• 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.

***Official*** Australia in South Africa

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
He's a case where average doesn't tell the whole story. He doesn't bat for long periods of time, doesn't make big scores and comes straight from the Inzamam school of running. His record looks reasonably impressive taken in isolation but he does absolutely bugger all to help the team with his performances with the bat and risks running out his partners. Despite his average of 45 or whatever it is, I don't think his performances as an opener have been good enough. That's not to say I wouldn't have him in the team (which admittedlg isn't clear from my post), but there were murmurs about moving him down the order after Sri Lanka and I think there's legitimate questions about how he handles his workload. I don't think it's any coincidence that his best innings in the Ashes was in Perth where he wasn't required to bowl.
To be fair it's not like many other Aussie bas men have been hitting 100's for fun recently. Watson was still the second highest run scorer in the Ashes, and if Australia didn't have his starts in the Ashes it could have been humiliating.
 

Redbacks

International Captain
To be fair it's not like many other Aussie bas men have been hitting 100's for fun recently. Watson was still the second highest run scorer in the Ashes, and if Australia didn't have his starts in the Ashes it could have been humiliating.
3 innings defeats at home and 1/517 in Brisbane, not sure what could be more embarrassing.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
To be fair it's not like many other Aussie bas men have been hitting 100's for fun recently. Watson was still the second highest run scorer in the Ashes, and if Australia didn't have his starts in the Ashes it could have been humiliating.
You mean Watson's starts like the one he had at Adelaide? Where he and Hussey recovered very well from the shambles that was the first 13 balls, to the point where they'd put on 91 runs and recovered the innings from 2/3 to 93/3, before Watson threw away his wicket by slashing to gully and left Australia at 93/4, which is a pretty dire position.

That's precisely what I'm getting at with Watson. He scored 50 which looks good for his average, but his innings didn't really do much in terms of either rescuing the Test for Australia or even setting Australia up to potentially win it, something Watson does far too often. And Ponting and Clarke could at least point to getting absolute beauties from Anderson early on in their innings. Watson had done the hard work before throwing it away, and exposed the lower order to a ball that was barely 30 overs old.
 

Cabinet96

Hall of Fame Member
You mean Watson's starts like the one he had at Adelaide? Where he and Hussey recovered very well from the shambles that was the first 13 balls, to the point where they'd put on 91 runs and recovered the innings from 2/3 to 93/3, before Watson threw away his wicket by slashing to gully and left Australia at 93/4, which is a pretty dire position.

That's precisely what I'm getting at with Watson. He scored 50 which looks good for his average, but his innings didn't really do much in terms of either rescuing the Test for Australia or even setting Australia up to potentially win it, something Watson does far too often. And Ponting and Clarke could at least point to getting absolute beauties from Anderson early on in their innings. Watson had done the hard work before throwing it away, and exposed the lower order to a ball that was barely 30 overs old.
But who can you say would have done a better job? Thats my point.

It's no doubt Watson has a problem with converting starts. I think because of his technique he can't pick off singles easily and therefore gets bogged down when the boundaries aren't coming.
 

howardj

International Coach
He's a case where average doesn't tell the whole story. He doesn't bat for long periods of time, doesn't make big scores and comes straight from the Inzamam school of running. His record looks reasonably impressive taken in isolation but he does absolutely bugger all to help the team with his performances with the bat and risks running out his partners. Despite his average of 45 or whatever it is, I don't think his performances as an opener have been good enough. That's not to say I wouldn't have him in the team (which admittedlg isn't clear from my post), but there were murmurs about moving him down the order after Sri Lanka and I think there's legitimate questions about how he handles his workload. I don't think it's any coincidence that his best innings in the Ashes was in Perth where he wasn't required to bowl.
Very interesting take on things. As an opener in ODIs, he does seem to be a little bit in cruise mode, sometimes jamming things up in the early overs and not going on with it when he does get a start. Agree with the general consensus though that he's a long way from being dropped. Doesn't mean that the call for his head is completely outrageous though (well, not completely).
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Very interesting take on things. As an opener in ODIs, he does seem to be a little bit in cruise mode, sometimes jamming things up in the early overs and not going on with it when he does get a start. Agree with the general consensus though that he's a long way from being dropped. Doesn't mean that the call for his head is completely outrageous though (well, not completely).
Nah, as an opener, and indeed, as an allround package, he's brilliant in ODIs. In Tests, not so much.
 

howardj

International Coach
oh cool, didn't read the thread thoroughly enough

my error

looking forward to the Tests, I love how they come after the ODIs, giving both sides a chance to acclimatise and get back into international cricket mode.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I can see where GF's coming from, but Watson is in the top 5 most valuable cricketers in the world, imo.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
You mean Watson's starts like the one he had at Adelaide? Where he and Hussey recovered very well from the shambles that was the first 13 balls, to the point where they'd put on 91 runs and recovered the innings from 2/3 to 93/3, before Watson threw away his wicket by slashing to gully and left Australia at 93/4, which is a pretty dire position.

That's precisely what I'm getting at with Watson. He scored 50 which looks good for his average, but his innings didn't really do much in terms of either rescuing the Test for Australia or even setting Australia up to potentially win it, something Watson does far too often. And Ponting and Clarke could at least point to getting absolute beauties from Anderson early on in their innings. Watson had done the hard work before throwing it away, and exposed the lower order to a ball that was barely 30 overs old.
For the reasons you are providing, I can't buy this argument at all.

Let's make one thing clear. Nobody, including yourself I believe, has a problem with what Watson is averaging as an opener. In fact, I think it would be completely unreasonable to expect him to average more than 45-50 - if he did he would be in contention as one of the best openers of all time.

So assuming that is something we can agree on, let me try and explain why I think your point is null.

If you accept his average is fine, then what is the difference in him, for example in the Adelaide test, getting two half centuries or a 100 and 0, or 0 and 100? In terms of runs, it makes absolutely no difference, and Australia would have been in exactly the same position. You could provide all sorts of arguments like Watson getting a 100 in the first innings would demoralise the attack and allow better partnerships to form, increasing the overall amount of runs scored etc. But then I could counter that by saying, if he got a duck in the second innings the other batsman would have been exposed to a newer ball, and the momentum would shift to the English bowlers. I really don't think there is much substance to the kind of arguments above. If anything, imo scoring two 50's is probably slightly better because it means other batsmen are protected from the new ball in both innings, rather than just one if the batsman scores e.g. a 100 and 0.

Is it a coincidence that the major criticism of Watson has come at a time when the rest of the batting has largely failed? No it isn't...if other batsman actually gave him some support, I doubt anyone would even be bringing it up. It shouldn't be expected of Watson to cover for the other batsman's failures by scoring runs at a ridiculous average.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Masssssive DWTA.

If Watson had scored a hundred in the first innings we would have drawn the test. Simple as that.

Slashing one to gully when set and your team is 3/90 is just not on. Whilst statistically it looks fine, GF is correct in saying that sort of batting doesn't help the team as much as it looks.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Masssssive DWTA.

If Watson had scored a hundred in the first innings we would have drawn the test. Simple as that.

Slashing one to gully when set and your team is 3/90 is just not on. Whilst statistically it looks fine, GF is correct in saying that sort of batting doesn't help the team as much as it looks.
Err what?

As it was Watson scored 51 and 57, at an average of 54 for the match. If you assume the average has to stay the same, let him score 108 and 0, then. You think if he got those scores the match would have been drawn? The overall runs made are exactly the same...
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Err what?

As it was Watson scored 51 and 57, at an average of 54 for the match. If you assume the average has to stay the same, let him score 108 and 0, then. You think if he got those scores the match would have been drawn? The overall runs made are exactly the same...
Nah, I'd have to disagree there. Scoring a ton and then a duck is, in general, better than scoring two fifties. Scoring a ton - especially in the first innings - can set up the game for your team and dramatically change the complexion of the game from the get-go. 50s less so.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Nah, I'd have to disagree there. Scoring a ton and then a duck is, in general, better than scoring two fifties. Scoring a ton - especially in the first innings - can set up the game for your team and dramatically change the complexion of the game from the get-go. 50s less so.
If you argue scoring a first innings 100 can set up the game for the team, why can't you also argue scoring a second innings duck can bring the opposition right back into the game?
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
He's a case where average doesn't tell the whole story. He doesn't bat for long periods of time, doesn't make big scores and comes straight from the Inzamam school of running. His record looks reasonably impressive taken in isolation but he does absolutely bugger all to help the team with his performances with the bat and risks running out his partners. Despite his average of 45 or whatever it is, I don't think his performances as an opener have been good enough. That's not to say I wouldn't have him in the team (which admittedlg isn't clear from my post), but there were murmurs about moving him down the order after Sri Lanka and I think there's legitimate questions about how he handles his workload. I don't think it's any coincidence that his best innings in the Ashes was in Perth where he wasn't required to bowl.
:laugh: I see my post qualified as a big enough bite.

Frankly I think that's a rubbish stance. For the first time in my life, I think I agree with DeusEx.
 

uvelocity

International Coach
Either way it's not like he bagged a pair, is one of our best performing players in all forms. Plus a leader in the team, he is under no pressure for his spot and and talk of that kind is insane or trolling.

The only chance of Watson missing a test in the next 2 years is through injury.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Err what?

As it was Watson scored 51 and 57, at an average of 54 for the match. If you assume the average has to stay the same, let him score 108 and 0, then. You think if he got those scores the match would have been drawn? The overall runs made are exactly the same...
Yes, because of the situation.

4/190 isn't fantastic but it isn't terrible either. You can still make a decent total

4/90 is pretty poor.

First innings runs > Second innings runs, in general.

Not saying it's useless but there is merit to the argument that his inability to convert hurts us at times.
 

Top