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

[Spark]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

It's not just how many, though. When you score matters. Scoring a big ton in the current second dig, for example, will mean very little having scored < 300 on day 1 when the game was up for grabs (or 98, as the case may be....).

but i thought second innings tons were all the rage?

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Cause and effect. The reason that they performed poorly was not because they have bad averages. It's because they didn't make runs, which leads to a bad average...

A batsman's job is not to keep a good average, it's to make runs regularly.

Don't really know why your bringing that up thought, it's just semantics.

[stephen]

Australia really missed a brutal Hayden/Langer 150+ partnership in this series.

[M0rphin3]

Originally Posted by stephen

australia really missed a brutal hayden/langer 150+ partnership in this series.

awta

[GIMH]

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.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Big runs=big average.

Tbh I didn't understand what GingerFurball was referring to, but I certainly hope it's not this again

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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.

You can't really use this series to prove that. Because even if Watson kicked on and made a 100, our other openers have been failing regularly and the middle order would still have been under pressure. And when Watson would get out for cheap scores, you would be basically 2 down for almost nothing.

Averages tell everything, as long as you take into account the match context and conditions.

[TumTum]

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.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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.

Look at it this way, the only matches where an Australian batsman hit a ton, Australia didn't lose. The only match an English batsman failed to hit a ton, we lost.

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.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Look at it this way, the only matches where an Australian batsman hit a ton, Australia didn't lose. The only match an English batsman failed to hit a ton, we lost.

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.

That's because the rest of our batsman have been useless. If Watson was inside an in-form batting line-up, we would be applauding the steady start he kept giving to the team.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by TumTum

That's because the rest of our batsman have been useless. If Watson was inside an in-form batting line-up, we would be applauding the steady start he kept giving to the team.

True, but he's not in an in-form batting lineup. He needs to be doing more for the team.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

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.

Assuming the match context etc. is kept the same, scoring two 50s is the same as scoring 100 then 0. The match total is exactly the same, how is it any different?

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).

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

True, but he's not in an in-form batting lineup. He needs to be doing more for the team.

Which translates to: "Watson needs to average more". Which I think is pretty unreasonable given he is already averaging 50 or so.

[Top_Cat]

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.

[Redbacks]

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.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Assuming the match context etc. is kept the same, scoring two 50s is the same as scoring 100 then 0. The match total is exactly the same, how is it any different?

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).

Think you're discounting the psychological aspect of a bloke scoring a ton against you. Someone scoring 150 then 20 is going to hurt you more than the same bloke scoring an even number of runs in each innings. A bloke going onto a ton is also going to lift his team-mates more than a guy who gets a high 50, the feeling of the later is more of a job half-done. The team capital and confidence drawn from a ton is just far more than a couple of 50's.