Page 22 of 25 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 368
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Who is really to blame for Australia's batting collapses post 2007 in Ashes series?

  1. #316
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    Look at Adelaide. Watson and Hussey rebuilt the innings very well after the horror start, before Watson threw his wicket away after lunch. Would it really have been to much to ask him to knuckle down and score another 50?
    When we are analysing why the team failed, I find those kind of questions directed towards Watson completely unwarranted. Would it have been too much to ask for Ponting to score even one important 50? Would it have been too much to ask for Hughes to average more than 20? Would it have been too much to ask Hilfenhaus to take at least a few more wickets? Would it have been too much to ask Johnson to bowl consistently for more than one match? Etc. etc. etc.

    The bottom line is Watson averaged about 50 for the series. If you are going to question a teams performance, you have to get your priorities right.

  2. #317
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,391
    It's perfectly reasonable to require a test match opening batsman to score hundreds. For the reasons discussed above, a player who keeps throwing his wicket away is not doing their job properly when they open.

    However, it is unreasonable to criticise Watson for not scoring hundreds when he so often makes 50s. That is what he is so good at and is actually a very useful role to have in the side. The issue with this is that Watson is not an opener, does not have the plan or concentration.

    As has been noted, saying that Watto needs to convert his scores is asking him to average 80, which he is not capable of and it is unfair to ask of him when so many others would do well to average 50.

    The issue is one of selection, and not finding a proper opener. If you are going to criticise Watson for this, you may as well criticise his selection all together, because you are criticising him for being Shane Watson.

    (Which, on reflection, could be pretty fair.)

    This is only one of several arguments for Watson to move down the order, and him continuing to face the first ball is yet another example of selectorial incompetence.
    Every 5 years we have an election and have to decide who are the least obnoxious out of all the men. Then one gets in and they age really quickly. Which is always fun to watch.

  3. #318
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,983
    Yeah, Watson would be a gun in this South Africa side.

  4. #319
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    54,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    It's perfectly reasonable to require a test match opening batsman to score hundreds. For the reasons discussed above, a player who keeps throwing his wicket away is not doing their job properly when they open.

    However, it is unreasonable to criticise Watson for not scoring hundreds when he so often makes 50s. That is what he is so good at and is actually a very useful role to have in the side. The issue with this is that Watson is not an opener, does not have the plan or concentration.

    As has been noted, saying that Watto needs to convert his scores is asking him to average 80, which he is not capable of and it is unfair to ask of him when so many others would do well to average 50.

    The issue is one of selection, and not finding a proper opener. If you are going to criticise Watson for this, you may as well criticise his selection all together, because you are criticising him for being Shane Watson.

    (Which, on reflection, could be pretty fair.)

    This is only one of several arguments for Watson to move down the order, and him continuing to face the first ball is yet another example of selectorial incompetence.
    Hmm, there is merit in that, but at the same time, out of all players in Australian cricket, Watson is the closest guarantee you have to ensuring your #3 doesn't face a new/newish ball.

    That is a very good aspect of an opening batsman. Scoring hundreds is also the job of the middle order. Him being there instead of an opener won't mean him not scoring hundreds will be much worse.
    "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.


  5. #320
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    As has been mentioned numerous times already though, one of (if not) the main role of an opener is to take on the new ball. If Watson is one of these ridiculously consistent players who always gets decent scores, is that not an ideal opener?

  6. #321
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,983
    Quote Originally Posted by DeusEx View Post
    When we are analysing why the team failed, I find those kind of questions directed towards Watson completely unwarranted. Would it have been too much to ask for Ponting to score even one important 50? Would it have been too much to ask for Hughes to average more than 20? Would it have been too much to ask Hilfenhaus to take at least a few more wickets? Would it have been too much to ask Johnson to bowl consistently for more than one match? Etc. etc. etc.

    The bottom line is Watson averaged about 50 for the series. If you are going to question a teams performance, you have to get your priorities right.
    I am criticising his performance at Adelaide. Having worked so hard with Hussey to rebuild, he deserves a lot of criticism for throwing away his wicket after lunch and exposing the lower order to a newish ball. The fact he'd scored 50 before throwing his wicket away doesn't excuse his performance at Adelaide.

  7. #322
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    I am criticising his performance at Adelaide. Having worked so hard with Hussey to rebuild, he deserves a lot of criticism for throwing away his wicket after lunch and exposing the lower order to a newish ball. The fact he'd scored 50 before throwing his wicket away doesn't excuse his performance at Adelaide.
    Yeah what I said before about priorities applies to Adelaide as well. His match average was actually over 50, so it is was a perfectly decent performance. Most of the other batsmen were much worse, and the entire bowling attack was lousy (perhaps bar Harris). Once again, he shouldn't be the target of much criticism here.

  8. #323
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,498
    Quote Originally Posted by DeusEx View Post
    Yeah what I said before about priorities applies to Adelaide as well. His match average was actually over 50, so it is was a perfectly decent performance. Most of the other batsmen were much worse, and the entire bowling attack was lousy (perhaps bar Harris). Once again, he shouldn't be the target of much criticism here.
    His second innings was fairly meaningless though. His match average means **** all.
    Quote Originally Posted by DingDong View Post
    gimh has now surpassed richard as the greatest cw member ever imo

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  9. #324
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,983
    Quote Originally Posted by DeusEx View Post
    Yeah what I said before about priorities applies to Adelaide as well. His match average was actually over 50, so it is was a perfectly decent performance. Most of the other batsmen were much worse, and the entire bowling attack was lousy (perhaps bar Harris). Once again, he shouldn't be the target of much criticism here.
    He'd got himself in on a flat deck and had done some good rebuilding work with Hussey. Throwing his wicket away in that situation was utterly criminal. A match average of 50 is **** all next to Pietersen's 227 and Cook's 148.

  10. #325
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,498
    If all of the Aussies had scored a 50 in the first innings, they still had a lower total than England...

  11. #326
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,391
    Quote Originally Posted by DeusEx View Post
    Yeah what I said before about priorities applies to Adelaide as well. His match average was actually over 50, so it is was a perfectly decent performance. Most of the other batsmen were much worse, and the entire bowling attack was lousy (perhaps bar Harris). Once again, he shouldn't be the target of much criticism here.
    There's nothing wrong with constructive criticism of any performance. You don't have to be the best or worst player in a side to be commented on.

  12. #327
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,391
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    If all of the Aussies had scored a 50 in the first innings, they still had a lower total than England...
    Which is one reason you'd say the Aussie bowling (bar Harris) was the worst part of that performance.

  13. #328
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Sigh... I'm out man.

  14. #329
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    6,347
    I'm split between camps here. Is going on and making runs instead of getting out at 50 all the time important? Yes. Is it reasonable for the players who are perceived to be in form to 'cash in', as if they are somehow more responsible than the bats who are out of form? I don't think so.

    While I agree that him averaging 50 does not mean he had a great series with the bat, when looked in context, does not mean he had a great series, Watson suddenly isn't more responsible than say, Ponting just because he is the in form bat, IMHO.

    Watson's had an average series with the bat; passable, you can say. A fair few have had pathetic series'. They should be the centre of criticism atm tbh, not Twatto.
    Isnít it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Ė Douglas Adams



    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    The reason people don't cheer for India is nothing to do with them being number one

    It's because Teja is a ****, FTR

  15. #330
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    It's perfectly reasonable to require a test match opening batsman to score hundreds. For the reasons discussed above, a player who keeps throwing his wicket away is not doing their job properly when they open.

    However, it is unreasonable to criticise Watson for not scoring hundreds when he so often makes 50s. That is what he is so good at and is actually a very useful role to have in the side. The issue with this is that Watson is not an opener, does not have the plan or concentration.

    As has been noted, saying that Watto needs to convert his scores is asking him to average 80, which he is not capable of and it is unfair to ask of him when so many others would do well to average 50.

    The issue is one of selection, and not finding a proper opener. If you are going to criticise Watson for this, you may as well criticise his selection all together, because you are criticising him for being Shane Watson.

    (Which, on reflection, could be pretty fair.)

    This is only one of several arguments for Watson to move down the order, and him continuing to face the first ball is yet another example of selectorial incompetence.
    Interestingly enough his conversion rate in domestic cricket is actually pretty good -15/23. Which goes to show hes not exactly incapable of scoring 100s.
    Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
    Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
    Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

Page 22 of 25 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Archived [10/08/07] Battrick
    By PY in forum Battrick
    Replies: 8536
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 01:59 AM
  2. Archived [18/10/06] : Battrick
    By DJellett in forum Battrick
    Replies: 10623
    Last Post: 17-10-2006, 12:20 PM
  3. Club Cricket 9-10 Results
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum CW Offseason Club Cricket
    Replies: 964
    Last Post: 27-04-2006, 03:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •