Ross Taylor vs Hashim Amla?

[SillyCowCorner1]

Ross Taylor is the better test batsman now though.

Taylor in ODIs in the past was better than Amla. In hitting.

Both were horrible captains?

 

[NZTailender]

how is this different to ATVG. An All Time Very Good is basically an All Time Almost Great. There is no clear distinction between the tiers. If you were any more than Very Good you were Great, if you're any less that Very Good then you're not close to being Almost Great.

Ross Taylor could possibly be a NZ ATVG. I don't think he's an ATVG in the wide scope of the game. He's an ATTS - All Time Test Standard player - would be a serviceable Test/International quality cricketer in any era, but rarely anymore.

We're getting into the realms of vinyl record grading here:

Mint (M) – Absolutely perfect in every way. Never been played and usually sealed.

Near Mint (NM) – The record has been on a shelf between other records. The vinyl looks glossy and clearly has only been played a few times. There are no marks on the vinyl and the whole package is complete.

Excellent (E) – Same but I’d tolerate very light marks where the vinyl has been in and out of the inner sleeve a few times, or tiny signs of use generally.

Very Good Plus (VG+) – A few further faults are acceptable, but nothing that really compromises the record visually or audibly. A little rub, light inaudible marks, a little background crackle.

Very Good (VG) – It’s seen a bit of life, but is still usable. Light pops and clicks, an edge split, light visible scratches. You can still listen to it and enjoy looking at it, but it is visually and audibly USED.

Good (G) – To be honest you’re making trouble for yourself here, as Good means Bad. I’d only be selling something really desirable in this condition, with a bargain price and a full, no holds barred description to match.

Poor (P), Fair (F) Attempting to listen will be a disturbing experience. Expect major noise issues, skipping or repeating. The record itself is cracked, badly warped and has deep scratches. The cover is also approaching death.

I'd attempt to change this into cricketing lexicon but I'm about to goto work

 

[Athlai]

Amla is a worldwide ATG in the format, Taylor is a world class player and a NZ ATG but he ain’t touching any worldwide ATG XIs.

 

[SteveNZ]

Taylor has been poor at world cups. Not great under the great pressure unfortunately. He isnt even the best odi bat in nz either, Guptill takes that easy

As of today, he is. Ross has been far more consistent over the last 12-18 months. Gup might play more big knocks but Ross keeps us in games much more. I think over the last 14 months he's made single figures twice or something just as impressive.

And nah, Ross is below Amla. Yeah his knock in the WC final was good, but nowhere good enough to suggest he's a bigger game player.

 

[Jumno]

I rate Amla very highly, such a classy player.

Amla is far superior to Taylor in tests.

However, I feel Taylor is the better odi player overall and Amla with all respect to him did not do anything in WC QF 2011 and WC SF 2015.

 

[NZTailender]

They've both been not great in WC matches against top 8 teams

 

[Flem274*]

yeah ross was horribly out of nick in the 2015 world cup. kept fighting to 30-40 and getting out. it was not a tournament to remember for him.

 

[Zinzan]

Taylor's an excellent ODI batsman, but not as good as Amla, who has effectively the same record as Dhoni and is a genuinely ATG.

 

[Jumno]

Overall, I would give it to Amla.

However, in world cup knockout games:

Taylor scored 43 in 2011 CWC QF vs SA and a good 40 in the 2015 world cup final under pressure. He has played in 2 other important WC knockout games too.

Amla did not fire in 2011 WC QF, 2015 World cup QF & semi final. In all 3 of his world cup knockout games.

 

[Days of Grace]

World Cup knockout games are such a small sample size to use in order to make a judgment on any player.

 

[Daemon]

They really are. You could be the greatest player in the world but just have an absolute peach bowled to you or glove down the legside on the day of a knockout and everyone's like "lol can't deal with pressure" when there could be a million other more important reasons why you got out.

It's really stupid tbh.

 

[Himannv]

I feel it's almost unfair to rate South African players based on their performances in knockout stages of a World Cup.

 

[harsh.ag]

Agreed with Daemon. Always take as much of the context as is available to you.

If you want to have an opinion on whether Amla can't deal with knockout game pressure, then go and check out all those innings first.

 

[OverratedSanity]

While it's obviously unfair to just look at "average in knockout games" for obvious reasons, I don't think it's unfair to expect a batsman with such a great record to deliver atleast a couple of innings of significance in the knockouts in his career.

 

[SteveNZ]

World Cup knockout games are such a small sample size to use in order to make a judgment on any player.

Maybe so, but that's the nature of the beast. Gilchrist is considered an ATG despite an average that doesn't warrant it, with very sub-par efforts against a few strong nations, because of his World Cup final exploits. And most people are OK with that. So vice versa.

Brendon McCullum had a magic World Cup and failed in the final, that's how a lot of people remembered his tournament. Grant Elliott looked like an U9s batsman in the opening game, was struggling for runs then lit it up from the semi onwards, and is a national hero.

Amla and Taylor have both played enough World Cup knockout matches to be judged. If they got a good nut or were strangled down the leg side etc, well that's still something that shapes how they're viewed. Otherwise to rate anyone, we'd have to watch every dismissal and in fact probably every slice of luck they had along the way.

 

[smash84]

Maybe so, but that's the nature of the beast. Gilchrist is considered an ATG despite an average that doesn't warrant it, with very sub-par efforts against a few strong nations, because of his World Cup final exploits. And most people are OK with that. So vice versa.

Brendon McCullum had a magic World Cup and failed in the final, that's how a lot of people remembered his tournament. Grant Elliott looked like an U9s batsman in the opening game, was struggling for runs then lit it up from the semi onwards, and is a national hero.

Amla and Taylor have both played enough World Cup knockout matches to be judged. If they got a good nut or were strangled down the leg side etc, well that's still something that shapes how they're viewed. Otherwise to rate anyone, we'd have to watch every dismissal and in fact probably every slice of luck they had along the way.

No, but at least watch a larger sample

 

[Jumno]

You would expect a batsman of Amla's calibre to at least score in one of his 3 world cup knockout games.

Quality players such as the Ponting,, Viv Richard's, ABDV, Steve Smith, Wasim Akram, Imran Khan, Maindad, Tendulkar, Shane Warne, McGrath, Steve Waugh, Kapil Dev, Dhoni, Martin Crowe, great West Indian bowlers have all stepped up in their world cup knockout games.

 

[Daemon]

3 games is **** all

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's one area where someone like gilchrist was lucky to have played for Australia. He's remembered as a big game player since he delivered quality performances in 3 separate wc finals. But he usually did **** all in the other games and got carried to the finals since he played for an ATG team. If he'd played for SA, he'd probably be remembered as a choker on the big stage.

 

[Bolo]

3 games is **** all

As a batman yes. Probability determines a large number of batsmen will fail given only three innings regardless of their quality. Sachin's record (chosen because he undoubtedly is one of the best, and has the largest sample size) is a 50/100 (defined as success) roughly 1/3 innings. A batsman of his quality will fail in three games 29% of the time. Given the quality of the opposition, this figure goes up. If you have a top 6 lineup of Sachin's and give them 3 games each, probability dictates that 2 will fail in all of them.

Amla might be rubbish at knockouts, or he might just be the 2/6 Sachin's. There's no way to tell from such a small sample size.