Watson may have secured No 6

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm sure MacGill would do fine at the Gabba, but I think they'd be hesitant to play him there given the trend of pitches last summer. Bracken and Lee had a great time at the Gabba last time, and Warne can definitely handle the spinning duties there if the seamers are getting assistance.

MacGill at the WACA might be a good shout though. I suppose it depends in part who the form bowlers are at the time.

 

[Nate]

Laurrz mate, Watson is fine against pace, if anything, his technique against spin is in question.

 

[Laurrz]

Laurrz mate, Watson is fine against pace, if anything, his technique against spin is in question.

from what i've seen... in the super series.. he played Murali and Vettori with ease..

but he got out hooking a short ball against Flintoff

so my question is ... considering he hasn't played against guys like Harmison, Flintoff (90 mph at the throat region with lots of bounce) i am just wondering....

for me he is fine against spin

 

[Nate]

Are you talking about the Test Match? If so, I think I remember him getting out to Murali as well as Flintoff, and he certainly seemed clueless against Murali for most of his time in the middle.

Not to mention, that was only one match.

 

[Mister Wright]

from what i've seen... in the super series.. he played Murali and Vettori with ease..

but he got out hooking a short ball against Flintoff

so my question is ... considering he hasn't played against guys like Harmison, Flintoff (90 mph at the throat region with lots of bounce) i am just wondering....

for me he is fine against spin

That's the problem with most of the young Australian batsman, they're all pull happy. Watson is the worst offender, with Cosgrove and Jaques not far behind. While they are all good pullers the shot does get them into trobule a fair bit.

 

[luffy]

It is a good decision to have Watson instead of Clarke and Symonds. Watson can bat and bowl while Clarke and Symonds can also do both but are both inconsistent, and would deserve a spot in ODI's instead of Tests

 

[Tormented]

If Watson is in form then pick him. Michael Clarke is probably the most overrated Australian player currently playing. I know everyone says he's got this great technique and that he's a future captain and all this **** but have a look at his record. His first class average is only around the 40 mark. Compare that with guys like Michael Hussey (who had to wait a very long time to play for Australia - 15,000 runs is a long time). Hussey averages over 50, as do many of the other fringe players. Why put so much emphasis on Clarke's "technique". Steve Waugh was one of the least elegant players of his time and look how successfull he was. Clarke can have all the potential ability and technique he likes but the fact is he didn't do much at test level in his 20 tests (average of low 30's?) and his first class record in my opinion puts him behind many other players who are waiting for a test spot.

Watson is also the better bowler of the three (Clarke, Symonds, Watson) and his selection would allow Australia to pick MacGill, which in my opinion is an excellent move against England.

My only concern with Watson is that he seems to be a "confidence" player. I remember watching him playing for Australia last season and he bowled an over and got hit for three 4's. When the camera showed his reaction he looked like he was just about in tears and that the whole weight of the world was on his shoulders. If they pick Watson for the first test and I was England, I'd be targeting him as soon as he came on to bowl. If you get on top of him you will destroy his confidence and it'll hurt him for the rest of the series (or possibly cost him his spot in the site)

 

[Pedro Delgado]

From an English view, not bothered which one of the three plays.

Objectively I still like the look of Symonds best, but he may have blown it by now.

 

[Gloucefan]

I think out of those three Watson has the most potential of becoming a good test standard all-rounder which I think is what Australia are after.

 

[luffy]

I think out of those three Watson has the most potential of becoming a good test standard all-rounder which I think is what Australia are after.

Also Clarke will get some more chances later on in his career. Not sure about Symonds though...

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

I think out of those three Watson has the most potential of becoming a good test standard all-rounder which I think is what Australia are after.

Why do we need a second class all-rounder like Watson?

Ever since the last Ashes were we got to see a world class all-rounder pounding the leather to the boundary and ripping through the order the Australian selectors have been pushing for an all-rounder. Yet we have been a world class/conquering team for 6+years without the need of a regular and a Good all-rounder. We would go into the game with 6 batsman, Gilchrist and 4 bowlers and we would do superb. I don't see the point in putting in a player of Watsons calibre to fill the number 6 spot and weaken us. The spot should be filled with a genuine batsman (Hodge, Clarke) who would no weaken the batting line up and further make our bowling worse. Im not supporting the decision if Watson is given the chance at 6 as an overrated allrounder.

 

[luffy]

Why do we need a second class all-rounder like Watson?

Ever since the last Ashes were we got to see a world class all-rounder pounding the leather to the boundary and ripping through the order the Australian selectors have been pushing for an all-rounder. Yet we have been a world class/conquering team for 6+years without the need of a regular and a Good all-rounder. We would go into the game with 6 batsman, Gilchrist and 4 bowlers and we would do superb. I don't see the point in putting in a player of Watsons calibre to fill the number 6 spot and weaken us. The spot should be filled with a genuine batsman (Hodge, Clarke) who would no weaken the batting line up and further make our bowling worse. Im not supporting the decision if Watson is given the chance at 6 as an overrated allrounder.

While i understand the point you are making i feel Watson is in the team because of the fact he can bat and bowl gives him the advantage over Clarke, Hodge and Symonds

 

[andyc]

The spot should be filled with a genuine batsman (Hodge, Clarke) who would no weaken the batting line up and further make our bowling worse. Im not supporting the decision if Watson is given the chance at 6 as an overrated allrounder.

That's what makes it even more clear cut in my opinion; Watson is a better batsman (or at least has better temperment) than Clarke, and given the fact that he offers an extra bowling option, he should definitely be picked over Clarke.

 

[Nate]

As has been said, Watson`s batting is pretty damn good.

I think we`re nearing the age where you need that 5th bowling option. Not to mention, in the past, Australia has had the Lehmann, Bevan, Waugh who could fill in a couple of overs, or even take some wickets. Australia doesn`t have that anymore.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

That's what makes it even more clear cut in my opinion; Watson is a better batsman (or at least has better temperment) than Clarke, and given the fact that he offers an extra bowling option, he should definitely be picked over Clarke.

I reckon Him and Clarke are very similar batsman, and neither of them have made hardly a run on the international stage (tests). The only difference is there bowling.

But maybe it is my victorian-bias but Hodge was unfairly dumped from the side and he could easily fill the role of number 6 batsman with ease and he is a surperb short leg fielder which is always handy.

 

[_TiGeR-ToWn_]

As has been said, Watson`s batting is pretty damn good.

I think we`re nearing the age where you need that 5th bowling option. Not to mention, in the past, Australia has had the Lehmann, Bevan, Waugh who could fill in a couple of overs, or even take some wickets. Australia doesn`t have that anymore.

Maybe Watson batting has improved over the years but if we were taking him in as our 5th option for the bowling line up I would be seriously concerned about our future. In my opinion he is rubbish, he bowls flat pace and hardly does a thing with the ball. He is not up to the standard of other international allrounders like Flintoff, Razzaq or Bravo. The only way i can seem him being selected in the team is as a full batsman, and thus Hodge beats him to that spot.

Hodge can bowl offspin

 

[Nate]

I reckon Him and Clarke are very similar batsman, and neither of them have made hardly a run on the international stage (ODI or tests). The only difference is there bowling.

But maybe it is my victorian-bias but Hodge was unfairly dumped from the side and he could easily fill the role of number 6 batsman with ease and he is a surperb short leg fielder which is always handy.

Haha. Mate, Clarke has been one of Australia`s form ODI batsmen over the past two years. Ludicrous statement.

Fair enough on Hodge, though that leaves us with strictly four bowling options.

 

[Nate]

Watson doesn`t need to be the next Flintoff, just the first Watson. His role should be primarily as a batsman, but can also be used for a few overs. He`s young and learning, and can hit the 140`s. Certainly hope for him.

 

[aussie]

In my opinion he is rubbish, he bowls flat pace and hardly does a thing with the ball. He is not up to the standard of other international allrounders like Flintoff, Razzaq or Bravo. The only way i can seem him being selected in the team is as a full batsman, and thus Hodge beats him to that spot.

He certainly is not rubbish, but i'd give you that his bowling to date hasn't been all that superb, but word is that its getting better lets wait and see how he goes..

 

[BoyBrumby]

From the little I've seen of him it seems Watson does bowl at a fair lick, but gets very little bounce or carry & is gun-barrel straight too. I'm not convinced his bowling is going to be any more than a fill-in at test level unless he starts to develop some movement either thru the air or off the pitch.

He looks like having the makings of a test batter, but isn't a six for me. He needs to go higher in the order & there don't appear to be any openings up there just yet.