Hopes, Watson or White in Australian ODI side

[Prince EWS]

That's true. But, Hopes deserves his spot. Would love to see them both in the side tbh.

Agreed.

 

[Top_Cat]

Key thing is all he capable of is contributing to wins. White and Watson have the ability to win matches for you off their own bat and maybe bowl with Watson. Whereas Hopes will always be servicable at best. Maybe thats all Australia need right now is servicable all rounder.

Let's be honest, when was Australia's last brilliant, world-class all-rounder? Even Steve Waugh was largely a part-timer with the ball, even if he got heaps of overs early on. Was never relied upon for wickets and people were mainly waiting for his batting to come good. The country has been looking for one for decades but they've never 'needed' one.

Watto adds some hitting power to the middle-lower order and a handy option with the ball right now so, in the all-rounder category, he's no more than serviceable either. I don't care what he's potentially capable of (it is a lot, given) but right now, he doesn't merit a place in the ODI side with either bat or ball unless given the bits and pieces role like Hopes. And he'd be doing well to displace Hopes right now.

 

[eglezdzdiyd]

Why is it that qld seem to produce all the all rounders of late?
Very odd, if we played seperately to australia i reckon our odi team would be rihgt up there. Gee i wish qld never signed the constitution, if only for cricket!

 

[Prince EWS]

Why is it that qld seem to produce all the all rounders of late?
Very odd, if we played seperately to australia i reckon our odi team would be rihgt up there. Gee i wish qld never signed the constitution, if only for cricket!

New South Wales would have a pretty decent test outfit I reckon, especially if we took back the players that are rightfully ours (Gilchrist, Rogers, Gillespie etc). We'd lose Katich and MacGill though, which would be a blow.

 

[chaminda_00]

Let's be honest, when was Australia's last brilliant, world-class all-rounder? Even Steve Waugh was largely a part-timer with the ball, even if he got heaps of overs early on. Was never relied upon for wickets and people were mainly waiting for his batting to come good. The country has been looking for one for decades but they've never 'needed' one.

Watto adds some hitting power to the middle-lower order and a handy option with the ball right now so, in the all-rounder category, he's no more than serviceable either. I don't care what he's potentially capable of (it is a lot, given) but right now, he doesn't merit a place in the ODI side with either bat or ball unless given the bits and pieces role like Hopes. And he'd be doing well to displace Hopes right now.

I don't actually think Watson that far of making a ODI side as specialist batsmen. Especially as opening batsmen once Gilchist and Hayden retire. Really in domestic cricket his right up there with the best opening/top order batsmen and has always been. When you taken in account age, he would be front runner for spot with Jaques, even discounting his bowling.

A lot of sides not only Australia have been fine without world class all rounder. But I think in general ODI cricket is changing a lot and it will become a required for any successful ODI team. Especially if scores of 400 odd are more frequent. As you need to bat deep to chase those totals, as South Africa and New Zeland have showed.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

People should remember just how well Watson was playing before his last injuries, in ODI cricket. His bowling for a full year before the 2007 WC was much improved, and he was consistently contributing wickets with the ball (IIRC it was 20+ matches in a row where he took at least one wicket), and his bowling average was dropping steadily. He was also doing well when he could bat at the top of the order in ODIs, and in the WC his batting finally clicked at 7 and he played some very useful innings in the lower order, and averaged over 100 for the tournament.

Hopes has done well, but Watson's performances in his last period of solid fitness were every bit as good in both areas of his game. If Watson can bat at the top of the order, it's an absolute no-brainer that he's a more valuable player IMO. Watson is capable of averaging 40 in ODI cricket as a batsman, I don't think Hopes is.

Anyway, right now it's something of a moot point as Hopes is incumbent and Watson needs a bit longer. If he starts showing form in domestic cricket though, I'd bring Watson in unless Hopes is doing something remarkable. Hopes hasn't exactly dominated on Australian wickets in ODI cricket in the past, so we'll see how it goes. I feel his bowling is quite fallible when the wicket has pace in it.

 

[chaminda_00]

New South Wales would have a pretty decent test outfit I reckon, especially if we took back the players that are rightfully ours (Gilchrist, Rogers, Gillespie etc). We'd lose Katich and MacGill though, which would be a blow.

We would also have Jack McNamara back, who need MacGill when you have the Big Mac.

 

[Top_Cat]

People should remember just how well Watson was playing before his last injuries, in ODI cricket. His bowling for a full year before the 2007 WC was much improved, and he was consistently contributing wickets with the ball (IIRC it was 20+ matches in a row where he took at least one wicket), and his bowling average was dropping steadily. He was also doing well when he could bat at the top of the order in ODIs, and in the WC his batting finally clicked at 7 and he played some very useful innings in the lower order, and averaged over 100 for the tournament.

Disingenuous comment considering he didn't bat above 7, was only out once and batted with few overs to go in every innings'. Not saying he didn't do an excellent job doing what he was asked (and more, really) but saying 'he averaged over 100' ignores certain realities.

Watson is capable of averaging 40 in ODI cricket as a batsman, I don't think Hopes is.

Once again, we hear what's he's 'capable of'. Here's what he's done;

126 domestic OD matches, averaging around 35, SR around 77, batting mostly in the top-order or opening.

What makes anyone think he'll do better at a higher level of the game? He's been around the Aussie set-up for a good 7 years now and is almost 27. There's been plenty of investment, when does a little 'return' appear?

I used to be one of his staunchest supporters with the 'give him time' argument the centre piece of what I personally had to say. Well, he's been given time. Not seeing the performances of a world-class all-rounder yet. He's got all of the physical attributes of a great cricketer but what seems to go on between his ears is where the problems lies. His batting lacks gears (he has two; watchful or mindless slogging), his technique has about as much adaptability as a Test-match board game figurine and his bowling lacks street smarts (as Brett Lee's did for many years). He goes for runs with the ball even at domestic level (5 RPO in domestic OD's and 3.5 RPO in FC) and lacks penetration too (100+ FC wickets and only two 5-fers and they were ages ago!) and it's not because he doesn't bowl fast enough nor his lack of variation.

Has all the tools but without the brains to use them, he'll continue to middle-out for the rest of his career. I love the guy and wish the situation was different but it's not.

 

[Jono]

Lol, I laugh everytime you make the Watson/Test Match board game comparison TC. Its so true.

Speaking of which, that game rocked. I saw a recent "ODI" version selling at Borders. Bastardised the game

 

[sue]

Ans

White and watson the best all-runders

 

[sudhindra9]

team

Cameron White is the best all-rounder ever who can play the best strokes and can take a few wickets too.

 

[Mister Wright]

Cameron White is the best all-rounder ever who can play the best strokes and can take a few wickets too.

Can't remember the last time he took a wicket tbh.

 

[Jono]

Or even hit the pitch.

 

[Captain Cricket]

We would also have Jack McNamara back, who need MacGill when you have the Big Mac.

MacGill's also 'The Big Mac' isn't he

 

[Top_Cat]

MacGill's also 'The Big Mac' isn't he

Nickname and diet, tbh.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Nickname and diet, tbh.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Disingenuous comment considering he didn't bat above 7, was only out once and batted with few overs to go in every innings'. Not saying he didn't do an excellent job doing what he was asked (and more, really) but saying 'he averaged over 100' ignores certain realities.

It's not disingenuous at all. It would have been if I said "Watson had the best average in the World Cup and was therefore the best batsman". All I was suggesting was that he he did very well lower in the order, had an exceptional strike rate (pushing 200 for much of the tournament) and an exceptional average due to the fact that he didn't get out going for those quick runs. This is in stark contrast to Watson of previous years in the lower order, who either desperately slogged and got out, or did very little.

What makes anyone think he'll do better at a higher level of the game? He's been around the Aussie set-up for a good 7 years now and is almost 27. There's been plenty of investment, when does a little 'return' appear?

You read my post right? That's the "little return" appearing. Watson's record in his last 25 matches (which includes all of 2006 and 2007, to avoid selecting only his best games) his record is 547 runs @ 36.47 and 29 wickets @ 29.38, with an ER of a bit over 5. That's significantly better than his career record, and his domestic OD record, and most significantly he has had a very good period within that time with the ball, in which he was consistently taking wickets, he's been very good up the order (average of 41.86 opening for his career, without a chance to do it for an extended period), and he's also shown that he can bat well down the order in the WC. This is two years of cricket we're talking about, including two major world tournaments. It's not just a few games.

So no, it's not just speculation about his potential, this is actual performance. The potential comes in when you believe he's capable of stringing together these elements into a consistent period of injury free cricket, in which he is potentially capable of bowling a good 10 over spell and averaging 40ish at the top of the order or hitting out down the order. He is "potentially" a world class all-rounder. He is, and has been, a good one.

edit: Also, I think it's worth noting that Watson has done extremely well in each of the two major tournaments Australia has played in recently. He hasn't really had the chance to play a lot of games or play much cricket at home, but he went to India and batted decently and bowled exceptionally, and in the WC he was something of a revelation, at least in terms of his capabilities with the bat.

 

[Top_Cat]

You read my post right? That's the "little return" appearing. Watson's record in his last 25 matches (which includes all of 2006 and 2007, to avoid selecting only his best games) his record is 547 runs @ 36.47 and 29 wickets @ 29.38, with an ER of a bit over 5. That's significantly better than his career record, and his domestic OD record, and most significantly he has had a very good period within that time with the ball, in which he was consistently taking wickets, he's been very good up the order (average of 41.86 opening for his career, without a chance to do it for an extended period), and he's also shown that he can bat well down the order in the WC. This is two years of cricket we're talking about, including two major world tournaments. It's not just a few games.

So no, it's not just speculation about his potential, this is actual performance. The potential comes in when you believe he's capable of stringing together these elements into a consistent period of injury free cricket, in which he is potentially capable of bowling a good 10 over spell and averaging 40ish at the top of the order or hitting out down the order. He is "potentially" a world class all-rounder. He is, and has been, a good one.

edit: Also, I think it's worth noting that Watson has done extremely well in each of the two major tournaments Australia has played in recently. He hasn't really had the chance to play a lot of games or play much cricket at home, but he went to India and batted decently and bowled exceptionally, and in the WC he was something of a revelation, at least in terms of his capabilities with the bat.

Sorry, but it's still only incremental increases. Relative to his supposed potential and the big wraps he's had on him since day dot, it's middling at best. He's only bowled 'exceptionally' relative to previous form, not by any other more objective measure. If people had only rated him as a James Hope-esque all-rounder then sure, those are decent numbers. As a contributing team member, he's done enough, solid B average. But we've been told for many years (by himself not least of all) that he's ready to dominate and not just contribute. Injuries notwithstanding, where's the beef?

I've said it for ages, his batting has a good deal more about it than his bowling does. Give up the ball, give the batting a decent run and he'll be back in the Test side and we'll forget there ever was an Andy Symonds.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Marry me Sean Fuller.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sorry, but it's still only incremental increases. Relative to his supposed potential and the big wraps he's had on him since day dot, it's middling at best. He's only bowled 'exceptionally' relative to previous form, not by any other more objective measure. If people had only rated him as a James Hope-esque all-rounder then sure, those are decent numbers. As a contributing team member, he's done enough, solid B average. But we've been told for many years (by himself not least of all) that he's ready to dominate and not just contribute. Injuries notwithstanding, where's the beef?

I've said it for ages, his batting has a good deal more about it than his bowling does. Give up the ball, give the batting a decent run and he'll be back in the Test side and we'll forget there ever was an Andy Symonds.

So the fact that he's performing pretty well isn't meaningful because he was hyped? So if Michael Clarke averages 45 in test cricket instead of 55, he doesn't warrant a spot because he didn't live up to potential? That's not really how it works.

The simple fact is that his record in the last couple of years in ODIs is pretty good, especially given that he's batted out of position a lot of the time, and he's been regularly injured throughout that time. Over 35 with the bat and under 30 with the ball is good, over 40 opening is good, and the improvement relative to his past performances is good. What is especially good is he's shown something in both areas of his game, which is exactly why the "drop the bowling" argument doesn't really work. He can be a lot more than a solid ODI opener. And yes, that is a "potential" argument. His performance in recent times is real, however.