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

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

But if you score a 0 and 100, you will post a smaller first innings total, yet will be able to chase a bigger total (if batting second)?

This 0 + 100 and 100 + 0 is a logically flawed argument. The point is that if you have a bunch of players who routinely score big runs this becomes irrelevant because even if you score 0 in the first innings then someone else will score a 100. That's called covering up for other batsmen.

This is not really valid when you score 50s because you either need a) someone else to come in and score 100 in order to realistically have any chance in the game or b) every one in the top 7 to chip in with a 50 (which as I have pointed out earlier is not really realistic) to put up a competitive score. And you need this to happen in both innings.

Watson's conversion rate is downright terrible at 20%, you can say hes young and he'll improve, but either way even you'll agree that he needs to improve on that record whether he is averaging 45+ or not.

[Jono]

Getting it back on topic.

Ponting and Hussey going from God-like to mediocre after 2007 is the obvious answer.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

This 0 + 100 and 100 + 0 is a logically flawed argument. The point is that if you have a bunch of players who routinely score big runs this becomes irrelevant because even if you score 0 in the first innings then someone else will score a 100. That's called covering up for other batsmen.

This is not really valid when you score 50s because you either need a) someone else to come in and score 100 in order to realistically have any chance in the game or b) every one in the top 7 to chip in with a 50 (which as I have pointed out earlier is not really realistic) to put up a competitive score. And you need this to happen in both innings.

Ok so if you expect another batsman to score a 100 when you do get a 0, why can't you expect the same when you get a 50?

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

This 0 + 100 and 100 + 0 is a logically flawed argument. The point is that if you have a bunch of players who routinely score big runs this becomes irrelevant because even if you score 0 in the first innings then someone else will score a 100. That's called covering up for other batsmen.

This is not really valid when you score 50s because you either need a) someone else to come in and score 100 in order to realistically have any chance in the game or b) every one in the top 7 to chip in with a 50 (which as I have pointed out earlier is not really realistic) to put up a competitive score. And you need this to happen in both innings.

Watson's conversion rate is downright terrible at 20%, you can say hes young and he'll improve, but either way even you'll agree that he needs to improve on that record whether he is averaging 45+ or not.

So you are saying that scoring a duck will make it more likely someone will score a 100? wtf? This whole thread is about why we have been having batting collapses man! Batting collapses = batsmen not covering for each other. I don't think Watson needs to improve his conversion rate, providing he can maintain a good average. I do, however, think he will improve his conversion rate.

[Uppercut]

To answer the thread's title question, I'd say all of the Aussie collapses in the last two Ashes series except the first dig at Lord's were predominantly down to excellent English bowling and fielding. Against previous England teams a silly run-out in the first over wouldn't result in your captain and best batsman both going for 0 to absolute jaffas, hitting the ball in the air to a fielder wouldn't necessarily end your innings and a batting collapse could sometimes be recovered in the field. That's not the case anymore.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

I don't think Watson needs to improve his conversion rate, providing he can maintain a good average.

Exactly. It is recommended to have a good conversion rate because it would give you a higher average compared to a guy that can't convert starts whilst performing just as poorly when out of form. On the contrary Watson has a great average because he has hardly performed poorly as opener.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Jono

Agree with almost everything Benchy has said in this thread.

It disgusts me that Benchy is a good cricket poster again btw

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Jono

I disagree with Vic and TEC's premise that Watson and Katich are significantly to blame, but I agree with them that a 100 and 0 is generally better than a 50 and 50.

Obviously if someone converts hundreds more but averages less, then you have to reassess the argument.

I don't think I've argued that Watson is significantly to blame for the collapses. I think he has played a role in the collapses and that it needs to be acknowledged his conversion rate has been a problem for Australia thus far. You cant just say, he's averaging 50 so he's barred from all criticism.

The real reason for Australia's collapses is that firstly they have Marcus North, who I have pointed out for well over 1.5 years isn't a good enough test cricketer when the ball moves even a tiny fraction. He has basically been useless.

The other problem is that they have too many players in there who are aging and not able to play with the kind of consistency that their batting needs to have against top teams. All talk about Watson in this thread, but Ponting's and Katich's conversion rates have been terrible for a while now and Hussey has been inconsistent. I think it is a problem when your batting revolves around players who are 35 + years old (having one or 2 is fine but having 3 is a bit of a problem especially when you have North), they should instead be relying on batsmen who are in the prime of their careers like Watson and Clarke.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by TumTum

Ok so if you expect another batsman to score a 100 when you do get a 0, why can't you expect the same when you get a 50?

because when you score 50 in each innings, you need someone to do it twice (once in each innings)?

When you score a 100 in one innings, you actually do the job in one innings. When you score a 50 in each you've basically done half the job in each innings and so someone else has to cover up for you in both innings.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

So you are saying that scoring a duck will make it more likely someone will score a 100? wtf? This whole thread is about why we have been having batting collapses man! Batting collapses = batsmen not covering for each other. I don't think Watson needs to improve his conversion rate, providing he can maintain a good average. I do, however, think he will improve his conversion rate.

I'm not sure where in my post you have drawn that conclusion from. I said if you have batters with good conversion rates, it becomes irrelevant whether you score 0 + 100 or 100 + 0 because the odds are that someone out of the 7 will score a 100 every inning.

I think you are looking at the end average as the be all and end all. Averages are meant to be a guide, absolutely no one should look at an average and say hes averaging 50 therefore hes doing fine. You look at his performances first, Watson has barely made one match winning contribution, and this while playing on some of the flattest tracks in the world. If that makes you happy then this argument is not going to go anywhere.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

because when you score 50 in each innings, you need someone to do it twice (once in each innings)?

When you score a 100 in one innings, you actually do the job in one innings. When you score a 50 in each you've basically done half the job in each innings and so someone else has to cover up for you in both innings.

Or alternatively (and more reasonably), when you score a 100 in one innings there is minimal pressure on the next batsmen, and when you score a 0 in the other innings there is a high amount of pressure on the next batsmen. Scoring two 50's doesn't mean the next batsmen feel they have to cover for your - it means the start is adequate and the amount of pressure is somewhere in between.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

I'm not sure where in my post you have drawn that conclusion from. I said if you have batters with good conversion rates, it becomes irrelevant whether you score 0 + 100 or 100 + 0 because the odds are that someone out of the 7 will score a 100 every inning.

I think you are looking at the end average as the be all and end all. Averages are meant to be a guide, absolutely no one should look at an average and say hes averaging 50 therefore hes doing fine. You look at his performances first, Watson has barely made one match winning contribution, and this while playing on some of the flattest tracks in the world. If that makes you happy then this argument is not going to go anywhere.

Firstly, I already think it's irrelevent whether you score 0 + 100 or 100 + 0. Secondly, even if the rest of the batsmen don't have good conversion rates but still average the same, it is literally just as likely the totals for the match will the same. I don't think averages tell the whole picture, because they say nothing about how a player has faired against good bowlers, in pressure situations etc. How a players scores are distributed over an innings, however, makes no difference.

[Jono]

All this talk of conversion rates, yet Ponting received a huge amount of praise for reaching 70+ three times out of four innings in the recent Indian series, even though he didn't go on with it.

[vcs]

He was criticised (rightly) for his cheap dismissals in the first innings of the Tests (run-out and LBW to Raina are terrible ways to get out) but his knock in the 2nd innings at Bangalore was superb.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Or alternatively (and more reasonably), when you score a 100 in one innings there is minimal pressure on the next batsmen, and when you score a 0 in the other innings there is a high amount of pressure on the next batsmen. Scoring two 50's doesn't mean the next batsmen feel they have to cover for your - it means the start is adequate and the amount of pressure is somewhere in between.

Think the point is that adequate = average = ordinary = Watson's career thus far. If a guy isnt making match winning contributions then it is a problem irrespective of whether he is averaging 50. Ultimately cricket is about winning games, not chipping in with minor contributions.