Aussie ODI first XI

[marc71178]

Watson has a strike rate in FC cricket which is lower and he has played quite a few matches now. He doesnt bowl as much as Harvey but he can do a good job bowling 6-7 overs as well as Harvey can.

So why does he not bowl as much as Harvey then?

And what does FC S/R have to do with One Day Cricket?

Look at the relevant facts. Harvey's One Day bowling record is far far better than Watson's.

And he can bat as well.

And that makes him a better bowler how exactly?

 

[marc71178]

With the current Australian 11 ODI players you could add:

Langer
Bevan
Harvey
Magill
Katich
Kaspa

And how are they all World Class ODI players?

Methinks you need to check the definition of World Class.

 

[Mr Casson]

How exactly is he a better bowler than Harvey?

Just look at the numbers again - Harvey is a far far better bowler in all forms.

It seems to me that people see a lot of merit in Shane Watson's bowling, but they're waiting for him to get a "big break" of sorts... Almost as if one day, he'll bowl a great spell or do something to just massively boost his confidence and it will make him into a good bowler. Like a Flintoff/Harmisonesque transformation.

I know Ricky Ponting rates him, and in his WC2003 tour diary, he basically said the same thing I did. Watson is a guy who lacks confidence and needs to believe that he belongs at the highest level. Once he gains more confidence, his already good performances should improve exponentially.

 

[marc71178]

But the point I was making is there is nothing in career figures to say he's a better bowler than Harvey.

 

[Mr Casson]

But the point I was making is there is nothing in career figures to say he's a better bowler than Harvey.

Well Harvey has this reputation as a fantastic bowler at the death... Perhaps he did alright for a while, but I'm not sure he's been that good lately as a death bowler. Without that, I don't know what he has going for him over anyone else.

 

[Pratters]

So why does he not bowl as much as Harvey then?

And what does FC S/R have to do with One Day Cricket?

Look at the relevant facts. Harvey's One Day bowling record is far far better than Watson's.

And that makes him a better bowler how exactly?

Watson's figures in FC is better but maybe the team compositions are such that Harvey gets to bowl more in his FC side?

FC Strike shows you may have talent. Yeah one day list A Harvey is better. But the point is Watson can bowl in ODIs and is a batter as well.

So he is a more complete player and would make the side stronger than Harvey would. There is potential in Watson as well which I dont see in Harvey.

 

[Eclipse]

Watson's not a clever enough bowler in ODI's yet..

And to answere why Harvey bowls so many more overs than Watson in FC cricket well thats fairly obviouse considering the back problems Watson has had and the fact he basicly played all of last year as a specialist batsman.

 

[Eclipse]

who ever it was who said Watson lacks confidence I totaly agree... I think he is very sure about himself in FC cricket but in ODI's he is still finding his way..

 

[Pratters]

who ever it was who said Watson lacks confidence I totaly agree

Confidence is one thing which can be strengthened.

 

[Mr Casson]

who ever it was who said Watson lacks confidence I totaly agree... I think he is very sure about himself in FC cricket but in ODI's he is still finding his way..

You can see it in his expression in ODIs; when he gets hit for four, he's the first one to drop his head. He knows that he's got so much more in him. You can understand where the frustration comes from for him. When you haven't performed before and you get smacked again, knowing that you haven't yet shown your best, you've got to be stumped for answers.

The only solution I can see is more ODI cricket. No amount of FC or List A games will help the kid realize his potential from here on in. He has to become suited to the environment and the pressures of the international game, because he won't get any more confidence playing for Queensland. If the selectors stick with him, we'll see a breakthrough one day soon.

 

[Nate]

Gilchrist (wk)
Hayden
Ponting (c)
Bevan
Symonds
Martyn
Lehmann
Lee
Gillespie (2)
McGrath (1)
MacGill

 

[Andre]

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.

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!

Figures don't cut the mustard, mate - they don't tell a full story, and you are fooling yourself if you think they do. Shane Lee had an exceptional ODI bowling record, for example, but he was by no stretch of the imagination a bowler. Had you watched the three bowl over a period of time, you'd see at this stage that Watson sits a fairly distant third - although I think in a few years time should he add some weapons he has the potential to be a very good bowler.

 

[a massive zebra]

Figures don't cut the mustard, mate - they don't tell a full story, and you are fooling yourself if you think they do. Shane Lee had an exceptional ODI bowling record, for example, but he was by no stretch of the imagination a bowler. Had you watched the three bowl over a period of time, you'd see at this stage that Watson sits a fairly distant third - although I think in a few years time should he add some weapons he has the potential to be a very good bowler.

Is it not better to pick someone who does the business but looks mediocre rather than someone who looks amazing but gets hammered? Shane Lee might have looked unconvincing but the fact is he was a very effective bowler in both ODI and List 1.

 

[kwigibo]

I must admit I'm curious as to who you would replace Hayden with.

Perhaps in the last two games Australia could have done with a slower start and a steady build up with Gilly coming in with 10-15 overs to go.

The statistics are misleading, and even so not that great with Langer. I don't see why we can't have two openers who'll consistently strike at 100 in good conditions, instead of Gilchrist scoring at 150 to make up for his partner. Just because you can cruise with Gilchrist at the other end, doesn't mean you should, the 15-over rule is there for a reason. Langer would be even worse than Hayden in this regard, not based on statistics, but attitude. I have watched him play many times in all forms of the game, he's not suited to ODI's, no matter how many times he wants to crossbat it in tests or square drive rookie kiwis serving up half volleys.

Hayden boasts about not watching the scoreboard, which goes a long way towards indicating his unsuitability in ODI cricket, His ODI average is inflated by easy run chases courtesy of a very good bowling attack (his second innnings average is much higher than his first). He's just better suited to the test dynamic. Both he and Langer can, relatively often, be agressive by the standards of the longer game, but that's still not aggressive enough (and I don't mean just hitting boundaries, they're perfectly capable of that when the field's in, although Hayden seems a bit off lately playing shots from the crease).

As to who I'd pick to partner with Gilchrist or ahead of Langer...

M Hussey (Better List A average than Langer)
D Hussey (Better List A average than Langer)
Jacques (Better List A average than Langer)
North (List A average more or less equal to Langer's)
Maher (Better List A average than Langer)
Katich (Better List A average than Langer)
Di Venuto
Dighton
Hodge (List A average more or less equal to Langer's)

Campbell/Haddin (but you can't have 2 keepers, obviously)

All have the advantage of being younger than Langer too, plus a number of young players with potential, who are much younger, could also be considered once they prove themselves. And I mention youth even though I consider it a travesty that Bevan is dropped due to age while Lehmann is retained and Elliott is offered a contract. If the selectors weren't hypocrites I might not have mentioned youth so much.

 

[marc71178]

Yeah one day list A Harvey is better. But the point is Watson can bowl in ODIs and is a batter as well.

It's not just better though, it's considerably better.

Watson maybe able to bowl in ODI's, but that doesn't manke him a better bowler, and neither does his batting.

 

[Pratters]

Figures don't cut the mustard, mate - they don't tell a full story, and you are fooling yourself if you think they do.

I know figures dont tell the whole story. Which is also a reason why I would say Watson looks better than Harvey. He has age on his side as well.

This is what I would reply Marc with too.

He has stats which are not as good as Harvey's for One days (list A) and hasnt bowled as much as Harvey cos of the injuries. But there is no doubting his potential as a bowler apart from his batting skills.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

1. Gilchrist (keeper)
2. Hayden
3. Ponting (captain)
4. Symonds
5. Clarke
6. Bevan (Bring him back, dammit!)
7. Harvey
8. Lee
9. Kasprowicz
10. Gillespie
11. McGrath

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I know figures dont tell the whole story. Which is also a reason why I would say Watson looks better than Harvey. He has age on his side as well.

This is what I would reply Marc with too.

He has stats which are not as good as Harvey's for One days (list A) and hasnt bowled as much as Harvey cos of the injuries. But there is no doubting his potential as a bowler apart from his batting skills.

Harvey has been sorely underrated for his entire career.

He is one of the finest "death" bowlers in the world, with his excellent slower ball and incisive placement.

If he was moved up a couple of places in the order, his batting would be far more productive (look at what he's done for Gloucestershire).

Add to this his explosive fielding and infrequent injuries, and I know 6 or 7 international teams who would kill for his citizenship.

That's my two cents (if I had more money I'd keep ranting......).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't see much point in saying that Australia should pick 4 fast bowlers to have a stonger bowling attack. Yes, Mcgrath/Gillespie/Kasper/Lee would be a strong lineup to have bowling an an ODI, but it will never happen because of the over rates, it's as simple as that. The only time recently they have been picked is against the USA, and then it was done with the express intent of bowling them out quickly and ending the game, which is what happened.

Those four bowlers will not be picked together in the VB series.

 

[bryce]

even though i disagree with not playing the four quicks i think your spot on FaaipDeOiad, it seems the selector's do not not to play the four quicks together and it's either because of over rates or they want a bit more variety(i.e another spinner or extra batting).