• 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.

Who is a better young all-rounder Watson or Bravo

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
aussie said:
well what liam said is true but that doesn't mean his bowling has stood out, which it has thus far in his career
Batting over 30, bowling over 35 - how has the bowling stood out?
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
marc71178 said:
So how come his average in Tests is over 40 when you take out the 2 gimme games?
Averages don't mean everything, however I wasn't aware of that statistic - still, do you not think that on his day he is an excellent swing bowler?
 

tassietiger

U19 Debutant
Is this thread serious? Although Bravo hasn't proverbially set the world on fire, he has done a lot more than Watson and looks to have far more potential. Watson's temperament (mainly in his bowling) needs a lot of work for a start, but there are more holes in his game at the moment than there are in Bravo's
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
Batting over 30, bowling over 35 - how has the bowling stood out?
you have seen as much of him as i have, not looking at averages which aspect of his game looks to have stood out???
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
Watson will play a fair few test for Australia, more as a batsman who bowls abit though, rather than an all rounder i reakon
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
age_master said:
Watson will play a fair few test for Australia, more as a batsman who bowls abit though, rather than an all rounder i reakon
naa his has enough potential in both aspects to become and out & out all-rounder to me, but time will tell
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
You probably should have called the thread "I think Shane Watson's better than Dwayne Bravo because he's Australian and Bravo isn't", which would save people reading it.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
if i wanted to do that i wouldn't have started this thread neil, but i want to hear the views of others 8-), please ur making me sound biased......
 
Last edited:

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
aussie said:
if i wanted to do that i wouldn't have started this thread neil, but i want to hear the views of others 8-), please ur making me sound biased......
No one needs to make you sound biased any more than we need to say that Glenn McGrath is the best fast bowler in the world.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
aussie said:
you have seen as much of him as i have, not looking at averages which aspect of his game looks to have stood out???
He looked to me a decent cricketer - but his batting at number 6 impressed me a great deal.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
He looked to me a decent cricketer - but his batting at number 6 impressed me a great deal.
has i said before after his good performance here last year, his batting at #6 did look good, but since then he has looked pretty ordinary, even in the home series againts SA he dropped down # 7. But still its early days but to date its his bowling that has been his standpoint.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
aussie said:
yeah after his sensational match here at old trafford i thought he was going to be real young star, but has so many good young player last year he has been brought down to earth. Pup & Pathan come to mind 8-)
Umm... he's hardly bowled poorly since though. He may not have had amazing success, but he's not been smashed by any means.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Watson- Just a bit of either skill, but not enough to force himself into a batting lineup or bowling attack. Even his complete contribution doesn't make much difference. Symonds and Harvey are a lot more relevant in the Australian side.

Bravo- Good enough for the West Indies, and very relevant. Not outright quick, but uses a lot of variations in his bowling. Not one who can get set and score big hundreds all the time, but he can score quickly.
 

tassietiger

U19 Debutant
Bravo - Gun. Will be quite a good cricketer.
Watson - I would say he's as good as a pile of crap, but that would be a very controversial selection dillemma.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
tassietiger said:
Bravo - Gun. Will be quite a good cricketer.
Watson - I would say he's as good as a pile of crap, but that would be a very controversial selection dillemma.
so your convinced that Bravo will be quite a good cricketer & Watson will be crap :sleep: , any substantial reason why????
 

King_Ponting

International Regular
tassietiger said:
Bravo - Gun. Will be quite a good cricketer.
Watson - I would say he's as good as a pile of crap, but that would be a very controversial selection dillemma.
lol i like your honesty.
 

Top