-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Aussie ODI first XI
- Thread starter Pratters
- Start date
Andre
International Regular
No way in the world is Watson a better bowler than Harvey or Hogg at this stage. Besides, if he plays it should be in the top 7 IMO - he's wasted at 8. You seem to have contradicted yourself by suggesting he is a batting all-rounder but a better bowler than 2 bowling all-rounders.Pratyush said:Gilly
Haydos
Punter
Boof
Martyn (would have kept Bevan)
Symonds
Clarke
Warne (Watson if not Warne cos he has retired)
Lee (Ahead of Kasporwicz for ODIs)
Mullett
Pidgeon
Every one will question Watson at number 8 but he can bowl better than Hogg or Harvey and can come up the order maybe. Watson is a batting all rounder but if there is a good spin bowler or a better bowler who can bat a bit more decently, name him.
As far as I can see, the ODI full strength side is fairly settled - the top 7 picks itself, while Lee, Kasprowicz and Hogg fight out for the 2 reamining bowling places.
Crazy Sam
International 12th Man
krejza is rubbish at the moment, all of the 'young' spinners around australia aren't all that flash really, Hauritz probably the best of them. White took four today but they were ordinary dismissals by ordinary batsmen playing against ordinary deliveries. Doherty, O'Brien, Krejza, Cullen haven't impressed me at all either.
Biggest problem Australia is facing currently is having so many good players in the squad and wanting to give them all a run because they're in good form. Just makes the whole side unsettled.
Biggest problem Australia is facing currently is having so many good players in the squad and wanting to give them all a run because they're in good form. Just makes the whole side unsettled.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I didnt contradict myself when I said Watson is a batting all rounder. He is more of a batsman than a bowler and yet a better bowler than Hogg and Harvey.Andre said:
If we take a look at FC figures,
Watson - http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/PLAYERS/AUS/W/WATSON_SR_02010125/
Harvey - http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/PLAYERS/AUS/H/HARVEY_IJ_02005657/
Hogg - http://ind.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/PLAYERS/AUS/H/HOGG_GB_02003328/
Watson has bowled a good 300 overs in first class cricket and his strike rate of below 50 shows he is a more than handy bowler. Harvey has a strike rate of 56 and although he has bowled a lot more overs, he is a worse batsman than Watson.
Hogg doesnt even come into the consideration for me averaging only 43 at first class level.
Watson is a better batsman than a bowler with his first class batting avg being 48 and he being more of a batsman. But there is no reason why he could not bowl a good 7-8 overs in a cricket match.
The loic of him not being chosen in the side cos he would have to bat so low because he is is a good batsman seems to be like a penalty for being a good batsman.
He is as good as Harvey as a bowler (for the ODIs atleast cos you dont need to bowl many overs) and a better batsman. Much better than Hogg in all departments.
If there is a better bowling all rounder or a spinner, it would be great to get him. Else I think Watson would make the one day team stronger than ever. He may bat higher pushing some one else down. But the question would be who!
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Patyush not JonoMr Casson said:
Ya use an extra good bowler then it fine. But if you use Harvey or crap like Hogg, I would rather have Watson.
By the logic, he seems to be penalised cos he is a good batsman.
Playing with 4 specialist bowlers has its advantages and disadvatages. It would always be better if one of those could bat. Which is why all the twists with Harvey and Hogg seem to be enacted which is rubbish.
Should take more time to look lol.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
I would pick Harvey over Watson to bat at 8 for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, Watson is, as mentioned, a batting all-rounder and his batting talent is wasted at 8. In a one-day match (far from his speciality) he would be best used from 4-6 in a similar way to Jaques Kallis. If the number 8 is required to bat it is usually going to be in the dying overs when quick scoring is called for, and although Harvey isn't much of a batsmen he can hit the ball fairly well, while Watson is not renowned as a quick scorer at all. So in terms of batting at 8 and the jobs usually done by that player, he is at least a fair choice.
As a bowler, Watson undoubtedly has more talent and wicket taking ability. However, Harvey is experienced as a specialist one day bowler and has a fairly good record in international cricket. In this side Australia is picking three quick bowlers. A specialist one day bowler who can take the pace off and try and slow the run rate at second or third change is a fairly good option, and out of the two main players in line for this position aside from Watson, Harvey is much better at this than Hogg.
The other thing people are forgetting is that in this side Australia are picking three quick bowlers, with Lehmann and Symonds to make up 10 overs between them. If the 4th bowler is another quick, it will make the over rate extremely tight. Harvey gets through his overs a fair bit quicker than Watson, and that also goes in his favour.
I don't particularly rate Harvey as a player and I do rate Watson, but I just think batting at 8 as the 4th specialist bowler in an ODI is a terrible place for Watson. I'd rather see him playing domestic cricket and getting a callup as part of the rotation system or when he has earned being picked over an established player.
Firstly, Watson is, as mentioned, a batting all-rounder and his batting talent is wasted at 8. In a one-day match (far from his speciality) he would be best used from 4-6 in a similar way to Jaques Kallis. If the number 8 is required to bat it is usually going to be in the dying overs when quick scoring is called for, and although Harvey isn't much of a batsmen he can hit the ball fairly well, while Watson is not renowned as a quick scorer at all. So in terms of batting at 8 and the jobs usually done by that player, he is at least a fair choice.
As a bowler, Watson undoubtedly has more talent and wicket taking ability. However, Harvey is experienced as a specialist one day bowler and has a fairly good record in international cricket. In this side Australia is picking three quick bowlers. A specialist one day bowler who can take the pace off and try and slow the run rate at second or third change is a fairly good option, and out of the two main players in line for this position aside from Watson, Harvey is much better at this than Hogg.
The other thing people are forgetting is that in this side Australia are picking three quick bowlers, with Lehmann and Symonds to make up 10 overs between them. If the 4th bowler is another quick, it will make the over rate extremely tight. Harvey gets through his overs a fair bit quicker than Watson, and that also goes in his favour.
I don't particularly rate Harvey as a player and I do rate Watson, but I just think batting at 8 as the 4th specialist bowler in an ODI is a terrible place for Watson. I'd rather see him playing domestic cricket and getting a callup as part of the rotation system or when he has earned being picked over an established player.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
He's never performed much with the bat internationally, but he isn't a bad batsmen in domestic cricket. FC average of around 30 with a few hundreds, and he has a century in 20/20 cricket in England, might have been the first one ever in fact.bryce said:
Brett lee averages 14 ian harvey 17,brett lee has 1 50 harvey doesn't.
I would rather play lee at 8 and play 4 fast bowlers than harvey.
How many games does harvey need to get his first 50,he has had 70 games already.
I would invest effort in turning lee into a lower order allrounder,he is as good a hitter as harvey,only difference is harvey has had more opprtunities up the order than lee.A allrounder should bat at 7,or potentially harvey can do neither,hogg is a superior one day batsmen to harvey he averages 24.
I would rather play lee at 8 and play 4 fast bowlers than harvey.
How many games does harvey need to get his first 50,he has had 70 games already.
I would invest effort in turning lee into a lower order allrounder,he is as good a hitter as harvey,only difference is harvey has had more opprtunities up the order than lee.A allrounder should bat at 7,or potentially harvey can do neither,hogg is a superior one day batsmen to harvey he averages 24.