Who is a better young all-rounder Watson or Bravo

[ervine_wa]

you made it complicated (har har har im soo funny)

 

[aussie]

So he's made a century in difficult circumstances - you call it a "lost cause";

It was a lost cause after West Indies were bowled out for 149 in their 1st innings & Australia made 409 in their 1st Innings, the Bravo/Ramdin partnership took them from 140/6 to 322/7 to an eventual 334 all out giving Australia only 78 runs to win the test, so even though his innings was very good it was in a lost cause, Australia were never in trouble of losing the match the whole while that partnership was going.

hit two of the best spinners of the past 20 years against the spin through mid-wicket all day - you call it "risky";

Fair enough here, i agree the fact that he was able to hot them through mid-wicket againts the spin for the majority of that innings was more brilliant than it was 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...

Yes the windies batsmen stuggled vs Giles in that series but its not as if Bravo's batting was very special. In that series Gayle, Sarwan, Lara, Chanderpaul along with Bravo played all 4 test & he had the worst average, so its not like him scoring two fifty is a big deal, he struggled with the bat in that series, it was his bowling which was by far the standout.

 

[andyc]

It was a lost cause after West Indies were bowled out for 149 in their 1st innings & Australia made 409 in their 1st Innings, the Bravo/Ramdin partnership took them from 140/6 to 322/7 to an eventual 334 all out giving Australia only 78 runs to win the test, so even though his innings was very good it was in a lost cause, Australia were never in trouble of losing the match the whole while that partnership was going.

What's that got to do with his skill as a player though? And what do you expect him to do, just throw his wicket away because there's no chance of winning it?

 

[aussie]

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...

I have seen a lot of Bravo since he made his international debut & his play vs spin has improved a bit since the English tour in that he plays them more confidently and thats it. Againts the leg-spinners he has faced i.e Warne, MacGill & Kumble he likes to play againts the spin whipping them through the mid-wicket/mid-on area, but thats very risky & it has got him out a lot of times already. I

f he continues like that he will continue to stuggle vs spinners in general not just leggies especially when the windies go to the sub-continent or even on a 5th day track where a good enough spinner is getting assistance.

 

[aussie]

What's that got to do with his skill as a player though? And what do you expect him to do, just throw his wicket away because there's no chance of winning it?

Never said he should have yo. As i just posted even though he may have scored that century in Australia doesn't hide that fact that he doesn't play spin bowling very well due to area he likes to score of them mostly (even though its his strenght).

 

[Dasa]

Never said he should have yo. As i just posted even though he may have scored that century in Australia doesn't hide that fact that he doesn't play spin bowling very well due to area he likes to score of them mostly (even though its his strenght).

So does Pietersen play spin-bowling poorly because he likes to score off it mostly with the sweep? There's no logic in that - obviously any player is going to play to his strengths. If Bravo makes most of his runs off spin bowling through the midwicket region, it doesn't make him a bad player of spin bowling. It just means he plays it how he's most comfortable. The fact that he was able to make a century and a fifty against Warne and MacGill is enough to show that he's at least decent against spin bowling.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

This is a dire thread. You can't compare them on anything but skill alone, as they don't have equal amounts of international experience. As other people have said, Watson is more of a pure batsman who can bowl (if he continues to improve as he has in the last year, who knows) whereas Bravo is more equal in his skills.

I'm with Fuller (as per usual tbf), lets leave this until after the Ashes.

 

[aussie]

So does Pietersen play spin-bowling poorly because he likes to score off it mostly with the sweep? There's no logic in that - obviously any player is going to play to his strengths. If Bravo makes most of his runs off spin bowling through the midwicket region, it doesn't make him a bad player of spin bowling. It just means he plays it how he's most comfortable. The fact that he was able to make a century and a fifty against Warne and MacGill is enough to show that he's at least decent against spin bowling.

When Bravo is batting vs the spinners especially the leggies, he has this way in which goes deep into his crease while at the point of contact his middl & off-stump are exposed & hits them through the mid-wicket/mid-on region. If the spinners over-pitches he hits it well, but if doesn't & the spinner gets some turn he stands a very high chance of being bowled, stumped, caught at slip or caught off the leading edge which i've seen happen to him already in his test career. So again even though its his strenght its a huge weakness that any good spinner can trap him & get him out with. He needs to work on his all-round game towards playing spinners.

KP sweeping is different at least he get to the pitch of the ball most of the time, plus he can play the spinners to all parts of the field. Only weakness i'd say Big KP has againts spin from what i've seen is that he gets carried away when he gets on top of them & would get himself out playing a poor shot.

 

[C_C]

The point, you miss, Aussie, is that while Bravo is definately no God of playing spin, he is quite competent against it and aeons ahead of Watson at this stage in that respect.
That you would compare two players and conclude your nation's one to be better, despite the fact that the ONLY aspect where he outshines Bravo is batting in ODIs and throw the rather ludicrous and momentary idea of form into the equation, exposes your inherent bias in this discussion.
Watson may have potential but he definately hasnt demonstrated it anywhere CLOSE to the same way as Bravo has and so far in their short careers, Bravo has very easily outshined Watson.

 

[aussie]

The point, you miss, Aussie, is that while Bravo is definately no God of playing spin, he is quite competent against it and aeons ahead of Watson at this stage in that respect.

.

Firstly i never said said either one is better than one in their respective abilities in playing spin. I said both need to improve on the way they play it.

That you would compare two players and conclude your nation's one to be better, despite the fact that the ONLY aspect where he outshines Bravo is batting in ODIs and throw the rather ludicrous and momentary idea of form into the equation, exposes your inherent bias in this discussion.

WTF are you saying yo, baised my bloody ****. This piece of quote shows your total lack of understanding to what i've been saying. No where did i conclude OVERALL that Watson is better than Bravo, i gave Watson's batting the edge, Bravo's bowling better along with fielding did you not see that? Try again before you call me biased..

Watson may have potential but he definately hasnt demonstrated it anywhere CLOSE to the same way as Bravo has and so far in their short careers, Bravo has very easily outshined Watson.

Yea, but where have i debated that?, NOWHERE, relaying this point to me is totally irrelevant to what i'm arguing here yo.

 

[R_D]

lol.. love it how C_C brings the best out of everyone.

I must say i've been pretty impressed with Watson since he's made a come back into the team, He bowled well and batted decently in the super series and had a nice one day series in Malayasia as well. His getting faster and his bowling seems to be improving a fair bit. Lets see how he goes in the Ashes i'm sure he'll be selected ahead of Symmonds for tests.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

That you would compare two players and conclude your nation's one to be better, despite the fact that the ONLY aspect where he outshines Bravo is batting in ODIs and throw the rather ludicrous and momentary idea of form into the equation, exposes your inherent bias in this discussion.

How is "batting in ODIs" the only area where Watson outshines Bravo statistically? In ODIs where they have played a similar number of matches, Watson has an identical average with the ball and a significantly better economy rate than Bravo. If you take their overall records as the only way of judging them, Watson's clearly every bit as good with the ball in the shorter form, and has a marginally better record with the bat as well. You obviously can't compare them in tests as Watson simply hasn't played tests to any degree where you can evaluate his performance.

I'd suggest that the gap in FC batting averages (Watson's 50.15 to Bravo's 30.08) also represents another area where Watson "outshines" Bravo.

The fact is, they are both talented players who may or may not have successful international careers. As it stands, Watson's been better than Bravo by a distance in the last 12 months or so in ODIs, but Bravo's record is comparable because he started in a more impressive manner. Bravo also has significant test performances behind him that Watson hasn't matched, and in terms of bowling is pretty unlikely to match in the near future. We'll be more able to compare the two once Watson has played some test cricket. Your assessment that Bravo is "very easily" ahead of Watson is every bit as biased as anything aussie has said.

 

[C_C]

In ODIs where they have played a similar number of matches, Watson has an identical average with the ball and a significantly better economy rate than Bravo.

If you feel like cooking up selective stats just for the hell of it, well two can play the same game.
You are rating two newbies. Then you introduce the 'same # of matches' clause. Which is how many ? 10 ?
Oh yes - thats so flipping good for restrictive comparison of two newbies for whom even their current entire career cannot be used as any sort of guage of their quality with any sort of permanence.

And oh yes, i can compare them in tests : The comparison is : Bright prospect vs ZERO demonstration of potential.
End of story. With the same line of reasoning one couldnt compare Bevan with Tendulkar as test batsmen and therefore one cannot conclude tendy is superior in ODIs.

Fact is, it is too early to judge either one of them but bravo has demonstrated his potential far far more credibly at the highest level than Watson.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If you feel like cooking up selective stats just for the hell of it, well two can play the same game.
You are rating two newbies. Then you introduce the 'same # of matches' clause. Which is how many ? 10 ?
Oh yes - thats so flipping good for restrictive comparison of two newbies for whom even their current entire career cannot be used as any sort of guage of their quality with any sort of permanence.

How on earth is someone's entire record across their entire international career "selective stats"? It's the exact opposite of selective stats. The point is that Bravo and Watson have played a similar number of ODIs and Watson has a better record with both bat and ball. Marginally better batting average and identical bowling average with a better economy rate. So how do you go from that to concluding that Bravo has shown "far more" than Watson? At best you'd call it even.

And oh yes, i can compare them in tests : The comparison is : Bright prospect vs ZERO demonstration of potential.
End of story. With the same line of reasoning one couldnt compare Bevan with Tendulkar as test batsmen and therefore one cannot conclude tendy is superior in ODIs.

What? I'm not saying you can't compare them as ODI players, and indeed Bevan did play enough tests to judge that he at the very least wasn't in Tendulkar's class. The point is that Bravo has played test cricket and Watson hasn't, so you can't really compare them in that form of the game. You can compare their domestic records and their record in ODI cricket, and obviously you can watch them and make a judgement from that. Of course, Bravo has the better record in test cricket, it's just that it's not especially relevant to comparing them as players because one of them doesn't have any record of note to compare in that form of the game. It's basically like arguing that Tendulkar was a better batsman than Sobers because they have comparable records in test cricket and Tendulkar was better in ODIs.

Fact is, it is too early to judge either one of them but bravo has demonstrated his potential far far more credibly at the highest level than Watson.

Again, by what standard? In the form of the game both have played extensively they have similar records, and Watson hasn't played test cricket and has instead been scoring big runs in Australian and English domestic cricket, where incidentally Bravo had a pretty poor time of it. I agree that it is too early to judge either player conclusively, though I think one can make a basic assessment of talent based on watching them, looking at domestic records and so on.

When it comes down to it, I'd say there's more reason to believe Bravo will be a force at international level with the ball and a stronger argument for Watson with the bat, but that's merely my opinion and if you want to use some sort of objective criteria you can't split them at this point because it's too early to judge.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

We should really wait and see how Mr Angry goes on in the Test arena, and not just the Ashes neither, I imagine it'll pretty tough for him making his bow against a decent England side and he might struggle a bit (he might not).

Two things are certain, both are better than Ronnie Irani and both are not far off Rikki class.

 

[C_C]

The point is that Bravo and Watson have played a similar number of ODIs and Watson has a better record with both bat and ball.

I believe you are misrepresenting the facts here slightly.

The point is that Bravo has played test cricket and Watson hasn't, so you can't really compare them in that form of the game.

Disagree.
I've sat the SATs and (lets assume for the sake of the argument) that you havnt.
Can one make the assessment that i've demonstrated my ability at the SATs far far more credibly than you have ? And the answer to that question, would be yes.
If you have no experience, you have no credibility in comparisons against someone with experience. By your line of argument, you can say that it is inconclusive between Bravo and C_C as to who would be the better player in test cricket, considering that C_C has no test record.

I think you are approaching this the wrong way- your score starts at zero and you earn your marks by demonstrating capability. You dont start at 100 and have marks chopped off due to demonstarted incompetence. Someone with zero record stand behind the line to someone who has a record.
Everyone starts with zero claims to competence-for competence must be proven and not incompetence to be proven. And therefore, the one who has demonstrated more has more claims to competence.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I believe you are misrepresenting the facts here slightly.

Well, realistically, his record with the ball is better isn't it? They have the same bowling average within 0.01 of a run, and Watson's economy rate is around half a run lower. Bravo bowls slightly more overs per match and has slightly more wickets per match as well, so they are certainly close, but Watson's record, for whatever it is worth, is better.

Disagree.
I've sat the SATs and (lets assume for the sake of the argument) that you havnt.
Can one make the assessment that i've demonstrated my ability at the SATs far far more credibly than you have ? And the answer to that question, would be yes.
If you have no experience, you have no credibility in comparisons against someone with experience. By your line of argument, you can say that it is inconclusive between Bravo and C_C as to who would be the better player in test cricket, considering that C_C has no test record.

That's fine as an analogy, except that you're implying that Watson has done nothing to indicate that he might be a capable test cricketer, while Bravo has. That's backed up by your "starting at 0 argument".

If you'd sat the SATs and done reasonably well and I hadn't sat them, but I had three PHDs and an IQ of 190, you could reasonably infer that I might do pretty well at the SATs if I did sit them, and thus your SAT experience wouldn't really be particularly relevant if we were comparing our academic capabilities. That's the point with Watson. He hasn't played test cricket due to lack of opportunities, and while it's fair to say that Bravo's done more in test cricket up to this point (obviously), it's not of particularly great significance when comparing them as players because Watson hasn't failed at test level. He has a remarkably good domestic record and has done decently in ODIs, so it'd be better to wait until he's played some test cricket before you judge his capabilities in that form.

 

[C_C]

That's fine as an analogy, except that you're implying that Watson has done nothing to indicate that he might be a capable test cricketer, while Bravo has. That's backed up by your "starting at 0 argument".

The scorecard sits at zero when you start your international career, irrespective of your FC career when you are seeking fame at an international level.
At this stage, i will agree with the idea that Watson is a more accomplished FC player. But that has very little relevance to who's demonstrated better skill and potential at the international level so far.

If you'd sat the SATs and done reasonably well and I hadn't sat them, but I had three PHDs and an IQ of 190, you could reasonably infer that I might do pretty well at the SATs if I did sit them, and thus your SAT experience wouldn't really be particularly relevant if we were comparing our academic capabilities.

I think this example is slightly in error. You gave me an example of having a PhD and huge towering IQ as a compensation to the SATs. However, we are talking from a standpoint where SATs are the highest level of test for your current knowledge. Can a PhD dude take his credentials to be more credibly and heavier than SAT grades ? sure.
But an equivalent and more appropriate analogy would be- how would've Bradman done if he was playing FC cricket in India.
For you are using counter-examples that far outshine my benchmark test example (SATs) while that is inapplicable here. International performance IS the highest benchark in the sport. There isnt anything 'higher' up the rung you can use to disassociate actual competence from international cricket like you can, for example with PhDs pitted against SATs.
You start your international career at zero. And from then on, your quality (or the lack of it) is demonstrated solely from your performance in international scene. FC cricket record is irrelevant at this stage.

 

[aussie]

So whats their position now in your opinion now? Do you reckon they have the ability to become greats like Botham, Imran etc or will they develop just enough to be good players?.

 

[Burgey]

So whats their position now in your opinion now? Do you reckon they have the ability to become greats like Botham, Imran etc or will they develop just enough to be good players?.

I suspect the latter, though Watson's technique is good enough to make him a very good batsman imo. Bravo seems to have more of that X factor about him though - seems to jag a wicket out of nothing. Haven't seen much of that from Watson.