91Jmay and stfu_ben flying the flag for stupid people
You can always spot a Watson-ignoramus when they start talking about his bowling as if it's his main discipline and comparing him to bowling allrounders.
EDIT: Hmm, perhaps I was being a little harsh. Looking back at the post that started this, you own really compared Watson's bowling to Bresnan and merely said that you doubted he'd live up to Hussey's standards with the bat... which I suppose is fair enough. I disagree strongly that such a cricketer wouldn't be an asset, though. A genuinely Test standard batsman who bowled like Tim Bresnan would be an awesome, awesome bloke to have around. I certainly wouldn't be dropping Hussey at this point but Watson coming in for a batsman - presuming he's fit to bowl - would hardly be the worst thing for the balance for the Australian team at the moment.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 15-07-2009 at 07:59 AM.
~ Cribbertarian ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Originally Posted by John Singleton
The one, the only CW Black
Code:47.3 W Coppinger to Heads Smacked the ball straight into the groin of Iwuajoku who has fallen over, miraculously with the ball still caught in his scrotal area! Out!
Can you please show where i compared Watson and Bresnans batting?
Of course Watson is a better allround player, and 10x better batsmen. But as a bowler he is completely average.
Bangladesh (Watto > the whole top order), New Zealand (they'd make him open and drop McIntosh), Sri Lanka (Dilshan), Pakistan (Manzoor), England (Bopara) and West Indies (Simmons).
I had India in there as well because I believe he's far superior to Yuvraj, but the Indian selectors are a different matter there so I'll stay on the safe side and run with six.
Yeah, i'd agree with that ^^^
Although i do think Ravi has the ability to become better than Watson - but at this moment its Watson for me.
I think the fifth bowler is becoming increasingly important for Australia. Firstly because of the way pitches around the world are heading, and secondly because the team is now carrying a bowler with no record to speak of at any level of cricket merely for variety who is going to be ineffective at taking genuine wickets in most circumstances. If Australia want to play Hauritz (or Krejza, or Bailey, or whoever) in most of their games in an attempt to develop a frontline spinner, I think they need the insurance of a fourth seamer who can - even if not consistently - bowl good spells and relieve the pressure on the spinner to take wickets if the conditions prove unsuitable. I certainly wouldn't be dropping Hussey - it'd be North I'd drop TBH and I do realise how ridiculously harsh that sounds and it really can't and shouldn't happen at this very moment for obvious reasons.
Frankly, my preference on all but the squarest of square turners is to play four specialist quicks and use Marcus North as a fifth bowler, but it's quite obvious that's not going to happen, so I'd much rather Watto in there if he was fit to bowl. There's only one player I'd rather have play the "bat top 6 and bowl second change as part of a five man attack with an unproven spinner" role in world cricket today and that's Kallis.
Getting Watto fit to bowl is a completely different matter, though...
Last edited by Prince EWS; 15-07-2009 at 08:27 AM.
Well clearly at some stage in his life he has swung and seamed a ball. Clearly i have exaggarated. However, do you consider Shane Watson a swing bowler?? If the answer is yes i do have to question wether YOU have watched him bowl much at all. Is he a bowler who will get more than 1 ball per over to seam at the batsman? Doubtful.
So stop trying to act like i am doing some great swing merchant a disservice. Yes i was exaggerating, however 99% of these comments are exaggerated. I'm sure i could find an example in atleast one of your last 5 posts.
@ Prince EWS.
I concor he is a good enough test batsmen, although needless to say his test record so far is useless, he is far better than that (email@example.com with 1 fifty). However i just don't see him as a 4th seemer. As the 5th choice in your bowling attack, i think he would be a solid option but statistically he is no more than solid at 14 wickets at 36 a piece. I don't think that can be a 4th bowler for a test side as good as Australia.
EDIT - I see you want him as a 5th bowler. 100% agree there. I have no problem with that.
Injuries have no doubt played there part though.
Last edited by 91Jmay; 15-07-2009 at 12:15 PM.
Yeah no doubt that would be a strong team. To be fair he does have to justify his position with the bat. His average in his first 8 tests certainly doesn't. I do rate him as a batsmen though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)