King_Ponting
International Regular
Like Watson is also an allrounder. The aussie selectros see watson as an allrounder rather than a specialist bat so therefroe they place him down at number 8 accordingly, or 7.Mister Wright said:
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)
- Thread starter James
- Start date
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Flintoff could bat all right - and he could bowl - better than any all-rounder this country had produced for quite some time (yes, even better than Corky)social said:
<quack> not Rikki though.
The reason he wasn't successful was that he couldn't think - then, for a golden year, he eradicated the nonsense. Now, he seems to be showing signs of eradicating the thought again, allowing himself to be caught up in the media hype of 'Slogomania', this desire to see what amounts to a hitting contest between himself and Pietersen.
Watson shows exactly the same bone-headed traits that Freddie showed at the same age. The boy will go far.
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Read all of my post mate - "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"King_Ponting said:
Name another batsman in domestic cricket that bats that high that would bat below Gilchrist in the Australian team.
King_Ponting
International Regular
Dominic thornely
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Lol. He'd bat lower than McGrath.King_Ponting said:
King_Ponting
International Regular
Exactly.
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Which means he probably wouldn't be in the test side, which makes the argument irrelevant.King_Ponting said:
King_Ponting
International Regular
But answers your question you proposed earlier. Thornely has equally impressive FC figures as watson however which may suggest he is in line for a possible test spot? He did play for Aus a earlier this year which suggests he is in line.
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If he plays for Australia something's wrong.King_Ponting said:
King_Ponting
International Regular
Yeh i personally think the bloke is rubbish myself but then again im not an aussie selector however going by his FC career which as it stands can be seen at http://content.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/8002.html. he is more of the sort of batting allrounder watson is and if he was to make the aus team than he would certainly bat below gilchrist.
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Thornely has pretty much given the bowling away (pretty much because he's useless at it). He didn't bowl much last season.King_Ponting said:
King_Ponting
International Regular
Yeh i agree, however the aussie selectors would see thornely as an allrounder so to speak, as in the AUS A matches Thornely did quite a bit of bowling.
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
He did last year against Zimbabwe, but I don't think he bowled at all in last years game.King_Ponting said:
King_Ponting
International Regular
I remeber thornely bowling against pakistan however i cant find the links to see the aus a matches that he played last year.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
You have serious difficulty understanding what an all-rounder is, don't you? Thornley doesn't even have 10 first class wickets! He sends down an average of 7 overs pet FC match, with a strike rate in triple figures and an average in the 50s. Explain to me why the selectors would see him as an all-rounder? Watson has over 50 FC wickets at an average under 30, his strike rate is under 50, and when he's fit he plays as a true all-rounder and bowls 1st or 2nd change.King_Ponting said:
Watson should have batted above Gilchrist, because he's a batting all-rounder. Gilchrist has always batted at 7 and there's no reason for him to go up to 6 when there's another guy with a FC average of 45 waiting to come in. If Thornley plays for Australia, he will bat higher than 7 as well.
King_Ponting
International Regular
He is seen and talked about as an allrounder
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
So is Andrew McDonald.King_Ponting said:
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
And John Davison.
Watson, as good as he eventually may be, shouldn't bat above Gilchrist out of some irrational convention like 'he's a batting allrounder whereas Gilchrist isn't'. Batting orders aren't decided by convention, they're decided by who's better and team balance. Gilchrist, in every way, is a better batsman right now. Performance at the highest level, performance in pressure situations, better figures, etc.
And I hate to break it to you people but there IS a pecking order in teams too. Imagine how you'd feel if you were Gilchrist with superiority in every area of your batting and some kid gets picked and bats above you because 'number 7 is where 'keepers bat'! It's just the way it goes.
Check out where Ian Botham batted in his first Test;
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1977/AUS_IN_ENG/AUS_ENG_T3_28JUL-02AUG1977.html
No why on Earth would you bat a great like Both at number 8 below Alan Knott, right? Could it be because Knott was the superior player at that time? Both eventually proved himself a far better batsman but at that time, he was lower in the pecking order. And just to ram home the point, Knott made a ton.
Watson is well below Gilchrist as a batsman right now and until he PROVES himself otherwise, that's the way it should stay.
King_Ponting
International Regular
Looks like it worked in that game with knott scoring 135!!!!!