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

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

DWTA. Its fine if he was doing this when the ball is seaming around as it generally is in England. Bit of a different story when the opposition is scoring 517/1 and 650 odd for 5 in Australia. If batsmen in form arent going to cash in then it is always going to be a problem.

Watson's pattern of scoring at the moment is more like 50 (1st innings), 50 (2nd innings) than 100 (1st innings), 0 (2nd innings). It makes no difference to the game which of these scoring patterns a player has - it only matters what they are averaging. You could argue that Watson should be converting more of his 50's, but that would mean he would be averaging far more than 50 as an opener which is asking too much.

As long as Watson continues to average 50+ as an opener, there is absolutely no problem - in fact it would put him alongside the great openers of the past. His failure to convert half centuries probably only seems inadequate because Ponting in recent times consistently fails to capitalise on the starts he provides.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Right......and North isnt to blame even though hes batted like a tailender every time the ball has moved an iota off the pitch.

As I said previously look at Martyn's average in the Ashes. Problem mainly is with Katto and Punter, they have been the ones starting these collapses with the middle-order resurrecting the innings.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

DWTA. Its fine if he was doing this when the ball is seaming around as it generally is in England. Bit of a different story when the opposition is scoring 517/1 and 650 odd for 5 in Australia. If batsmen in form arent going to cash in then it is always going to be a problem.

No matter where you play, if you bat first in the game there is always going to be something in it for the bowlers in the first session. Sure, there may be a little less grass coverage in Australia compared to England, but it's certainly not easy by any measure. There's still seam movement and swing.

You quote 1/517 and 5/650... Both of these innings were played when the pitch was at its best, not in the first session on day one.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Watson's pattern of scoring at the moment is more like 50 (1st innings), 50 (2nd innings) than 100 (1st innings), 0 (2nd innings). It makes no difference to the game which of these scoring patterns a player has - it only matters what they are averaging. You could argue that Watson should be converting more of his 50's, but that would mean he would be averaging far more than 50 as an opener which is asking too much.

As long as Watson continues to average 50+ as an opener, there is absolutely no problem - in fact it would put him alongside the great openers of the past. His failure to convert half centuries probably only seems inadequate because Ponting in recent times consistently fails to capitalise on the starts he provides.

Averages are not the be all and end all in cricket. a 50 is a job half done much like if a person painted half your house. I'll take 100 and 0 over 50 and 50 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Averages are not the be all and end all in cricket. a 50 is a job half done much like if a person painted half your house. I'll take 100 and 0 over 50 and 50 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Completely agreed.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Averages are not the be all and end all in cricket. a 50 is a job half done much like if a person painted half your house. I'll take 100 and 0 over 50 and 50 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

How are they any different at all? It doesn't matter how the runs are distributed across the innings, the match total is the same.

[TumTum]

Completely agree with DeusEx here. I have always said averages do tell the whole story (as long as they are played in the same conditions).

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

How are they any different at all? It doesn't matter how the runs are distributed across the innings, the match total is the same.

I'm definitely with TEC here... there's a big difference. In reality you're not always going to get a start, so when you do, you should kick on more often than not.

With that, not everyone in your team is going to get a start.

[vic_orthdox]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

How are they any different at all? It doesn't matter how the runs are distributed across the innings, the match total is the same.

Getting out for 0 is excusable, people fail regularly, getting out early will happen. Getting out once you are the set batsman is letting your team down, your job once you get to that sort of score is to go on and put your team in a strong position. A 50 is not enough to put your team in a strong position in Test cricket, especially opening the batting.

[TumTum]

And when you get a 0 you are getting your team off to a very bad start.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

No matter where you play, if you bat first in the game there is always going to be something in it for the bowlers in the first session. Sure, there may be a little less grass coverage in Australia compared to England, but it's certainly not easy by any measure. There's still seam movement and swing.

You quote 1/517 and 5/650... Both of these innings were played when the pitch was at its best, not in the first session on day one.

The new ball will always do something irrespective of how old the pitch is. The difference between Cook and Strauss and Watson and Katich this series has been that when that when Cook and Strauss got starts they have gone on and scored big runs. Accepting 50 is accepting mediocrity, there is absolutely no one in the history of cricket that has consistently managed to score 50 every game. Bottom line is that Watson is the man in form and him not converting is a problem because when hes out of form he's going to regret the time he didnt score the 100s that he should have.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

The new ball will always do something irrespective of how old the pitch is. The difference between Cook and Strauss and Watson and Katich this series has been that when that when Cook and Strauss got starts they have gone on and scored big runs. Accepting 50 is accepting mediocrity, there is absolutely no one in the history of cricket that has consistently managed to score 50 every game. Bottom line is that Watson is the man in form and him not converting is a problem because when hes out of form he's going to regret the time he didnt score the 100s that he should have.

By that theory Cook/Trott/KP will get out to a cheap score for every match this entire series and Aus will win the Ashes?

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

The new ball will always do something irrespective of how old the pitch is. The difference between Cook and Strauss and Watson and Katich this series has been that when that when Cook and Strauss got starts they have gone on and scored big runs. Accepting 50 is accepting mediocrity, there is absolutely no one in the history of cricket that has consistently managed to score 50 every game. Bottom line is that Watson is the man in form and him not converting is a problem because when hes out of form he's going to regret the time he didnt score the 100s that he should have.

I agree that it's frustrating that he hasn't gone on and made a hundred... but if Ponting, Clarke et. al. were all in form and making big runs, you'd be sitting here saying that Watson is doing a great job of taking the shine off the new ball.

As I said, it gets exasperated because the middle order has been fragile. If he was in the middle order and doing what he's doing I'd be more inclined to be very critical of him

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

How are they any different at all? It doesn't matter how the runs are distributed across the innings, the match total is the same.

It does make a difference. Scoring 600 in the first inning gives the team a huge psychological advantage, even if they score 100 in the 2nd inning. This is not equivalent to scoring 350 in the first and 2nd inning IMO.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

I'm definitely with TEC here... there's a big difference. In reality you're not always going to get a start, so when you do, you should kick on more often than not.

With that, not everyone in your team is going to get a start.

For the sake of the argument, I'm assuming he does (because it more closely represents his pattern of scoring). In theory if he scored a 50 every innings, it is literally no different to scoring a 100 every second innings (and 0's in between).