Watson may have secured No 6

[aussie]

Yea i can see him batting in the top 5 in the future once he develops into a good all-round player at international level, because thats where he normally bats in domestic cricket.

 

[Mister Wright]

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.

6 is better than 7!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Once again, there's no way you can say that Watson is a better batsman than Clarke at this point. It's like arguing that Brett Dorey is a better bowler than Brett Lee because he has a better first class average. Clarke has proved something at international level, and Watson has absolutely not done that, in either form of the game.

Watson is being picked as a potential all-rounder, make no mistake. Yes, he has to justify his position with the bat (and I think he might well be capable of that), but if he's not also providing some value with the ball, the sensible move is to pick Clarke ahead of him. He can also fill in a few overs, and at this point he's much more likely to have an impact with the bat. Hopefully the stories about Watson's improvement with the ball under Cooley have some truth to them.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Once again, there's no way you can say that Watson is a better batsman than Clarke at this point. It's like arguing that Brett Dorey is a better bowler than Brett Lee because he has a better first class average. Clarke has proved something at international level, and Watson has absolutely not done that, in either form of the game.

Watson is being picked as a potential all-rounder, make no mistake. Yes, he has to justify his position with the bat (and I think he might well be capable of that), but if he's not also providing some value with the ball, the sensible move is to pick Clarke ahead of him. He can also fill in a few overs, and at this point he's much more likely to have an impact with the bat. Hopefully the stories about Watson's improvement with the ball under Cooley have some truth to them.

First post of yours I ever disagree with?

Clarke has a lot of talent, and certainly has proved that he can bat, but he has also proved the test game has too much of a mental aspect for him. He's so damaging in OD cricket because it's much faster and he can react on his intuition rather than bat a day off attrition out one-on-one with the bowler. Bowlers in test cricket can sit on a line and exploit his lack of restraint (as eveidenced by his dismissal in the 90's during the Ashes where the English frustrated him until he slashed wildy and chopped on.) His technique is far too loose once he settles in, as well.

Now there's way of saying Watson will be more successful, but he's certainly in form, and playing with confidence, and has a much stronger technique and temprament than Clarke. His bowling may not be test class just yet, but it's still light years ahead of Clarke's, in my opinion.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think there's anything much wrong with Clarke's technique, but he definitely has temprament issues and struggles with choosing the right ball to play in test cricket.

That's not really the point though. People are saying Watson is the superior batsmen based on his first class average. Watson's played a few tests and never done much with the bat, and aside from a couple of handy innings he's not done much in ODIs either. I'm not saying he is a bad batsman (I don't think he is), but the fact is he's proved nothing at international level. Watson's got a solid technique against pace but he's a weak player of spin at the moment, and at times he looks way out of his depth at international level, with both bat and ball. Clarke on the other hand has always looked right at home at international level, with an ODI average in the high 40s and a couple of great centuries early in his test career. He's run into some problems since then, but the point is that he's at least done something at international level.

Both Clarke and Watson are talented batsmen who might go a long way in international cricket. Watson's proved himself at domestic level which Clarke never really had to do, but at this point in time if you were to pick someone with bowling not a factor, Clarke would get the nod because he's shown talent at international level before, and scored runs against various opposition in various conditions, in both forms of the game. Watson's basically an unknown quantity.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I disagree with you totally, but I cbf.

 

[ajit]

do you know sangita

why is she ban and for what purpose ? is right to ban member like this answer me please is she sangeeta mane ?

 

[luffy]

why is she ban and for what purpose ? is right to ban member like this answer me please is she sangeeta mane ?

Mate i dont thing this has anything to do with Shane Watson

 

[Mister Wright]

I don't think there's anything much wrong with Clarke's technique, but he definitely has temprament issues and struggles with choosing the right ball to play in test cricket.

That's not really the point though. People are saying Watson is the superior batsmen based on his first class average. Watson's played a few tests and never done much with the bat, and aside from a couple of handy innings he's not done much in ODIs either. I'm not saying he is a bad batsman (I don't think he is), but the fact is he's proved nothing at international level. Watson's got a solid technique against pace but he's a weak player of spin at the moment, and at times he looks way out of his depth at international level, with both bat and ball. Clarke on the other hand has always looked right at home at international level, with an ODI average in the high 40s and a couple of great centuries early in his test career. He's run into some problems since then, but the point is that he's at least done something at international level.

Both Clarke and Watson are talented batsmen who might go a long way in international cricket. Watson's proved himself at domestic level which Clarke never really had to do, but at this point in time if you were to pick someone with bowling not a factor, Clarke would get the nod because he's shown talent at international level before, and scored runs against various opposition in various conditions, in both forms of the game. Watson's basically an unknown quantity.

Yeah, but how many more test matches has Clarke played than Watson 20+? You can't say that Watson has had a chance to prove himself. How many test matches has he played in a row? 1?