Who is a better young all-rounder Watson or Bravo

[ervine_wa]

Watson- Just a bit of either skill, but not enough to force himself into a batting lineup or bowling attack. Even his complete contribution doesn't make much difference. Symonds and Harvey are a lot more relevant in the Australian side.

Bravo- Good enough for the West Indies, and very relevant. Not outright quick, but uses a lot of variations in his bowling. Not one who can get set and score big hundreds all the time, but he can score quickly.

yep, we need harvey back *cough*

Watson is by FAR a better allrounder and you guys need to give him a break, He is just getting back after being injured, he made 78, got 4fer and got a couple of 2fers.

Bravo?

 

[Jono]

yep, we need harvey back *cough*

Watson is by FAR a better allrounder and you guys need to give him a break, He is just getting back after being injured, he made 78, got 4fer and got a couple of 2fers.

Bravo?

Took a 6-fer against Australia and tonned up in a test on Australian soil.

Its fine believing Watson is better, but seriously don't base it on a ODI series in Malaysia for Christ's sake.

 

[ervine_wa]

Took a 6-fer against Australia and tonned up in a test on Australian soil.

Its fine believing Watson is better, but seriously don't base it on a ODI series in Malaysia for Christ's sake.

they both played there, watson played in one test and got injured, i figured it would be a better basis for arguement rather than different series one played in and one didnt.

 

[Jono]

So I guess Geraint Jones is better than Gilly based on the Ashes?

 

[ervine_wa]

on what are you basing that on? batting or keeping. Gilchrist kept far far better in the ashes

and battingwise Gilchrist averaged 22.62 while Jones averaged 25.44 , Not impressive stats for either players. However because of the dropped catches on Jones' behalf which cost him team alot of runs I would of thought Gilchrist would "better based on the ashes"

 

[pietersenrocks]

This should be an interesting debate, for me its defiantely Watson, i'v seen them both & Watson seems to be better in both aspects. Bravo has Watson is a batting all/rounder but it has been his bowling that has stood out in International cricket thus far, but certainly can improve on both his batting & bowling.

Views...

I think Watson is better in One-Day and Bravo is better in Tests 'coz Watson has played only 1 Test.

 

[Xuhaib]

Both have potential but its hard to judge them at this point.

 

[BoyBrumby]

One thing Watson's bowling has in its favour is its extra pace. He has time to develop variation (he clearly needs to if he is to have any genuine pretensions to be a test all-rounder), but pace must be the one thing that is largely inherent or everyone would be bowling 85mph+.

It must be said that Bravo has youth on his side tho; despite having far more experience under his belt he has over two years on Watson. I CBA to look it up, but I bet Bravo's figures compare very favourably to Sir Fred's at the same age.

 

[aussie]

Bravo has a test century against the bowling of Shane Warne in Australia.

Watson was made to looks like a fool by Murali. He also hasn't even made 100 runs in his test career yet.

Yea he scored a hundred in Australia vs Warne, very good innings i dont mean to take anything away from his innings but it was in a lost cause & played a lot of risky shots i.e flicking Warne & MacGill againts the spin through mid-wicket just past fielders where on another day would have been caught, he tried the same thing in the adelaide test & was caught of the leading edge by Ponting. Also In England in 2004 with Giles bowling around the wicket caused had him in awful problems but he still managed to score two fifties.

Watson isn't great againts spin either, but in that super test he played Murali ok, but no convincingly but he certainly wasn't made to look like a fool by Murali.

 

[Nate]

Close to.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yea he scored a hundred in Australia vs Warne, very good innings i dont mean to take anything away from his innings but it was in a lost cause & played a lot of risky shots i.e flicking Warne & MacGill againts the spin through mid-wicket just past fielders where on another day would have been caught, he tried the same thing in the adelaide test & was caught of the leading edge by Ponting. Also In England in 2004 with Giles bowling around the wicket caused had him in awful problems but he still managed to score two fifties.

Watson isn't great againts spin either, but in that super test he played Murali ok, but no convincingly but he certainly wasn't made to look like a fool by Murali.

So he's made a century in difficult circumstances - you call it a "lost cause"; hit two of the best spinners of the past 20 years against the spin through mid-wicket all day - you call it "risky"; make a couple of 50's when the rest of the side was tied up by Giles and got smashed that series; and infer that Watson is up to that standard?

Seriously...

 

[C_C]

So he's made a century in difficult circumstances - you call it a "lost cause"; hit two of the best spinners of the past 20 years against the spin through mid-wicket all day - you call it "risky"; make a couple of 50's when the rest of the side was tied up by Giles and got smashed that series; and infer that Watson is up to that standard?

Seriously...

he should just start his post with ' i believe 1=2". That would've spelt out his logic in this case.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Obviously Bravo has done more, that doesn't mean he's better. Personally, I think Michael Hussey is a better opening batsman than Akash Chopra, but Chopra has test experience and Hussey doesn't, so by your argument, Chopra is by default a better player.

But surely just watching Bravo bowl (in Tests at least) shows that he's a better bowler than Watson. Surely...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yea he scored a hundred in Australia vs Warne, very good innings i dont mean to take anything away from his innings but it was in a lost cause & played a lot of risky shots i.e flicking Warne & MacGill againts the spin through mid-wicket just past fielders where on another day would have been caught, he tried the same thing in the adelaide test & was caught of the leading edge by Ponting. Also In England in 2004 with Giles bowling around the wicket caused had him in awful problems but he still managed to score two fifties.

Watson isn't great againts spin either, but in that super test he played Murali ok, but no convincingly but he certainly wasn't made to look like a fool by Murali.

Or maybe... just MAYBE... he played Warne and MacGill so well because it was more than a year after he struggled against Giles and he actually (maybe, just MAYBE) improved as a batsman against spin since then. Just a theory! Don't read too much into it. I know I'm talkin' crazeh and whatnot...

 

[Nate]

Watson`s bowling has improved out of sight Campso.

Bravo`s 100 was superb, and his 6 wickets were deserved as well. But he`s a little too hot and cold at the moment, whereas Watson has been in brilliant nick since the Ashes. Hopefully this summer he can show what he can do.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Watson`s bowling has improved out of sight Campso.

Bravo`s 100 was superb, and his 6 wickets were deserved as well. But he`s a little too hot and cold at the moment, whereas Watson has been in brilliant nick since the Ashes. Hopefully this summer he can show what he can do.

I think a lot of people get distracted by Bravo's ODI form of late. He's bowled well in Tests for most of his career. Yes, his average doesn't quite reflect it, but he averages 25podd outside of the West Indies, so I think it's fair to say that the flat Caribbean pitches don't really help his bowling much at all.

In Tests I don't see how Watson can possibly be considered a better bowler than Bravo. I really don't.

In ODIs, Bravo's problem is that he tries too much. He's very capable of bowling a solid line and length for the best part of 10 overs, but he seems to get bored with doing so, and tries to make things happen all the time. The key to bowling in ODI cricket (if you're not a strike bowler) is to allow things to happen sometimes. That's where Watson has the edge. He understands that better.

 

[Complicated]

Bravo is a good player, he played well in the tests against Australia. On recent form in the Malaysia series however, Watson was a class above. His bowling has come along alot in the last year.

One of the things I find amazing about Watson is unlike alot of allrounders, he has a first class average of 50. He's developed one part of his game to a stage where he could be picked as a specialist batman. I'm pretty sure his first class average is higher then players like Katich who in the past made it into the team as pure batman. And he's likely to get that average higher, as he continues to improve and goes into his prime.

You would probably associate Bravo as one of those big hitting, slightly inconsistent, exciting alrounders who might be able to turn a game on it's head. Like a Botham, Shahid Afridi ect. Watson is more likely to fit a Kallis type mould. So it's hard to compare them. On how much Watson has improved though I'd probably give say he has more potential.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

But surely just watching Bravo bowl (in Tests at least) shows that he's a better bowler than Watson. Surely...

Yeah, as I said in another post, I think Bravo is a better bowler, though Watson's closing the gap in ODIs recently with his performances. As Brumby said, the main thing Watson has in his favour is pace, which is only really worth something if he continues to improve other elements of his bowling drastically. In every other respect, Bravo's well ahead of him in the bowling department. What I'm not so sure about is claiming that Bravo is a better batsman than Watson based on his performances so far in international cricket. A FC average of 50+ doesn't lie all that often, and Watson's done some impressive things for Australia A and so on as well. Best to wait and see what happens this summer, I think.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You would probably associate Bravo as one of those big hitting, slightly inconsistent, exciting alrounders who might be able to turn a game on it's head. Like a Botham, Shahid Afridi ect. Watson is more likely to fit a Kallis type mould.

What? Bravo isn't a big hitter...

He rarely scores runs by lofted shots or slogs. He generally scores via orthodox shots and rotation of the strike. Clearly you've not seen much of him.

 

[Complicated]

You're right I apologize =) got to caught up in writing something that sounded nice. I should have just left the description inconsistent.