Shane Watson

[aussie]

he also doesnt have the required technique to succeed consistently in test match cricket

and why do you think so?

 

[tooextracool]

and why do you think so?

his footwork is all over the shop in test match cricket(and in ODIs) and when the ball is moving about considerably hes usually clueless. this along with his poor temperament make him unsuited to the test format.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

his footwork is all over the shop in test match cricket(and in ODIs) and when the ball is moving about considerably hes usually clueless. this along with his poor temperament make him unsuited to the test format.

He does well against the moving ball in ODIs, though. Having watched all of Symonds test innings, I don't think his technique is really the issue. The problem is that he looks lost when he bats. He either sits back and defends everything and looks pretty solid but makes no runs, or he belts the ball everywhere like he does in ODIs at the end of an innings and does well for a bit and then gets out.

It almost seems like the knowledge that he has to score quickly in ODIs makes him a better player. There's also the fact that 30 off 20 and out is a pretty decent innings in ODIs, especially batting at number 5, while in a test it's a failure.

 

[Jono]

When has he done well against the moving ball in ODIs? Not exactly denying it, just curious.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

When has he done well against the moving ball in ODIs? Not exactly denying it, just curious.

Well, he was man of the series in England 2005, for example, which is one of the few ODI series you'll see with a large number of seaming wickets. Made 70 odd twice, one on a decent wicket and the other on a pretty dodgy one, and while his 29 off 70 odd in the final was pretty painful, at least he didn't get out with everone else.

He hasn't really faced the moving ball that often in ODIs, for obvious reasons, but he's certainly never shown any particular frailty against it, and indeed has handled it better than most of his team mates.

 

[tooextracool]

He does well against the moving ball in ODIs, though. Having watched all of Symonds test innings, I don't think his technique is really the issue. The problem is that he looks lost when he bats. He either sits back and defends everything and looks pretty solid but makes no runs, or he belts the ball everywhere like he does in ODIs at the end of an innings and does well for a bit and then gets out.

It almost seems like the knowledge that he has to score quickly in ODIs makes him a better player. There's also the fact that 30 off 20 and out is a pretty decent innings in ODIs, especially batting at number 5, while in a test it's a failure.

i havent seeing him doing too well in ODIs against the moving ball to be honest, hes generally suceeded on the flatter, slower wickets(SL for example)

 

[tooextracool]

Well, he was man of the series in England 2005, for example, which is one of the few ODI series you'll see with a large number of seaming wickets. Made 70 odd twice, one on a decent wicket and the other on a pretty dodgy one, and while his 29 off 70 odd in the final was pretty painful, at least he didn't get out with everone else.

which one was the dodgy one then? Both as far as i remember offered very little movement in the first innings, and it was only when Mcgrath and Lee got the ball that there was appreciable swing. the 29 at Lords was quite a disgrace and im surprised you didnt notice that given that he could barely get the ball off the square and almost every commentator was wondering why someone in such form was struggling to get bat on ball.

 

[aussie]

his footwork is all over the shop in test match cricket(and in ODIs) and when the ball is moving about considerably hes usually clueless. this along with his poor temperament make him unsuited to the test format.

in test no , not at all. In the 3 test he has played his technique againts both the quicks & the spinners has looked pretty good. I have never seen him look clueless againts the swinniging ball since most of the time he comes in to bat in ODI's its pretty late in the innings when most of the swing is gone so i don't know how you could say that.

Plus by no means is his temperament poor, come on.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Watson is definently not good enough to hold down a spot as a batsman for Australia, IMO.

And his bowling is about as handy as that of Ponting, Martyn or any other part time pacer, just a little bit quicker.

Play him now, if you'd like, and hopefully he'll just keep his head above water, because at 28 or so he'll be a good Test cricketer. Right now, he's the batting version of Maharoof.

 

[Dasa]

in test no , not at all. In the 3 test he has played his technique againts both the quicks & the spinners has looked pretty good. I have never seen him look clueless againts the swinniging ball since most of the time he comes in to bat in ODI's its pretty late in the innings when most of the swing is gone so i don't know how you could say that.

Plus by no means is his temperament poor, come on.

It's quite obvious he has a poor temperament for Test match cricket when all he can do is block or hit out.

 

[aussie]

It's quite obvious he has a poor temperament for Test match cricket when all he can do is block or hit out.

well if you want to judge temperament in that sense in realtion to test cricket well yea. But overall i don't think his temperament is poor.

 

[Prince EWS]

in test no , not at all. In the 3 test he has played his technique againts both the quicks & the spinners has looked pretty good. I have never seen him look clueless againts the swinniging ball since most of the time he comes in to bat in ODI's its pretty late in the innings when most of the swing is gone so i don't know how you could say that.

Plus by no means is his temperament poor, come on.

Well if he has a good technique, looks assured at the crease and doesnt have a bad temperament then why the hell doesnt he score any god damn runs?

He often looks a big lbw candidate as well as a big outside edge to first slip candidate.. do bowlers love anything more? Then add in the fact that he doesnt really know which ball to go after and he's one of the worst players going around.

 

[aussie]

Well if he has a good technique, looks assured at the crease and doesnt have a bad temperament then why the hell doesnt he score any god damn runs?

He often looks a big lbw candidate as well as a big outside edge to first slip candidate.. do bowlers love anything more? Then add in the fact that he doesnt really know which ball to go after and he's one of the worst players going around.

Has is just said his technique in test probably isn't the greatest, since he either blocks or hits out. But that doesnt deny the fact that his technique againts pace & spinners is fairly good. All these problems are probaly their since he hasn't established himself in the test team as yet & has in the OD team he has batted out of position in tests.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Thought I'd just make a dig, instead of starting a new thread. While I acknowledge that yes, he is a top order batsman, and that he isn't going to be able to perform at his best @ number 7. However...

Can anyone name me a batsman (outside of pure openers) who has as much trouble as he does adjusting his game to batting low in the order? You may talk about waiting until he gets his chance at the top of the order, but simply if he doesn't do a good enough job down the order - he may never get that chance. In one-day cricket, you have to be adaptable and versatile to the situation (even Test cricket for that matter), and this seems to be an aspect of Watson's batting that is lacking. He's batted in a very similar manner whether at no. 1 or 7.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I don't know if Katich has done it but he seems like he'd be terrible at 7.

I remember Greg Blewett having a ridiculously bad record low in the order.

EDIT: I guess you could call them "pure openers" though.

 

[chaminda_00]

Bravo can't seem to bat below 5, they seem very similar players IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, no argument about his inability to adapt. Among those who have actually batted in the top and lower order in internationals, he's the worst I've seen. He really looks lost all the time when he comes in late in the innings, even when he's got a bit of time to bat. When he has 20 overs or so he'll usually play himself in and go a little better, like the other night in the second final, but that only comes after a massive collapse, barring really unusual circumstances (like that 70 odd he made against the World XI batting with Hussey). He'll sometimes look decent down the order in those situations, but generally he is poor at rotating the strike until he's wasted a fair number of balls, and his selection of which ball to his and ability to improvise shots is just atrocious. He really has to bat up the order or he's about as useful as Hogg.

In the top order I think he can be quite a handy batsman though, and his contributions to the balance of the team are obvious. If Hayden is going to hang around as an opener, Watson should really be at 4 instead of Clarke. If they aren't going to pick him up the order his value is greatly reduced, and picking another batsman and trying to get the overs from Symonds and Clarke might end up being a better option.

I mentioned this in another thread, but Watson's average batting in the top 4 in ODIs is 42. Batting 6 and below his average is about 25. And, has already been implied, I'd imagine his strike rate batting in the lower order is the same or even worse than at the top.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Bravo can't seem to bat below 5, they seem very similar players IMO.

I don't think Kallis is very good at adapting to the late overs, when it's required. He's usually set by the time they roll around and does fine, but that's a different scenario. He's probably a little better than Watson, but you wouldn't want to bat him below 5 either.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, no argument about his inability to adapt. Among those who have actually batted in the top and lower order in internationals, he's the worst I've seen. He really looks lost all the time when he comes in late in the innings, even when he's got a bit of time to bat. When he has 20 overs or so he'll usually play himself in and go a little better, like the other night in the second final, but that only comes after a massive collapse, barring really unusual circumstances (like that 70 odd he made against the World XI batting with Hussey). He'll sometimes look decent down the order in those situations, but generally he is poor at rotating the strike until he's wasted a fair number of balls, and his selection of which ball to his and ability to improvise shots is just atrocious. He really has to bat up the order or he's about as useful as Hogg.

In the top order I think he can be quite a handy batsman though, and his contributions to the balance of the team are obvious. If Hayden is going to hang around as an opener, Watson should really be at 4 instead of Clarke. If they aren't going to pick him up the order his value is greatly reduced, and picking another batsman and trying to get the overs from Symonds and Clarke might end up being a better option.

I mentioned this in another thread, but Watson's average batting in the top 4 in ODIs is 42. Batting 6 and below his average is about 25. And, has already been implied, I'd imagine his strike rate batting in the lower order is the same or even worse than at the top.

Well his strike rate opening, I figured out, was in the high 80s. His career strike rate is 75 odd.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bravo can't seem to bat below 5, they seem very similar players IMO.

Watson and Bravo are quite different IMO. Bravo's lower order troubles IMO are more co-incidence than anything else. I'd compare Watson to Kallis. Obviously he's not anywhere near as good at this stage, but they are very similar players.