To call Watson an allrounder , we have to redefine what do we mean by all-round abilities. He should come nowhere near the Australian team.toothpick said:What does everyone think of him? Personally, I don't rate him at all but some people think he is Australia's answer to an all-rounder? Your thoughts..
Decent batsman from what I saw during the season here, and can tie up an end with the ball.Pothas said:What do people think of Thornley on this forum? He is hampshires second overseas player this year and i dont know much about him apart from he played for Surrey a bit last year
I concur with this.FaaipDeOiad said:As far as I'm concerned, he deserves a solid run in the team, similar to what Symonds has recieved. Give him 10 tests, and if he's not performing them drop him by all means, but writing the guy off given the opportunities he has had is absurd.
He only has (or seems to have) two gears - block everything or smash everything.Pedro Delgado said:I concur with this.
On a tangent, I'm still wondering how or why Symonds has failed so miserably, again. I didn't much of the SA series (thank you Sky and your dodgy equipment) what's up with him? He seems to have all the talent in the world in the ODI format.
Yep. The time for giving Watson an extended Symonds-like run in the Test team, is post-Ashes. With the Ashes, the selectors must be focussed on winning - not blooding players. To that end, Clarke (who, let's not forget, averaged the same as Ricky Ponting in the last Ashes series) in at six for Symonds, and Watson to bake in the Pura Cup oven for another summer.Jono said:To put it simply, even taking into account Symonds and Watson's apparent all-round abilities, at the moment:
Clarke > Watson > Symonds.
Hence why Clarke should come straight into the team ahead of Symonds IMO, and Watson can get a go when Martyn hangs them up. But for now, and this is including the Ashes, Clarke in, Symonds gone for good, Watson to wait a while. .