Mark Taylor - ODI Career

[The_CricketUmpire]

Does anyone know why Mark Taylor played as many ODI's as he did? Not really his fault or a criticism of him, but clearly he was a true Test player, ODI cricket....he wasn't really suited to it. He was a bit slow. Let's look at his career in ODI's:

Matches: 113
Innings: 110
Not Outs: 1
Runs: 3,514
Average: 32.23
Strike Rate: 59.47
Highest Score: 105 (vs India in Bengaluru)
50s: 28
100s: 1
50+ Scores: 29
Most Runs in a Calendar Year: 792 (1996)
Most Runs in a Series: 423

I remember when Adam Gilchrist first played international cricket for Australia via the One Day Internationals and eventually he replaced Ian Healy in the Test team in 1999. An attacking opening batsman like Matthew Hayden - the selectors could of played him more in the ODI's in his earlier years before he became a regular member of the Test side plus Hayden was more attacking than Taylor.

Again, not a criticism of Taylor, I liked him as a captain and player - good career. He was a Test batsman, and that's fine, and he was a good Test batsman as his record shows, but ODI cricket wasn't something that he was attacking in as a batsman. One can only put it down to perhaps (and this is a guess) that Taylor batted in an era of ODI cricket when run rates weren't as high as they were, and so there wasnt a need to score really quickly. But towards the end of his ODI career, he was dumped. During the middle 1990s Sri Lanka's opening pair Sanath Jayasuriya and Romesh Kaluwitharana were probably the first opening pair in ODI world cricket to really go on the attack in the first 15 overs and after a while other teams followed this line of thinking, because this was an effective method. This probably contributed to Taylor not being selected in ODI's anymore as he was too slow. Average wise, his ODI average was 32.23 so that wasn't too bad, it's just that he was slow.

 

[ashley bach]

That strike rate of 59 was absolutely pathetic regardless of what day and age he played in.

 

[Line and Length]

It was an era when selectors automatically picked ODI sides primarily made up of Test players. Specialist ODI players developed later.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

It was an era when selectors automatically picked ODI sides primarily made up of Test players. Specialist ODI players developed later.

Ok that probably makes sense and they started to separate those players who were better at ODI cricket than Test cricket etc. Some of course were good at both.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah back them the ODI teams were pretty much the same as the Test team, with a few changes at most. It was very rare to have a different captain in each format and being captain meant he was just about an automatic pick. He was also in pretty terrible form for the time period he played a lot of those ODIs, even in Tests, which he probably should have been dropped from as well.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

During the middle 1990s Sri Lanka's opening pair Sanath Jayasuriya and Romesh Kaluwitharana were probably the first opening pair in ODI world cricket to really go on the attack in the first 15 overs and after a while other teams followed this line of thinking, because this was an effective method.

Greatbatch and Latham in the 92 CWC.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Yep, played way too many matches, mainly because the convention back then was the Test/ODI captains were the same. He only became a ODI regular once he took over from AB.

Despite this, Taylor regularly whined about the captaincy being split afterwards, which seems laughable considering how poor he was in the format.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

I mean his ODI career stats are reasonable (see above) but I just think he wasn't really suited to ODI cricket because he was too slow. He was a true Test batsman, which is absolutely fine. Some batsman are suited to one format than other formats.

 

[quincywagstaff]

I think the main issue wasn't just that he was slow even by 1990s standards, but he didn't bat long enough with such a technique.

Should've been batting through the innings regularly but only one ODI century shows he did it nowhere near enough.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

I think the main issue wasn't just that he was slow even by 1990s standards, but he didn't bat long enough with such a technique.

Should've been batting through the innings regularly but only one ODI century shows he did it nowhere near enough.

He did score in the 90s three times, so it would of been good if he could of got to the 100 mark on all of those three occasions or even 2 out of 3 or even 1 out of 3. But not to be.

Still though, his record in ODI cricket was reasonable (apart from being a bit slow). I blame the selectors for picking him for ODI cricket, when it was clear he was a true Test batsman. There were other options available in terms of choosing a more attacking opening batsman for ODI cricket. Him being an excellent captain probably also kept him in the ODI Australian team as well.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Look at it another way ..

An average Mark Taylor score in ODI cricket was
32 off 55 , he was a player who pretty much kept to that ratio considering he didn't have a lot of not outs or high scores that bloated his average... I mean that's not the worst for a 90's era opener , also I think Mark Taylor's captaincy skills is what carried considerable weight in his selection , 67 of his 113 matches he was captain .

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Look at it another way ..

An average Mark Taylor score in ODI cricket was
32 off 55 , he was a player who pretty much kept to that ratio considering he didn't have a lot of not outs or high scores that bloated his average... I mean that's not the worst for a 90's era opener , also I think Mark Taylor's captaincy skills is what carried considerable weight in his selection , 67 of his 113 matches he was captain .

I guess the way you have worded it...he did bis job. Would be interesting to compare his ODI stats to other openers of that era....and I'm pretty confident their stats would be better.

 

[slippy888]

Ian Healy was one of the worst one day international batsman

 

[CricAddict]

It was an era when selectors automatically picked ODI sides primarily made up of Test players. Specialist ODI players developed later.

Yes. We remember how RCB went in with all test players for the initial IPL version too stating that if a player is good in tests, he will automatically be good in other formats.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Ian Healy was one of the worst one day international batsman

Matches: 168
Innings: 120
Runs: 1,764
Not Outs: 36
Average: 21.00
Strike Rate: 83.84
50s: 4
100s: 0
Highest Score: 56

He was in the Aus ODI team for his wicket keeping and he was a very good keeper. Batting though, not quite as good and when Gilchrist came along - better batsman than Healy. I rate Healy the better keeper, in my opinion and Gilchrist clearly the better batsman. I guess Healy played in that era where you were a "keeper-batsman" rather than a "batsman-keeper"

 

[Burgey]

Strike rate of 83 batting in the middle order wasn't awful for a keeper in the 80s and 90s though. Gilchrist obviously on another level as an ODI player though.

Tubby was pretty junk in ODIs. As has been said, he played as many as he did because back then if you were captain, you played both formats.

 

[Prince EWS]

Strike rate of 83 batting in the middle order wasn't awful for a keeper in the 80s and 90s though.

Yeah he batted 7/8 in a good team in an era where teams often didn't use all the wickets they had at their disposal properly. Strike rate was excellent for the era. I think he often came in with <5 overs to go.

It seems like he did his role decently for someone who wasn't exactly specialist batsman quality in any format.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Strike rate of 83 batting in the middle order wasn't awful for a keeper in the 80s and 90s though. Gilchrist obviously on another level as an ODI player though.

Tubby was pretty junk in ODIs. As has been said, he played as many as he did because back then if you were captain, you played both formats.

I think his runs scored and average is reasonable but he was far too slow and shouldn't have played as many as he did. Still though I'd take an ODI hundred if I was good enough lol

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Yeah he batted 7/8 in a good team in an era where teams often didn't use all the wickets they had at their disposal properly. Strike rate was excellent for the era. I think he often came in with <5 overs to go.

It seems like he did his role decently for someone who wasn't exactly specialist batsman quality in any format.

Just on Healy's record in First-Class cricket. He scored 4 First-Class hundreds - all at Test level. He never scored a First-Class hundred for Queensland.

 

[CricAddict]

Strike rate of 83 batting in the middle order wasn't awful for a keeper in the 80s and 90s though. Gilchrist obviously on another level as an ODI player though.

Tubby was pretty junk in ODIs. As has been said, he played as many as he did because back then if you were captain, you played both formats.

Surprising how so many chubby captains played ODIs at the same time at that time. Mark Taylor, Arjuna Ranatunga, Inzamam Ul-Haq, any one else?