|
|
#1 (permalink) | ||||
|
Global Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: A Blood Rainbow
Posts: 26,754
|
Solving the Watson conundrum
So benchy says he'd pick Watson as a specialist bat for India/the Ashes whatever happens. Burgey'd move him to #6. I say that he's not picking his own place in the side without his bowling. I'm sure spikey had something useful to say, but I must have missed it, and uvelocity won't read the debate for six hours anyway.
Safe to say that there's conflicting thoughts on what we do with the all-rounder who often resembles a particularly thoughtlessly laid out china shop during an earthquake. Thoughts, ****s?
__________________
+ and the buzz surrounds it does + * * * in which cribb demonstrates the power of the jinx Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) | |
|
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vote 1 Tangy
Posts: 30,097
|
Quote:
![]() Let me just put my thoughts here first: Watson as a specialist bat alone is in Australia's top six batsmen... However I think that can only be achieved if you tell him he won't bowl and he needs to give it up. I don't think that should happen though, because he's a more valuable package with his bowling, and without this bowling he's by no means a lock, but I'm still confident he's in the best 6 bats.
__________________
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | PM me for my list of CW posters you shouldn't talk cricket with in Cricket Chat Come and Paint Turtle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Global Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: A Blood Rainbow
Posts: 26,754
|
Thing is, though, where does he bat? I'm with Burgey insofar as I think that, given his injury record - and if you make him bowl then I think you have to accept that - he has to bat #6 and his game is just so ill-suited for #6 at Test level for whatever reason it's not funny. But bat him anywhere else and he becomes a destabilising influence on the batting order at precisely the time we need to lock it down. Tricky tstl. I definitely agree that he's more valuable with his bowling but I'm not really cool with him going in and out of the order all the time in such key positions.
And I say that as someone who once strongly advocated him batting #4 in the first place. Last edited by Spark; 27-12-2012 at 05:05 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Englishman
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Doing the stance
Posts: 42,629
|
Quite so.
Watson shouldn't be batting at #6, IMHO. No lower than four. Him starting against spin, for all his improvment in that regard, is never going to be pretty so the chances of it happening should be minimised as much as possible
__________________
- As featured in The Independent. "This is not the time for namby-pamby promising youngsters who might just do something; not the time for building for the future. Pragmatism rules and they don't come more pragmatic than Rogers." - Victor Marks makes the case for stiff-legged and stiff-armed 35 year old left-handers in Ashes squads |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Global Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,101
|
Drop him from the Test side and be done with it already.
Watson's of more value as a ODI and T20 opener and all-rounder than he is in the Test team. His batting is thoughtless - he feels for the ball early, plays around his front pad with alarming regularity, can't play quality spin and doesn't make any bloody hundreds. Yes, he's a gun Shield bat, but we can't persist with an all-rounder in the top 4 who can't make tons, can't bowl overs and can't stay on the park. Having Watson coming in-and-out every second Test destabilises the squad; Hussey suddenly gets more bowling thrust upon him, and a new batsman gets introduced to the XI every five minutes as we pick then discard them. In ODIs, his batting can be devastating as he can get away with his mediocre footwork by using his great eye and power, and his bowling is the equivalent of a front-liner, without the strain of 20+ overs on a day. He can't get through more than 10 without breaking down, as we've now seen. He just doesn't have the concentration to bat for long periods; he's had more than enough chances to rectify it. Keep him as a gun limited-overs player and blood someone in the Test squad. Do we bring in Khawaja or an all-rounder (Maxwell, Henriques the frontrunners)? |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
Global Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: A Blood Rainbow
Posts: 26,754
|
Doesn't he have stacks and stacks of big FC hundreds, though? Can clearly bat for a long time. I just think his technique makes him easily tied down for long periods even when set, and that just puts far too much constant pressure on him as he's not getting off-strike. I'm sort of with benchy in that his best spot is still #4 IMO but it's so annoying.
As I said, the *real* problem with him batting anywhere other than #6 is more the fact that you'll have to have him going in and out of the order all the time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 (permalink) | |
|
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vote 1 Tangy
Posts: 30,097
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
International Coach
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 11,072
|
Had great hopes for him but I have had enough of him being treated as indispensible
In a perfect world, I would punt him and would prefer to see our batting order as: Warner Cowan Usman Clarke Hughes Hussey IMO, without his bowling, he shouldnt be playing as he doesnt score enough runs to be a top order player nor play spin well enough to bat further down |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 (permalink) | |
|
Global Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,101
|
Quote:
We were criticising Khawaja and advocating the selection of Hughes for exactly the same reason; it's one thing to deal with being tied down at Shield level - you can hit your way out of it given time. That doesn't happen at Test level. Look, if he wasn't injured every five minutes, I'd want him persisted with for quite a while. But when he's destabilising it every sixty seconds by buggering up his calf, we may as well put the investment in someone else. EDIT: @Benchmark Fair enough, I definitely understand why you disagree. However, IMO he's never going to be fit enough to play the amount of Test cricket required to make him worthwhile. May as well extend his career in the shorter formats and be done with it. Last edited by Dan; 27-12-2012 at 05:20 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 (permalink) | |
|
State Vice-Captain
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,259
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 (permalink) |
|
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vote 1 Tangy
Posts: 30,097
|
I love Usman, but he is a long way away from being a test cricketer. If you say Watson gets bogged down and he can get away with it by hitting out in shield cricket and you're advocating Usman, well...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 (permalink) |
|
Cricketer Of The Year
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Paradise City
Posts: 8,932
|
I tend to think he shouldn't play if he isn't bowling, but are there better options? Khawaja's pretty much the same player without the bowling, and none of the other guys that are better are eligible (Ponting, Katich) or are likely to get picked (Dussey, Cosgrove).
__________________
4-0 RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012 Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time. |
|
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| A Quick Question About Shane Watson | Spikey | Ashes 2010-2011 | 15 | 03-01-2011 05:03 PM |
| Watson close to bowling comeback: Lillee | Eclipse | Cricket Chat | 26 | 11-01-2004 05:23 AM |
| ian harvey Vs Shane Watson | vicpride29 | Cricket Chat | 39 | 11-06-2003 04:52 AM |
| Watson, Maybe Bevan OUT | age_master | World Cup 2003 | 16 | 28-01-2003 06:31 AM |
| Beven & Watson Out of World Cup. | Eclipse | World Cup 2003 | 1 | 24-01-2003 10:19 PM |