Taylor or Williamson?

[Bahnz]

Taylor was anything but consistent in the England leg of the 2008 home and away series. One 150 and a procession of chancey 20's.

 

[Zinzan]

Indeed, must say I was a tad perplexed by that comment. I actually recall the commentators labouring the point of exactly how scratchy he looked at Lords in particular in '08.

 

[Flem274*]

Hm? Oh ok, I thought there was the 150 and a 50. In the home leg hee was very consistent. May have added some scores to his ton in the 2009 home series against a Zaheer led Indian attack too iirc.

 

[hendrix]

The point is that Taylor has scored hundreds against England and Australia and Williamson hasn't. You can call that spud Williamson if you want but until he proves me wrong ill take Taylor over him against those attacks.

 

[hendrix]

Taylor also easily looked the most likely in England 2013 as well.

 

[Zinzan]

The point is that Taylor has scored hundreds against England and Australia and Williamson hasn't. You can call that spud Williamson if you want but until he proves me wrong ill take Taylor over him against those attacks.

So you're effectively doubting Kane's good enough to score a ton against those bowling attacks, because he didn't in 2 test against Aus in '11 when he was 21 (including the paddock in Hobart) and admittedly a number of tests against England in 2013?

By that rationale, you might as well say until Taylor scores a ton against SA (the no.1 bowling attack, and red hot in 2011 when Philander was freaking it, Morkel bowled probably his best ever & Steyn was being Steyn) then you're not convinced he's good enough.

I have no doubts Kane is good enough to score tons against any attack in the world.

 

[Flem274*]

Williamson has scored a hundred against South Africa and Taylor hasn't.

Hendrix I'm in camp "Taylor is better, just" as well but complete record absolutism isn't how to argue it.

 

[hendrix]

So you're effectively doubting Kane's good enough to score a ton against those bowling attacks, because he didn't in 2 test against Aus in '11 when he was 21 (including the paddock in Hobart) and admittedly a number of tests against England in 2013?

By that rationale, you might as well say until Taylor scores a ton against SA (the no.1 bowling attack, and red hot in 2011 when Philander was freaking it, Morkel bowled probably his best ever & Steyn was being Steyn) then you're not convinced he's good enough.

I have no doubts Kane is good enough to score tons against any attack in the world.

Williamson has scored a hundred against South Africa and Taylor hasn't.

Hendrix I'm in camp "Taylor is better, just" as well but complete record absolutism isn't how to argue it.

It's to do with watching the two bat against good pace attacks. Yes, I'm very much aware of Williamson's ton against SA. But I've seen Taylor dominate Johnson and Harris and even look very dominant against Broad and Anderson in a way that I haven't seen from Williamson. I'm not just talking about tons. I'm talking about the level of batsmanship.

1st Test: England v New Zealand at Lord's, May 16-19, 2013 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd Test: Australia v New Zealand at Hobart, Dec 9-12, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Until he got out Taylor looked on another level in both of these matches. I'm aware that "until he got out" is a bit of a false proviso. It's just that watching those innings still leaves me feeling that Taylor is a much better batsman against quality pace bowling than Williamson.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

The poll has been interesting. On it's first life, Taylor led Williamson 9 - 6. Since it was resurrected, Williamson's ahead 8 - 1.

 

[Bahnz]

It's to do with watching the two bat against good pace attacks. Yes, I'm very much aware of Williamson's ton against SA. But I've seen Taylor dominate Johnson and Harris and even look very dominant against Broad and Anderson in a way that I haven't seen from Williamson. I'm not just talking about tons. I'm talking about the level of batsmanship.

1st Test: England v New Zealand at Lord's, May 16-19, 2013 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd Test: Australia v New Zealand at Hobart, Dec 9-12, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Until he got out Taylor looked on another level in both of these matches. I'm aware that "until he got out" is a bit of a false proviso. It's just that watching those innings still leaves me feeling that Taylor is a much better batsman against quality pace bowling than Williamson.

Interesting match to choose given that Williamson and Taylor scored the exact same number of runs - especially given that Williamson lasted more than twice as long at the crease. Taylor might have looked better in terms of stroke play, but in very tricky conditions Williamson ultimately proved more adept at occupying the crease and it was his dismissal (an annoying strangle if memory serves) that ultimately lead to the first innings unravelling.

I would also say that while Williamson may not have "dominated" Broad and Anderson, he certainly had their measure during his 90-odd that he made at Eden Park. Sure, you can say that both the pitch and the bowlers were flat, but then again there are no guarantees that the same won't be true come the test series later this year.

 

[Zinzan]

It's to do with watching the two bat against good pace attacks. Yes, I'm very much aware of Williamson's ton against SA. But I've seen Taylor dominate Johnson and Harris and even look very dominant against Broad and Anderson in a way that I haven't seen from Williamson. I'm not just talking about tons. I'm talking about the level of batsmanship.

1st Test: England v New Zealand at Lord's, May 16-19, 2013 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd Test: Australia v New Zealand at Hobart, Dec 9-12, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Until he got out Taylor looked on another level in both of these matches. I'm aware that "until he got out" is a bit of a false proviso. It's just that watching those innings still leaves me feeling that Taylor is a much better batsman against quality pace bowling than Williamson.

Some fair points there, although ironically I recall Williamson's 30 odd at Hobart was a classy little innings which ended because he pushed at a wide one a little optimistically early on day 3 for Ponting to grab a screamer. But I actually thought he looked really good that innings considering the bowling attack and the fact it was greeny mcgreen.

The bigger point for me however is just how much Williamson has improved in the last 12-18 months. He's twice the player now than he was even in that England series in mid 2013.

The poll has been interesting. On it's first life, Taylor led Williamson 9 - 6. Since it was resurrected, Williamson's ahead 8 - 1.

I think this emphasises my last point above & is indicative of just how much Williamson has improved in the last year and a half.

 

[Bahnz]

I think this emphasises my last point above & is indicative of just how much Williamson has improved in the last year and a half.

Yeah but the poll was started in November, in the middle of the Pakistan series iirc.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah but the poll was started in November, in the middle of the Pakistan series iirc.

This is true, but his rate of improvement has continued to be ridiculous even since then.

 

[hendrix]

Interesting match to choose given that Williamson and Taylor scored the exact same number of runs - especially given that Williamson lasted more than twice as long at the crease. Taylor might have looked better in terms of stroke play, but in very tricky conditions Williamson ultimately proved more adept at occupying the crease and it was his dismissal (an annoying strangle if memory serves) that ultimately lead to the first innings unravelling.

I would also say that while Williamson may not have "dominated" Broad and Anderson, he certainly had their measure during his 90-odd that he made at Eden Park. Sure, you can say that both the pitch and the bowlers were flat, but then again there are no guarantees that the same won't be true come the test series later this year.

Yeah I knew someone would comment on that. Honestly, not about the number of balls - the strike rate is completely irrelevant to me. He just looked the best batsman in that match by a country mile.

It was an incredibly frustrating game for me because our key bowlers bowled better and our key batsmen batted better across the first couple of days. England just got more out of their make-up the numbers guys (Compton, Bairstow), our tail gave in meekly, and then Broad did his demolition job. Annoying series in general tbh, but quite a key one in terms of actually recognising the class of some of our players. I genuinely thought Southee was the best bowler on show in that series. It was the first time that I realised that Cook/Trott not scoring runs wasn't actually just a law of averages/luck of the draw thing, but that it was to be expected when you look at the quality of Boult and Southee.

 

[Flem274*]

Kane's 30 in Hobart was an ATG innings because it left TumTum looking like a fool and gave me his avatar to boot.

"Kane Williamson can't cover drive off the front foot".

 

[hendrix]

Kane's 30 in Hobart was an ATG innings because it left TumTum looking like a fool and gave me his avatar to boot.

"Kane Williamson can't cover drive off the front foot".

Man, early Latham is so similar to early Williamson (and early Root actually).

Gonna be a very good top order.

 

[Zinzan]

Man, early Latham is so similar to early Williamson (and early Root actually).

Gonna be a very good top order.

lol, I'm not sure who's more obsessed with who. You with Tommy or Howsie with Trent. Tough match-up...(and I mean this in the nicest possibly way)

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah I knew someone would comment on that. Honestly, not about the number of balls - the strike rate is completely irrelevant to me. He just looked the best batsman in that match by a country mile.

It was an incredibly frustrating game for me because our key bowlers bowled better and our key batsmen batted better across the first couple of days. England just got more out of their make-up the numbers guys (Compton, Bairstow), our tail gave in meekly, and then Broad did his demolition job. Annoying series in general tbh, but quite a key one in terms of actually recognising the class of some of our players. I genuinely thought Southee was the best bowler on show in that series. It was the first time that I realised that Cook/Trott not scoring runs wasn't actually just a law of averages/luck of the draw thing, but that it was to be expected when you look at the quality of Boult and Southee.

Yeah, I honestly think that if we played that test again with our current team we'd win. Neesham/Anderson and Craig are better "make up the numbers guys" than Fulton, Brownlie and Martin, and KW, Watling and McCullum have all improved considereably in the interim. However the biggest difference is the side's confidence to win games from anywhere.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, I honestly think that if we played that test again with our current team we'd win. Neesham/Anderson and Craig are better "make up the numbers guys" than Fulton, Brownlie and Martin, and KW, Watling and McCullum have all improved considereably in the interim. However the biggest difference is the side's confidence to win games from anywhere.

There is no such thing as a guaranteed non-loss let alone a guaranteed win against Anderson and Broad in England.

 

[Bahnz]

There is no such thing as a guaranteed non-loss let alone a guaranteed win against Anderson and Broad in England.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed, I'm just saying I'd favour us to win.