Australia really missed a brutal Hayden/Langer 150+ partnership in this series.
Bottom line is you can average 50 and be part of a team scoring 200-300 each innings, but if you score one double ton and do **** all else then the chances are you've helped your team to at least one matchwinning total.
The one match where Twatto kicked on a bit, Australia won.
Averages tell everything, as long as you take into account the match context and conditions.
Also on Furball's point about England scoring substantially more than us and putting the blame on the in form batsman (Watson) isn't really fair because England have bowled far better than us. It is not as if it was easy to score for the in-form batsman.
It goes back to the "scoring two 50s is the same as scoring 100 then 0" debate that went on earlier. This series should have proven beyond all doubt why that's complete tosh. Watson is averaging 50, good for him. Cricket isn't about high personal averages, it's about winning Test matches. Watson might be maintaining a good scorebook average, but his failure to kick on and reach 3 figures is hurting his team and hindering them from winning matches. Australia have batted first 4 times and their best team effort has been the 280 in this Test.
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).
Last edited by Ruckus; 06-01-2011 at 04:59 AM.
Yep, as much as cricket is a weirdly team-oriented-but-individual game, no-one truly bats in a bubble. Watto not converting his starts and finding easily-preventable ways of getting out should definitely be held against him. Reeks of next bloke syndrome otherwise.
Even being part of one of the best Aussie teams ever, no way would a Langer or Hayden be saying "Yep, 50 scored, time to put the feet up, I've done my bit." No, if you get to 50 regularly, you should be thinking and getting to tons relatively regularly too, successful team or no. Disagree no-one would be saying anything were he scoring the same in a gun team too.
I wonder if it goes long term this way as to whether he could be potentially up for the axe?
Pushing him to 6 could mean more innings with the tail (a ****load in the current team ) and perhaps his starts could be more valuable, then due to the game being a bit more cat and mouse with a lower order player at the other end, his game would change after 50 compared with the current, relax and the mistake syndrome.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)