West Indies vs Aus

[Lindommer]

Enough of this gloating, let's get serious and look at the important goings-on with this test: the appalling contributions of F U Watson. Scored 11 in the first innings, DNB in the second. Bowled 3 overs in the WIndies first innings yielding 0/11 followed up by 7 overs in the second for figures of 0/6. The Australian bowlers sent down a total of 140 overs, of which this useless clown contributed a measly 10 overs. HTF does Watson keep his spot in this test side?

Note to selectors: pick an all-rounder, ANY ALL-ROUNDER, instead of Watson and leave him there.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^ rather difficult for Watson to bat in the 2nd innings when you win by 9 wickets 6 is his natural position IMO but, yeah, he needs to bowl more to make that a tenable proposition. Then again, hard to bowl more overs if the captain isn't tossing the ball your way...........

 

[Pfitzy]

Especially if you're not sticking your hand up for it - in case you injure your back

 

[Quick Hands]

^^^^And the captain knows all about dodgy backs.​

 

[Strewthcobber]

I'm all for bagging Watson but really? Dont get that criticism at all. His role is to apply tight pressured bowling while the quicks are having a rest.

None of them bowled more than 18 overs in either innings - they didn't need the rest. In any case looking at those figures he delivered exactly what they want out of him.

Batting on the other hand, hes never been able to plat good spin on a turning wicket. But then very few of our players recently can

 

[barbarian]

Yeah can't see how you can really bag Watson for that game.

He might be in the firing line come Ashes time, Voges looks to have locked down a spot in the middle order. You'd think Watto or Shaun Marsh might be in trouble.

 

[light]

Yep, we have some very obvious weaknesses atm and 6 is one. I'd expect M.Marsh next test. Hopefully he can get through some overs. I'm sorta expecting Joe Burns to feature in this position during the ashes despite not being in the squad, he'll be over playing country cricket in the lead up.

Voges needs to be there, really good option at 4. As for S.Marsh, I reckon he's on thin ice, I'd expect Rogers to be more suited to the pitches. Smith, Clarke and Warner are certainties.

Harris will be straight in by the ashes, at the expense of either Starc or Johnson.

we'll see this team next test hopefully.

Rogers
Warner
Smith
Voges
Clarke (C)
M.Marsh
Haddin
Starc
Johnson
Hazlewood
Lyon

 

[Lindommer]

Rogers doubtful, still has some symptoms from his concussion.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Normally very happy to join the chorus in bagging Watson, but not this test.

The quicks didn't seem to raise a sweat. Makes you realise how truly awful the Windies are, given that their previous poor performances were propped up by a champion batsman in Chanderpaul. I just wonder where they go from here.

 

[No4918]

I don't see Johnson being dropped for the Ashes. It will make the Poms very happy if that happens. What is the old saying about not doing what your opposition will like? Even if he is 4th choice by that stage, which I highly doubt, the psychological impact will be big. And he is not so far out of form that he is not at least as good as the other options.

His best performances have come when most are expecting him to fall, not good for consistency I agree, but it seems he is back on the outer with many fans again and is not being looked at as the strike bowler. So expect him to dominate. Starc is also a confidence player and is high at the moment, his swing could be deadly.

IMHO it is up to Harris to prove he is better than Hazelwood, Johnson & Starc. He wasn't at his best against India and with his age and injury history he is up against it. He is a quality indiviual and bowler but I do not think he can be guaranteed a spot anymore. He has two 4 day games to show he is better than the imcumbents. It is a pretty tight schedule though and I doubt they would want him playing both fixtures and the first test. All four bowlers will definitely be needed for 5 tests and three 4 day games in a couple of months so I don't see the point of rushing him unnecessarily. Might be time to start using him as a replacement for injury or fatigue rather than have him the one being replaced.

 

[light]

Hmm the more I think about it the more I agree with you.

It's probably going to come down to Hazlewood v Harris for the right arm seamer position. Both our big lefties bowl a different style, Johnson has the intimidation and x-factor while Starc can swing and bowl express at the toes.

One has form and the other has experience and leads our attack.

Obviously pitches will have a lot to do with selection but I can't see any situation in which we don't pick a specialist spinner.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Lindo always bags Watson. If he doesn't score he rightly gets it. If he does score, he thinks that should be held against him for not scoring more.

Not surprised to see any different.

Anyway, need Smith to be a success at 3. My concern was always that we were better off with Watson averaging 35 at 3 and Smith averaging 50 at 4 and 5. I'd hate to see us in a situation where we get Smith averaging down to 40 at 3 and Watson 35 at 6 and it costing us games.

Watson when he strings consecutive games together is fairly reliable, just doesn't score quite enough to be considered a success. It was always good that he could do that at 3, allowing Smith to flourish behind him and actually have an influence on matches. With Watson in what surely must be his last season, and nobody out there who actually looks like they can be a real success at 3, Australia really needs Smith to be and hopefully we can continue to ease in young players like Burns at 5 and 6. As for Rogers spot? Who knows.

 

[Lindommer]

The opportunities F U Watson's had the last few year for fuck all results make bagging him surprisingly easy. 11 runs from a top order batsman? Pathetic.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Take your issues up with his competition who failed to fire at FC level to the same level that Watson did. They're the reason why he keeps getting chances.

You're view that "anybody would be better" is removed from reality. If anybody were better, they would have a comparable FC record to show for it.

Your bagging of him specifically is pretty petty considering that 5 of the top 6 failed to score over 25 in the 1st innings. 1 Even scored less than him.

Also, 6 is considered the middle order, not the top order.

 

[barbarian]

Yeah totally agree TWAS. We've tried plenty of options to fill the all-rounder spot, and none have performed as consistently well as Watto has.

Watto's lack of high-end scoring is lamentable, but his consistency is generally pretty good. He makes a bunch of 40-50 scores which rile a lot of people (for good reason) but are ultimately better than a bloke who can score a flashy ton but then follow it with a string of failures.

This is a tired debate, but it keeps getting raised for two reasons- a) he keeps doing the same thing, and b) after years of trying we still haven't found anyone better.
.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Look at the best FC career batting records in Australia. Watson if he's not in the top 6 will be in the top 10, though I'm pretty sure he'd still be in the top 6. None of the competition can bowl.

Who are the All-Rounder alternatives? Faulkner and Marsh.

Watson averages 43 with the bat with 20 centuries and 29 with the ball.

Marsh averages 29 with 2 centuries with the bat and 29 with the ball.

Faulkner averages 31 with 0 centuries with the bat and 24 with the ball.

I'm not sure how it's even a discussion. The only way one can claim any superiority, is Faulkner with the ball. You can't even claim they are plundering domestic attacks and on the up. Only Marsh has scored a century and he has only 2 of them to his name.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Who says we need an all rounder in the team? If we've got someone who is genuinely good at both disciplines then go ahead, but I think we sacrifice too much in the batting order by picking someone at six who's decent with the wand and can bowl a bit. I'd rather we pick four front line bowlers and a No. 6 who averages above mid forties in FC cricket. It's not like we've had a history of producing class all rounders (with a couple of notable exceptions). It's become a national obessesion since Freddy chopped us up in 2005.

Looking at the Shield averages for last season, there are some blokes who scored pretty heavily and fortunately the selectors put one of them (Voges) in the side. I think you could make a good argument that one of the other guys in the top four or five scorers might make a better top six player than Watson.

 

[Strewthcobber]

You don't need an all rounder when you bowl the opposition out for 250 in both innings of a two match series.

But you do need one on potentially flat decks when there's 5 test matches in 7 weeks. You'll kill your front line bowlers if you don't have someone who can bowl 10 decent overs.

And on Harris, given his knee and schedule he won't play more than three matches even if selected.

But he is very highly rated as the "on-field bowling coach " and even against India took 10 wickets at a good average at the lowest economy rate (just 2.65 an over).

No one else can keep it so tight and still be such an attacking threat, especially in swinging English conditions - he makes Johnson so dangerous because the opposition have to try and score off him.

Harris will play some games, it will be interesting to see who out of the others gets rotated out.

 

[Pedrolicus]

According to the ICC there are 3 Australians ranked in the top ten all rounders: Johnson, Harris and Watson, 4, 6 & 8 respectively.
Nearly any bowler we pick is decent at batting now days, Starc and Hazelwood are solid.
We probably don't need an all rounder when we can just pick a front line bowler instead. Warner, Smith and Clarke can chip in with a few overs. I say pick 5 bowlers and you don't lose much batting. Lyon is the weakest link but he's still Gillespie level, there's no bunnies anymore.
That being said Watson may be about as good as any other specialist batsman so he could still get in.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Who says we need an all rounder in the team? If we've got someone who is genuinely good at both disciplines then go ahead, but I think we sacrifice too much in the batting order by picking someone at six who's decent with the wand and can bowl a bit. I'd rather we pick four front line bowlers and a No. 6 who averages above mid forties in FC cricket. It's not like we've had a history of producing class all rounders (with a couple of notable exceptions). It's become a national obessesion since Freddy chopped us up in 2005.

Looking at the Shield averages for last season, there are some blokes who scored pretty heavily and fortunately the selectors put one of them (Voges) in the side. I think you could make a good argument that one of the other guys in the top four or five scorers might make a better top six player than Watson.

I agree 100%.

A genuine all-rounder needs to be able to hold his place in the side in BOTH roles - otherwise he's not a true all-rounder. The selectors have been looking from reasons to pick Watson for years as the dream all-rounder. For a time he could certainly hold his place as a batsman, but never really as a bowler - so essentially he's a batsman who can bowl quite well when needed. In that circumstance, if he can't hold his place as a batsman, then he shouldn't be in the team.