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

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by TumTum

Again I agree with everything you post, lol. But you are still only looking at one side of the story.

The fact is Watson DOES average 50 and DOES score a 50 every innings (so far). Whether he will have a lean patch where he doesn't score runs is another story, and will be reflected in his future average.

well, Im just going to say that he keeps this up, we'll see how his future average turns out.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Obviously the fact that batsmen aren't starting well is a big issue for Australian cricket. But the toughest time to bat is early. Test cricketers are picked to make 100s, not 50s, and Australia's inability to convert - especially at the top of the order - over the past 2 years is a large, and often overlooked, reason for why collapses occur.

That's the point that I'm raising. Was going to write an Ashes HQ blog on this whole thing, but really CBF now. Written most of it in here.

Each role in the batting order demands a different task. By saying all test cricketers are picked to make 100's is over simplifying.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Im going to say another thing here. No one can consistently maintain scoring 50s. Im going to use Ian Bell as an example here. Look at Ian Bell's career and you'll find that he scored plenty of pretty 50s and even maintained an average in excess of 40. However, when his form died and he went through a lean patch his average fell away and he had little to fall back on because he never managed to score any centuries and win matches.

Firstly, of course no one can score 50's every game. It was just an oversimplification used to show that how an opener scores doesn't matter. Now, let there be Batsman A who makes up his average by scoring heaps of intermediate scores (e.g. Watson) and Batsman B who makes up his average by scoring very high score or very low scores (e.g. Hayden). Both Batsmen A and B average the same as openers. So you are saying that if both batsmen go through a lean patch, for some magical reason Batsman A's average will drop more? And Batsmen's B average will somehow stay higher because they made more centuries in the past? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Now, let there be Batsman A who makes up his average by scoring heaps of intermediate scores (e.g. Watson) and Batsman B who makes up his average by scoring very high score or very low scores (e.g. Hayden). Both Batsmen A and B average the same as openers. So you are saying that if both batsmen go through a lean patch, for some magical reason Batsman A's average will drop more? And Batsmen's B average will somehow stay higher because they made more centuries in the past? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Tbh I do think it makes sense, if one has a higher conversion rate he is more likely to have a better average during his poor form. However this is kinda irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.

[vcs]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

Firstly, of course no one can score 50's every game. It was just an oversimplification used to show that how an opener scores doesn't matter. Now, let there be Batsman A who makes up his average by scoring heaps of intermediate scores (e.g. Watson) and Batsman B who makes up his average by scoring very high score or very low scores (e.g. Hayden). Both Batsmen A and B average the same as openers. So you are saying that if both batsmen go through a lean patch, for some magical reason Batsman A's average will drop more? And Batsmen's B average will somehow stay higher because they made more centuries in the past? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Actually, he means the batsman with a high conversion rate would have a higher average from which he drops, when he does go through a poor patch.

Originally Posted by TumTum

Tbh I do think it makes sense, if one has a higher conversion rate he is more likely to have a better average during his poor form. However this is kinda irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.

To the contrary, the batsman with a good conversion rate is likelier to have a better average during his good form. Hayden had plenty of periods averaging around 80 or above, making up for his mediocre patches.

[Ruckus]

Na, neither of those points are relevent to what his point was though:

"when his form died and he went through a lean patch his average fell away and he had little to fall back on because he never managed to score any centuries and win matches"

He was saying that for some reason a batsmen who hadn't scored many centuries in the past would lose their good average because of 'missed opportunities' or something. That would only be valid if to get a high average you have to score many centuries, which is simply not true as Watson shows. There are plenty of batsmen who over their entire careers have maintained high averages without having good conversion rates.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by vcs

To the contrary, the batsman with a good conversion rate is likelier to have a better average during his good form. Hayden had plenty of periods averaging around 80 or above, making up for his mediocre patches.

But I was talking about poor form, depends greatly on the player I suppose. Anyways it is hard to know if Watson is actually in good form or bad form atm (he might improve his conversion rate in the future).

[social]

The biggest problem is the failure of the top 3 to convert their starts these days

Even when all play well, 3 thrown away starts means that more often than not, we are at least 3 down for less than 150 and that simply isnt great

Unfortunately, that situation has been compounded by the average recent form of Hussey, Clarke and North so 3-150 can quickly become 6-200

Australia simply isnt wearing attacks down and the bowling side can be confident that 1 or 2 wickets are just around the corner

[vcs]

I don't know, watching Watson it's very hard to explain his lack of big scores. He looks very good when he starts off, and it's not even as if he throws his wicket away to a poor shot in the 50s, or gets out regularly to spinners etc. He just.... gets out. Katich on the other hand, often seems to get out fairly regularly when spinners are brought into the attack. Harbhajan and Ojha got him out a few times in India and Swann got him in the last innings.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by social

The biggest problem is the failure of the top 3 to convert their starts these days

Even when all play well, 3 thrown away starts means that more often than not, we are at least 3 down for less than 150 and that simply isnt great

Unfortunately, that situation has been compounded by the average recent form of Hussey, Clarke and North so 3-150 can quickly become 6-200

Australia simply isnt wearing attacks down and the bowling side can be confident that 1 or 2 wickets are just around the corner

So true.

It's no good having the openers put on 60 then both get out straight away

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by social

The biggest problem is the failure of the top 3 to convert their starts these days

Even when all play well, 3 thrown away starts means that more often than not, we are at least 3 down for less than 150 and that simply isnt great

It is also reflected in their low averages recently. Katich and Ponting being the worst offenders.

Unfortunately, that situation has been compounded by the average recent form of Hussey, Clarke and North so 3-150 can quickly become 6-200

Clarke and Hussey's form has been pretty good in the Ashes though.

[social]

Originally Posted by TumTum

But I was talking about poor form, depends greatly on the player I suppose. Anyways it is hard to know if Watson is actually in good form or bad form atm (he might improve his conversion rate in the future).

IMO, Watson is simply a good player that hasnt been cashing in enough

Form doesnt really come into it as he seems to score runs in most situations irrespective of how he is hitting the ball.

Anyway, it wouldnt surprise me to see a big one soon as we all know how motivated the guy is to improve and Im sure he is determined to rectify the one problem with his batting

[social]

Originally Posted by TumTum

It is also reflected in their low averages recently. Katich and Ponting being the worst offenders.



Clarke and Hussey's form has been pretty good in the Ashes though.

The problem has not been confined to the Ashes

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by social

The problem has not been confined to the Ashes

I know, was thinking we were only talking about the Ashes though as the title said.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by social

IMO, Watson is simply a good player that hasnt been cashing in enough

Form doesnt really come into it as he seems to score runs in most situations irrespective of how he is hitting the ball.

Anyway, it wouldnt surprise me to see a big one soon as we all know how motivated the guy is to improve and Im sure he is determined to rectify the one problem with his batting

Due to his technical correctness and his calculated approach when batting, I really can't see him lose form tbh.