I don't think his better OD bowling comes into it as he is used as 5th Bowler, not a front line bowler. If he playing as a top 4 bowler batting at 8 then i would go for Hopes, but at No 7 you can go for the lesser bowler. Hopes is only slightly better hitter then Watson, so it not a big issue either.FaaipDeOiad said:
nahh faaip even though Watson may not be suited has a OD bowling all-rounder he hasn't done such a bad job at it at all.FaaipDeOiad said:
If he had a few more overs up his sleve in the world cup he would have made 200 i reckon..King_Ponting said:I'd say Ponting... Just by looking at Pontings ability to accelerate after looking bogged down in an innings is extraordinary. Just look at the innings he played in the world cup final, his first 50 looked sluggish and his next 90 well that was amazing...... Pontings ability to hit sixes one handed also comes in handy, Quite a piece of willoew he has at the moment
What if they are? Unless you suggest Australia plays nothing but all-rounders, there's not much that can be done. Really, at 5 down you would have one top 6 batsman + hopes, with Hogg, Lee and Gillespie to come. Not as bad as it could be.marc71178 said:
A point ive raised on occasions. I think that with the bowling atack they have already they should take a risk and play hussey at 7. Who, by the way is a master at hitting out in the latter stages of a one day match and has the uncanny knack of keeping his wicket intact.marc71178 said:
Playing Hussey at 7 is fine, but it does mean that 10 overs will have to come from he, Symonds and Clarke, which without Hopes in the squad seems like the best move. Seems like that will happen anyway, with McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Hogg playing as the specialists, and Gillespie and McGrath rotating out for Kasprowicz. I just hope they don't waste Watson at 8 any more, it's ridiculous. He's a batting all-rounder and they are treating him like Brad Hogg.King_Ponting said:
Is Hodge in the one day side? If he is that's ********, and I don't think he should even be considered let alone a spot in the top 6. The problem for Watson is that the selectors see him in the Aussie line up as a bowling allrounder - what a disgrace it was for him to bat below Gilchrist in his only test. Until they realise he is a batting allrounder the better off Australia and Watson will be.chaminda_00 said:
Great post.Mister Wright said:
It was an utter disgrace! A guy who bats at four for his State (even pushes Andrew Symonds from 4 to 5) can't bat at 6 at test level? What a joke! It wasn't like he was doing a truck load of bowling that he had to bat at 7. There were 4 bowlers in there and he only had about 13 overs in the first innings, and Australia were in such a dominant position that McGrath could have come in at 7, so why not see what he has got, rather than sending in someone we know can do the job?social said:
Exactly. I can't see the reasoning behind this push to get young players into the team, especially if it is detrimental to their future chances. We all know Watson is a talented player, but is it best for the team him, doing a role that is not suited to him? Play someone like Hopes who fully deserves his chance as a bowling allrounder, and give Watson plenty of time in domestic cricket to build experience, and take him on the test tours to give him experience, or even play a vital role as an allrounder if conditions warrant. But why waste him in the one day side, when it quite possibly could have ramifications for the future?vic_orthdox said:
I dont think its that he 'cant' bat at 6 at test level, I think he can, but Australia as of late hasn't been all for the attitude of "hey lets toss him in here to see if he can do the job, instead of gilly who we know can", particularly in test matches. And there would be fair outrage if Watson was placed higher that Gilchrist, because there are more than enough people who believe Gilchrist doesn't bat high enough in tests.Mister Wright said:
It is like sending Katich or Clarke in at 7. They are batsman, so is Watson - it just happens that Watson can also roll his arm over like a front line bowler. He handled batting at 3 and 4 and bowling 15-20 overs an innings for Qld, with him bowling less overs in the test side, I see no reason to bat him below Gilchrist, who has surely had to do more work with the gloves.KennyD said:
