Just how underrated is Ross Taylor?

[viriya]

Nah. People like to pretend it was Hadlee and a bunch of turds so they can force it into the "New Zealand are hard working fighters with a great team spirit" narrative but during his career he played with Martin Crowe, Richard Collinge, John F. Reid, Andrew Jones, John Wright and had Ian Smith's keeping to back him up. Ewen Chatfield and Lance Cairns were always there or thereabout too, deadly on their day and maintained bowling averages in the very low 30s.

Taylor is the one who has had to do a lot of batting with no one around him. not Crowe. Crowe had plenty of partners in crime.

I'm not saying Hadlee was a one-man army, but if you compare the two NZ bowling attacks (now vs then), I would say he makes the difference. As good as Southee has become, he's no Hadlee. What's so great about Hadlee was his wkts/match - he took wickets like a spinner (9 10 wkt-hauls).

 

[Blocky]

I'm not saying Hadlee was a one-man army, but if you compare the two NZ bowling attacks (now vs then), I would say he makes the difference. As good as Southee has become, he's no Hadlee. What's so great about Hadlee was his wkts/match - he took wickets like a spinner (9 10 wkt-hauls).

Southee + Boult + Wagner have a better strike rate and lower overall average than Hadlee + Chatfield + Cairns.

The reason Hadlee took wickets like a spinner comes down to the fact that as good as Chats and Cairns were, they weren't out and out strike bowlers... in Hadlee's time there was very rarely a good spinner in the attack at all and he didn't play as many tests as other nations, therefore was fresher and could bowl more overs than most..

 

[viriya]

You can't just explain Hadlee's high wkts/match on his fellow bowlers, he was just really really good, in the top 10 bowlers of all-time.

 

[Blocky]

You can't just explain Hadlee's high wkts/match on his fellow bowlers, he was just really really good, in the top 10 bowlers of all-time.

I'd have Hadlee as #1 all time as a pace bowler solely due to what his record says and watching him destroy some of the best batsman of his day, but he was helped by the fact that he didn't play 10 tests every season like other players of the day.

 

[NasserFan207]

The fact that he's not NZ's best batsman means people forget about him.

He's good though, for sure.

 

[morgieb]

The fact that he's not NZ's best batsman means people forget about him.

He's good though, for sure.

You think Williamson is better?

 

[Bahnz]

I just think history will see Taylor in the same light it sees Mark Waugh, fantastic player, beautiful to watch on their day but ultimately too prone to soft dismissals to be a great.

A very apt comparison, at least at this stage. Taylor is a wonderful batsman and should always be there or there abouts in a top 10 batsmen in the world discussion. But his agressive style and tendency to push away from himself at times have (and will continue to) get him into trouble. More recently, Taylor has started to show the potential to play longer, more important, innings than the flashing, dashing hundreds that were scattered throughout the first 5 or so years of his career. The match-winner in Colombo was one, as was the 130 that he scored against WI at Hamilton in December. So I think he has the potential to take the step up over the next 5 years and join that top echelon. But right now I think he gets about the amount of praise that he deserves: NZ's best batsman, a fine attacking player, but not in the class of guys like ABD, Sangakkara or Chanders.

I would say Ian Bell is the closest modern player to Taylor in terms of effectiveness, even if he's a completely different kind of batsman.

 

[NasserFan207]

You think Williamson is better?

Yeah.

 

[Coronis]

No - but history does tend to favour those that play in winning teams. George Headley is very rarely mentioned as a great in conversations these days. I'd also argue that we're approaching the same level of side that we had back then considering Southee has been bowling Hadlee-esque averages/strike rates of late, with back up from Boult and Wagner... and also our middle order being one of the best in our history.

I just think history will see Taylor in the same light it sees Mark Waugh, fantastic player, beautiful to watch on their day but ultimately too prone to soft dismissals to be a great.

Good one.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The fact that he's not NZ's best batsman means people forget about him.

He's good though, for sure.

Well, Williamson is better at the moment, yes, but over the last few years, Taylor has carried the lineup almost on his own at times. Just think he's not talked about as much because he's pretty terrible to watch, atleast for me. Awesome player, though... played lots of backs-to-the-wall knocks for his side.

Also ,If he had more downhill skiing bore draw tons, he'd have a 50+ average and people would rate him higher. As is, he's #2 all time behind Crowe for NZ.

 

[hendrix]

Williamson is not better than him at the moment. Williamson is in a good bit of form, and may one day end up better than him. But Taylor is quite significantly the better batsman right now.

 

[SteveNZ]

Williamson is not better than him at the moment. Williamson is in a good bit of form, and may one day end up better than him. But Taylor is quite significantly the better batsman right now.

If you asked me who I'd want batting for my life in a Test match now, I'd probably go Kane. But Ross has 4 more Test hundreds (and recent ones), a 6-run higher average, a double century, a better conversion rate etc.

So Ross>Kane at least for now.

And I don't think he's underrated at all by NZ fans who see all he does. We all (I imagine) rate him highly and admire especially the way he's adapted his game and become a lot more consistent, plus the runs he scored in obviously troubled times behind the scenes.

Also a fantastic bloke which I'm happy to throw in the mix as criteria.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Williamson is not better than him at the moment. Williamson is in a good bit of form, and may one day end up better than him. But Taylor is quite significantly the better batsman right now.

Tbh, in better form is pretty much = better at the moment.

I think Williamson has probably matured now. Wouldnt be surprised if he went on a pretty prolific spree for the next 2-3 years atleast

 

[91Jmay]

He's scored hundreds against Johnson and Harris on a basin reserve seamer. A good English attack in not easy conditions, home and away. Against Ojha, Ashwin and Herath in dustbowls (at a time when Ashwon actually bowled well).

I don't see any reason not to put him up there with Pietersen. Definitely better than Bell.

Don't see how he is definitely better than Bell. Bell has scored numerous match winning hundreds over the last few years, they are both pretty close to each other IMO. I'd take Bell, but thats probably more bias than anything.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Best NZ bat since Crowe though Williamson may well end up better in time. A very good player who would walk into every side in the world at present.

 

[Athlai]

Taylor has only been particularly dominant for a short while (1-2 years) so it's fairly easy to see why people don't rate him as high as others.

Batsman often hit their best form in the last 20s early 30s and I definitely think thats what happened with Taylor. I love him more than anyone. Seriously. I really, really do.

But till you score big hundreds against Australia, South Africa or a dominant England you don't really get massive props in international cricket.

 

[Jono]

Pretty underrated but not to the level where its criminal. And he's not in his mid-30s and had a long career yet so its not a big deal for now. If he improves his record as he ages I'm sure he'll be recognised. If he isn't then it'll become ridiculous.

No doubt being from NZ has hurt him.

 

[Prince EWS]

Also ,If he had more downhill skiing bore draw tons, he'd have a 50+ average and people would rate him higher. As is, he's #2 all time behind Crowe for NZ.

50+ average is an arbitrary measure that I don't really care about, but aside from that - if he'd been more efficient in scoring relatively 'easy' runs then I absolutely would rate him higher.

In saying that, New Zealand pitches throughout his career have generally much flatter on the whole than people give them credit for and he averages 59 at home and 37 away. Unlike many here I don't think that's necessarily better than having those stats the other way around, but I'd say he does benefit a little from flatter than average home surfaces.

As for the thread title - I don't think he's under-rated; maybe occasionally under-considered in the way Cabinet suggested, but not under-rated in the sense that most people think he's worse than he is. If anything I'd consider him slightly over-rated by a couple of members of this forum, particularly in a 'historical standing' sense given he (presumably) still has a fair chunk of his career to go.

 

[hendrix]

But till you score big hundreds against Australia, South Africa or a dominant England you don't really get massive props in international cricket.

He's ticked 2 of those boxes.

 

[Athlai]

Can someone who doesn't love Ross continue this argument? It hurts.