***Official**** Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2014/2015

[thierry henry]

His batting in ODI's in the last year would suggest that Taylor isn't experiencing anything other than a ridiculous purple patch:

628 runs at an average of 89 and a strike rate of 84.

Yep, he had plenty of success with his approach (3 centuries in a year where he was only dismissed 7 times?). And 84 is a good strike-rate...but it's actually not that good for a guy scoring that well, if you see what I mean. Obviously in those (relatively few) innings he played in 2014, he executed his plan to perfection. He was able to start slow and accelerate, and yet his strike-rate was "only" 84, which represents about the optimum possible strike-rate he can aim for batting this way. It's far from ideal in the modern ODI game to:

(a) Put yourself at risk of being dismissed for a low score while sucking up a lot of balls
(b) As a batsman once known for his potential to be spectacularly explosive, restrict your potential to play such an innings. Taylor's approach doesn't really seem adaptable to conditions anymore. Sometimes even 100(110) isn't that great of an innings.

Now, I'm fully aware of how nutty I sound right now, but I do think I'm onto something. Actually, I reckon I was involved in the exact same discussion about Jonathan Trott once and took the opposite position

 

[_Ed_]

What is this?! When I left work we were 150-2. I stop off at the supermarket on the way, then get home and see we're 190-7. I don't even...

 

[Dick Rockett]

As a batsman once known for his potential to be spectacularly explosive

I remember he used to get plenty of criticism for that too. Poor guy can't win.

 

[thierry henry]

...and more than any of what I just said, it's more that visually, Taylor looks less fluid and natural with his ball-striking than he once did, and generally bats with less intent in LO cricket.

I can't really "prove" that because it's just my perception.

He has actually adapted his approach to be an IMPROVED ODI player, but nevertheless it troubles me that some of his gifts seem to have deserted him to an extent, and he seems to be choosing an approach which has rectifiable (is that a word?) shortcomings.

 

[Immenso]

Which half of the block is this match being played on?
The fast & bouncy? Or slow and spinning
Kippax? Which clay? (There are different clays on the Seddon block, right?)

 

[Zinzan]

What is this?! When I left work we were 150-2. I stop off at the supermarket on the way, then get home and see we're 190-7. I don't even...

All I can say is NZ have been incredibly lucky there's only been 3 run-outs so far and not 6.

It's almost been like 100 years of the worst calling/running between the wickets has condensed into 1 innings.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

...and more than any of what I just said, it's more that visually, Taylor looks less fluid and natural with his ball-striking than he once did, and generally bats with less intent in LO cricket.

I can't really "prove" that because it's just my perception.

He has actually adapted his approach to be an IMPROVED ODI player, but nevertheless it troubles me that some of his gifts seem to have deserted him to an extent, and he seems to be choosing an approach which has rectifiable (is that a word?) shortcomings.

I remember he used to get a huge amount of flak for his slog-sweep when he first started out. It seems he made a conscious effort to shelve it and did, but as a result almost seems reluctant to try and absolutely smash the bowling when the time calls for it.

 

[thierry henry]

I remember he used to get plenty of criticism for that too. Poor guy can't win.

Not from me.

I'm all for players finding an approach which maximises their output. In Taylor's case he seems to have found an approach which improves his output but there's an element of "baby with the bathwater" about it. He's a very competent attacking batsman and I think he's good enough to score his first 50 runs at an acceptable strike-rate without needing to take outrageous risks.

I really have two concerns- first, that he's batting in this excessively restricted way- and second, that perhaps he is doing this because his natural gifts have prematurely waned somehow?

 

[Bahnz]

Yep, he had plenty of success with his approach (3 centuries in a year where he was only dismissed 7 times?). And 84 is a good strike-rate...but it's actually not that good for a guy scoring that well, if you see what I mean. Obviously in those (relatively few) innings he played in 2014, he executed his plan to perfection. He was able to start slow and accelerate, and yet his strike-rate was "only" 84, which represents about the optimum possible strike-rate he can aim for batting this way. It's far from ideal in the modern ODI game to:

(a) Put yourself at risk of being dismissed for a low score while sucking up a lot of balls
(b) As a batsman once known for his potential to be spectacularly explosive, restrict your potential to play such an innings. Taylor's approach doesn't really seem adaptable to conditions anymore. Sometimes even 100(110) isn't that great of an innings.

Now, I'm fully aware of how nutty I sound right now, but I do think I'm onto something. Actually, I reckon I was involved in the exact same discussion about Jonathan Trott once and took the opposite position

Yeah, but this is the way that Taylor has always batted. He's never been a good hitter because his range of boundary strokes is so limited, and he's always seemed to have a speed-limit on his ODI run scoring of about 5-6 RPO. That's part of the reason why he's such an average T20 player. I don't think there's anything particularly unusual about Taylor striking at 84 when while he's making runs for fun.

 

[thierry henry]

I remember he used to get a huge amount of flak for his slog-sweep when he first started out. It seems he made a conscious effort to shelve it and did, but as a result almost seems reluctant to try and absolutely smash the bowling when the time calls for it.

Taylor has always had all sorts of shots in his repertoire though. He's better than just "block a ball, nurdle a single, block a ball, nurdle a single" or "pre-determined 6 over cow". I think it's reasonable to ask for more than excessive caution and less than reckless slogging. That's exactly what the years of experience should have taught him.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Not from me.

I'm all for players finding an approach which maximises their output. In Taylor's case he seems to have found an approach which improves his output but there's an element of "baby with the bathwater" about it. He's a very competent attacking batsman and I think he's good enough to score his first 50 runs at an acceptable strike-rate without needing to take outrageous risks.

I really have two concerns- first, that he's batting in this excessively restricted way- and second, that perhaps he is doing this because his natural gifts have prematurely waned somehow?

I reckon his ODI output in the last couple of years speaks for itself. 84 is still an excellent strike rate in this format imo.

Now his *test* form, that's a concern.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah, but this is the way that Taylor has always batted. He's never been a good hitter because his range of boundary strokes is so limited, and he's always seemed to have a speed-limit on his ODI run scoring of about 5-6 RPO. That's part of the reason why he's such an average T20 player. I don't think there's anything particularly unusual about Taylor striking at 84 when while he's making runs for fun.

Disagree that he's always batted that way.

He was actually one of the better T20 batsmen going around between about 2007-2009 IIRC. I'm sure his T20 SR has dropped off in the last 5 years.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah, but this is the way that Taylor has always batted. He's never been a good hitter because his range of boundary strokes is so limited, and he's always seemed to have a speed-limit on his ODI run scoring of about 5-6 RPO. That's part of the reason why he's such an average T20 player. I don't think there's anything particularly unusual about Taylor striking at 84 when while he's making runs for fun.

Up until not that long ago, didn't Taylor actually have an outstanding T20 record generally but a terrible international T20 record? The way I remember it, for quite a long time it was "oh, Taylor's a gun T20 player who for some reason hasn't come off at international level yet"....then over time his performances in the format deteriorated in general and now the perception is that he just sucks at T20.

I don't really see him as a player with a very limited array of shots or a cap on his s/r potential at all....will have to agree to disagree on that I guess. My thoughts on that have always been that he's his own worst enemy always resorting to the slog-sweep when he is perfectly capable of playing scorching shots through the off-side off front and back foot.

 

[_Ed_]

Oh FFS.

 

[Adgey]

Whats the record for run outs in an innings?

 

[Dick Rockett]

Wow, Milne looks a totally decent bat. Would like to see him given a go in tests.

EDIT: Oh FFS.

 

[thierry henry]

Disagree that he's always batted that way.

He was actually one of the better T20 batsmen going around between about 2007-2009 IIRC. I'm sure his T20 SR has dropped off in the last 5 years.

Basically this.

He hasn't done it for a while, but earlier on Taylor was very much the type of guy who could "do a B-Mac" and get you 60 off 30 or whatever. For quite a while if I'd had to pick someone from the BCs who could throw caution to the wind and was likely to actually get it in the middle, it absolutely would've been Taylor.

 

[BeeGee]

What's the record for most run outs in a row?

 

[Zinzan]

So concerns about 'mental frailties' come the WC when the pressure and spotlight is really going to come on or just one of those days?

 

[Cabinet96]

5-8 on the scorecard