Watson - Love him or hate him?

[Boris]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

I'm not saying he didn't prove us wrong, but when he loses form and goes to become a non superhuman player, as should happen, I don't think he will be very good at the top. You can see in ODIs that he isn't a very good batting partner. There are lots of batsman out there that aren't, so it's nothing to worry about, but he has trouble when playing second fiddle in a partnership, which he hasn't had to do in Tests yet. When he does, he will have to do it for hours on end. Not sure on that sort of outcome...

Also he has batted best for Queensland batting at 5 and 6. To even give an example, Symonds batted ahead of him, which is saying something.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

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. 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.

4 is the middle order. Ponting and Clarke have 3 & 4 locked up so the options are lower middle order or opening. Personally I think he's more suited to the former, partially because I think he's a bit suspect defensively which IMO will cause problems when we play good sides and his form starts to dip.

Langer and Watson is a poor comparison as they're diametrically opposite kinds of players. Watson may well go on to become a very good opener for Australia but it won't be because of any similarities with JL.

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.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but they had a right to be pissed off because at the time that the opening slot became available they were both more deserving of it than Watson was.

Watson got the spot because he was the only option on tour as the result of some dodgy tour squad selection. I don't think you can describe him being put in to open as a 'masterstroke' because it was wholly inadvertent. If Hughes had been dropped at home we'd have seen him replaced with a traditional opener, and right now we'd be debating whether Watson should come in to replace North.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

I'm not saying he didn't prove us wrong, but when he loses form and goes to become a non superhuman player, as should happen, I don't think he will be very good at the top. You can see in ODIs that he isn't a very good batting partner. There are lots of batsman out there that aren't, so it's nothing to worry about, but he has trouble when playing second fiddle in a partnership, which he hasn't had to do in Tests yet. When he does, he will have to do it for hours on end. Not sure on that sort of outcome...

Also he has batted best for Queensland batting at 5 and 6. To even give an example, Symonds batted ahead of him, which is saying something.

Well when a player loses form it doesn't matter where he bats, he will struggle if his out of form. In fact, you can possibly say that when your out of form it is harder down the order. I can remember Gilly being out of form in Sri Lanka in 03/04 during the test series but during one test Punter hurt his back and couldn't bat in the 2nd innings at 3. Gilly came in at 3 and smashed a ton.

Have a look at JP Duminy, he can't get a run at the moment and his in at 6.

Hell, some people have even suggested that KP goes to number 3 to get out of his current form slump.

Trying to justify your own viewpoint by saying that when Watson loses form he won't be a good opener is absurd.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

Trying to justify your own viewpoint by saying that when Watson loses form he won't be a good opener is absurd.

Not entirely. Players with sound defensive technique tend to bat through form slumps better than those who don't, because they have something to retreat behind when they're not hitting the ball so well. This is exacerbated at the top of the order where the ball is quick and moving around.

Compare and contrast Langer and Hayden's career graphs, for example. Langer's innings during his form slumps tend to have a lot more runs in them than Hayden does in his - something which can perhaps be attributed to a lesser reliance on natural brilliance than his partner.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

4 is the middle order. Ponting and Clarke have 3 & 4 locked up so the options are lower middle order or opening. Personally I think he's more suited to the former, partially because I think he's a bit suspect defensively which IMO will cause problems when we play good sides and his form starts to dip.

Langer and Watson is a poor comparison as they're diametrically opposite kinds of players. Watson may well go on to become a very good opener for Australia but it won't be because of any similarities with JL.


Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but they had a right to be pissed off because at the time that the opening slot became available they were both more deserving of it than Watson was.

Watson got the spot because he was the only option on tour as the result of some dodgy tour squad selection. I don't think you can describe him being put in to open as a 'masterstroke' because it was wholly inadvertent. If Hughes had been dropped at home we'd have seen him replaced with a traditional opener, and right now we'd be debating whether Watson should come in to replace North.

More deserving?

How so, Watson is a better batsmen then both Jacques and Rogers - not to mention a better cricketer overall. How is it undeserving that he got picked over inferior players. At the time when the Ashes squad was picked Watson was selected as the reseve batsmen, rightly as he is a better bat then Jacques and Rogers although hard numbers wouldn't show that.


People were saying that picking Watson as the reserve bat was absurd, because most people didn't rate Watson as a batsmen. Lets be honest, some people were even saying we HADN'T PICKED A RESERVE BATSMEN - not even trying to hide their contempt for Watson's batting ability. Here is two articles to give you an example.

Exhibit A: Malcomm Conn

Selection blunders hamper Aussie Ashes assault with lack of batsmen | The Courier-Mail

Exhibit B: Chloe Saltau

Selectors in spotlight as wisdom of choices put to the test

It was a major talking point when the Ashes squad was announced, this isn't some humbo jumbo im making up, it was a prominent talking point.

Your basically trying to say Watson didn't deserve selection in the original Ashes party based on his numbers, and that Jacques and Rogers were more 'deserving' to fill the reserve batsmen role. Don't worry, you weren't the only one, as I indicated above.

As I said, not many people classed Watson as the reserve batsmen because they didn't rate him. It has now become clear that Watson is arguably the best batsmen in the side.

Therefore, those nuffies who were saying he didn't deserve selection as a batsmen look like fools. Selection isn't just based on stats, Watson got the nod and performed very well since that point.

Cricket is often about luck, a spot opened up for Watson and he took it, the dodgy reserve batsmen is now the best bat in the team on form. Suddenly all the experts have gone quiet. Maybe they just can't look past stats, maybe they just can't judge a player with their own eyes?

If Watson had a shocker as opener then maybe a long serving specialist would have been considered. However, Watson performed and history has shown many examples of players taking to the opening role without prior experience.

Langer is one, Katich is another.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

Not entirely. Players with sound defensive technique tend to bat through form slumps better than those who don't, because they have something to retreat behind when they're not hitting the ball so well. This is exacerbated at the top of the order where the ball is quick and moving around.

I don't see anything major that is wrong with Watson's defense. He had an LBW problem in England but it was a minor technical flaw which appears to have been rectified.

I'd think Watson would be happy with bowlers targeting his stumps, he'll belt them through mid on - mid wicket all day.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

Your basically trying to say Watson didn't deserve selection in the original Ashes party based on his numbers, and that Jacques and Rogers were more 'deserving' to fill the reserve batsmen role.

No I'm not, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that the Ashes tour squad should have had more than one reserve batsman. Furthermore, given that one of our openers was a very green young guy it would have been sensible that one of those reserve batsmen was an opener.

Watson didn't earn his initial selection as opener; he was a TINA candidate because of a lack of foresight in picking the squad. Full credit to him, he grasped the opportunity with both hands. But someone like Rogers can consider himself pretty hard done by that by not being in that squad, Watson got the chance that otherwise probably would have gone to him.

(For disclosure purposes, I did actually question whether Watson should be in the squad prior to the Ashes, mainly on the basis of fitness concerns and match practice. That's not relevant to the point I'm making however, which is whether Watson was the genuine first choice to replace Hughes or whether he simply was selected because he was the only batsman in the squad at the time)

 

[Caesar]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

I don't see anything major that is wrong with Watson's defense. He had an LBW problem in England but it was a minor technical flaw which appears to have been rectified.

I'd think Watson would be happy with bowlers targeting his stumps, he'll belt them through mid on - mid wicket all day.

We'll see. Don't forget that England was the last time we faced a decent Test bowling attack. At the moment our opposition is not that great, and at any rate Watson is currently seeing and timing the ball so well that he plays those square of the wicket shots exquisitely. It makes it difficult to evaluate a player's defensive ability (or otherwise).

I will be very interested to see how he goes when we play bowling attacks with some teeth, perhaps when he's not in such red-hot form. I already consider him a genuine Test bat (no surprise) but the ability to craft an innings under those sorts of conditions will go a long way to convincing me he's the real deal as a long-term opener.

 

[breeno]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

Watson is possibly my favourite player in the side, but to say that he is a far better batsman than Jaques and Rogers is ridiculous, despite how good Watson is now, if he wasn't making the runs, he wasn't a good batsman.

I don't care how you look like if you're making runs and your technique is working for you, you deserve to be in the side, whereas Watson wasn't making as many runs as the other two, so the other two deserved to be picked.

Fortunately that didn't happen, and now I hope Watson continues obliterating attacks.

 

[Sober Symonds]

Re: Watson - Love him or hate him?

All I will say for now LtD, is don't get too carried away with yourself. Watson won the AB Medal (made-for-TV bulls..t that I cannot watch - all due respect to the great AB himself), but if you allow the hysteria to dissipate it is after all a few months of good cricket. Very good cricket. I do not take that away from him whatsoever. It looks good for the future, but it's still not a profitable return for the investment just yet. There were many years of frustration before this, and you don't know what's round the corner.

If we return to the top of the pile on the back of his performances, maybe then he can be judged in the kind of light you're placing him. But for now, he's made a start and there are some big challenges ahead. Listen to those "70's hacks" you refer to - they've been through them.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

We'll see. Don't forget that England was the last time we faced a decent Test bowling attack. At the moment our opposition is not that great, and at any rate Watson is currently seeing and timing the ball so well that he plays those square of the wicket shots exquisitely. It makes it difficult to evaluate a player's defensive ability (or otherwise).

I will be very interested to see how he goes when we play bowling attacks with some teeth, perhaps when he's not in such red-hot form. I already consider him a genuine Test bat (no surprise) but the ability to craft an innings under those sorts of conditions will go a long way to convincing me he's the real deal as a long-term opener.

Pakistan not a decent test attack? Kaneria has over 200 test wickets at 30 odd, Asif is IMO one of the best seamers in the world and would walk into any side in the world. Aamer is young but can bowl 150+ and is highly rated while Gul is steady and consistent.

People have been seriously under-rating Pakistan's attack.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

Watson is possibly my favourite player in the side, but to say that he is a far better batsman than Jaques and Rogers is ridiculous, despite how good Watson is now, if he wasn't making the runs, he wasn't a good batsman.

I don't care how you look like if you're making runs and your technique is working for you, you deserve to be in the side, whereas Watson wasn't making as many runs as the other two, so the other two deserved to be picked.

Fortunately that didn't happen, and now I hope Watson continues obliterating attacks.

Why is it ridiculous?

On the basis of hard numbers, possibly, but in terms of talent and ability Watson is the equal of both Jacques and Rogers in batting ability.

 

[breeno]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

Why is it ridiculous?

On the basis of hard numbers, possibly, but in terms of talent and ability Watson is the equal of both Jacques and Rogers in batting ability.

And that is the way sides should be picked. After all Matthew Hayden was one of the best talents in the world but was edged out of the team because he wasn't making runs and others were.

 

[Boris]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

IMO Jaques is as good as Langer or Hayden if it came down to performance wise. If one of those had a grave injury during their career, I believe Jaques would have been able to step up and play to near the same affect. It has been a time and place issue for him for his whole career.

By process of elimination - Watson is not as good a batsman as either Langer or Hayden an therefore cannot be better than Jaques, especially when Jaques has outclassed him year after year domestically. Rogers on the other hand is an unknown to me.

As for the out of form thing I said back earlier, and LtD replied to, I didn't say he was out of form, I said he returns to normal form. There is only so long as a guy can average 70. And as Caesar said, a batsman of no great form still has ways of getting runs or at least holding down an end. Hussey is an example, his out of form period for two years he averaged 34 - not an absolute flop - and he did have quite a few large innings where he played streakily and scored little, but at least he held down the end. That is what an opening batsman simply has to do (at least one of the pair anyway) and Watson has played a whole 4 domestic games at the top, all of which he got out early in. No evidence to say he will perform well enough when out of form, let alone in reasonable averaging 50 form.

Batting at 5 and 6 are arguably the easiest (if you could call any position easy) positions for batting in the team, so along with North in trouble, and Jaques back in form I think it's time for a specialist opener, let Watson have the spot he's been playing for for all his life - number 6.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

And that is the way sides should be picked. After all Matthew Hayden was one of the best talents in the world but was edged out of the team because he wasn't making runs and others were.

No it isn't the way sides are picked.

A heap of things come into it outside pure statistics.

 

[Boris]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

No it isn't the way sides are picked.

A heap of things come into it outside pure statistics.

I don't agree with your Watson argument, but at least it's good to have someone say that and actually mean it. Everyone says they don't base things on stats, but in the end do.

Good to see you are following your argument and not contradicting yourself LtD, as you usually do, putting up a good well made argument.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

I don't agree with your Watson argument, but at least it's good to have someone say that and actually mean it. Everyone says they don't base things on stats, but in the end do.

Good to see you are following your argument and not contradicting yourself LtD, as you usually do, putting up a good well made argument.

What bit don't you agree with?

I have always said that Watson had a very real ability to be a fine batsmen for Australia, a guy capable of playing in the top order. I have been saying that for years, ever since he played for Queensland where at one stage he was averaging 50+ at FC cricket with the bat and 29 with the ball.

Watson was selected as a reserve batsmen for the Ashes, as usual, one reserve batsmen is picked. In the 2005 Ashes it was Brad Hodge.

Not many people rated Watson as a batsmen, and therefore were very critical of the decision.

Watson played and excelled ever since not just with bat but with ball.

Looking back on it, the decision to promote Watson was a great move.

I don't give a stuff about his past experience as an opener, that is irrevelant because he is a better, more complete batsmen then both Jacques and Rogers.

Im not surprised by his success, but once again, im also not surprised that many people won't admit they were wrong.

 

[breeno]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

LTD you're missing the point. We're not saying that he's no good and shouldn't have been picked, well at least I'm not. We're saying that batsmen who have out performed him domestically had a right to be pissed off when he was selected to tour ahead of them.

 

[Boris]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

LTD you're missing the point. We're not saying that he's no good and shouldn't have been picked, well at least I'm not. We're saying that batsmen who have out performed him domestically had a right to be pissed off when he was selected to tour ahead of them.

Especially when Watson was injured more than he wasn't, and had just come back from injury, only to be reinstated directly into the team pretty much. I'm sure Lee and Clark would absolutely have loved to have that lifeline. Both Jaques and Rogers were way ahead of Watson with both batting and moreso opening.

Watson has had flashes of brilliance, but has been interrupted by injuries. There isn't a way to have been able to judge him.

If there is an opening spot available, then the two guys that have been averaging above 50 domestically for years, have both played Tests, Jaques very successfully, and were almost knocking off the legends of Langer and Hayden at multiple times during their careers were more deserved of the spot.

This is all academic though, the choice was made and fortunately (yes it was complete luck) it worked, and worked very well. Now only time will tell if he can keep it up.

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Who will win the Allan Border Medal?

How so, Watson is a better batsmen then both Jacques and Rogers - not to mention a better cricketer overall. How is it undeserving that he got picked over inferior players. At the time when the Ashes squad was picked Watson was selected as the reseve batsmen, rightly as he is a better bat then Jacques and Rogers although hard numbers wouldn't show that.

I'm not sure that using the example of a lost series shows the selectors were right with their squad selection or that any of those journos were wrong...

That is a funny line though at the top of your post

The one thing I would like to know, who in the current Australian team is going to make the big scores? Ponting and Hussey are approaching the end of their careers and neither of Australias opener look capable of it. A career opener is probably more likely to be able to make big scores reguarly as Hayden and Langer used to than a bloke who always batted in the middle order

It does raise the question, what is better at opener, 2 players average 50, one by reguarly making 50, the other by a few low scores surrounded by some really big ones as well and can a team have a succesful opening partnership when both are the same?