smith at the WACA, and all three men went on to register hundreds. There were moments of brilliance as well, such as a take moving to his left in Adelaide when Smith danced down the pitch and inside-edged Craig, but overall, New Zealand needed more from Watling with both bat and gloves.

Six wickets at 60.50 tells the story of Southee's series. Like Bracewell, he at times bowled better than those figures suggest, and he also struggled with a back injury in Brisbane. But Southee and Boult were described by Richard Hadlee before the series began as New Zealand's all-time best new-ball pair, and had they shown the kind of form that prompted those words, it could have been a very different result.

He ended the series as New Zealand's second-highest wicket taker with eight, but that is barely half the story. Six of Craig's wickets came in Brisbane and Perth at times when Australia had leads around the 500-mark. It was junk time, and they were junk wickets. More telling is the fact that he leaked 5.02 runs per over. That would be barely okay in a one-day series; in a Test campaign, it told of a total inability to build pressure.

Played only in Perth and claimed two wickets, including the first of the match. Might have enjoyed the conditions in Adelaide, but was not given the chance.

While neither of New Zealand's openers posted a century in the series, Guptill did not even manage 100 runs in total. A tally of 82 runs at 13.66 will leave Guptill in danger of facing the axe.

Six runs, one wicket, one injury, and one early flight home. If only it were possible to boost Neesham's marks for his entertaining work on Twitter in the second and third Tests.