• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

**Official** New Zealand v Pakistan in UAE

straw man

straw man

Hall of Fame Member
Howsie said:
Yea but some of those runs don't count remember. Ross Taylor's first test 100 was scored in an innings where Jamie How made 90, thus it doesn't count. His 150 against India doesn't count either because Jesse Ryder scored a double in the same innings. Now when we take out those scores his average drops down to (a smaller number) and that show's Taylor is a very poor test batsmen.
Click to expand...
Someone has his cynical hat on today :laugh:

I suppose we shouldn't discount Bangladesh or WI either, since you're only allowed to do that if they boost your average :sleep:
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Scaly just hates NZ for some odd reason. Don't listen to him, he's not worth talking to in this thread.

If we'd won last night, he wouldn't be posting in this thread.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
Scaly has a point in Taylor not being suited to number 3, admittedly his point is exaggerated a fair bit. He is fine where he is.
 
Howsie

Howsie

International Captain
Athlai said:
Scaly has a point in Taylor not being suited to number 3, admittedly his point is exaggerated a fair bit. He is fine where he is.
Click to expand...
Yea he's not wrong about that, but he's on a mission to take away any runs he's scored from number three by the look of it.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
Personally I reckon Taylor bats best when under pressure, his knock at 3 vs. Sri Lanka was very very high quality.
 
Howsie

Howsie

International Captain
Athlai said:
Personally I reckon Taylor bats best when under pressure, his knock at 3 vs. Sri Lanka was very very high quality.
Click to expand...
No doubt. He has a very average record against the like of Bangladesh and the Windies but a pretty good record against the rest (barring South Africa of course).
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Howsie said:
Yea but some of those runs don't count remember. Ross Taylor's first test 100 was scored in an innings where Jamie How made 90, thus it doesn't count. His 150 against India doesn't count either because Jesse Ryder scored a double in the same innings. Now when we take out those scores his average drops down to (a smaller number) and that show's Taylor is a very poor test batsmen.
Click to expand...
So you're going to tell me it wasn't a flat pitch when NZ scored over 600 and following-on India managed to bat out 180 overs and only lose 4 wickets?

His other hundred against India was obviously more of a contest between bat and ball, but that was more against threatening spin bowling on a wearing pitch - not coming in early against a new ball doing a bit.

Both centuries against England were when Taylor came in against an older ball where seam bowling was a minor threat.

He's scored the odd 50 against a newish ball in not flat seam conditions, but nothing more significant. And yes he's decent enough against spin, if he wasn't he'd be weak down the order as well. He's just a good but limited batsman - most batsmen have a glaring weakness rather than being suited to bat anywhere and anywhen. Continue exposing his weakness and having him underperform, that's fine with me. I'll just laugh at you lot when he turns from 'world class' hero to club fourths villain. It's quite funny watching Franklin alternate between the two states.
 
Howsie

Howsie

International Captain
Scaly piscine said:
So you're going to tell me it wasn't a flat pitch when NZ scored over 600 and following-on India managed to bat out 180 overs and only lose 4 wickets?

His other hundred against India was obviously more of a contest between bat and ball, but that was more against threatening spin bowling on a wearing pitch - not coming in early against a new ball doing a bit.

Both centuries against England were when Taylor came in against an older ball where seam bowling was a minor threat.

He's scored the odd 50 against a newish ball in not flat seam conditions, but nothing more significant. And yes he's decent enough against spin, if he wasn't he'd be weak down the order as well. He's just a good but limited batsman - most batsmen have a glaring weakness rather than being suited to bat anywhere and anywhen. Continue exposing his weakness and having him underperform, that's fine with me. I'll just laugh at you lot when he turns from 'world class' hero to club fourths villain. It's quite funny watching Franklin alternate between the two states.
Click to expand...
That first 100 he scored against India, New Zealand were 3-23 at one point in the 10th over. The ball was actually moving around for awhile, yes the pitch was flat but in the context of that innings it was a very good knock from Taylor under pressure.

I can't argue with what your've said about Taylor tbh, I agree with all of it. Which surprises me :ph34r:
 
P

Polo23

International Debutant
Who said Taylor should bat 4 in tests anyway?

Also, why are 100's on a flat deck not counted? In that case why don't we just scrap Matthew Hayden's entire career.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
Scaly piscine said:
So you're going to tell me it wasn't a flat pitch when NZ scored over 600 and following-on India managed to bat out 180 overs and only lose 4 wickets?

His other hundred against India was obviously more of a contest between bat and ball, but that was more against threatening spin bowling on a wearing pitch - not coming in early against a new ball doing a bit.

Both centuries against England were when Taylor came in against an older ball where seam bowling was a minor threat.

He's scored the odd 50 against a newish ball in not flat seam conditions, but nothing more significant. And yes he's decent enough against spin, if he wasn't he'd be weak down the order as well. He's just a good but limited batsman - most batsmen have a glaring weakness rather than being suited to bat anywhere and anywhen. Continue exposing his weakness and having him underperform, that's fine with me. I'll just laugh at you lot when he turns from 'world class' hero to club fourths villain. It's quite funny watching Franklin alternate between the two states.
Click to expand...
Actually that deck did flatten out a lot, when Ryder and Taylor started out their innings there was still some juice in the deck. Still a road though.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Polo23 said:
Who said Taylor should bat 4 in tests anyway?

Also, why are 100's on a flat deck not counted? In that case why don't we just scrap Matthew Hayden's entire career.
Click to expand...
Obviously they count, which as I said is why he averages as much as he does in Test cricket (still not even 40). If the pitches consistently have a bit more in them then he'd be nearer 30. This is relevant to him not being suited as a top order batsman in ODIs because he simply doesn't last long against a new ball on anything other than a complete road (or a minnow bowling attack). He is what he is, a middle order player to convert platforms into big totals against the slower bowlers and seamers coming back with an old ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top