Ross Taylor GOAT ODI batsmen in the first innings?

[KingKhanWC]

A great record which imo will not be beaten in this generation. There has never been an ODI player who is so good helping his team to set a total in the first innings of an ODI. He showed this against SL recently.

 

[Virat_Kohli_fan]

ABD is easily better once you factor in the SR.

 

[WengerOut]

TBH, i am getting tired of this filters. What next? Best batsman on Wednesdays?

 

[KingKhanWC]

TBH, i am getting tired of this filters. What next? Best batsman on Wednesdays?

Im really sorry it wasn't Kohli but it's a very good stat because many batsmen are clueless when it comes to setting a target. IT's a great skill and Taylor is the GOAT at this.

 

[WengerOut]

Im really sorry it wasn't Kohli but it's a very good stat because many batsmen are clueless when it comes to setting a target. IT's a great skill and Taylor is the GOAT at this.

Really sorry i dint get the Kohli part.

 

[vandokkum]

I am not a big fan of him but this is spot on, in odi's Strike rate of 100 and average of 45 is better than strike rate of 90 and averaging 50.

 

[Abdullah719]

Used a cut-off of 2000 ODI runs batting first.

 

[Space Cat]

TBH, i am getting tired of this filters. What next? Best batsman on Wednesdays?

Stats based on batting first is a completely reasonable filter to apply.

 

[Abdullah719]

Broadcasters really must show strike-rates when it comes to any limited-over batting stats.

 

[Space Cat]

The fact that Taylor bats at 4 and has 20 ODI hundreds shows how many times he has managed to salvage poor starts by NZ. We will miss him big time when he goes.

 

[Abdullah719]

The fact that Taylor bats at 4 and has 20 ODI hundreds shows how many times he has managed to salvage poor starts by NZ. We will miss him big time when he goes.

Very impressive for a middle-order batsman indeed. Surprised that only a handful have 10+ hundreds at #4 and below.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The fact that Taylor bats at 4 and has 20 ODI hundreds shows how many times he has managed to salvage poor starts by NZ. We will miss him big time when he goes.

Good point. He oftens comes in with 2 down for not much but has the ability to only stablise the innings but counter attack too if needed.

He's a very intelligent batsmen who knows cricket inside out, so has the ability to read the pitch and realise what a par total is. Against India although he got out early to the spinner, he came in with a few runs on the board but knew it was a good batting surface so started to score immediatly.

 

[Buffet]

View attachment 87335

A great record which imo will not be beaten in this generation. There has never been an ODI player who is so good helping his team to set a total in the first innings of an ODI. He showed this against SL recently.

Avg 51 & 106 (AB) > Avg 52 & SR 84 ( Taylor)

 

[KingKhanWC]

Avg 51 & 106 (AB) > Avg 52 & SR 84 ( Taylor)

They both played different roles. De Villiers usually came in when his team were well on top so could hit out early. If he swapped places with Taylor in the NZ team and found himself in those situations, he wouldn't have the batting intelligence to glue the innings together while scoring heavy reguarly..as much as Taylor did.

No batsmen even Kohli cant match Taylor in the first innings and he is seen as the GOAT ODI batsmen.

 

[Buffet]

They both played different roles. De Villiers usually came in when his team were well on top so could hit out early. If he swapped places with Taylor in the NZ team and found himself in those situations, he wouldn't have the batting intelligence to glue the innings together while scoring heavy reguarly..as much as Taylor did.

No batsmen even Kohli cant match Taylor in the first innings and he is seen as the GOAT ODI batsmen.

AB has more tons, drastically higher SR with similar average. Both are not even in the same ballpark to talk about ifs and buts.

 

[Sachin136]

Stats based on batting first is a completely reasonable filter to apply.

The "minimum 100 ODI innings batting first" part is what is unreasonable.

 

[Space Cat]

The "minimum 100 ODI innings batting first" part is what is unreasonable.

Thats pretty common for TV coverage. They are looking for talking points between balls not detailed lists.

 

[WengerOut]

Against top 6 sides and minimum 2000 runs. It gets worse for Taylor, both avg and SR

 

[KingKhanWC]

AB has more tons, drastically higher SR with similar average. Both are not even in the same ballpark to talk about ifs and buts.

You need a bit more reserach than this. Please list all the matches, when both batsmen entered the crease, the score at the time, wickets fallen and then how they built an innings. AB was great no doubt but if you've watched enough cricket you will know Taylor is better at building an innings.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Against top 6 sides and minimum 2000 runs. It gets worse for Taylor, both avg and SR

View attachment 87339

Why not 1000 runs or 500 runs? The point of 100 matches is to give a larger scope over a longer period of time. Dean Jones, Williamson and Dhoni are nowhere near Taylor when it comes to building an innings, coming in early. Williamson is the closest, Dhoni has rarely batted in the top 4.

But where is Kohli? Isn't the GOAT? So your own stats show he is average in the first innings. Do you agree?

 

[Sachin136]

Why not 1000 runs or 500 runs? The point of 100 matches is to give a larger scope over a longer period of time. Dean Jones, Williamson and Dhoni are nowhere near Taylor when it comes to building an innings, coming in early. Williamson is the closest, Dhoni has rarely batted in the top 4.

But where is Kohli? Isn't the GOAT? So your own stats show he is average in the first innings. Do you agree?

Do you understand what the word average means? Being ahead of Sachin, AB, and Ponting is not average.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Do you understand what the word average means? Being ahead of Sachin, AB, and Ponting is not average.

Fair point. I will re-prhase. Kohli is not as good as Miandad and Dean Jones who played in tougher batting conditions.

 

[Abdullah719]

Basically the point of this thread is that Kohli is not very good.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Stats don't lie, if he is up there then he's definitely a damn good batsman. Having said that, like your Bhaijaan always emphasizes longevity matters a lot. There's grandpa Tendulkar there with literally double the runs. Knowing how people's careers turn completely after playing long, Amla being a great example, i will still put Tendulkar at the top. He's your ideal 'win the toss, bat first, hit a hundred at the top and help your team post a good total' guy. Taylor like Catty mentioned above is a great rescue guy. One day cricket's pretty much decided by the top 3. 4-7 come into play big time in chases/rescue operations.

 

[Space Cat]

Against top 6 sides and minimum 2000 runs. It gets worse for Taylor, both avg and SR

View attachment 87339

You complain about filters then apply your own assuming the top six sides have remained the same for ODI history?

 

[Hasan123]

OP would probably pick Taylor over Kohli. Such is his hate for India.

 

[KingKhanWC]

OP would probably pick Taylor over Kohli. Such is his hate for India.

To stop your tears brother, I will clarify. Taylor is better in the first innings, the stats prove it and so Miandad and Jones. Kohli is the GOAT at chasing. Please smile now

 

[KingKhanWC]

Basically the point of this thread is that Kohli is not very good.

When his side is batting first, he hasn't been anything special.

 

[Hasan123]

To stop your tears brother, I will clarify. Taylor is better in the first innings, the stats prove it and so Miandad and Jones. Kohli is the GOAT at chasing. Please smile now

Yes I’m sure people with actual cricket knowledge would take Taylor over Kohli due to being a better first innings player.

You are the one who cries when Kohli scores, because he makes you look stupid and because you have to keep finding new fillers for him to beat. I just enjoy watching good batting. I don’t sit there all day like you finding fillers for Kohli to meet so you can mock him.

 

[vandokkum]

It's common knowledge Kohli is not the same player while batting first, I would rather have Ross taylor or Rohit sharma for 1st innings. Overall, Kohli is by far the greatest odi batsman in recent times.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Yes I’m sure people with actual cricket knowledge would take Taylor over Kohli due to being a better first innings player.

You are the one who cries when Kohli scores, because he makes you look stupid and because you have to keep finding new fillers for him to beat. I just enjoy watching good batting. I don’t sit there all day like you finding fillers for Kohli to meet so you can mock him.

I enjoy his batting but I dont see him as my hero thats all. The screenshot is from the T.V footage, I was watching and the commies mentioned it, no need to sit anywhere to find any filler. Cheer up pal.

It's common knowledge Kohli is not the same player while batting first, I would rather have Ross taylor or Rohit sharma for 1st innings. Overall, Kohli is by far the greatest odi batsman in recent times.

Exactly.

 

[Sachin136]

Only on PP can a player get criticized for averaging "only" 50 while batting first (and 69 while chasing), even though that is higher than the career averages of many ATGs.

 

[Abdullah719]

When his side is batting first, he hasn't been anything special.

Got it.

 

[Sachin136]

To stop your tears brother, I will clarify. Taylor is better in the first innings, the stats prove it and so Miandad and Jones. Kohli is the GOAT at chasing. Please smile now

The overall stats (averages and SR) also "prove" that Kohli is the greatest ODI batsman in history. Do you agree? Or does the discussion become more nuanced now?

 

[vandokkum]

Where did Kohli come into this thread? I thought OP was showing everyone (rightfully so) how great Ross taylor is, Kohli isn't even mentioned in the OP.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The overall stats (averages and SR) also "prove" that Kohli is the greatest ODI batsman in history. Do you agree? Or does the discussion become more nuanced now?

Greatest chaser in history, sure. Viv is the GOAT imo due to the playing conditions, no field restrictions, red ball, tougher wickets, smaller bats, no helmets etc The the way he played changed the shoter format forever. But it's my view and I have no issue if others think he is because many haven't watched Viv and dont understand how cricket has changed esp batting.

 

[Sachin136]

Where did Kohli come into this thread? I thought OP was showing everyone (rightfully so) how great Ross taylor is, Kohli isn't even mentioned in the OP.

Kohli was brought in needlessly by the OP in posts #4 and #20.

 

[vandokkum]

Kohli was brought in needlessly by the OP in posts #4 and #20.

Seems like every argument has to bring Kohli into it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Kohli was brought in needlessly by the OP in posts #4 and #20.

There are a lot of Kohli fans on here who would want to know where he stands because most have no clue how his first innings average compares to his second innings. If he's considered GOAT in ODI's it's worth pointing out to him. He's only a man, no need for people to become sensative over Kohli if anyone writes anything other than he is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[Ahson8]

Used a cut-off of 2000 ODI runs batting first.

I know Babar has <2000 ODI runs but where does he factor on this list ?

 

[Dead Ball]

Ross Taylor is under-rated and most definitely in a modern great in ODI cricket.

GOAT in first innings for me is IVA Richards (just ahead of SRT), GOAT in second innings - Kohli (in a different stratosphere when compared to others while chasing)

Overall GOAT for me in ODIs is IVA Richards(greatest ever ODI innings, best average in WC knockouts/tournament finals), but Kohli has a huge chance to dethrone him considering he in only halfway into his career and already has what..40 ODI tons..? Unbelievable..

 

[BDfanforever]

I have never seen Michael Bevan play. He would be rated higher because back in those days 200-250 was good score.

In tiny NZ ground 50+ is too easy for Taylor. Him along with Guptill are excellent and exciting batsman nonetheless.

 

[Abdullah719]

I know Babar has <2000 ODI runs but where does he factor on this list ?

The filter was 2000 runs batting first.

Babar is basically Bradman 2.0 batting first

 

[kingusama92]

Sachin with 32 hundreds and 44 fifties batting first.



That alone would put him ahead of everyone except Kohli in the "Most ODI 100s" category.

 

[CricFan2012]

TBH, i am getting tired of this filters. What next? Best batsman on Wednesdays?

I agree, it is extremely stupid.

Per chance a batsman performs better in the first innings. You're not going to have a perfect 47 average in the first and second innings in ODIs..

it's not like a test match where it makes sense to applaud a batsman who does well in the 4th innings because it has historically been harder to bat during then.

 

[Ab Fan]

Good achievement. After de Villiers and MS Dhoni, he has been the best middle order batsmen(4-6) in the last 10 years.

 

[jnaveen1980]

AMla bhai will beat Taylor handsomely in the next 5 matches

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Very impressive for a middle-order batsman indeed. Surprised that only a handful have 10+ hundreds at #4 and below.

This post tells us we need yuvraj's successor to become a real force in odis.
On topic, taylor is nz's best batsman in odis and i think he'll retire as an atg.

 

[Nothing matters]

Why not 1000 runs or 500 runs? The point of 100 matches is to give a larger scope over a longer period of time. Dean Jones, Williamson and Dhoni are nowhere near Taylor when it comes to building an innings, coming in early. Williamson is the closest, Dhoni has rarely batted in the top 4.

But where is Kohli? Isn't the GOAT? So your own stats show he is average in the first innings. Do you agree?

So Kohli is average with an average of 49 and 15 tons in 90 odd matches?

 

[The Viper]

ABD is comfortably the best. But credit to Ross. He has been absolutely immense these last few years.

 

[waleed88]

Very soon Babar Azam will join this list

 

[Buffet]

You need a bit more reserach than this. Please list all the matches, when both batsmen entered the crease, the score at the time, wickets fallen and then how they built an innings. AB was great no doubt but if you've watched enough cricket you will know Taylor is better at building an innings.

Oh, I have watched enough of both of them to have no doubt picking AB over Taylor. They are not even in the same ball park for me.

If you have not watched enough of Ab building an inning then here are some examples,

- SA was 51/2. AB came with 136(106) to win the game while chasing 327 against Aus.

- SA was 41/2 against Pakistan. AB put 128(108) to take his team total to 343.

- SA was 124/4 against Pakistan. AB put 115(102) to take team total to 268.

- SA was 3/28 against India. AB put 109(101) to take his team to 300+.

- SA was 2/20 against WI. AB scored 107(105) to win the game for his team.

- SA was 35/3 against NZ. AB scored 106(106) to win the game for his team.

- SA was 3/22 against Eng. AB scored 101(97) to win the game.

- SA was 2/34 against Pakistan. AB scored 95(111) to win the game.

- SA was 4/97 against NZ. AB scored 89(85) to win the game.

- SA was 2/9 against NZ. AB scored 87(103) to team total of 249/8.


One thing stands out here is that he played with great SR in all these matches and it may give impression that he was not building the inning. Building the inning hardly means that you become Misbah. If you can build the inning with SR around 100 then it's simply better and that's what he did.


Now apart from building the inning, he was far more destructive than Taylor in the last 15 overs with platform set. Not sure if there is any case for Taylor here.

 

[QalandarFan]

Nah I'd rather take AB the difference is strike rate of 20 is huge.

 

[Buffet]

When his side is batting first, he hasn't been anything special.

In 91 ODIs while batting first Kohli has made 15 tons. There are only 6 batsmen in entire history who have more than 15 tons while batting first and most of them have played twice the matches Kohli has played.

There is something special while batting first as well, it just that he is extra special while batting second and outshines his batting first records by a wide margin.

 

[WengerOut]

Why not 1000 runs or 500 runs? The point of 100 matches is to give a larger scope over a longer period of time. Dean Jones, Williamson and Dhoni are nowhere near Taylor when it comes to building an innings, coming in early. Williamson is the closest, Dhoni has rarely batted in the top 4.

But where is Kohli? Isn't the GOAT? So your own stats show he is average in the first innings. Do you agree?

Dude, unless you're mistaking me for someone else, why are you throwing the Kohli jibe at me again? Did i mention him?

 

[WengerOut]

You complain about filters then apply your own assuming the top six sides have remained the same for ODI history?

Just two show you can add or factor in your own criteria which also suits your agenda and form an opinion based on it and pass of it as a fact.


I have only left out SL, Ban and WI. You can add it yourself and be happy.

 

[pratiktc]

It is clear from the filter that OP uses that Ross is an extremely good ODI batsman going in first. That is not under debate.

However, it is also clear that to be crowned GOAT in any aspect, the player in question must also be leading the pack/atleast near top of the pack on several other sub filters (i.e. avg+SR combo batting first in away conditions, avg+SR batting first at home, avg+sr batting in ICC tournaments, avg+SR against non minnows et al)

Some of the posters have legitimately pointed out that on further in depth filters Ross seems to have shortcomings on SR compared to his era peers which was evident across even primary filter. Also once minnows are excluded, Ross sinks down to top 15-16 level on avg and SR level

IMO all these are legit reasons to question GOAThood of a player. Unfortunately thread has been hijacked into Kohli vs Ross rather than objectively try to arrive at a total setting GOAT.

 

[Sir Alex]

The fixation with India and Kohli is lol so evident.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Nah I'd rather take AB the difference is strike rate of 20 is huge.

Ross Taylor can go absolutely nuts when needed. He is not like Amla. ABDV's strike rates can be misleading. He scores these fastest 100, 150 where he didn't really have to do just for fun. So the strike rate will look immense. In terms of impact Taylor can be as good as ABDV.

 

[jnaveen1980]

There was a world cup match against Pakistan. When the 46th over started Taylor was on 70 odd runs. By the end of the 49th over he was 131 not out
In 13 balls he added 55 runs. 30 runs from Razzaq 28 runs from Akhtar (including 4 wides) I don't think someone like AMla who has a higher strike rate than Taylor can do this.

 

[BlackShadow]

Lol, no. Almost half a dozen batsmen have comparable stats, and when you filter the stats for minnows, Taylor moves down the list.

 

[Ab Fan]

Oh, I have watched enough of both of them to have no doubt picking AB over Taylor. They are not even in the same ball park for me.

If you have not watched enough of Ab building an inning then here are some examples,

- SA was 51/2. AB came with 136(106) to win the game while chasing 327 against Aus.

- SA was 41/2 against Pakistan. AB put 128(108) to take his team total to 343.

- SA was 124/4 against Pakistan. AB put 115(102) to take team total to 268.

- SA was 3/28 against India. AB put 109(101) to take his team to 300+.

- SA was 2/20 against WI. AB scored 107(105) to win the game for his team.

- SA was 35/3 against NZ. AB scored 106(106) to win the game for his team.

- SA was 3/22 against Eng. AB scored 101(97) to win the game.

- SA was 2/34 against Pakistan. AB scored 95(111) to win the game.

- SA was 4/97 against NZ. AB scored 89(85) to win the game.

- SA was 2/9 against NZ. AB scored 87(103) to team total of 249/8.


One thing stands out here is that he played with great SR in all these matches and it may give impression that he was not building the inning. Building the inning hardly means that you become Misbah. If you can build the inning with SR around 100 then it's simply better and that's what he did.


Now apart from building the inning, he was far more destructive than Taylor in the last 15 overs with platform set. Not sure if there is any case for Taylor here.

Great post. The calibre of de Villiers batting is just too high that even when he bats normally and is building the inning, he will be having a Strike Rate close to 100.

One doesn't have to go too far to understand this- remember WC 2015 semis, he was batting quite normally and by the time rain came, around 37 overs, he was at 55 of 37 balls striking at almost 150 without any major risk.

 

[gh54785]

NZ grounds are a joke tbh. Size of a postage stamp and flat as broad's chest. Understandable that average players like Ross Taylor are made to look good. Just saw his competence after facing IND last match.

 

[Mamoon]

This is what happens when you have ill intentions. The objective of this thread was to made Kohli bad, but it has backfired in spectacular fashion.

 

[Shandarchowka]

View attachment 87335

A great record which imo will not be beaten in this generation. There has never been an ODI player who is so good helping his team to set a total in the first innings of an ODI. He showed this against SL recently.

I think ABD is the best ODI batsman while batting first and not Taylor. The latter never inspires much confidence no matter what the stats say. In fact, I'll go on and say Babar is better than Taylor as well, even right now. Not many can build the innings in a better fashion than Babar in the first innings.

Overtaking ABD in the list but Babar can achieve it if he develops a better strike rate. I think he will get there in the coming year or two.

 

[Sir Alex]

Let Babar be himself instead of having to match up with AB who was born with such innate talent.

 

[Sidilicious]

Surely, anyone who has seen cricket will not take Taylor over ABD in the first innings.

Interestingly, against non-minnows (excluding Bangladesh, since even though they are not minnows now, they were for most of the last 12 years) and minimum score of 2000 runs, Ross Taylor's stats do not hold up. An average of 45 with a SR of 81 is good but not GOAT worthy.

Amla (average 11 points higher and SR 10 points higher) and ABD (average 6 points and SR 22 points higher) wipe the floor.

Even if you discount 5 average points and 10 SR points for batting in an easier era, Amla is much better on average with the same SR and ABD is much better on SR with a similar Average. With these discounted points, Taylor just about equals Kohli.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;qualval1=runs;template=results;type=batting

 

[Sachin136]

I think ABD is the best ODI batsman while batting first and not Taylor. The latter never inspires much confidence no matter what the stats say. In fact, I'll go on and say Babar is better than Taylor as well, even right now. Not many can build the innings in a better fashion than Babar in the first innings.

Overtaking ABD in the list but Babar can achieve it if he develops a better strike rate. I think he will get there in the coming year or two.

What has Babar done against good teams to warrant comparisons with AB and Taylor? The only decent team he has done very well against is Australia.

 

[Ahson8]

The filter was 2000 runs batting first.

Babar is basically Bradman 2.0 batting first

Nice, needs to work on his chasing record though

 

[Shandarchowka]

What has Babar done against good teams to warrant comparisons with AB and Taylor? The only decent team he has done very well against is Australia.

Yeah agreed still early days but the basics are there. And he got off to a promising start.

 

[Haroon786]

Surely, anyone who has seen cricket will not take Taylor over ABD in the first innings.

Interestingly, against non-minnows (excluding Bangladesh, since even though they are not minnows now, they were for most of the last 12 years) and minimum score of 2000 runs, Ross Taylor's stats do not hold up. An average of 45 with a SR of 81 is good but not GOAT worthy.

Amla (average 11 points higher and SR 10 points higher) and ABD (average 6 points and SR 22 points higher) wipe the floor.

Even if you discount 5 average points and 10 SR points for batting in an easier era, Amla is much better on average with the same SR and ABD is much better on SR with a similar Average. With these discounted points, Taylor just about equals Kohli.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;qualval1=runs;template=results;type=batting

But Taylor only debuted a year or two earlier or even at the same timeas Kohli, Amla or AB so he shouldn't be getting any additional discounting - the latter 3 have all been better and deserve to be ranked where they are in terms of quality and greatness.

 

[Shandarchowka]

One thing one can clearly notice from this thread is how grossly underrated NZ players are! They do all the hard work, they have all the numbers, but cricket world doesn't really account those just because NZ is not a big market.

Average players like Vijay Shankar and Jadeja get articles written about them on sites like cricinfo but gun players like Williamson, Taylor, Boult only get covered when they play India or sometimes Australia/England.

I think Taylor and Williamson deserve all the more appreciation for doing so well even with all the abject negligence towards them and their cricket.

 

[Sachin136]

One thing one can clearly notice from this thread is how grossly underrated NZ players are! They do all the hard work, they have all the numbers, but cricket world doesn't really account those just because NZ is not a big market.

Average players like Vijay Shankar and Jadeja get articles written about them on sites like cricinfo but gun players like Williamson, Taylor, Boult only get covered when they play India or sometimes Australia/England.

I think Taylor and Williamson deserve all the more appreciation for doing so well even with all the abject negligence towards them and their cricket.

Taylor might be underrated but everyone rates Williamson, Boult, etc.

Jadeja is the 5th ranked test bowler in the world. Of course he has articles written about him, but so does Williamson.

 

[Sidilicious]

But Taylor only debuted a year or two earlier or even at the same timeas Kohli, Amla or AB so he shouldn't be getting any additional discounting - the latter 3 have all been better and deserve to be ranked where they are in terms of quality and greatness.

Fair point. ABD actually debuted before Rosco. Hashim Amla 2 years after Rosco and Kohli 3 years.

Surely, ABD has to be the GOAT.

Rosco is still a great player, but not GOAT in 1st innings.

 

[Shandarchowka]

Taylor might be underrated but everyone rates Williamson, Boult, etc.

Jadeja is the 5th ranked test bowler in the world. Of course he has articles written about him, but so does Williamson.

Ironically it was Martin Crowe that brought 'big 4' conversation and only that is the reason WIlliamson is, rightfully, regarded as equal to the other three 'Big 3' from 'Big 3'. Even then he is constantly overlooked in conversations about best batsman in the world. Boult is also not discussed unless he plays & performs.

Jadeja is 5th ranked bowler in the world but we know he is not is not a sure starter when India play overseas. He's more like a dust bowl darting specialist. Ashwin is easily better than him though. He has more method than just darting in.

 

[Haroon786]

Fair point. ABD actually debuted before Rosco. Hashim Amla 2 years after Rosco and Kohli 3 years.

Surely, ABD has to be the GOAT.

Rosco is still a great player, but not GOAT in 1st innings.

Yep agreed, this thread as has been mentioned by several posters has been used as a miserable attempt to lambast Kohli but it's had the opposite effect.

 

[Chokli]

One thing one can clearly notice from this thread is how grossly underrated NZ players are! They do all the hard work, they have all the numbers, but cricket world doesn't really account those just because NZ is not a big market.

Average players like Vijay Shankar and Jadeja get articles written about them on sites like cricinfo but gun players like Williamson, Taylor, Boult only get covered when they play India or sometimes Australia/England.

I think Taylor and Williamson deserve all the more appreciation for doing so well even with all the abject negligence towards them and their cricket.

they had a great opportunity to win the world cup but blew it

 

[Ozymandiasza]

I think ABD is the best ODI batsman while batting first and not Taylor. The latter never inspires much confidence no matter what the stats say. In fact, I'll go on and say Babar is better than Taylor as well, even right now. Not many can build the innings in a better fashion than Babar in the first innings.

Overtaking ABD in the list but Babar can achieve it if he develops a better strike rate. I think he will get there in the coming year or two.

I like your posts.

On topic:

People can argue that AB was only good while batting first (or no pressure), but I've seen some fine innings from him while chasing.

Even [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] has stated that AB is not a choker. If people can get past that bias, they would see what an awesome player he was.

Perhaps someone would be brave enough to start a chasing thread.

 

[Bilal7]

Hashim Amla and AB de Villiers are the two best batsmen whilst batting first. Taylor has been in fantastic form over the last few years but has not been at the same level over a longer period of time.

One thing that should be pointed out is that setting a target is in no way easier than chasing a score.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Amla is the least harmful batsman with an incredible strike rate and yet absolutely pose no threat to opposition. In one dayers your match winning ability is proportional to the number of gears you have. ABDV is better than Taylor. But no way i would pick AMla over Taylor. Amla is just an statistical anomoly.