Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Agreed.That's true. But, Hopes deserves his spot. Would love to see them both in the side tbh.
Agreed.That's true. But, Hopes deserves his spot. Would love to see them both in the side tbh.
Let's be honest, when was Australia's last brilliant, world-class all-rounder? Even Steve Waugh was largely a part-timer with the ball, even if he got heaps of overs early on. Was never relied upon for wickets and people were mainly waiting for his batting to come good. The country has been looking for one for decades but they've never 'needed' one.Key thing is all he capable of is contributing to wins. White and Watson have the ability to win matches for you off their own bat and maybe bowl with Watson. Whereas Hopes will always be servicable at best. Maybe thats all Australia need right now is servicable all rounder.
New South Wales would have a pretty decent test outfit I reckon, especially if we took back the players that are rightfully ours (Gilchrist, Rogers, Gillespie etc). We'd lose Katich and MacGill though, which would be a blow.Why is it that qld seem to produce all the all rounders of late?
Very odd, if we played seperately to australia i reckon our odi team would be rihgt up there. Gee i wish qld never signed the constitution, if only for cricket!
I don't actually think Watson that far of making a ODI side as specialist batsmen. Especially as opening batsmen once Gilchist and Hayden retire. Really in domestic cricket his right up there with the best opening/top order batsmen and has always been. When you taken in account age, he would be front runner for spot with Jaques, even discounting his bowling.Let's be honest, when was Australia's last brilliant, world-class all-rounder? Even Steve Waugh was largely a part-timer with the ball, even if he got heaps of overs early on. Was never relied upon for wickets and people were mainly waiting for his batting to come good. The country has been looking for one for decades but they've never 'needed' one.
Watto adds some hitting power to the middle-lower order and a handy option with the ball right now so, in the all-rounder category, he's no more than serviceable either. I don't care what he's potentially capable of (it is a lot, given) but right now, he doesn't merit a place in the ODI side with either bat or ball unless given the bits and pieces role like Hopes. And he'd be doing well to displace Hopes right now.
We would also have Jack McNamara back, who need MacGill when you have the Big Mac.New South Wales would have a pretty decent test outfit I reckon, especially if we took back the players that are rightfully ours (Gilchrist, Rogers, Gillespie etc). We'd lose Katich and MacGill though, which would be a blow.
Disingenuous comment considering he didn't bat above 7, was only out once and batted with few overs to go in every innings'. Not saying he didn't do an excellent job doing what he was asked (and more, really) but saying 'he averaged over 100' ignores certain realities.People should remember just how well Watson was playing before his last injuries, in ODI cricket. His bowling for a full year before the 2007 WC was much improved, and he was consistently contributing wickets with the ball (IIRC it was 20+ matches in a row where he took at least one wicket), and his bowling average was dropping steadily. He was also doing well when he could bat at the top of the order in ODIs, and in the WC his batting finally clicked at 7 and he played some very useful innings in the lower order, and averaged over 100 for the tournament.
Once again, we hear what's he's 'capable of'. Here's what he's done;Watson is capable of averaging 40 in ODI cricket as a batsman, I don't think Hopes is.
Can't remember the last time he took a wicket tbh.Cameron White is the best all-rounder ever who can play the best strokes and can take a few wickets too.
MacGill's also 'The Big Mac' isn't heWe would also have Jack McNamara back, who need MacGill when you have the Big Mac.
Nickname and diet, tbh.MacGill's also 'The Big Mac' isn't he
It's not disingenuous at all. It would have been if I said "Watson had the best average in the World Cup and was therefore the best batsman". All I was suggesting was that he he did very well lower in the order, had an exceptional strike rate (pushing 200 for much of the tournament) and an exceptional average due to the fact that he didn't get out going for those quick runs. This is in stark contrast to Watson of previous years in the lower order, who either desperately slogged and got out, or did very little.Disingenuous comment considering he didn't bat above 7, was only out once and batted with few overs to go in every innings'. Not saying he didn't do an excellent job doing what he was asked (and more, really) but saying 'he averaged over 100' ignores certain realities.
You read my post right? That's the "little return" appearing. Watson's record in his last 25 matches (which includes all of 2006 and 2007, to avoid selecting only his best games) his record is 547 runs @ 36.47 and 29 wickets @ 29.38, with an ER of a bit over 5. That's significantly better than his career record, and his domestic OD record, and most significantly he has had a very good period within that time with the ball, in which he was consistently taking wickets, he's been very good up the order (average of 41.86 opening for his career, without a chance to do it for an extended period), and he's also shown that he can bat well down the order in the WC. This is two years of cricket we're talking about, including two major world tournaments. It's not just a few games.What makes anyone think he'll do better at a higher level of the game? He's been around the Aussie set-up for a good 7 years now and is almost 27. There's been plenty of investment, when does a little 'return' appear?
Sorry, but it's still only incremental increases. Relative to his supposed potential and the big wraps he's had on him since day dot, it's middling at best. He's only bowled 'exceptionally' relative to previous form, not by any other more objective measure. If people had only rated him as a James Hope-esque all-rounder then sure, those are decent numbers. As a contributing team member, he's done enough, solid B average. But we've been told for many years (by himself not least of all) that he's ready to dominate and not just contribute. Injuries notwithstanding, where's the beef?You read my post right? That's the "little return" appearing. Watson's record in his last 25 matches (which includes all of 2006 and 2007, to avoid selecting only his best games) his record is 547 runs @ 36.47 and 29 wickets @ 29.38, with an ER of a bit over 5. That's significantly better than his career record, and his domestic OD record, and most significantly he has had a very good period within that time with the ball, in which he was consistently taking wickets, he's been very good up the order (average of 41.86 opening for his career, without a chance to do it for an extended period), and he's also shown that he can bat well down the order in the WC. This is two years of cricket we're talking about, including two major world tournaments. It's not just a few games.
So no, it's not just speculation about his potential, this is actual performance. The potential comes in when you believe he's capable of stringing together these elements into a consistent period of injury free cricket, in which he is potentially capable of bowling a good 10 over spell and averaging 40ish at the top of the order or hitting out down the order. He is "potentially" a world class all-rounder. He is, and has been, a good one.
edit: Also, I think it's worth noting that Watson has done extremely well in each of the two major tournaments Australia has played in recently. He hasn't really had the chance to play a lot of games or play much cricket at home, but he went to India and batted decently and bowled exceptionally, and in the WC he was something of a revelation, at least in terms of his capabilities with the bat.
So the fact that he's performing pretty well isn't meaningful because he was hyped? So if Michael Clarke averages 45 in test cricket instead of 55, he doesn't warrant a spot because he didn't live up to potential? That's not really how it works.Sorry, but it's still only incremental increases. Relative to his supposed potential and the big wraps he's had on him since day dot, it's middling at best. He's only bowled 'exceptionally' relative to previous form, not by any other more objective measure. If people had only rated him as a James Hope-esque all-rounder then sure, those are decent numbers. As a contributing team member, he's done enough, solid B average. But we've been told for many years (by himself not least of all) that he's ready to dominate and not just contribute. Injuries notwithstanding, where's the beef?
I've said it for ages, his batting has a good deal more about it than his bowling does. Give up the ball, give the batting a decent run and he'll be back in the Test side and we'll forget there ever was an Andy Symonds.