***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[Flem274*]

DWTA.

New Zealand collapse in the second innings all the time, and they lose all the time.

First and second innings runs are equally important. If you give either innings away, you either have huge catch up work to do or (if you're chasing to win) lose the game.

 

[NUFAN]

29.90 - That's Watson's bowling average, placing him ahead of 5 of the 6 bowlers picked on tour. Quicks Siddle and Johnson, spinners Lyon and Beer and the medium pacer Copeland all average higher. Only Harris has performed better with the ball.

Watson's failure to convert his starts has looked worse due to having an out of form middle order. Watson would probably be one of the first to agree with Furball that he needs to start converting his starts, in fact he said as much before the Sri Lankan tour.

I have to agree that his opening spot is going to start being in jeopardy if he does have failures in both Tests vs. Sri Lanka, but his spot in the XI is completely safe and will be for some time.

I must admit that I would absolutely love Khawaja opening and Watson a little lower down at say 3 or 4.

 

[Hurricane]

I would take the 100,0 over 50 and 50.

No strong logic that I can defend scientifically. I just feel a century helps the team more than two fifties.

Edit - I would rather my team score 450 and 150
than 300 in both innings.

The 450 will put scoreboard pressure on the opposition and hopefully I won't need too many in the 2nd dig.

 

[Ruckus]

I would take the 100,0 over 50 and 50.

No strong logic that I can defend scientifically. I just feel a century helps the team more than two fifties.

Edit - I would rather my team score 450 and 150
than 300 in both innings.

The 450 will put scoreboard pressure on the opposition and hopefully I won't need too many in the 2nd dig.

Just say the 450 and 150 come from a team batting first (team A). There would probably be some scoreboard pressure (although I reckon the effects of such things are overrated) which causes the team batting second (team B) to post a lower-than-expected first innings total. But what about when team A only get 150 in the second innings? Surely you could also argue that suddenly team B feel like they are back in the game...and as Flem said, this isn't just hypothetical mumbojumbo...it happens all the time.

 

[Hurricane]

Just say the 450 and 150 come from a team batting first (team A). There would probably be some scoreboard pressure (although I reckon the effects of such things are overrated) which causes the team batting second (team B) to post a lower-than-expected first innings total. But what about when team A only get 150 in the second innings? Surely you could also argue that suddenly team B feel like they are back in the game...and as Flem said, this isn't just hypothetical mumbojumbo...it happens all the time.

Lets to explore this say that a par score is 300 and that all other factors being equal team B would put up 300.

So how much is scoreboard pressure worth 30 runs? 50 runs? lets say its worth 40 runs.
So team B scores 260.

They will now in the 4th inning need to chase 340 -

There are only 12 chases of 340 or more in the 4th inning - so I think the odds would be against them regardless of motivation. In fact they may be better off not even attempting the chase and playing for a draw.

 

[Spark]

You're much more likely to win Test matches by scoring your big runs primarily in the first innings than the second. Otherwise you're chasing the game way too much.

This isn't to say first innings runs aren't important... and it's sort of beside the original point, which is that one big score and one little one will probably put your team in a stronger place than two average ones.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah I'm kind of getting confused now as to what people are actually arguing...For me the bottom line is it ain't Watson who should be criticised for Australia's bad batting form of late, it's all the other top order batsmen who keep averaging around 30 in test series'... and that's just inexcusable. I kind of find it ironic as well that Watson is often criticised for not converting his starts enough, yet in match time the very same people express their frustration at him never getting out early. An opener who can consistently get his team off to decent starts is useful in their own right, and I doubt he would be receiving so much criticism if Ponting et al. actually managed to give him some decent support. If Ponting was scoring tons like he did 5 or so years ago I reckon people would be commenting on how useful it is that Watson could always provide a platform for him.

 

[Spark]

Oh that's true, but I don't think you can just go and take Watson's average as opener at face value.

 

[Ruckus]

If his average was skewed by scoring only against minnows etc. I'd agree, but for the points that have been discussed (i.e. consistency vs conversion rate) I definately don't agree.

But anyway it's getting kind of monotonous...

 

[Furball]

Err what?

As it was Watson scored 51 and 57, at an average of 54 for the match. If you assume the average has to stay the same, let him score 108 and 0, then. You think if he got those scores the match would have been drawn? The overall runs made are exactly the same...

An average of 54 for the match is pretty poor when the opposition have scored 124 runs for the loss of each of their wickets in the same match. You can't just pick a random number like 50 and decide that in every single match where the player averages above that, he's done a good job. What a good average in a match is is largely determined by the circumstances of the match itself. Same thing applies to series - on paper Watson's average of 48 looks pretty good, until you look at everyone else's and realise that Watson's average of 48 places him firmly in 7th place, behind 5 of England's top 7. His average of 48 also doesn't look too flash against Cook's 127.

 

[stephen]

There's a very good reason that Watson is the highest paid cricketer at the moment. His spot in any side is so far from jeopardy it's ridiculous. He's likely to stay opener for as long as he likes as well.

 

[Ruckus]

An average of 54 for the match is pretty poor when the opposition have scored 124 runs for the loss of each of their wickets in the same match. You can't just pick a random number like 50 and decide that in every single match where the player averages above that, he's done a good job. What a good average in a match is is largely determined by the circumstances of the match itself. Same thing applies to series - on paper Watson's average of 48 looks pretty good, until you look at everyone else's and realise that Watson's average of 48 places him firmly in 7th place, behind 5 of England's top 7. His average of 48 also doesn't look too flash against Cook's 127.

Yeah I agree with that. Although his series average of 48 is probably pretty decent considering he was facing far better bowling (a better comparison is his average compared to the other Aus batsmen). If your argument against Watson is that he should simple average more, then I can accept that. I disagree with it, because I think overall his average of 45 or whatever is fine as an opener, but I can at least see where you are coming from.

 

[Ikki]

Same thing applies to series - on paper Watson's average of 48 looks pretty good, until you look at everyone else's and realise that Watson's average of 48 places him firmly in 7th place, behind 5 of England's top 7. His average of 48 also doesn't look too flash against Cook's 127.

Well, that's kind of the point; amongst Australian's he's clearly not in any trouble.

 

[hang on]

would watson make the english test team?

let's broaden that: how many of the current australian test team would make the english first 11, assuming full fitness and availability?

 

[Spark]

Yes, without a doubt.

 

[hang on]

in place of strauss, i would imagine?

what about the second part of the question...added it after u must have posted, i suppose!

 

[Spark]

Have you forgotten the presence of a certain Eoin Morgan in the England Test side?

Personally, I'd pick Watson, Hussey, Clarke, probably Ponting over him at a bare minimum.

 

[morgieb]

would watson make the english test team?

let's broaden that: how many of the current australian test team would make the english first 11, assuming full fitness and availability?

Of course he would. Would make every side in the world afaik.

 

[morgieb]

Have you forgotten the presence of a certain Eoin Morgan in the England Test side?

Personally, I'd pick Watson, Hussey, Clarke, probably Ponting over him at a bare minimum.

Probably? I'd pick all of Australia's batting lineup over Morgan, plus Uzzy and the Katman.

 

[Spikey]

would sooner pick benchmark00 than morgan