*Official* VB Series - Australia, India & Zimbabwe - Page 51

Gaijin-san · 23-01-2004, 05:14 PM

Which was exactly my point, age master. He's getting there.

And Marc, stick it all in one post buddy.

As for the slogging a yorker, well it's not much of a yorker if you charge it, is it? :P

Mister Wright · 23-01-2004, 05:16 PM

There is no chance of him making the Australian team in the near future, especially not this summer. I quote The Courier Mail:

"It is too early to set a timeline for Watson's return to the Australian team as he can only bowl in six-over spurts and needs three days' rest in between bowling."

Neil Pickup · 23-01-2004, 05:17 PM

If he's an all-rounder, so's Rikki Clarke.

Gaijin-san · 23-01-2004, 05:18 PM

So howcome he was going to bowl 2 five over spells yesterday but for time constraints? And why is it that he said he will bowl today?

marc71178 · 23-01-2004, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by furious_ged
As for the slogging a yorker, well it's not much of a yorker if you charge it, is it? :P

No, it's a major embarassment and a lost match through impetuosity.

Gaijin-san · 23-01-2004, 05:24 PM

You've completely missed my point.

marc71178 · 23-01-2004, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by furious_ged
You've completely missed my point.

And you've missed (or rather not acknowledged since it would compel you to criticise Clarke) mine.

You even have the temerity to have a go at Harvey for "almost costing Australia the game" for one over (where neutrals suggest it was just one of those days where if luck had been with him he'd have picked up a couple of wickets) yet you overlook the fact that Clarke made 2 crucial errors that could've proved a lot more costly.

age_master · 23-01-2004, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mister Wright
"It is too early to set a timeline for Watson's return to the Australian team as he can only bowl in six-over spurts and needs three days' rest in between bowling."

he wont make the Aussie team again till next season i dont think

and marc - have you seen watson bowl much (or bat much??)??

hes not bowled in only 2 ODI's - one of which Pakistan were bwoled out for 117 in 32 overs and the other they lost - the targe was chased down in 40 overs on a spinning pitch.

this guys a true all rounder, good bowler and good batsman

Gaijin-san · 23-01-2004, 05:32 PM

My point in the first place was that Watson should come in for Harvey. Then people started saying that we would be replacing a bowling allrounder with a batting allrounder (which is bull because Watto is genuine, maybe his limited overs stats don't suggest it but that just means you should watch him and see). Nevertheless, When Watson pulled out of the World Cup, Harvey, a bowling allrounder, was a replacement for Watson. Yes, the tables are turned. So it's been done before and obviously the high ups in the Australian camp prefer Watson to Harvey. You simply can't argue with that.

marc71178 · 23-01-2004, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by age_master
hes not bowled in only 2 ODI's - one of which Pakistan were bwoled out for 117 in 32 overs and the other they lost - the targe was chased down in 40 overs on a spinning pitch.

this guys a true all rounder, good bowler and good batsman

Right, so that explains how his average against the major nations is well in excess of 40 does it?

His List A average is round about the level of Rikki Clarke...

That is NOT a good all-rounder.

marc71178 · 23-01-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by furious_ged
Nevertheless, When Watson pulled out of the World Cup, Harvey, a bowling allrounder, was a replacement for Watson. Yes, the tables are turned.

But at that point Clarke wasn't around - he is now, and as such is taking a role in the side that if you play Watson as well, you must drop a batsman (or only play 1 of them)

If you play both, one of them will be batting at 8, and you'll be looking for at least 15 overs from them between them.

For a start, neither are that good a bowler to justify that sort of workload.

age_master · 23-01-2004, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by marc71178
Right, so that explains how his average against the major nations is well in excess of 40 does it?

His List A average is round about the level of Rikki Clarke...

That is NOT a good all-rounder.

FC batting average of 41 and bowling 25...

he was still adjusting to ODI cricket and was starting to perform better before his back stuffed up, considering how much you have actually seeon of his bowling i really dont think you are in as much as a position - your just taking it off the statistics, which dont show the whole picture.

deeps · 23-01-2004, 06:32 PM

i got a good solution to this crap

drop symonds, bring on watson.....watson is more of a batsman than a bowler.....as a bowler,he is only equivalent to a michael clarke... watson is a much more solid batsman than symonds...if harvey continues to bowl crap,which i doubt,but if he does....bring on hogg

age_master · 23-01-2004, 06:55 PM

im not going to go on about this but - If watson isn't an all rounder - they dont exist anywhere

Gaijin-san · 23-01-2004, 07:04 PM

For sure. Watson is a good bowler. He's a 10 over bowler. If you want 15 overs between him and Clarke then give Watto 10 and Clarke 5... Watson is much better than you know-it-all-but-never-seen-him poms think.

He. Is. A. Good. Bowler.

Comparing Clarke to Watson in bowling is absolute garbage. They're worlds apart.

By the way, for Mister Wright, Watson has bowled another 5 overs this morning, taking 0/8 with 2 maidens. His last bowl was yesterday. Not 3 days ago.

23-01-2004, 05:17 PM	#753 (permalink)
Neil Pickup Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Oxford, England Posts: 26,361	If he's an all-rounder, so's Rikki Clarke. __________________ MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com \| AAAS Chairman CricketWeb Black \| CricketWeb XI Captain ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You? Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

23-01-2004, 07:04 PM	#765 (permalink)
Gaijin-san Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Canberra (in body), Perth (in spirit), Nagoya (in the future) Posts: 1,258	For sure. Watson is a good bowler. He's a 10 over bowler. If you want 15 overs between him and Clarke then give Watto 10 and Clarke 5... Watson is much better than you know-it-all-but-never-seen-him poms think. He. Is. A. Good. Bowler. Comparing Clarke to Watson in bowling is absolute garbage. They're worlds apart. By the way, for Mister Wright, Watson has bowled another 5 overs this morning, taking 0/8 with 2 maidens. His last bowl was yesterday. Not 3 days ago. Last edited by Gaijin-san; 23-01-2004 at 07:08 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

23-01-2004, 05:14 PM	#751 (permalink)
Gaijin-san Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Canberra (in body), Perth (in spirit), Nagoya (in the future) Posts: 1,258	Which was exactly my point, age master. He's getting there. And Marc, stick it all in one post buddy. As for the slogging a yorker, well it's not much of a yorker if you charge it, is it? :P

23-01-2004, 05:18 PM	#754 (permalink)
Gaijin-san Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Canberra (in body), Perth (in spirit), Nagoya (in the future) Posts: 1,258	So howcome he was going to bowl 2 five over spells yesterday but for time constraints? And why is it that he said he will bowl today?

23-01-2004, 05:24 PM	#756 (permalink)
Gaijin-san Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Canberra (in body), Perth (in spirit), Nagoya (in the future) Posts: 1,258	You've completely missed my point.

23-01-2004, 05:32 PM	#759 (permalink)
Gaijin-san Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Canberra (in body), Perth (in spirit), Nagoya (in the future) Posts: 1,258	My point in the first place was that Watson should come in for Harvey. Then people started saying that we would be replacing a bowling allrounder with a batting allrounder (which is bull because Watto is genuine, maybe his limited overs stats don't suggest it but that just means you should watch him and see). Nevertheless, When Watson pulled out of the World Cup, Harvey, a bowling allrounder, was a replacement for Watson. Yes, the tables are turned. So it's been done before and obviously the high ups in the Australian camp prefer Watson to Harvey. You simply can't argue with that.

23-01-2004, 06:32 PM	#763 (permalink)
deeps International 12th Man Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: perth, australia Posts: 1,661	i got a good solution to this crap drop symonds, bring on watson.....watson is more of a batsman than a bowler.....as a bowler,he is only equivalent to a michael clarke... watson is a much more solid batsman than symonds...if harvey continues to bowl crap,which i doubt,but if he does....bring on hogg

23-01-2004, 06:55 PM	#764 (permalink)
age_master Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia Posts: 15,777	im not going to go on about this but - If watson isn't an all rounder - they dont exist anywhere

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)