I actually think this period where Watson isn't converting is just one of those things. I've always seen him as an aggressive player who could make a fair few centuries over his career. His FC stats show his conversion rate isn't that bad at all; 17 hundreds, 38 fifties.
Ok, well I was trying to debate whether he could maintain it rather than just assuming he would maintain it. Personally as stated previously very unconvinced by the guy.
Strauss has also only made 50s in the last 2 innings he's played. However, at Melbourne he walked out with Australia having only put 98 on the board. Cook and Strauss got England to 150/0 by the close - a great position for an in form middle order to cash in on.
At Sydney, with the exception of when Johnson and Hilfenhaus had a swing, England kept the Australian batsmen on a very tight leash. Strauss then came outand bashed 60 at more than a run a ball, which seized the initiative for England and set them on their way to a big total.
Context matters. You can occasionally get away with making 50s if your bowlers have done the job. If you're batting first you need more than that. No first innings tons since Brisbane, and no innings over 280. You can't tell me the two aren't linked.
Saying it did "nothing" is overstating it. But yes, 45 wasn't enough.
"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."
Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.
Ginger, I don't disagree with any of that. But by wanting Watson to get more than 45, is simply wanting him to have a higher average for the match.
His performance shouldn't be rated based on the quality of the rest of his team. Otherwise so many of Sachin and Lara's innings were "not enough" because their tons had no affect on the match since the rest of the team collapsed for less than 300.
Yeah exactly Jono. I think there is literally no problem with Watson averaging 50 but not converting. But even if you do think there is a problem with that, it seriously pales in comparison with the fact that the majority of our key batsmen had sub-25 averages for the series.
Australia have batted first 4 times this series and failed to get past 280 in any of them. Couple that with conceding 620/5 at Adelaide, 513 at Melbourne and 644 at Sydney and there's your answer for why Australia have been getting thrashed. Watson isn't exempt from this - he's averaged 30 in the first innings. How he does in the 2nd innings has largely been rendered irrelevant by how far behind Australia have found themselves in 3 of the 4 Tests they've batted first in.
How is (innings totals) 400 and 300, any different to 300 and 400?
I don't really uinderstand the context of talking about averages on the basis of one match.
Let's flip it and use bowling. Look at Stuart Broad at The Oval last summer. His average for the match probably wasn't great as he didn't do much second dig. But his first innings spell won England the match (and the series). The second innings was a formality after that.
A big hundred can work very much the same and render the second innings of little importance. I know you're going to come back at me and say that a batsmen who scores a big one will have a good average for the match, but that's not really the point. Averages are a useful way of looking at a player's overall career, among with other things. In an individual match, they mean nothing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)