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

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

It's not quite as simple as first innings runs being more important but I would choose a batsman who scores first innings hundreds over one who scores two fifties.

I basically take exception that average is all that matters because it ignores so many other factors.

My point to that a few pages ago is that you are assuming that the batsman makes more runs in your 1st innings, which is not always the case.

But yes if you were to prefer a batsman that makes 100 & 0 compared with 50 & 50. But not a batsman that makes 0 & 100 compared with a 50 & 50.

It all evens it self out, which is what the average basically does,.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by TumTum

But not a batsman that makes 0 & 100 compared with a 50 & 50.

But once again, whats the difference between getting 0 and 100 or 100 and 0? Assume the team is batting second. In the former, a greater chase will be required (which is contributed to by the second innings century) whilst in the latter a smaller chase will be required because of the first innings century.

[Jono]

There is no doubt that Watson and Katich not converting starts is exacerbating the collapses Australia are experiencing.

But to blame them for it, or even say they are majorly responsible, is a bridge too far.

I'll take any opportunity I can to lay into Watson, but he's not at fault for the collapses.

And there have been plenty of times when Ponting and Clarke have come in at 1/80 or 2/120. That is a good position. It's not a dominating position, but you will accept that from your openers.

Fact is if Sachin Tendulkar or Kumar Sangakkara in their current form were coming in with the starts Watson and Katich were giving them, they'd be doing mighty fine.

Ponting, Clarke, Hussey (until recently) and North have just been either inconsistent or ****house.

Obviously Vic and TEC are right in saying that big scores from the openers allow the middle order players to play with less pressure. But no one is arguing against that.

Watson has been a solid opener. He hasn't been great, no doubt, and you'd still take a Gambhir when he was converting hundreds (until recently ) over constant 50s, but the thread isn't "how can Watson become a better opener". It is "who is at fault for the collapses", and that is 80-85% the fault of the middle order.

[Jono]

Agree with almost everything Benchy has said in this thread.

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

[Jono]

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

This is the wrong way around.

The form of the middle order is the problem, and it is being compounded by Katich and Watson not converting starts.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Jono

Watson has been a solid opener. He hasn't been great, no doubt, and you'd still take a Gambhir when he was converting hundreds (until recently ) over constant 50s

But you'd only take Gambhir because he was actually averaging much higher than Watson had been. He was at around 70, and 90 in the last couple of years whilst Watson's best has been 65. If Watson actually averaged between 70-90, by making numerous scores within that range, then there should be no preference for Watson or Gambhir despite the latter still making more centuries.

[TumTum]

I think some people don't understand how averages work.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Jono

There is no doubt that Watson and Katich not converting starts is exacerbating the collapses Australia are experiencing.

But to blame them for it, or even say they are majorly responsible, is a bridge too far.

I'll take any opportunity I can to lay into Watson, but he's not at fault for the collapses.

And there have been plenty of times when Ponting and Clarke have come in at 1/80 or 2/120. That is a good position. It's not a dominating position, but you will accept that from your openers.

Fact is if Sachin Tendulkar or Kumar Sangakkara in their current form were coming in with the starts Watson and Katich were giving them, they'd be doing mighty fine.

Ponting, Clarke, Hussey (until recently) and North have just been either inconsistent or ****house.

Obviously Vic and TEC are right in saying that big scores from the openers allow the middle order players to play with less pressure. But no one is arguing against that.

Watson has been a solid opener. He hasn't been great, no doubt, and you'd still take a Gambhir when he was converting hundreds (until recently ) over constant 50s, but the thread isn't "how can Watson become a better opener". It is "who is at fault for the collapses", and that is 80-85% the fault of the middle order.

This. Close thread.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

But you'd only take Gambhir because he was actually averaging much higher than Watson had been. He was at around 70, and 90 in the last couple of years whilst Watson's best has been 65. If Watson actually averaged between 70-90, by making numerous scores within that range, then there should be no preference for Watson or Gambhir despite the latter still making more centuries.

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.

[stephen]

Getting 100 and then 0 is better than getting 50 and 50, but not by much.

In the first situation, the extra runs help apply more pressure to the other side earlier in the game, which will generally cause them to be mentally behind.

I would much rather have taken a 100/0 performance out of Watson in this test match. With his extra 50 runs in the first innings we may have seen some bigger partnerships, which would have given us more time in the good batting conditions, which would have seen us build a bigger total due to the lower order players facing more tired bowlers.

Instead of getting 295 we may have gotten 350 or 400. You cannot neglect the psychological effect that having a teammate hit a hundred gives you.

First innings runs generally help set the tone of a match and more often than not tend to be more valuable than second innings runs.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by Jono

but I agree with them that a 100 and 0 is generally better than a 50 and 50.

What about 0 & 100?

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by TumTum

I think some people don't understand how averages work.

I think some people don't understand how cricket works.

Yeah, an average is a useful indicator of ability and output. But the idea that a team should be picked on averages is among the most retarded that I have come across in my five years here.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

I think some people don't understand how cricket works.

Yeah, an average is a useful indicator of ability and output. But the idea that a team should be picked on averages is among the most retarded that I have come across in my five years here.

I think some people don't understand how averages work, hence the above conclusion.

[GIMH]

An average = runs/dismissals, thanks

Next?

[stephen]

Having said all that, I'd much rather take Watson's constant run of 50s than North's constant run of single digit scores.

Constant collapses have been a problem for a good two to three years now, and they extend further than the Ashes. The root cause of them is the weakness of the middle order, caused by having a batsman who is not international standard batting at #6. It means that whenever Clarke or Hussey is out of form that we cannot compile big totals because North is a walking wicket. Having North in the side is like having a third out of form batsman (given that at any one time two batsmen in any team are usually out of form somewhat). That will cost you a good 40-100 runs in each innings (given that the tail will generally bat better if the top order has made good runs).

Long story short, North is the weakest link and needs to go.