Watson - Love him or hate him?

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

Watson has had these issues ever since he started professional cricket. I remember in his second or third season him going off at Hodge after his run out attempt accidentally (presumably) hit him. Watson almost exploded and didn't take it nicely at all. If that happened to Chris Gayle he would have been calmer than a hippie in the middle of a marijuana field (although Gayle isn't exactly a representative of the spirit of the game).

Please take a moment or two to read this and see if you agree with me:

I have written a paper on commodification of cricket, and I theorised that these days spirit of the game comes down to money. I would hazard a guess that of all the population of true cricket lovers, approx. 80% believe in the spirit of the game and want to see it still in full action in cricket presently. That means that the ICC, and in particular the independent boards world wide, have to cater for this public interest. Therefore if a player doesn't show a minimum standard of spirit of the game - on and OFF the field, money will be lost due to the sponsorship cycle being broken as a result of public disinterest, and through many various reasons that I won't go into (unless you ask for clarification). This may be minimal as it is, but why keep playing someone that reduces the interest of cricket and not following guidelines set by over 200 years of cricket, when someone similarly talented can follow those basic guidelines and play with at least half a brain for sportsmanship can bring in more revenue for the board and themselves, plus create a greater public interest. Would it be more interesting to see Watson succeed then say Phil Hughes? I think majority would say no, most would prefer to see Hughes do the things Watson is doing. This is why Symonds lost his contract on the spot, he had lost the board too much money, and although he was averaging 55 in Tests over the past three series and 50 in ODIs, plus being the best T20 player in the world, they couldn't stand to lose that money when they could replace him with someone who could do a similar job. He wasn't irreplaceable, and neither is Watson. He needs to pull his head in and understand that by him doing things that allow for even threads like this to be created means that sponsors will not enjoy sponsoring him as much as if he was a decent guy on and off the field. Sportsmen are role models, and I wouldn't like anyone's son growing up like Watto.

Look, I disagree with that, as I said earlier, to me there is a clear distinction between the laws of the game and the 'spirit of the game'.

IMO the umpires are in control of the laws of the game and they enforce those laws as best they can. A brief look through the laws of the game will show you the laws relating to pitch specifications and preparation, gear specifications, LBW rules, playing conditions, ball tampering, etc, etc.

Some of those laws are very easy to judge, such as the LBW law, while others are a lot more blurred such as the laws relating to ball tampering and time wasting.

The spirit of the game is controlled by the players. There may be guidelines in the laws of cricket on how to deal with ball tampering, time wasting etc but these are juts that - guidelines.

With these 'guideline' laws it is up to the players to comply with them on their own accord - that is - to play within the spirit of the game. People these days crap on about batsmen not showing displeasure, or not appealing or whatever - but that doesn't happen and it has never happened. For mine that is not what the spirit of the game is.

The spirit of the game, as I said above, relates to players complying with those guidelines that are very hard for umpires to enforce.

For example, Strauss sending out the physio to waste time - it is very hard for an umpire to not know that a player is not genuinely injured and the umpire will nearly always allow medical attention just in case it is really needed. Players can take advantage of that as outlined above.

There is IMO a distinct difference between the laws of the game and the spirit of the game, these days the term spirit of the game is used for everything from Ponting spitting in his hands to his cap falling apart.

 

[Boris]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

Look, I disagree with that, as I said earlier, to me there is a clear distinction between the laws of the game and the 'spirit of the game'.

IMO the umpires are in control of the laws of the game and they enforce those laws as best they can. A brief look through the laws of the game will show you the laws relating to pitch specifications and preparation, gear specifications, LBW rules, playing conditions, ball tampering, etc, etc.

Some of those laws are very easy to judge, such as the LBW law, while others are a lot more blurred such as the laws relating to ball tampering and time wasting.

The spirit of the game is controlled by the players. There may be guidelines in the laws of cricket on how to deal with ball tampering, time wasting etc but these are juts that - guidelines.

With these 'guideline' laws it is up to the players to comply with them on their own accord - that is - to play within the spirit of the game. People these days crap on about batsmen not showing displeasure, or not appealing or whatever - but that doesn't happen and it has never happened. For mine that is not what the spirit of the game is.

The spirit of the game, as I said above, relates to players complying with those guidelines that are very hard for umpires to enforce.

For example, Strauss sending out the physio to waste time - it is very hard for an umpire to not know that a player is not genuinely injured and the umpire will nearly always allow medical attention just in case it is really needed. Players can take advantage of that as outlined above.

There is IMO a distinct difference between the laws of the game and the spirit of the game, these days the term spirit of the game is used for everything from Ponting spitting in his hands to his cap falling apart.

That is a very good post, point and opinion, but for me the first law of cricket is the spirit of the game. It is mentioned as the first and foremost thing in the actual book of laws (not that I have read the whole thing).

There is the difference between gamesmanship and sportsmanship by thinking that the umpires control the game, and therefore it is their explicit job to enforce it. A player should attempt to follow the laws at all times without the need for someone to constantly tell and correct them on what they are doing.

 

[The Ox]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

I agree somewhat with what you say. When McGrath was involved in some incidents (spitting at a batsmen (98), abusing Tendulkar with a send-off (00), incident with Sarwan (03) there was uproar - people didn't excuse that behaviour with excuses about his off-field character - and nor should they.

The incident with Tendulkar (MCG boxing day test 1999) was disgraceful in terms of cricket behaviour, and it spoiled a great contest between the two which McGrath ultimately won on the occasion.

Don't forget the Eddo Brandes incident.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

Don't forget the Eddo Brandes incident.

The best burn in the history of cricket

 

[distributer of pain]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

Regarding watson, so it isnt whether you can bat or bowl its how you play the game? maybe i should turn up to the aussie nets tommorow.

Seriously, who gives a shit if he overreacts when taking a wkt or milks every runout in the 90s for what its worth, as gilfish once said, we're entertainers, nothing more.

I reckon most of you hate him because you all wrote him off long ago (as i did) and he had the cheek to prove you wrong.

He does have a very kickable head though i must admit.

 

[lewissaffin]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

The best burn in the history of cricket

To put a nerdish spin on events, that was the 2nd best in the history of sport according to: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article2178440.ece

There are some right classics in there!

 

[Sober Symonds]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

I won't say that I 'love' him, but I am a supporter of Watson and thats due mostly due to his on-field achievements and his attacking nature to the game of cricket.

I don't think me, you or anybody else outside of his friends/family/acquantances are in any position to judge the character of Watson. As our opinions of his character are built up almost entirely of seeing him on the cricket field, and if you have played sport before you should know that most people's demeanour changes when in competition.

I wish people would just treat sportsmen as sportsmen, comment about their sporting form and not their characteristic flaws - of which we all have atleast one and Sober Symonds is doing a fine job of demonstrating that.

Be careful setting yourself up as an impartial puritan, Koenig. To expect contributors to a forum such as this to not exhibit any leanings towards favourites or dispised figures is a bit rich.

As for whether or not we really know them, you're right, we don't. We only have what we see & hear upon which to judge. That is why they have to behave a certain way, my friend. Roles models: whether you agree with them or not, are a fact of life ... or sport.

That's crap Boris, Watson has had one main transgression. When he gave Gayle a send-off, although you could easily argue that Watson was provoked by Gayle and / or the rest of the West Indies team.

People may dislike Watson because he doesn't mind a bit of a sledge or eye contact with the batsmen but it doesn't look right because of Watson's appearance. They think his a 'poser' so to speak which is crap.

This spirit of the game IMO refers to how you play the part of the game that really isn't governed by hard and fast laws or areas that can be exploited by teams...

You could argue that, not too many others would.

I'm not going to repeat myself every time I visit this thread. In fact, it's getting boring. Boris makes a good point about SW, but I maintain it's not just about the spirit of the game. Nor is it just about the way he looks. And it certainly isn't just about his "one indiscretion". It's more than that, and not so easily defined. If you don't see it then good for you.

But the best players, by best I mean those of better character, would rise above it, prefering to let their performance do the talking. Steyn almost always flips out when he gets a wicket, especially if its KP's! but he doesnt pump his fists or shout at KP, that sort of behaviour is just childish imo, for anyone that does it, if its watson, broad anyone. it doesnt need to be in the game

I'm with you, TeeJay.

 

[Boris]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

Pretty much if you wouldn't do it front of your mother or your son, then don't do it on a cricket field.

 

[Thumbs up]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

So lets pick the 12th man, specialist fieldsman, from the scummiest bogan infested area possible. Not much problem with you criteria Boris.

 

[Boris]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

So lets pick the 12th man, specialist fieldsman, from the scummiest bogan infested area possible. Not much problem with you criteria Boris.

You suggesting that 12th man should always come from Victoria?

 

[Thumbs up]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

You suggesting that 12th man should always come from Victoria?

No we use sunblock down here... no red necks (essential for full bogan effect)

 

[The Ox]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

So lets pick the 12th man, specialist fieldsman, from the scummiest bogan infested area possible. Not much problem with you criteria Boris.

Grab a bloke from Redfern or Moe you reckon?

 

[Boris]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

I have so many things to say but this thread is already far enough off topic

Let's stop before we get it closed or something.

 

[Thumbs up]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

I have so many things to say but this thread is already far enough off topic

Let's stop before we get it closed or something.

That wouldn't be a bad thing this tpoic has run its race, until (not unless) he does something stupid again then we can dust this off and try again.

If there are so many things you could say why not say them you comment was off topic anyway.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

Well done to the great man, Shane Watson.

It was a masterstroke to bring him in to open the batting, when many people at large foolishly thought he wasn't up to it. I always knew he was good enough to play at test level, and I knew it years ago when I saw him bat at number 3 for Queensland on the gabba tracks.

I have watched Australian fans mock him at will over the years, calling him robot and mentally weak and who knows what else.

As the late TJ Whitten used to say.

'You stuck it right up em'!!!

 

[Caesar]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

I don't think many people doubted he could play at Test level if he managed to get his fitness in order for a decent period.

As for opening the batting - I'll readily admit that he's surprised me with his success there, but nonetheless I still maintain he would be better suited in the middle order. Just because he can open doesn't mean he should - I feel he'd be just as if not more successful at number 5 or 6, and as a whole the opening slots have better depth than the rest of the order at present.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

I don't think many people doubted he could play at Test level if he managed to get his fitness in order for a decent period.

As for opening the batting - I'll readily admit that he's surprised me with his success there, but nonetheless I still maintain he would be better suited in the middle order. Just because he can open doesn't mean he should - I feel he'd be just as if not more successful at number 5 or 6, and as a whole the opening slots have better depth than the rest of the order at present.

Your not serious are you? You know, as well as I do, that most people thought he was a hack who was a poor man's Flintoff who only got into the side due to our desire to find an all-rounder. The ridicule goes back years, you saw it on other forums. The taunts of being a 'robot' and being mentally weak and only being in the side because he moved to NSW.

The guy has come out and absolutely smashed it since his been back in the team. He is averaging 56 with the bat and 29 with the ball since his return, be in zero doubt, Watson is our ace in the pack at the moment.

Some people need to admit they were wrong, not running with this token stuff like "he has surprised me but I still maintain he should bat at 5 or 6". Watson has always been a top 4 batsmen and someone who can bowl 10 - 15 overs an innings.

He enjoys the new rock and the field up, he also gets under the skin of the opposition for some reason which is always a plus. He is a perfect top order batsmen.

I love the man, it gives me great satisfaction to see him performing and proving so many nuffies wrong like Jeff Thompson, who said it was 'ridiculous' that Watson was opening and that the likes of Jacques and Rogers have a right to be 'pissed off'.

Watson should have got up on stage last night and flicked the two fingers at the crowd and then hurled a beer into the throng, it was a disgrace the way he has been treated by ex-players who go missing when their predictions are about as accurate as a German WW2 machine gun.

It's alright to have an opinion, but some people need to be man enough to admit they are wrong. That's one thing about the 'macho cricketers from the 70's, they might be able to drink all night but they can't admit they were wrong.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

Your not serious are you? You know, as well as I do, that most people thought he was a hack who was a poor man's Flintoff who only got into the side due to our desire to find an all-rounder. The ridicule goes back years, you saw it on other forums. The taunts of being a 'robot' and being mentally weak and only being in the side because he moved to NSW.

That's pretty revisionist. Plenty of people (including myself) never really saw him as a Test allrounder, but anybody with a FC average hovering around 45 is hardly going to be a surprise batting selection. As I say, it was always a question of his body holding up rather than his ability.

Some people need to admit they were wrong, not running with this token stuff like "he has surprised me but I still maintain he should bat at 5 or 6".

Why? It's not token stuff. Reality is that he performs as well (if not better) in the middle order, and Australia currently has a lack of depth there and a surplus of quality openers.

I love the man, it gives me great satisfaction to see him performing and proving so many nuffies wrong like Jeff Thompson, who said it was 'ridiculous' that Watson was opening and that the likes of Jacques and Rogers have a right to be 'pissed off'.

It WAS ridiculous, and Jacques and Rogers DID have a right to be pissed off at the initial selection. They were veteran, proven openers with Test experience who were overlooked for somebody who has never consistently opened in FC cricket.

Regardless of how well Watson's done (and he's certainly done very well, no doubt about it) he was originally selected to open more by good luck than good management. That Ashes tour was the first one I can remember where the squad included only one reserve batsman. If a reserve opener had been brought (which, prima facie, would have been the sensible selection decision) Watson would never have got his chance when Hughes was dropped.

LtD, I by no means am trying to minimise Watson's cricketing achievements here. But you're making out like everybody in Australia except you thought he was a spud and now he's doing well everybody wants to shit on his success. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Boris]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

As for opening the batting - I'll readily admit that he's surprised me with his success there, but nonetheless I still maintain he would be better suited in the middle order. Just because he can open doesn't mean he should - I feel he'd be just as if not more successful at number 5 or 6, and as a whole the opening slots have better depth than the rest of the order at present.

I believe he is also not suited to opening. With the form he is in he can bat at 11 and score hundreds (or near enough ) so it doesn't matter where he is for the time being. What happens when his form runs out though? I do think he would be better taking North's position and having a 'proper' opener there. Watson hadn't even succeeded at domestic level opening to begin with.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

Watson has never looked comfortable in the middle order and by middle order I'm referring to his performances in India in late 2008 - sure that is a very small sample size but it's all we have to judge his performance at test level in the 'middle order'.

In first class cricket he has normally batted at 3 or 4. This talk that Watson has performed at his best in the middle order is a myth. If we take his test cricket performance in the middle order it was satisfactory at best. Similar to his stints in ODI cricket in the middle order, there really wasn't much to write home about.

I have been saying his at his best up the order for the simple reason that he enjoys the hard new rock and the field up and starting his innings against the seamers.

He is a confidence player, coming in down the order will often mean that he needs to push on for a declaration or hit out with the tailenders in after him. It doesn't give him the chance to build an innings as much as opening does, and often he will have to give his wicket away for a quick hit out.

To me, that's the last thing you want to do to Watson, when he was so desperate to secure his spot - a few low scores and pressure mounts. We saw that when he was in ODI cricket - having to hit out didn't do him any favours.

Justin Langer went from 3 to opening and was one of our finest ever players in that position - I don't see Watson's lack of opening at FC cricket as a viable reason to exclude him from that position. In fact, if anything the appointment to opener has been a masterstroke - in both forms of the game. The powers to be deserve credit for that decision.

Jacques and Rogers may feel pissed off, I'd hope not, because fact of the matter is Watson has both those players covered in terms of batting ability alone. His inclusion is further enhanced by his fielding and bowling. Langer was proof that you don't need previous experience as an opener to succeed. Watson beat Rogers and Jacques to the opening position because he is simply a better cricketer and a better batsmen. They have nothing to be pissed off about.

Im not saying everyone thought he was a spud, but a fair majority doubted Watson's ability to perform at this level, whether that was due to injury, attitude or simply talent, it's not important.

Watson proved a hell of a lot of people wrong.