*Official* VB Series - Australia, India & Zimbabwe

[CDAK]

Originally posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

And? That still doesn't make it good! That's like comparing a century to the standard of a triple century.

What I mean is,even after those diasasterous figures,if Lee can continue then sure Harvy cannot be dropped even for a single match.

[Linda]

No one's saying he should be dropped, at least I'm not.
He was a replacement for Watson, and it doesnt mean he's going to be automatically dropped, of course not.
BUT after Watson plays half a dozen or so one day games at domestic level, and if he bowls and bats like he can, Harvey doesnt really stand a chance next to him.

[deeps]

lol, this is amusing... lay off harvey...one bad over,and ppl r ready to bite his head off! if i recall correctly,it was about a month back,in the TVS cup, that he bowld so superbly...or reminisce further back to the world cup...where he bowled brilliantly again...with respectable figures...bare in mind that he bowled plenty of overs at the death in the TVS cup and in the WC...and still maintained good economy and took wickets regularly

but if ur saying that's a thing of the past...let's think back...lets say... a few weeks... where he bowled superbly to win us the first VB match..he took 3/52 of 10 overs...a lil expensive,but considering he bowled at the death it's respectable

he also made a crucial 28...he made 22 in the 2nd match against zim


so he had one bad over... linda,u seem 2 defend martyn and saying he's going through a form slump..which has lasted a lot longer than harvey's one over slump

where's all ur form = temporary crap gone?

[CDAK]

For me, Harvy is like Gavin Larsen( probably a few kms faster.), takes vital wickets, controls runrate in the middle overs..so he is more valuable player than any express pace bowler and any team would like to have somebody like him.
I've n't seen Watson playing. But from other's comment I think he can be a replacement for a batting all rounder.

[marc71178]

Originally posted by CDAK
That's true Jagaways. What I feel is, since Rahul upset all other people(than Indians) with his chanceless majestic performance, they need him to be down atleast somewhere.

What are you on about?

Why would the neutral match referee care if Dravid's scoring a lot of runs or no runs?

[marc71178]

Originally posted by furious_ged
So what do you do when there's runs to get and no time to get them? Singles aren't gonna do it all the way, buddy.

15 off 13 balls with a relative weak batsman at the other end.

It's a no-brainer, push a single and you keep the strike!

[marc71178]

Originally posted by furious_ged
I don't mind Harvey either, but the fact is Watto is a better bowler than Harvey.

Oh really?

His career record doesn't suggest that to me, far from it in fact.

[marc71178]

Originally posted by furious_ged
So why did it turn out that Brett Lee needed to win the match with a slog?

Because Clarke got himself out stupidly when the run rate was nowhere near desparate.

Lee had to slog as there were just 3 balls to score 7 runs.

[marc71178]

Originally posted by furious_ged
Playing a ball on it's merits is what any good batsman will do in any low pressure situation.

Actually I'd say any good batsman would do that full stop.

Say you need 10 off the last over with 2 wickets left and you're the only recognised batsman left.

That's pretty high pressure, but do you try and slog the first ball because if it's a yorker?

[marc71178]

Originally posted by furious_ged
And Harvey isn't a patch on a real bowler. 0/68 and he's a good bowler? :rolleyes:

You couldn't be more true - playing against one of the best sets of batsmen who are all in extremely good form.

Clearly Watson (13 wickets @ 44.15 and eco of 4.86 when you remove matches against minnows) wouldn't concede runs of that magnitude.

He's never bowled 6 overs for 40, or 6 overs for 46, 5 overs for 46 or 10 overs for 72 has he?!

[marc71178]

Originally posted by furious_ged
And he very nearly lost it for us yesterday by giving India a truckload of runs (his last over goes for 22 and he's one of the best death bowlers?)

Funny, there was another player who nearly lost it for Australia as well by running one man out than playing a crazy shot that was unnecessary, what was his name and why aren't you attacking him?!

[marc71178]

Originally posted by furious_ged
Harvey has played 3 times as many ODIs. Watson has barely had enough time to adjust to the international scene. If you look at his first class and list a figures they're not too shabby.

Watson isn't even called on to bowl in every match - that's how good a bowler he is!

Oh, and a list A record of 34 matches in 52 games at an average of 39.32 and economy rate of 5.18 is what I'd call shabby!

[marc71178]

Originally posted by Linda
No one's saying he should be dropped, at least I'm not.
He was a replacement for Watson, and it doesnt mean he's going to be automatically dropped, of course not.

Of course not, because looking at it in one way, you could say that Watson's place in the team is more accurately taken by Clarke in terms of being a batsman who bowls.

[age_master]

Originally posted by marc71178
Of course not, because looking at it in one way, you could say that Watson's place in the team is more accurately taken by Clarke in terms of being a batsman who bowls.

watsons an all rounder - not a batsman who bowls, though his batting has improved alot having had 12 months working on it without being able to bowl, but hes still a good bowler - 2/23 so far in his comback match, wickets of Love and Law from memory as well, solid stuff so far

[marc71178]

Originally posted by age_master
watsons an all rounder - not a batsman who bowls,

An Batsman who often doesn't get called on to bowl in matches is not an All Rounder.

He is a batsman who bowls (unless you're seriously suggesting you'd bowl him as a 5th bowler - thus bowling 10 overs)

If so, you are I'm afraid, seriously deluded.