Originally Posted by DeusEx
Assuming the match context etc. is kept the same, scoring two 50s is the same as scoring 100 then 0. The match total is exactly the same, how is it any different?
All this series has proved is that the value of even a single batsmen averaging highly across the series is immense. E.g. Hussey almost single-handedly put certain results in our favour - yes, he scored 100's along the way, but it wouldn't have mattered if all his scores were 75's (or whatever his series average was).
Which translates to: "Watson needs to average more". Which I think is pretty unreasonable given he is already averaging 50 or so.
No, this series has proven the value of cashing in in the first innings. Every England victory has followed the same pattern - Australia put up a sub par score, England rack up a massive total and bowl Australia out for an innings win.
A batsman's job is not to average 50. It is to score enough runs to allow the team to win matches. Watson might be averaging close to 50 for the series, but he has scored his runs in such a manner that Australia have been behind the 8ball more often than not.