• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

West Indies vs Aus

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
TWAS I'm much more optimistic about both of Marsh and Faulkner. Even though MM has only two centuries, he's still just a boy compared with Watto, and Faulkner has only recently seemed to concentrate a bit more on his batting. I wouldn't be at all concerned if either was brought into the team in the near future in place of Watto who is definitely on the wane imo. He has had periods where he has been an absolute standout, but I don't see that sort of form continuing much longer.


BR just to follow your optimism, I've looked into where Watson was at Marsh's age. I've disregarded Faulkner because he's older and focused on bowling for much longer.

Anyway, Watson was Marsh's age in 2005. He made his test debut in 2005 and was used as a batting at 8 bowling all-rounder at this time.

In the 04/05 Shield Season he batted 15 times for an average of 42, 1 century and 3 half centuries.

In the 03/04 Shield Season he batted 19 times for an average of 54, 4 centuries and 3 half centuries.

In the 02/03 Shield Season he batted 8 times for an average of 27 and 2 half centuries.

In the 01/02 Shield Season he batted 11 times for an average of 29 and 3 half centuries.

By 23 Watson had compiled 5 centuries and 11 half centuries with an FC average of around 40. At that time he was being used at test level as a bowling all-rounder, batting lower in the order than Marsh.

At the same point Marsh has 2 centuries, 12 half centuries and an average of 29.

Marsh will need to do some significantly development in the next 2-3 years to be a solid batting option I think.
 

Lindommer

Steve Williams (59)
Staff member
And F U Watson contributed bugger all. Again. 25 in the first innings followed by 0/10 off 2 overs. He wasn't required to bat in Oz's second innings (again) and snagged 1 wicket for 3 runs off 4 overs. The Australian bowlers sent down a total of 102 overs in this test, of which Shane contributed the princely total of 6. Pathetic.

As Bh so aptly commented earlier an all-rounder should be able to hold his place in a team either batting or bowling; how anyone could reasonably suggest Watson deserves his spot in this Australian cricket team baffles me. We've fallen into the modern trap in professional sport of hanging on to players for far too long (they don't want to give up the money, understandable) but there are many times when selectors should be tapping players on the shoulders and moving them on. Gregan in the Oz rugby side comes to mind. And Shane Watson.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
How can you hold against a middle order batsman not being required to bat?

David Warner is averaging 24 for the series as a specialist batsman. I don't see you saying he should be dropped. But Watson averaging 18 from 2 innings, having not been required to bat twice should be?

In the 2nd innings of the 2nd test the Windies only took 2 wickets and no player was dismissed for under 50. That certainly pumped up the series averages of Marsh and Warner. Watson didn't get the chance to knock up easy runs when the Windies were so obviously struggling in the field.

In fact most of the players series returns are inflated by a single innings. Harder to do that when you are getting less opportunities.

Do you even understand why a 4th seam option is included? It's to relieve the main 3 bowlers. It's not pathetic that Watson was used only 6 of 102 overs. It's that bowling an average of 51 overs per innings, it was hardly needed.

Looking at the information (What I like to do before just blanket criticizing people for everything under the sun due to my personal dislike for them) it appears that no Australian fast bowler actually bowled more than 18 overs in an innings throughout the series. With 15 being around the average. Also in the innings that Starc threw down 18 overs, that was the most Watson bowled in the series, with 7 overs, sharing the load between the other 3 fast options.

Considering the bowlers were under an innings workload of only 50% more than a ODI, what relief would they need? They were barely fielding for 2 sessions an innings in the 2nd test.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
If a team only bowls 102 overs in a test, the four main bowlers should be bowling almost all of them and the all rounder should barely be required.

The fifth bowler comes into play when you're struggling and bowling 150+ overs in an innings. That way they can help share the load.

I've long been critical of Watson but of the currently available players he should be in the side.

When Rogers returns, I still think he should be there ahead of Shaun Marsh.

Rogers
Warner
Smith
Clarke
Voges
Watson
Haddin
etc. etc.

No one else has shown they should be there ahead of him. Watson is better than Mitch Marsh and James Faulkner in test cricket at this stage.

I'd be happy to play a specialist batsman at 6 but no one has really put up a definitive claim for that spot either. Maybe Joe Burns should get another crack soon?
 

Hound

Bill Watson (15)
Bit unfair for Watson. Our front line bowlers did the job so there was no need for Watson to bowl a huge amount of overs. Batting the same Aust were not chasing 500. While I am not a great fan of his at least look at the match results and what was required from all the players.

*EDIT - beaten to the punch by BH
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Joe Burns should really have been stuck with in all fairness.

The Ashes really looks to be pivotal for the future of the side. If Smith can perform well at 3 during the series that locks down our biggest trouble batting position and opens up 5 for the "apprentice" type position that it once was, whilst still allowing a part time bowler with a good batting record at 6. I'd like to see how Marsh and Faulkner can progress here, but they really need to show that in Sheffield Shield first.
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Andy Zaltman did an interesting piece on cricinfo.com recently showing that No. 5 is now actually the most-productive spot in the batting order, across pretty much everyone over a long enough period for it not to be just an outlier stat (as so many of his tend to be).

http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/876569/take-five

Based on that maybe Smith, as your best batsman, should be batting 5?
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Michael Clarke and Steve Smith have all spent significant time there over the years.
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
5 is the new 4, just as 4 was once the new 3, just as 3 was once the new opener......... I'm hoping to live long enough to see 8 be the new 7 :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top