Worst Selectors Of The World

[dontcloseyoureyes]

how is that potential? in his last few seasons in england and australia hes been averaging in the 40s with the ball, which is representative of his bowling at the moment.

Like I've said thousands of times before, you're not going to average in the 20's when coming back from long-term injuries to your spine and shoulder.

Give it time. I don't see the point in looking for a quick fix when you can develop a proper player for the position over a period of time.

 

[tooextracool]

Like I've said thousands of times before, you're not going to average in the 20's when coming back from long-term injuries to your spine and shoulder.

Give it time. I don't see the point in looking for a quick fix when you can develop a proper player for the position over a period of time.

again why in the blue hell do the selectors pick him, especially as an 'all rounder' when hes just come back from injury?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

removing his performance against zimbabwe and kenya its actually 25.75. hes scored 2 50s in his international career- one against kenya, the other against the icc world XI neither of which deserve special mention IMO. the question here is what is the purpose of playing him in the side? would australia not be better off by picking a player who is more suited in that position, rather than picking someone whos clearly batting out of position and clearly out of depth in the bowling department?

Well really, they haven't been playing him in the side... not much anyway. I think that the benefit of having him in the side is that he can both bat and bowl, and he's been picked as a frontline bowler who can bat at 8. Obviously he's poorly suited to the role, and that's why he's been in and out of the team, but I think the view was that Watson would develop into the role, and Australia could afford to have him there, as he's at least useful with the bat, and his overs can be filled in by Symonds and company if he's struggling with the ball. In fairness it worked reasonably well, as Australia carried him with success through his poor performances, and in the periods between his injuries Watson has shown definite improvement.

As far as picking a better suited player is concerned, who exactly do you have in mind? Basically, with supersubs gone, Australia can pick 4 bowlers and 7 batsmen, and have Symonds bowl 10, or they can pick 3 bowlers, 7 batsmen and Watson, or 4 bowlers, 6 batsmen and Watson. He's clearly the best candidate Australia have for the role they want someone to play, however badly out of position he is, which is why he was picked there. The other alternative is James Hopes, who's certainly shown less in his ODI career than Watson, or someone like Cameron White. The option is to either pick Watson as the bowler who bats down the order, or don't pick that kind of player at all.

 

[tooextracool]

Well really, they haven't been playing him in the side... not much anyway. I think that the benefit of having him in the side is that he can both bat and bowl, and he's been picked as a frontline bowler who can bat at 8. Obviously he's poorly suited to the role, and that's why he's been in and out of the team, but I think the view was that Watson would develop into the role, and Australia could afford to have him there, as he's at least useful with the bat, and his overs can be filled in by Symonds and company if he's struggling with the ball. In fairness it worked reasonably well, as Australia carried him with success through his poor performances, and in the periods between his injuries Watson has shown definite improvement.

to tell the truth, watson hasnt shown too much improvement with bat or ball. and i think if they expect him to show improvement, hed be far better off batting in the right positions and bowling as much as possible in domestic cricket, thats where the real improvement needs to come in. and when he does enough to be worthy of a place in the side he should be brought back. he still has age on his side, theres no point throwing him into the deep and ruining his career.

As far as picking a better suited player is concerned, who exactly do you have in mind? Basically, with supersubs gone, Australia can pick 4 bowlers and 7 batsmen, and have Symonds bowl 10, or they can pick 3 bowlers, 7 batsmen and Watson, or 4 bowlers, 6 batsmen and Watson. He's clearly the best candidate Australia have for the role they want someone to play, however badly out of position he is, which is why he was picked there. The other alternative is James Hopes, who's certainly shown less in his ODI career than Watson, or someone like Cameron White. The option is to either pick Watson as the bowler who bats down the order, or don't pick that kind of player at all.

so you'd rather have someone whos not really known for accelerating the run rate down at number 7? not to mention that his bowling is clearly not good enough?
why not just go in with 4 bowlers, 6 batsmen(including phil jacques or ideally bevan) + gilchrist and have the 10 overs decided between symonds and clarke? either that or go in with 5 batsmen+ gilchrist+ brad hogg + 4 other bowlers.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Bevan is much too old to come back now, he'll retire very soon I'd imagine.

I wrote a long post on how every time Watson shows some real improvement he gets cut down by a large injury, but there's no point in reviving it, you're pretty much Richard with a different opinion, and there's no point arguing with you. Unless you average less than 20 with the ball and more than 50 with the bat you're not good enough to play cricket at the highest level. That's pretty much the impression you two give.

 

[tooextracool]

Bevan is much too old to come back now, he'll retire very soon I'd imagine..

bevan is 35, by the next world cup he'll be 36. i really dont see how age is a factor when someone is scoring runs or taking wickets. Bevans list A record in the 2004-05 domestic season was 86.50, in the current season it is 50.75. alec stewart went on to play till he was 40, walsh played till he was 38.

I wrote a long post on how every time Watson shows some real improvement he gets cut down by a large injury, but there's no point in reviving it, you're pretty much Richard with a different opinion, and there's no point arguing with you. Unless you average less than 20 with the ball and more than 50 with the bat you're not good enough to play cricket at the highest level. That's pretty much the impression you two give.

really? maybe i've given you the wrong impression. i must tell you however that i am the one who thinks naved ul hasan has potential in test match cricket despite averaging 58. i also rated sreesanth before he made his test match debut while he was being carted all over the place in pakistan - averaging 48 @ 6.08 and i rated simon jones while he was averaging in the high 30s in test match cricket. I 've never ever given my opinion on someone without having watched them play and i've only ever used stats to back my opinions. Which is why if you notice i never ever go into discussion about players that played before 1992, because there is no point in claiming that one player is better than another based on readings that you've 'come across' that were probably biased in favor of one player in the first place.

 

[Retox]

Such praise (!)

Yeah for a man who just about one us a series vs Aus.

McCullum is a good finsher with the bat. And with the gloves is getting better.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

to tell the truth, watson hasnt shown too much improvement with bat or ball. and i think if they expect him to show improvement, hed be far better off batting in the right positions and bowling as much as possible in domestic cricket, thats where the real improvement needs to come in. and when he does enough to be worthy of a place in the side he should be brought back. he still has age on his side, theres no point throwing him into the deep and ruining his career.

The idea if throwing him in the deep is to let him develop in international cricket, because they think he has what it takes already (whether it be mental approach or simply talent or whatever) and that some time at the highest level will improve him. It is in fact the same approach that England took with Flintoff, even when Flintoff was poor at international level (much worse than Watson is, in fact) they persisted with him, and he is a better player because of it. I can't say if it will work with Watson or not, but I will say that he definately has shown improvement, it's just that his career is constantly being interrupted by injury, stopping him from having a long run in the side. Watson might have played 40 odd ODIs, but I doubt he's ever played any more than a dozen in a row, and he's not been dropped for performance reasons all that often. He was definitely playing better before his most reccent injury for example, and he had an excellent VB Series directly before his injury in the leadup to the 2003 world cup.

so you'd rather have someone whos not really known for accelerating the run rate down at number 7? not to mention that his bowling is clearly not good enough?
why not just go in with 4 bowlers, 6 batsmen(including phil jacques or ideally bevan) + gilchrist and have the 10 overs decided between symonds and clarke? either that or go in with 5 batsmen+ gilchrist+ brad hogg + 4 other bowlers.

The Symonds and Clarke thing has been tried, and that's what Australia usually does when Watson (or Hopes) isn't playing. It works out reasonably well, except when Symonds has a bad day and there's nowhere to hide him, like happened once or twice in the 04/05 VB Series. Watson has some use as a bowler in ODIs anyway, he's pretty good at the death for example, even if he's nothing special.

I'd really like him to bat higher up though. If Martyn gets dropped I wouldn't be opposed to Watson playing at 4 or 5 and Hussey being at 7.

 

[aussie]

I'd really like him to bat higher up though. If Martyn gets dropped I wouldn't be opposed to Watson playing at 4 or 5 and Hussey being at 7.

word, instead of going for another batsman that would be good since it would give the bowling more variety. Btw sean you got msn?

 

[tooextracool]

The idea if throwing him in the deep is to let him develop in international cricket, because they think he has what it takes already (whether it be mental approach or simply talent or whatever) and that some time at the highest level will improve him. It is in fact the same approach that England took with Flintoff, even when Flintoff was poor at international level (much worse than Watson is, in fact) they persisted with him, and he is a better player because of it. I can't say if it will work with Watson or not, but I will say that he definately has shown improvement, it's just that his career is constantly being interrupted by injury, stopping him from having a long run in the side. Watson might have played 40 odd ODIs, but I doubt he's ever played any more than a dozen in a row, and he's not been dropped for performance reasons all that often. He was definitely playing better before his most reccent injury for example, and he had an excellent VB Series directly before his injury in the leadup to the 2003 world cup..

the thing is almost everyone acknowledges that what England did with Flintoff was a mistake. Flintoff really never showed any signs of improvement until after he went to the academy in 2000/01 and only then did he deserve a place in the England side. As such the selectors tarnished his reputation completely by then that most people at the time when he played in India, including me, went " Oh no, not that fat piece of crap again", and he was really what blackwell is now. it took incredible courage and determination on his part to try and prove everyone wrong and to not let all the criticism get to him. If watson continues to be given more and more opportunities, especially when australia lose, he will cop plenty of it too, and its questionable whether like Flintoff he will be able to take it on the chin and get better. Many people havent been able to handle it, Hick for example was finished the moment he had a bad trot, and everyone was on his back.
As far as injuries are concerned, dont you think for an unproven quantity like Watson it would be far better for him to get a good run in domestic cricket first instead of being rushed back into the side as though hes a cricketing pro?

The Symonds and Clarke thing has been tried, and that's what Australia usually does when Watson (or Hopes) isn't playing. It works out reasonably well, except when Symonds has a bad day and there's nowhere to hide him, like happened once or twice in the 04/05 VB Series. Watson has some use as a bowler in ODIs anyway, he's pretty good at the death for example, even if he's nothing special.

I'd really like him to bat higher up though. If Martyn gets dropped I wouldn't be opposed to Watson playing at 4 or 5 and Hussey being at 7.

again that should be in the future, when that happens maybe the selectors should consider it. right now he would be better served playing domestic cricket

 

[Smudge]

How can Richard slag off McCullum for his average, yet include McMillan for what (I assume) is his NZ ODI team? Complete inconsistency.

 

[NZTailender]

McCullum can (and has) won games for NZ in ODI's.

I hope your suggestion of McMillan was a joke. I mean, honestly?

 

[Richard]

Name one NZ opening batsman that wasn't a woeful excuse for an opener at that time. Hell, we were putting Richardson in as an ODI opener if I remember correctly.

Not just as an opener.
Astle, incidentally, usually seemed to do a pretty decent job to me.

And I don't care what his original purpose was, who he is now is an efficient end-of-the-innings batsman.

That, I think, is a little optimistic.

 

[Richard]

McMillan?

Oram isn't much of a one day player -- well, he's a better one day bowler than Test bowler, but his batting average falls from 43.56 to 18.46.

Oram is a useless Test bowler, but has actually bowled well in ODIs of times.
I can't see that he doesn't deserve a spot in the ODI side now Cairns is no more.

 

[Richard]

You have to be kidding. Do you know how long it has taken to get McMillan out of the side?

Yes, I do - and usually IMO it's happened because he's not got the chance to bat in his best position, three.

And I would absolutely have Styris in my NZ ODI side (I am guessing that is what the side is).

Styris opening?

 

[Richard]

You're talking about it as if he's doing a Mick Lewis every game. Watson hasn't had a particularly good ODI career, but it's not as though he's getting smashed and making low scores every game. His batting average is in the 30s, and his bowling has been poor but not completely woeful. I don't think he'll be suffering any psychological damage from the experience or anything, especially not when he's putting in the odd good performance to go with the crap, as he has been.

removing his performance against zimbabwe and kenya its actually 25.75. hes scored 2 50s in his international career- one against kenya, the other against the icc world XI neither of which deserve special mention IMO. the question here is what is the purpose of playing him in the side? would australia not be better off by picking a player who is more suited in that position, rather than picking someone whos clearly batting out of position and clearly out of depth in the bowling department?

I thought the original receipt of the FDO-quoted post was Pathan, not Watson?

 

[Richard]

The idea if throwing him in the deep is to let him develop in international cricket, because they think he has what it takes already (whether it be mental approach or simply talent or whatever) and that some time at the highest level will improve him. It is in fact the same approach that England took with Flintoff, even when Flintoff was poor at international level (much worse than Watson is, in fact) they persisted with him, and he is a better player because of it.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever that you can say that. It might have been that way, but equally he might have become the bowler he became without being constantly carted around the place for the first 6 years of his Test career.

 

[Richard]

How can Richard slag off McCullum for his average, yet include McMillan for what (I assume) is his NZ ODI team? Complete inconsistency.

Because McMillan's average is sure as poor as McCullum's...?

 

[Blaze]

Because McMillan's average is sure as poor as McCullum's...?

It doesn't really matter because they are both poor.

 

[Smudge]

Because McMillan's average is sure as poor as McCullum's...?

Repeat in English please?

I'll take a stab and guess you are comparing the two players' averages. McCullum, who performs another task in the team aside from batting, averages 21.96, while McMillan, who barely bowls, averages 27.47 despite being given more than 170 ODIs to improve that.

I know which one I'd prefer in a close match.