*** Official New Zealand Domestic Season Thread 2010/11 ***

[Flem274*]

KNB is an untalented muscle bound slogger who can hit a long ball so long as the ball is in the slot. Otago simply missed their length against him - against a guy like that, you come over the wicket, target his ankle bone and look to hit it on the full/yorker - his lack of footwork means he's likely to stumble around it and either be LBW, bowled or hurt.

He's a hopeless freaking guy who believes he's the next Ross Taylor (and Ross Taylor sucks so bad, he might just be) despite having the talent of an average club cricketer. If it wasn't for his ability to hit the big ball off untimed shots, you'd never hear of him.

stick to talking bowling mate.

 

[Athlai]

Taylor who is currently set on getting in NZ's alltime XI in all forms of the game.

 

[Blocky]

Taylor who is currently set on getting in NZ's alltime XI in all forms of the game.

He's talented beyond belief which is helping him get past huge gaping holes in his mental game and his over reliance on shots that will continue to "define him" and therefore "get him out" much the same way as batsmen are about to start pounding Michael Mason when he bowls 10 slower balls in the last 12.

His mental game is absolutely incompetent and it's of no surprise to me that Taylor performs so inconsistently and never performs when the pitch has some juice in it, noticing his average in NZ on the dull slow and low flat wickets vs what he averages overseas for instance.

 

[Athlai]

Bull, Taylor plays best when the going is toughest. Time and time again he does so. He bungles it all the time when the team are already in a good position.

 

[Blocky]

Bull, Taylor plays best when the going is toughest. Time and time again he does so. He bungles it all the time when the team are already in a good position.

Losing the last 11 ODI's would indicate it's a pretty tough time, where was his match winning performance? You'd think a "world class" batsman would win one in 11 games with the bat.

You know.. how Nathan Astle, Stephen Fleming and the younger version of the Pig used too?

He's a great talent, but a useless brain - the idea of making him captain astounds me.

 

[Athlai]

Yes lets ignore his whole career and make generalisations about a player based on his most recent performances.

 

[Flem274*]

Taylor the test batsman is awesome.

Taylor the ODI batsman is average.

Taylor the 20/20 batsman is awesome.

Done.

 

[Athlai]

Statistically Taylor is a better ODI batsman than either Astle or Fleming. Regardless of what rose tinted glasses may see us remember of them.

 

[Flem274*]

Astle was a much better ODI batsman than Taylor is, but yeah I'd put Fleming and Taylor in the same tier. Both were much better test than ODI batsmen.

 

[Athlai]

Fleming was never as good as he could have been, Astle at his peak was clearly better than Taylor.

 

[Bahnz]

Taylor is a very ordinary ODI batsman because he can't adjust his game to pick up the run rate in the last 15-10 overs. Whenever he does get going, he's almost always out in the 50-80 range playing a slog sweep. Fleming and Astle were better match winners (Astle in particular) because when they got that start, they went on and made it count. Taylor has only done that on one or two occasions since his debut season.

That's part of the reason why I think he should bat at number 3. It would give him more time to make runs playing his natural game, and also allow him to settle in against pace, which Taylor has always been more comfortable against.

 

[Blocky]

Yes lets ignore his whole career and make generalisations about a player based on his most recent performances.

He's CONSTANTLY played like this, there are very few performances he has in winning sides in Tests or ODI cricket.

He's played in 4 test wins, averaging 48.87, scoring 1 century and 3 half centuries.

He's played in 24 other matches, averaging roughly 40, with 4 centuries and 7 half centuries - he's not a match winner (or even setter) in test cricket

In ODI cricket, it's just as bad, just about half his knocks past 50 have come in losing scores. As a Top 3/4 batsman - that's not good enough. Take away Scotland, Kenya, Bangladesh, Ireland and the West Indies and that makes even worse reading.

He's not a match winning batsman, despite all his supposed talent. He might have a better average than either player but he's not playing against the same level of opposition nor the same crappy green top wickets NZ went through during that era.

Astle and Fleming WON games for NZ. Taylor doesn't.

 

[Bahnz]

He's CONSTANTLY played like this, there are very few performances he has in winning sides in Tests or ODI cricket.

He's played in 4 test wins, averaging 48.87, scoring 1 century and 3 half centuries.

He's played in 24 other matches, averaging roughly 40, with 4 centuries and 7 half centuries - he's not a match winner (or even setter) in test cricket

In ODI cricket, it's just as bad, just about half his knocks past 50 have come in losing scores. As a Top 3/4 batsman - that's not good enough. Take away Scotland, Kenya, Bangladesh, Ireland and the West Indies and that makes even worse reading.

He's not a match winning batsman, despite all his supposed talent. He might have a better average than either player but he's not playing against the same level of opposition nor the same crappy green top wickets NZ went through during that era.

Astle and Fleming WON games for NZ. Taylor doesn't.

Taylor has played a number of innings in test cricket that should've been match winners.

His 150 at Edgbaston, his 130 against Australia at Hamilton and his 150 v India at Napier were all game changing knocks that should've resulted in wins for New Zealand were it not for the incompetence of his team mates. The other century helped stave off defeat against India (with a lot of help from the rain). He has also frequently played excellent counter-attacking knocks when coming in faced with a disastrous situation. Taylor is an excellent test batsman playing for a bad team. Just because he did poorly on this tour doesn't mean he's always been rubbish.

Astle and Fleming were apart of a much better test side. Taylor is certainly a better test batsman than Astle was. In Fleming's case, it's less clear, but then Fleming wasn't that much better at producing match winning performances for New Zealand in his last few years than Taylor has been since Fleming's retirement.

 

[Blocky]

Taylor has played a number of innings in test cricket that should've been match winners.

His 150 at Edgbaston, his 130 against Australia at Hamilton and his 150 v India at Napier were all game changing knocks that should've resulted in wins for New Zealand were it not for the incompetence of his team mates. The other century helped stave off defeat against India (with a lot of help from the rain). He has also frequently played excellent counter-attacking knocks when coming in faced with a disastrous situation. Taylor is an excellent test batsman playing for a bad team. Just because he did poorly on this tour doesn't mean he's always been rubbish.

Astle and Fleming were apart of a much better test side. Taylor is certainly a better test batsman than Astle was. In Fleming's case, it's less clear, but then Fleming wasn't that much better at producing match winning performances for New Zealand in his last few years than Taylor has been since Fleming's retirement.

Let me show you a stat that disagrees with you.

We know Taylor has a difference of 8 in his average between winning or losing in test cricket and scored the majority of his bigger scores in losses

Fleming has a difference of 22 in his average between winning and losing in test cricket..

When Fleming hit a knock, it usually mattered.

 

[Bahnz]

Let me show you a stat that disagrees with you.

We know Taylor has a difference of 8 in his average between winning or losing in test cricket and scored the majority of his bigger scores in losses

Fleming has a difference of 22 in his average between winning and losing in test cricket..

When Fleming hit a knock, it usually mattered.

Fleming averaged 51 when he played in a winning team. Taylor averages 48.9. Hardly much of a difference to get excited about. The difference is that when Fleming played well, most of his team backed him up, helping to bring about a victory. The fact that Taylor's win:loss ratio is much more even is reflective of the fact that even when he's played really well, the rest of the side has let him down. Had we won the matches that he'd set up for us, the difference between his win and loss averages would probably not be that dissimilar to Flemings.

Thinking of his performances in the obvious games that we should've won since 2008 (I admit this is always fairly subjective):

2nd test v England in England, 2008: 150 and 20
Brisbane, 2008: 40 and 80
Napier v WI, 2008: 20 and 30 (?, can't remember the exact scores in any cases here)
Napier v Ind, 2009: 150
Napier v Pak, 2009: 20
Hamilton v Aus, 2010: 130 and 20
Ahmedabad, 2010: 56

Taylor produced stand out performances in most of them, and made solid contributions in all but 2 of them.

 

[Blocky]

Granted, although Taylor has four total wins - two of which came against Bangladesh where he did not play an important part in the victory, the other two against England (great innings, but the major reason they won that match was Mills and Martin in the second innings, not Taylor's knock) and Pakistan where he was one of four fifties in the first innings and got out stupidly in the second giving Pakistan a sniff.

Taylor also had an average of what, approximately 1 in every 10 tests he is victorious?

Fleming over a much longer career with an average team line up you can't really call "better" than the one Taylor plays with won almost 1 in 3 matches, he scored more percentage of his runs in wins than Taylor did also.

Taylor is talented, far more talented than Fleming - but his brainlessness and inability to play major long innings is what means he'll never rate on the longer term as well as Fleming did

Also remember Fleming played in an era where he was generally the only guy in the side capable of averaging 40 across a year.

 

[Bahnz]

Granted, although Taylor has four total wins - two of which came against Bangladesh where he did not play an important part in the victory, the other two against England (great innings, but the major reason they won that match was Mills and Martin in the second innings, not Taylor's knock) and Pakistan where he was one of four fifties in the first innings and got out stupidly in the second giving Pakistan a sniff.

Taylor also had an average of what, approximately 1 in every 10 tests he is victorious?

Fleming over a much longer career with an average team line up you can't really call "better" than the one Taylor plays with won almost 1 in 3 matches, he scored more percentage of his runs in wins than Taylor did also.

Taylor is talented, far more talented than Fleming - but his brainlessness and inability to play major long innings is what means he'll never rate on the longer term as well as Fleming did

Also remember Fleming played in an era where he was generally the only guy in the side capable of averaging 40 across a year.

I get the feeling that this is just going to go round in circles, so I'll make one more post with the "agree to disagree coda at the end.

Had Taylor not made a hundred in that much, we would've been bowled out for about 300 in the first innings, and wouldn't have gotten near winning the match. While Mills ultimately won the match on the last day, Taylor set it up on the first and second. In the Pakistan game Taylor was unfortunate enough to get out in the 90's in the first innnings, still a very substantial innings, and was run out when well set in the second, more a case of bad luck than brainless batting.

The team that Fleming played with was considerably better than what Taylor has been playing with. Cairns, Astle, McMillan, Parore, young Vettori, Nash, Richardson and later Franklin, Styris and Bond were excellent international class players. If the current New Zealand side had the same number of talented cricketers with the same "win at any cost" attitude of that bunch, I don't think we'd have let any of the previously mentioned matches slip. For the majority of Taylor's career only Vettori (which you yourself would contest), O'Brien and McCullum (and to lesser extent, Martin miscast in the role of attack leader) have joined him as genuine international class players. Ryder has been injured more often than not and Williamson has only just arrived. The NZ team of 98-2004 was easily our second best in our history because of its quality from 1-11. The current side has nothing close to the all round depth of its predecessor.

Taylor his been one of the few brightspots in a badly performed team. On some occasions he has been stripped of the opportunity to bat for longer by his team mates. I feel that any comparison with Fleming is pointless, given how different their styles and temperaments are. If you wanted a batsman to save you a match, I wouldn't go with either, as both have the tendancy to sell their wicket far too cheaply. As match winning batsmen they both have valuable qualities, but both have shown them probably too rarely for a New Zealand fan's taste.

 

[Flem274*]

Granted, although Taylor has four total wins - two of which came against Bangladesh where he did not play an important part in the victory, the other two against England (great innings, but the major reason they won that match was Mills and Martin in the second innings, not Taylor's knock) and Pakistan where he was one of four fifties in the first innings and got out stupidly in the second giving Pakistan a sniff.

Taylor also had an average of what, approximately 1 in every 10 tests he is victorious?

Fleming over a much longer career with an average team line up you can't really call "better" than the one Taylor plays with won almost 1 in 3 matches, he scored more percentage of his runs in wins than Taylor did also.

Taylor is talented, far more talented than Fleming - but his brainlessness and inability to play major long innings is what means he'll never rate on the longer term as well as Fleming did

Also remember Fleming played in an era where he was generally the only guy in the side capable of averaging 40 across a year.

But he has, you just don't want to hear it because you've joined the Simon Doull style knee jerk reaction against him in all formats because he's an average ODI batsman.

Before the Bangladesh ODI tour no one in this country would hear a word against Ross Taylor, but in typical NZ fashion we take it for granted that our better players will score a ****ing century/take five wickets every innings, and completely overreact when they don't.

 

[Blocky]

I was in, even in this forum, well before Doull in saying that Taylor played stupidly and ultimately cost NZ match winning chances through his soft dismissals in both tests and ODI. I even mentioned his slog sweep and his average with it, so don't accuse me of bandwagoning, I've often thought Taylor plays with more pride and passion for CD than he does NZ.

In a total of 51 test innings, Taylor has batted in excess of 100 balls 15 times - 30% of the time

He's batted in excess of 200 balls a total of 6 times - 11% of the time

For comparison, lets take another dashing batsman who is so unfit he barely plays more than half the tests available... surely not able to compete on time with Ross Taylor right? - Jesse Ryder

In a total of 25 test innings, Ryder has batted in excess of 100 balls 10 times - 40% of the time

He's batted in excess of 200 4 times - 16% of the time.

Ryder averages 125 balls faced
Taylor averages 90 balls faced

 

[NZTailender]

Tbf, Ryder is a better Test batsman than Taylor.