***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[FaaipDeOiad]

33 ODIs, 21 wickets @ 47.66, E/R 4.65.

Remove minnow games and suddenly:

29 games, 16 wickets @ 56.56, E/R 4.81

Seems a bit strange to respond to me saying "don't judge Watson on his ODI performances" by quoting his ODI performances. Anyway, he's not suited to the format as a bowler at all. I'd say with some work he could be useful there, but it's not his strength. He's a wicket taker, but he's not economical and his style is quite easy to bash around right now. As a batsman, he could do a good job up the order I think, but it might be a while before he gets the chance.

He's much more of a test potential.

 

[aussie]

That's not really how I'd describe Flintoff at all. He's a wicket-taking sort of bowler who bowls in short burts. That's how Watson will want to be used as well... he's got a very good strike rate in FC cricket, and tends to bowl shortish spells from 1st or 2nd change, often picking up a wicket or two. Neither of them are stunning economical bowlers.

Anyway, I think most of Watson's potential is with the bat, where I think he's definately good enough to play test cricket as a specialist. With the ball I think there's plenty of room to improve, and if he stays injury free he can take a couple of steps up to become really useful. As it is though, people tend to underrate his bowling ability because of his OD performances (which aren't really a great example, he's not suited to that form at all with the ball), and because he has a relatively low wicket-to-match ratio in FC cricket, a lot of which is to do with his injury troubles which led him to play a whole season for Tasmania as a batsman.

yes injury's is the big factor that has hindered him throughout his career thus far and since we agree that Batting is his strenght, persistent injuries could be the major factor which could hinder his development has a bowler.

 

[King_Ponting]

yes injury's is the big factor that has hindered him throughout his career thus far and since we agree that Batting is his strenght, persistent injuries could be the major factor which could hinder his development has a bowler.

I dont believe that watson is as capable with the bat as you guys make him out to be. His home ground was belrieve which is known for the flattest pitches in australia. He is certanly not capable of playing test cricket soley as a batsman as his technique is not solid enough and he gets ruffled by the shorter balls. If he didnt have a bit of bowling to fall back on he wouldnt have even debued for aus.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I dont believe that watson is as capable with the bat as you guys make him out to be. His home ground was belrieve which is known for the flattest pitches in australia. He is certanly not capable of playing test cricket soley as a batsman as his technique is not solid enough and he gets ruffled by the shorter balls. If he didnt have a bit of bowling to fall back on he wouldnt have even debued for aus.

He would certainly be looked at without his bowling. He averages 45 in FC cricket, and he's only 24. That means he would be looked at in a big way as potential - look at Clarke, his FC average is under 40 and he was picked as a batsman. And Watson has only played one season at Bellrieve.

His bowling takes him from being a promising player the selectors would be watching closely to someone who is earmarked for a major career who the selectors want to blood in the OD team.

He has a very solid technique anyway, more solid than people like Clarke without question. He's a very conventional, textbook sort of top order batsman, who happens to be able to bowl a bit.

 

[aussie]

I dont believe that watson is as capable with the bat as you guys make him out to be. His home ground was belrieve which is known for the flattest pitches in australia. He is certanly not capable of playing test cricket soley as a batsman as his technique is not solid enough and he gets ruffled by the shorter balls. If he didnt have a bit of bowling to fall back on he wouldnt have even debued for aus.

presently he wont be able to play test cricket in a full strenght aussie side, but he has a decent technique which would suite him well in test cricket, his technique in a way is even better than Flintoff, but i'm not so sure if it is more solid than pup has faaip said

 

[marc71178]

thier is, Watson bowling in his right now is similar to Flintoff which is a bowler with decent pace who is not very expensive and doesn't really get you out,

But he is expensive considering his complete lack of penetrativeness.

 

[Mister Wright]

That's not really how I'd describe Flintoff at all. He's a wicket-taking sort of bowler who bowls in short burts. That's how Watson will want to be used as well... he's got a very good strike rate in FC cricket, and tends to bowl shortish spells from 1st or 2nd change, often picking up a wicket or two. Neither of them are stunning economical bowlers.

Anyway, I think most of Watson's potential is with the bat, where I think he's definately good enough to play test cricket as a specialist. With the ball I think there's plenty of room to improve, and if he stays injury free he can take a couple of steps up to become really useful. As it is though, people tend to underrate his bowling ability because of his OD performances (which aren't really a great example, he's not suited to that form at all with the ball), and because he has a relatively low wicket-to-match ratio in FC cricket, a lot of which is to do with his injury troubles which led him to play a whole season for Tasmania as a batsman.

I'm not so sure that wasn't isn't suited to bowling in the one day arena, in the ING cup he often bowls his 10 overs for 25 or 30 runs and picks up 1 or 2 wickets. I don't know if it is the level up in batsman, or he feels more pressure playing for Australia, but I'd say he is suited to bowling in one dayers, at least from what I have seen at domestic level.

And, yes, he is definitely a better batsman, than bowler but I don't think he should ever be used as a specialist batsman at test level, he should bat about 5 and be used as a regular bowling options, perhaps in the future when Lee is used in short spells Watson could bowl a few overs to cover for Lee, that would get more out of both players.

 

[aussie]

But he is expensive considering his complete lack of penetrativeness.

not all the time, i would say probably every 3 out of every 5 times he bowls he would be faily economical.

 

[Top_Cat]

And, yes, he is definitely a better batsman, than bowler but I don't think he should ever be used as a specialist batsman at test level, he should bat about 5 and be used as a regular bowling options, perhaps in the future when Lee is used in short spells Watson could bowl a few overs to cover for Lee, that would get more out of both players.

You do realise that Stve Waugh was thought of in exactly the same way before he gave up his regular bowling to concentrate on his batting? If anything, Watson has a better FC record than Steve Waugh does with the bat. If he stopped bowling or cut it back, there's no reason whatsoever he could follow suit because his ability with the bat is immense. Personally, once he finds his feet in the Test side, I think he'll be very damaging with the bat. He's so injury-prone with the ball that he may have to be.

 

[Top_Cat]

I dont believe that watson is as capable with the bat as you guys make him out to be. His home ground was belrieve which is known for the flattest pitches in australia. He is certanly not capable of playing test cricket soley as a batsman as his technique is not solid enough and he gets ruffled by the shorter balls. If he didnt have a bit of bowling to fall back on he wouldnt have even debued for aus.

First off, he doesn't play for Tassie anymore. Second, he's scored more runs playing for QLD than he did for Tassie. As for technique, I don't think there's much wrong with it and far from over0-rating him, I think you under-rate him.

 

[aussie]

You do realise that Stve Waugh was thought of in exactly the same way before he gave up his regular bowling to concentrate on his batting? If anything, Watson has a better FC record than Steve Waugh does with the bat. If he stopped bowling or cut it back, there's no reason whatsoever he could follow suit because his ability with the bat is immense. Personally, once he finds his feet in the Test side, I think he'll be very damaging with the bat. He's so injury-prone with the ball that he may have to be.

Interesting point Top Cat, but i would hope in the future he doesn't refrain to becoming a batsman alone because both aspects of his game has huge potential to become a top-class all-rounder for Australia.

 

[Mister Wright]

You do realise that Stve Waugh was thought of in exactly the same way before he gave up his regular bowling to concentrate on his batting? If anything, Watson has a better FC record than Steve Waugh does with the bat. If he stopped bowling or cut it back, there's no reason whatsoever he could follow suit because his ability with the bat is immense. Personally, once he finds his feet in the Test side, I think he'll be very damaging with the bat. He's so injury-prone with the ball that he may have to be.

I was yong when Steve Waugh started out, so I can't really compare - but was Steve Waugh as promising a bowler as Watson. I have the belief that Watson can become a genuine allrounder. Not to the point where he can bat 4 and open the bowling, but more of a Flintoff role.

 

[Top_Cat]

Interesting point Top Cat, but i would hope in the future he doesn't refrain to becoming a batsman alone because both aspects of his game has huge potential to become a top-class all-rounder for Australia.

No disagreement here but I'm just thinking that if he keeps getting injured, he may have to stop bowling. Steve Waugh stopped for the same reason, after all.

I was yong when Steve Waugh started out, so I can't really compare - but was Steve Waugh as promising a bowler as Watson. I have the belief that Watson can become a genuine allrounder. Not to the point where he can bat 4 and open the bowling, but more of a Flintoff role.

Steve Waugh had plenty of ability with the ball, particularly in ODI's. He wasn't as quick as Watson and Watson is probably more of a pure bowler than Waugh was but again, Watson has been injured a few times so his focus may have to change if he wants to stay on the park.

 

[social]

Yes, and the pig leaving runway 3 is headed for Perth.

Watson has just turned 24, Flintoff is nearly 28.

How good a cricketer was Flintoff at 24?

Oh, that's right. He couldn't bat or bowl.

 

[Sylvester]

Watson currently is more of a batting all rounder. He could bat way higher than what he did in his first test match but aus have so many batters. He'll need to improve his bowling still isnt doing enough with the ball.

 

[Mister Wright]

Watson currently is more of a batting all rounder. He could bat way higher than what he did in his first test match but aus have so many batters. He'll need to improve his bowling still isnt doing enough with the ball.

He should of batted higher, certainly ahead of Gilchrist, and his first class record is Brandmanesque compared to Clarke.

 

[King_Ponting]

He should of batted higher, certainly ahead of Gilchrist, and his first class record is Brandmanesque compared to Clarke.

Certainly ahead of gilchrist?? you must be kidding right? With the test record that gilchrist possesses that should never happen. Gilchrist is miles ahead of watson as a batsman.

 

[Mister Wright]

Certainly ahead of gilchrist?? you must be kidding right? With the test record that gilchrist possesses that should never happen. Gilchrist is miles ahead of watson as a batsman.

Gilchrist has a better test record than Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Katich and Clarke do you think he should bat ahead of them?

Watson was picked as an allrounder, and everyone on here knows that his batting is better than his bowling, so why should he bat below Gilchrist when he has been selected as an allrounder?

 

[King_Ponting]

Gilchrist has a better test record than Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Katich and Clarke do you think he should bat ahead of them?

Watson was picked as an allrounder, and everyone on here knows that his batting is better than his bowling, so why should he bat below Gilchrist when he has been selected as an allrounder?

Because the role that Gilchrist plays in tests makes him a specialist batsman. And no i dont think an allrounder should bat before a specialist batsman.

 

[Mister Wright]

Because the role that Gilchrist plays in tests makes him a specialist batsman. And no i dont think an allrounder should bat before a specialist batsman.

Gilchrist isn't a specialist batsman, have you read anything that Steve Waugh has had to say about him?...he's an allroudner. When Gilchrist bats for W.A. it is usually around 6 or 7, but when Watson bats for Qld, he bats at 3 or 4 even higher than Symonds - he is the specialist bat, who has been branded (for some ridiculous reason) by the selectors as a bolwing allrounder.