Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
If he doesn't drop them or strain his back.
Only place I can see him back is opening, but Rogers finished the Ashes strongly
Australian tour of SA
- Thread starter No4918
- Start date
- Status
If he doesn't drop them or strain his back.
Only place I can see him back is opening, but Rogers finished the Ashes strongly
Would you consider the well known English batsman Piers Morgan qualifies for membership of the long list of batsmen?
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
Would be good to see this side rewarded and backed for the rest of the series. Have read the next pitch is similar to Adelaide so that may be a consideration for the selectors if Watson is fit. Counting on Warner and Smith for a few overs may be enough, Smith could be dangerous but if he gets in wrong these guys will take him apart.
Johnson has 49 wickets from 6 tests, just over 4 per innings. The English asked for certain pitches in there summer and I wonder if the Saffers will quietly do the same. Trouble is this will negate there great strength and make draws very likely.
Johnson has 49 wickets from 6 tests, just over 4 per innings. The English asked for certain pitches in there summer and I wonder if the Saffers will quietly do the same. Trouble is this will negate there great strength and make draws very likely.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Agreed -we should complete the series with this team. Buck will probably get the chop at the end despite his experience and recent form against England.
I think the Proteas will ask for slower wickets in the last two games and how to bat their way to a win. Their attitude against India was to not-lose and they'll fall back on that if they can.
However, Johnson in this form could probably get a length ball to rear up off a cheesecake so not sure that will help
I think the Proteas will ask for slower wickets in the last two games and how to bat their way to a win. Their attitude against India was to not-lose and they'll fall back on that if they can.
However, Johnson in this form could probably get a length ball to rear up off a cheesecake so not sure that will help
Sandpit Fan
Nev Cottrell (35)
Sandpit Fan
Nev Cottrell (35)
Plenty more good ones out there:
T
tranquility
Guest
Lehmann has already said that Watson will not immediately come back into the side. Combination of needing to bowl, and not changing winning combos.
Soya Latte Watto.
Soya Latte Watto.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
He knows a bit about cricket, that Darren Lehmann.
light
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Australian cricket is in great hands and he has really re-shaped the team and re-installed the belief we had during the glory years.
I wonder if our downfall in the Arthur years was a direct result of the power Clarke had within the team and Australian Cricket. The whole Katich saga and rotation policy makes me think that Clarke was way too influential and it was affecting the way others where playing/behaving around him.
Seems with Lehmann and the new coaching specialists that we have a great balance in the squad and it's bringing out the best in everyone.
From the first test at Trent Bridge when he selected Agar there has barely been a wrong move other than perhaps Bailey. Even that selection was warranted based on form.
It's a bold statement but without Lehmann I'd say Steve Smith, Brad Haddin, Mitch Johnson, Alex Doolan and Chris Rogers probably wouldn't be in South Africa right now and we wouldn't be 1-0 up against the world's best team coming off a 5-0 Ashes whitewash.
How things can change in 12 months with the right people in charge.
I wonder if our downfall in the Arthur years was a direct result of the power Clarke had within the team and Australian Cricket. The whole Katich saga and rotation policy makes me think that Clarke was way too influential and it was affecting the way others where playing/behaving around him.
Seems with Lehmann and the new coaching specialists that we have a great balance in the squad and it's bringing out the best in everyone.
From the first test at Trent Bridge when he selected Agar there has barely been a wrong move other than perhaps Bailey. Even that selection was warranted based on form.
It's a bold statement but without Lehmann I'd say Steve Smith, Brad Haddin, Mitch Johnson, Alex Doolan and Chris Rogers probably wouldn't be in South Africa right now and we wouldn't be 1-0 up against the world's best team coming off a 5-0 Ashes whitewash.
How things can change in 12 months with the right people in charge.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
As I've said a hundred times before, who are this long list of superior batsmen to Watson? Because none of them have better FC or Test averages so I'm not sure what it's based on.
Doolan and Marsh have had one good test. Let them do it consistently before we get carried away, because funnily enough, that's what builds a good career average.
Cracks me up that people are saying that batsmen who average about 5 runs and more less at FC level are suddenly vastly superior batsmen after one match. For what everybody says about Watson not being able to score when the pressure is on, fuck he must have had a charmed FC career to score 20 hundreds and 49 fifties in 221 innings.
I'm not even a massive fan of the bloke. He has plenty of problems and limitations, but as one of the top 6 (based on FC career average, or even test average) batsmen in Australia, who can also chip in with partnership breaking medium pacers, I'd like to wait until a bloke can come along and average 40+ from 10 or more test matches before we just discard him. and based on the fact that there is only something like 4 players who are presently able to do that at Shield level, I'm sceptical about their existence.
Now sure, I know it's fun to bag Watson, because hey, he's dislikeable. But let's wait until some batsman can sustain success before we write him off. Marsh for example has a history of peaking early and tailing off quickly from there. Let's make sure he's past that before we anoint as our long term 3.
Doolan and Marsh have had one good test. Let them do it consistently before we get carried away, because funnily enough, that's what builds a good career average.
Cracks me up that people are saying that batsmen who average about 5 runs and more less at FC level are suddenly vastly superior batsmen after one match. For what everybody says about Watson not being able to score when the pressure is on, fuck he must have had a charmed FC career to score 20 hundreds and 49 fifties in 221 innings.
I'm not even a massive fan of the bloke. He has plenty of problems and limitations, but as one of the top 6 (based on FC career average, or even test average) batsmen in Australia, who can also chip in with partnership breaking medium pacers, I'd like to wait until a bloke can come along and average 40+ from 10 or more test matches before we just discard him. and based on the fact that there is only something like 4 players who are presently able to do that at Shield level, I'm sceptical about their existence.
Now sure, I know it's fun to bag Watson, because hey, he's dislikeable. But let's wait until some batsman can sustain success before we write him off. Marsh for example has a history of peaking early and tailing off quickly from there. Let's make sure he's past that before we anoint as our long term 3.
TWaS, most people's opinions about Watson are formed from his inconstancy with the bat and his constant physical breakdowns. Yes, he's a talented cricketer, but how many times does he have to pull a hammy before the selectors say "enough"? I've suggested he have a long stint batting AND bowling in Sheffield Shield, without breaking down, before he's considered for a return to the test team. Maybe Shane's future is limited overs cricket.
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
He can't keep playing all 3 forms of the game if he wants to go for the next 4 years. Stick to the short forms or test and ODI.
For all his talent he is too inconsistent with the bat to be a test 3. Personally hope he gets moved to 6 and will then see how he goes before discarding him from the test side altogether.
If a few other guys had been shown the support he has then I'd be surprised if they (Marsh, Doolan Hughes, North etc) would or could not have averaged more than Watto over the same number of tests. None have been given the same run to prove themselves. That he has continually underperformed after all the faith shown is probably adding to the sour grapes he recieves.
For all his talent he is too inconsistent with the bat to be a test 3. Personally hope he gets moved to 6 and will then see how he goes before discarding him from the test side altogether.
If a few other guys had been shown the support he has then I'd be surprised if they (Marsh, Doolan Hughes, North etc) would or could not have averaged more than Watto over the same number of tests. None have been given the same run to prove themselves. That he has continually underperformed after all the faith shown is probably adding to the sour grapes he recieves.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
The point I'm making is that for his alleged inconsistency, despite being originally a bowling all rounder before focus more on batting, his FC records indicate that he has been more consistent than any other options.
For these guys to consistently outperform him, they will have to at test level reverse the career FC form of him consistently outperforming them.
I'd wager that if all these guys had been shown the support Watson has, they'd probably look worse, because in addition to the good times, they'd have poor performances fresh from injury layoffs pulling down their average just like Watson.
If somebody performs better, pick them over Watson. But they have to actually perform better. Over the last 10 test matches Watson averaged 40. If in 9 matches time Doolan and Marsh are doing the same over this period, then yes, they are better. However, that will require them to consistently outperform the players that have outperformed them at FC level.
I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm just saying I don't expect things to occur, in contradiction to what the historical data has been.
For these guys to consistently outperform him, they will have to at test level reverse the career FC form of him consistently outperforming them.
I'd wager that if all these guys had been shown the support Watson has, they'd probably look worse, because in addition to the good times, they'd have poor performances fresh from injury layoffs pulling down their average just like Watson.
If somebody performs better, pick them over Watson. But they have to actually perform better. Over the last 10 test matches Watson averaged 40. If in 9 matches time Doolan and Marsh are doing the same over this period, then yes, they are better. However, that will require them to consistently outperform the players that have outperformed them at FC level.
I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm just saying I don't expect things to occur, in contradiction to what the historical data has been.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
My arguments against Watson being in the test team are as follows:
1, He's been played as a top order batsman over the last 3-4 years when he clearly has technique issues against the new ball, especially when it's swinging. If you're batting at 1, 2 or 3 you need the ability to leave balls that might go within a whisker of hitting your off stump. Watson doesn't do this. He sticks his front pad down the middle of the track and goes with hard hands at the ball. This is why he gets out caught at second or third slip a lot or LBW with ball ducking in (though in fairness, he's done a lot to mitigate that). He also has effectively no back-foot game. I'm not sure how you even get to test level in Australia without that.
2, He lacks the temperament to make a big score once set. How many times over the years have we seen Watson get off to a good start and then blow it by playing a poor shot and getting out. Four hundreds in 95 innings is a very poor return for mine and just as bad has been the ratio of 50's to hundreds (4 of 22).
3, He rarely makes runs when the team really needs them. The innings of 83* during the Ashes to guide the boys home has been a rarity in his career. So often he'll get a couple or a bit more of a start and get out, thus leaving the rest of the batting order to do the bulk of the work. He made a terrific century at The Oval in the last Ashes tour, but it was in a dead rubber when it didn't matter. Those runs might have been handy at Lords or Trent Bridge when the series was live. In essence, he's a bit of a flat track bully. He makes runs when conditions are in his favour, but rarely when things are tough (Warner is the same, BTW).
4, He gets injured a lot. It's less of a problem these days but it clearly still is an issue. It's hard to have a bloke in a pivotal position in the batting or bowling order who's not consistently available.
Now I understand and accept the argument that guys in first class cricket haven't put enough pressure on his place. That's very true. There comes a time though when you've got to try something different, especially in a team that up until about November last year wasn't going that well. OK we won 5-0 against the Poms, but Watson's contribution to those wins wasn't exactly massive. He averaged around 40, but look at the innings list. A litany of starts and middling scores, especially in the first half of the series when it was a bit hot in the kitchen. You expect more from a No. 3 batsman than that.
His game is excellent for the limited overs versions of the sport, just not for test cricket.
1, He's been played as a top order batsman over the last 3-4 years when he clearly has technique issues against the new ball, especially when it's swinging. If you're batting at 1, 2 or 3 you need the ability to leave balls that might go within a whisker of hitting your off stump. Watson doesn't do this. He sticks his front pad down the middle of the track and goes with hard hands at the ball. This is why he gets out caught at second or third slip a lot or LBW with ball ducking in (though in fairness, he's done a lot to mitigate that). He also has effectively no back-foot game. I'm not sure how you even get to test level in Australia without that.
2, He lacks the temperament to make a big score once set. How many times over the years have we seen Watson get off to a good start and then blow it by playing a poor shot and getting out. Four hundreds in 95 innings is a very poor return for mine and just as bad has been the ratio of 50's to hundreds (4 of 22).
3, He rarely makes runs when the team really needs them. The innings of 83* during the Ashes to guide the boys home has been a rarity in his career. So often he'll get a couple or a bit more of a start and get out, thus leaving the rest of the batting order to do the bulk of the work. He made a terrific century at The Oval in the last Ashes tour, but it was in a dead rubber when it didn't matter. Those runs might have been handy at Lords or Trent Bridge when the series was live. In essence, he's a bit of a flat track bully. He makes runs when conditions are in his favour, but rarely when things are tough (Warner is the same, BTW).
4, He gets injured a lot. It's less of a problem these days but it clearly still is an issue. It's hard to have a bloke in a pivotal position in the batting or bowling order who's not consistently available.
Now I understand and accept the argument that guys in first class cricket haven't put enough pressure on his place. That's very true. There comes a time though when you've got to try something different, especially in a team that up until about November last year wasn't going that well. OK we won 5-0 against the Poms, but Watson's contribution to those wins wasn't exactly massive. He averaged around 40, but look at the innings list. A litany of starts and middling scores, especially in the first half of the series when it was a bit hot in the kitchen. You expect more from a No. 3 batsman than that.
His game is excellent for the limited overs versions of the sport, just not for test cricket.
You missed number 5.
5. He's a complete @#^!
5. He's a complete @#^!
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I was trying to be objective and take the emotion out of the argument
I was being objective!
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
TBH, that's my only issue. People make the call Watson needs to be replaced based on emotion of disliking Watson, not results of the potential replacement.
Currently I could understand replacing him with Phil Hughes. Consistently great FC record. I'd also say Marcus North is another one. Test experience, decent FC record but great FC record from the current season (providing he maintains it).
I tend to think that test players and high profile players techniques are scrutinised heavily, giving the impression that players with less exposure don't have flawed techniques. One would say with less impressive career returns, either they have issues with their technique also. And even if they don't, what the fuck does it matter if they can't convert superior technique into superior, or even equal results?
Picking a bloke on technique, and ignoring he has done less with that technique over his whole career is a flawed selection.
Currently I could understand replacing him with Phil Hughes. Consistently great FC record. I'd also say Marcus North is another one. Test experience, decent FC record but great FC record from the current season (providing he maintains it).
I tend to think that test players and high profile players techniques are scrutinised heavily, giving the impression that players with less exposure don't have flawed techniques. One would say with less impressive career returns, either they have issues with their technique also. And even if they don't, what the fuck does it matter if they can't convert superior technique into superior, or even equal results?
Picking a bloke on technique, and ignoring he has done less with that technique over his whole career is a flawed selection.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
People also love to look at anything Watson says or does in the worst possible way.
Watson says he wants to open and is selfish... If you're best ever career period involving being named the best cricketer in the country was when you were an opening batsman, if somebody asked, where the fuck would you say you wanted to bat?
Any team I've played in, I wanted to be the best value to the team. Funnily enough where you play your best is in a lot of cases where you are the best value to the team also.
Watson says he wants to open and is selfish... If you're best ever career period involving being named the best cricketer in the country was when you were an opening batsman, if somebody asked, where the fuck would you say you wanted to bat?
Any team I've played in, I wanted to be the best value to the team. Funnily enough where you play your best is in a lot of cases where you are the best value to the team also.
- Status