Chris Cairns vs Shane Watson

[thierry henry]

Would be more inclined to mount a case for Watson in test matches than ODI's itbt.

Cairns' stats are probably deceptively poor, but was the sort of guy who could turn, and win, a match on the back of his performance alone. Probably didn't have the technique and patience to do this at test level as regularly.

I think when the dust settles on their respective careers, Watson will probably have a better test career, and probably better ODI stats, but I think Cairns will always be the more valuable ODI player and Watson a more valuable test asset.

yeah, nah.

Cairns stats are better in tests than ODIs because he was better at tests than ODIs.

In both forms he was a big hittin', fast scorin' batsman who failed too often to be regarded as a genuine batsman despite appearing to have all the skills to do so. I would say in both forms he was of a similar standard- admittedly a fast 50 or 60 is generally more useful in ODIs than tests, but if you look back at Cairns' best performances with the bat they are actually pretty evenly spread between tests and ODIs.

With the ball he was clearly a lot better in tests. Frankly, he was rather sub-par in ODIs. Admittedly this has a bit to do with the fact that he sometimes bowled in ODIs despite being half-injured (bowling 125kph off a short run, that sort of thing). I honestly can't think of another cricketer who bowled as much as Cairns whilst freely admitting that he was not fully fit, and as I recall there were chunks of his career where he didn't play any tests because he wasn't fully fit, but played ODIs.

But nevertheless I think those poor ODI bowling figures over a long career are representative of the fact that he was probably just one of those attacking bowlers who is more effective in tests.

 

[sledger]

Still convinced Cairns was better.

 

[_Ed_]

Watson's looking the better batsman now tbf. I'd rate Cairns as a better bowler, though.

 

[Howe_zat]

Watson's looking the better batsman now tbf. I'd rate Cairns as a better bowler, though.

Was about to say this. Watson's decent as a bowler but I've never seen him look like ripping though a side like Cairns managed a few times. Not since he started being a regular in all formats, anyway.

 

[Himannv]

Agree with Ed here. I think Cairns was the better bowler and Watson the better batsman.

 

[Flem274*]

Cairns is the better bowler by a long distance, but can't go past Watson for the batting side of things.

Though if Watson really wants to stamp his mark as an allrounder, he needs to start getting those big test match scores rather than fifties.

 

[Bun]

Cairns easily.

 

[ankitj]

Cairns, comfortably.

Watson doesn't seem to be bowling quite enough with less than 2 wickets a match.

 

[Athlai]

Watson is a far more solid batting option but you just feel Cairns could always deliver something more special with either bat or ball. WAG

 

[smash84]

WIll have to go with Cains. A more consistent version of Shahid Afridi if you will with the bat and definitely the better bowler than Watson.

 

[M0rphin3]

Cairns surely.

 

[Shri]

Cairns.

 

[Bahnz]

In tests, there's no comparison as they're completely different cricketers. Cairns was a genuine all-rounder. Watson is an opening bat who can trundle some medium-somethings. Watson v Oram would be a better comparison.

 

[Nate]

In disbelief a little at this thread. Hoping by the end of Watson's career the result will be rectified.

 

[robelinda]

In tests, there's no comparison as they're completely different cricketers. Cairns was a genuine all-rounder. Watson is an opening bat who can trundle some medium-somethings. Watson v Oram would be a better comparison.

Agree. Cairns opened the bowling too plenty of times. Oram vs Watson much better comparison.

 

[Xanolen]

The 2000 Knockout final still hurts. Dominated Kumble in the end. Been a fan ever since.

haha same here