***Official*** West Indies in Australia

[Eclipse]

Watson's batting allrounder being used as a bowling allrounder that's his problem in ODI's

 

[aussie]

The problem with Watson is that he's a batting all-rounder but when he plays for Australia he doesn't get the oppurtunity to bat in his costumary postions of 4 or 5 so his batting would seem weak.

His bowling which is the weaker side of his game is getting better all the time which is a good thing since he is bowling to top players all the time which is good for his development. I have all confidence in Watson to come good has a bat, he is miles ahead of where Freddie was 5 years ago n yet people seem to not rate him.

 

[howardj]

I wouldnt be worrying about Watson's batting. He has a better FC average (47) than the reserve batsman that Australia took on the Ashes tour - Brad Hodge. If Hodge is good enough to bat at six in Tests, then so too is Watto.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I wouldnt be worrying about Watson's batting. He has a better FC average (47) than the reserve batsman that Australia took on the Ashes tour - Brad Hodge. If Hodge is good enough to bat at six in Tests, then so too is Watto.

Because a good FC average automatically means a good Test average, right?

 

[howardj]

Because a good FC average automatically means a good Test average, right?

Of course not. But it indicates - given that he has played a substantial number of innings - that he has more than a fair chance of being successful at the highest level. It's generally, as you would know, the main piece of evidence that people use to form judgments in that regard.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Of course not. But it indicates - given that he has played a substantial number of innings - that he has more than a fair chance of being successful at the highest level. It's generally, as you would know, the main piece of evidence that people use to form judgments in that regard.

Actually, a good selector watches players play cricket and holds that in equal regard to statistical performance.

 

[howardj]

Actually, a good selector watches players play cricket and holds that in equal regard to statistical performance.

Splitting hairs really. Both - your track record over a substantial number of matches, and how your technique looks - are, depending on the selector, given differing weight. Is that enough qualifications and caveats for you, champ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I suppose Watson played well. His run-out was excellent, but in between his wickets he was still bowling short & wide and too full at times and he has never looked comfortable when hes batting.

Australia seem to be becoming obsessed that Watson is the next Flintoff..it seems all too familiar with the way India seem to be obsessed with finding the next McGrath.

Granted though, Flintoff started out poorly and maybe with some consistent international cricket, Watson will improve.

I don't get this attitude. Who's obsessed?

Now, if Watson hadn't been justifying his selection in domestic cricket, you'd have a point... that Australia was selecting him just because he can both bat and bowl when his performances didn't justify it. However, Watson averages close to 50 with the bat in first class cricket, which places him among the top ranks of Australian domestic batsmen, and his bowling has been decent as well without being spectacular. In other words, he is one of the best players in Australian domestic cricket, and is also an all-rounder, and is also young and has the potential for significant improvement in both forms. So, what's the problem with talking about him as a prospect and picking him? He's played in England and for Australia A as well and always performed, and he's played a bunch of ODIs over a few years and been in and out of team due to inconsistent performance, and one test. It's not as if he's played for years and is still being picked despite mediocre performances, and given that he's only 24 continuing to look at him seems perfectly reasonable and justified. If he plays a solid summer in the test side and doesn't do anything, well certainly we might want to look elsewhere at least for now, but he's not done anything to suggest he's anything other than a huge talent who hasn't clicked at the top level yet.

 

[Buddhmaster]

Sorry, but going back to Dwayne Smith. Is he the Smith that scored a really quick hundred 2 years ago? If so, when did he become so bad?

 

[Crazy Sam]

the ch9 commentators kept saying yesterday that australians are obsessed with watson coming good but it is simply not true. yeah i hope he does well and keeps his spot in both teams but i'd hardly say it was an obsession. andrew symonds on the other hand - there's a player that should have played ashes cricket and in the supertest next week.

but anyway, i think for adelaide and sydney the attack should be mcgrath, lee, warne, macgill with watson, tait, bracken thereabouts for all of the tests.

 

[age_master]

I don't get this attitude. Who's obsessed?

Now, if Watson hadn't been justifying his selection in domestic cricket, you'd have a point... that Australia was selecting him just because he can both bat and bowl when his performances didn't justify it. However, Watson averages close to 50 with the bat in first class cricket

which is why he should get a crack at the test team, and probably will - why he is in the ODI team, which is alot less suited to him, i dont know.

 

[roseboy64]

Sorry, but going back to Dwayne Smith. Is he the Smith that scored a really quick hundred 2 years ago? If so, when did he become so bad?

Yep. He got found out for his poor technique.

 

[tooextracool]

Collins is injured.

its a major disappointment to not see collins play against Australia. IMO hes a far better bowler than collymore and every other WI bowler in the side.

 

[tooextracool]

Indeed, but to have no spinners anywhere near you first choice XI is a mistake in itself.

i dont see the point of picking a spinner when the options are dave mohammad and omari banks both of whom cant bowl to save their lives. ideally an attack of collins, powell,lawson and bravo has plenty of potential, unfortunately one of them isnt fit.

 

[tooextracool]

After Watson's performance last night he is a certainty for the Super test and most likely beyond.

despite taking wickets with mediocre balls and not doing anything threatening throughout his spell?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

i dont see the point of picking a spinner when the options are dave mohammad and omari banks both of whom cant bowl to save their lives.

Because you've seen sooo much of Dave Mohammed, right? Spare me the ignorance please. He may not be the greatest spinner ever, but he's a damn sight better than you rate him.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yep. He got found out for his poor technique.

Not so much poor technique as much as idiotic shot selection.

 

[roseboy64]

That was a factor though.

 

[tooextracool]

Because you've seen sooo much of Dave Mohammed, right? Spare me the ignorance please. He may not be the greatest spinner ever, but he's a damn sight better than you rate him.

ive seen enough of him in both of his 2 tests to judge thank you. i dont see him being too much different from nagamootoo other than the obvious fact that he bowls with a different hand. i rate spinners based on their ability to use drift, flight and variations in pace along with accuracy and from ive seen from mohammad he was incapable of all of the above in his international career.

 

[honestbharani]

ive seen enough of him in both of his 2 tests to judge thank you. i dont see him being too much different from nagamootoo other than the obvious fact that he bowls with a different hand. i rate spinners based on their ability to use drift, flight and variations in pace along with accuracy and from ive seen from mohammad he was incapable of all of the above in his international career.

well, even given all that, it is too harsh to judge a guy from 2 tests. I have seen Bell over 5 tests and I still am willing to give him a chance.